Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Laser Jet Demoted

Some readers got all bent out of shape last month, when I dared to suggest that laser weapons -- especially the modified 747 Airborne Laser -- weren't ready to move beyond science fiction. (They didn't like how I used the words "whiz-bang" and "shit," either.)

abl-takeoff.jpgThose people are going to be double-mad now, I suppose. Because "the multibillion-dollar Airborne Laser (ABL) program, considered the Pentagon's best chance to develop a weapon to defeat ballistic missiles in their early, boost phase of flight, is being relegated to a technology demonstration status while a planned five-aircraft purchase by the Air Force is put on hold."

The ABL was supposed to start zapping missiles in 2002. Then it was pushed back to 2005. Now, the test is scheduled for 2008. Maybe. Until then, Pentagon's approach to the program is wait and see. Only after that will it be "serious time," a senior Defense Department official says. Originally slated to cost a billion dollars, the ABL has grown into a $7.3 billion behemoth.

Despite all this, the ABL remains the Pentagon's "primary" efort to wack ballistic missiles in their early, "boost" phase. The other big project in the area, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (a projectile which slams into the missile, basically), had its budget cut by $5 billion over 5 years.

The DOD official said last week the agency is “not committing the funding to complete the program” until KEI successfully demonstrates [its] propulsion system in 2008. “So in 2008 there are two knowledge points,” he said. “For ABL it is the shoot-down. For KEI it is a test of the propulsion stack. We will not flesh out the funding until then.”

Latest Comments

As the regional sales manager for an electronics company, I visited the airborne laser development facility in Sunnyvale in 2002 to provide training on a tape recorder that I had sold them some time back. I didn't get to see the laser as it was hidden behind a 20 foot long black curtain. However, the training was conducted directly in front and below the turret ball through which the laser beams pass. Looking down the business end of this weapon impressed me but also made me uneasy. It's unfortunate that the program is not further along as it is the very weapon we need to contain N. Korea now that they have tested a nuclear bomb.

Posted by: Jesse at October 9, 2006 3:06 PM


Can you really put a dollar amount on a nuclear warhead killer? If they work they will save lives....what is a life worth to you?

Posted by: drjones at August 10, 2006 3:01 PM


I believe the ABL is a worthy project and may be the greatest innovation in military aviation since stealth technology. But as a taxpayer, can anyone explain to me why the air force chose the 747 instead of an airframe that is not only less expensive but is already in service and has proven itself? I've seen the diagrams for the ABL and believe it can be mounted in a smaller airframe, such as a C-135. The air force already has hundreds of this aircraft in the form of the KC-135, EC-135,RC-135,E-6A TACAMO, and E-3 Sentry, and the training and technical support for this aircraft is already in place. Does my suggestion make any sense?

Posted by: Michael at March 21, 2006 8:22 PM


I was in Wichita, Ks. when they first started actually test flying the ABL. I thought it just looked like an ugly 747 until I was corrected by a member of the team there. I think it's a really great program, but I can't imagine how many we would need against a country with a considerable stockpile. It's supposed to be able to hit mulitple targets... cool, what are the chances that they'll come from the same vacinity? Personally, I'd like to see the program continue because I'm all for something that'll make me sleep easier, and I also think we'll glean a lot of good technology from this as well. Even if the Manhattan project had flopped, we'd have recieved so much data about the way atoms interact that we'd still probably look the other way about the cost.

Posted by: FRED_LOAD at February 17, 2006 5:28 PM


rogue states? hmmm, I thought the point of these programs was more money for defense contractors?

Posted by: anony at February 17, 2006 1:17 PM


» View All 15 Comments

» Post a Comment