U.S. Aegis and other anti-ICBM Cruisers

USNavySEAL3310

New Member
USS Lake Erie tests Aegis system off Hawaii

U.S. Missile Defense Ship Sails to Japan

Recently, both the USS Shiloh and Lake Erie put to sea to test their missile intercept abilities. The Shiloh and seven other Aegis-equipped vessels are at the port of Yokosuka in response to N.K. missile tests and the Lake Erie is just going out to test her intercepting skills.

Though these controlled tests show positive signs for the Aegis system, are they likely to stop enemy ICBMs that are targeted for the U.S. overseas? The U.S. Navy uses its own missiles as targets for the Aegis system but is it as effective as other types of missiles that may be lobbed across the sea? How much more development is being put into the Aegis system and how can it be improved? Is the Aegis system out-of-date or is it still the most effective system right now to stop incoming missiles?

I've heard different answers to these questions and wanted to have them cleared up.

Thanks.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
USS Lake Erie tests Aegis system off Hawaii

U.S. Missile Defense Ship Sails to Japan

Recently, both the USS Shiloh and Lake Erie put to sea to test their missile intercept abilities. The Shiloh and seven other Aegis-equipped vessels are at the port of Yokosuka in response to N.K. missile tests and the Lake Erie is just going out to test her intercepting skills.

Though these controlled tests show positive signs for the Aegis system, are they likely to stop enemy ICBMs that are targeted for the U.S. overseas? The U.S. Navy uses its own missiles as targets for the Aegis system but is it as effective as other types of missiles that may be lobbed across the sea? How much more development is being put into the Aegis system and how can it be improved? Is the Aegis system out-of-date or is it still the most effective system right now to stop incoming missiles?

I've heard different answers to these questions and wanted to have them cleared up.

Thanks.
The target ballistic missiles used in the Lake Erie/SM-3 trials have a throw-distance of 600km ie Scud types. This suggest to me that the US Navy does not (yet?) have an ABM capability to take down ICBMs.

The Europeans also use the Hawaiian range, for their TBMD/ABM projects. We use frigates (destroyers) instead of cruisers, though.

8 December 2006
Thales on track in TBMD

The Royal Netherlands Navy's Hr.Ms. Tromp, a frigate of the "De Zeven Provinciën" class, equipped with the Thales Anti Air Warfare (AAW) system, participated in two US Navy TBMD (Tactical Ballistic Missile Defence) test events in November and December of this year at the Pacific Missile Range Facility near Hawaii. For this purpose Thales' SMART-L Volume Search Radar was fitted with a test version of the recently developed Extended Long Range (ELR) Mode, performing out to maximum instrumented range of 480 km. SMART-L with the ELR Mode incontrovertibly proved to be able to detect and track targets representing Tactical Ballistic Missiles.


The first test event was held on 16 November during the US Navy's Track Exercise. An ARAV-B missile (Aegis Readiness Assessment Vehicle type B) was launched from the island of Kauai, near Hawaii. Hr.Ms. Tromp was in a position at around 200 km from Kauai. As soon as the target was sufficiently high above the island's hills, it was detected by SMART-L. The Thales radar tracked the missile through the major part of its trajectory that passed Hr.Ms. Tromp at a range of 150 km.

The second test event took place on 7 December when an Aries Target Test Vehicle was launched from Kauai. Hr. Ms. Tromp's position was about 300 km from the launch site. Again, SMART L performed flawlessly. SMART-L's track data were also made available via the Link-16 datalink, proving the interoperability with the USN.

These tests clearly demonstrate that the LCF/F124 AAW suite can be developed to full TBMD capabilities.

SMART-L
SMART-L is Thales' long range Volume Search Radar. This system is operational on the four LCF frigates of the Royal Netherlands Navy and the three F124 frigates of the German Navy. The Korean Navy has purchased one SMART-L for its Landing Platform Dock that is presently being built. SMART-L's derivative, the S1850M radar, will be installed on the Horizon frigates for the French and Italian navies and the Type 45 frigates of the Royal Navy that are under construction. The Danish Navy has selected SMART-L for its three new air defence frigates. SMART-L is an electronically stabilized multibeam D-band radar with a range of about 400 km and an elevation angle of 70°. Its ultramodern technology in combination with refined signal processing guarantees an excellent performance, especially against stealthy targets.


