Edit

LASERS AND MISSILE DEFENSE: SPACE-BASED AND GROUND-BASED LASER WEAPONS

by Ursula Stegall on Saturday, November 26, 2011 at 6:08pm
LASERS AND MISSILE DEFENSE:
NEW CONCEPTS FOR SPACE-BASED AND GROUND-BASED LASER WEAPONS



by
William H. Possel, Lt Col, USAF



July 1998
Occasional Paper No. 5
Center for Strategy and Technology
Air War College
Air University

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama


Lasers and Missile Defense:
New Concepts for Space-based and Ground-based Laser Weapons

William H. Possel, Lt Col, USAF


July 1998



The Occasional Papers series was established by the Center for Strategy and Technology as a forum for research on topics that reflect long-term strategic thinking about technology and its implications for U.S. national security.  Copies of No. 5 and previous papers in this series are available from the Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, 325 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Alabama 36112.  The fax number is  (334) 953-1988; phone (334) 953-2384.
Occasional Paper No. 5
Center for Strategy and Technology
Air War College

Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112

The internet address for the Center for Strategy and Technology is:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awccsat.htm







Disclaimer

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense, the United States Government, or of the Air War College Center for Strategy and Technology.









Contents
Page
Disclaimer i
The Author ii
Acknowledgements iii
Abstract iv
I. Introduction 1
II. Evaluation Criteria 5
III. Ballistic Missile Vulnerabilities 9
IV. Current State of Laser Weapon Technology 15
V. Space-Based Laser Architecture 21
VI. Ground-Based Laser Architecture 27
VII. Space-Based Laser �Plus� Architecture 39
VIII. Conclusions 47
Glossary 50
Notes 52

List of Tables
Page
Table 1.  Technological Feasibility Evaluation Criteria 5
Table 2.  Technological Maturity Evaluation Criteria 6
Table 3.  Range of Costs for Space Systems 6
Table 4.  Levels of Technological Readiness 7
Table 5.  Ballistic Missile Capabilities by Country 11
Table 6.  Missile Vulnerability Parameters 13
Table 7.  Space-Based Laser Architecture Technological Assessment 24
Table 8.  Ground-Based Laser System Parameters 30
Table 9.  SBL, GBL Technological Feasibility Comparisons 32
Table 10.  SBL, GBL Technological Maturity Comparisons 33
Table 11.  SBL, GBL Cost Comparisons 36
Table 12.  SBL, GBL, and SBL �Plus� Technological
Feasibility Comparisons 42

Table 13.  SBL, GBL, and SBL �Plus� Technological Maturity Comparisons 43
Table 14.  SBL, GBL, and SBL �Plus� Cost Comparisons 45
Table 15.  Strengths and Weaknesses of Competing Architectures 48



The Author
Lieutenant Colonel William H. Possel, USAF, has directed space system acquisitions and operations throughout his military career.  Prior to the Air War College, he was Director of Production for the Titan IV space booster.  His other assignments included tours with the Secretary of the Air Force for Special Projects, with responsibility for managing classified satellite technology programs and directing satellite operations at two mission ground stations.  In addition, he served as a project officer for ground-based high-energy laser experiments as well as experiments on the Space Shuttle.  Lt. Col. Possel has a bachelor's degree in physics from the University of Cincinnati and a master's degree in engineering physics from the Air Force Institute of Technology.  He is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and the Advanced Program Management Course at the Defense Systems Management College.  A 1998 graduate of the Air War College, Lt. Col. Possel conducted this research under the auspices of the Center.  His current assignment is the Program Manager of the Atlas space launch vehicle, Space and Missile System Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California.



Acknowledgements
To put together a research paper of this magnitude in less than a year would not have been possible without the support of many experts.  I would like to acknowledge Dr. Dustin Johnston of the Schafer Corporation, Mr. Larry Sher, Mr. William Thompson of the Air Force Research Laboratory, Phillips Research Site,  and fellow classmate Lt Col Ken Barker, all of whom graciously provided useful information and insightful comments.  My Air War College faculty advisors, Dr. William Martel and Col (Ret) Theodore Hailes, gave me invaluable encouragement and assistance. My deepest thanks and appreciation go to my ever-patient family, my wife, Marie, and daughters, Angela and Therese for their support and understanding. They have continually provided me with love and understanding.  That being said, I alone am responsible for any inadequacies in this paper.




Abstract
Is the Department of Defense (DOD) pursuing the correct investment strategy for space-based laser weapons?  Recent advances in lasers, optics, and spacecraft technologies may bring high-energy laser weapons to a sufficient level of maturity for serious consideration as space weapons against the theater ballistic missile threat.  However, these technological advances also make other architectures possible, such as the use of terrestrial laser sources with space-based relay mirrors or a mixed force of space-based lasers with orbiting relay mirrors.  An important question is how these dramatic technology improvements have affected the strategic employment concepts for high-energy laser weapons.
This study presents a comparison of competing space-based architectures given the progress made with high-energy lasers, large optics, and atmospheric compensation techniques within the past several years.  Three space-based architectures are evaluated against the potential ballistic missile threat: space-based lasers, ground-based lasers in conjunction with orbiting mirrors, and a combined approach using space-based lasers with orbiting mirrors.  The study evaluates the technological risks and estimates the development and deployment costs.  In addition, technology development programs are described for each of the architectures so that the high-risk areas will be better understood.
The conclusion of this study is that the most technologically sound and cost-effective architecture is to use space-based lasers with orbiting mirrors.  This approach not only minimizes the overall technological risk but also reduces the total weight and, therefore, cost of placing these weapon systems on orbit.




