First light for US 'laser jumbo'

[Brian D]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44872000/jpg/_44872831_abl_usaf_466.jpg
The system will shoot down ballistic missiles in their "boost-phase"

The US military has carried out the first test-firing of a laser weapon system housed aboard a 747 plane.

The Airborne Laser (ABL) was conceived to shoot down enemy ballistic missiles in the early stages of their flight.

Engineers conducted the test on the ground, firing the laser out through a turret mounted on the nose of the plane at a simulated target.

An airborne intercept of an in-flight ballistic missile is planned for 2009.
The multi-billion dollar ABL programme has been running for more than 12 years.

Scientists are reported to be working out other uses for the flying weapon - which could help secure continued funding. These extra missions include shooting down surface-to-air missiles, cruise missiles and even enemy aircraft.

In September, engineers fired the high-energy laser into a calorimeter aboard the aircraft. But this is the first time the beam has been fired along the full length of the 747.

"The team has now completed the two major milestones it hoped to accomplish in 2008, keeping ABL on track to conduct the missile shoot-down demonstration planned for next year," said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems.

Onwards and upwards

The latest ground test was carried out by the US Missile Defence Agency at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

A laser beam travelled the length of the aircraft at one billion km/h (670 million mph).

It raced from the aft (back) section that houses the laser, through the beam control and fire control system, and out through the nose-mounted turret.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44873000/jpg/_44873977_turretball_boeing_226.jpg
The high energy laser is fired from a turret in the aircraft's nose

When the laser beam emerged from the aircraft, it was captured by a diagnostic system which also provides simulated targets for the laser.

The next step is to carry out some long duration firings of the laser.

"Once we complete those tests, we will begin demonstrating the entire weapon system in flight," said Michael Rinn, Boeing vice president and programme director for the ABL.

The ABL is designed to illuminate an enemy missile with a laser tracking beam, while computers measure its distance and calculate its course and direction.

After acquiring and locking on to the target, a second, high-power laser fires a three-to-five-second burst from the turret in the 747's nose.

The beam heats up the pressurised fuel tank of the outbound missile and causes it to rupture, destroying the missile.

Early window

The high-energy weapon is a Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) capable of producing megawatts of power.

Built by defence giant Northrop Grumman, it is designed to destroy "all classes" of ballistic missiles, including tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44873000/jpg/_44873944_laser_boeing_226.jpg
The beam control system will acquire and track targets

Its fuel consists of chemicals found in hair bleach and drain cleaner - hydrogen peroxide and potassium hydroxide - which are then combined with chlorine gas and water.

Destroying ballistic missiles during their boost phase - while their rockets are firing - carries several advantages.

The bright, hot rocket exhaust aids detection, discrimination and targeting of the missile. And it is much more difficult to use countermeasures, such as decoys, during this phase of flight.

The wreckage will usually land in enemy territory, although collateral damage in surrounding countries would be a concern.

According to an American Physical Society report in 2004, the Airborne Laser could shoot down a typical liquid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from up to 600km away.

However, against solid-fuel ICBMs, which are more resistant to heating, the useful range would be about 300km.

This would be too short to defend against solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from Iran or North Korea, the US report explained.

Original link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7761025.stm

[Sadhaka]

What happens when one of these get shot down by a far more agile fighter jet?

Does it have any level of stealth equipment?

[phoenix 7]

And the plane needs to get within 300-600 km of the missile to shoot it down. Sounds kind of iffy.

[xroads]

And the plane needs to get within 300-600 km of the missile to shoot it down. Sounds kind of iffy.

I kind of work in that field: when they started the project, it was assumed that a satellite could shoot down the missile by a laser beam. Reality is that in order to create a laser beam with that kind of energy, you need heavy equipment, and a LOT of pump energy.
IMHO, this is one of these defense projects where financing is given for 25 years, and then they find out that the technology doesn't work (there is an interesting articel on this in the latest IEEE magazine...).

[guittguy1]

when they started the project, it was assumed that a satellite could shoot down the missile by a laser beam.Didn't The Russians blind one of our satellites with a laser years ago? Seems like a plane would be a better bet.

[Midnight Lady]

The question that popped into my mind was the wisdom of putting this on a 747 jet? Why use a plane that was developed to carry passengers? Won't that make all 747's suspect when they fly into foreign air space? Is that a good thing?

[Boobala]

What happens when one of these get shot down by a far more agile fighter jet?

Does it have any level of stealth equipment?

1. It would probably never get close enough to hostile fighters for that to be a problem.

2. If it did, it would have escort fighters to protect it.

[Boobala]

The question that popped into my mind was the wisdom of putting this on a 747 jet? Why use a plane that was developed to carry passengers? Won't that make all 747's suspect when they fly into foreign air space? Is that a good thing?

