It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First successful airborne MTHEL test?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
A few moments ago Fox News claimed that the first test of the airborne Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser system has been completed and was a success. However, I cannot find any links to confirm this bit of news. If this is true, then the US and its allies have once again increased the gap between themselves and their neighbors as far as military capability is concerned. The ground based MTHELs successfully intercepted vollies of mortar rounds earlier this year in August. With this success, could the US and their allies now be free of any real ICBM threat? It is said that the ground based system will probably not be in use until 2013, but given the right circumstances I'm sure that date could be pushed ahead.


Edit:

I found a link, however it wasn't the big news that I expected. The Airborne Laser system successfully completed its "first light" event, which is little more than a targetless test fire. Regardless, this news has made it clear that the airborne laser system is functional. Whether or not the ABL can successfully target and destroy a missle (or any projectile for that matter) is still to be seen. This system is yet another experimental component of the anti-ballistic missile shield being developed by the US, UK, Australia and Israel.

The news release can be found at Boeing's official website.
Boeing

[edit on 12-11-2004 by veritas93]

[edit on 13-11-2004 by veritas93]




posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   
This is a big milestone, just because it didn't blow something out of the sky doesn't mean its not a big deal. This is one of the biggest challenges of the project. Grant-it it only fired for almost a second, but now they know the whole system works.

Its about time theres some good news on a ABL.





posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Good news indeed, I havent really heard much about the ABL in awhile. This system could have a very promising future in protecting the USA from a rogue nation ICBM strike.

[edit on 12-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I'm also pleased by this accomplishment, but it makes me wonder if this is just one more step towards another all out arms race. If within a few years the US and its allies could create an almost impenetrable shield around their ground forces protecting them against everything from mortar rounds to ICBMs, then I can imagine that most of the world would grow even more nervous. I believe that it was earlier this year at the White Sands missile range the US tested the MIRACL (the largest of the laser projects) on an orbitting satellite. While they claimed that the test was only meant to aid in the development of a laser resistant coating for our own satellites, it also showed that we could probably use it to start picking off those of other nations. I can see how all of this could easily get everyone back into an arms race, but this time the US and its allies would have an incredible head-start.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by veritas93]



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 01:19 AM
link   

veritas93
If within a few years the US and its allies could create an almost impenetrable shield around their ground forces protecting them against everything from mortar rounds to ICBMs, then I can imagine that most of the world would grow even more nervous.

The ABL is an only defensive, but as always, theres two sides to every coin.
It will be more then a few years till we put them on semi trailers, so for now it will be pac-3 system.


veritas93
I believe that it was earlier this year at the White Sands missile range the US they tested the MIRACL (the largest of the laser projects) on an orbitting satellite.

Yeah I also believe they have a capability to take out satellites with ground based lasers, and I believe the USAF refered to this capability when they said that if China uses Galileo (Europe's GPS) for war purposes then they would take out the satellite network. Because that's a bold statment for the US to make, and i doubt they would of said it if they couldn't back it up.


veritas93
I can see how all of this could easily get everyone back into an arms race, but this time the US and its allies would have an incredible head-start.

I dont think there will ever be another "arms race" because all big players allready have a but load of nukes.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by Murcielago]

[edit on 13-11-2004 by Murcielago]



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
I dont think there will ever be another "arms race" because all big players allready have a but load of nukes.


The new arms race would no longer be towards possession of nukes but to the ability to defend against them. That was the whole point of the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972. The US and the Soviet Union both knew that whoever achieved such a defence platform first would basically have the ability to nuke the other one while avoiding the threat of mutally assured destruction.

Possession of such a missile defence system would have seriously upset the balance at the time. That balance ended with the Cold War, so we (the US) have gone forward with these once banned programs. If the US achieves such a "missile shield", then we would most likely be able to use nukes against anyone we pleased. That is a frightening concept to me. Looks like back in 2000, China stated their concern that this might escalate into another arms race. Russia has been protesting since we abandoned the treaty of 1972. China says...

