Laser-equipped 747 438
omnirealm writes ""Engineers are making plans to change the gentle giant (Boeing 747) into a hot-blooded killer with a swiveling nose-cone laser beam theoretically capable of destroying enemy missiles hundreds of miles away." Of particular interest is the fact that "No human finger will actually pull a trigger. Onboard computers will decide when to fire the beam." I find this to be a bit disconcerting. " Somehow I feel as if we had posted this a while ago - no search found it. i do remember that this has been talked about for quite some time, tho'.
Re:...but will it keep up with the upgrades? (Score:2)
The creation of the database is not the expensive part though, the amount of regression testing they use is.
Re:...but will it keep up with the upgrades? (Score:2)
--
Re:Cool but a BFT (Big F*SCKING Target) (Score:2)
Which won't stop someone from trying innovative ways to try to defeat the system. Passive means, launch in bad weather, attack the aircraft (see Tom Clancy's <i>Red Storm Rising</i>, <i>Hunt for Red October</i> and <i>Debt of Honor</i> for ways of dealing with AWACS-style aircraft), ground infrastructure,....
USAF really wants to do this - they've been squeezed out of theatre missile defense and this is their ticket back in for the R&D and procurement dollars. And not every potential theater can be defended from ground (Patriot and successors) or sea-based (Ageis) systems.
Computer delays fire (Score:4)
Fixed-trajectory munitions will miss unless the roll, pitch and yaw are compensated for. Hitting a 10 ft target at 100 miles isn't easy.
What will probably happen is a target is locked into the fire control computer, the operator presses the fire button, and the computer waits a few milliseconds until the weapon is on target (after compensating for aiming offset, refractive index gradients, target movement, etc).
I'm sure the big 16" guns on US Battleships have very sophisticated firing [delay] systems. Just so they can hit the broadside of a barn at 15 miles. Otherwise, they could miss the broadside of a mountain!
Old News... (Score:2)
Now all we need is an orbiting mirror and our Saddam Hussein problems will be history...
Been There, Done That (Score:2)
Strategic ABM warfare (Score:2)
This system will buy us 10-15 years of temporary theater ballistic superiority until such time as more powerful ground-based lasers or cheap long-range SAMs are deployed.
In looking long-term at the entire ABM issue, I have come to conclusions which displease both pro- and anti-ABM people.
ABM systems cannot protect cities from van/suitcase/cargo container nukes for the reasons so often cited in earlier posts. The idea that the citizenry would be directly protected by such systems is a mockery of the truth.
On the other hand, ABM systems have a reasonable chance of protecting a few specific patches of land, such as say an ICBM base or a C3I facility. Since such high-value land can be protected by security forces on the ground from the suitcase bomber, China, Russia or whomever would have no choice but to attack that land with a missile. If an ABM system works properly, the missile will fail and we will be able to direct our retaliation effectively.
A key element of missile targeting that is not often noted by the press or hysteria-mongers is recon, especially post-strike. You have to know where to attack in order to fire a missile, and to know whether you need to 'revisit' a target. LA may be hard to miss but it's a bit more difficult to attack moving ground forces or missiles. Space warfare in the form of ASAT weapons is a very key element in effective ABM warfare.
Incidentally the ABL-747s greatest strategic effect may be in ASAT warfare.
Bottom Line- ABM can ensure MAD and thus deterrence, but can never protect us. ABM should be pursued to keep our deterrence up and allow our conventional and special operations to function, but we should not destroy our nation's treasury or diplomatic position to pursue a chimerical level of protection that we will never acheive.
Re:Fuck Diplomacy (Score:2)
Not enough space here to list all the grievances they have against the US. The US has screwed them over so many ways it ain't funny. But they (seem to me) to give every indication of not hating - sure, there are hardliners & religious fanatics (probably no more than there are in the USA
If your wife was killed by US missiles, working at phamaceuticals factory that had nothing to hide, and all indications suggested that the reason it was bombed was because the US president needed a target NOW to distract his citizens from his own mistakes back home, you have one HELL of a grievance, and it is entirely justified. Now take a hundred people who have similarly had their lives unjustly destroyed by USA for no reason, and it would astonishing if a small percentage of them didn't harbour thoughts of revenge. Cease fucking up peoples lives, and it doesn't occur to them that they should make great sacrifices in order to fuck up yours. Even the religous hardliners would remain obsessed with more mundane and visible blasphemies closer to home if the USA wasn't so visible as the motherlode of injustice and evil in the world (which is how it is likely to appear if you live in a nation or area that is constantly at the receiving end).
Other countries have found other methods of getting most of what they need, and trying to not pursue "Strategic Interests" likely to cause long-term problems. In comparison, the US approach of "We're the greatest so screw you - we'll do as we please" does not seem so smart, even if it does bring better oil and coffee (and who knows what else) prices in the short term. I can't see anything changing though - it doesn't matter that it's unnecessary, it's part of the US culture and mindset now.
Re:Some more real-world experience (Score:2)
Pretty much right on with everything I've mentioned so far. It is refreshing to see someone else on
Re:...but will it keep up with the upgrades? (Score:3)
They had a problem with the atmosphere curving the beam. They were using something new, a mirror that could be adjusted on the fly, extremely fast, it's in the nose. Turbulence is very very slow compared to targeting and firing. The only other thing they mentioned was that it was a chemical laser.