There's a long history of military use of civilian-based aircraft.

C-47 / AC-47 = McDonnell Douglas DC-3

C-97 / KC-97 = Boeing 377

KC/EC/RC-135 = Boeing 707

KC-10 = McDonnell Douglas DC-10

[ACfixer]

The question that popped into my mind was the wisdom of putting this on a 747 jet? Why use a plane that was developed to carry passengers? Won't that make all 747's suspect when they fly into foreign air space? Is that a good thing?

The 747 is a proven workhorse, one of the finest airplanes ever built and one that remained unsurpassed for over the better part of 40 years which makes it a great choice as a platform for testing something in it's infancy. Concentrate on the weapon rather than the vehicle carrying it right? As far as a 747 being suspect in foreign airspace, I doubt the laser jet would be sporting Lufthansa livery. ;)

[dankayaker]

Gotta love all the second guessing. Though we hear from time to time about incompetence in the military . . .we have to assume they know more about this stuff than we do, and have measured current and future threats. I think it's pretty cool.

[jcoloccia]

Actually, I worked on this project, and our guys still do work on this project. The only reason I left is I relocated back to the East Coast last year.

I'm pretty familiar with how it works, given that I personally wrote, and led the team that wrote, a good chunk of the beam control software. Our small team is on that bird everyday, and when I was out there I was ass in seat on the plane too. Pictures don't do it justice.

First light is a tremendous achievement and my only regret from my relocation is that I wasn't able to be there.

I've been on plenty of clunker, loser projects. ABL isn't one of them. I'm expecting great things from those guys over the next couple of years. It's one of the few projects that I'm truly proud of. And we'd better maintain our lead on directed energy weapons. It's much better to be targetting, as opposed to targeted.

[loudboy]

And the plane needs to get within 300-600 km of the missile to shoot it down. Sounds kind of iffy.

My thoughts exactly - at what point do the booster rockets stop firing?

How many of these planes need to be in the air 24/7, w/in range of the launch sites?

[Scott Peterson]

Screw the planes, when do we attach them to frickin' shark's heads? Now that will be COOL!

[ross]

What is the wave length? Is it pulsed or CW?

[tone4days]

i am tryin to do a little white board math here ... so the 747 has to aim its nose, in flight, on a fast moving target that is up to a handful of hundred kilometers away ... that sounds like a really hard bit of flying for the pilot to stay locked on to the target for the required duration ... and what about weather? ... can this thing shoot things down when it is raining?

[loudboy]

i am tryin to do a little white board math here ... so the 747 has to aim its nose, in flight, on a fast moving target that is up to a handful of hundred kilometers away ... that sounds like a really hard bit of flying for the pilot to stay locked on to the target for the required duration ...

I'm thinkin' they'll probably use a computer or something.

[pickaguitar]

Screw the planes, when do we attach them to frickin' shark's heads? Now that will be COOL!
http://www.thecinemalaser.com/dvd_reviews/images/austin-powers-the-spy-who-shagged-me-dvd-image-02.jpg

[jcoloccia]

that sounds like a really hard bit of flying for the pilot to stay locked on to the target for the required duration

Yeah, that'd be a hell of a good shot if not for the beam stearing optics, i.e. the turret. As it is, the pilot really just needs to fly. As for everything else, there's a ton of information and videos available online that will answer everything that can be answered. Here's a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

[Tonefish]

Actually, I worked on this project, and our guys still do work on this project. The only reason I left is I relocated back to the East Coast last year.

I'm pretty familiar with how it works, given that I personally wrote, and led the team that wrote, a good chunk of the beam control software. Our small team is on that bird everyday, and when I was out there I was ass in seat on the plane too. Pictures don't do it justice.

First light is a tremendous achievement and my only regret from my relocation is that I wasn't able to be there.

I've been on plenty of clunker, loser projects. ABL isn't one of them. I'm expecting great things from those guys over the next couple of years. It's one of the few projects that I'm truly proud of. And we'd better maintain our lead on directed energy weapons. It's much better to be targetting, as opposed to targeted.


Were you at Kirtland?

[crosse79]

Big question of the day.

What if between those 300-600 kilometers a bird flies past... or worse still a passenger airliner?

[jcoloccia]

Were you at Kirtland?

EAFB. I had the "pleasure" of living in the high dessert for 4 years. Actually, it kind of grows on you...except for the wind.

[mge80]

Big question of the day.

What if between those 300-600 kilometers a bird flies past... or worse still a passenger airliner?


What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?

[crosse79]

What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?