About Thales
Thales is an international electronics and systems group serving defence, aerospace, security and services markets. The Group employs 60,000 people worldwide and generated revenues of 10.3 billion euros in 2005. Thales Nederland, established in 1922, is one of the world’s leading companies in integrated naval systems for surveillance, weapon control, and combat management.

http://www.thales-nederland.nl/nl/news/archive/2006/December-08-2006.shtml
Did they mention the Danish frigates? Oh yes they did! :D
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The modified Aegis Cruisers are meant to take care of Theater Ballistic Missiles only, not ICBM's.
Aegis has no problems tracking the missiles, it is hitting them that is the problem especially since the SM-3 has no warhead and must rely on a kenetic kill.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
The modified Aegis Cruisers are meant to take care of Theater Ballistic Missiles only, not ICBM's.
Aegis has no problems tracking the missiles, it is hitting them that is the problem especially since the SM-3 has no warhead and must rely on a kenetic kill.
Honestly I wish they would stop wasting money on the missile interceptors and dump that money into lasers, that is the only sure fire way to take these down. We could have funded quite a few Zumwalts with ABM lasers at this point.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Honestly I wish they would stop wasting money on the missile interceptors and dump that money into lasers, that is the only sure fire way to take these down. We could have funded quite a few Zumwalts with ABM lasers at this point.
I don't agree with this. The interceptors built to date do not account for most of the spending, the tracking system and networked nature of it has accounted for a lot of it, not to mention integration issues. If you look at what has been spent on the Navy side, it dwarfs the amount spent on the land side of BMD, and the Navy has kept costs down by modifing existing interceptors (SM-3 is a slightly modified SM-2 ER) and upgrading the existing AEGIS system.

The big problems for laser systems, besides the reality a reliable technology still doesn't exist, is the power requirements for such a system aren't available at sea on any platform other than a CVN, and even the CVN output is theoritical based on dedication of power to the laser system, and not all systems.

Laser systems simply aren't ready yet, and won't be for awhile. The power requirements to hit a target at long ranges with a laser exceed current technologies, and that doens't even get into the complexities of hitting a target at long range with a laser system, nor the key issue of inventing a laser system that would be effective at ranges greater than 200km, which isn't even the max ceiling for an ICMB in transit, much less the minimum range that would be needed for a laser system to offer a legitimate defense.

Interceptors will continue to be the best option for not just years, but perhaps decades as a sea based ABM solution.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
The big problems for laser systems, besides the reality a reliable technology still doesn't exist, is the power requirements for such a system aren't available at sea on any platform other than a CVN, and even the CVN output is theoritical based on dedication of power to the laser system, and not all systems.

Laser systems simply aren't ready yet, and won't be for awhile. The power requirements to hit a target at long ranges with a laser exceed current technologies, and that doens't even get into the complexities of hitting a target at long range with a laser system, nor the key issue of inventing a laser system that would be effective at ranges greater than 200km, which isn't even the max ceiling for an ICMB in transit, much less the minimum range that would be needed for a laser system to offer a legitimate defense.

Interceptors will continue to be the best option for not just years, but perhaps decades as a sea based ABM solution.
Oh contrare... the all-electric drive the Zumwalts will have have been around for awhile now. There will be more than enough power for lasers and EM Railguns. The laser system has already been fitted on 747s. It is only a matter of fitting it into the hull. It ranges at over 300nms, much longer range than the missiles can hope to achieve.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Though these controlled tests show positive signs for the Aegis system, are they likely to stop enemy ICBMs that are targeted for the U.S. overseas? The U.S. Navy uses its own missiles as targets for the Aegis system but is it as effective as other types of missiles that may be lobbed across the sea? How much more development is being put into the Aegis system and how can it be improved? Is the Aegis system out-of-date or is it still the most effective system right now to stop incoming missiles?
The chances of stopping an ICMB from an AEGIS platform are minimal (possible but unlikely), the AEGIS solution is better utilized against theater ballsitic missiles which do not have as high a ceiling as ICBMs, have shorter ranges which makes trajectory and tracking easier to determine, and are smaller weapons that can be knocked down easier with the interceptors like the SM-3.