Later,
ErikZ
Re:Smooth move USAF (Score:2)
Check these links for more info:
http://www.andrews.af.mil/89aw/jag/LOAC%20Points%
http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html [asociety.com]
They had originally proposed LIDAR (Score:2)
Working on ground based LIDAR tracking (on top of a volcano), my employers were naturally interested in this contract. It never materialized...
YAL-1A (Score:5)
The airframe is a Boeing 747-400F, a standard commercial freighter, with modifications to house the laser.
Testing is slated to begin as early as 2003, with a seven-plane operational fleet in service as early as 2009.
The laser is to be a multi-megawatt oxygen-iodine system. A multi-hundred-kilowatt system was successfully flight-tested in 1998.
The system uses "adaptive optics," mirrors which can be deformed to correct for atmospheric effects such as "thermal bloom," the heating of air by the laser, causing distortion (like looking down a hot road).
The project is run by the Air Force Research Labs Directed Energy Directorate, based at Kirtland AFB, NM, and has been around in some form or other for at least 20 years.
Contractors include Boeing, TRW Space and Electronics Group (developing laser), and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (developing beam- and fire-control systems).
Boeing and Rockwell competed for a $22 million concept-definition contract, with Boeing winning that contract, and the $1.3 billion Airborne Laser Program Definition and Risk Reduction contract.
The program calls for destruction of a boosting theater ballistic missile by the fall of 2002.
A follow-on contract of about $4.5 billion to complete engineering, manufacturing, development and production efforts of a seven aircraft fleet will be awarded following successful completion of the initial contract.
t ml [af.mil]. Incidentally, the best description I've ever found of the optical technology can be found in Tom Clancy's The Cardinal of the Kremlin.
There were some really neat pictures of the airplane on the USAF website www.af.mil [af.mil], as well as a couple of stories, but they've been relegated to the archives. One of those stories, from which most of this information is taken, can be found at http://www.af.mil/news/Jan2000/n20000124_000101.h
An additional note: there was mention that a computer would fire the laser, not a person. This is true, at least after a fashion. Yes, the computer actually fires the laser--this is necessary, as there is no human out there who has the timing to hit an object moving at 12,000 miles an hour. The system must first be armed, though, and this is done by a human. While I do understand the concern about a computer controlling the weapon, in this case, there is still a man in the loop.
Political ramifications? (Score:5)
But it seems like, given enough computing power and electricity, a couple of these 747s could blow away a whole bunch of missiles in a relatively short amount of time. And because they are flying and not fixed on our soil, or on soil at all, they don't violate the 1972 ABM treaty either. Since the incoming administration seems very gung-ho about implementing missile defense (which is a very stupid idea... but that's another thread), it seems like this system could be the answer to their prayers, so to speak. I'm curious why more senators & congressmen haven't jumped on board with more funding for this program, or why it has recieved relatively little publicity given that the failure of our ballistic MD tests made international headlines last year.
--
Re:YAL-1A (Score:5)
Obviously, this guy isn't playing on the same Quake 3 servers as I am.
----
Skynet? (Score:2)
Again, when will it become self-aware?
You have been misguided (Score:5)
Especially about the gentle giant. 747 is a subject to additional USAF and NATO requirements and all 747s currently in operation are subject to draft in case of military emergency. Which actually happened during the Gulf War. The airlines were extremely pissed off but there was nothing they could do.
It is not a gentle giant. It is a military transport aircraft. It is redundant by the military, not the civil aviation spec (check the engine redundancy and power excess parameters for example). And it was already used in several projects as a carrier for Star Wars weapons (mostly missiles and stuff). So nothing new. Nothing amazing.
Re:What about the KAL flight 007 tragedy? (Score:2)
There can never be a 100% guarantee that firing on an aircraft is what you plan or intend to do. However, when an unfortunate tragedy takes place, those countries (or organizations, in the case of NATO) who follow LOAC will own up to the error and take the necessary measures to determine what punishments - if any - are appropriate.
My comment was particulary aimed at the arguement that "all 747s" are now targets. There are plenty of means to authenticate aircraft (and, yes, I'm aware that IFF doesn't always work correctly) that should prevent the tragic losses that would inevitably take place without those means.
Re:Chrome is ineffective (Score:2)
What a Gigawatt+ laser does have is lots and lots of energy! Even if *some* of the energy is reflected, the vast majority is still imparted to the mirrored surface, thus degrading the missle's hull as stated in the CNN article or burning through it altogether.
Damn... (Score:2)
Re:...but will it keep up with the upgrades? (Score:2)
--
Knowledge is power
Power corrupts
Study hard
Re:The uses (Score:2)
Real Genius (Score:2)
No passengers/cargo though... (Score:2)
I've seen this in action (Score:2)
--Brogdon
What about the KAL flight 007 tragedy? (Score:3)
The NATO forces were purportedly running Cobra Ball surveillance runs in the area in question that night. Cobra Ball planes are made out of Boeing RC-135 airframes, which are derivatives of the Boeing 707 and look like a large 707 in profile. While they're obviously different in profile, someone could accidentally mistake one for the other in the heat of a tense situation.
This translates into a dangerous in the dark situation where someone in a combat plane might mistake a civillian airliner with a military plane and shoot it down- which is what aparently happened in the case of KAL 007.
