U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile
WASHINGTON, Feb 12 (Reuters) - A U.S. high-powered airborne laser weapon shot down a ballistic missile in the first successful test of a futuristic directed energy weapon, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Friday.

The agency said in a statement the test took place at 8:44 p.m. PST (11:44 p.m. EST) on Thursday /0444 GMT on Friday) at Point Mugu's Naval Air Warfare Center-Weapons Division Sea Range off Ventura in central California.

"The Missile Defense Agency demonstrated the potential use of directed energy to defend against ballistic missiles when the Airborne Laser Testbed (ALTB) successfully destroyed a boosting ballistic missile" the agency said.

The high-powered Airborne Laser system is being developed by Boeing Co., (BA.N) the prime contractor, and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

Boeing produces the airframe, a modified 747 jumbo jet, while Northrop Grumman (NOC.N) supplies the higher-energy laser and Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) is developing the beam and fire control systems.

"This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform," the agency added.

The airborne laser weapon successfully underwent its first in-flight test against a target missile back in August. During that test, Boeing said the modified 747-400F aircraft took off from Edwards Air Force Base and used its infrared sensors to find a target missile launched from San Nicolas Island, California.

The plane's battle management system issued engagement and target location instructions to the laser's fire control system, which tracked the target and fired a test laser at the missile. Instruments on the missile verified the system had hit its mark, Boeing said.

Click to expand...

The system works, the system never had a major set-back, naturally the man sworn to defend the nation from enemies cancelled it.

If they could catch all the missiles in boost phase...then great. I suppose this was intended as only part of an ballistic missile or ICBM defense system.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

The system works, the system never had a major set-back, naturally the man sworn to defend the nation from enemies cancelled it.

Click to expand...

I know it is shiny, but is it cheap? That is what I bet Obama killed it. We may have a stronger military then other countries, but we spend more on our military then the entire world (excluding us of course) combined. We have one of the worst dollar to military strength ratios in the world, because people want us to spend crap loads of money on generally impractical technologies. We need to think about practicability more then shininess. Maybe then we could keep the worlds strongest military without spending so much on it.

ScottD said:

I know it is shiny, but is it cheap? That is what I bet Obama killed it. We may have a stronger military then other countries, but we spend more on our military then the entire world (excluding us of course) combined. We have one of the worst dollar to military strength ratios in the world, because people want us to spend crap loads of money on generally impractical technologies. We need to think about practicability more then shininess. Maybe then we could keep the worlds strongest military without spending so much on it.

Click to expand...

And what exactly is so impracticle about this device?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

The system works, the system never had a major set-back, naturally the man sworn to defend the nation from enemies cancelled it.

Click to expand...

According to this article the system is "eight years behind schedule and $4 billion over cost".

Gates canceled it saying, "The ABL program has significant affordability and technology problems, and the program's proposed operational role is highly questionable,"

Local News | Boeing "hit harder" than rivals by defense budget cuts | Seattle Times Newspaper

http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.8/system_detail.asp

MetalGear said:

And what exactly is so impracticle about this device?

Click to expand...

The cost. To actually make any use out of these, we will need lots of them. Don't forget also, these things are massive high-tech lasers strapped to the inside of a 737. The amount of money needed to make these things could be used more wisely elsewhere.

ScottD said:

I know it is shiny, but is it cheap? That is what I bet Obama killed it. We may have a stronger military then other countries, but we spend more on our military then the entire world (excluding us of course) combined. We have one of the worst dollar to military strength ratios in the world, because people want us to spend crap loads of money on generally impractical technologies. We need to think about practicability more then shininess. Maybe then we could keep the worlds strongest military without spending so much on it.

Click to expand...

And you're certain about all these assertions based on what?

ScottD said:

The cost. To actually make any use out of these, we will need lots of them. Don't forget also, these things are massive high-tech lasers strapped to the inside of a 737. The amount of money needed to make these things could be used more wisely elsewhere.

Click to expand...