The only reason that I can think of that might prevent another true arms race in the near future is lack of competition. Right now it doesn't seem as though anyone can come up with the money to fund such projects. However, China will most likely be the next competitor. Russia has already suggested a combined effort of European powers to develope a missile shield that would counter the US, and has at one point even suggested possible US/Russian cooperation on a more global system. This whole thing could end with someone using nukes without fear of retaliation.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Nope, Russia wont get in on the US shield, the US hasn't and wont offer that to them. I believe Russia allready has its missile shield it place, they have had it for awhile now so I dont know how operational they keep it.

While the US is going full steam ahead trying to put up its own missile shield, so finally there will be no longer be an ICBM threat. Actually just a couple of days ago they put placed the sixth missile interceptor into its hole.
Although the big think now is critics say there wasn't enough testing done so the shield wont work good, but I believe that it will work (if it unfortunatly gets unexpectadly tested).
With radars like THIS I know that we will see the missile coming, I just nope that we can react fast enough to stop it before it gets to the US.


and I dont think a shield will start any sort of an arms race, besides the fact that the US is so far ahead of China in every aspect that we have allready won the race that hasn't been started.

No country will launch nukes at other countries thinking that their shield is so invincible that it cant be penatrated.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
I believe Russia allready has its missile shield it place, they have had it for awhile now so I dont know how operational they keep it.

Nothing that they might have could possibly compare to the newer systems that are being developed.



Although the big think now is critics say there wasn't enough testing done so the shield wont work good, but I believe that it will work (if it unfortunatly gets unexpectadly tested).

Keep in mind that the entire defence platform includes the Arrow Interceptors, the ABLs (not sure if the ground based MTHELs would be effective against ICBMs) and I'm sure a few others. I think that the Alaskan and Californian facilities house upwards of 100 of these interceptors each. Even if only one out of four interceptor missiles were successful, our enemy (whoever that may be at the time) would still have to toss dozens of nukes at us just so they could hit us with maybe one or two. With the laser systems in place, it would be pretty hard to do any real large scale damage.



No country will launch nukes at other countries thinking that their shield is so invincible that it cant be penatrated.

I don't think that anyone will ever be invincible, but we could throw the idea of mutally assured destruction out the door. That might make the idea of pushing the "button" seem a little less insane to somepeople.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   

veritas93
Nothing that they might have could possibly compare to the newer systems that are being developed.

I agree, our system will be better, but as of currently Russia's is better.

Yeah, were not relying on one system. If a country is that pissed at the US then we will know it, and if we dont take out all of their launching sites then that why we will have some ABL's circling near there country.

Do you have any links on that "100 interceptros" remark? Because they just installed the 6th in Alaska ans I thought that was the last one.


veritas93
would still have to toss dozens of nukes at us just so they could hit us with maybe one or two.

- If they hit LA on a work day morning they could kill millions of people! and i'm not ok with that.



That might make the idea of pushing the "button" seem a little less insane to somepeople.

ooooooooooooh, the environmentalist must love you.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Do you have any links on that "100 interceptros" remark? Because they just installed the 6th in Alaska ans I thought that was the last one.


Can't find any links that state an exact current number of missile per site. I was speaking of the future anyway (once the missile shield is complete). According the the ABM Treaty of 1972 (which the US military claims to still be following) no country may have more than two ABM sites within their borders and no site may have more than 100 missiles. In 1975 we had a base in Grand Forks, North Dakota, but that site was shut down due to its seeming uselessness against Russia during the Cold War. The Grand Forks site had 100 operational interceptor missile almost 30 years ago, so I assume that we would or will have that many sooner than later.
Ballistic Missile Defence
ABM Treaty 1972
NMD





ooooooooooooh, the environmentalist must love you.


I'm not saying that I'd think it was a good idea. It is a concern of mine to say the least



Edit:

Third link states that the Alaskan facility is being designed to house 100 interceptor missiles,

[edit on 15-11-2004 by veritas93]




top topics



 
0

log in

join