Now this takes into account the prospects of a situation where the countries and the people involved are aware of the "Law" of Armed Conflict (which really isn't a law but an agreement between most of the potential combattants in a conflict- that's usually honored). What about the others that aren't in on the agreements or just don't give a damn?
Re:Beam weapons (Score:2)
Mostly, though, this reminds me of the Allied side's "Prism" technology- essentially lasers. You can have prism towers for defence, and if you have more than 1 they can reflect off each other, it's rather interesting.
I think this should be called a "Prism Jet"- cuz that's basically what it is.
----
Educated guesses on problems (Score:5)
- Powerful lasers can ionize the air along the path, creating a plasma barrier that subsequently stops/hinders the laser beam. General workarounds include pulsing the beam to "beat" a path through the atmosphere or using a large enough beam so the total energy is high but the power at any given point is low.
- A temperature gradient in the atmosphere results in an index of refraction gradient. This will cause the beam path to deviate from a straight line. (This is the cause of mirages - hot road, cool air == large temperature gradient). If the gradient is large enough or the beam distance far enough, the beam could be moved significantly off-target (according to a straight-line estimate). I'd guess this is not an issue for this system, but I don't know.
- Scattering. If there are clouds, then there are water droplets or perhaps ice crystals, which will scatter and absorb the laser beam to various extents (depending on the wavelength chosen). Then will reduce or eliminate the laser's effectiveness. Solutions include selecting a wavelength that is not scattered or absorbed strongly by water, and praying for good weather
- Maintaining laser alignment. The mirrors in a laser (assuming it isn't a solid state laser) have pretty low tolerances for their position. Maintaining the alignment in a hostile environment (e.g. loud, bumpy 747 ride) might be a challenge. But, feedback-based stabilizing systems have been around for years, so this was probably dealt with pretty readily.
Anyhow, just some thoughts from an optics geek.
And remember, do not look directly at the laser with your remaining good eye.
-----
D. Fischer
Re:No passengers/cargo though... (Score:2)
There's already a refueling jet based off of the DC-10, I think it's designated the KC-10.
Doesn't matter if they have similar radar fingerprints, passenger jets get shot down all the time, mistaken identity (that Iranian jet in the 80's) or not (KAL 007).
Missile Recognition (Score:2)
Re:Interesting concept... (Score:2)
When intercepting ICBMs, there is a very narrow window of time where it will be feasible (considering the potential limited range the weapon will have).
This plane will likely be part of a large system, connected to ground computers, and radar stations all over the world. When the SYSTEM detects a missile, and determines what it is, and where it's headed, and calculates which flying laser platform would be in the best position, THEN it will order the laser to fire, probably within a time window of a few seconds. It's not likely a human will be involved in any decision making process other than initially turning the system on.
Great parody material (Score:2)
Is Missle Defence Technology Relevant? Necessary? (Score:2)
This is what upsets me about any missile defence program dreamed up by the US Military:
1. They are designed to shoot down missiles from "rogue states", all of which are showing increasing signs of political stability (Iran and North Korea are often quoted).
2. Launching a missile at the US, regardless of the choice of device in the tip, is suicide. Send a scud, and all your launchers will be destroyed. Send a nuke, and say goodbye to your country.
3. Does the high technology match the threat? In Somalia, high tech was no match for a pickup truck with a machine gun mount in the back. Recently, in Yemen(?) a destroyer was almost sunk by a small boat packed with explosives and guided by suicide bombers. How will missile defense deal with a suitcase nuke? How will nose mounted laser deal with a missile heading for it's lower back end?
4. Why risk scrapping nuclear anti-proliferation treaties which forbid the development of missile killers such as a missile shield or a laser-747? The last thing the world needs is the renewed nationalist and isolationist tendencies that would result from an arms race. Both Russia and China have made great strides towards the open market, and towards more equitable treatment of their citizens since those treaties were signed. It makes sense: if you're not using most of your resources on defense/offense, you can better your society.
5. Most importantly, this is incredibly expensive. $60B for a missile defense shield, $1.6B for the 747's ... Wouldn't the American people prefer improved schools, healthcare, or even tax cuts? All of these pay a much higher social dividend... unless you're a company/person involved in military R&D.
I apologize if this seems like a rant, but the above issues never seem to be addressed by the proponents of anti-missile systems... and darn would I ever like an answer!
So why do we need a Missle defense system? (Score:2)
Re:Cool but a BFT (Big F*SCKING Target) (Score:2)
Why do you think that if the laser can shoot for seven minutes, it MUST shoot for seven minutes to do any damage? Where did you get this info? Nowhere in the article does it say this, in fact it DOES say The laser has about only an 18-second "kill window" in which to lock on and destroy a rising missile, said Wills
Wow, I found something to support my argument, your turn.
And just like AWACS, it's a valuable target - in a real air war, AWACS would be a strategic target - the enemy would fly sorties against AWACS, presumably enough to take out the surrounding guards as well.
I apologize that all the conflicts the US has gotten into haven't been 'Real' enough for you. The reason the enemy hasn't been able to fly a sortie against them is because the CO does his damnest not to let them. I'm still curious on how you're going to shoot this thing down.
