Boeing announced today another successful test shoot of its Airborne Laser prototype.
This time technicians fired the laser using its tracking and control system to guide the beam through the nose-mounted turret at a simulated missile target.
Of course, this was all done on the ground.
It won’t be until next year that the system will engage a missile target while both are in flight. But the news reminds us that behind the scenes, the ABL program — and its offshoots — are making quiet progress toward eventual fielding of a no-joke flying laser cannon.
Release follows in part:
During the test at Edwards Air Force Base, the laser beam traveled through the beam control/fire control system before exiting the aircraft through the nose-mounted turret. The beam control/fire control system steered and focused the beam onto a simulated ballistic-missile target.
“This test is significant because it demonstrated that the Airborne Laser missile defense program has successfully integrated the entire weapon system aboard the ABL aircraft,” said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems. “With the achievement of the first firing of the laser aboard the aircraft in September, the team has now completed the two major milestones it hoped to accomplish in 2008, keeping ABL on track to conduct the missile shootdown demonstration planned for next year.”
Michael Rinn, Boeing vice president and ABL program director, said the next step for the program is a series of longer-duration laser firings through the beam control/fire control system.
“Once we complete those tests, we will begin demonstrating the entire weapon system in flight,” Rinn said. “The team is meeting its commitment to deliver this transformational directed-energy weapon system in the near term.“
– Christian
Here again we are reminded of the fact that this great nation has the technological capability to do anything. Sadly, what we lack is the political will to make it happen. And GOD said, “LET THERE BE AIRBORNE!”, and there was.
And this is with a 747 flying at what, 45,000 feet? Would it be possible to modify the 747 and get it up to 50,000 feet, and if they did, would the reduced air density and the increased ability to see over terrain make a real difference? I keep thinking about an ABL over the Aleutian Islands, when would it be able to independently detect and engage a launch from North Korea? It would seem that every foot of altitude would allow it to leverage AEGIS naval assets, hit ballistic missiles closer to the boost phase and thus increase options and the likelihood of success. Plus, it sounds very cool to imagine a 747 more than 10 miles up.
That having been said, the ISS at 200 miles has a better angle and geosynchronous orbit is an even longer shot but it is all vacuum…
Makes you wonder just how important ABM should be to the Pentagon.
See, this is what the government needs to be investing in, not FCS and JSF. Think of the fear the enemy will feel when they see their comrades falling over without a shot being heard…
God I’ve been watching this program for a while now! I can’t believe they are just a year away from a missile shoot-down.
See, this is what the government needs to be investing in, not FCS and JSF. Think of the fear the enemy will feel when they see their comrades falling over without a shot being heard…
Posted by: mercs4christ at December 2, 2008 12:32 AM
—————
Um dude its ment to kill missiles
You’re massively overestimating the difference an extra 5000 feet makes. Distance to horizon as a function of altitude:
45,000 ft —> 419 km
50,000 ft —> 441 km
338,000 ft (100 km) —> 1135 km
Assuming you’re willing to fire through the lower atmosphere and skim the wave tops, the max range to hit a boost phase missile before it exits the atmosphere is about 1500 km, with extra altitude not helping much. If you need any sort of dwell time, you’re going to have to get closer so you can start earlier. Heck, strapping on massive rockets and going suborbital only gets you to 2000–2500 km. Aleutian Islands to North Korea looks like about 4000 km.
No amount of technology can overcome the curvature of the earth. Unless you’re orbiting, your range is rather short. In fact, even if you ARE in low earth orbit, your range is much shorter than most people expect. And you won’t be over any one point for very long.
If you want 24x7 coverage, you either need to be flying nearby, have literally thousands of satellites, or put a 747 sized object in geosynchronous orbit. And the last two are nowhere near feasible.
North Korea isn’t so much of a problem, but take a look at a map of Iran sometime, and compare the distance to the center from the nearest border with the above ranges.
>Tim
“No amount of technology can overcome the curvature of the earth.“
No amount of technology? Mirrors, my friend. And they are already looking into it.
