Read the forum code of contact
By: - 21st June 2005 at 18:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
WOW!......
By: - 21st June 2005 at 18:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the ABL looks promising...hope it is a success..many including KP think that a miniatureised version of such a weapon can be put in the space that is created by the STOVL engine of the f-35B on a f-35A which is basically empty..for the future that is.
By: - 21st June 2005 at 18:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We already have a ABL killer in the form of mobile Topol-M . It seems that even a laser fired at it from a certain safe distance has no effect on it . As it stands today the Topol-M defeats every thing the US deployed or will deploy in the coming decade which includes ABM and ABL.
But the ABL seems good against what Iran , NK or lesser advanced thrid world nations can throw at it.
By: - 21st June 2005 at 18:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm almost positive it's targets won't include 'hordes of fighters' as it's number of shots is limited by it's fuel supply for the laser. It's main target will be theatre ballistic missles as they're the hardest threat to defend against in a regional conflict. I could see it targeting fighters in a self defense situation, but the tactics used by it and it's supporting forces shouldn't let that happen.
By: - 21st June 2005 at 18:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yes but how many of the ADVANCED countries of the world have the topol-M in service?
By: - 21st June 2005 at 18:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As it stands today the Topol-M defeats every thing the US deployed or will deploy in the coming decade which includes ABM and ABL.
that is an extremely strong statement..comming out of just a claim.
By: - 21st June 2005 at 19:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We already have a ABL killer in the form of mobile Topol-M . It seems that even a laser fired at it from a certain safe distance has no effect on it . As it stands today the Topol-M defeats every thing the US deployed or will deploy in the coming decade which includes ABM and ABL.
Doesn't matter.
But the ABL seems good against what Iran , NK or lesser advanced thrid world nations can throw at it.
Presenting the reason why it doesn't matter. NMD and the ABL were never intended to counter Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal, we'd go bankrupt building enough AL-1s or ABM sites.
What we should really be doing is getting back into some of the Cold War ideas. The perfect solution would be space-based lasers put in geostationary orbits over North Korea and anywhere else that people might want to fire something off at us from. Far cheaper than an ABL system to operate on a daily basis as well I'd bet; you aren't paying aircrew salaries nor are you paying for fuel and maintenance. As Russia is the only other nation besides the US which poses a credible ASAT threat at this time, it'd be a great way to go I think.
As for the ABL, I saw it's first flight when it was here apparently. I didn't realize it until later, when I tried to figure out what the 747 over our runway was doing being followed by a red-tailed F-16B from Edwards :D
By: - 21st June 2005 at 20:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This seems like an unproven technology, it will take time before it is gotten to work and everything.
By: - 21st June 2005 at 20:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's my understanding that everything works fine; it's getting it all to cooperate on a moving, airborne platform that will be interesting.
By: - 22nd June 2005 at 01:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's my understanding that everything works fine; it's getting it all to cooperate on a moving, airborne platform that will be interesting.
a professor of mine (coming from a government lab) quite a few years ago worked on this thing when it was called "SDI" and the most difficult part was the angular accuracies of the tracking mechansim. Think about it, a 100km beam will be off by ~1.75m if it's angular positioning accuracy is 0.001 degrees. Now, add to the fact that both the target and the shooter is moving. He told us they finally solved the problem (secret of course, can't tell us exactly how). As to how many shots, IIRC the original requirement was 20 shots. This was then claimed to have doubled before the plane was modified, so with recent advances in power systems, maybe 100 shots by 2012? That's not bad, but i would think this thing can not track highly maneuvering targets like a fighter anyways. The dynamic range should be very low. As to ABMs...as i've always said, my worst fear is a single missile let loose (rouge or not, even accidental launches). It can even be American (somehow, you can never say impossible). We need something that can take down a few instead of saying "oh well...there's go a few million people" (anywhere).
By: - 22nd June 2005 at 02:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The AL-1A is totally awesome.
Imagine this for first class service:
"Would you like some champagne or perhaps blow up Iran, sir?"