Again, I stay over the horizon (out of your LASER range) and fire my AA missiles at you. I don't know the official range of AA missiles, but it's more than enough for me to fly behind you and not actually cross the horizon and be in the line of sight of the laser. And I can do a quick 180 vertical loop and then rotate level and hit the afterburner to get away after the missiles are away.
Ahh, more "Wing Commander" tactics. Last time I looked, an Over the Horizon Missile required an AWACS to operate. I don't believe any other country besides the US even has the tech, for the missile. Lets assume you're a fully supported rogue pilot, for the sake of argument. You're directly behind me, beyond the range of my weapon, and you fire off your missile, which has the range to hit me.
ASSUMING, this new pride and joy of the Air Force has ABSOLUTELY no Electronic Warfare gear on it and
ASSUMING there is no friendly AWACS in the area to warn me of incoming fighters and
ASSUMING that this Anti-missile aircraft is the only one within 400 miles.
What would happen is this, the missile would be picked up on infra-red, I turn the plane, say, 90 degrees, shoot down missile. Yawn.
I have no idea how fast your missile is going, lets be generous and say 10,000 mph. To cross 400 miles it would require 2 minutes and 24 seconds (Ignoring acceleration time) leaving me plenty of time for me to turn my plane.
(Most counter-measures rely on the craft being smaller and being able to move rapidly away from the counter-measure - I'm not sure how much flares/chaff would help a 747.)
Flares? Chaff? How cute. I was a EW tech in the USAF. The stuff that goes on big planes can scramble missile guidance pretty easily due to the MASSIVE power supplies available to it.
To sum, you're shooting a missile at a plane DESIGNED TO SHOOT DOWN MISSILES, how can you think this would be an easy kill?
ErikZ
Interesting concept... (Score:2)
Add to that the fact that 747 are 'commercially available' and it even becomes financially feasible... and you could use commercially trained pilots - rather than expensive fighter pilots.
Re:Interesting concept... (Score:2)
Just for the military... darn.. (Score:4)
Re:Chrome is ineffective (Score:2)
Re:Suitcase nuke (Score:4)
--
...but will it keep up with the upgrades? (Score:3)
I wonder how long it would be before someone else can develop a type of missile which isn't identified as such by this system? And how much more will it cost them to release a patch?
Against who? Flying saucers? (Score:2)
Chrome (Score:3)
--toq
Great, now 747's will be shot down all the time (Score:2)
I will be more comforable in an obvious civilian plane than in a possible war plane.
Old technology (Score:2)
Re:You have been misguided (Score:2)
Little did Lockheed now that Boeing would turn around and use the failed design to create one of the most successful commercial products of all time --which ultimately, along with the B-52, made Boeing into the giant that is today...
Disconcerting? (Score:3)
I find it more disturbing that such a 'weapon' is actually considered a bad thing by some politicians...
The computer part of it isn't anything surprising. When your dealing with aiming a weapon fired from a platform traveling ~400mph at something hundreds of miles away traveling even faster the average quake players aim isn't gonna cut it.
Re:Cool but a BFT (Big F*SCKING Target) (Score:2)
Re:The uses (Score:2)
Re:Cool but a BFT (Big F*SCKING Target) (Score:2)
Most of your arguement is very valid, I just have to diagree with this one point quoted above. The laser system is designed to attack ballistic missles, not AAM or SAM types. Computation for ballistic missles vs missles designed to attack planes are two very different things. The path of a ballistic missle is very predictable, it is going to be parabolic and is going up, not to mention it is a VERY large target. Trying to hit something that is coming at you, which is constantly correcting so as to be able to hit, and attacking facing in such a way to give you the least amount of target it not going to be a walk in the park. According to your arguement the side of a ballistic missle going in a predetermined parabolic arc is just as easy as hitting the cone of an AAM moving in a dynamic path. I think you have been playing the humans on StarControl too much if you think it can just zap everything that tries to attack it, because it doesn't work that way.
It has an 18 second window to hit the target. My guess is that the system designed to target is so speciallized so as to be able to get that 18 second window and fire that it probably cannot cope with other targets. Fighters would be the hardest because it they knew that they were going against something like that they would take precautionary manuvering, if complex enough (which is probably not very complex), would prevent the computer from being able to predict where the plane would be, and thereby prevent it from aiming and firing. Sure, nothing moves faster than the speed of light (as a physic major I know that all to well) but there are mechanical parts used for aiming in order for it to fire, which do not move at the speed of light. And unlike a missle which corrects after launch, or gunfire where it is a near continuous volley, if you miss then you have ~18 seconds before you have another shot.
Although the USAF ECM is very good, if I was in one of these and some fighter managed to get close enough to start launching some AAMs at me I would start doing some pretty serious manuvering to not get hit. Then I would be requesting back-up asap. They aren't invincible, just as carrier groups aren't invincible. If it was being attacked I very much doubt that it would be a lone fighter, unless it was the only thing left after the escort was delt with.
There's even a website for it (Score:3)
Re:So why do we need a Missle defense system? (Score:2)
a Shoot an enemy missile down over your own towns and cities
b Shoot that sucker down over the towns and cities of the idgits shooting at us?
This ain't a Romulan disrupter (we're still working towards that), when you hit the missile, it's going to fall down. A falling warhead is still going to do it's job.
