I have not followed this chat and perhaps I shouldn't comment with my two cents but here goes. Prior to my retirement from the army(air defence artillery) I attended a laser warfare course. At the time (1992) the idea with laser based weapons was to destroy sensitive electronics which the enemy weapons and or intelligence gathering assets were dependant on. Heating to an appropriate temperature in the general area in which these components exist would suffice. Treated,mirrored eye covering was offered as protection. I don't believe shredding armored plated vehicles and cutting people in half was the idea. My apologies if I'm off topic or my input is out of date. Thanks, Anvil85

eye protection was passed around and offered as protection

Posted by: anvil85 at November 1, 2007 10:49 PM

It should have a limitless ability to shoot and be ready to destroy millions of incomming missles.
If it does then it can pass for defense needs for todays increasing enemies threat capabilities.

Posted by: roland at October 21, 2007 05:09 AM

The main point to all of this is that Directed Energy Weapons are only getting better...While conventional delivery systems, (ie; Missles, IED, Artillery and Aircraft) are in their "mature" phase.

Posted by: Bitter Cup at October 20, 2007 11:58 AM

any device that is being developed by the weapon corporations that does business with the pentagon should be evaluated and put in the field to save our young soldiers lives.... and limbs...
IED's are the biggest killer of our soldiers...so the arm chair retired none serving cynical aces should get with the program of helping our armed forces... not trying to stop weapons production that will help them...please check out the evaluation of the weapons for it's realistic effectiveness and save your high school b.s. theories....if you were brillant... you would have come up with a better idea to help...

Posted by: len wilson at October 20, 2007 03:32 AM

The posts that talk about using laser weapons to cut through metal don't have the basic concept firmly in hand.

All current and realistically near term laser weapons cause something that is already inherently explosive (like IEDs, airborne munitions, UAV fuel tanks or ballistic missile booster sections) and make them blow up prior to planned detonation, or have an inherently fragile target (like avionics or a pilot's eyes).

These are modern versions of Archimedes weapon of 241 BC.

Posted by: ohwilleke at October 18, 2007 11:55 AM

Reread the article, sorry, have to correct myself: only in my opinion it's a demonstrator, Boeing says it's ready to be fielded. For the given examples I still feel it's ineffective and nothing more than a demonstration unit. If it would used against humans it would be very effective, as well as an ugly device. Did I miss something ? Like pepper spray only safe to use on attacking animals ? I'm sometimes a bit slow...

Posted by: NikeAjax at October 18, 2007 04:07 AM

In fighting each other, don't miss by the way, this thing is nothing more than a demonstrator. But every big thing started out small. It can get useful, in the moment it is not. If the beam has diverged (opened) at the point of impact, it works like one would attach a 1kw heater to the target, heating the whole thing; not very effective. If the beam has not diverged, if it is for example 0.1 inch diameter at impact point, it has to be held within that point with an accuracy of let's say 0.3 inch for a certain time. Try to do that with a moving target. As there is no oxygen cutting support like in a laser cutter, a tank would get some marks from the beam, but nothing else. If one targets the fuse of an IED, it will blow up, but this makes it necessary to have a straight line of view to the fuse, that's unlikely. This thing can hurt humans, 1 kilowatt will burn your flesh at impact instantly, 1 watt, one thousandth part of the nominal power shone into your eye and you are blinded forever.
In its current state it can shoot maybe an aerial robot down, ones which are covered with plastics, then the laser manages it maybe to burn through fast enough. Then it's the question, who from the current enemies uses high tech stuff like aerial robots ? All the current enemy uses is low tech, and it's effective. Don't miss also, this is not at all based alone on Boeing's research. Solid state lasers with this power, the most important part of this device, only came up 2 to 3 years ago, they were developed for industrial applications.
Have no critic for that this device is built, my biggest critic is, not enough development for the ground troops is done, useful devices for the single soldier, devices which help to save lives in combat NOW. But guess that's not asked here.

Posted by: NikeAjax at October 18, 2007 03:44 AM

re: Brian's Rant

You are correct in your assessment that facts, logic, and all that measurable stuff is what's important in this forum. I think I understand your beef about how it might seem that I'm bitching about my career. All well and good.

