A program to develop a massive missile-killing laser housed in a 747 freighter celebrated another milestone last month with a successful test of its fire control and tracking system on a simulated target.
The Airborne Laser program — a joint venture between defense giants Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman — identified, tracked and fired a low-powered laser at a reflector attached to an NC-135E Big Crow research aircraft during tests that ended August 23, one of the final hurdles before a live-fire “lethal demonstration” is conducted in 2009.
“The program remains on track to complete a lethal demonstration in 2009 that will validate the unique contribution ABL can bring to an integrated ballistic missile defense system as a boost phase element,” said Greg Hyslop, Boeing program manager for ABL during a Sept. 4 telephone interview. “We stand on the verge of fully demonstrating a revolutionary warfighting capability — the ability to defend ourselves and our friends and allies with light.”
But while program officials are touting their latest test and previewing the big event to come in ’09, the ABL program remains in budgetary limbo. Congressional defense authorizers slashed the 2008 ABL budget by about $250 million, a cut that would in effect delay the shoot-down test by two years.
One of the factors that surely weighs on lawmakers as they allocate funds for a wide range of defense projects — including billions for the expansion of the Army and Marine Corps, new Air Force fighters and Navy ships — is the ABL’s strategic-level sticker price. At an estimated $1.5 billion per aircraft, a seven-plane squadron comes at a hefty price for a capability that many see as extremely controversial.
“We continue to inform Congress on the status of the program and how far we’ve come … that the program has yet to have a technical challenge that we haven’t been able to overcome,” Hyslop said. “We need the president’s budget request to stay on track.”
The laser plane includes a “megawatt class” high-energy chemical laser designed to shoot down the kind of missiles fired from countries like North Korea or Iran. The laser targets the missile’s fuel tank, taking advantage of pressure and velocity to “unzip” the rocket, rendering it powerless during its initial flight.
“The internal pressure and aerodynamic forces, once the wall is weakened, is what actually destroys the missile,” Hyslop explained.
Officials say systems for handling the chemicals that are used to re-arm the laser have proven safe, helping encourage reluctant governments such as Japan make the case for potential basing of ABLs in their soil.
Though the Air Force is planning for a single squadron of ABL planes, program officials explained that a detailed concept of operations is still in the works. Hyslop said the ABL’s powerful beam could be turned against a wide variety of targets, including ones on the ground.
“ABL could be used in that mode,” Hyslop said. “We don’t have the sensing capabilities to find a target on the ground, but if we were given target coordinates we could obviously fire the laser at a point on the ground.”
“The ranges are a lot shorter because you have to go through more atmosphere,” he added.
With the completion of the fire control test last month, program officials are ready to install the missile-killing, high-energy laser aboard the 747 test aircraft — a process akin to “building a ship in a bottle” — with eventual ground tests of the laser next fall.
By the beginning of 2009, program officials say they’ll flight test the ABL, firing the laser at “instrumented targets,” possibly including drones, with a final missile-kill test in August 2009.
“The issue of putting a beam on the target was always a huge risk in the program,” admitted Art Napolitano, ABL program manager with Lockheed Martin. “This building block approach has allowed us to demonstrate to everybody that technically this is a very viable weapon.”
– Christian
The biggest big picture problem with this program, as I see it, is the very short time window to intercept a ballistic missile. A ballistic missile can go 4,000 miles in 30 minutes. Unless it is in the air within range of the launch site, at the time of the launch, it doesn’t work.
Well its a trade-off, ohwilleke. The ABL needs prior warning to be on station to be effective, but if it has a shot it has very good odds of making a kill. The the ground-based GMD missiles don’t have to be pre-placed as precisely, but their odds of success are pretty low and gt lower with decoys, etc. Terminal Interceptors like Aegis have to be fairly close to the intended target or they’re SOL. The idea is to have as many layers in the BMD system as possible to increase your odds of taking them down.
I personally think that the range, firepower, and endurance boost of mature solid-state laser technology being the key to this program’s success. With Chem lasers, you’ve a hell of an endurance crutch, plus the toxic nature of the chemicals and care needed to handle/store them precludes being able to really rapid-deploy against a threat. When solid states get there, you’ll literally be able to deploy anywhere that has jet fuel, or even do mega-endurance flights like the B2.