Are they going to get gorgeuous stewardesses like Virgin Blue does in Oz? We don't want any ugly skanks blowing up rogue countries now would we? :diablo:
By: - 22nd June 2005 at 03:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
a professor of mine (coming from a government lab) quite a few years ago worked on this thing when it was called "SDI" and the most difficult part was the angular accuracies of the tracking mechansim. Think about it, a 100km beam will be off by ~1.75m if it's angular positioning accuracy is 0.001 degrees. Now, add to the fact that both the target and the shooter is moving. He told us they finally solved the problem (secret of course, can't tell us exactly how). As to how many shots, IIRC the original requirement was 20 shots. This was then claimed to have doubled before the plane was modified, so with recent advances in power systems, maybe 100 shots by 2012? That's not bad, but i would think this thing can not track highly maneuvering targets like a fighter anyways. The dynamic range should be very low. As to ABMs...as i've always said, my worst fear is a single missile let loose (rouge or not, even accidental launches). It can even be American (somehow, you can never say impossible). We need something that can take down a few instead of saying "oh well...there's go a few million people" (anywhere).
I don't think the angular thing is as big a problem as that. Even the Hubble has accuracy this good:
"Pointing Accuracy:
In order to take images of distant, faint objects, Hubble must be extremely steady and accurate. The telescope is able to lock onto a target without deviating more than 7/1000th of an arcsecond, or about the width of a human hair seen at a distance of 1 mile. Pointing the Hubble Space Telescope and locking onto distant celestial targets is like holding a laser light steady on a dime that is 200 miles away. "
Obviously the ABL is in a moving aircraft and all that entails but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they've already got the tracking problem solved. Not to say that it's trivial by any stretch but the ALL was shooting down Sidewinder missiles with late 70s technology
By: - 22nd June 2005 at 03:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Doesn't matter.Presenting the reason why it doesn't matter. NMD and the ABL were never intended to counter Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal, we'd go bankrupt building enough AL-1s or ABM sites.
What we should really be doing is getting back into some of the Cold War ideas. The perfect solution would be space-based lasers put in geostationary orbits over North Korea and anywhere else that people might want to fire something off at us from. Far cheaper than an ABL system to operate on a daily basis as well I'd bet; you aren't paying aircrew salaries nor are you paying for fuel and maintenance. As Russia is the only other nation besides the US which poses a credible ASAT threat at this time, it'd be a great way to go I think.
As for the ABL, I saw it's first flight when it was here apparently. I didn't realize it until later, when I tried to figure out what the 747 over our runway was doing being followed by a red-tailed F-16B from Edwards :D
I've actually seen the following idea kicked around. You hang an aerostat WAY up in the air where it's thin and over the US. Equip it with a high powered FEL and run your power up your tether and then put cheap (relatively speaking) mirrors in orbit. The beam goes roughly straight up to a relay mirror and then get's bounced and refocused around the planet to wherever you need to put the beam. Pretty much the most an enemy could do is try to knock out a few easily replaceable mirrors, or try an attack on the US homeland. Short of that we'd pretty much be picking whatever we wanted off with impunity.
By: - 22nd June 2005 at 03:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's not bad, but i would think this thing can not track highly maneuvering targets like a fighter anyways. The dynamic range should be very low.
but then a fighter aircraft will mostly fly in a straight line and wont manoeveur unless it is in danger, and since there is no mechanism to track incoming lasers beams (like RWR's) there is no way the enemy will know that it was fired upon!
A couple of squadrons of these ABL's will be enough to ward of any attact. I'd say disband USAF and rename it US-ABLe-Force :D
By: - 22nd June 2005 at 13:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the thing works - all this hinges on that question, so we'll assume it can
blow stuff up from a couple hundred miles away - then it'll be very useful.
Itself, it's hardly a tctical aircraft. It's a 747 for God's sake - one of the
biggest, unstealthiest things in the air. It's roomy inside, giving them
leeway to realy study what's going on with the thing. It's a perfect testbed
for an airborne laser. They'll eventually shrink it down. Especially after
they perfect high energy solid state lasers.
What I envision in the next few decades are a mix between Awacs and
the ABL.
I can see Awacs having incorperated into them, high energy ss lasers.
they will be able to destroy any aircraft or missles within a few hundred
miles, and direct fighters to targets beyond that.