I hope they actually bolted them in...:shock:

ScottD said:

The cost. To actually make any use out of these, we will need lots of them. Don't forget also, these things are massive high-tech lasers strapped to the inside of a 737. The amount of money needed to make these things could be used more wisely elsewhere.

Click to expand...

You care to offer some suggestions?

ScottD said:

I know it is shiny, but is it cheap? That is what I bet Obama killed it. We may have a stronger military then other countries, but we spend more on our military then the entire world (excluding us of course) combined. We have one of the worst dollar to military strength ratios in the world, because people want us to spend crap loads of money on generally impractical technologies. We need to think about practicability more then shininess. Maybe then we could keep the worlds strongest military without spending so much on it.

Click to expand...

Umm.... no.

China spends more than we do and so dose Russia. Of course, China as a million badly trained troops. Russia has troops ... but no idea where they all are.

Vader said:

Umm.... no.

China spends more than we do and so dose Russia. Of course, China as a million badly trained troops. Russia has troops ... but no idea where they all are.

Click to expand...

No they don't.

US military expenditure is 4.2% of a $14.2 trillion GDP
China military expenditure is 1.96% of a $4.33 trillion GDP.
Russia military expenditure is 3.58% of a $1.61 trillion GDP.

I mean my math isn't the best, but just at a glance we spend more than them in a single quarter.

Vader said:

Umm.... no.

China spends more than we do and so dose Russia. Of course, China as a million badly trained troops. Russia has troops ... but no idea where they all are.

Click to expand...

What do you mean Russia has no idea where all their troops are?

Arch Enemy said:

No they don't.

US military expenditure is 4.2% of a $14.2 trillion GDP
China military expenditure is 1.96% of a $4.33 trillion GDP.
Russia military expenditure is 3.58% of a $1.61 trillion GDP.

I mean my math isn't the best, but just at a glance we spend more than them in a single quarter.

Click to expand...

That's about 19% of the federal budget.

The Mark said:

If they could catch all the missiles in boost phase...then great. I suppose this was intended as only part of an ballistic missile or ICBM defense system.

Click to expand...

There are no perfect systems. If they destroy some of the missiles, it is much better than not destroying any of them. This technology needs to progress, it is unsettling that there is little we can do about incoming missiles (especially the nuclear ones).

ScottD said:

The cost. To actually make any use out of these, we will need lots of them. Don't forget also, these things are massive high-tech lasers strapped to the inside of a 737. The amount of money needed to make these things could be used more wisely elsewhere.

Click to expand...

What is the price then?

Not every military research project is destined, or even designed, for deployment.

The program served its purpose: figuring out how to hit a ballistic missile in its early boost stage with a laser. The real goal of the program was figuring out the targeting and tracking difficulties. This program, and other laser projects, have solved the targeting issue.

The next issue to solve is power. How can we deliver the wattage required to destroy the target now that we figured out how to hit it.

The airborne laser program was canceled because it is based on a chemical laser that is being phased out in favor of different sorts of laser generation. Basically, our military doesn't want the system to be dependent upon "ammunition." The chemicals required to generate a laser of sufficient power are expensive, heavy, and have dangerous exhaust and contamination issues.

In short, now that we have the delivery method, we just need to figure out the best way to put out X megawatts, however many we decide is enough to destroy an ICBM at sufficient range.

Until we decide that, spending money on a half-measure is a waste. We are very likely to put a combat laser on an airplane some day, we just need some more work on the laser itself.

I'm trying to figure out... why is this even public information?

Arch Enemy said:

I'm trying to figure out... why is this even public information?

Click to expand...

Like just about everything else, I would guess at "money." Some people with a lot of power are losing a lot of money with the program's cancellation. They're trying to score political points to create pressure to reinstate the program, possibly.

Or perhaps it's a political gesture towards Iran and North Korea. "Hey you little bastards, here's what we think of your nuclear missile ambitions."