The targets used in missile defense testing are legitimate substitutes for the theater ballistic missiles most likely to be seen in a shooting war, best representing the mid ranged ballistic missiles from North Korea and Iran. They do not represent missiles containing multiple reentry vehicles very well, as it is questionable whether the interceptor would hit the ballistic missile before the speration of multiple reentry vehicles. This makes protection against some of the more modern designs Russia uses, and perhaps even China, questionable at best.

I think the AEGIS system is perhaps the best current ballistic missile defense system available today, and I also think it has the best long term potential. I think the three countries currently invested in the AEGIS solution would agree the AEGIS system has given them an advantage.

A quick AEGIS summery.

Currently the US Navy has 16 ships dedicated for AEGIS BMD technology.

Three AEGIS Cruisers:
USS Port Royal, USS Lake Erie, USS Shiloh,

Four DDGs at Pearl Harbor:
USS Russell, USS Hamilton, USS Hopper, USS O'Kane

Five DDGs in San Diego:
USS John Paul Jones, USS Benfold, USS Milius, USS Decatur, USS Higgins

Four DDGs in Japan:
USS Curtis Wilbur, USS John McCain, USS Fitzgerald, USS Stethem

1 JMSDF ship
JDS Kirishima

1 Royal Netherlands Navy
HNLMS Tromp

There are two versions, 3.0 and 3.6, for the AEGIS system. 3.0 allows for tracking and intercept of Ballistic missiles, but when in 3.0 mode an AEGIS ship cannot track and counter ASCMs, and the system requires a reboot in order to get back into the mode to counter ASCMs.

Version 3.6 is for tracking and intercept of both ASCMs and ballistic missiles at the same time. Only 2 cruisers and 1 US destroyers have 3.6 right now, with 4 more destroyers upgraded by Feb 07. Both the Tromp and Kirishima also have version 3.6. The test that failed was the first test designed to insure the quality of the 3.6 version for intercepting both ASCMs and ballistic missiles in the same engagement.

The US intends to convert 2 more DDGs to ballistic missile defense in FY07. Since all 13 DDGs converted so far are from either Flight I or Flight II DDGs, I think the last 2 will probably be older Flight DDGs currently stationed in the Atlantic.

So far my impression is while not a perfect solution, the AEGIS BMD program has been a smart short term implimentation to a complicated problem. It hasn't been overly expensive, hasn't suffered from the usual requirement creep that usually kills an important project, and despite a general lack of funds has stood up a credible defensive capability against the most likely utilized segment (conventional theater ballistic missiles) of the overall ballistic missile credible threat.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It ranges at over 300nms, much longer range than the missiles can hope to achieve.
It theoritically ranges around 200nms, it has never been proven to have that range, and the air laser is a chemical based system that probably will never be deployed on ships, as you are probably aware, the chemicals themselves, the storage, loading, and offloading of them create a whole new set of major problems with the design for a warship.

It would be like designing a warship on the hull of a T-AO, with the explosive potential at least ten times greater than that of a T-AO, not to mention the logistics that would be required to safely load and offload the chemicals from the warship at sea. It isn't simply an extention of current fuel technology, it is a great deal more complex, and that system would also have to be invented.

The 21 inch booster system additions currently in development have the potential to improve interceptor range up to a max range of 1000kms, and development of the booster puts the first tests in 2008, much sooner than a laser system can be invented, constructed, and deployed.
 

USNavySEAL3310

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
Oh contrare... the all-electric drive the Zumwalts will have have been around for awhile now. There will be more than enough power for lasers and EM Railguns. The laser system has already been fitted on 747s. It is only a matter of fitting it into the hull. It ranges at over 300nms, much longer range than the missiles can hope to achieve.
Could this technology be used as an offensive weapon, not just as a defensive one to knock missiles out of the sky? Would it be possible to use it to target coastal installations?
 

Big-E

Banned Member
It theoritically ranges around 200nms
Theoretically it ranges 372 miles against liquid based ICBMS and 186 against solid based propellants.


and the air laser is a chemical based system that probably will never be deployed on ships, as you are probably aware, the chemicals themselves, the storage, loading, and offloading of them create a whole new set of major problems with the design for a warship.
No... I'm not aware why this should prove difficult for the USN.

