Comments on: ABL Fires Death Ray at Simulated Missile

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:38:22 +0000

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.

By: Jeff M

Jeff M — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:26:53 +0000

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.

By: Graham Strouse

Graham Strouse — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:11:09 +0000

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?

By: ziv

ziv — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:19:21 +0000

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

By: backintheday

backintheday — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:47:13 +0000

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.

By: mercs4christ

mercs4christ — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:42:47 +0000

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…

By: PFC Kennith Schjoth

PFC Kennith Schjoth — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:17:22 +0000

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.

By: PFC Kennith Schjoth

PFC Kennith Schjoth — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:16:28 +0000

By: PFC Kennith Schjoth

PFC Kennith Schjoth — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:15:59 +0000

By: Burke

Burke — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:05:28 +0000

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]