And on the space-environmental front, if we blow this stuff up before it gets up in the air, well that's less orbital debris : )
Put the laser INSIDE!!! (Score:2)
Smooth move USAF (Score:2)
Now an enemy knows that the US has 747's used to shoot down missiles. Doesn't that suddenly make every 747 in the sky a suspect? Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems likely in stressful times to make civilian airliners a legitimate target.
----------------------------------
Re:So why do we need a Missle defense system? (Score:2)
But as you indicated, it doesn't have to explode to kill. And you assume that all warheads are nukes. I would'nt be as worried about a nuke, which only affects a geographic area, as I would about BioChem weapons.
The point being, you don't want the wreckage falling on your country.
Re:Second Hand experience (Score:2)
Thank you, that is exactly how I wanted to put it.
Re:Fuck Diplomacy (Score:2)
That sounds like a pretty big double standard if you are defending US actions in/against other sovereign nations.
It's easy for the little countries to cry about abuse of power. They've never abused their power, but then again they've never been in the situation the United States finds itself in.
I completely disagree. I can think of a several countries who, in their theatre of the world, are in exactly the same position and power, yet do not act with the same belligerence, aggression, or paranoia. (Of course, I can also think of countries who, in the same position, did act with the same belligerence and paranoia, or worse).
The "but the USA is unique and so is above ethical judgement" arguement just doesn't work. Other countries have been in the position that the US is in, and other countries currently are in similar positions. There is far and away enough preceedent to see that abuse of power IS a choice, NOT a necessity of situation. By your line of reasoning, any of the great abusive dictators of history had every right to do what they did.
The unfortunate irony is that where there once were no terrorists, abuse creates them. And then the US cries foul when it reaps its entirely predictable harvest, and then steps up the abuse...
One step soltuion to the "problem" of terrorists - stop creating them in the first place!
Re:I can see it now... (Score:2)
Even MICROSOFT could write software which could reliably tell the difference between a subsonic target in steady, level flight with a minimal heat signature and a supersonic target accelerating in a near-vertical tragectory that's putting out enough thermal energy to boil a small lake.
Unless someone's started making biplanes that can do 10G+ vertical climbs while spouting a 1/4 mile long plume of flame out of it's ass, I don't think there's going to be much of a problem. About the only event which could be confused with a missle launch is a civilian space shot - and those are announced MONTHS (if not YEARS) in advance, so that people with nuclear arsenals don't get itchy trigger fingers.
All I want is... (Score:4)
-Dr Evil
Well... (Score:2)
But, I've seen "Moonraker."
Re:So why do we need a Missle defense system? (Score:3)
So.. (Score:5)
Real Genius anyone? (Score:3)
Re:Computer delays fire (Score:2)
we used to bullseye womp-rats in my T-16 back home, and they're not much bigger than 10 ft.
Missile Command! (Score:2)
I'd like to see more info on how they solved the
problem. I'm sure it helps that a laser beam travels a bit faster than a projectile, but there
would still be some sort of tracking problem to solve, wouldn't there?
--
Beam weapons (Score:2)
Someone has even figured a way to come up with "phasers" that stun a person. Two laser beams ionize the air enough to provide the path of an electric current. sort of like a taser(?) without the wires.
In any case, I am sure we will here more of this sort of thing.
The US looks like it is walking in the direction of high tech beam weapons, etc. while the under developed nations go in the direction of bioweapons.
An interesting balance of power, to say the least.
Re:Chrome is ineffective (Score:2)
Secondly, you can't coat a missile with reflective surfaces. Not entirely anyway, nothing that would be like a mirror (laser focusing type) so it would just take a little fraction longer for it to burn through the reflective surface if it isn't near 100% reflective.
That is why you can still blow up a reflective surface with a mirror, is because it's not a perfect reflective surface, and still catches the energy. The targetting mirrors are just very very very finely tuned so that it does not catch as much energy. Another reason why there are Red lasers, instead of say.. blue, indigo, or violet. Red lasers are of a lower frequency on the radiation band (Remember ROYGBIV color spectrum?). You can't harness the power of a violet laser, because the energy is just too intense and it takes too perfect of a mirror to refract the beam - way beyond our abilities.
Re:Chrome is ineffective (Score:2)
By my (quick) calculations, if the laser produces a beam at 600nm with 1 gigawatt of power, the beam delivers about 3.3 Newtons of force, assuming the photons are absorbed. If they're reflected, the force increases, but the calculations get slightly messy. A nearly perfectly reflective surface might feel about 6 Newtons... If that's concentrated to a spot 1 cm in diameter, that's about 42,000 Pascals of pressure. Not huge, but nothing to laugh at. There's also that 1 gigawatt of energy...
"no human finger" (Score:2)
After all, its hard to teach a human operator about things like barrel warp.
Re:...but will it keep up with the upgrades? (Score:2)
What happens if you include a tank of, say, liquid nitrogen, on the missile? For the first few seconds, during which thermal launch detection probably takes place, blast the liquid nitrogen into the exhaust stream, afterburner-style. It would cool off the exhaust gasses and reduce the thermal signature, and also provide a significant boost in thrust (help offset the weight cost). If you can carry enough on the missile, you could really screw up launch detection systems. Also, by spraying some into the exhaust now and then later in flight, you might be able to break a target lock by temporarily eliminating the thermal signature.