It would be like designing a warship on the hull of a T-AO, with the explosive potential at least ten times greater than that of a T-AO, not to mention the logistics that would be required to safely load and offload the chemicals from the warship at sea. It isn't simply an extention of current fuel technology, it is a great deal more complex, and that system would also have to be invented.
Civilians transport, deliver, and install chemicals on a daily basis in the private sector. I think the USN can handle reconfiguring proven commercial storage and transport practices for their own uses. Do you really think our engineers are that dumb? This isn't Port Chicago...

The 21 inch booster system additions currently in development have the potential to improve interceptor range up to a max range of 1000kms, and development of the booster puts the first tests in 2008, much sooner than a laser system can be invented, constructed, and deployed.
The laser is already constructed and is scheduled for tests at the same time to compete against this very KE system. Apparently DoD is looking at both possibilites. We will just have to wait and see who is correct.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Civilians transport, deliver, and install chemicals on a daily basis in the private sector. I think the USN can handle reconfiguring proven commercial storage and transport practices for their own uses. Do you really think our engineers are that dumb? This isn't Port Chicago...

The laser is already constructed and is scheduled for tests at the same time to compete against this very KE system. Apparently DoD is looking at both possibilites. We will just have to wait and see who is correct.
I am not being critical of the industries capability to get the job done, rather I am acknowledging the difficulty the challenge of building a long range anti-ballistic laser system poses, and the acknowledging the expense of insuring it is done properly on a ship, if attempting to utilize the same mechanisms implemented for the airborne laser.

There are some serious survivability issues involved in being able to take even a minor hit on a warship built to support the hazardous chemicals required for the weapon, much less the quantity of chemicals required to take multiple shots. In studies I have seen done, the ships would need to be very large, bigger even than the 25,000 ton LPD-17s, and there are numerous technologies that would need to be invented to make it work. None of those new technologies would be cheap.

This isn't about capability or possibility, I know it 'could' be done, but whether it is practical, feasible, or worth the financial burden compared to alternatives is a real issue.

I think it makes a lot more sense to use nuclear power rather than chemical power, because nuclear power doesn't create a new series of expensive technological challenges, much less safety issues that would create political opposition that could also drive up costs, and wouldn't require as large a ship to deploy the system.

Big-E, I'm not against laser technology for missile defense, I'm all for it, but I'm don't see evidence we are closer than a decade from a legitimate Naval laser system being operational that can contend with a missile based system.

It is hard to say that laser technology is close when no laser has ever been built that could destroy objects at ranges up to 1000km, when we already know missiles can travel well beyond that distance and get the job done accurately. As it stands today, it is weighing the potential of a technology that has a proven track record vs one that is still in early stages of development.

The good news is though, the CG(X) isn't needed until around 2020, so there is still plenty of time to work out what would be needed to support a laser system at sea, and build the energy capability and address other design requirements for the CG(X).
 

Big-E

Banned Member
I am not being critical of the industries capability to get the job done, rather I am acknowledging the difficulty the challenge of building a long range anti-ballistic laser system poses, and the acknowledging the expense of insuring it is done properly on a ship, if attempting to utilize the same mechanisms implemented for the airborne laser.
I would much rather have it on a ship than aircraft.

There are some serious survivability issues involved in being able to take even a minor hit on a warship built to support the hazardous chemicals required for the weapon, much less the quantity of chemicals required to take multiple shots. In studies I have seen done, the ships would need to be very large, bigger even than the 25,000 ton LPD-17s, and there are numerous technologies that would need to be invented to make it work. None of those new technologies would be cheap.
What survivabilty issues are you worried about? We carry tons of heavy oridinace on our vessels, how is that not more or less dangerous than these chemicals? The abilty to place a laser onboard a ship will make it practically indestructable to SSM fire with the ability to shoot down shells as well. The quantities of chemicals required for the shots are exaggerated in your estimates. The ATL fits on an AC-130 and has 100 shots. It is a COIL laser same as the ABL just slightly smaller. Reinforced tanks will keep the crew quite safe... if we can do it with nuclear reactors we can handle storing BHP (basic hydrogen peroxide).

