Airborne lasers

Wishlist of Pinky and the Brain (aka Bush and the Cheney):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

From page 53:

"... Similarly, a
fifth component of a theater-wide network
of ballistic missile defenses, the Air Force’s
airborne laser project, has suffered from
insufficient funding. This system, which
mounts a high energy laser in a 747 aircraft,
is designed to intercept theater ballistic
missiles in their earliest, or “boost” phase,
when they are most vulnerable."

A 747 aircraft!? Wouldn't this be a sitting duck for swarms of even
primitive SAM's? But I'd guess the authors of this paper consulted
military engineers more competent than I.

If they could make this work, it would be useful for more than taking
theater ballistic missiles out in their boost phase.

On page 259 of his book _How The World Was One_, Arthur C. Clarke quotes
Rajiv Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India:

"Today, Professor Clarke has given us many more reasons why it is not a
peace weapon or peace shield, but perhaps a new 'Project Damocles' as he
has called it. India and the Six Nation Initiative have worked with the
Non-Aligned Movement and many other nations against increases in the
arms race, against this delusion of a shield and this delusion of the
defensive nature of the SDI. As Professor Clarke has said, lasers which
can destroy very-rapidly-moving missiles in fractions of a second can be
used very effectively against stationary or very-slow-moving targets. In
fact the SDI could well turn into a new, very-high-technology weapon."

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:10:45 -0700, Hop David wrote:

A 747 aircraft!? Wouldn't this be a sitting duck for swarms of even
primitive SAM's? But I'd guess the authors of this paper consulted
military engineers more competent than I.

"The Airborne Laser (ABL) weapon system will operate outside of the range
of threat weapons but sufficiently close to enemy territory and at
altitudes above the clouds where it can acquire and track missiles in
boost flight, and then accurately point and fire the laser with such
energy that the missile is destroyed."

Instead of quoting the science-fantasy of either Clarke orSDI you could
read the system specs at:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...abl/flash.html

It might still be considered science fiction, as so many underfunded
aerospace weapons are, but it's better than either of the above.

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

Chuck Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:10:45 -0700, Hop David wrote:


A 747 aircraft!? Wouldn't this be a sitting duck for swarms of even
primitive SAM's? But I'd guess the authors of this paper consulted
military engineers more competent than I.


"The Airborne Laser (ABL) weapon system will operate outside of the range
of threat weapons but sufficiently close to enemy territory and at
altitudes above the clouds where it can acquire and track missiles in
boost flight, and then accurately point and fire the laser with such
energy that the missile is destroyed."

Instead of quoting the science-fantasy of either Clarke

_How The World Was One_ is not one of Clarke's "science-fantasy" novels.

Writing science fiction is only part of Clarke's amazing career.


orSDI you could
read the system specs at:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...abl/flash.html


Thanks for the pointer.


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Hop David wrote:



A 747 aircraft!? Wouldn't this be a sitting duck for swarms of even
primitive SAM's? But I'd guess the authors of this paper consulted
military engineers more competent than I.


Two points:
1.) The idea is to hit the ascending missile from a very good distance
away- as in hundreds of miles IIRC- from outside of the country who is
launching the missile's SAM screen.
2.) It can also shoot down SAMs.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Two points:
1.) The idea is to hit the ascending missile from a very good distance
away- as in hundreds of miles IIRC- from outside of the country who is
launching the missile's SAM screen.

Hundreds of miles would still be inside enemy territory if the enemy were
large ... like Canada or Australia.

In article ,
Hop David wrote:
On page 259 of his book _How The World Was One_, Arthur C. Clarke quotes
Rajiv Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India:
"Today, Professor Clarke has given us many more reasons why it is not a
peace weapon or peace shield, but perhaps a new 'Project Damocles' as he
has called it. India and the Six Nation Initiative have worked with the
Non-Aligned Movement and many other nations against increases in the
arms race..."

One should, of course, consider the source: the Prime Minister of a
country which ignited a new regional arms race, and a very dangerous one
too, by its insistence on building and testing its own nuclear weapons.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Neil Gerace" wrote in
:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Two points:
1.) The idea is to hit the ascending missile from a very good
distance away- as in hundreds of miles IIRC- from outside of the
country who is launching the missile's SAM screen.

Hundreds of miles would still be inside enemy territory if the enemy
were large ... like Canada or Australia.

As if Canada and/or Australia were going to launch missles at us?
(Well, we hope not!)


--Damon

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:38:32 -0600, Damon Hill wrote:

"Neil Gerace" wrote in
:

Hundreds of miles would still be inside enemy territory if the enemy
were large ... like Canada or Australia.

As if Canada and/or Australia were going to launch missles at us?
(Well, we hope not!)

The ABL is not SDI, it's intended for theater defense. So when the U.S.
subjugates Australia (for violating WMD treaties by exporting Vegemite)
the ABL fleet will first loiter offshore as U.S. troops land on Sydney,
easily burning down the Auusie's secretly modified ex-Soviet SS-25
missiles (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/aust-99e.html) as they are
launched from their hidden silos (http://www.toiletmap.gov.au)... even
though the disembodied wombat brains wired into the missile guidance
systems will try their very best to evade the searing beams
(http://www.sa.gov.au/emblems/wombat1.htm), it will be to no avail. Then
the U.S, troops will move towards Melbourne... with the ABL's now hovering
over Sydney and holding sway over vast reaches of... nothing much besides
some marsuipials.

Then the US will declare victory, set up a democratically-elected
platypus government, and go home.

(Six months after that an Eastern Australian kangaroo rebellion against
their platypus overlords will escalate to nuclear levels... wiping out the
marsupials and setting up the conditions for the first Mad Max movie.)

--Damon

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

"Chuck Stewart" wrote in message
news
The ABL is not SDI, it's intended for theater defense. So when the U.S.
subjugates Australia (for violating WMD treaties by exporting Vegemite)
the ABL fleet will first loiter offshore as U.S. troops land on Sydney,
easily burning down the Auusie's secretly modified ex-Soviet SS-25
missiles (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/aust-99e.html) as they are
launched from their hidden silos (http://www.toiletmap.gov.au)... even
though the disembodied wombat brains wired into the missile guidance
systems will try their very best to evade the searing beams
(http://www.sa.gov.au/emblems/wombat1.htm), it will be to no avail. Then
the U.S, troops will move towards Melbourne... with the ABL's now hovering
over Sydney and holding sway over vast reaches of... nothing much besides
some marsuipials.

Then the US will declare victory, set up a democratically-elected
platypus government, and go home.

Cool, then the rest of the Aussies can get some work done without Eastern
States interference and meddling, for a change.

Neil Gerace wrote:

Hundreds of miles would still be inside enemy territory if the enemy were
large ... like Canada or Australia.


Or Russia or China obviously...now, you've hit upon a interesting legal
point- can you legally shoot down a missile if it's still in its
launching country's airspace? For all you know, the sucker might change
course, or be destroyed before it hits the presumed target that its
trajectory indicates it's heading toward...in wartime, this is obviously
no problem...but assuming that this is some sort of _possible_ first
strike, nailing it while it's still over its launching country might be
considered a hostile act.

Pat