The only obvious problems I see are weight and thermal stress on the exhaust nozzle.
Re:Suitcase nuke (Score:2)
It's possible the US could end up in a war with China, (maybe over Taiwan). This is why a missile defense system is a good idea. I have nothing against the Chinese people, and nuking them to punish their government for nuking us would hardly be fair (this is where MAD falls flat). It would be much better to ensure that they can't nuke the US. There are two ways to do that--a first strike, or anti-ballistic missile technology. Which do you prefer?
As for suitcase nukes, those would necessarily be low-yield, and there are quite possibly already measures in place to detect those.
Re:Is Missle Defence Technology Relevant? Necessar (Score:2)
ICBM technology is every bit as difficult to develope as the nuclear warhead it carries. The result is that "Rogue Nations" (excluding the USA) often get the nuke before the ICBM.
Terrorists, on the other hand, are likely to only be able to get their hands on the nuke, not ICBMs.
Regardless of whether you have ICBMs or not, to bomb the USA, a suitcase makes an infinitely better delivery system for a rogue state or terrorist.
So what is the tactical effect of the shield? It renders null and void the "Nuclear Deterrant" capabilities of the nuclear powers, yet doesn't affect the terrorists or rogue states.
Hold on a minute - but if Russia or China are suddenly looking at a foreign nuclear power that has deliberately neutralised their nuclear defence (deterrance - M.A.D.), or even attempted to do so, they would be insane to not develope a new nuclear defence. (In their place, Americans would demand nothing less, and probably a lot more.)
So the USA will then discover that China is developing missiles specifically designed to penetrate the USA missile shield. Insert paranoia - What possible reason could China be doing that unless they intended to use those missiles against the USA? We are in Imminent Danger! Action Must Be Taken!
Can you see where this is going?
And through all of it, the terrorists and rogue states have a delivery system that penetrates the shield with ease.
What utter idiocy.
The reason behind the shield, as comes across in public advocacy seems to be a need for patriotic military wanking off in the knowledge that "We're The Greatest!" and the arguments just window dressing for an unspoken desire to have solid In-Your-Face proof of how great we are.
Do the people advocating it even care about NPTs? They genuinely don't seem to give a rat's ass (though they claim otherwise). Scary.
Ye shall reap what ye sow.
Except when it comes to nukes, it's more like we (innocent civilians) reap what they sow.
If a shield won't stop terrorist nukes, what will? Telling the CIA (and others) to stop creating the terrorists in the first place by fu(king people over would be a nice start.
While it massages the ego to think that terrorists or rogue nations hate you because they envy your wealth and power, in the real world beyond hollywood, tit-for-tat is the motive.
Re:Suitcase nuke (Score:2)
Heck, put in on a boat in the harbor of any major coastal city, and you can make it a LOT bigger. Take out all of New York, or DC/Baltimore. You don't need any special knowledge or even much cleverness.
Robert Heinlein outlined just this possibility back in a short story in the 50's. Some Americans were hubric about nuclear attack, because it was thought that ICBMs were impossible and any aircraft would just be shot down.
-jon
No it doesnt make sense (Score:2)
I think the LAST thing we need is for enemies to have a reason to start classifying passenger liners as "potential threats". Fire one or two blasts at, say, Iraq from a Boeing, and I'm sure they'll start to feel damn nervous whenever a passenger liner from the US enters their airspace.
It's bad enough that it *does* actually happen now and again that passenger liners are destroyed after being mistakenly classified as military threats. One of the more famous such incidents (I can't remember the name of the flight, but they did make a movie about it) there is *still* speculation that the cause involved the US military putting spy cameras on passenger liners in the hopes that they could do spying without being shot down, if it was the case they were wrong. That was just spy cameras. Imagine huge laser cannons. Nobody will know anymore if a passenger liner is a threat or not, so they'll just destroy them for good measure, like they did with abovementioned incident (IIRC the plane was flying *incorrectly* over Russian military airspace, nobody has been able to adequately explain why the plane went there at all.)
Re:...but will it keep up with the upgrades? (Score:2)
And that's the problem: how do you provide good input data? How do you train the net? There's precious little research in extracting from a neural net exactly what rules it is using to make its decision. If you can't know what rules it is using, then you can't trust it's "opinions." It might have learned cloudy sky/clear sky or it might have learned good guy plane/bad guy plane. You won't know until it's too late.
-jon
Why use a laser? Why not... (Score:3)
Actually, the threat of deploying 5,000 Minnesota-St.Paul's baggage handlers (the ones who think that US mail is made by Spalding) would be enough to make any of these lunatic rogue nations think twice.
It's worked before - Thatcher threatened once to deploy 10,000 medium-range Millwall soccer fans and that stopped a potential armed conflict right there.
Re:Suitcase nuke (Score:2)
--
Re:Educated guesses on problems (Score:2)
As for scattering, I think I remember reading (quite some time ago, could have been in Popular Science) that the chemical laser emits in the near-infra-red range, circa 1000nm. At that wavelength, water does very little scattering.
As for the ionization and mirror alignment problems, they must have convinced Congress they were solved. What that really means is anyone's guess.
Maybe MS will write the software... (Score:4)
Re:No passengers/cargo though... (Score:2)
Could be VERY bad if a Passenger-Carrying 747 was mistaken for a military unit -- likely VERY similar radar fingerprints, etc.
