Boeing's Airborne Laser Defense Fails the Test
- Thread starter Martian
- Start date
Re: Stability of ABL platform is also an issue
I'm sure that the YAL-1 could fly above the clouds in such scenarios.
I'm sure that the YAL-1 could fly above the clouds in such scenarios.
Martian
Senior Member
More weather limitations for ABL
A cumulus cloudscape over Swifts Creek, Victoria, Australia
In that scenario, the YAL-1 is unlikely to be able to reliably detect or lase the missile in its boost phase. The YAL-1 has lost valuable time waiting to track and attack the ICBM during the slowest part of its boost phase, while it has to wait until the ICBM emerges beyond cloud cover.
The window to attack a ballistic missile in the boost phase is 180 seconds. The YAL-1 requires 120 seconds to destroy a non-countermeasured ICBM. Cloud cover obscures detection and prevents lasing until the ICBM emerges from beyond cloud cover.
When it's cloudy, given the time constraint, it will be very difficult for the YAL-1 to successfully destroy an ICBM in its boost phase. We will only know for certain if the ABL is tested under non-ideal conditions.
Additional weather problems for an ABL are smoke and/or dust from large wildfires, which happened this summer in Russia, or volcanic eruptions, which occurred a few days ago in Indonesia on October 27th.
A cumulus cloudscape over Swifts Creek, Victoria, Australia
In that scenario, the YAL-1 is unlikely to be able to reliably detect or lase the missile in its boost phase. The YAL-1 has lost valuable time waiting to track and attack the ICBM during the slowest part of its boost phase, while it has to wait until the ICBM emerges beyond cloud cover.
The window to attack a ballistic missile in the boost phase is 180 seconds. The YAL-1 requires 120 seconds to destroy a non-countermeasured ICBM. Cloud cover obscures detection and prevents lasing until the ICBM emerges from beyond cloud cover.
When it's cloudy, given the time constraint, it will be very difficult for the YAL-1 to successfully destroy an ICBM in its boost phase. We will only know for certain if the ABL is tested under non-ideal conditions.
Additional weather problems for an ABL are smoke and/or dust from large wildfires, which happened this summer in Russia, or volcanic eruptions, which occurred a few days ago in Indonesia on October 27th.
Last edited:
Martian
Senior Member
ABL countermeasures
This is from one of my previous posts (e.g. #158) in the thread "PLA missile defense system":
One countermeasure against an airborne laser is to make a laser-resistant missile (i.e. ablative coating or reflective surface) and/or to spin it and dissipate the heat energy.
Another approach is to attack the airborne laser platform itself. The airborne laser is humongous and not stealthy. During operation, it emits a giant infrared signature. Using ground-to-air missiles like the S-300 or air-to-air missiles from attacking jets, the airborne laser is vulnerable to being shot down.
Common sense also dictates that a rival state would build comparable and smaller airborne lasers of their own. By fielding more numerous smaller airborne lasers, the defender can lase the opponent's airborne laser.
A third approach is to take advantage of natural weather conditions. An attacker may want to wait for cloudy weather (i.e. inhibits laser) across the entire Northern Hemisphere or a severe solar storm (i.e. interferes with electronics).
There is always the old EMP standby. Launch a nuclear-tipped Nike Hercules-class interceptor missile at an airborne laser. Detonate an EMP at the airborne laser plane and their sensors should be damaged. At a minimum, the atmospheric distortions caused by the thermonuclear blast will disrupt the sensors and targeting of the airborne laser.
It may also be possible to shoot down airborne lasers with ground-based or sea-based units of attacking lasers.
In conclusion, airborne lasers are merely another weapon in the toolbox of a country. They are subject to the typical responses of countermeasures, platform attacks, disruptions, weather conditions, and convergent engineering (i.e. everyone knows that China has a laser development program).
This is from one of my previous posts (e.g. #158) in the thread "PLA missile defense system":
One countermeasure against an airborne laser is to make a laser-resistant missile (i.e. ablative coating or reflective surface) and/or to spin it and dissipate the heat energy.
Another approach is to attack the airborne laser platform itself. The airborne laser is humongous and not stealthy. During operation, it emits a giant infrared signature. Using ground-to-air missiles like the S-300 or air-to-air missiles from attacking jets, the airborne laser is vulnerable to being shot down.
Common sense also dictates that a rival state would build comparable and smaller airborne lasers of their own. By fielding more numerous smaller airborne lasers, the defender can lase the opponent's airborne laser.
A third approach is to take advantage of natural weather conditions. An attacker may want to wait for cloudy weather (i.e. inhibits laser) across the entire Northern Hemisphere or a severe solar storm (i.e. interferes with electronics).
