Unscrupulous Advocates

I really want to ask Loren Thompson exactly what level he would stoop to in his efforts to advocate Air Force acquisition programs. How much would he ignore in his protestations that OSD is not giving struggling program offices a chance to mature their technologies? Well, now I know. He wrote to the National Defense magazine in an effort to combat what he saw as "bad press" when that journal critically reviewed the Airborne Laser (ABL) program. Here's what was stated by Grace Jean in the March article:

Just a year ago, the Pentagon’s science advisors warned that a lack of progress in the development of directed-energy weapons has resulted in a significant decline in interest and support for these technologies. The panel of advisors, known as the Defense Science Board, pointed out that not a single directed energy system has been fielded to date, and that there are fewer programs currently under way than there were a decade ago.

One of the toughest technical challenges is producing lasers with enough lethal energy to surpass conventionally powered weapons, says Philip Coyle, a senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information and a former director of weapons testing at the Pentagon. “It’s really hard to beat the amount of energy in a rifle bullet, let alone even more powerful weapons systems,” he says. To do so with a laser requires a large and heavy system that is not conducive to the rigors of the battlefield.

Military laboratories and contractors have spent decades trying to boost the power in laser systems while trying to pare down the package, with limited success.

“It’s not easy and nobody has really succeeded yet,” says Coyle.

Despite limited gains and successes, the program still has not convinced members of Congress or OSD leaders that this is a viable and operational capability that should be further funded. And when we say funded, it has already had $4.3 billion poured into the effort. Thompson leaps to the defense:

While lasers are not always a cost-effective alternative to conventional “kinetic” weapons, they are distinctly unique. They deliver lethal energy at the speed of light — about 300,000 kilometers per second — and are not subject to physical constraints such as gravity and atmospheric drag. In many applications they cost much less per kill than using missiles or munitions. They also are more precise and more versatile than other weapons. For instance, depending on power levels, the same laser device can be used to destroy a target, nonlethally disable it, or simply track it. 

The performance of the airborne laser program needs to be understood against this backdrop. It is true that the program has been delayed several years by technical challenges, and that it consumes more funding than all of the government’s other directed-energy weapons programs combined. But it has made steady progress toward operational status, and will provide revolutionary capabilities when it gets there.
----------
It may turn out to be the only weapon that can successfully destroy ballistic missiles headed for the United States before they release multiple warheads and penetration aids. If the system achieves successful shoot-down of a live target this year it is a huge breakthrough, and if it doesn’t then it deserves to be tested a second time. It doesn’t make sense to spend 15 years and $4.3 billion on a vital capability, and then throw it all away because of one failed test.

Thompson uses Edison's search for a durable light bulb and the development of the Internet as similar examples of how research and development efforts took time to show their true potential. But those are inappropriate examples, not only because the federal government didn't pour billions into those programs. Just because we can put a large, expensive chemical laser in the sky does not mean that it ought to be developed as a military capability. For the ABL to be successful, it basically has to be flying near the launch point of the ballistic missile to catch it during the boost phase. So do the math - for every nuclear-owning weapon state, we have to have a number of Boeing 747s flying loops around that state, waiting for the launch to occur. Does this sound like a reasonable operational concept?

Thompson gets quoted heavily in major news papers in addition to writing frequently on Air Force (and other defense) topics for his think tank, the Lexington Institute. His advocacy goes a step too far when he ignores the substantial cost of research and development to date, the lack of a sound operational concept, and competing defense requirements during wartime. President Obama and SecDef Gates were right to push this program back into early R&D. Had I been within earshot of those two, I would have pushed for killing it entirely - but Congress probably wouldn't have allowed that to happen.

Comments

[Cheryl Rofer]

Well, it's been thirty years at least. I recall colleagues working excitedly on airborne lasers back in the 1970's. Should be ready in another year or two, they said.

[Ray]

Jane's Weapons Systems (full paper available on that site).
J:"Just because we can put a large, expensive chemical laser in the sky does not mean that it ought to be developed as a military capability."
I'm lost here- do you mean that there isn't a research case for airborne military capability in this weapons developments area. I am asking because of the following example from a prestigious publication-

China:

"ZM-87 Portable Laser Disturber, made by NORINCO, was exhibited in 1995. This laser weapon was designed to damage electro-optical sensors and dazzle the human eye at ranges up to 10 km. The equipment was portable, weighed about 35 kg, and has been seen fitted to Type 98 main battle tanks. It is probable that the weapon was also fitted to ships.There have been several reports of Chinese research into ground-based laser weapons to defend against cruise missiles, UAV and aircraft. The Second Artillery were believed to have been developing a system known as 'Shen Huo' using a chemical laser. The 1,028th Research Institute was also reported to be developing a GBL. A laser weapon is reported to have destroyed a drone aircraft in 1999.A report in December 1998 indicated that China has developed a ground-based laser weapon capable of damaging the electro-optical sensors of a satellite in low earth orbit. This system was reported to use a deuterium fluoride chemical laser, and it was believed to have become operational in mid-1998. Later developments have been reported using solid state lasers and adaptive optics, and to have a planned maximum power output of 100 kW. The present system has a lower output, but the actual achieved power is not known. The site for one of the ground-based lasers is located in central China. A further development programme is working on a more powerful system to damage satellite structures."

Ray

[James]

I think the basic problem is that there is, as yet, no energy storage system that works as well as nitrates. This is why they resorted to the awkward "chemical" laser in the first place. Batteries don't have a high enough energy density and large generators aren't very portable. Against Mr Thompson's hype I would point out that lasers cannot fire over the horizon and that the beams can be blocked. Once a laser is fielded it will only be a matter of months before someone deploys a gas generator that degrades the beam.

I believe that the first directed-energy weapons that will actually be fielded will be ship-based microwave emitters intended to burn out search radars on missiles.

[Ray]

Interesting.
On a more mundane but possibly effective level- what about creating optical problems (horrors: blindness injuries) for example, snipers or other troops in combat.
Strange that this has not yet reached (?) same considerations given to some chemical weapons under the Geneva Convention.

[alex]

@Ray,

There are conventions against using lasers to blind people. I think they were ratified after the Falklands War.

[Ray]

Alex- thanks for that.
Strange legislation though, isn't it, when you consider all the other things that are used in warfare. Still, some attempt at ethics is good I suppose.
I've come to the conclusion that war isn't for adults; so I'll continue to reluctantly take an interest in it.
R.

[Kilo]

"They also are more precise and more versatile than other weapons."

You need a direct line of sight, retard.

WWI was the last time you got to fly over any country you wanted without the threat of them shooting your arse down.

I have the world's pointiest stick that will go through any type of body armour in use. It's versitility really doesn't rate next to the fact I need to get well within everyone's guaranteed kill zone to use it.