U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1111660620100212?type=marketsNews
http://www.mda.mil/news/10news0002.html

This is the culmination of awesomeness. Although very regimented tests, the US has now used a laser on a plane to shoot out of the air a ballistic missile. It was only in its boost phase (happens as it accelerates from its platform), which is much easier than shooting one out of the air at many times mach speed, but still pretty cool.

I remember years ago seeing pics of a mocked up laser on a 747.

Does anybody know how this compares with anti-ballistic shield that relies on missiles? The later is definitely more mature, but in, say, 20 years what is the most likely way to take out a ballistic missile? Would it be with laser beams shot from a shark's head or another missile?
 
StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Lizardman said:
Thats good news for the air force. I worked on a small part of the ABL (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/index.html). I thought they had canceled the program, but I guess programs this big don't die so easily. It is a pretty impressive system, just very expensive and probably not pratical to use in today's current warzones.
Click to expand...
Do you know the cost for each shot? I wonder if in time a fleet of these could be put over an area and attack ground targets, ships, etc. or other planes? Is there any concept for these things to use their lasers as air defense? If they could be fired quickly enough they could take out attacking planes, their missiles, and ships. In theory they could be invulnerable.
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,126
45,155
136
Skoorb said:
Do you know the cost for each shot? I wonder if in time a fleet of these could be put over an area and attack ground targets, ships, etc. or other planes? Is there any concept for these things to use their lasers as air defense? If they could be fired quickly enough they could take out attacking planes, their missiles, and ships. In theory they could be invulnerable.
Click to expand...

I believe the Army is testing a laser mounted on a C-130 that is eventually intended to take out ground targets.
 
L

Lizardman

Golden Member
Jul 23, 2001
1,990
0
0
Skoorb said:
Do you know the cost for each shot? I wonder if in time a fleet of these could be put over an area and attack ground targets, ships, etc. or other planes? Is there any concept for these things to use their lasers as air defense? If they could be fired quickly enough they could take out attacking planes, their missiles, and ships. In theory they could be invulnerable.
Click to expand...


I do not know the cost of each shot exactly. It is very high though as this is a chemical laser we are talking about here. Lots of nasty chemicals mixed and then used up. Disposal of the by products is an issue with this type of laser.

AIR_747_Airborne_Laser_Cutaway_lg.jpg



The ABL is meant to shoot down ballistic missiles, not ground or air targets. However it could in theory do so. It will only be considered in my opinion if they actually build more than one or two of these. Right now there are only, I think, two prototypes.

The original cocept of these is that 3 or 4 would be flying above the USA at all times ready to shoot down any incoming missiles. The problem is that the airforce would need a few dozen of these planes to do that. At more than a billion dollars each that will not happen any time soon.
 
sunzt

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
zzzzzzzz BORING!

Wake me up once they mount one on a shark.
 
StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
he ABL is meant to shoot down ballistic missiles, not ground or air targets. However it could in theory do so.
Click to expand...
I read I think last August one actually did shoot a ground based missile kind of sitting there on the pad or something.
It is very high though as this is a chemical laser we are talking about here. Lots of nasty chemicals mixed and then used up. Disposal of the by products is an issue with this type of laser.
Click to expand...
No, that sounds like a double-win. If it's only good in boost phase it's over enemy territory anyway. Drop that stuff over the enemy territory for bonus points.
 
M

marketquotes

Member
Jul 21, 2009
28
0
0
How long until this technology becomes advanced enough to be placed onto satellites allowing anything above the earths surface to be vaporized at a moments notice?
 
H

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
marketquotes said:
How long until this technology becomes advanced enough to be placed onto satellites allowing anything above the earths surface to be vaporized at a moments notice?
Click to expand...

My understanding is we are party to multiple treaties that prevent the 'militarization' of space.

Not that it would stop us or anything - LOL





--
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,126
45,155
136
heyheybooboo said:
My understanding is we are party to multiple treaties that prevent the 'militarization' of space.

Not that it would stop us or anything - LOL

--
Click to expand...

I don't believe there is anything that legally prevents us from deploying space weaponry, as long as it isn't a nuclear explosive.

Theoretically it would be pretty possible to build a space laser platform in the hundreds of kw range using solid state lasers powered by a compact nuclear reactor (like the SAFE-400).
 
H

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
K1052 said:
I don't believe there is anything that legally prevents us from deploying space weaponry, as long as it isn't a nuclear explosive.

Theoretically it would be pretty possible to build a space laser platform in the hundreds of kw range using solid state lasers powered by a compact nuclear reactor (like the SAFE-400).
Click to expand...

Since the 1960s the 'World' has collectively opposed a space-based 'arms race'.

But, as I noted, that will not stop the US from doing what they damn well please.





--
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,126
45,155
136
heyheybooboo said:
Since the 1960s the 'World' has collectively opposed a space-based 'arms race'.

But, as I noted, that will not stop the US from doing what they damn well please.

--
Click to expand...

But we aren't a party to any agreement prohibiting them. Though it's a pretty expensive and impractical solution compared to just upgrading the booster of the SM-3 ABM.
 
C

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Anyone know the range on this thing? Last time I looked into it it was around 500 miles.
 
L

Lizardman

Golden Member
Jul 23, 2001
1,990
0
0
RyanPaulShaffer said:
It slipped under the radar. Don't worry...he already surrendered space to China and Russia. It's only a matter of time until this is cut to pay for the "healthcare" monstrosity or cap and tax.
Click to expand...



http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics/2009/04/dod-cuts-missile-defense-fundi.html

"Gates proposed canceling the second airborne laser (ABL) prototype aircraft. The ABL consists of a Boeing 747 modified to hold a giant chemical laser that is designed to shoot down missiles from a distance of 600 nautical miles. "We will keep the existing aircraft and shift the program to an R&D effort," said Gates. "The ABL program has significant affordability and technology problems and the program's proposed operational role is highly questionable."

They keep going back and forth on if they want to get rid of the ABL program or not.
 
StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Carmen813 said:
Anyone know the range on this thing? Last time I looked into it it was around 500 miles.
Click to expand...
300 or 600 km depending on the type of BM, it seems.

I have a concern. This thing doesn't shoot through anything, it just heats up the skin of the missile and weakens it. I was watching on TV last night that asshole in the build it bigger show (I wish one of those things would fall on him), but he was showing a tile from the space shuttle and those things really repel some ridiculous heat. I know they aren't bought at radio shack but how hard would it be to protect a missile with a more heat resistant skin thus nullifying the effectiveness of this approach?
 
C

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Skoorb said:
300 or 600 km depending on the type of BM, it seems.

I have a concern. This thing doesn't shoot through anything, it just heats up the skin of the missile and weakens it. I was watching on TV last night that asshole in the build it bigger show (I wish one of those things would fall on him), but he was showing a tile from the space shuttle and those things really repel some ridiculous heat. I know they aren't bought at radio shack but how hard would it be to protect a missile with a more heat resistant skin thus nullifying the effectiveness of this approach?
Click to expand...

I imagine it wouldn't be very difficult, but these missiles are already protected from heat so perhaps the temperatures are enough to overcome that.
 
Pens1566

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,538
10,976
136
K1052 said:
But we aren't a party to any agreement prohibiting them. Though it's a pretty expensive and impractical solution compared to just upgrading the booster of the SM-3 ABM.
Click to expand...

I think we are. Can't remember which one (START?) at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom