Airborne Laser shoots down ballistic missiles

[SiberianTiger]

http://www.airborne-laser.com/news/airborne-laser-shoots-down-scud-missile.html

http://www.mda.mil/news/10news0002.html

10-NEWS-0002
February 11, 2010

Airborne Laser Testbed Successful in Lethal Intercept Experiment

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 experiment, conducted at Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center-Weapons Division Sea Range off the central California coast, serves as a proof-of-concept demonstration for directed energy technology. The ALTB is a pathfinder for the nation’s directed energy program and its potential application for missile defense technology.


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.

Video:
http://www.mda.mil/global/videos/abl/vm424_altb_11_feb_10.wmv

Successive infra-red pictures of the rocket breaking up:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10452572-76.html

Unfortunately for proponents, the achievement is rather bittersweet. Where the Pentagon once had plans to build as many as seven of the one-of-a-kind Airborne Laser aircraft, a modified Boeing 747-400F, the high cost and technical uncertainties of the program prompted Defense Secretary Robert Gates last spring to cancel plans to build a second plane. The Pentagon kept the existing one around as an R&D platform

 

[Bj]

about time, now while the shuttles are still in 'operational' mode, get a laser in space and start shooting debris down.

but that would tread on political toes now wouldn't it?

 

[adamb193]

A few people wouldn't be pleased with a laser weapon in space. Though I wonder how much damage it could do.

 

[PeterRoss]

I wonder what's the effective range of this laser? Judging by video it's not very impressive.

Still it's quite a breakthrough. One more step to killing people like they do it in sci-fi.

 

[Bj]

A few people wouldn't be pleased with a laser weapon in space. Though I wonder how much damage it could do.

Not sure, I imagine the laser would work over great distances in space from lack of obstructions like air, but as soon as it hits atmosphere, it would have to go through 100 miles of dust, dirt, clouds (maybe), and moisture before it hits the target. I think it would diffuse to the point of being ineffective.

 

[Urwumpe]

The laser is actually already a failure by design, despite being a spectacular way for wasting taxes. The problem is the when and where the laser should be deployed - it is for shooting missiles in the boost phase, so the laser has to be in range in 30-90 seconds after detection of the missile. You would need quite many such planes for protecting the USA even from such a small country like North Korea, and have quite many escort fighters for stopping the enemy from just shooting the laser planes down...

Using it against ballistic missiles is thus unlikely...maybe they find a new use for it.

 

[PeterRoss]

I've seen the video where they suggested to deploy these lasers to F-35 fighters and battleships. Fighter variant is very unlikely in a nearest future considering the size of power unit needed to supply this laser - it takes a Boeing for now. But it will fit well into battleship. So you just have to surround potential enemy with fleet and hope he will launch missiles somewhere near the coast.

 

[Andy44]

The original purpose of the ABL was not for strategic defense, it was for theatre missile defense during a campaign. So you're up against Saddam and it's 1991 and he launches Scuds at you, you would have one or two of these birds on station to zap them, was the idea.

For strategic defense you would need different platforms. Maybe space-based, but that is really expensive considering the design of the weapon, which is IIRC a very finicky chemical laser that needs lots of care and feeding.

A ring of ground-based lasers that can zap incoming warheads and decoys would be the most desirous option, but is a different engineering problem. Now you have multiple targets, all small, all fast-moving, and lots of atmo to shoot through. But if you're ground-based, you can use a bigger set of machinery and more power than you get on a 747.

 

[Ark]

Reagan's Star Wars, round 2. 5+ billion spent, and in the end we have one plane that does occasional stunts for the cameras. Yeah, it's cool, but in practical terms it's still completely useless.

 

[PeterRoss]

Reagan's Star Wars, round 2. 5+ billion spent, and in the end we have one plane that does occasional stunts for the cameras. Yeah, it's cool, but in practical terms it's still completely useless.

There was that guy in another thread who insisted that showing off is useful for technical progress.

 

[Ark]

There was that guy in another thread who insisted that showing off is useful for technical progress.

What progress does this make? We spent over $5b on a single upscaled chemical laser that can shoot at missiles. I'll admit that unlike the F-22, we actually have a chance at maybe fighting someone with SCUD-esque weaponry sometime in the next 50 years, but we aren't even building anything past this demo model. I see little real-world benefit to this latest technogasm. Unless we're planning to invade and occupy someone else, in the near future we don't have anything larger than morters getting shot at us.