This isn't about capability or possibility, I know it 'could' be done, but whether it is practical, feasible, or worth the financial burden compared to alternatives is a real issue.
It will be done... the proposed upgrade for the Zumwalts are to add point defense lasers in their second overhaul. If they don't install them for ABM, that is one thing, but they WILL be added for point defense.

I think it makes a lot more sense to use nuclear power rather than chemical power, because nuclear power doesn't create a new series of expensive technological challenges, much less safety issues that would create political opposition that could also drive up costs, and wouldn't require as large a ship to deploy the system.
A nuclear reaction doesn't produce the type of energy transfer needed for high power lasers as they can't inject it into the stream at a resonate pulse. I don't understand why you are afraid of these chemicals... we are more than capable of handling them safely. If we get hit with an ASM we won't survive to care about the ruptured chemical leak.

Big-E, I'm not against laser technology for missile defense, I'm all for it, but I'm don't see evidence we are closer than a decade from a legitimate Naval laser system being operational that can contend with a missile based system.
I think the fact we are shooting down artillery shells and missiles with it is evidence enough. The fact ABL will have it's first test fire in a year should be more of it.

It is hard to say that laser technology is close when no laser has ever been built that could destroy objects at ranges up to 1000km, when we already know missiles can travel well beyond that distance and get the job done accurately.
What SAMs do you know that travel that far or beyond that distance??? :confused:

The good news is though, the CG(X) isn't needed until around 2020, so there is still plenty of time to work out what would be needed to support a laser system at sea, and build the energy capability and address other design requirements for the CG(X).
DDG-1000 is coming long before CG(X) as most of her concept requirements have been met. These ships need lasers not only for ABM but point defense CIWS as well. The point defense has been more than proven in testing. These ships will have a laser on it one way or the other. Hopefully they can kill both ASMs and IC/SRBMs.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Big-E,

I don't think your numbers are accurate regarding the ABL, as I understand it the ABL can take 2, maybe 3 shots in a single flight at long range against a ballistic missile, and by long range I am talking greater than 200nm.

There is a big difference between a point defense system, a very short ranged laser system, and a long range anti-ballistic laser system. I agree in the short term there will be laser systems aboard warships, but not the type able to intercept ICBMs in atmosphere from 1000km away, rather the type that can intercept low flying super sonic missiles at short range.

My concern is that the Navy will think about adding the ABM laser system requirement to the CG(X) before the technology is ready for production, because the cost effectiveness based on what is available today simply isn't there. Current VLS and the improved VLS provide the best bang per ton weapon system ever deployed. In what I have seen, for a single laser system able to take 50 long range shots for TBM type intercept, you are talking eight to fourteen thousand additional tons on a warship like the CG(X) for a chemical based system. Is one weapon system worth doubling the size (and cost) of the most important surface combatants (cruisers) the US builds?

Remember, your talking about building what amounts to a sniper weapon, 1 shot 1 kill gun on a warship at sea on a system with a high availablity requirement. For point defense, 1 inch sway at sea might force a miss of a few feet at short range, but the good news is laser weapons for short range shots are small, and can be stablized in reasonable sea states even on smaller warships. For ranges over 1000km though, if the weapon moves even 1 inch when firing, you could be off by miles when trying to shoot down a ballistic missile. That means you have to build a stability platform for the ABM laser system that keeps it effective at minimum in sea state 3, nevermind dealing with sea state 4 or higher.

There are a lot of very difficult challanges in sea based laser systems in hitting targets at long range that go beyond simply building a laser system, or building a compartmentalized hull able to support the chemicals built into the ABL. Think about it, a few years ago do you remember the suggestion to use one of the retiring SSBNs as a anti-ballistic laser platform? I want to say there was internet discussion about that but I can't find the board it was on.

Nobody bothered to ask why experts would want to use submarines? I didn't, I thought it was more nuke boaters club trying to make noise. In the end, it wasn't for the reasons most would assume, rather the suggestion came from engineers who know it is easier to keep a submarine level in rough seas while submerged, even if it had a weapon like a ABM laser raised like a periscope, than it is to keep a 10,000 ton warship level in rough seas.

Based on averages of dollars per ton on warships over the last decade, the CG(X) would then cost somewhere between six and eight billion per platform, in other words, unaffordable, using current laser technology for ABMs. A ABM laser system anytime in the next decade will do the one thing that the Navy needs to avoid the most but hasn't, specifically requirement creep on its surface fleet.