Terminal Phase Defense = THAAD or Arrow or Patriot
Does Mid Course even exist?
And then the Boost Phase Defense = the KEI wich is being tested and the ABL, this, that is being made and tested
I guess the THEL and Phalanx are the most pressing needs for those cross border missiles that are landing in Israel or being fired at bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless you fear Iran or NK or China or Russia I guess launching Big Missles that would get them bombarded from many directions at once. Then the KEI and the ABL are the best because they keep the missile in the region that shot it.
Why is this taking so long? I thought we test fired an ABL out of a 707 back in the 80’S and it was successful.
Posted by: Max at September 6, 2007 08:45 AM
Actually, I don’t wonder whose side they’re on anymore. They’ve made it abundantly clear over the years.
August 2009 and 1.5 billion, huh?
Given this program’s over-runs when and for how much do think we’ll actually be able to see this thing work?
I think we better be safe than sorry, and this layer of defense provided by the ABL is a good thing…! No amount of money spent on anti ballistic missile defense is too much in my opinion, if it will prevent some lunatic out there, like the ones in Iran or Korea from launch nuke missiles at people and hitting them with them.…! Those 2 in particular (Iran and Norht Korea) are not kidding about the treats they make once in a while, and like the one in Iran, if left unchecked can start a global war! So we better be ready to stop them with everything we can muster…that is just been cautious and safe… just my opinion.
What in the hell is so “controversial” about making something that can only be used to save lives, possibly thousands if not millions. There is no question about it.
HELL IF WE CAN AFFORD TO SEND BILLIONS INTO IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WHY IN HELL CAN’T WE AFFORD A WEAPON THAT COULD PROTECT OUR CITIZENS FROM KNUCKLEHEADS WHO WOULD DO US HARM.…hERE WE GO AGAIN SCREAMING WE’ER POOR WHILE WE THROW BILLION AT OTHER COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!
If some knuckle head country does actually get a nuke airborne, seems like we would have to be orbiting the area when that occured..24/7 so they would probably be aware of our presense and just resort to putting it in a truck and driving to the target area for detonation. I can see having a small fleet of these to be used in hotspot areas but not too practical for global control of the airspace against a missle attack.
IF THIS TEST WAS THE LAST ONE BEFORE THE LIVE FIRE AGAINST AN ACTUAL MISSLE, WHAT IS THE HOLD UP? LETS SEE IF THE THING WORKS. LET NORTH KOREA LAUCH A FEW AND SEE IF BIG BIRD CAN REALLY KNOCK ‘EM DOWN.
I LIVE IN THE UK AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT OVER HERE WERE SICK OF THESE SO CALLED KNOW ALLS TRYING TO STOP FUNDING THAT WOULD MAKE THIS PLANET A SAFER PLACE.PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON MARS NOT THIS PLANET,PEOPLE WHO THINK YOU SHOULD GIVE A TERORIST A CUDDLE INSTEAD INSTEAD OF A SMACK IN THE MOUTH.WAKE UP AND LET THE GUYS WHO WANT TO KEEP US SAFE DO THERE JOB
Every discussion of ABL seems to forget that it may be good at destroying aircraft, probably certain ground targets, SR missiles — and perhaps even cruise missiles with other linked systems providing basic acquisition and tracking. One wonders if they couldn’t take out A-A missiles, and S-A missiles as well. Maybe they could escort a bomber package (from a distance) making the bombers somewhat less vulnerable. They could monitor a fleet of naval vessels and destroy their missiles almost as they’re launched. I wonder if they may not be more successful with all these short range missiles and missions than with longer range ones.
Thus I propose they make a bunch of dirigibles like the proposed Walrus with the ABL system aboard, and just float them over the top of US fleets and off dangerous coastlines.…
already testing by l.e.s.…bae…ucla/military ‘non-lethal shots to rfid/verichip…ongoing since 2002-topoff war games 90272/90403…movable command center/ground sights and public ‘air conditioning’fixtures on buildings fed owned…federal connsent decree cover…
I allways dreamed about this technology and I think my dream came trught.
Why not put one of the lasers in every large city and put the reflector on the tallest buildings.. That way it is always at ready and cheaper to maintain and deploy and nobody internationally can complain for this defensive mechanism?
Rev. Gerald Higdon, SFC-R