How exactly do you propose using mirrors to wrap around the curvature of the earth? In order to do that, you need a second vehicle with some sort of highly, highly polished and precision-controlled reflective surface, and it needs to have line-of-sight to the target. It’s easier to simply put the ABL in the same position. I’m still waiting for someone to propose miniature black holes, created by the LHC and packaged in cute little bottles, to bend the beam around the horizon. [/sarcasm]
Um yea Dingle Berries all you would need to solve the curvature of the earth is satalites out in space with big mirrors on them to reflesct the lazor beam, this mirror would have to be able to be electronicaly moveable, like rear veiw mirrors in a car; multiple satilites would also have to be used.
Um yea Dingle Berries all you would need to solve the curvature of the earth is satalites out in space with big mirrors on them to reflesct the lazor beam, this mirror would have to be able to be electronicaly moveable, like rear veiw mirrors in a car; multiple satilites would also have to be used.
Um yea Dingle Berries all you would need to solve the curvature of the earth is satalites out in space with big mirrors on them to reflesct the lazor beam, this mirror would have to be able to be electronicaly moveable, like rear veiw mirrors in a car; multiple satilites would also have to be used.
See, this is what the government needs to be investing in, not FCS and JSF. Think of the fear the enemy will feel when they see their comrades falling over without a shot being heard…
Posted by: mercs4christ at December 2, 2008 12:32 AM
—————
Um dude its ment to kill missiles
Posted by: Valcan at December 2, 2008 07:25 AM
Just wait about ten years, you’ll see…
Why do we continue to believe that this is new technology and that it’s still in the testing phase? It’s old technology that just keeps getting smaller and more mobile, but it’s been around since the late 70’s and was working just fine in tests conducted back in the early 80’s.
Tim, I thought my idea of getting the ABL higher would enable it to strike earlier, with a longer range due to reduced atmosphere, but the real world reared its head in your calculations. Kiska and Attu are about 2300 miles/3680km to the area around Kimchaek that North Korea uses for its missiles. I thought that the fact that the ABL would be able to engage during the entire boost phase would make a large difference. But I assume the boost phase for most newer ICBMs ends in about 3 minutes, about 300–500 km downrange, at an altitude of between 150–250 km. That still makes the range 3200–3400 km even if the ABL can acquire the ICBM all the way up to burnout. So much for my idea of the ABL being able to engage if it got higher, into a less dense atmosphere and a “better” angle of attack.
http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/030814%20NDU%20Full%20Briefing%20Lamb.pdf
Frankly, I think a naval laser defense system would be pretty bloody useful if we’re seriously considering the possibility of having to deal with shore-based ASM systems in littoral/semi-litoral conflicts. Missiles don’t make for great defense against other missiles, especially ground-based missiles. They can throw their junk at you, exhaust your limited & expensive supply of anti-missile missiles & then hose you down and hose you off with the good stuff. A laser system, with a suitable source of juice, can react faster & with more frequency then any missile defense cruiser. I see some potential advantage here in non-violent civilian applications as well. Hell, new power-plant tech may even have green applications. Everyone goes home happy. Who knows?
Oh this will come in handy for way more than just missile defense, it will become a key weapon in these insurgent type conflicts. It will be able to do what the apache does but with a 300km radius, no noise, no collateral damage… the ammo isn’t too expensive either, but flying the thing 24/7 is likely to be pretty expensive.
If it were really meant to shoot down missiles, it would be a ground-based platform. It makes more sense, if you could build 2 or 3 of the ground version for the same price as the flying one, but the flying one is waaaay more useful for other things.
Another myth about these lasers is that you get unlimited shots, virtually for free. Militarily useful lasers tend to be chemical lasers, which consume a substantial quantity of rather nasty chemicals each shot. The ABL only carries enough “fuel” for 20 shots; the logistics for handling large amounts of nasty chemicals is what generally prevents lasers from being considered for use as ground-based point defenses.