As for taking out a SLBM, ok. But there is one ABL and over 12,000 miles of US Coastline. Seeing as it would need to be in the air all the time, especially at time of launch covering both coasts and being at the right place and right time…I don’t think so. I would expect it to be used in theatre, when ready.

I am a passionate supporter of MDA. ALL aspects of it. So I am not trying to de-rail anything here. It is just important to keep an honesty about the argument. liberals are already gunning for the entire system. We don’t need to over play our hand.

Kudos to the men and women for the Dec. 5th success!

“Sorry Ahmadinejad, we didn’t have time to butter it for you!”

Also, getting the beam focused to a few inches is very tough. The target is moving, the atmosphere in between is changing constantly, and so the beam diffraction must be actively adjusted.

As to chemicals etc., the chemical is in the cavity of the laser. You don’t change it. You just pump it optically by pouring in energy, usually optical energy from another source. But it is a valid question how many pulses they can get per second, and whether “MW” is peak power, average pulse power, or total power including the duty cycle.

So again, the big challenge here is to take the missile down quickly so that you can move the next target. It’s not much good destroying 1 out of 10 missiles launched. But it is a good start.

Even at MW power levels this can take several seconds. If several missiles are launched simultaneously or in close succession the laser either can’t get them all before they pass boost stage, or you need several systems in the air at once, all in range, and coordinated so as not to target the same missile.

Gaunilon on December 4, 2008 at 10:03 PM

A couple of MW focused on a spot a few inches in diameter? Melt through will be a matter of milliseconds. Missiles are made to be as light as possible, plus during boost phase they are under a lot of mechanical stress. The destruction of a missile under boost by a MW laser would be pretty close to instantaneous.

The thing I don’t know is just how fast these lasers can be recharged. But given that they are chemical in nature, I would guess it would be a matter of pumping fresh juice into the reaction chamber. That would be limited by the size of the pumps used. I suspect that a production model could be recharged in a matter of seconds.
Additionally, boost phase lasts for as much as a minute.

Coordination of targeting is something that is already being done for military systems. It’s not that complex a technology.

Iran is not ruled by a single crazed dictator in control of such weapons or their deployment.

Technically true. Iran is ruled by a committee of crazed dictators who believe that God is going to give them victory. I’m less afraid of NK’s crazy leader. He has never expressed any interest in taking over the world, he just wants to assure that there is no challenge to his control over one part of it.

I mean, how do we plan to get a big ‘ol lumbering, defenseless 747 into range to shoot down a missile?

They are called fighters. That’s what the militry normally uses to protect bombers.

As to how close do the 747′s have to be to the launch site. If the radar can spot the missile, the 747 can shot it down. So the horizon is pretty much your only limitation. As the missile gets higher, the distance from which it can be seen grows rapidly.

A bomb in its case, surrounded by lead, on a ship, will not be detectable by anyone. Nor can a bomb be detected that is in a cargo hold of an Iran Air 747 on final approach to JFK airport. It’s game over for New York City in either case.

keep the change on December 4, 2008 at 3:03 PM

You are vastly over estimating the power of any device Iran is going to be able to build in the next coupld of decades.

A bomb on the ship would take out the harbor. Not much more. A bomb on a plane would take out JFK, not much more.

With an infrared beam invisible to the naked eye, I’d like to suggest this weapons system be named either “Allah” or “The Hand of God”.

Terrorist leader leaves hideout…then…ZZZZT! Gone.

And we can simply say, “what Allah giveth, ‘Allah’ taketh away…”

:)

Wanderlust on December 4, 2008 at 9:55 PM

Agree you are onto something here. Heck, we wouldn’t even have to *officially* name it ‘Allah’. It could have the same effect if it merely earns the *nickname* ‘Allah’. And, being what it is, it stands a darn good chance of that.

That way, after enough troops in theater refer to it as ‘Allah’ in front of their local colleagues, the nickname and its reputation would get around soon enough. Suits me just fine!

P.S. I’d say the YAL-1A is ‘Big Allah’, and the AC-130 is ‘Little Allah’, no?