*shrug*

In any case, the program was canceled because our research is moving away from chemical lasers into better methods of laser generation. Once we get that down, we'll be slapping it on EVERYTHING. (In fact, the F-35 is designed to eventually have a laser put in it)

MetalGear said:

And what exactly is so impracticle about this device?

Click to expand...

Well

ICBM that this system is meant to destroy can be launched from a variety of locations and generally move at high speeds. As the system targets the missiles in the boost phase, it will require the plane to be in the area of the launch I would guess the effective range would have to be within 1000 miles at most, more likely 500 or less.

That means the US military will have to have them in the air and in the area where the ICBM is going to be launched ahead of time. Not much of a problem if you are expecting missiles to be launched from say North Korea, a small country boarding the sea where the US can keep the planes flying on a constant basis.

But if the expectation was China or Russia then the system is a waste. China and Russia are huge countries, who just might not like having US military aircraft flying over their territory (and if it was at a point where the US military could fly over Chinese or Russian territory, the missile would have been launched a fair bit of time before then. Countries like Russia and China also have submarine based ICBM's which of course would require the US to fly over the oceans on a constant basis.

Overall for the system to be usefull would require a large amount of resources, that the US might be better spending in other areas

MetalGear said:

What is the price then?

Click to expand...

The program has cost us $4billion so far.

Also, the operating cost of one of these things is $100,000 an hour. Now think about how much it will cost to get enough of these things in the air to protect us from missiles.

Turns out Obama changed his mind and didn't cancel it once Boeing got their act together and started showing results, but personally I still think it should have been scrapped, the thing is just a money-sucker that won't even do much.

Deuce said:

The next issue to solve is power. How can we deliver the wattage required to destroy the target now that we figured out how to hit it.

...

In short, now that we have the delivery method, we just need to figure out the best way to put out X megawatts, however many we decide is enough to destroy an ICBM at sufficient range.

Until we decide that, spending money on a half-measure is a waste. We are very likely to put a combat laser on an airplane some day, we just need some more work on the laser itself.

Click to expand...

Looks like the power issue is already figured out:

"...At 8:44 p.m. (PST), February 11, 2010, a short-range threat-representative ballistic missile was launched from an at-sea mobile launch platform. Within seconds, the ALTB used onboard sensors to detect the boosting missile and used a low-energy laser to track the target. The ALTB then fired a second low-energy laser to measure and compensate for atmospheric disturbance. Finally, the ALTB fired its megawatt-class High Energy Laser, heating the boosting ballistic missile to critical structural failure. The entire engagement occurred within two minutes of the target missile launch, while its rocket motors were still thrusting.

This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform. The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missile defense, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of hundreds of kilometers, and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current technologies.

Less than one hour later, a second solid fuel short-range missile was launched from a ground location on San Nicolas Island, Calif. and the ALTB successfully engaged the boosting target with its High Energy Laser, met all its test criteria, and terminated lasing prior to destroying the second target. The ALTB destroyed a solid fuel missile, identical to the second target, in flight on February 3, 2010..."

Airborne Laser Testbed Successful in Lethal Intercept Experiment

Porchev said:

Looks like the power issue is already figured out:

Click to expand...

This works well enough for short range, but as range increases power requirements increase. The lasers developed so far need to be improved before deployment becomes practical.

There's also the "ammunition" issue. A chemical laser can only fire so many times before the aircraft has to return to base. A volley of "decoy" launches before the real weapons launch could be a problem.

Pure electrical generation is ideal, because then you can just charge some big ass capacitors using the plane's built-in (and probably beefed up) generators. These lasers, so far, have power output and heat issues to work on.

So far we can satisfy any of our operational requirements but not all of them at the same time.

Deuce said:

This works well enough for short range, but as range increases power requirements increase. The lasers developed so far need to be improved before deployment becomes practical.

There's also the "ammunition" issue. A chemical laser can only fire so many times before the aircraft has to return to base. A volley of "decoy" launches before the real weapons launch could be a problem.