Re:The uses (Score:2)
Flying or shooting? The latter would be pretty impressive, the former would make it barely worth taking off. I'm assuming you mean "can hit a target at 120-150 miles", and not "can fly on patrol for 120-150 miles"....
Re:Second Hand experience (Score:3)
These are all very good ideas/questions, and I wish to comment on them. But keep in mind I'm just a nerd following the news as it happens, not a scientist working behind the scenes.
1. The laser could be depoyed indefinitely to the region of conflict at lower cost.
Not neccessarily. A 747 is very expensive, but a boat big enough and fast enough to carry the laser and still fulfill the mission is probably almost as expensive. Further more, a boat probably isn't the best choice strategically, as I'll point out below. (Note however that my expertise is limited to aircraft, not ships. Don't take it as a bias, though.
2. It would also allow the laser to fire while the missile was still slow, full of fuel, and very close to the ground.
Perhaps, but bear in mind that one of the key points of the "airborne" laser is that the missle can be shot down at any point of its trajectory, preferably high up in the atmosphere near its apex, or over the territory of the ones who launched it if such action were justified. An aircraft is probably the preferred vehicle because they can go literally anywhere on the earth's surface (with a ship, you'd be limited to the launch sites that happen to be relatively close to the coast), and they are at least an order of magnitude faster than ships.
3. The larger payload of a ship would allow the laser to be much more powerful than one deployed on a 747.
Very right, but the laser that will be installed on the 747 is already the largest laser in the world. There is the issue of practicality. You may be able to have a higher powered laser on a ship capable of destroying a missle 500 miles away (versus the Airborne Laser's 200), but you run the risk of not getting there on time or at all.
4. The cost and risk of deploying 747s to a theater of operations could be prohibitive.
That's never stopped the Air Force before.
1. Would a big, slow ship be more vulnerable to counterattack than a big, slow 747?
Speaking relatively, I'd say a ship would be MUCH slower and therefore vulnerable to attack than a 747. Airplanes can attack ships effectively and ships can attack ships effectively, but the only thing that can attack airplanes effectively is airplanes. (If that made much sense...)
2. Would water vapor present at the surface diffract the beam so much it became unusable? For that matter, what about inclement weather?
Good question... I'm inclined to believe that things on the surface such as water vapour and weather would lessen the power of such a weapon. Whereas at high altitudes above the clouds, you let little else than clean and thin air.
All that aside, putting a laser weapon system on a ship in the future could very well be a good strategy. Probably not for shooting down global-reach missles, but for shooting down enemy aircraft overhead (remember, lasers track quite well) or for attacking other ships.
(Still need to find a way to get at those damn submarines!)
Re:...but will it keep up with the upgrades? (Score:2)
Maybe this plane uses similar technology to identify missiles during launch.
By the way, Vela and related technologies played a major role in anti-test treaties - they enabled the US and USSR to verify that the others weren't testing missiles.
Re:Second Hand experience (Score:2)
Well, "ding.wav" probably sounds, along with a popup "Fatal Error" message which lets you click only on OK, rebooting the plane.
Evil plan (Score:4)
<pinky>one *million* dollars</pinky>
Re:Put the laser INSIDE!!! (Score:2)
Still just another tool (Score:2)
While I can sympathize with the discomfort that the system will fire itself, I don't think we are (yet) at the point where we should fear the technology. After all, there are still people deciding where the plane will fly and what the rules of engagement will be for the laser.
This system is far more refined in its targeting capabilities than nuclear weapons. Nukes take out whole cities indiscriminately, this will only -- okay, it's designed to only -- take out missles and aircraft. Missles are obviously not civilian, so that only leaves the possibility of targeting the wrong aircraft. And since anyone flying a plane should know how to use the radio, there shouldn't be cases of civilians accidentally ending up in the path of an autonomous system.
When someone decides to apply an AI to deciding what is a target to begin with, then we'll have gone too far.
Re: Use the Force, Luke (Score:2)
Frequency of light? (Score:2)
Re:So why do we need a Missle defense system? (Score:2)
Watch for mysterious air crashes of commercial jets carrying high-level officials from other countrys soon. . .
Re:Smooth move USAF (Score:5)
Since the aircraft will be a combatant vehicle, it will have to be CLEARLY marked with insignia showing that fact. It will have the ubiquitous "U.S. Air Force" on the side, star/stripe logo on the wings, etc, etc.
Just realize that the Af has been flying commercial aircraft retrofitted to do other duty for years and years - most WWII cargo craft were McDonnell Douglas civilian carriers, and there are many incarnations of the 707-737 variety in service today.
Not to mention that the large lens that is needed to make this platform a reality makes the nose bulge in an unmistakable way.
BOttom line - don't worry. It's nothing new.
That's Really Genius (Score:2)
You're right. It's been discussed since about 1985. [imdb.com]
Re:Suitcase nuke (Score:3)
As for suitcase nuclear weapons being "low-yield", Hiroshima-style fission weapons were pretty low-yield, but they managed to kill about 100,000 people each, and detection is a joke. The US spends billions on interdicting drug smuggling, and misses approximately 90% of it. Puh-leeze!
Look, the Chinese leadership may be made up of power-hungry barbarians, but they aren't stupid.