In a few years, they're going to need such a system - Awacs are going to
be vulnerable to sams in future conflicts, a laser defense might be their
only hope.
By: - 22nd June 2005 at 14:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the thing works - all this hinges on that question, so we'll assume it can
blow stuff up from a couple hundred miles away - then it'll be very useful.Itself, it's hardly a tctical aircraft. It's a 747 for God's sake - one of the
biggest, unstealthiest things in the air. It's roomy inside, giving them
leeway to realy study what's going on with the thing. It's a perfect testbed
for an airborne laser. They'll eventually shrink it down. Especially after
they perfect high energy solid state lasers.What I envision in the next few decades are a mix between Awacs and
the ABL.I can see Awacs having incorperated into them, high energy ss lasers.
they will be able to destroy any aircraft or missles within a few hundred
miles, and direct fighters to targets beyond that.In a few years, they're going to need such a system - Awacs are going to
be vulnerable to sams in future conflicts, a laser defense might be their
only hope.
They already had a testbed- the ALL. The Airborne Laser is intended to be a deployable weapon system.
By: - 22nd June 2005 at 20:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Obviously the ABL is in a moving aircraft and all that entails but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they've already got the tracking problem solved. Not to say that it's trivial by any stretch but the ALL was shooting down Sidewinder missiles with late 70s technology
That's exactly the point...the Hubble is in space, ABL isn't. Besides, i've already stated that they figure out how to get it to work, but my point is that this was the most difficult part of the system. As to the sholting down of the Sidewinder, iirc, it was a very limited test with no realistic threat simulation, not to mention at much shorter ranges, shorter required burnthrough times, and iirc the missile didn't manuever much.
By: - 22nd June 2005 at 20:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
since there is no mechanism to track incoming lasers beams (like RWR's) there is no way the enemy will know that it was fired upon!
that's not true, laser warning is a lot easier to make than anything else. What else beams at you at such high intensities and frequency spikes? A simple solution is simply couple a fighter's laser warning to computer controlled atutomatic manuevering once a beam is detected so that it's out of the dynamic response of the laser's tracking mechanism. See how large that lense system is, it's not going to move too fast, besides the feedback error corrections.
By: - 22nd June 2005 at 21:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Japan seems to be interested in the ABL as a answer to the threat posed by ballistic missiles launched from North Korea.
SOURCE: Flight International - Japan eyes laser ABL
The first YAL-1 is a modified 747-400F, the second will be a modified B747-400 pax version.
By: - 22nd June 2005 at 23:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's exactly the point...the Hubble is in space, ABL isn't. Besides, i've already stated that they figure out how to get it to work, but my point is that this was the most difficult part of the system. As to the sholting down of the Sidewinder, iirc, it was a very limited test with no realistic threat simulation, not to mention at much shorter ranges, shorter required burnthrough times, and iirc the missile didn't manuever much.
Shorter range but it was a much smaller and faster target too. With 70s technology. Also it was a much lower power laser so focusing and distortion were more of an issue.
Posts: 1,317
By: Flogger - 21st June 2005 at 13:54
the best jumbo, star wars is coming, the high energy weapon mounted in the laser might change the future of aviation weaponry for ever.
More advanced than the best air to air missile traveling at 300,000km/s light will be the fastest weapon in the sky, with a range of several hundred it promise to revolutionize aerial warfare.
This might not be the most agile aircraft in the sky, niether has agile and fast AAMs but this has the most advanced weapon in the sky, a laser designed to kill incoming ballistic missiles, this weapon can be the future of aviation laser armed aircraf, for the moment such weapons are huge as the first computers but in future years these weapons might replace missiles and guns.
Who knows if this thing can kill hypersonic ballistic missiles this weapons will be able to kill hordes of enemy fighters at long distance just by aiming the laser and killing them.
The YAL-1A has a laser capable of killing hypersonic balistic misilles at several hundreds kilometers.
This laser virtually using light just needs to aim and destroy it`s target, it only needs 3 or 5 seconds of bursting the target to eliminate it.
This aircraft still is years away from it`s operational debut, but by 2012 this new weapon will be operational.