There is always the old EMP standby. Launch a nuclear-tipped Nike Hercules-class interceptor missile at an airborne laser. Detonate an EMP at the airborne laser plane and their sensors should be damaged. At a minimum, the atmospheric distortions caused by the thermonuclear blast will disrupt the sensors and targeting of the airborne laser.
Another idea is to build specialized missiles that are laser-resistant to attack airborne lasers. These specialized missiles are built with a small warhead to destroy only a large airborne laser airplane.
It may also be possible to shoot down airborne lasers with ground-based or sea-based units of attacking lasers.
In conclusion, airborne lasers are merely another weapon in the toolbox of a country. They are subject to the typical responses of countermeasures, platform attacks, disruptions, weather conditions, and convergent engineering (i.e. everyone knows that China has a laser development program).
Last edited:
Martian
Senior Member
An ICBM spinning on its axis will require twice as long to destroy it
FIGURE 1. Possible countermeasures to laser attack on ballistic missiles include covering the missile with a material highly reflective at the laser wavelength and spinning the missile about its long axis to distribute laser energy over a larger area.
At a maximum, an ABL can only lase the portion of the ICBM that it is facing (e.g. from a single vantage point, you can only see half of the Moon). By spinning the missile along its axis, it will require at least twice the time to destroy it with an ABL.
Instead of two minutes, it will require at least four minutes or 240 seconds, which is longer than the 180-second boost phase. The ABL needs an upgrade in technology and must prove it can reliably track and maintain a beam on the same spot on a much-faster-moving ICBM in its mid-course phase.
Loitering above enemy airspace for four minutes in a Boeing 747 may prove to be deadly.
FIGURE 1. Possible countermeasures to laser attack on ballistic missiles include covering the missile with a material highly reflective at the laser wavelength and spinning the missile about its long axis to distribute laser energy over a larger area.
At a maximum, an ABL can only lase the portion of the ICBM that it is facing (e.g. from a single vantage point, you can only see half of the Moon). By spinning the missile along its axis, it will require at least twice the time to destroy it with an ABL.
Instead of two minutes, it will require at least four minutes or 240 seconds, which is longer than the 180-second boost phase. The ABL needs an upgrade in technology and must prove it can reliably track and maintain a beam on the same spot on a much-faster-moving ICBM in its mid-course phase.
Loitering above enemy airspace for four minutes in a Boeing 747 may prove to be deadly.
Last edited:
Well, I suppose we can claim at the very least that China has achieved equivalence with the US in respect of its own Laser Weapon programme - meaning that it probably doesn't work either:rofl:
Sorry couldn't resist.
Sorry couldn't resist.
I think the main thing now regarding laser is... it is effective as a dazzler, whereby high power laser could create 'blinding' effect to prevent opponent's satellite from 'seeing' something that they do not want them to see.
As for laser knocking down of missiles are still quite far fetch... but not really impossible - at least theoretically... the only problem is to miniaturise the laser system, its power generator, etc, small enough for it to be effectively carried on mobile platforms like a plane or even a ship, still takes time.
As for laser knocking down of missiles are still quite far fetch... but not really impossible - at least theoretically... the only problem is to miniaturise the laser system, its power generator, etc, small enough for it to be effectively carried on mobile platforms like a plane or even a ship, still takes time.
Martian
Senior Member
BMW recalls 150,000 cars over faulty fuel pumps
After almost 100 years of experience, a BMW designed and manufactured high-pressure fuel pump is discovered to be defective and being recalled in 150,000 BMW cars.
BMW has been manufacturing cars for almost 100 years. However, BMW still cannot design and manufacture a reliable high-pressure fuel pump. My point is that current technology has limitations. The proposal to send an extremely-complex nuclear reactor into space with high-pressure, high-temperature, and high-volume compressors is not realistic.
I haven't mentioned the other gazillion parts in a nuclear reactor. A nuclear reactor is highly-complex and high-maintenance. There are numerous and redundant safety features because engineers are uncertain where failures may occur.
Current technology is not capable of assembling, operating, maintaining, repairing, and overhauling a Mega-watt class nuclear reactor in space. I would argue that the Russian experience over 45 years has demonstrated that current technology is incapable of reliably operating and maintaining a tiny 10 kW nuclear reactor in space beyond 11 months.
"BMW recalls 150,000 cars over faulty fuel pumps
Posted by Clifford Atiyeh October 26, 2010 04:08 PM
BMW said today it would recall about 150,000 vehicles in the US due to faulty fuel pumps that could reduce engine power, or in some cases, shut the car off entirely while driving.
About 130,000 cars that use a high-pressure fuel pump, used in BMW's twin-turbocharged six-cylinder engines, will be recalled to replace the pump or apply a software update, the company said. The affected cars include the 2007-2010 335i, 2008-2010 135i, 535i, and X6 xDrive35i, and the 2009-2010 Z4 sDrive35i.