Re:Suitcase nuke (Score:2)
MAD doesn't work if one of the two parties is insane.
Really? Then kindly explain to me why China has not launched a full-scale nuclear attack against the United States.
Second, you know as well as I do that there definitely aren't measures in place to detect low-yield nuclear devices. What are they going to do, place a Geiger counter onn every street corner? Or are you so naive as to presume that the US really does control the flow of people into and out of this country, and hence what they bring into it as well? Apparently you do not live in the southern parts of Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California, nor have you ever attempted to purchase drugs in the US.
Third, somewhere in there the fact that missile defense isn't the only way to protect democratic nations from tyrannical hegemons seems to have been lost on you. You'll recall (I hope) that China has not in fact invaded Taiwan, thanks much in part to the hard diplomatic tack that the United States has taken against any and all aggressive movements from the former towards the latter. The same goes for Iraq and surrounding countries, post-Gulf war. NMD is just a diplomatic tool, and a flawed one at that. It's clear, to me, that the its costs - namely precipating a regression in foreign relations with Russa & China to pre-Cold War levels - far outweighs whatever benefits it might offer.
--
Re:Disconcerting? (Score:2)
That's because you're missing the point. Sure, on the surface, being able to shoot down possible missiles might be a good thing, but looking at the big picture, is it a good thing to damage other country's defences against nuclear attack (deterrence), resulting in them needing - for their own safety - to develope new missiles that you can't shoot down, thus reducing the lasers/shields/whatever to useless billion dollar money-burning exercises, and provoking fears in the USA that they are planning an attack (why else develope missiles specifically designed to penetrate the US's best defences?) resulting in the ante being upped once again...
All this really becomes a problem when you consider how many trillions of dollars end up being wasted on an arms race that a) doesn't actually deliver any strategic advantage, and b) destabilises the world.
Why not just burn the money - everyone ends up just as poor, but at least global stability isn't threatened. You'll be safer than having a shield in an unstable world.
For more information (Score:3)
I believe you will find it informative and of relevance to this story.
Re:...but will it keep up with the upgrades? (Score:4)
Now, if they start wanting to use it on planes as well they're going to have to really watch it and make sure the computer can pick out the right guy or gal!)... sometimes the IFF (Identify friend or Foe) doesn't work or is turned off to lower the aircraft's emissions.
Cool but a BFT (Big F*SCKING Target) (Score:4)
But don't think this is going to be a "Battlestar Gallactica" with wings. The plane is going to be one great big high-value target. It will need escort fighters, tankers to refuel the fighters, maybe an AWACS to manage things,... you get the idea. Then there needs to be a ground base to maintain the laser system, housing for the technicians, facilities.... Multiply by the number of aircraft necessary to provide 24x7 defense of an area and you begin to get an idea of the difference between a one-off technology demonstration and a real weapon system.
Re:The uses (Score:4)
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. There are just some times when the military needs a couple of gigawatts of directed energy in a self-propelled package! If we had a couple of these in the Gulf War, we probably would have done better shooting down SCUDs. That's the sort of thing these are made for -- theater missile defense.
This weapons platform isn't made for popping fighter planes or tanks. I'm sure it could be re-tasked to that if they wanted. That would be an interesting battlefield...
The CNN article is quite good. It pulls together facts that I have in the past seen scattered all over, or that I had to get from the ABL guys when I met them at an air show. And when it talks about a fleet of these things -- they are serious. They will test a couple of prototypes, and if they work out, they'll build like 20 of them, according to the guy I talked to and the flyer he gave me.
One thing the article didn't mention was range, which I was told would be 120-150 miles. Whoop! I want one.
Second Hand experience (Score:5)
I am an enlisted member of the Air Force and first wish to note that I am not a member or participant of this project. I have no affiliation with it whatsoever. However, it is interesting use of technology to me and I've been following it very closely.
The official website: Airborne Laser [airbornelaser.com].
To be blunt, this isn't new news. It's been in design for a couple years now and they're just now getting ready to test fly the actual aircraft with the laser onboard pretty soon now. It's undergoing preliminary testing at the base I'm currently stationed at. (Kirtland AFB, NM)
The slashdotter's concern that a computer controls the laser should come as a surprise to no one. Almost every part of every aircraft and space vehicle is controlled primary by computers, to include weapons systems.
Perhaps there is the concern that this plane will go up, fly itself, and indiscriminately shoot down whatever it finds. That is bull. It will be flown by experienced pilots with expertly trained individuals operating the laser weapon systems. The computer *has* to be the one to "pull the trigger" because the calculations are far to numerous for humans to do. But the computer is always being operated by a person.
How it works is rather interesting. The crew first receives news of a missle launch somehow and it's approximate coordinates. The fly to the approximate area of the missle and try to identify it. Based on the type of missle it is, the computer picks out a specific spot to fire the high-powered laser at on the missle, (such as the fuel tank) to ensure its destruction. A tracking laser locks on to the missle while the high powered laser fires and destroys the missle within seconds. This is, of course, greatly simplified.
Hemos noted that this hasn't appeared on slashdot before.. that's partially correct. It's never been an actual story, but the conversation has come up many times before in the comments where discussion has been on the topic of US defense against global weapons. I know I've mentioned the airborne laser at least once to prove my point.