Hey the Dog, You seem to know...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

On Andy's "no defense against China's missiles" thread, you gave some info about lasers. Did you see the report on the news about the ALL (Airborne Laser Lab)? I had asked you if you knew about this project on that thread. If you can answer, let me know.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 20, 1999

Answers

All I have seen of the ALL is a single document and a hokey national news report. It doesn't appear to work like it was designed. And can you imagine if it missed if trying to shoot beyond the horizon???

For you unitiated to the ALL, it is a monster pulse laser mounted in a 747. Its accuracy is a little to be desired. It was designed as a stratospheric mega-laser platform intended to shoot OVER the horizon. Is this what you were looking for Maria??? I don't think it would be a good anti-ballistic missile system. The tracking is too slow....

munchin' on a doggy bag my master brought me....

The Dog

-- The Dog (cmpennell@juno.com), May 20, 1999.


What was that movie, "true genius" I think, where the laser was fired into the bad guy's house, and the kids had a ton of popcorn in the house... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 20, 1999.

Sysman, that movie was "Real Genius", 1985 - starring Val Kilmer, Gabe Jarret, Michelle Meyrink, William Atherton, Jonathan Gries. Directed by Martha Coolidge. Featured not only a prominent product placement for Jiffy Pop, but also parodies of faculty research on military projects, the Airborne Laser Lab in particular, and life at Caltech, alma mater of the director's husband and source of several location shots and in-jokes.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 21, 1999.

Just wondering what your background is. When I worked at the weapons lab, that project was making the mods to the plane. I know about the in flight tests they did; they destroyed the target but not at the exact location they intended. Thanks for your thoughts.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 21, 1999.

On at most 30 minutes notice, it would be a real challenge to get a large number of 747's into the air and stationed in the right places in time to counter some unknown number of incoming missiles. I assume the power requirement for such a laser would allow but one shot in the brief time window incoming missiles would present.

And it would be a very expensive enterprise to keep that unknown number of 747's aloft all day, every day, just in case.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 21, 1999.



I agree Tom, think back to the cuban missile crisis. We had planes in the air continually on alert and it was eating away at our funding. (It amazes me sometimes that people don't realize how expensive war is).

But I have to disagree with the scamble of planes; we can get the planes up there in time to shoot down the missiles, yeah maybe only one shot depending on accuracy. Part of my job at the weapons lab was to calculate just this type of scenario.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 21, 1999.


I must disagree about the unfeasability of keeping planes permanently aloft. An acquaintance was a B-52 pilot, and he has told me that during the 1950s and 1960s we kept a whole dozens of armed and ready nuke B-52s in the air over Canada and the Pole **continuously** for years on end.

-- DMH (aint@tellin.com), May 21, 1999.

DMH, That doesn't mean it didn't cost $ to keep them "patrolling". Also this was a time before we installed a sensor system that would do the surveillance.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 21, 1999.

Its a single test aircraft to test laser power supplies, laser reliability, cruise missile leathality "rules" (how much damage does it take to "break" a cruise missile), laser control and alignment problems and various laser designs fighting against subsonic cruise missiles (flying flat in the atmosphere at 600+ MPH very closeby (less than 50 miles, most tests are at less than 5-10 miles).

Now what you would think needed is seeral hundreds of miles of range, longer and more accurate sensors, continous coverage against random threats from random directions, and near certain leathality against ballistic missiles already "armed" with re-entry shields and the "glow" of atmospheric heating around the nosecone and warheads. So getting the laser beam to penetrate and actually do harm is very difficult - the nosecone itself is intended after to shield against high heat 1300-2600 degrees capable of melting steel. So what the laser do? Identify, track, penetrate and harm the warhead already shielded.

That's why most earlier laser missile defenses were set for space deployment - so the unshielded "carrier" (bus) holding the warheads could be destroyed against the "cold" background of space to make tracking easier.

One test aircraft operating irregularly on a new design babysat by physicists is not the "fleet" needed to maintain control over several thousand miles of frontier - against inbound targets - run by airmen and in thunderstorms.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 21, 1999.


Recent issue of Popular Science had an article on space-based laser defenses. Also had an article on Russia's "Raptor Killer" advanced fighter, which noted that this bird was very slow in being developed and deployed due to Russia's severe funding problems.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 21, 1999.


Fix! !@#$%^&...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 21, 1999.


Italics off?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 21, 1999.


Understand however, that the 747-carried laser system is a "military operations theater" system, not an intercontinental system. It's a big difference between having a plane flying a pattern over northern Saudi Arabia to defend against Scud launches in Iraq (or over the Sea of Japan to counter North Korean missiles) and the idea of using this system against the Russian's nuclear missile forces. Then again, China at this point in time may be within this system's capabilities.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), May 21, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