Granted, my information is a little over a year old, and I intend to get current this week, but I have a hard time believing things have changed substancially in a year when funding was reduced for the ABL.

Big-E, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you sir, please correct me if you know me to be inaccurate.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Big-E,

I don't think your numbers are accurate regarding the ABL, as I understand it the ABL can take 2, maybe 3 shots in a single flight at long range against a ballistic missile, and by long range I am talking greater than 200nm.
Against the most difficult of targets ABL gets 20 shots, that is at longest range (372m) against solid fueled ICMBs. Against shorter range or liquid propelled IC/SRBMs she can get as many as 40 shots.

My concern is that the Navy will think about adding the ABM laser system requirement to the CG(X) before the technology is ready for production, because the cost effectiveness based on what is available today simply isn't there. Current VLS and the improved VLS provide the best bang per ton weapon system ever deployed. In what I have seen, for a single laser system able to take 50 long range shots for TBM type intercept, you are talking eight to fourteen thousand additional tons on a warship like the CG(X) for a chemical based system. Is one weapon system worth doubling the size (and cost) of the most important surface combatants (cruisers) the US builds?
My friend... your fears are unfounded. DoD wouldn't dump the billions into ABL if you were only going to get 2-3 shots. To install ABL on a Zumwalt is little more than adding the equivalent gun turret, loading system, and weapon storage except it will be cylidrical. You won't get any complaints about VLS from me. TLAMs have saved me from getting shot a down a few times I reckon. The SM-3 however is anything but a sure thing. It would take salvos of up to 6 missiles at current hit rates in a real world environment to be rather sure of a kill. I hope you are aware that the tests have been VERY controlled to keep congress pumping funds into the program. Democrats just don't like missiles, they like futeristic stuff like lasers. Now they are in power they will cut SM-3 funding first failure they get.


Remember, your talking about building what amounts to a sniper weapon, 1 shot 1 kill gun on a warship at sea on a system with a high availablity requirement. For point defense, 1 inch sway at sea might force a miss of a few feet at short range, but the good news is laser weapons for short range shots are small, and can be stablized in reasonable sea states even on smaller warships. For ranges over 1000km though, if the weapon moves even 1 inch when firing, you could be off by miles when trying to shoot down a ballistic missile. That means you have to build a stability platform for the ABM laser system that keeps it effective at minimum in sea state 3, nevermind dealing with sea state 4 or higher.
Stability on the high seas is better than the turbulence in the air. While a 747is pretty stable DDG-1000 will have the best seakeeping of any warship. To be honest though it doesn't matter what sea state we are in as our guns have high-tech gyro stabalizers. If we can get an M1 Abrams to hit a target at it's extreme range while flying through the air we can get a laser to stabalize long enough on the most stable warship ever built to hit it's target.

There are a lot of very difficult challanges in sea based laser systems in hitting targets at long range that go beyond simply building a laser system, or building a compartmentalized hull able to support the chemicals built into the ABL. Think about it, a few years ago do you remember the suggestion to use one of the retiring SSBNs as a anti-ballistic laser platform? I want to say there was internet discussion about that but I can't find the board it was on.
The laser comes enclosed in a cylinder much like the shape of a submarine. That is why those theories started running around because they thought it would be an easy fit. The laser would have to go in #1 turret position to have room for the gun and auto-loader in #2 position. The cylinder laser components would go half way under the con.


Based on averages of dollars per ton on warships over the last decade, the CG(X) would then cost somewhere between six and eight billion per platform, in other words, unaffordable, using current laser technology for ABMs. A ABM laser system anytime in the next decade will do the one thing that the Navy needs to avoid the most but hasn't, specifically requirement creep on its surface fleet.
Do you think COIL lasers cost 4 billion dollars? They don't you know. They are far cheaper than SM-2s or SM-3s. Do you know how much the AA load of an AB is worth?

Granted, my information is a little over a year old, and I intend to get current this week, but I have a hard time believing things have changed substancially in a year when funding was reduced for the ABL.
Your info is old... they have increased the power of the laser 4 fold from the stats you were giving me.

Big-E
 
Top