...are politicians who don't give a sh*t about this country's safety and security as much as they do about their own political careers (lazy Americans want health care and government hand outs, not missile defenses built by warmongers).

 

Naw seriously,

I was reading further,

and the Wiki entry and other places suggest other possible targets sets: using this as a high altitude platform to destroy lower-orbit satellites (enemy recon birds) seems like a no-brainer.

The engineers and people involved in the program suggest that was never its original mission, but hey, if it works,...

 

The burden of proof would be on the "victim" nation's shoulders to prove it was the US that disabled their asset, instead of space debris or self-malfuction, etc...

 

Shouldn't be to much of an issue, biggest difference being in that an orbitting satellite isn't generating a heat signature like a boosting ICBM/IRBM, but the satellite's easily-predictable path should make it a fairly easy target to track (radar + IR).

The trick is, can the aircraft's turret servors and mirror mechanisms accurately-enough track and engage the sat to keep the beam in place long enough for a disabling shot?

I understand that the airborne laser counters the distracting effects of lower atmosphere as it flies up high. But if there is a consideration about disabling low-orbit satellites, could high mountaintops provide a feasible stationary platform for the very same purpose?

 

Of course there are no 12 km high mountains out there but even those at 5 km go above a lot of atmospheric activity. Stationary platforms could be multiple times more powerful than those fitted on jumbojets. They would also be superiorily accurate, thus the Rockies would create a natural defencive line - maybe even against ICBMS's on their way down.

 

Naturally stationary lasers couldn't hunt anything out of their range, but they'd provide aerial denial for quite large sectors.

Mountaintop aerial denial / anti-missile laser as a concept increases in feasibility the higher mountains a country has within its borders. Netherlands or Denmark need not apply.

 

Probably a dumb idea overall, but I'm not the one who brought up bringing down low-orbit sats. Wikipedia did. 

For a moment,

I looked at various mountain areas and saw how they are affected by weather patterns: not good in many cases.

 (I wouldn't want to have to protect Seattle with a ground-based laser system in the Cascades...)

 

But then I remembered: there are observatories (astronomy) mounted in some areas up in the higher elevations that aren't concerned with wide swings in the local weather patterns: Kitt Peak comes to minds, among others.

 

Sure, it's feasible.

But what if the area you're really wanting to protect isn't near any worthwhile mountains?

 

(And how high up in elevation do we need to be to be assured we're above the interference of the majority of a given region's most troublesome weather patterns?)

 

I'd consider the idea of airships (LTA/blimp/etc) that can be on station for several days at a time, even weeks, with minimal need to land, other than relief crews and supplies.

Enough tankage of laser fuel (until solid state designs are more refined) that it's good for several dozen shots, with enough altitude it could get above most cloud cover, and could, at least in theory, have multpile turrets like the ABL's,

and that it could allow it to cover continental regional areas (depends on the actual effective range of the COIL lasers....).

Blimps, why not. Their problems are again with weather, and that they don't fly too high. But it might be a compromise and more feasible to some ends than mounting lasers on large heavier-than-air planes.

 

And if we focus on satellites, for what I understand about their trajectories, you can just deny access through places that would lead to places you aim to protect. Satellites don't do u-turns, so with some careful placement planning you could deny access from very large areas of the sky. You don't have to disable a satellite on top of what you aim to protect; 2000 km prior or after will do just as well.

 

Comparing to airborne lasers, maybe you could just compensate the weather interference with power and accuracy you can get by static mounting?

 

I thought about the astronomical observatories too suggesting this concept. Astronomists and laser battery operators could form lasting friendships sharing the same mountaintops and even enable some small recreatory businesses:)

 Where is the gondola load on a blimp?  http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmilep.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />

 

The laser is supposed to shoot UP. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emembarrassed.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />

 

Back to the drawing board.  http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emcrook.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />

 

...Basing loosely off the YAL-1's design,

an LTA platform could have a turret both in the nose and tail,

allowing considerable area coverage (cones of fire), from near-enough 90 degrees up, down, left, right of the airframe's central (or turret) axis.