Pure electrical generation is ideal, because then you can just charge some big ass capacitors using the plane's built-in (and probably beefed up) generators. These lasers, so far, have power output and heat issues to work on.

So far we can satisfy any of our operational requirements but not all of them at the same time.

Click to expand...

This technology is still evolving, but having limited ammunition is something all armed aircraft have to deal with. I don't know how many "decoy" launches there may be, but shooting down some missiles is better than no missiles.

American said:

You care to offer some suggestions?

Click to expand...

Well, "ScottD" has an extremely valid point though probably only thinking about the surface criticism to be had with this.

The perfect example of "practical" spending would be the body armor versus F/A-22 argument. The Defense Industry had been receiving billions of dollars to perfect their flying toy, yet the only personal protection our troops ever had was a fragmentation vest circa Vietnam War technology. The reason is simple. There is no money to be made with vest technology and people like Clinton and Rumsfeld concreted the idea that technology alone was going to win our wars. This would be the negative lesson the morons on the hill learned from the perfect scenario of the Gulf War (Shock and Awe should have put this delusion to rest).

Another area of argument would be the upArmor versus Nuclear Sub scenario. With IEDs exploding all over, the UpArmor technology was slow to come. And when it pieced in little by little it merely wound up bogging down the HMMWVs, damaging the axles, and restricting troop access in and out of the vehicle. But Navy Admirals were able to convince the morons on the hill that our fleet of Subs needed a nuclear upgrade. Again the money is to be made in nuclear technology....not preserving troop life.

Today, no nuclear sub is benefitting anybody in this war and no F/A-22 has supported any troop on the ground. There is no naval enemy to be dealt with (we control the seas). There is no air power to dogfight with (we control the air). I would argue that our most valuable resource is the troop, especially considering that it is the troop and his experience that is going to win this decades long war we embarked on in 2001. But to the Defense Industry and to the idiots in suits our most valuable resource is that next gadget or toy that is going to be preserved for an imaginary war with China or any other bogeyman enemy used to convince politicians that "nothing is too good for our troops."

There is a place for technology. And lasers shooting down rockets is definately useful. But we have a habit of running away with our fantasies and dreams. We have a way of allowing the Defense Industry to change a few insignificant aspects of their toys just to keep the Program alive. Eventually they lose sight on why the Program exists at all.

It's like I always state..."they may as well start a Light Saber program."

ScottD said:

The program has cost us $4billion so far.

Also, the operating cost of one of these things is $100,000 an hour. Now think about how much it will cost to get enough of these things in the air to protect us from missiles.

Turns out Obama changed his mind and didn't cancel it once Boeing got their act together and started showing results, but personally I still think it should have been scrapped, the thing is just a money-sucker that won't even do much.

Click to expand...

Is that not a small cost in comparison to the life saving potential this technology has? Points for believing its being funded at the wrong time, though. It seems far more accurate and capable than previous missile defence mechanisms. I wouldnt say it "wont do much".

Lord Tammerlain said:

Well

ICBM that this system is meant to destroy can be launched from a variety of locations and generally move at high speeds. As the system targets the missiles in the boost phase, it will require the plane to be in the area of the launch I would guess the effective range would have to be within 1000 miles at most, more likely 500 or less.

That means the US military will have to have them in the air and in the area where the ICBM is going to be launched ahead of time. Not much of a problem if you are expecting missiles to be launched from say North Korea, a small country boarding the sea where the US can keep the planes flying on a constant basis.

But if the expectation was China or Russia then the system is a waste. China and Russia are huge countries, who just might not like having US military aircraft flying over their territory (and if it was at a point where the US military could fly over Chinese or Russian territory, the missile would have been launched a fair bit of time before then. Countries like Russia and China also have submarine based ICBM's which of course would require the US to fly over the oceans on a constant basis.

Overall for the system to be usefull would require a large amount of resources, that the US might be better spending in other areas

Click to expand...

Wait wait, who says it has to be boost phase? Is that true for all ICBM systems, and does this not work for after boost phase?