What do this:
and this:
have in common?
How about this:
ABL Test a Success (By MARTIN SIEFF UPI Senior News AnalystWASHINGTON, July 17 (UPI) )
Boeing announced Friday that with its partner companies and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency it had "successfully completed a key Airborne Laser flight test."
The successful ABL test had shown "the weapon system’s ability to actively track an airborne target, compensate for atmospheric turbulence and fire a surrogate for its missile-killing high-energy laser," the company said in a statement.
"During the test, the modified Boeing 747-400F took off from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and used its infrared sensors and its track illuminator laser (TILL) to find and track an instrumented target board located on the U.S. Air Force’s NC-135E Big Crow test aircraft," the Boeing statement said.
"The Big Crow then fired its beacon laser at the ABL aircraft to allow ABL to measure and compensate for laser beam distortion caused by the atmosphere. Finally, ABL fired the surrogate high-energy laser (SHEL) at the Big Crow target board to simulate a missile shoot down," the statement said.
"With the exception of ABL’s beacon illuminator laser (BILL), this flight test demonstrated the entire engagement sequence from target acquisition to pointing and firing the SHEL," it said.
"This successful test shows that ABL can find and track a target, use its beam control/fire control system to compensate for atmospheric turbulence, and fire a surrogate high-energy laser to simulate a missile intercept," said Pat Shanahan, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems. "We have now demonstrated most of the steps needed for the Airborne Laser to engage a threat missile and deliver precise and lethal effects against it."
The first aircraft is obviously the Airborne Laser (ABL), designed to provide a boost-phase kill capability against MR/IR/ICBM’s. The second a/c is a NC-135 BIG CROW – basically an EC-135 that has been modified to serve as an airborne target for testing the various laser tracking/illuminating systems on the ABL. Note the white profile on the fuselage – it rughly conforms to the size of an MRBM/IRBM and is populated with sensors to determine localization of the laser spot from the ABL.
The big deal about this is one of the significant challenges the ABL faces is that the intercept/kill takes place in the lower reaches of th atmosphere instead of the high atmosphere or in space. As a result, it has to deal with distortions and energy absorbtion caused by the atmosphere (variations in pressure, moisture/vapor presence, etc. – all the things that make up weather as we know it). To overcome atmospheric effects, the HEL uses deformable mirrors to adapt and conform the kill beam. Compounding the challenge is the fact that it has to be done over an extreme distance against a very small, accelerating target. On top of that, since the kill mechanism is via detonation of the missile’s fuel, there is a small target area and narrow window of opportunity to exercise the option. In that timeframe, the ABL has to locate, track and illminate the target with a tracking laser and the high-energy laser carried in the turret in the nose of the aircraft (the tracking laser is housed seperately).
The test decribed above was signatory in that it tested almost the entire system, save the HEL which will be integrated into the ABL in the coming months. Still taking baby steps, but they are important ones and signify a signficant level of technological progress unmatched elsewhere.
Stumble It!
Stumble it!
I realize the importance of releasing such important information to allow the public and all those interested to be kept abreast of new initiatives, but am I correct in thinking that we want our enemies to now know? No disrespect is meant, sir, but I can’t help thinking that until such a weapon system, aircraft, or anything new for the Military is in actual use then the public doesn’t need to know.
Only one person’s opinion, and thank you for the post, but I think that both of our Military’s readiness to “share” information is not in our best interests. Yes, it’s a good way to discover leaks, sometimes, but the CIA is stretched to the max., as are all gov’t. departments, and it appears they’re going to be busy for a very long time to come given China’s predisposition to infiltrating our Military technology firms.
That being said, these are only my concerns. Thank you, once again for taking the time to explain things which are probably obvious to many of your readers.
Veritas et Fidelis Semper
mile:
@Deborah
The ABL is open source for a long time. Visit megafortress.com by the author Dale Brown in several books an airborne laser sytems features prominently, albeit a tad unrealistic.
What is unclear wether or not described working parameters are real or similar to describing the firepower of an Abrams by his co-axial machine guns.
[Deborah wrote:] “…but I can’t help thinking that until such a weapon system, aircraft, or anything new for the Military is in actual use then the public doesn’t need to know.”
Remember what a hard sell “Star Wars” was to a previous Congress? I suspect some of this is prep for a future budget war.
Well, in DC one is continually girding one’s loins for the budget wars – current and future (especially if my in boxes today are any indication
hock: ), but I would submit that the fundamental difference between the BMDS of 2007 and the SDI of 1987 (I hated the ‘Star Wars’ moniker BTW) is that it is continuing to lay a foundation of proof for viability and capabilty across a range of coverage – boost, mid-course and terminal phases (though more so in the later two). The other factor is SDI was sold as a shield against the Soviets – with 10,000+ warheads in their inventory alone at the time, that was unrealistic. The BMDS of today is not being sold as a shield against Russian ICBM’s – there remain too many missiles and the system would be overwhelmed. What has substantially changed in the last 20-years is the 2nd- and 3rd tier threats as manifested by China, North Korea and Iran (and if Hugo, “Don’t Call Me ‘Hewgo’ Chavez gets his hands on some Sahab-II’s from his Iranian buds, we’d be facing an additional threat from the south…
with a smaller attacking force going after a few targets, now we’re looking at a real capability which will grow more robust in terms of sensors and shooters in over the course of the FYDP. Surprisingly, one finds tacit support for the program even among certain Democrats whom one wouldn’t normally attribute support to – to a large degree because of the demonstrated capabilities with 28 out of 36 tests successful (and some of the delta of 8 are because of failure of the target).
-SJS