I’ve just finished reading an articleabout the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the travails of the Airborne Laser (ABL).

In a word, it’s a mess.

We have, “The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) dropped the traditional requirements-setting process in favor of a “capabilities-based” approach, intended to more quickly field a system capable of responding to some, if not all, of the current ballistic missile threats, according to the report.”

So basically, they will field this against something like an Atlas Class liquid fueled rocket, which derives structural integrity from internal pressure and a very thin walled skin.

Problem is that only the Atlas ever used this. Liquid rockets with conventional structures, like the Titan and the Soviet systems are more robust, and can be hardened to become mroe robust. Solid fueled rockets are more robust still.

Moving to those does not require anything but a bit of time and money…After it’s not…OK, it is rocket science, but it’s not hard rocket science.

Additional problems:

• “The total ABL program cost cannot be given or estimated because of the acquisition strategy adopted by MDA for missile defense”. This is almost certainly a deliberate attempt to shield a program over budget.
• “Nor has the final system architecture been identified, meaning that the total number of ABL aircraft to be procured has not been determined.”
• “ABL will be a highly visible asset. It is very large, and will be escorted by fighter aircraft. Its high altitude will also help to distinguish it from other wide-body aircraft.”
• Long in-theater on-station time for the ABL is premised on forward basing. These forward bases would likely not have chemical replenishment capabilities, meaning return flights to the United States if the laser is used.

This is an ill conceived program that has continued through inertia, and the fact that the person who cancels this will likely have their career ended.

White Elephant