Feb 122010
 

No, not Branigan.

Boeing 747 uses laser to destroy missile

A U.S. military aircraft, equipped with an airborne laser device, successfully shot down a test missile in the sky off the central California coast Thursday night.

The high-energy laser, mounted on the nose of a modified Boeing 747-400F, was focused on the missile target during its boosting phase. The laser beam burned a hole in the side of the missile.

It was the first time that a laser weapon has engaged and destroyed an in-flight ballistic missile, and is the first time that any system has accomplished destroyed a missile as it was in its boosting phase.

There is a video of the test at the link. It takes several seconds to destroy the missile, the laser tracking it the whole time. it’s not like sci-fi, sadly.

 Posted by at 11:15 pm

  9 Responses to “ZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAAPPPP”

  1. Well, at least the laser beam glows like it’s supposed to.
    I imagine its super-heating all the atmospheric dust between it and the target.
    I haven’t yet been able to find out what sort of a missile the target was; they say “short range ballistic” but don’t give the type.
    Was it a Lance? The ABL was designed to destroy hypergolic liquid fueled missiles like the Scud, and Lance is one of the few things like that we have.

  2. It works! The damned thing works!

    Jim

  3. > at least the laser beam glows like it’s supposed to.

    In infra-red, at least.

  4. Impressive.

    Heh. I wonder if they’ll ever name an interceptor system after George W. Bush? That would seem fair. His father got a carrier, after all.

  5. Never heard of them naming a missile after a person. Not unless your name is “Hercules” or “Zeus” anyway. 😉

  6. The video I saw of the intercept said right on the video “Events are accurate but are not realtime.” Meaning it could have happened a lot faster (or a lot slower I suppose).

  7. Well, that would make sense. If people know how long it takes to take out a missile, they might be able to work up countermeasures or armor or some such.

  8. Scott,

    As cool as this thing is, is it militarily useful? The range is pretty limited and each ABL only has enough lasing fuel for a handful of shots before the bird runs dry.

    Seem like parking Navy boats loaded to their gunwhales with SM-3’s would be a better idea.

    Madoc

  9. > is it militarily useful?

    Yes.

    > Navy boats loaded to their gunwhales with SM-3’s would be a better idea

    An M-16 is generally more useful than a .45, but that doesn’t stop a sane military from issuing sidearms. Think of this as akin to the V-2 or the He 280 or the Bell P-59… maybe it’ll work out, maybe it won’t… but it’s worth doing regardles,s because the *next* one will kick ass.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.