Still, it’s a good start. I’m guessing adaptive mirrors to overcome the dispersion and diffraction, and probably also to focus what is likely a donut mode from a leaky cavity onto the missile.

There is a version of the AC-130 testing a solid state laser (as opposed to the chemical laser in this YAL-1A) for “close air support” missions.

Zorro on December 4, 2008 at 9:34 PM

With an infrared beam invisible to the naked eye, I’d like to suggest this weapons system be named either “Allah” or “The Hand of God”.

Terrorist leader leaves hideout…then…ZZZZT! Gone.

And we can simply say, “what Allah giveth, ‘Allah’ taketh away…”

:)

What I’m most interested in is what the effect would be if the laser was aimed a little lower. Makes the AC130 look lame when you can bring a laser close support/ground attack platform. Iranian leadership buildings should be excellent test targets!

libertarianuberalles on December 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM

There is a version of the AC-130 testing a solid state laser (as opposed to the chemical laser in this YAL-1A) for “close air support” missions.

lexhamfox on December 4, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Iran wants a nuclear weapon because of its experience of being invaded during the Iran-Iraq war… not to perform some sort of sneak attack on the US or Israel.

How do you know why Iran wants nuclear weapons? Are you sure everyone in Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same purpose? Do you agree that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

There are more interesting weapons being used in Iraq right now which might be easier to use than an energy beam mounted on a 747.

What weapons are being used in Iraq to counter long range ballistic missiles?

Iran wants a nuclear weapon because of its experience of being invaded during the Iran-Iraq war… not to perform some sort of sneak attack on the US or Israel. They know very well that any nuclear attack made by Iran would result in destruction of their nation. Iran is not ruled by a single crazed dictator in control of such weapons or their deployment. North Korea is more problematic, however.

There are more interesting weapons being used in Iraq right now which might be easier to use than an energy beam mounted on a 747.

And a militarized civilian force door to door to confiscate firearms.

Speakup on December 4, 2008 at 7:08 PM

But not drugs, or illegal aliens, or electric cars, or liberal voters.

Tav on December 4, 2008 at 2:38 PM

And a militarized civilian force door to door to confiscate firearms.

Great toys they are developing for the military.
Carry on boys.

ColdWarrior57 on December 4, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Carry on, indeed.

Missile defense gains another success
…

Doesn’t that bring into focus of recent russian navy ships manuvering in the US backyards? It doesn’t HAVE TO be iranian subs.

Sir Napsalot on December 4, 2008 at 2:26 PM

What would it be? Russian subs? Iranian surface ships? What’s your point?

Cuffy Meigs on December 4, 2008 at 1:30 PM

Cuffy, normally I don’t like link adverts to one’s personal blog in posts here, but you are the exception: I have always enjoyed reading your writings because of the perspective you offer. BTW I used to work for Boeing on the RAH-66 project some years ago, so I know the climate (and yes, RAH-66 was so screwed by the Army that it deserved to be cancelled). Good to see you around.

BKennedy on December 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Yes.
We.
Can!!!

IIRC, the power on the big mama COIL is 6MW, which was statistically the same power as mentioned in everyone’s favorite movie Real Genius. Difference here (for the geek crowd) was that RG’s plot involved freezing the fuel, whereas in reality, fuel is carried in liquid form.

But as to comments about plausible deniability for assassination, the modified AC-130 with a smaller COIL or solid-state laser is your platform of choice: long loiter/dwell times over target at 20,000+ft…and if I recall correctly here, the main beam itself is in the infrared band, so there is no visible laser beam to give itself away.

If I were in SOCOM (yes, wish like hell I had gone that route, in PsyOps), I’d name the first operational version of that particular aircraft “Allah”.

Combine that laser with the USN’s little directed sound toy (the one that can transmit a sound beam over tens of miles so tightly that if it’s beamed to you, the person standing next to you cannot hear it), and you have pure, unmitigated, PsyOps f*ck with their heads forever fun…

/don’t smoke, but suddenly need a ciggy for some reason