Airborne lasers

Hop David writes:

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 Forces
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.

Yes. Yes they did.

First off, they consulted engineers who told them that primitive SAMs,
and even most very sophisticated SAMs, have a maximum range of a few
dozen miles, and that most SAM operators have only enough of them to
defend point targets rather than to deploy impenetrable SAM belts
several hundred miles wide.

The ABL having a design range of several hundred miles, it can stand
off beyond the range of enemy defenses and still shoot down enemy
missiles in boost phase.


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

Yes. For example, it would be useful for taking out surface-to-air
missiles in their boost phase. This also argues agains the system
being a sitting duck to primitive, or sophisticated, SAMs. You launch
a SAM at it, the SAM explodes. Repeat until out of SAMs, or clued in
to the futility of the strategy.


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

And, apparently, a competent military engineer? I did not know that.


"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."

Oh my gosh! SDI would involve *new high technology weapons*! Alert the
presses! Dastardly military-industrial-complex Secret Plot(tm) exposed!

And using it against stationary or slow-moving targets? Certainly it
*could* do that, but who cares? We already have lots of weapons which
can destroy stationary or slow-moving targets, and which unlike lasers
can pierce heavy steel or reinforced concrete to do so.

ABL cannot pierce a simple brick wall, nor even the morning fog.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *

John Schilling wrote:
Hop David writes:


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 Forces
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.


Yes. Yes they did.

First off, they consulted engineers who told them that primitive SAMs,
and even most very sophisticated SAMs, have a maximum range of a few
dozen miles, and that most SAM operators have only enough of them to
defend point targets rather than to deploy impenetrable SAM belts
several hundred miles wide.

The ABL having a design range of several hundred miles, it can stand
off beyond the range of enemy defenses and still shoot down enemy
missiles in boost phase.



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


Yes. For example, it would be useful for taking out surface-to-air
missiles in their boost phase. This also argues agains the system
being a sitting duck to primitive, or sophisticated, SAMs. You launch
a SAM at it, the SAM explodes. Repeat until out of SAMs, or clued in
to the futility of the strategy.



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


And, apparently, a competent military engineer? I did not know that.

I did not say he was. Your implication that I made such a claim is
dishonest.

However, Gandhi seems to be referring to statements made by Clarke. At
one time Clarke was a competent military engineer. But neither Clarke
nor Ghandi were discussing vulnerability of 747s in the chapter I cited.
So your observation on the Ghandi's engineering competence remains a red
herring.





"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."


Oh my gosh! SDI would involve *new high technology weapons*! Alert the
presses! Dastardly military-industrial-complex Secret Plot(tm) exposed!

It is touted as defensive weapon. Ghandi (and Clarke) were talking about
possible offensive uses.


And using it against stationary or slow-moving targets? Certainly it
*could* do that, but who cares? We already have lots of weapons
which can destroy stationary or slow-moving targets,

I'm assuming you're talking about missiles.

and which unlike lasers
can pierce heavy steel or reinforced concrete to do so.

This has greater range than many missiles and can reach its target
faster. It's also reusable.


ABL cannot pierce a simple brick wall, nor even the morning fog.

Well, I guess the bad guys can launch their missiles in the morning, then.



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

In article ,
Hop David writes:


John Schilling wrote:
Hop David writes:


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 Forces
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.


Yes. Yes they did.

First off, they consulted engineers who told them that primitive SAMs,
and even most very sophisticated SAMs, have a maximum range of a few
dozen miles, and that most SAM operators have only enough of them to
defend point targets rather than to deploy impenetrable SAM belts
several hundred miles wide.

The ABL having a design range of several hundred miles, it can stand
off beyond the range of enemy defenses and still shoot down enemy
missiles in boost phase.



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


Yes. For example, it would be useful for taking out surface-to-air
missiles in their boost phase. This also argues agains the system
being a sitting duck to primitive, or sophisticated, SAMs. You launch
a SAM at it, the SAM explodes. Repeat until out of SAMs, or clued in
to the futility of the strategy.



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


And, apparently, a competent military engineer? I did not know that.

I did not say he was. Your implication that I made such a claim is
dishonest.

However, Gandhi seems to be referring to statements made by Clarke. At
one time Clarke was a competent military engineer. But neither Clarke
nor Ghandi were discussing vulnerability of 747s in the chapter I cited.
So your observation on the Ghandi's engineering competence remains a red
herring.

I don't think that Clarke would ever refer to himself as a "competent
military engineer". While he did, indeed, serve in the RAF during WW
2, he himself will tell you that he was part of the implrenetation
team working on a particualr project (Ground Controlled Approach), and
not an Idea Guy.

And that passage is Clarke quoting Rajiv Ghandi. Quoting R, Ghandi on
this subject is like quoting a statement by a burglar that locks on
doors are bad.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In sci.space.policy Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Ian Stirling wrote:

Why is it any more expensive to run than a passenger 747?

Not more expensive to run, particularly, but more expensive to *buy*.
These are going to be the most expensive aircraft in history, probably not
excepting even the B-2.

Not likely. The B-2 development cost alone was over $21 billion in ~1985
dollars. The total development cost of the YABL-1 to date is just over
$1 billion in 2004 dollars. Considering that the $1 billion has already
gotten us first light on the ground of the flighworthy laser modules and
a flying YABL-1 with everything but the laser modules, it shouldn't cost
much more than that.

Besides, the development costs of the F-22 already exceed $22 billion, and
the F-35 is projected to cost more than $40 billion to develop, so the B-2
isn't even tops on the list anymore.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO