U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile(reuters.com)
reuters.com
U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61B18C20100212
23 comments
They did, in fact, destroy the missile. The articles about this event are badly worded. From the original MDA Press Release:
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.
However, the fact that they were able to do it from the ALTB during the boost phase of the missile launch (first two minutes!) is worthless. To do this during an actual ICBM attack would require /many/ ALTBs to be flying over enemy territory at the time of launch. This is because of simple physics. The earth is round. ICBM launches take place on the other side of the earth. The ICBM will no longer be in the super vulnerable boost phase when we can target them with the ALTB platform.
The immediate reaction is that satellites would solve this problem. But, there are two problems with that idea. First, to make a laser powerful enough to destroy/disable an ICBM requires a lot of space (there's a reason they use a 747 and it's not sex appeal). Satellites just aren't big enough or powerful enough or reliable enough to be effective platforms.... and we'd need /a lot/ of satellites. Second, there are treaties about weapons in space that no one wants to break. Modern society (particularly the United States) are too heavily invested in delicate satellites for communications, commerce, etc. Once weapons are allowed up there... back to the industrial era we go.
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.
However, the fact that they were able to do it from the ALTB during the boost phase of the missile launch (first two minutes!) is worthless. To do this during an actual ICBM attack would require /many/ ALTBs to be flying over enemy territory at the time of launch. This is because of simple physics. The earth is round. ICBM launches take place on the other side of the earth. The ICBM will no longer be in the super vulnerable boost phase when we can target them with the ALTB platform.
The immediate reaction is that satellites would solve this problem. But, there are two problems with that idea. First, to make a laser powerful enough to destroy/disable an ICBM requires a lot of space (there's a reason they use a 747 and it's not sex appeal). Satellites just aren't big enough or powerful enough or reliable enough to be effective platforms.... and we'd need /a lot/ of satellites. Second, there are treaties about weapons in space that no one wants to break. Modern society (particularly the United States) are too heavily invested in delicate satellites for communications, commerce, etc. Once weapons are allowed up there... back to the industrial era we go.
It's not tactically worthless. You don't have to dig any deeper than the wikipedia article to learn about its mission:
The ABL was designed for use against tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs). These have a shorter range and fly more slowly than ICBMs. The MDA has recently suggested the ABL might be used against ICBMs during their boost phase. This could require much longer flights to get in position, and might not be possible without flying over hostile territory. Liquid-fueled ICBMs, which have thinner skins, and remain in boost phase longer than TBMs, might be easier to destroy.
If the ABL achieves its design goals, it could destroy liquid-fueled ICBMs up to 600 km away. Tougher solid-fueled ICBM destruction range would likely be limited to 300 km, too short to be useful in many scenarios, according to a 2003 report by the American Physical Society on National Missile Defense.
Upshot being, homeland defense in general, and ICBMs in particular, are not really its mission. It's designed to counter TBMs--that is, artillery. Potentially very long range artillery, but still.
Being able to shoot down artillery from the air with a lot of speed and flexibility could be useful in any number of scenarios. Probably not homeland defense, though. Oceans and all.
The ABL was designed for use against tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs). These have a shorter range and fly more slowly than ICBMs. The MDA has recently suggested the ABL might be used against ICBMs during their boost phase. This could require much longer flights to get in position, and might not be possible without flying over hostile territory. Liquid-fueled ICBMs, which have thinner skins, and remain in boost phase longer than TBMs, might be easier to destroy.
If the ABL achieves its design goals, it could destroy liquid-fueled ICBMs up to 600 km away. Tougher solid-fueled ICBM destruction range would likely be limited to 300 km, too short to be useful in many scenarios, according to a 2003 report by the American Physical Society on National Missile Defense.
Upshot being, homeland defense in general, and ICBMs in particular, are not really its mission. It's designed to counter TBMs--that is, artillery. Potentially very long range artillery, but still.
Being able to shoot down artillery from the air with a lot of speed and flexibility could be useful in any number of scenarios. Probably not homeland defense, though. Oceans and all.
Against Russia or China, this kind of a system is worthless. I believe that the contractor is selling this as deterrent against Iran or North Korea.
... And even then it's worthless, because if either wanted to nuke the US, they wouldn't launch it on a missile, they'd pack it on a ship and sail it to New York.
... And even then it's worthless, because if either wanted to nuke the US, they wouldn't launch it on a missile, they'd pack it on a ship and sail it to New York.
From a certain perspective, it is actually good that this is worthless against China or Russia: namely, if they don't perceive it as a threat, then they won't fight its deployment or try to build up arms in response.
Consequently, it may prove useful in neutralizing the threat posed by medium-to-long-range weapons possessed by particular actors (Iran, North Korea) to allies in the region. (I say allies because I agree with you - if they wanted to attack the US, doing so via conventional means would be extraordinarily foolish.)
Consequently, it may prove useful in neutralizing the threat posed by medium-to-long-range weapons possessed by particular actors (Iran, North Korea) to allies in the region. (I say allies because I agree with you - if they wanted to attack the US, doing so via conventional means would be extraordinarily foolish.)