Five bucks says after we're done with the camera stunts, we donate this thing to Israel...

 

[Bj]

Five bucks says after we're done with the camera stunts, we donate this thing to Israel...

Highly doubt it. Trade of military arms especially newly developed technologies such as this would probably bring uproar within the armed forces and with other countries, (allied or neutral)

They probably will test for characteristics of the laser, and new development of more powerful and new ideas for other types of lasers, such as battle-ship / aircraft carrier armament, or like someone else said, smaller batteries for fighter aircraft deployment.

 

[Andy44]

He was exaggerating, of course. But the US almost did sell Isreal anti-missile lasers a few years back: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/25/a_rocket_israel_laser_nixed/

 

[Star Voyager]

Five bucks says after we're done with the camera stunts, we donate this thing to Israel...

Is this bad? I like the idea of having anti-satellite programs, but shooting it from a 747 isn't exaclty ideal, especially in this economy. Maybe later if the threat of armed satellites doesn't increase. Nevertheless, it is a fantastic achievement of the USAF :speakcool:!

 

[Ark]

The Israel thing is kind of tounge-in-cheek, considering the billions of dollars we send them every year (along with huge amounts of military equipment) to defend themselves or conquer Muslims, depending on your point of view. They could almost certainly use something like that more than the US, though, they're in much greater danger of an occasional SCUD attack than any US forces.

Mounting it on a 747 is good for mobility, but it's big and slow and expensive. To me, this would make more sense as a ground installation. But that would require tracking systems capable of picking out a warhead in it's ballistic coast phase, which is a lot tougher than tracking something spewing out red-hot rocket exhaust.

That's a piece of technology I'd like to see.

 

[RisingFury]

Wow... I thought this project was canceled some time ago...

Anyone have any basic schematics of the laser and some basic info, like how much power it provides and how focused the beam is?

 

[Bj]

Wow... I thought this project was canceled some time ago...

Anyone have any basic schematics of the laser and some basic info, like how much power it provides and how focused the beam is?

Well

wiki

how stuff works

I just saw a schematic cross section for this too.

Here is a nice page

 

[TSPenguin]

Please keep it on topic.
Should the desire to discuss this further persist, please make a new thread.

This thread is about lasers on a plane! That is awesome enough to fill this thread on its own.

 

[SiberianTiger]

about time, now while the shuttles are still in 'operational' mode, get a laser in space and start shooting debris down.

What's the point? By random heating space debris with a laser you would only create some more debris.

---------- Post added at 12:34 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------

A few people wouldn't be pleased with a laser weapon in space. Though I wonder how much damage it could do.

Refreshing the memories of SDI program and the symmetric Soviet response, those lasers in space would be good for taking enemy's satellites out of operation - they are mostly soft targets. Such was the purpose of Skif project (whose prototype was the 1st payload of Energia rocket) - a huge Megawatt-class laser cannon which should have used a Lunar free return manoeuvre to come back into high elliptical retrograde orbit over Earth and make a zapping sweep on most of US recon, navigation and guidance satellites in a narrow field of targeting and in a short period of time, while staying far out of reach of ground-based ASATs.

The idea of destroying nuclear warheads after in the middle of their trajectory would take much more energy, which only a self-destructing X-ray lasers could provide.

But ending of the Cold War made further developing of both kinds of spaceborne laser weaponry impossible - I'd cautiously say, for some time till now.

---------- Post added at 12:37 ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 ----------

Not sure, I imagine the laser would work over great distances in space from lack of obstructions like air, but as soon as it hits atmosphere, it would have to go through 100 miles of dust, dirt, clouds (maybe), and moisture before it hits the target. I think it would diffuse to the point of being ineffective.

Don't forget, it's aboard a plane, and therefore is raised above the most dense and dirty part of the atmosphere. The advertised effective range is 600 km, AFAIK. It should be even more good for zapping satellites, firing straight up (less distance, less dispersion), if only the guidance system is suitable for fast and high precision tracking.

---------- Post added at 23:47 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------

An opinion (doubting the real usability of the device):
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2629/altb-the-long-and-short

Just a thought: can such a thing be stuck aboard a B-2 and put into mass production? That way, it may even serve as a means for gaining air superiority...