Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9611 posts, RR: 10 Posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1620 times:
I was wondering how the tests of the Airborne Laser are going. On time? When will the second aircraft be built? When will the testphase be finished. This is the most complex weapon system besides a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier so I assume that date can only be vague.
The last thread about and the most recent photos date back from 2002, so I think its time to collect new info.
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1244 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1517 times:
I haven't heard much about the program recently, but I was always under the impression the aircraft was intended for theater-level missile interdiction, essentially an alternative to the very expensive and only moderately successful Patriot system, not to be used in defending against ICBMs (rather short range ballistic missiles). The original plan was to hold the plane 200-400 miles back from a launch site and target missiles while they were still in the initial boost phase of flight--obviously this can't be done from several thousand miles away.
To me, this is a much more feasible use of the system then what the Author describes.
Thus, my question is has the goal of the ABL been changed to protect against long range missiles as he describes, or is the author simply against the program and trying to cite less than truthful examples in order to support his point?
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1516 times:
DW,
From my read of it, it seemed the author was stating that the idea of holding 2 AL-1s over the US for "Homeland Security" would not be a good idea as the threat we would have here is from ICBMs, which, as you point out, isn't what the aircraft is designed for. Thus, since we don't need to maintain 2 over the US, the number of aircraft budgeted for should be reduced at best. This passage is the key one:
Remember that not even the Pentagon brass plans to build a defense against the greatest missile threat we face — the 550 missiles with multiple nuclear warheads belonging to the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces. Since the early 1960s, the United States has stood defenseless against an attack by them. It still is.
The missile defense scheme, of which the airborne laser is part, is intended only to offer limited protection from rogue leaders like … well, Saddam Hussein.
If we use the production AL-1A at home, as the deployment plan prescribes, and if we can make it work, as seems doubtful, the airborne laser will protect us from ballistic missiles launched from Ottawa or Mexico City — or Havana.
Of course, Canada, Mexico and Cuba don’t have intercontinental ballistic missiles. Nor does Iraq. North Korea may eventually have a missile that can reach Alaska, but it doesn’t justify this program.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
North Korea may eventually have a missile that can reach Alaska, but it doesn’t justify this program.
Bull.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Dl021 From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1352 times:
We are more worried about countries that have the ability to hit our allies. It would be a complete economic disaster if Japan was hit by a DPRK nuke, not to mention our stated policy of placing Japan under our nuclear umbrella. Plus the PRC has a limited number of S/ICBMs that could be interdicted if we put one of these over say Russia or Taiwan.
Cancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1342 times:
Of course, Canada, Mexico and Cuba don’t have intercontinental ballistic missiles. Nor does Iraq. North Korea may eventually have a missile that can reach Alaska, but it doesn’t justify this program.
very well put!
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9611 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1244 posts, 
, 11433 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
