Comments on: ABL Dings Missile With Low-Power Beam

By: Kevin Cameron

Kevin Cameron — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:43:30 +0000

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.

By: worini

worini — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:07:14 +0000

ed hardy clothing.
ed hardy jeans
ed hardy underwear

By: MattMusson

MattMusson — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:00:44 +0000

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.

By: Wembley

Wembley — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:43:47 +0000

$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.

By: Maxtrue

Maxtrue — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:31:29 +0000

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

By: elgatoso

elgatoso — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:23:54 +0000

I think Wembley is talking about the chemical lase against the free electron laser or the solid state laser.

By: Maxtrue

Maxtrue — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:39:57 +0000

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

By: Maxtrue

Maxtrue — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:28:02 +0000

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

By: M167A1

M167A1 — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:04:19 +0000

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.

By: M167A1

M167A1 — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:55:09 +0000

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.