Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: ABL's laser goes lethal
doggtag    2/20/2009 5:35:13 PM
News Releases Northrop Grumman > News Releases Northrop Grumman-Built Laser Demonstrates Long-Duration, Lethal Lasing Onboard Airborne Laser Aircraft REDONDO BEACH, Calif., Feb. 19, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The high-energy laser built by Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) successfully fired multiple long-duration blasts onboard the U.S. Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) Airborne Laser (ABL) during intensive ground tests concluded Feb. 12. Lasting up to three seconds each, the lethal-power firings were conducted to 'tune' the megawatt-class laser by adjusting and balancing the mixture of chemicals that fuel its engine for peak operating efficiency. These settings can now be used for future testing, including the planned shoot down of a ballistic missile later this year. "The hallmarks of these latest firings are durability and repeatability," noted Dan Wildt, vice president of Directed Energy Systems for Northrop Grumman's Aerospace Systems sector. "The duration of each firing of the megawatt-class laser was limited only by ground equipment." Long-duration operations of the Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) followed 'first light' of the high-energy laser through ABL's onboard beam control / fire control (BC/FC) system in the aircraft's hangar at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., in November 2008. They were conducted by MDA, ABL prime contractor The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA), and Northrop Grumman. "Our highly experienced ABL workforce has done an outstanding job of reaching this critical point in ground testing," noted Guy Renard, Northrop Grumman's ABL program manager. "These dedicated employees have made huge technical strides toward providing our country with speed-of-light capability to destroy all classes of ballistic missiles in their boost phase of flight." For long-duration laser operations, the megawatt-class laser was fired into a calorimeter onboard the aircraft. The calorimeter is a test instrument that captures and measures beam power. Each long-duration test provided the necessary data used to quickly evaluate and 'tune' the megawatt-class laser for peak operation. The tuned high-power laser will be fired through the on-board BC / FC system into a range simulator to complete ABL's weapon system ground testing phase in the next few weeks, clearing the ABL system to begin weapon system flight tests. The ABL aircraft consists of a modified Boeing 747-400F whose back half holds the high-energy laser, designed and built by Northrop Grumman. Before being installed, the high-energy laser completed rigorous ground testing in a laboratory at Edwards AFB. The aircraft's front half contains the beam control/fire control system, developed by Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT), and the battle management system, provided by Boeing. Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
doggtag       2/20/2009 5:39:00 PM
This link should work to the original article (  ht*p://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=159909  ).
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       2/21/2009 1:01:04 AM
Anyone care to speculate how effective the ABL might be against aircraft? Or possibly against low-flying satellites? 
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       2/21/2009 1:01:05 AM
Anyone care to speculate how effective the ABL might be against aircraft? Or possibly against low-flying satellites? 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Testing on the ground is not testing in the air, folks.   2/21/2009 6:01:52 AM

Anyone care to speculate how effective the ABL might be against aircraft? Or possibly against low-flying satellites? 

NED.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    specify, Herald?   2/21/2009 1:18:01 PM
If I understand atmospheric optics correctly, it is preferred to be at higher altitudes for things such as telescopes (those mounted atop high mountains, or even airborne systems like that 707 with the IR sensors, etc) to get thru a lot of the atmospheric "clutter" of the lower altitudes where the atmosphere is denser and more prone to meteorologicals and other airborne particulates.
 
So effectively, wouldn't this ABL then actually be more effective at higher altitudes, just because there is less atmospheric disturbance to disrupt (or otherwise interfere with) the beam?
 
I also am curious of its upper limitations,
meaning: if it can fire across the atmosphere for a couple hundred km, then why could it fire up out of the atmosphere for at least a similar distance?
After all, these DEWs aren't constrained by gravity drop like any metallic projectiles, nor are they dependent on there actually being an atmosphere for the photon kill beam to propagate (and disperse, over time and distance) through...
 
As to effectiveness against manned aircraft: if lesser lasers like THEL, Firestrike, and that Humvee/Avenger system can generate sufficient heat to ignite propellants and explosives contained in rockets, mortar and artillery rounds, and emplaced IEDs, then the magnitudes-more-powerful megawatt-class laser of the ABL should have little difficulty in igniting the fuel onboard any manned aircraft, if not killing the pilot outright (painful, near-instantaneous, or otherwise).
 
It will only take one successful test to quell the naysayers, but if it's designed to catastrophically destabilize/destroy boost-phase missiles, then thin-skinned aircraft should be a cake walk.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    An airplane in flight vibrates, shakes and rattles.    2/21/2009 1:30:32 PM

If I understand atmospheric optics correctly, it is preferred to be at higher altitudes for things such as telescopes (those mounted atop high mountains, or even airborne systems like that 707 with the IR sensors, etc) to get thru a lot of the atmospheric "clutter" of the lower altitudes where the atmosphere is denser and more prone to meteorologicals and other airborne particulates.

 

So effectively, wouldn't this ABL then actually be more effective at higher altitudes, just because there is less atmospheric disturbance to disrupt (or otherwise interfere with) the beam?

 

I also am curious of its upper limitations,

meaning: if it can fire across the atmosphere for a couple hundred km, then why could it fire up out of the atmosphere for at least a similar distance?

After all, these DEWs aren't constrained by gravity drop like any metallic projectiles, nor are they dependent on there actually being an atmosphere for the photon kill beam to propagate (and disperse, over time and distance) through...

 

As to effectiveness against manned aircraft: if lesser lasers like THEL, Firestrike, and that Humvee/Avenger system can generate sufficient heat to ignite propellants and explosives contained in rockets, mortar and artillery rounds, and emplaced IEDs, then the magnitudes-more-powerful megawatt-class laser of the ABL should have little difficulty in igniting the fuel onboard any manned aircraft, if not killing the pilot outright (painful, near-instantaneous, or otherwise).

 

It will only take one successful test to quell the naysayers, but if it's designed to catastrophically destabilize/destroy boost-phase missiles, then thin-skinned aircraft should be a cake walk.

The chemical laser in question also has to fire aboard an aircraft that will only be partially pressurized. 
 
Not to mention that hexaflourine, red fumic nitric acid, and a few other jolly chemicals (read hypergolic ROCKET FUEL) have to mix just so; so the laser can fire?  
 
Groundtest is NOT flighttest.
 
Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       2/26/2009 7:24:03 PM



Anyone care to speculate how effective the ABL might be against aircraft? Or possibly against low-flying satellites? 





NED.

 

Herald


'Scusa, Herald, but again, NED = ? 
 
Need Effing Data? http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmilep.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Its what I usually yell at my co-conspirators in business when they go and SPECULATE on something.   2/26/2009 7:35:46 PM







Anyone care to speculate how effective the ABL might be against aircraft? Or possibly against low-flying satellites? 













NED.



 



Herald







'Scusa, Herald, but again, NED = ? 

 

Need Effing Data? http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmilep.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />
NED!
 
NOT ENOUGH DATA!
 
or NEDD!

NOT ENOUGH DATA, DUMMY! 
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       2/27/2009 11:52:33 AM
LOL, TYVM
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics