Boeing's 12,000lb chemical laser set to fry targets from aircraft

[BenBurch]

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/22975

"Boeing's Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) which is being developed for the Department of Defense, will destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations, Boeing said."

Sadly, of course, target selection can never be "surgical" even though this weapon might be.

[Babylon Sister]

I wonder if they got the idea from Val Kilmer and friends in Real Genius?

[rocketdodger]

I have seen vids of this sucker frying ICBM payloads on the ground.

Pretty impressive, and its nice to know the age of the laser as a weapon is only right around the corner.

[Terry]

But what of thermal blooming?

[Crossbow]

I noticed that it has not actually been tested yet ...

This weapon has been in the works for over twenty years now, hopefully all of the vast sums that have been spent on it will finally result in something that works. Although, even if it does, I still fail to see what its practical application may be.

[Hellbound]

I noticed that it has not actually been tested yet ...

This weapon has been in the works for over twenty years now, hopefully all of the vast sums that have been spent on it will finally result in something that works. Although, even if it does, I still fail to see what its practical application may be.

I think just what the article said, limitng collatoral damage. I could see this in urban combat, especially. You can take out, for example, a gun truck using the laser, and the only collateral damage would be from the secondary explosions of the truck itself. Compared to a missile or even API gun rounds, that's an improvement. Also, considering it's a laser, it hits where you point it. No having to account for wind, elevation, range, etc to figure bullet drop and that sort of thing, so the likelihood of hitting the wrong target accidentally in a crowded situation is reduced.

I think it's limited functionality, but I could see this being used in a manner similar to the current C-130G Spectre gunships, but focused on restrictive terrain and/or locations with a lot of non-combatants.

[Correa Neto]

OK, I want one.

[Crossbow]

I think just what the article said, limitng collatoral damage. I could see this in urban combat, especially. You can take out, for example, a gun truck using the laser, and the only collateral damage would be from the secondary explosions of the truck itself. Compared to a missile or even API gun rounds, that's an improvement. Also, considering it's a laser, it hits where you point it. No having to account for wind, elevation, range, etc to figure bullet drop and that sort of thing, so the likelihood of hitting the wrong target accidentally in a crowded situation is reduced.

I think it's limited functionality, but I could see this being used in a manner similar to the current C-130G Spectre gunships, but focused on restrictive terrain and/or locations with a lot of non-combatants.

Ummm,

the weapon is mounted on the top side of the aircraft so that it can be used against incoming ballistic missiles.

As such, the weapon could not be used on ground targets unless the plane is flown upside down, which is not terribly feasible with a C-130 or 747.

[Seismosaurus]

I believe these are mostly intended to shoot down short and medium range ballistic missiles - SCUDs and such. The idea is to fly them over your territory near the border, and they can shoot across to get the missiles as they are rising out of the atmosphere.

Today's missiles can hit SCUD-type targets quite well, but they hit them on the way down to the target. A surface to air missile kills the target by peppering it with shrapnel. Do that to an inbound ballistic missile and you may tear it up a bit, but it just keeps right on falling. You don't even get the benefit of knocking it off target, because SCUDs in particular aren't even meant to be particularly accurate.

With the laser hitting the missile earlier it's going to have a far better chance of stopping them from reaching their targets.

[Ziggurat]

Ummm,

the weapon is mounted on the top side of the aircraft so that it can be used against incoming ballistic missiles.

As such, the weapon could not be used on ground targets unless the plane is flown upside down, which is not terribly feasible with a C-130 or 747.

This is incorrect. First off, I think you might be confusing the ABL (which mounts on a 747) with the ATL (which mounts on a C-130). The ATL will not be mounted on top but on the bottom of the C-130.

Second, even the ABL does not mount on the top side of the aircraft. I've seen early drawings with such an arrangement, but that's not how they actually mount the thing. It comes out the nose, not the top.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/abl7.html
That funny round thing on the nose is the projector for the laser.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

I noticed that it has not actually been tested yet ...

This weapon has been in the works for over twenty years now, hopefully all of the vast sums that have been spent on it will finally result in something that works. Although, even if it does, I still fail to see what its practical application may be.

It may actually be closer to thirty years ago. I was a lab assistant in an energetics lab consisting of a shock tube chemical laser in the mid/late 1970s. Oh, that sounds cooler than it really was! I did make shock tube diaphragms by scoring Xs into thin sheets of metal (they burst to combine gasses after there was a sufficient pressure differential).

[Crossbow]

This is incorrect. First off, I think you might be confusing the ABL (which mounts on a 747) with the ATL (which mounts on a C-130). The ATL will not be mounted on top but on the bottom of the C-130.

Second, even the ABL does not mount on the top side of the aircraft. I've seen early drawings with such an arrangement, but that's not how they actually mount the thing. It comes out the nose, not the top.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/abl7.html
That funny round thing on the nose is the projector for the laser.

Sorry about that!

You are correct.

The 747 is nose mounted, but it is designed to shoot upwards. Whereas the C-130 system is belly mounted.

And both systems use the same type of laser and director.

[BenBurch]

A good cheap countermeasure for a laser like this is burning oil drums. The Smoke obscures and the heat makes the air "shimmer" and both are bad for your effectiveness.

[Hellbound]

Sorry about that!

You are correct.

The 747 is nose mounted, but it is designed to shoot upwards. Whereas the C-130 system is belly mounted.

And both systems use the same type of laser and director.

I'll let it slide...

..this time ;)

the ABL is the anti-missle one, as Zigguraut pointed out. It's intended not just against incoming but also outgoing missiles. It can fly high and long enough that it can protect a fairly large area (as I understand it).

Of course, I don't have any real data on just how effective the lasers are (time to destroy, time meeded to track, etc)...so that can, of course, make huge differences in how effective any of these would be :)

[mhaze]

Why be thinking of ways to vaporize enimes or put holes in their strategeries. Why not go for peaceful applets.

One of these orbiting an underdeveloped country (without electrical transmission line infrastructure and power grids). We could put hundreds of fast food restruants, and every few minutes, heat all those fries up just right with one Sky Fry Zap. Sell Biggie Fries, Biggie Cokes. Our fries, their money. Their money buys more gas to keep the big fry cooker in the sky going.

I like technology....

[DRBUZZ0]

Have they even got the big ABL flying and shooting things yet? Damn I don't mean to be a backseat quarterback or anything, but I've been hearing that thing was just about ready for action for years. I wonder how much tax money has gone into that thus far...

In any case, it's about damn time they start frying some stuff