We just got word that Boeing’s Airborne Laser Team conducted its first successful test in flight August 10 of a ballistic missile intercept using a surrogate death ray.
A Boeing statement sent to Defense Tech indicates the modified 747 went through all the processes to actually down a missile, except for the actual use of a weaponized high energy beam.
During the test, the modified Boeing 747-400F aircraft took off from Edwards Air Force Base and used its infrared sensors to find a target missile launched from San Nicholas Island, Calif. The Boeing-developed battle management system aboard ABL then issued engagement and target location instructions to the beam control/fire control system, which acquired the target and fired its two solid-state illuminator lasers to track the target and measure atmospheric conditions. ABL then fired a surrogate high-energy laser at the target, simulating a missile intercept. Instrumentation on the target verified that the surrogate high-energy laser hit the target.
The ABL was basically zeroed out of the 2010 defense budget and continues on life support as a quasi R&D program — which seems like a good idea. It’s this kind of testing that can result in battlefield applications of high energy beam technology for destroying ground vehicles, aircraft and IEDs.
The test follows ABL’s engagement of two un-instrumented missiles in early June, which allowed the team to fine-tune the engagement sequence.
ABL will now undergo flight tests in which the aircraft will fire its high-energy laser, first into an onboard calorimeter, then through its beam control/fire control system. The ABL team then will test the entire weapon system against in-flight missiles, culminating with ABL’s first high-energy laser intercept test against a ballistic missile later this year.
It seems that Boeing’s laser weapons continue with success in the shadows of other, bigger, more high-profile (and controversial) programs.
– Christian
Sounds like the system is successful but I have to question the payoff for the price. Seems like an awfully expensive system for something that will likely never be used. I’d want to know that it can operate well outsid ethe range of some of the new triple digit SAM systems. This platform would most likely require fighter escort as well.
Very interesting idea and glad to hear it’s working but perhaps it’s a bit premature for an operational system given the cost.
The weasel Obama will let it limp another year or two, then kill it for more bribe money to hand out to his cronies.
CR,
I think this is potentally a high use platform. Lots more folks have balistic missles now and any higher level conflict will possibily involve their use.
I’m not if this is what you meant but there seems to be an assumption that all future conflicts will be “low-intensity” This is classic “planning to re-fight the last war” thinking and its been wrong ever since its was trotted out durring Vietnam.
Grenada, Panama, and the 1st and 2nd Gulf wars as well as the original reduction of the Taliban were all or in part “conventional” in nature. it would be a dire mistake to neglect either “high” or “low” intensity conflicts in future planning.
While we do face a long low-intensity slog for the next few years I think the main event will be with China.
Point of order, if you’re the one being shot at, it’s not ‘low’ intensity.
I think CR’s point is that a big ol’ 747 loitering near a hostile’s airspace doesn’t sound like the most survivable ABM system ever invented. Now replace the 747 with a B-2 and maybe you have something…
The thing is a flying research lab for future applications(whether missile defense or otherwise).
I agree keep it as an R&D program, until it has downed multiple realistic missiles in a single engagment. Then work on scaling down its size to a 767 size aircraft.
Produce this, develop this ABL.
& GBL-Ground Based Lasers.
Fund this Congress, Senate IE more jobs.
Use every other 747 for ABL use.
Radical.
Add tail mounted Laser node for backup?
Or underbelly Laser node.
Hit 30 more targets from 50K feet.
Nice
Melt Armor?
The advantage of a laser over a missile or a projectile is the ability to hit a relatively high speed, maneuverable target. Aiming errors are magnified by range. So once a practical high energy laser is developed – an open question at this point – the mission is likely to be short range air defense and/or missile defense. The 1st aircraft based system will be big, heavy & expensive, so it will probably be on a 747. You would not want to put it at risk of being overwhelmed by a saturation attack – a big salvo of SAMs or air to air missiles.
Geez, more birther nonsense that has nothing to do with the subject. It’s not my fault people can’t see the Chicago Mob as it’s always been. Oh, by the way, the Navy has been tracking two Russian subs off the east coast and thought they’d let you know it. They’ve also been driving the Chinese crazy outside of one of their new sub bases.
We need some holes filled. We need a tanker. We need a big, proven platform for energy weapon research. We then need to rapidly develop any of those systems that works. We need better sensors on, above and under the battlefield. We need some people to get used to the new boss’ way of doing things.
Critics said it couldn’t be built. Let’s hope the full test later this year leaves them speechless. Better lasers will come in time but the real threshold here is the amazing turret, missile tracking and vibration dampening systems. If you look at the history of modern ballistic missiles, this is the barrier breaker of airborn speed of light weapons. Seems great for naval groups, theater protection and defense against rogue nations. Kudos are in order and if Obama scraps this after the years of investment, history will be most unkind.
Christian, you forgot to mention why it was zeroed in the budget
- how many years behind schedule is the ABL?
- And how many billion dollars above budget so far?
- how far short of the original capability is the final version?
This type of dinosaur was overtaken years ago by more advanced lasers, but continues to suck up funding away from from more viable technologies.