The voluntary recall was announced shortly after ABC News aired a report on BMW models that were allegedly sluggish during acceleration. BMW said this effect -- known as a "limp home" mode -- was normal if the car detects problems with the fuel pump.
The New York Times quoted a BMW spokesman who said the affected cars are "driveable under less power" but that it was not a safety defect.
In addition, BMW will recall 20,800 six-cylinder X5 models to replace the fuel pump, which uses a lower-pressure unit. If this unit failed, the company said the engine would shut off and cut off power assists to the steering and brakes.
High-pressure fuel pumps are used in a process called direct injection, where fuel is sprayed directly into each cylinder head instead of being mixed with air via the intake valves. Engines with direct injection are able to produce greater power and fuel economy than those with standard fuel injection."
After almost 100 years of experience, a BMW designed and manufactured high-pressure fuel pump is discovered to be defective and being recalled in 150,000 BMW cars.
BMW has been manufacturing cars for almost 100 years. However, BMW still cannot design and manufacture a reliable high-pressure fuel pump. My point is that current technology has limitations. The proposal to send an extremely-complex nuclear reactor into space with high-pressure, high-temperature, and high-volume compressors is not realistic.
I haven't mentioned the other gazillion parts in a nuclear reactor. A nuclear reactor is highly-complex and high-maintenance. There are numerous and redundant safety features because engineers are uncertain where failures may occur.
Current technology is not capable of assembling, operating, maintaining, repairing, and overhauling a Mega-watt class nuclear reactor in space. I would argue that the Russian experience over 45 years has demonstrated that current technology is incapable of reliably operating and maintaining a tiny 10 kW nuclear reactor in space beyond 11 months.
"BMW recalls 150,000 cars over faulty fuel pumps
Posted by Clifford Atiyeh October 26, 2010 04:08 PM
BMW said today it would recall about 150,000 vehicles in the US due to faulty fuel pumps that could reduce engine power, or in some cases, shut the car off entirely while driving.
About 130,000 cars that use a high-pressure fuel pump, used in BMW's twin-turbocharged six-cylinder engines, will be recalled to replace the pump or apply a software update, the company said. The affected cars include the 2007-2010 335i, 2008-2010 135i, 535i, and X6 xDrive35i, and the 2009-2010 Z4 sDrive35i.
The voluntary recall was announced shortly after ABC News aired a report on BMW models that were allegedly sluggish during acceleration. BMW said this effect -- known as a "limp home" mode -- was normal if the car detects problems with the fuel pump.
The New York Times quoted a BMW spokesman who said the affected cars are "driveable under less power" but that it was not a safety defect.
In addition, BMW will recall 20,800 six-cylinder X5 models to replace the fuel pump, which uses a lower-pressure unit. If this unit failed, the company said the engine would shut off and cut off power assists to the steering and brakes.
High-pressure fuel pumps are used in a process called direct injection, where fuel is sprayed directly into each cylinder head instead of being mixed with air via the intake valves. Engines with direct injection are able to produce greater power and fuel economy than those with standard fuel injection."
Last edited:
Spartan95
Junior Member
Re: Reality check
Which is exactly why satellites are currently powered by solar panels. Because they are a sufficient means to meet the power requirements. Otherwise, alternative and more powerful means would have been developed.
I didn't say there is no maintenance requirements. Just as the sapce station requires regular maintenance, so would a complex satellite. However, that is not the same as the need to do nuclear refueling.
This is a matter of perspective. And obviousle I have a different perspective from you.
Again, I would say this is a matter of perspective. If there is a requirement, I'm sure the investment would be made, and the rewards reaped.
And as I said earlier, there is currently no high energy requirement that neccessitates a nuclear powered statellite because the energy requirements can be met with solar panels. However, if there is high energy requirements, than alternatives will be looked into (including nuclear reactors).
If the US can build a nuclear powered bomber in the 50s, I would think they have the technology to build a nuclear powered statellite in the near future if they choose to.
Now, the question is whether there is such a requirement? Currently, because space isn't being weaponised there is no such requirement.
But, in the next race (be it to Mars, or weaponisation of space), there could well be significant energy requirements that solar panels are unable to meet (e.g., include laser weapons or energy for life support systems in interplanetery travel). That's when nuclear reactors may be the answer.
In a related issue, the US is unlikely to kill the ABL at the moment simply because they still have the lead in energy weapons (at least in open media reporting). And the ABL allows them to test laser weapons at high altitudes, something no other country has at the moment. By killing the ABL, the US' laser program might well end up being in the same stage as other country's (i.e., terrestrial testing only).
Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, there is the potential of the ABL being deployed as an ASAT weapon (i.e., by shooting the laser upwards at satellites in space). Not much issues with weather there.
