Anti-Anti-Anti-Missile Defense
07.30.2007 - 11:31 AMAs always in the realm of national security, we do not know what we do not know. But one thing we do know–perhaps not to a certainty, but to a high degree of probability–is that next year, or in the next few years at most, unless it is stopped by diplomacy or force, Iran will develop a nuclear weapon. We also know, or should know, that if we permit this catastrophe to happen, we will urgently need defensive weapons to protect ourselves and our allies.
But are programs to develop such weapons on track, or are they being held back by those who would prefer to keep us defenseless?
Much in the news recently, on account of Vladimir Putin’s harsh reaction to it, has been one European component of such a defense, involving a radar station in the Czech republic and interceptor missiles based in Poland.
But the Pentagon has also been developing an Airborne Laser. Carried aboard a Boeing 747, it would be primarily aimed at stopping shorter-range ballistic missiles that could strike allies in Europe or the Middle East, including Israel.
The actual development and testing of an Airborne Laser was first funded in 1996, and the system has made considerable progress in the decade since. Earlier this month, an aircraft equipped with a low-powered laser was able to simulate the operation of a chemical high-powered laser of the kind that is already quite workable on the ground. Here, according to airforce-technology.com, is how that high-power system would work:
The primary laser beam is generated by a megawatt Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) located at the rear of the fuselage, which lases at 1.315 micron wavelength. The high-power laser beam travels toward the front of the aircraft through a pipe. The pipe passes through a Station 1000 bulkhead / airlock, which separates the rear fuselage from the forward cabins. The high-power beam passes through the fine-beam control system mounted on a vibration isolated optical bench. Beam pointing is achieved with very fast, lightweight steering mirrors, which are tilted to follow the target missile.
When the laser beam hits the target missile, it will heat a spot on its fuel tank, causing catastrophic failure in the missile during its boost phase, leading it to fall back with a bang onto the country that launched it.
Of course, as with any major new weapons system, there are technical problems, uncertainties, and issues involving trade-offs and costs. But the fact remains that more than thirty countries have some 10,000 or more ballistic missiles in their arsenals. Some of them are hostile. Some of them are very hostile. Though Iran is the most significant menace, it is not the entire problem.
Existing plans call for a “lethality test” of the Airborne Laser in 2009–right around the corner–entailing the actual shoot-down of a live missile. This if successful, would then allow us to use the system almost immediately in a national emergency.
Which makes one wonder all the more why the now-Democratic-controlled Congress, according to the indispensable Aviation Week & Space Technology, wants to cut funding and delay this lethality test by two years. This delay, unsurprisingly, has not been discussed in the mainstream media at all. What is it all about?
Ever since Ronald Reagan launched the Strategic Defense Initiative, widely mocked at the time by leading Democrats as a “Star Wars” fantasy, liberals have been reflexively opposed to missile defense. As the dangers have grown, many have moderated their rhetorical stance, and some have voted for experimental forays in this area. But a distinct lack of enthusiasm remains.
If the U.S. or one of its allies falls victim to a nuclear-missile attack that we are unable to avert, it will be much too late for finger-pointing at the people responsible for delaying–or killing–our defensive capabilities. It is better to do the finger-pointing now.
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
July 30th, 2007 at 11:50 AM
No doubt developing such a system would be seen by the world and the Democratic party as an act of hostility.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:07 PM
I am very much in favor of this airborne laser system over kinetic kill systems because it can attack missiles in the boost phase, i.e., before they are hypersonic, able to deploy decoys, or overfly friendly territory.
One need only recall the ‘intercept’ of a Scud missile during Desert Storm that still killed many American serviceman when its warhead landed on a barracks in Saudi Arabia. Had it been a chemical, biological, or nuclear warhead the benefit of hitting the missile in its terminal phase would be very limited.
High altitude midcourse intercepts require extremely powerful interceptors, radars and the ability to determine the actual warhead from possible decoys. Extemely challenging and expensive.
Therefore, systems like the Airborne chemical laser and US Navy ABM systems where you get multiple bites at the same apple or can mass your defenses to defend potential targets like Japan or Israel against enemies with limited missile resources seem advisable and immediately necessary. Strategic ABM can take its time as we are not yet faced with ICBMs from Iran or North Korea and China and Russia are not, at this time, imminent threats.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:18 PM
The airborne laser is a spruce goose while a missile defense system is an imperative.
The abl has delayed a real test for many years due to technology failure not lack of funding. In 2002 Congress gave the abl 250 million extra dollars so that it could complete its shoot down of a a missile in 2002. Since then we get a delay year after year. Of course.
abl has smothered all successful directed energy programs because Congress was fooled by the ultra sexy idea of “leap ahead technology” in the air with a high powered laser which is the most difficult engagement geometry for lasers to propagate through. The problems of a moving vehicle on a moving target through slant path turbulence at a short time boost phase no less, and where was the missile detected anyway, is a fairy tale. The adaptive optics have never worked anywhere at high power. The lasers and other payload are hugely overweight.
Please read what is available and then throw your support to real missile defense alternatives and systems that do not violate natures laws, ie the abl will never work. The Cpngressional Report Service has a new article divulging some of the important critical points about abl.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Epi,
I heard the exact same argument for the high altitude interceptors, that they were physically impossible and violated the laws of nature, and yet now we see they are in the testing phase. Now the argument has shifted to the ABL.
The ABL has the most bang for the buck. I would like to see ground-based mobile laser missile defense pushed harder, the type that can intercept mortar and short range rocket attacks.
The US could use this first-class missile defense as a very powerful bargaining chip in diplomatic negotiations.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:02 AM
Sir, your introduction about missile defense is propaganda, the rationale behind it is offensive as an adjunct to a nuclear first strike on Russia.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html
“The current and future U.S. nuclear force, in other words, seems designed to carry out a preemptive disarming strike against Russia or China.”
…
“…the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability”
Hence the current arms race and cooling relations with Russia.
The danger and amorality is further compunded by Bush’s Conplan 8022…
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2007/0218.html
“It could be triggered by the mere ‘perception’ of an imminent threat, and carried out by Presidential order, without Congress.”
… and nuclear incidents, such as the B52 from Minot AFB showing that security systems are no longer reliable.
Further, Irans nuclear weapons is a red herring. Israel have them and MAD is the only time proven doctrine that have prevented nuclear war, thus there are reason to believe that a nuclear Iran would stabilize the ME.
For everybodys sake, please think this through and try to avoid misleading propaganda.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Jeff,
I can tell you are not a physicist. You are talking about two different physical scenarios or “engagement geometries.” You write: “The ABL has the most bang for the buck. I would like to see ground-based mobile laser missile defense pushed harder, the type that can intercept mortar and short range rocket attacks.”
ABL: Long range horizontal propagation (engagement geometry) would require AO; there aren’t any. Look at the fedbiz ops (today’s) where
AF/albuquerque is looking for sources, and.or critique of their requirements for AO. Huh? not done already?
Ground engagements are pretty short range and do not need AO: The low power and even high power laser (ground) engagements have been done by Army with great success. First time success every time and for cheap. But ABL is sprucegoosing all the money.