Air Force Turns 747 Into Holster for Giant Laser (washingtonpost.com)

[Eugene Leitl]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Jim Choate wrote:

> Bull. Missiles are vulnerable to various assaults during their entire
> flight. The aerodynamic forces during boost and terminal flight

My comment was limited to radiant energy weapons. As to those, the
critical vulnerability exists during launch and boost phase. The target is
slow, bright, large, has fuel on board and a nonarmored hull, which (as
other posters observed) can be weakened with enough flux.

The warhead in transit is fast, small, silent, and very, very hard to hit
critically (well, it is designed to withstand reentry and nuclear
antimissile near-hits), especially if it has a high-albedo coating, and if
it is accompanied by a cloud of decoys. Either radiant energy weapon or
kinetic kill, you're on the losing side here.

> operations, vacuum effects (rupture a fuel tank and watch that baby
> gyrate).

True, but irrelevant.

> > You need serious energy flux and tracking precision to terminate a
> > warhead.
>
> Which has been demonstrated to be extant since the mid-80's when they
> shot the first satellite down with a high altitude fighter.

A missile in boost phase is not a satellite. A cloud of decoys is not a
satellite. An armored warhead is not a satellite.

The problem assymetry makes star wars a very expensive proposition. Using
airborne hardware instead of LEO is a good move, but it falls orders of
magnitude short of the target.

The demos are just that: demos. Given that a limited strike is best
conducted with remotely operated civilian aircraft, or plain old UPS, star
wars seems like effect of industrial lobby.