Which is exactly why satellites are currently powered by solar panels. Because they are a sufficient means to meet the power requirements. Otherwise, alternative and more powerful means would have been developed.
I didn't say there is no maintenance requirements. Just as the sapce station requires regular maintenance, so would a complex satellite. However, that is not the same as the need to do nuclear refueling.
This is a matter of perspective. And obviousle I have a different perspective from you.
Again, I would say this is a matter of perspective. If there is a requirement, I'm sure the investment would be made, and the rewards reaped.
And as I said earlier, there is currently no high energy requirement that neccessitates a nuclear powered statellite because the energy requirements can be met with solar panels. However, if there is high energy requirements, than alternatives will be looked into (including nuclear reactors).
If the US can build a nuclear powered bomber in the 50s, I would think they have the technology to build a nuclear powered statellite in the near future if they choose to.
Now, the question is whether there is such a requirement? Currently, because space isn't being weaponised there is no such requirement.
But, in the next race (be it to Mars, or weaponisation of space), there could well be significant energy requirements that solar panels are unable to meet (e.g., include laser weapons or energy for life support systems in interplanetery travel). That's when nuclear reactors may be the answer.
In a related issue, the US is unlikely to kill the ABL at the moment simply because they still have the lead in energy weapons (at least in open media reporting). And the ABL allows them to test laser weapons at high altitudes, something no other country has at the moment. By killing the ABL, the US' laser program might well end up being in the same stage as other country's (i.e., terrestrial testing only).
Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, there is the potential of the ABL being deployed as an ASAT weapon (i.e., by shooting the laser upwards at satellites in space). Not much issues with weather there.
Martian
Senior Member
Engineering and financial barriers to a large nuclear reactor in space
A nuclear-powered submarine is operating in a friendly Earth environment. If there is a problem, the reactor is shut down and the submarine surfaces. The submarine radios for help and it is towed to port. In space, there is no help for a malfunctioning nuclear reactor. It cannot be towed to a repair facility.
A submarine also has access to an endless supply of coolant (e.g. ocean water). In space, there is no coolant material. Also, any coolant, which is leaked and lost, must be replaced with a rocket delivery.
Unfortunately, there is no space dock. I have no idea how they will repair an orbiting nuclear reactor without heavy equipment, extensive diagnostic machinery, and teams of experts for on-site inspection.
A nuclear submarine may look small, but the British Astute-class weigh 7,400 tonnes each. A nuclear submarine requires heavy radiation-shielding for the nuclear reactor to protect the crew.
The space shuttle has a payload capacity of 24.4 tonnes to LEO (i.e. low earth orbit) or 3.8 tonnes to GTO (i.e. geosynchronous transfer orbit). To have a sense of the scope of the problem, it would require 303 space shuttle flights to send 7,400 tonnes into LEO. For GTO, it would require 1,947 space shuttle flights. In thirty years, the space shuttle has only made a total of approximately 135 flights.
There is also the issue of affordability. Each space shuttle launch costs $1.3 billion dollars. It will cost a staggering amount of money to launch the components for a large nuclear reactor into space.
The engineering problems are daunting. Since 1965, the United States has not pursued the development of nuclear reactors for space usage.
Sampanviking said:
A nuclear-powered submarine is operating in a friendly Earth environment. If there is a problem, the reactor is shut down and the submarine surfaces. The submarine radios for help and it is towed to port. In space, there is no help for a malfunctioning nuclear reactor. It cannot be towed to a repair facility.
A submarine also has access to an endless supply of coolant (e.g. ocean water). In space, there is no coolant material. Also, any coolant, which is leaked and lost, must be replaced with a rocket delivery.
Unfortunately, there is no space dock. I have no idea how they will repair an orbiting nuclear reactor without heavy equipment, extensive diagnostic machinery, and teams of experts for on-site inspection.
A nuclear submarine may look small, but the British Astute-class weigh 7,400 tonnes each. A nuclear submarine requires heavy radiation-shielding for the nuclear reactor to protect the crew.
The space shuttle has a payload capacity of 24.4 tonnes to LEO (i.e. low earth orbit) or 3.8 tonnes to GTO (i.e. geosynchronous transfer orbit). To have a sense of the scope of the problem, it would require 303 space shuttle flights to send 7,400 tonnes into LEO. For GTO, it would require 1,947 space shuttle flights. In thirty years, the space shuttle has only made a total of approximately 135 flights.
There is also the issue of affordability. Each space shuttle launch costs $1.3 billion dollars. It will cost a staggering amount of money to launch the components for a large nuclear reactor into space.
The engineering problems are daunting. Since 1965, the United States has not pursued the development of nuclear reactors for space usage.
Last edited: