Mobile Laser Weapon for Tactical Missile Defense

With all this talk of North Korea threatening to launch a test missile which is making the US a little twitchy, I ask, why isnt there more talk of LASER Defence shields instead of using missles to intercept incoming ICBMs?

Missle defence shields has failed on many occasions - Starwars Project - and has been compared to trying to shoot down a bullet with a bullet.
www.stopstarwars.org...

The mobile LASER Defence system has been tested and has successfully shot down - Incoming mortar rounds, incoming artillery rounds, multiple incoming rockets & missles.
www.st.northropgrumman.com...

That demonstrates the extreme accuracy of the system.

www.irconnect.com...
Laser weapons operate by projecting a highly focused, high-power beam of light that delivers enough energy on a rocket or artillery projectile to explode it in midair. The cost per shot, primarily cost of the chemicals used to fuel the laser, is expected to be in the thousands of dollars-far less expensive than the cost of kinetic energy defense systems, in which a sophisticated rocket or projectile collides with a target to destroy it. Kinetic energy kill vehicles are not reusable.

www.irconnect.com...

There is also an airborne LASER unit where a Boing 747 has been converted into one big-ass LASER.
Heres a pic -www.boeing.com...

Mobile unit pic - www.st.northropgrumman.com...

And info - www.aviationnow.com.../09013top.xml

Baring this in mind, why should the US still invest technology & money into a ballistic anti missile shield instead of LASERs?





mod edit:
Quote Reference (review link)
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** (review link)





[edit on 27-6-2006 by UK Wizard]

the us is spending money on lasers the boeing ABL but the technology isnt ready yet althought the first scheduled test shoot for the full power lasers is planned in 2008 sometime so it isnt that far off. also there is a big difference between shooting down mortar and artillery shells and shooting down icbm's. my understanding of the ABL is that it is to become a part of the us's missile defence shield but only when ready. and as the name suggests it has to be airborne withing 300miles (i think) to destroy the icbm and so needs to have plenty of warning of the launch of the icbm which wont happen. missles on the other hand dont need to be airborne and can be fired at a minutes notice.

justin

Apparntley the 747 lurks at about 40,000ft which is high enough to see the curvature of the Earth & then will blow up the target over the enemy's own land.

There are also ship mounted versions and mobile units so it wouldnt be bad idea to have a couple ships in the middle of the pacific or where neccessary in strategic positions - especially if a potential threat is already known.

The shooting down of incoming missiles & artillery shows you how incredibly accurate this thing is and they already have had many successfull tests.

An ICBM is a much larger & faster target but if the plane is at 40,000 then it wouldnt matter, infact it might be easier because of the huge radar blip the ICBM would make.

Originally posted by Zenem
The shooting down of incoming missiles & artillery shows you how incredibly accurate this thing is and they already have had many successfull tests.

it shows how accurate it is over 100m not over 300 miles. patience dude. these planes are coming but will take another few yeas before they are fully functional and part of the us missile defence shield. this sounds like an amazing idea and i really hope it works as well as predicted. however till its shot down an icbm in a practice test not a computer simulation then we shouldnt get too excited.

im sure i was reading stuff about the ABL yesterday or maybe the day before ill have a look and see if i can find it.

justin

www.air-attack.com...

here we go
enjoy!

justin

i have said this before but no one replied, LASER is light, so wouldnt coating the missile with a light=-reflective coating counter the LASERs?

laser is light but it carries huge amounts of energy and it isnt the light that does the damage its the energy and this energy would melt straight through the reflective coat.

justin

Lasers onboard a 747 is such a poor solution. There would be a need for thousands of these 747's to accomodate an adequate missile defense system, and I just do not think the US government has the money to make it possible, nor the need.

the ABL is indeed a poor solution unless you have an idea where the missile will be launched from and then you can have an ABL hanging around until launch and them it can shoot it down. does anybody know if the ABL can shoot down the individual wardheads or does it have to hit the missile just after launch.

justin

Keep in mind, in order for a LASER to do damage, it needs a massive power source behind it in order to send light protons smacking into an object, you don't reflect protons, they go through things, the more power/wattage, the higher the velocity of the proton, and the higher the damage.

LASER is a coherent beam of light, Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

Shattered OUT...

but that would depend on the reflective index of the material, if it is kept high enough then wont the LASER reflect more than it would penetrate? plus as you guys pointed out the Boeing LASER is a very limited scope defense. i think the ideal defense would be satellite based emp pulse rays> any views on that?

Even with reflecting of photons tranfers part of it's energy to the target. This energy transfer would be large enough to damage the mirror layer very fast and after the surface is damaged , full power of the laser will start to penetrate the target (ie. full energy transfer)

Originally posted by northwolf
Even with reflecting of photons tranfers part of it's energy to the target. This energy transfer would be large enough to damage the mirror layer very fast and after the surface is damaged , full power of the laser will start to penetrate the target (ie. full energy transfer)

i didnt knew that, so is there any kind of defense against LASERs?
and are emps anygood? and also wont the 747 that will be used be visible to the enemy, coz if i am not wrong it attacks the missile when it is just fired?