However, I must say, for whatever its worth, that I am not in the least bit disappointed with the arc of my career. Retiring this year as a CPO with 24 years of service is damned fine accomplishment. Everybody ain't gonna be the MCPON or CNO. As for "keeping it real", don't remember writing that, but it approximates what EVERY CPO, NCO, and semiconscious leader once took as SOP.

As you are just an anonymous guy on the internet who's CV remains unknown in this forum, I have great difficulty in determining your qualifications (real or imagined) to be so incisively critical of your colleagues here. In any event, it don't befront me.

If it is of any import, I have emailed both Christian and Ward from my gubmint account and I'd be plenty happy to send either of them whatever they want to see to verify my bona fides. (And no John Kerry bullshit either.)

Now, my friend, if you can't muster the neurons to figure out that we are spending waaaaay too much scratch on "whiz-bang" stuff and not spending enough on the basics, then we don't have any grounds to even begin civil discourse.

To illustrate this consider that the Navy retired all of the SPRUANCE DDs that were very capable platforms, most of which had VLS (IIRC), and have dithered for over a decade on DD(X) vaporware. Billions down the damned rabbit hole with nothing to show but corporate welfare for the Bigs and stacks of conceptual drawings.

I recall lifting a safety here a few months back regarding the Navy's ability to give the Marines the supporting fires ashore. The Navy Bigs killed the BBs and buggered the Corps without the decency to give 'em a reacharound. We have measured and quantified repeatedly the costs, capabilities, and performance of the BB vs every last bit of high-tech twaddle foisted by the missileers, NAVAIR crackheads (sorry, Ward), and the rest of the whizbangers. In every instance the numbers show the BB to be the unimpeachable champ. But the BBs are pariahs because they are old and don't represent a long-term committment to keeping the boys at the yards in cash.

If you don't believe it, just follow the money. Do the legwork and see how many retired Admirals are on the payrolls and boards or LockMart, Raytheon, et al.

I get damned well pissed off, "emotional" if you like, when I perceive resources being wasted and young folks getting their asses shot off unnecessarily. Just where do you think Boeing gets all that money to invest in laser humvees and nuclear powered Taiwanese hookers? The profits from the last damned thing the procurement whores bought from them. And why do you think Boeing conjured up this bit of whimsy? Why to sell it to the gubmint, of course!

I'm just a tired old squid who has seen a few things and knows a whole lot about nuthin. But I'll warrant that if you ask that Gunny or SFC whether he'd rather have a new way to zap IEDs or the ability to go plug the dirty SOB who's supplying the money, the supplies, and the manpower to make 'em, he'll tell you that he's ready to go to Tehran, Riyadh, Damascus, or the gates of hell.

Yes, Brian, the frickin' humvee with laser beam is an impressive technological achievement. Bravo Zulu to Boeing. When they figure out a way to cause Imams to spontaeously combust upon uttering "Death to America" or a way to transplant brains and spines into Congressmen then we'll all splice the main brace. Until then its all just new clothes for the Emperor.

I remain, as always,
Your faithful servant,

Chief B.

P.S.: I humbly beg forgiveness if I've offended anyone. I know that we live in an age when "keeping it real" undermines the human worth of my fellow humans and can do irreparable damage to a young person's confidence and self-esteem. I'm really sorry if I've harshed anyone's mellow.

P.P.S.: I was adopted as an infant from a boy's home in Alabama so, yes, I am a bastard.

Posted by: Crusty Old Chief at October 17, 2007 04:33 PM

Hey Brian - YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT!

Posted by: JIMBO at October 17, 2007 03:21 PM

Coward: Yeah, part of the problem is that terrorists don't wear big neon signs that say "jihad" on them. They dress like everybody else. So how do you distinguish the terrorist hiding in a building three blocks away from the normal guy standing on the streetcorner three blocks away?

