The budget request included $548.8 million in PE63883C for the Airborne Laser (ABL) boost-phase missile defense technology demonstration program. The House bill would authorize $298.9 million in PE63883C, a reduction of $250.0 million. The Senate amendment would authorize $348.8 million in PE63883C, a reduction of $200.0 million. The conferees agree to authorize $513.8 million in PE63883C, a reduction of $35.0 million. The conferees note that the ABL program remains a high risk technology development and demonstration program that is seeking to determine the technical feasibility of using an airborne chemical laser to destroy ballistic missiles in the boost-phase of their flight, within the first few minutes after launch.

It remains unclear whether the ABL system will be affordable. The Congressional Budget Office has made a preliminary estimate that the ABL program could cost as much as $36.0 billion to develop, procure, and operate a fleet of seven aircraft for 20 years. This would be a huge investment in a fleet of seven aircraft that may not be able to provide an operationally effective capability.

By comparison, investing that level of funding in near-term capabilities like the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense program, and the Patriot PAC–3 program would provide a considerable increase in the ability... [to] defen[d] our forward-deployed forces and our allies and friends against existing missile threats. As the ABL program proceeds toward the planned shoot-down test in 2009, the conferees believe the program should receive thorough independent review, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office in its March 2007 report, ‘‘Defense Acquisitions: Missile Defense Acquisition Strategy Generates Results but Delivers Less at a Higher Cost.’’ The conferees strongly urge the Department of Defense to commission an independent review of the technical, operational, cost, and effectiveness aspects of the proposed ABL system, particularly in comparison to the proposed Kinetic Energy Interceptor program, and the Aegis BMD system using the Standard Missile–3 Block IIA interceptor in an ascent-phase capacity. (emphasis mine)

Yes, only the US Congress could develop a scenario where everyone acknowledges that: (a) we're spending too much money on a troubled program that is pushing immature technology; (b) we could be buying real warfighter capability with other systems; (c) no one is willing to pull the trigger. So we have this case where  $300 million plus $350 million divided by two equals $514 million. That's real good math, boys.

ALSO:

• Vice vs. the Flying Lightsaber
• Laser Jet Over Oklahoma
• Congress Slashes Flying Lightsaber
• Lights Out for Laser Jet?
• Mixed Messages on Missile Defense