Dave

How exactly will this beast pay for itself? And exactly what laser equipped cargo planes will it replace?

Not operationally viable for Iran or China, an easy target for NK SA-5, and it still can’t point after $5 billion and about 15 years.

The curvature of the earth and atmospheric distortions prevent the ABL from being a viable weapon in these scenarios. They could never get close enough to shoot.

Sail a Cruiser with SM-2 and SM-3 in the Taiwan Straight, between Korea and Japan, off the coast of Israel, or in the North Sea and you have a flexible solution to protect Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Israel, or Northern/Southern Europe.

If you want “boost phase” mount NCAADE on the AMRAAM rails of every fighter on CAP in such a scenario.

Bottom line, ABL still doesn’t work after $5 billion, and never had operational relevance.

SSL’s are barely in the 100kw range while CL is already in the megawatt range. I think most of our pilots would be willing to risk flying these to protect us from ICBM attack.

Now, a look at the future based on historic fact. At the outbreak of WWII, all the major powers still based their naval strategy on the battleship. Thanks to Billy Mitchell, the US had at least built a few (4) aircraft carriers. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor completely obliterated the past 1000 years of naval tactics.

The successful ACL test just changed that again. The aircraft carrier is obsolete…and the battleship is back. A large ship is the ideal platform for these beasts and an Iowa or larger class battlewagon could bristle with them. No physical entity (aircraft or rocket) could get within 300 miles of one without being obliterated. The only defense against them? Having more of them and being the first to fire as you came within visual range…just like the old days. Of course, the winner will be the one with the most stealth, since the moment you have a direct line of fire at your enemy you fire and cannot miss.

Oh, I’m sure there will be plenty of “If that were true why aren’t we doing this” etc. Good question. Why did we still manuver horse cavalry well into the 1930’s? Why did we keep building battleships after Billy Mitchell destroyed one with a cheap canvas covered airplane and a bomb? Why are we hostage to foreign countries for raw materials and energy when we live right in the middle of an infinite supply of both.

Seems like we can’t learn anything until we have a Pearl Harbor.

might point out that the laser equiped battlewagons would still be subject to attack by nuclear torpedoes fired from subs which sport the perfect defence against directed energy weapons. However, the conventional defences in place against attack subs still work pretty well. It actually makes the comparison to the classic 20th century battleship more compelling in that an Iowa class BS was equipped for all contingencies.

The subs bring up another point. CL equipped subs could destroy a merchant fleet with impunity by approaching undetected underwater, then surfacing and sinking the ships with its main battle lasers.

As I came to work this morning my eye wandered to the San Jacinto monument. The 1912 battleship Texas is moored there. I realized that old battlewagon with the top decks cleared and main turrets replaced with battle lasers would nearly be state of the art…except for stealth. Why? 14 inches of armor. Just like in the 20th century, steel armor would be the defence of choice against a battle laser as it would take a long time and a lot of power to burn through it.

BTW, that is another nail in the aircraft carrier coffin. Aside from its main means of defence being rendered useless by battle lasers, slapping 14 inches or so of armor on one would severely limit its speed and manueverbility that are required to launch and retrieve aircraft.

I don’t claim expertise in these areas. It’s just simple deductions based on available information. However, the results are profound and ignored at our great risk.

People talk about how “close” the ABL must be to its targets, but ABL has a substantially longer range (400km? IIRC) than the SM-3. In the future it could perhaps reach its goal of 600km (again IIRC). It seems strange to give up such capability.

All that being said, there may be a role for the ABL in ASAT warfare. Flying at even 30,000 ft, the ABL will have bypassed much of the worst of the atmospheric interference. I’d suspect it can be tasked to take out satellites. Keep in inventory as an ABM system, but really plan on using it for ASAT.

Yes he does