I don’t know what kind of dinos Wembley is talking about but they can’t be the kind that that have never existed before. And this kind of technology, in this form and function, has never existed before now! The concept has been under investigation for decades and like ALL complex technological systems it requires the maturity of many separate pieces. This takes time and careful planning of milestones as well as alternate courses in the case of setbacks. Anyone familiar with research and development -as I am – will understand this. As for the billions of dollars and years of time let’s not forget that under Democrat administrations (Carter’s, Clinton’s and now, Obama’s) securing the nations borders and airspace against enemy attack has always taken a backseat to securing their legacies and Party dominance. So, when you cut funds for technologies such as ABL, tt’s quite reasonable to expect not only delays but cost increases when the projects are rampped up again with a new Administration that does care about American security from missle attack.
BTW: Wembley didn’t specify what technology in existence today makes ABL so obsolete. Is there something faster than light?
P.S. There is not much difference between the operational capabilities of the B-52 and a 747 as they relate to ABL requirements – operating altitude ans loiter distance and Laser energy deposition on target.
Mount such a system on a modernized B52, along with jamming equipment, and we’d have quite an effective bomb truck.
Load up a a couple of C-17’s with a handful of the new shorter range 100KW solid state lasers and use them as an escort for the longer range ABL, protecting ABL against large salvos of SAM, A-A missiles, and fighters. You might end up with an almost un-touchable mission package. Perhaps it could even escort non-stealthy B-52’s all the way to targets on a bright sunny day.
Of course, missing even one missile could ruin your entire day.
Nonetheless, the ABL, with its mega-watt class laser, along with the lower power 100KW class SSL’s the potential to radically change warfare.
@ NB – the chemical laser is a dinosaur; it’s been overtaken by small, versatile solid-state lasers that don’t rely on tons of of toxic, corrosive chemicals.
In your attempt at political point scoring (hardly relevant to technology) you forgot to say hopw late and how over-budget it is?
jsallison,
“Low” or “High” Intensity are technical terms as you almost certianly know. Your feckless comment contributes nothing to the discussion and makes you seem nothing but a pedantic jerk.
Hi Wembley,
while your are correct as far as you go, you might conside a couple of points.
The ABL is the first system to get this far and do this well. solid state lasers are promising but not yet to the point where we should just quit development on chemical lasers just because some other tech looks prmising. If you take that approach you will never build anything.
Now you might just know more about this than I do if so a link to more info would be appriciated.
As for the budget you are again correct as far as you go but this is the fault of our procurement system not the ABL itself. If it can work anything like it is designed to it would be cheap at any cost.
The ABL is expected to cost tax payers about 5.1 billion through January 2009. If we compare that to the percentage of GDP spent on other innovative programs or even the pork in the latest Stimulus Package when compared to GDP, the cost is exceedingly small for such a game changing creation critics said could not be built. It is quite irrelevant that the chemical laser being used now will become obsolete. Actually, that is great news. The magic lies in the other technology being developed here which can be reconfigured eventually on other air frames. One could imagine laser drones keeping guard on the edge of fleet movements or patrolling the coasts. I can imagine Israel, Korea and Japan quite interested in this program.
Having put costs in perspective, rendered particular laser systems quite secondary a matter, your last beef is with time. Others more expert than I am can tell you how long novel and complicated inventions take to create. The history of ballistic missiles (and include our going to the moon) is a good read, as is the history of military air craft, subs and atomic weapons. Time is on the side of those who reach the grail first.
The air armada described below would be rather unprecedented and effective unless countered by ground based lasers. I expect a revolution in material science will be needed in this obvious escalation to come. Perhaps
It should have read: “For 10 billion dollars, no one here so far has refuted the case that not going forward would be strategic stupidity of rather a high order.”
Sorry about that mistake….
Max
I think Wembley is talking about the chemical lase against the free electron laser or the solid state laser.
Excuse my prior enthusiasm; I didn’t realize the plan is for the plane to go up, fire one shot, land, reload and go back up again. That does seem a bit stupid.
Sure, this might be the equivalent of a Jupiter missile in 1961, but perhaps later versions will sport electron lasers refueled by speed of light zaps from refueling tankers. Wouldn
$5 billion is a lot to waste when troops are dying because of a lack of protected vehicles and superior body armor.
There are numerous solid-state lasers already reaching the 100 Kw range, and these will likely be fitted to an F-35. The ABL work is largely irrelevant and the turret and other systems will not be viable on small platforms. Check out HELLADS, FireStrike etc.
The ABL is sucking up billions, removing funding from far more viable technologies. It has finally been admitted that the ABL will not work, which is why it has been relegated to research role. It will never result on an operational system, whereas solid-state lasers will – but it’s going to take a while unless they see the same type of funding that this chemical monstrosity has had.
Laser development is proceeding at such a radical pace that deploying this generation would not be smart.
It would be comparable to deploying biwing fighters with monoplanes just around the corner.
ed hardy clothing.
ed hardy jeans
ed hardy underwear
I think it’s amazingly stupid that the ABL research has been zeroed at this stage. Sure, it’s taken longer and cost more than originally planned but that’s usually the case for cutting-edge research in any field. Anyway, all that time and money is “sunk-cost”. What’s important now is: how much will it cost to go forward vs how much can be learned? That they’re able to demonstrate a simulated shoot-down on a shoestring budget indicates that the cost benefit ratio would be very good if the program were continued.
The other thing that irks me about quitting now is that we need all the help we can get to discourage N Korea and Iran from deploying nuclear ballistic missiles. Perhaps they would think twice if the US was able to demonstrate easy reliable missile shoot downs. If they don’t capitulate, then we’re that much closer to a weapon that can mitigate the threat.