Satellites just aren't big enough or powerful enough or reliable enough to be effective platforms.... and we'd need /a lot/ of satellites.
Think space mirrors!
Think space mirrors!
Actually, wasn't the "test laser" referring to the test back in August? This test actually destroyed the missile in flight, hence the significance.
and for $10, nathan myrvolhd can user a laser to track and detect a mosquito, distinguish those carrying malaria from those who aren't, and then shoot down the ones carrying malaria.... nice http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/using-lasers-to-zap....
Looks cool. But the article estimates that the devices could cost $50. And it doesn't mention being able to tell if a mosquito has malaria -- only that it can target females because males don't bite people.
Pablo the hacker behind it, presented in detail at DLD, and I was lucky enough to see it. They were able to detect between the species of mosquito that are carriers and those that weren't.
And Pablo also pointed out that their target would be $10--especially if volume would be reached...
This year's defense budget is the largest (as a share of GDP) since WWII. Right now, getting our economy and debt under control seem like they would do far more to ensure our future national security than incredibly expensive missile defense systems. It seems to me like you should only spend money on this stuff when you actually have money.
And really, lasers? What happens when they coat the missiles in something reflective? $200 worth of shiny metallic paint foils $200 million worth of laser.
And really, lasers? What happens when they coat the missiles in something reflective? $200 worth of shiny metallic paint foils $200 million worth of laser.
What happens when they start making mirror coated missiles?
"...at a range of hundreds of kilometers (miles)."
Yeah, units schmunitz, who really cares. It's Friday, there are lasers in the air, and everything.
Don’t you see? This helps to make the statement quite a bit more specific.
Hundreds of kilometers can be anything between 200 km and 1999 km. Hundreds of miles can be anything between 322 km and 3217 km. The overlap comes out to anything between 322 km and 1999 km! Much more exact than saying just hundreds of kilometers or hundreds of miles :)
Hundreds of kilometers can be anything between 200 km and 1999 km. Hundreds of miles can be anything between 322 km and 3217 km. The overlap comes out to anything between 322 km and 1999 km! Much more exact than saying just hundreds of kilometers or hundreds of miles :)
[deleted]
It looks more and more obvious to me that over the next forty years or so we are going to start seeing true laser and particle weapons.
And they're not going to be anything like they are in science-fiction and fantasy. With blindness, invisibility of attack, instantaneous hits, and extreme heat? Much more scary, actually.
And they're not going to be anything like they are in science-fiction and fantasy. With blindness, invisibility of attack, instantaneous hits, and extreme heat? Much more scary, actually.
Actually, that's pretty much how good sci-fi treats lasers. Try reading "Consider Phlebas" by Iain M. Banks, it has a rather good scene of liberal use of laser weapons. It's a good book in other ways too, at least as long as you can stand the blatant socialism. :)
In any case, I rather doubt laser weapons will get much use at ground level, if only because of rain/various kinds of active smoke you can use to defend yourself.
In any case, I rather doubt laser weapons will get much use at ground level, if only because of rain/various kinds of active smoke you can use to defend yourself.
Yes. I should have said "pop sci-fi" but you are correct.
I'd imagine, because of the problems with atmospherics, before we see ground-level lasers we'll see shorter-range UAV-to-ground weapons. Perhaps satellites first. Silent invisible death from the sky.
I'd imagine, because of the problems with atmospherics, before we see ground-level lasers we'll see shorter-range UAV-to-ground weapons. Perhaps satellites first. Silent invisible death from the sky.
That's almost certainly true, and it may be less than 40 years. Northrop-Grumman has already produced a 100kW solid-state laser capable of being mounted on a fighter or a small ship (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/19/business/fi-laser19), and apparently they think that vehicles mounting it are ten years or less away. Serviceable, ruggedized laser rifles are probably 10-20 years down the road from that -- and will mean an enormous increase in infantry ammunition capacity and firepower, probably on the order of magnitude of the introduction of the automatic rifle. (Manufacturers of rechargeable batteries suddenly sound like a very good investment.)
US infantry tactics as they currently exist will not be well-suited to wars involving such weapons; a retired Marine gunnery sergeant, H. John Poole, has written a number of books on the need for the US to develop autonomous light infantry, and has pointed to the prospect of laser weapons as one of the reasons for this need.
US infantry tactics as they currently exist will not be well-suited to wars involving such weapons; a retired Marine gunnery sergeant, H. John Poole, has written a number of books on the need for the US to develop autonomous light infantry, and has pointed to the prospect of laser weapons as one of the reasons for this need.
WOOT. One step closer to my death star!
Can I get a "may the (us armed) force(s) be with you?"
Can I get a "may the (us armed) force(s) be with you?"
Note it fired a "test laser" and instruments on the missile indicated the laser had a "hit". So they didn't actually disable/destroy the missile - basically it was a computer controlled Lazer Tag setup.
Mission accomplished = more funding.