Print 110 comment(s) - last by Diablo6178.. on Dec 20 at 7:21 PM

Boeing progresses forward with the development of its airborne laser program

Boeing is working on a devastating new weapon which could strike fear into the eyes of all American enemies. The company is progressing at a rapid pace on its 12,000-pound airborne laser.

The Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) was installed into a C-130H gunship and Boeing is on track to begin in-flight tests of the weapon next year. Ground targets will be neutralized via the ATL which is incorporated into a rotating turret on the C-130H's belly.

The ATL is seen as a precise, high-power weapon that will result in less civilian causalities on the battlefield. Due to the nature of the laser being used, targets can be destroyed or disabled with extremely low levels of collateral damage. Boeing claims that the ATL is thus capable of being used on traditional battlefields or in more treacherous urban fighting.

"The installation of the high-energy laser shows that the ATL program continues to make tremendous progress toward giving the warfighter a speed-of-light, precision engagement capability that will dramatically reduce collateral damage," said Boeing Missile Defense Systems VP and GM Scott Fancher. "Next year, we will fire the laser at ground targets, demonstrating the military utility of this transformational directed energy weapon."

The ATL was developed in conjunction with Boeing’s Airborne Laser (ABL) which is fitted to a 747-400F freighter. While the ATL is aimed at destroying ground targets, the ABL is destined to fire upon ballistic missiles.

Boeing's ABL was deemed ready for flight testing in late October 2006 and successfully fired its targeting lasers at an airborne target on March 15, 2007. Boeing hopes to fire its high-energy laser at a ballistic missile in 2009.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Less collateral damage
By Malebolgia on 12/14/2007 5:20:21 AM , Rating: -1
It's a "noble" thing to kill - the wrong - people?
What the hell are you saying?
I think it's very, very delusional to see such amount of resources and money used to develop new and "devastating" weapons. Haven't we learned the lesson yet?
Children in Africa could survive with about a dollar each one, buying medicines against simple infection diseases.

RE: Less collateral damage
By rdeegvainl on 12/14/2007 7:21:25 AM , Rating: 5
I guess that would work, if they stopped killing each other for the medicine we do donate. Oh and making precision weapons is much better that dropping bombs all over the place.

RE: Less collateral damage
By FITCamaro on 12/14/2007 8:16:18 AM , Rating: 5
So its our job to not spend money on military technology so we can give handouts to the rest of the world? People will suffer regardless of how much we do. The US is the world's largest donor of foreign aid.

And yes, its noble to kill those who wish to bring harm to the innocent. Just as its noble to try and prevent the deaths of the innocent while killing those who want to hurt them.

If you live in the US, please leave. Since you're free to. A freedom given to you by our military.

RE: Less collateral damage
By nayy on 12/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less collateral damage
By Master Kenobi on 12/14/2007 10:23:13 AM , Rating: 2
In general a war with China would cause us to lose more than we gain, likewise the same goes for China going to war with us. That is why, while we disagree on many things, we aren't going to kill each other. No net gain.

RE: Less collateral damage
By FITCamaro on 12/14/2007 10:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
while we disagree on many things, we aren't going to kill each other

Yet. There eventually will be a war with China.

And yes, we haven't attacked China largely because it would be a world war.

RE: Less collateral damage
By Master Kenobi on 12/14/2007 10:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
Strong possibility, but not sure how it's going to be played out just yet. Might be a space based war.

RE: Less collateral damage
By straycat74 on 12/14/2007 8:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
He said to prevent killing the wrong people. I'm sure you didn't change his words intentionally.

RE: Less collateral damage
By rushfan2006 on 12/14/2007 11:27:39 AM , Rating: 5
Typical. That's what Malebolgia's reply is to such an issue...typical.

No one here (unless it was posted after my post) is saying killing people or even war is a wonderful thing that we, as Americans, enjoy.

I'm sure many folks who frequent these boards do have a heart and compassion for those less fortunate in the world - like your example of Children in Africa. I myself, have contributed for several years now to various charities for helping less needy children - as I can afford it. I don't ask for credit for that - its just something I think is right to do as a fellow human being.

This all said, don't start this "Americans are bloodthirsty war monger" guilt trip spin here. Name me a single country - just one mind you, that has not shed blood either directly or through an alliance with another country. Name one - you can't, because such a country doesn't exist. All nations on this Earth has at least some history of war, conflict and violence. Some have much more than others of course.

A country has the right, in fact I'd say a country has an obligation to defend itself and its people.

War is harsh, is cruel, is nasty and cold. But you know what - war is reality. Being a pacifist nation , world peace, no violence, no conflict - those are truly wonderful dreams - but it is not reality and sad to say never will be so long as even just two humans walk this earth.

This laser weapon is developed to be more precise to greatly lessen collatteral damage, and yet you and those like you dare to say Americans are the war mongers? In contrast - such weapon in my view shows that a country has deep concern for who it hurts or kills in the way of innocents.

Yes, indeed the one with the delusion is you.

Tell me examples of these Middle Eastern countries and such terrorist states around the globe , show me their concern for killing innocents? Show me examples of how they want to reduce collateral damage?

Please those countries don't give a rat's ass who gets kill in their battles or strikes....YOU are there with your family and you get wiped out -- its as worrisome as a rainy day on their minds, too bad. Senior citizens, disabled persons, kids - any of them dying bothers these countries as much as what to decide on for dinner.

So spare us all your "America the blood thirsty" assumptions and ridicules.

RE: Less collateral damage
By Malebolgia on 12/15/2007 7:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, yes, always the same words if someone try to say something different and out of the "wow, what a cool weapon!" replies.
First of all, I am italian and I know well our recent story of violence and dictatorship (sorry if my english is not perfect). I have nothing against USA, I have friends there, but I simply cannot agree with the aggressive foreign politics of Bush's administration.
So don't feel so targeted about my words. I'd say exactly the same about Russia or China, but who is the actual prominent country who is leading us to the Third World War? USA.
Or you really think that they started the war in Iraq because they had massive destruction weapons? This have been largely denied. War was made for profit and for testing these new weapons (like microwaves weapons).
And yes, I am a weird non-violent and I believe one day we'd live in a pacific world.
Said this, please next time be more careful when arguing with someone you don't know.

RE: Less collateral damage
By Malebolgia on 12/15/2007 7:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
And, be more respectful.
"Typical" is definitely your arrogant and predictable reply, and "delusional" is you lack of establishing a constructive discussion.
I think also that you'd stop giving money to help african children, if you agree with the development of weapons that "could" kill them more precisely.

p.s: actually I made a mistake writing "killing the wrong people", sorry. I meant something like "killing the right people".

"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki