
U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile - wglb
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61B18C20100212
======
patrickgzill
These early tests are always declared to work FSVO "working".

Note it fired a "test laser" and instruments on the missile indicated the
laser had a "hit". So they didn't actually disable/destroy the missile -
basically it was a computer controlled Lazer Tag setup.

Mission accomplished = more funding.

~~~
viae
They did, in fact, destroy the missile. The articles about this event are
badly worded. From the original MDA Press Release:

At 8:44 p.m. (PST), February 11, 2010, a short-range threat-representative
ballistic missile was launched from an at-sea mobile launch platform. Within
seconds, the ALTB used onboard sensors to detect the boosting missile and used
a low-energy laser to track the target. The ALTB then fired a second low-
energy laser to measure and compensate for atmospheric disturbance. Finally,
the ALTB fired its megawatt-class High Energy Laser, heating the boosting
ballistic missile to critical structural failure. The entire engagement
occurred within two minutes of the target missile launch, while its rocket
motors were still thrusting.

However, the fact that they were able to do it from the ALTB during the boost
phase of the missile launch (first two minutes!) is worthless. To do this
during an actual ICBM attack would require /many/ ALTBs to be flying over
enemy territory at the time of launch. This is because of simple physics. The
earth is round. ICBM launches take place on the other side of the earth. The
ICBM will no longer be in the super vulnerable boost phase when we can target
them with the ALTB platform.

The immediate reaction is that satellites would solve this problem. But, there
are two problems with that idea. First, to make a laser powerful enough to
destroy/disable an ICBM requires a lot of space (there's a reason they use a
747 and it's not sex appeal). Satellites just aren't big enough or powerful
enough or reliable enough to be effective platforms.... and we'd need /a lot/
of satellites. Second, there are treaties about weapons in space that no one
wants to break. Modern society (particularly the United States) are too
heavily invested in delicate satellites for communications, commerce, etc.
Once weapons are allowed up there... back to the industrial era we go.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
Against Russia or China, this kind of a system is worthless. I believe that
the contractor is selling this as deterrent against Iran or North Korea.

... And even then it's worthless, because if either wanted to nuke the US,
they wouldn't launch it on a missile, they'd pack it on a ship and sail it to
New York.

~~~
carbocation
From a certain perspective, it is actually good that this is worthless against
China or Russia: namely, if they don't perceive it as a threat, then they
won't fight its deployment or try to build up arms in response.

Consequently, it may prove useful in neutralizing the threat posed by medium-
to-long-range weapons possessed by particular actors (Iran, North Korea) to
allies in the region. (I say allies because I agree with you - if they wanted
to attack the US, doing so via conventional means would be extraordinarily
foolish.)

------
azeemazhar2
and for $10, nathan myrvolhd can user a laser to track and detect a mosquito,
distinguish those carrying malaria from those who aren't, and then shoot down
the ones carrying malaria.... nice
[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/using-lasers-to-
zap...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/using-lasers-to-zap..).

~~~
jrockway
Of course, his firm is just a patent troll, so this will likely never see the
light of day.

~~~
joezydeco
Patent trolls don't normally go out and _invent_ the product they've patented.
I'd put this one fractional step above typical trolling.

PS: That video OWNS.

------
rauljara
This year's defense budget is the largest (as a share of GDP) since WWII.
Right now, getting our economy and debt under control seem like they would do
far more to ensure our future national security than incredibly expensive
missile defense systems. It seems to me like you should only spend money on
this stuff when you actually have money.

And really, lasers? What happens when they coat the missiles in something
reflective? $200 worth of shiny metallic paint foils $200 million worth of
laser.

------
mrinterweb
What happens when they start making mirror coated missiles?

------
dmaz
"...at a range of hundreds of kilometers (miles)."

~~~
unwind
Yeah, units schmunitz, who really cares. It's Friday, there are lasers in the
air, and everything.

------
DanielBMarkham
It looks more and more obvious to me that over the next forty years or so we
are going to start seeing true laser and particle weapons.

And they're not going to be anything like they are in science-fiction and
fantasy. With blindness, invisibility of attack, instantaneous hits, and
extreme heat? Much more scary, actually.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
Actually, that's pretty much how good sci-fi treats lasers. Try reading
"Consider Phlebas" by Iain M. Banks, it has a rather good scene of liberal use
of laser weapons. It's a good book in other ways too, at least as long as you
can stand the blatant socialism. :)

In any case, I rather doubt laser weapons will get much use at ground level,
if only because of rain/various kinds of active smoke you can use to defend
yourself.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Yes. I should have said "pop sci-fi" but you are correct.

I'd imagine, because of the problems with atmospherics, before we see ground-
level lasers we'll see shorter-range UAV-to-ground weapons. Perhaps satellites
first. Silent invisible death from the sky.

------
bpick
WOOT. One step closer to my death star!

Can I get a "may the (us armed) force(s) be with you?"

