Airborne Laser Weapon Sails Through Tests
© 2009 John C. Dvorak Cage Match


From New Scientist


Could ICBM weapons be a thing of the past?




The Pentagon may soon have a new anti-missile weapon - a high-powered laser fired from the nose of a large jet plane to destroy missiles soon after they leave the ground.

The latest video footage from the project reveals the results from a round of testing that ended in December 2008 (see our story on the tests). A prototype mounted in a plane on the ground fired infrared laser beams at a target in 1 second bursts.

The system has left the ground too, in trials 16 months ago, that proved the weapon could track a simulated missile well enough to reliably deploy the powerful beam if required.

The funding may be in question, and is not covered past 2009.

NOT fully test yet,
Duration to target 1 to Target 2?

Good question.  I'd like to know the answer to that as well, but it must be less than a minute, that turret slews pretty fast.  And target acquisition and sequencing must be fairly quick if they're linked to the milsat network.

yes,
but long will it take to knock out a target, and MOVE to the next.
THEN add in another problem..HOW many targets can it destroy before the THING needs a recharge.
a 1 shot device would be a miserable FAILURE.
A device that take 10 minutes to destroy 1 target would ALSO be a failure.
EVEN a 1 target per minute, wouldnt be GOOD.
10 per minute MIGHT be acceptable..
But we are looking a rockets and missles...They DONT fly SLOW.  They wont wait for you to target them.
And it you need to be in short range??(100 miles) I DONT think its a choice.

I would think a MASSIVE long range particle accelerator MIGHT be a better weapon..

hopper,
theres a problem with lasers and LONG range..
that the particles in AIR disperse them..  the farther it goes, the MORE reflection, dispersion and loss of focus and concentration.

Until we can create a laser that will FRY a cloud out of the air in seconds.. it wont be powerful enough to REACH OUT and touch someone..

The use of adaptive optics, already proven in astronomical applications since the early 1990s, reduces Rayleigh backscatter and beam distortion to acceptable levels.  This is no longer a problem with ASAT or AICBM lasers, and greatly reduces the power requirements.  That's still the major problem -- power.  Targeting is no longer a problem, as microradian targeting systems are already proven in astronomical applications as well.  The THOR series telescopes I built in the 80s and 90s have arcsecond targeting accuracy for optical tube assembly loads up to 1,000 pounds.

Targeting a laser on board a moving aircraft in moderate turbulence is still somewhat of a problem, but once a target is acquired, lock-on is dead center and can be maintained.

China has nearly caught up with us in this area, as have the Russians.  It's just a matter of years, not decades, before this technology is good to go.

Hop, I think you meant particle beam weapon.  No such animal as a particle laser, as lasers are strictly light (photons).  But the research into particle beam weapons continues apace, as you said.  We just get no news as such projects are truly "black."

hopper,
Think of a particle beam as taking BILLIONS of atoms and forcing them into 1 direction..
its like a MEAN' SAND BLASTER..on the atomic level..
A laser would be a great MARKING device, but the particles would disperse the laser beam..

There was research in S Africa, as far back as 1985, about making  lenses out of air, using a spinning vortex tube to generate a gradient for focusing. This was also of application in high power laser applications, as there is effectively no lens to be destroyed from the power concentration.

James, how the hell are we going to get those diamonds down?

Sorry, it just sounded so "Diamonds are Forever" to me. Seriously though, if the missile were simply made reflective, say a mirror or very shiny metal, wouldn't this immediately be invalidated?

It sounds nice to make all ICBMs obsolete, potentially ending the threat of global thermonuclear war. I'm just thinking it might be shockingly easy to get around this.

MS
very true.
But metals arent as reflective as a true GLASS mirror, and the best metal for a mirror is Silver..
1 would be to heavy, the other to expensive..
I still have a problem with range..
LOVE to see you get an airplane close enough to a launch pad..
And forget AFTER the launch, as I would think they are moving at least Mach 1-2..
And forget dealing with more then a FEW..  radar tracking ISNT accurate enough, and at 50-100 miles...you will have SECONDS before impact.