Some readers got all bent out of shape last month, when I dared to suggest that laser weapons — especially the modified 747 Airborne Laser — weren’t ready to move beyond science fiction. (They didn’t like how I used the words “whiz-bang” and “shit,” either.)
Those people are going to be double-mad now, I suppose. Because “the multibillion-dollar Airborne Laser (ABL) program, considered the Pentagon’s best chance to develop a weapon to defeat ballistic missiles in their early, boost phase of flight, is being relegated to a technology demonstration status while a planned five-aircraft purchase by the Air Force is put on hold.“
The ABL was supposed to start zapping missiles in 2002. Then it was pushed back to 2005. Now, the test is scheduled for 2008. Maybe. Until then, Pentagon’s approach to the program is wait and see. Only after that will it be “serious time,” a senior Defense Department official says. Originally slated to cost a billion dollars, the ABL has grown into a $7.3 billion behemoth.
Despite all this, the ABL remains the Pentagon’s “primary” efort to wack ballistic missiles in their early, “boost” phase. The other big project in the area, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (a projectile which slams into the missile, basically), had its budget cut by $5 billion over 5 years.
The DOD official said last week the agency is not committing the funding to complete the program until KEI successfully demonstrates [its] propulsion system in 2008. So in 2008 there are two knowledge points, he said. For ABL it is the shoot-down. For KEI it is a test of the propulsion stack. We will not flesh out the funding until then.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent. It’s about time some budget common sense took over. Hopefully they do this for the Alaskan ABM system too.
If the DOD wants to to use the money wisely they should fund body armor that’s lighter, stronger and with better body coverage.
Also give some of the savings to upping combat pay, medical insurance and life insurance.
Yeah, and what do they do when China comes out of nowhere with long-range strike capability? Sure, we’ll have all sorts of drones and unmanned bombers and good armor for our soldiers, but here at home we will be defenseless against ICBM’s. China has never stated any intent to decrease it’s stock of ICBM’s…we don’t even know how many they have and what they’re current range is for sure.
DS: We were defenseless against Soviet ICBMs throughout the Cold War, but we never got nuked. So long as we still have enough to flatten them several times over, nobody rational is going to launch on us. Deterrence still works. Now if China has some secret program to stop all of our nukes, we’ve got a problem.
America has been in range of ICBMs for over 50 years without the sudden urgent need for a laser equipped plane to shoot them down. China isn’t going to risk a nuclear exchange either, since the response would devastate it. Surely it is more advisable to slowly mature the technology into a useable form than try to rush it into service by throwing money at it. I’d be more concerned about the use of chinese tactical nuclear weapons in any move against Taiwan / US forces in the area, such as depth charges, cruise missiles etc against carrier groups.
Don’t have a problem with R&D and demonstrater programs. Too bad someone didn’t do this with the A/B/C/D/…/Z-22
DS,
You might want to read Jeff Lewis’ article, The Ambiguous Arsenal.
Here’s a snippet:
…it may come as a shock to learn that China’s nuclear arsenal is about the same size it was a decade ago, and that the missile that prompted the Washington Times article has been under development since the mid-1980s. Perhaps your anxiety about “marginal improvements” to China’s missile force would recede as you learned that China’s 18 ICBMs, sitting unfueled in their silos, their nuclear warheads in storage, are essentially the same as they were the day China began deploying them in 1981. In fact, contrary to reports you might have recently read that Chinese nukes number in the hundreds–if not the thousands–the true size of the country’s operationally deployed arsenal is probably about 80 nuclear weapons.
Here’s the link to Lewis’ article: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj05lewis
On the eve of the first atomic test, Leslie Groves fretted that if it failed, his next mailing address would be Leavenworth prison for wasting tax dollars. He wasn’t joking – if the bomb had failed, he could have been charged for gross-mismanagement and sent to prison.
For some reason, that stick has gone away and government employees who sign off on programs that mushroom from $2.5 billion to $8 billion and have nothing near what was promised face squat consequences. Looks to me like Leavenworth needs some new inmates.
The point of the ABL is not to defend against Russian or even against Chinese ICBMs, it’s to defend against “rogue states” with MRBMs and ICBMs.
This is dissappointing news.
I was hoping for a fleet of ABL’s…That way if we Pre-empt a country…like Iran, They while are stealth bombers are unloading and ship are firing there cruise missiles, are ABL fleet can pretty much be circling the country, and anything they shoot…we will shoot down and it will land back on them.
The point of this is for small-ish rouge states…not Russia or China.
rogue states? hmmm, I thought the point of these programs was more money for defense contractors?
I was in Wichita, Ks. when they first started actually test flying the ABL. I thought it just looked like an ugly 747 until I was corrected by a member of the team there. I think it’s a really great program, but I can’t imagine how many we would need against a country with a considerable stockpile. It’s supposed to be able to hit mulitple targets… cool, what are the chances that they’ll come from the same vacinity? Personally, I’d like to see the program continue because I’m all for something that’ll make me sleep easier, and I also think we’ll glean a lot of good technology from this as well. Even if the Manhattan project had flopped, we’d have recieved so much data about the way atoms interact that we’d still probably look the other way about the cost.
I believe the ABL is a worthy project and may be the greatest innovation in military aviation since stealth technology. But as a taxpayer, can anyone explain to me why the air force chose the 747 instead of an airframe that is not only less expensive but is already in service and has proven itself? I’ve seen the diagrams for the ABL and believe it can be mounted in a smaller airframe, such as a C-135. The air force already has hundreds of this aircraft in the form of the KC-135, EC-135,RC-135,E-6A TACAMO, and E-3 Sentry, and the training and technical support for this aircraft is already in place. Does my suggestion make any sense?
Can you really put a dollar amount on a nuclear warhead killer? If they work they will save lives….what is a life worth to you?
As the regional sales manager for an electronics company, I visited the airborne laser development facility in Sunnyvale in 2002 to provide training on a tape recorder that I had sold them some time back. I didn’t get to see the laser as it was hidden behind a 20 foot long black curtain. However, the training was conducted directly in front and below the turret ball through which the laser beams pass. Looking down the business end of this weapon impressed me but also made me uneasy. It’s unfortunate that the program is not further along as it is the very weapon we need to contain N. Korea now that they have tested a nuclear bomb.