Um not too sure what that meant - not too good with my Spartan history. Anyhow - mine is a valid question . I am sure they must have thought of this right?

[mge80]

Sorry, every time I hear a "what if" question, I break out the Spartacus response (from an old SNL skit).

In my previous line of work as an airline pilot, but primarily involved in Flight Standards and Training, I would continuously be bombarded by "what ifs". One can "what if" all day and night, and still not exhaust the possibilities. One of my co-workers at my last company made up a Photoshopped poster of Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) and his Piper Cub and hung it in my office in honor of my well-worn response.

Oh, and your answer is yes...I am sure they must have thought of this.

[crosse79]

Sorry, every time I hear a "what if" question, I break out the Spartacus response (from an old SNL skit).

In my previous line of work as an airline pilot, but primarily involved in Flight Standards and Training, I would continuously be bombarded by "what ifs". One can "what if" all day and night, and still not exhaust the possibilities. One of my co-workers at my last company made up a Photoshopped poster of Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) and his Piper Cub and hung it in my office in honor of my well-worn response.

Oh, and your answer is yes...I am sure they must have thought of this.

Ah I understand now :)

I was wondering what would be their solution around this problem? It's not as if they can clear all air traffic and have access to all channels " Hello - we are about to fire a laser beam - please get out of the path - or be fried?"

[jmbstudios]

Um not too sure what that meant - not too good with my Spartan history. Anyhow - mine is a valid question . I am sure they must have thought of this right?


Nothing to do with Spartan history....

Everything to do with SNL.

By the way, this laser has been in the works since 1985. Just watch Real Genius! That will help you see the birth of this project.

[Brian D]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1Cool, thanks for the link.

[tone4days]

ah, makes more sense now - thanks ... i wasnt seeing the turret - they made it look like it was an end-fire nose cone deal ...

computers or something - LOL

t4d

[~Abstract~]

Ummm...a 747 flies at what 40-50 thousand feet? I'm not too good with geometry....(I could figure this out, but I'm not gonna)...acounting for the curvature of the earth, you won't have much range. You need more altitude. LOTS more. You'll also need this on lots of satellites to guarantee coverage.

The satellites are heavy (costly to deploy)...and needs lots of fuel (heavy...so...SUPER costly to refuel)...

Until the power/weight ratio comes down a few orders of magnitude...this will be a research exercise.imVHo



I would like to see 'em pop some popcorn from miles away!!! Keep the grease off the lens!

[tone4days]

hey abstract ... i think you might be thinking about it a little askew .... the targets are going to be at altitude even higher than the plane 'cus the intent of this beast is to shoot em down while they are ascending... i think it will have plenty of range

[donnyjaguar]

What a waste of money and technical expertise.

[~Abstract~]

hey abstract ... i think you might be thinking about it a little askew .... the targets are going to be at altitude even higher than the plane 'cus the intent of this beast is to shoot em down while they are ascending... i think it will have plenty of range

If you've got Earth between you...it doesn't matter how high the other guy is.

I hear you...I'm just saying that we'd need to be flying these things over THEIR country for it to work.

The boost phase happens on takeoff. When they're still low.


I think it's cool as shit...I'm just not sold on the functionality.....yet.

[jcoloccia]

It's pretty simple to calculate this. Line of Sight at 40,000 feet is about 400km. It's actually a little more if you include refraction. That's to the ground. The higher your target goes, the further out you can see it. Nothing magic here.

[Zilmo]

What a waste of money and technical expertise.


Yeah, we could have probably invaded and taken over, oh, say Canada for less money.

[phoenix 7]

For us Americans -- 300 km is about 180 miles and 600 km is about 360 miles. How often will the USA be able to get a plane within that distance of a missile still in booster stage? That's pretty darned close. And those missiles will be flying very fast. It seems we'd need to have planes based very close to all potential missile deployment sites. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logistical problems seem pretty challenging.

[Tonefish]

For us Americans -- 300 km is about 180 miles and 600 km is about 360 miles. How often will the USA be able to get a plane within that distance of a missile still in booster stage? That's pretty darned close. And those missiles will be flying very fast. It seems we'd need to have planes based very close to all potential missile deployment sites. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logistical problems seem pretty challenging.

Yeah, it doesn't seem like these would be useful against surprise launches, so I'd guess they'd be deployed to known or developing conflict areas.

[Tommy C]

just part of the truth,

secret gov op starwars experiments..some are in the "open"


just put two and 2 together

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qffIx2GWDo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5JgG1-0jg&feature=related listen his last words,,

[madscientist]

I know one person who isn't too happy about this "laser"

http://www.kennedystuff.com/real/images/kent.gif