Boeing's Airborne Laser shines a light on a missile mid-flight, says 'Hey, there!'
By Tim Stevens 
posted August 14th 2009 10:58AM
posted August 14th 2009 10:58AM
As fans of Real Genius, we're as intrigued as you are by the concept of a flying laser the size (and shape) of a Boeing 747-400F, and have been tracking Boeing's test-flights of its Airborne Laser platform quite closely. The jet is designed to intercept and destroy missiles mid-flight, and a recent test showed that it can manage that first bit -- but it still hasn't achieved the second. In a test on August 10, it tracked and fired upon an in-flight target that was packing sensors; the sensors confirmed the hit and so the test was successful, but for some reason Boeing opted to not crank it up to the gigawatts and knock the thing down. That test is apparently planned for a "lethal demonstration against a boosting threat-representative ballistic missile target" later this year, so until then this thing is little more effective than a multi-billion dollar Care Bear. Boeing, we dig that targets of this sort are probably not cheap, but get on with the program already, yeah?
[Via The Huntsville Times]
Why wouldn't solar work? I'm sure it could be set up with some sort of capacitor/battery system, as the power is only going to be needed for a short period of time.
Instead of just a satellite, we need our own space station, kinda like that international one we have up there, but one with only US and allied interests...Then we can mount a laser on it and create a death star...maybe even mount some warheads as well so we can retaliate after blowing up the enemy warheads...or better yet make the laser powerful enough to wipe out a city...
Your assumptions are only correct if the aggressor launches their attack unprovoked. Because if there is a conflict escalating to anywhere near the point of nuclear warfare the plane would be deployed (with a fleet of tanker jets, no doubt) to the designated area during the escalation, before the missiles are actually launched.
However we are pretty screwed if a country just decides to go off and launch a few hundred ICBMs at us with no warning, however only a few countries have the capability and they have as much to lose as we do, thus there shouldn't be much to worry about.
Last i checked, we didnt provoke pearl harbor or 9/11, so i would have to assume that any attack be it nuclear or terror will be unprovoked.
And of course there wouldnt be any warning if a rogue country like Iran or North Korea decided to attach us. Yes its very unlikely and the whole death star talk was purely satirical, but just like pearl harbor and 9/11 it will be out of the blue if it ever happens.
I think contractors often game the system and suck as much money as they can out of a contract. That said, on the surface of it, I can't find any problems with this. Why would you deploy a fully functional laser without first being sure that you could get the targeting down.
Also, I think Engadget needs to stick more to consumer electronics and leave the commentary on stuff like this to Aviation Week/Janes.
I disagree with you. This is tech news, it's neat, and some of us like it. It's a blog, not all of the articles will interest you, that's why you have a scroll bar on your browser.
When will we stop wasting money and time playing cat and mouse with each other and instead build a laser weapon like the one that can destroy the sun from Transformers 2 that can shoot down an astroid that threatens human existance ... greed n power ... the future of humanity is sad.
Fu*k carebears, I like Gummy Bears
My issue is with the way the writers bend over backwards to throw in sarcastic and snide commentary, all in an effort to be witty, when they're discussing things outside of their usual competencies. It ends up making them look ignorant of the subject they're reporting on, when they actually may not be. I suggest a lesson from Joe Friday: Just the facts, ma'am.
Neat.. but of questionable value.
It could be useful for the defense of Japan and South Korea from North Korean tactical ballistic missiles. Although I would be quiet about its deployment since Kim Il-jong is a paranoid nut-case.
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to fire a ballistic missile at the US. The scenario we need a defense for is the black-market MIRV warhead stuffed in a Winnebago parked next to the Superbowl.
Can it hammer a six-inch spike through a board with its penis?
Major Carnagle: Where's the laser?
Professor Hathaway: It's coming.
Major Carnagle: It's coming? Ha! It's not even breathing hard.
Could someone please explain the ConOps of this plane to me. Near as I can tell we'd have to have them operate out of Japan and Europe with a large air refueling fleet to keep the planes airborne 24/7 , fighter/jammer aircraft cover to protect it, and an army of well payed contractors to roll around in the piles of cash this system represents to Boeing and NG. This system would require SAC-era flight plans with the planes circling near hot spots ready to fire the laser at a moments notice. And unlike SAC, Slim Pickens doesn't get to ride any bombs.
First the tech gets proven. Then the tech gets implemented. Then the tech starts to get improved, stronger, better, faster, and (here's the big one) smaller. Now it can fit on UAVs that are cheaper to build and operate. I'm thinking that if it could fit on a UAV, it would be all over the damn place faster than you could say "That laser burnt my ass!" They gotta make it work first though.
OK God.... Lemmmme have it!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
popcorn...
So what happens when an enemy chrome plates their missiles?
crispy critters!
I would think that thoughchrome is reflective, it is not reflective enough. The heat from the laser would discolor wherever it hits, negeting the reflectivity (?) and boom, no more missile.
off topic: Why does missile start with MISS? Is it a young lady island? Was an island the first target and they missed?
First off let me stress in NO way, shape, or form would I do this....hello out there in Fed land....
However these systems seem to be simply another way of making people feel better rather then actually solve a problem. Just like the TSA and keeping nail clippers off airplanes.
Every time I drive past the airport I see plenty of frontage roads that are obviously unmonitored. I see landing patters where a singer could easily intercept a landing aircraft that is fast decelerating and is at most maybe 200 yards away. A launched missile from that distance would take only a few seconds to impact. And I don't care how fancy your laser system is, its probably not going to pick it up and react before it gets in close enough to bypass any tracking a laser system could do. Also I looked at where these tests were done. They didn't say what type of missile and how far away it was launched both of which are important. However the island is 65 miles off the cost. Last say they did the test with the missile launch point and the plane even 2 miles out. Its not a legit test. A terrorist isn't going to have a $500,000 missile to fire at an airplane. They could easily have 3 or 4 guys scattered around an airport with a couple dozen stingers at a distance that is literally seconds away from impact after launch.
While I think research into this IS important and needs to be done so the tech can get cheaper and we can implement this on planes that are going into harms way (Think commercial flights into Israel.) On domestic flights the big threat is on landing and is where TSA should be focusing their efforts.
uhmm, this isn't about SAM (surface to air missile) defense; this is about theatre anti-ballistic missile defense to make our allies in NATO happy. This thing is designed to shoot down an nuclear-armed ICBM.
Boeing eh, so if airbuses suddenly become 'unreliable' by 'spontaneously getting burn holes' we know where to look.
Now they just need to paint it like one of those old fighters with the shark paint job...
The truth is they are afraid of initiating a laser arms race. Boeing and the Pentagon want a significant lead before actually "introducing" the weapons.