I. Introduction
The United States Air Force (USAF), in conjunction with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, is struggling to determine the best investment strategy for space-based high-energy lasers as weapons against ballistic missiles.  The debate is crucial not only because the technology has dramatically improved over the past few years, but also because defense procurement budgets continue to decline.  Selecting this investment strategy presents a challenge for policy makers due to competing technical, fiscal, and political factors.  The Air Force is studying only one high-energy laser architecture that uses space systems, which is the space-based laser concept.  Other potential options, although not currently under consideration, consist of ground-based lasers with orbiting relay mirrors or a hybrid system using space-based lasers with orbiting mirrors.  This assessment of the current laser and optics technology and an evaluation of the competing architectures will provide insights into the best investment strategy for the United States. 1
The laser is perhaps the most important optical invention in the last several decades.  Since its invention in the early 1960s, the laser has proved to be an extremely useful device not only for the scientific and commercial communities, but also for the military.  At first it was considered to be �a solution without a problem,� because as with many inventions, the technology appeared before the vision.  Today, the laser is at the heart of an extensive array of military applications: range finders, satellite communications systems, remote sensing, target designation, and laser radar-based navigational aids.2  The employment of laser-guided munitions in Operation Desert Storm brought new meaning to the idea of �precision engagement,� and represents just one example of how the laser has shifted to become �a solution.�3  In fact, numerous countries are now developing their own laser technologies for weapons applications.4  Since the early 1990s, lasers have demonstrated the capability to produce sufficient energy to merit serious consideration, even by the most ardent skeptics, as potential weapons against the ballistic missile threat.5   That vision for new and smarter uses of lasers is rapidly catching up with the technology.
Today, the Air Force is proceeding with the development of the Airborne Laser (ABL) program, which is designed to acquire, track, and destroy theater ballistic missiles.6  The USAF is committed to the ABL as the near term weapon of choice for destroying theater ballistic missiles while they are still over enemy territory.  This may be the first step toward building a space-based laser weapon system.7
In addition to the ABL, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) is funding a program to demonstrate the feasibility of a high-energy laser weapon in space.  This program, the Space-Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator, which is estimated to cost $1.5 billion, is a subscale version of a proposed space-based laser weapon system for theater ballistic missile defense.8  Congress continues to debate not only the usefulness of this concept but also its implications for the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) treaty.  A number of lawmakers believe that the laser weapon provides such a valuable defense that it is worth abrogating the treaty.9
The underlying assumption with the current concept of laser weapons is that the entire weapon platform must be deployed in space because this is the most technologically feasible and cost-effective approach.  But several other options are conceptually possible.  One alternative architecture involves placing the laser device on the ground and employing optical systems, which are basically large mirrors, to relay the laser beam to the target.   Another option that merits consideration entails using a combination of space-based lasers and optical relay mirrors in order to reduce the number of costly laser platforms.
A number of tough questions need to be asked and thoroughly explored.  Are laser platforms orbiting the earth the most technologically realistic and cost-effective means of destroying ballistic missiles?  Can the mission be achieved more efficiently with orbiting mirrors to relay the laser beam from the ground or from a smaller number of space-based lasers to the target?  Are there insurmountable technological problems with any of these approaches?  If these approaches are feasible, are there any remaining significant technological shortfalls and what is the most effective way of overcoming them?10
The purpose of this study is to conduct an independent assessment of the competing system architectures that utilize space-based assets for missile defense.  The foundation of the analysis is three evaluation criteria:  technological feasibility, technological maturity, and relative cost.  This study also provides an overview of the ballistic missile threat and an understanding of the proliferation of missiles and missile vulnerability.  The types and material characteristics of ballistic missiles determine how much laser energy is required to destroy them, and therefore the size and number of laser weapons.  Following this discussion is a summary of the critical technologies required for an effective laser weapon system and what technologies have actually been demonstrated to date.  The purpose is to give the reader an appreciation of how far the technology has developed and the remaining technological complexities that must be confronted.
This evaluation of the system architectures examines three alternatives for high-energy laser weapon concepts that use space assets: a space-based laser system, a ground-based laser with orbiting mirrors, and a combination of space lasers and orbiting mirrors.  Based on the current missile threat and the energy required to destroy missiles, this analysis considers the requirements for each weapon constellation.  Following each overview of these architectures, this study presents an analysis of the technology and technology development programs that are needed for these programs.  The cost for each architecture will be analyzed with a cost model that reflects experiences with previous space mission programs, and thus will support a comparison of the relative costs of these different architectures.
The broad objective of this study is to establish a framework that will help Air Force policy makers make prudent decisions about the proper direction for funding technology development programs.  This study addresses which high-energy laser weapon system concept (space-based laser, ground-based laser with orbiting mirrors, or a hybrid of fewer space-based lasers with supporting orbiting mirrors) is the most effective, technologically achievable, and affordable for the United States.