Originally posted by vishu

Originally posted by northwolf
Even with reflecting of photons tranfers part of it's energy to the target. This energy transfer would be large enough to damage the mirror layer very fast and after the surface is damaged , full power of the laser will start to penetrate the target (ie. full energy transfer)

i didnt knew that, so is there any kind of defense against LASERs?
and are emps anygood? and also wont the 747 that will be used be visible to the enemy, coz if i am not wrong it attacks the missile when it is just fired?

I dont know if there is a defence for it but the idea is that the Laser will have a huge range and would be a able to shoot down an incoming missile from one continent to another, even destroying the ICBM over the land where it was launched.
A 747 still has to fly so a ship mounted version would be the best alternative because it could have a huge power supply for it & could be stationed in strategic positions covering/protecting huge areas.

I have even heard of smaller versions that may be possible to mount and attach to a humvee - but that is a long way off because of the power supply size.

Actually there are prototypes mounted on MBTs and APCs so a humvee isn't far off. They are not meant to shoot down ICBMs, but Mortar and artillery rounds and ATGMs.

Originally posted by vishu
i didnt knew that, so is there any kind of defense against LASERs?
and are emps anygood?

a super dense material that has an extremely high melting point and good heat absortion. but in this case prevention is far better than protection. emp might work depends on whether the missile is shielded or not.

justin

Just like to say a few things, the ABL is not intended to protect the US from every single ICBM in the world, so you don’t need thousands. Its intended target are states with limited missile capability IE Iran, North Korea. Since these states primarily operate liquid fueled missiles ABL will have more than enough time to position itself for a shot, basing the ABL in Japan and ME ensures this. Now, the ABL has a range of approximately 300 miles, at that distance you can forget about EMP. And since liquid fueled missiles have a boost phase which lasts several minutes the ABL can take multiple 5 second shots on target.

It's IRSS detects enemy missiles at hundreds of miles. First an enemy missiles exhaust plumes will set off the IR sensors,next a Co2 beam of light will measure it's distance speed,etc and all the other info for targeting. Next a track illuminator laser pinpoints a specific spot on the enemy missile,next a beam of light measures the atmosphereic turbulence between the ABl and the missile and the adaptive optics adjust as needed. Once all systems are go a high energy laser is fired and if it hits the missile for just a few seconds it will explode(fuel tank).I saw an episode of future weapons and the guy said from the time the first IR sensor goes off to the time the missile is destroyed, takes 8-12 sec approx.It's part of a layered defense so it doesn't have to intercept everything,it just takes the stress load off the midcourse and terminal interceptors.Every missile destroyed buys time for people to get to their local bomb shelters.

The Directed Energy Directorate's Starfire Optical Range (SOR) at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, is the Air Force's research center for ground-based laser beam control technology. Scientists successfully demonstrated the first use of a high-power laser to shoot down a flying vehicle nearly 27 years ago at the SOR.

www.afrlhorizons.com...

The Air Force and the Department of Defense initiated the ABL Preliminary Design and Risk Reduction program. The first important milestone was Authority to Proceed -1 (ATP-1). One ATP-1 requirement was to confirm the global validity of the turbulence design criteria, since 65 Cn2 profiles came from the continental United States, Hawaii, and the Azores. ATP-1 required that conditions be measured in theaters where the ABL might be used in all four seasons. The ABL Program Office and AFRL decided that scientists from the Space Vehicles Directorate would launch balloons to measure the turbulence in Northeast (NE) Asia and Southwest (SW) Asia for each of the four seasons during a two year period. In addition, scientists and engineers from the Directed Energy Directorate would measure airborne turbulence for the four seasons of one year.

In total, eleven Thermosonde missions were performed in fiscal year (FY) 97 and FY98 in NE Asia. The team also measured turbulence over two locations in SW Asia. Typically, 25 balloons were launched at each location for each season. In the end, the balloon and aircraft measurements verified the proposed ABL design for application of the weapon system in theaters of interest. With the successful completion of all requirements, the ABL program was given authority to proceed with the assembly of the first ABL aircraft.

www.afrlhorizons.com...

Here's something else to think about
www.marshall.org...



[edit on 29-6-2006 by urmomma158]

The obvious candidate still is to shoot down the 747, or why not use these lasers to shoot down jets and bombers? My best guess is that using lasers, especially in the air, is a ridiculous idea.

Originally posted by enaught
The obvious candidate still is to shoot down the 747, or why not use these lasers to shoot down jets and bombers? My best guess is that using lasers, especially in the air, is a ridiculous idea.

You underestimate their value. At 100's of miles i can shoot down inbound missiles and planes and ven achieve air superiority. Read my marhsall.edu link please. read my marhsall.edu link at the bottom of my last post.