This would allow a very wide target engagement envelope: anything from low-orbit sats to aircraft could be engaged, thus the platform gains a considerable stand off self defense capability (unless the attacking aircraft can somehow manage to approach the platform continuously thru cloud cover, negating/dissipating the laser weapon's lethality to near-uselessness.

 

Or, if nose and tail cones aren't desireable,

there have been several lighter-than-air designs that don't use the tried-and-true aerodynamic tubed/torpedo shape we're all more familiar with.

There have been numerous deltoid/triangular shapes mentioned over the years, some of which have been (suspected) black projects, even to the point they were the speculation of UFOs,...these designs wouldn't be reliant on fore & aft turrets/gimbals, but could just as well mount them at the outer ends/edges/corners (or even "wing" tips, if you like) of the deltoid shape, again offering considerable spherical coverage.

The idea being, this large engagement cone means the LTA can defend itself if necessary from lower-altitude opponents (it'd be a safe-enough bet the platform could incorporate considerable AEW sensory elements that could queue up not just its own laser weaponry, but also self defensive long-ranged AAMs, even linking to friendly aircraft and surface systems its targetting data.

 

The equivalent of an aerial battleship, it could quite possibly sit/float well enough inside its own national borders that threat aircraft (or SAMs) just couldn't reach it.

 

This actually is reaching into future weapons concepts: a large LTA long-endurance platform with large generating capacity could be equipped with other DEW systems (microwave weapons).

The early designs featuring COIL lasers could be the precursors to nuclear-powered platforms with solid state systems and other offensive EW's, half a century out from today...

These platforms could have massive sensory capability, able to move about the nation as needed (weather dependent of course, which itself has pluses and minuses for any threat aircraft as well),

taking the idea of air dominance to a new level.

It gets even more interesting if deployable UCAVs could be incorporated, similar to the parasite fighter concepts of decades ago.

 

As for weather susceptibility: keep in mind that various helium balloon tests have sent systems well into the upper rarified atmosphere, where no combat jets (or current missile designs) would have sufficient air to operate (a new generation of missiles reliant primarily on TVC and reaction control thrusters would be needed to counter these future high altitude aerial battleships, although long-ranged ground-based offensive EW systems might prove useful...?).

 

Future developments in materials engineering will give us the ability to build the actual LTA structure (current LTA high altitude designs surpass those of the 1960s era).

Improvements in power generation and storage densities will give us the endurance ability (again, perhaps only limited by any manned crews' limitations, not unlike an SSN at sea).

 

We wouldn't be building fragile Macons all over again,

just as how modern jet designs like the F-22 and F-35 are vastly superior to the first Gloster Meteors and Bell P-59s.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if you can ever completely overcome the key vulnerabilities of a blimp in actual combat use, since the opponent keeps improving all the time too.

 

All the tech you have to fit inside one to be even theoretically survivable, and yet never able to carry any kind of armor with you.. The equation of gains and cost - I'm not sure if you are ever able to win that one. And by ever I mean during my lifetime, since after that I don't care for the accuracy of my opinions.

 

But as long as it's just about scraping satellites off the skies or other non-combat uses, I believe we haven't seen the last of blimps yet.  (btw, I quite didn't get the modern designs you referred to, doggtag)

If you can fit a turret on the nose of a 747, I'm quite sure you can stick the tech straight up from the cockpit&quarters, through the (in this case rigid) envelope and the turrett on top still maintaining balance and buoyancy. I used to read about blimp concepts of Cargolifter AG with a cargo capacity of 160 metric tonnes so I guess this also - feasible or not - could be done.

http://www.space.com/images/h_abl_cutaway_02.jpg" width="650" height="345" />

 

 

The people who designed the laser, thought about an airship first. Now why did they pick the biggest airliner they could find?  You tell me. Hint: that laser is HEAVY and the lamps are LONG..