Comments on: Good Luck Stopping Missiles Early

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:33:34 +0000

Other apps:
Blind whole Incoming Jets into the US
Counter FBM missiles?
Counter mobile missiles
Burn insurgents in jungles in So America.
Burn ships
ALL from this lowly ABL 747.
Nice.
Need about 10, 10 for East Coast & 10 for Western US with overflights over HI.

By: hidave606

hidave606 — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:45:15 +0000

It wasn’t easy building the first nuclear bombs either. Horizontal propagation issues are considerably mitigated at 40 kft, the ABL’s operating altitude. Sea-launched intercetors are next to useless intercepting intercontinental missiles in the boost OR early mid-course phases of flight. You cannot position your launch platform close enough to the enemy’s launch point to “catch” it. Do the calculations yourself; they’re not that hard.

By: RTLM

RTLM — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:22:34 +0000

Hell — As long as we’re all bashing the the thing, let’s not forget the atmospheric effect on a horizontally aimed laser. Practically useless. Why bother?
Bear in mind the threats this thing was designed to take on. Norks and Iran. Coupled with a B-2 & F-22’s the SAM threat and AA threat will be reduced. With Aegis ships below it could handle an attack from China on Taiwan. Beyond this there’s MAD.
How about a little confidence?

By: Moose

Moose — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 06:28:49 +0000

Yeah but I figure solids will be in MW class about the same time the targeting/tracking/focusing issues get ironed out, lol.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 06:28:23 +0000

Every weapon system in history has had bugs that needed to be worked out. It is absolutely inevitable that militaries are going to move toward directed energy weapons. The US just happens to be the first mover on this because it has the capability. It’s not some “neat wiz bang toy” for grown boys to play with. Everything is moving toward directed energy weapons, and as the US continues funding and research, it will move along the learning curve and deploy revolutionary new systems that are historically on par with the air plane, etc. Capabilities will only increase. One can’t expect anything close to perfection initially. And the savings this technology will bring is immense by replacing AA missiles, terminal defense systems on ships, SAM batteries, etc. They will make generations of all sorts of systems obsolete.

By: BT

BT — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:52:17 +0000

Airplane boost phase COIL interception is an expensive and risky niche product (Airforce toy). The US only worries about Iran and NK, and ground/sea based interceptor missles would be the better solution for that theater.
Solid state laser power has been ramping nicely, (approaching 100kW) but has a long way to go to get to MW class.

By: Moose

Moose — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:49:00 +0000

I think ABL will become viable when Solid-State lasers mature to the point that they match or overmatch chem lasers. An ABL with a solid-state laser powered by a compact nuclear reactor would have no weapon-fuel, corrosion, or time-on-target issues. Of course, you’d have to have a reactor vessel sturdy enough to survive a 747 crash.

By: Nicholas Weaver

Nicholas Weaver — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:27:55 +0000

Finally, the ABL seems incredibly vulnerable:
You’re going to need to take out practically all surface-to-air missile coverage in the area of operation first, as even the dumbest radar, blinked for just a second, can find a 747 due to its very-unstealthy design, and its not very battle-damage resistant or maneuverable either.
And “Physics Today” doesn’t see the range as being very good (http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-1/p30.html). If their estimate of 600 km for liquid fueled missiles, and 300 km for solid-propellent missiles is correct (180 miles), you’re going to have to get pretty close in, especially if the launch sites themselves are well inland.