Crusty ol Chief: You can rant and rave about how your "keepin' it real" hurt your career and how you have the guts to "tell it like it is". You're just an anonymous guy on the internet -- facts, logic, and clear thinking are what will earn you respect here, not emotional ranting. The fact is, Boeing can spend their money on whatever they want. They can spend 14 billion dollars on building a better taiwanese hooker for all I care. This money comes from their own company coffers -- not a cent financed by the taxpayer. Now, if its gonna save lives, great. If its not needed, fine. But it IS an impressive technological achievement. It IS something Boeing should be proud of. It's something that would have been impossible ten years ago.

b: It's become readily apparent over the few years I've read this site, that 75% of the posters don't know half of what they're talking about. You're threatening to push that number higher. The inverse square law has already been explained. As to your other points, 100kW HAS been identified as the minimum level for "laser weapons". If this was a weapon we were talking about, I'm sure that would matter. There's a damn big difference between firing a laser at an immobile target and firing it at an armored tank moving at 40 mph. A 1kW laser is great for cutting through metal as long as you can focus the beam on it for five minutes. But try keeping a laser focused on a moving enemy vehicle (in the same spot, no less) for five minutes. Much more difficult. That explains the discrepancy in power output.

Posted by: Brian at October 17, 2007 01:08 PM

yeah, you're missing the fact that the terrorists can be anywhere within binocular/telescope range of the IED they want to blow up (i.e., very far away). Then all they do is call the cellphone connected to the IED and boom.

Posted by: y at October 17, 2007 12:17 PM

If terrorists are still watching and waiting to detonate anything, while you are trying to neutralize an IED is this not the problem? the area should have been cleared and the terrorists neutralized Or am I missing it.

Posted by: a coward at October 17, 2007 09:19 AM

Frankly,I believe a laser like this is a brilliant "out-of-the-box" idea.I also think that the people against this idea the most are the globalists who don't want a strong America able to defend herself.That is the strong heartfelt idea I get when I hear or read people criticizing inventive ideas concerning new weapons being considered,tested,&/or about to be put into the field.Sorry for the cliche,but its nice to have a weapon & not need it(like the Pershing Missile for instance) than to need a weapon & not have it.

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 17, 2007 08:03 AM

b, apparently you listened to your high school teacher but didn't quite grasp the logic behind the 'laws'.

Posted by: lee at October 17, 2007 08:02 AM

re: Demophilus

I rather fancied myself as fairly well immunized but, hey, I won't hesitate to say I'm still just an ignorant sod.

If I apprehend your meaning, then no, I don't like it one damned bit when we skylarking with blood and treasure. Which is probably why I hit terminal paygrade so early. The Boys Club don't cotton to upstarts who foul the deck and ruin their chances to suck at the teat for the rest of their lives. Eyes closed, mouths puckered, and content with never another passing thought about the military-industrial sow suckling them.

We've got a damned fine military that can whip the snot outta anyone, anywhere, anytime. Unfortunately the political and military leadership does the halfstep most of the time with CNN, the UN, and MoveOn.org calling the cadence.

How we arrived at the intersection of Gutless Ave and Stupid Street is pretty clear. Ike warned us fifty years ago. Why we did it is less so. But here we are, scratching our heads, fiddling the buttons on the GPS, calling OnStar, and listening to the satellite radio telling us about the latest gadget. And we'll go around the block, buy a few more billion bucks in crap from Boeing, and arrive at the same intersection more confused than ever about just where the hell it is that we're going.

So, no, they don't like assholes like me who say "Nice laser. Don't need it."

Cheers,
Chief B.

Posted by: Crusty Old Chief at October 17, 2007 06:08 AM

This begins to be a step in the future, currently it isn't anything more than a step. Disadvantages are divergence, which widens the beam, aerial disturbances, smoke or fog weakens the beam and makes it useless, tracking the impact point of a moving object could be difficult, it's still sensitive stuff making it less reliable for field use, beam energy needs time to act, a bullet does that immediately at impact. Advantages are fast tracking of the target,long range and no trajectory. For IED's I doubt it very effective, shielding against the beam could be done. For disabling IEDs, I believe I'd have a better idea. Power dissipation is an issue, as in a solid state semiconductor pumped laser there is still lots of loss, one has to get rid off so the device stays happy. Use for ground purposes is another one, as wavelength of these kind of lasers is likely not eye save. A laser pointer considered eye save is specified to have not more than 0.001 watt, imagine what a shattered or reflected beam in the range of 1000 watts will do. That's one million time the power. If the target is far enough, the beam likely disperses, but I would not want to be near the target. Ah, yes for the poster mentioning industrial cutting of steel: oxygen is blown from the muzzle to support cutting, also to avoid cutting fumes, which are a known issue to make cutting far more difficult, if not impossible. Compare that to military application.

Posted by: NikeAjax at October 17, 2007 05:36 AM

b - The inverse square law applies to a source that radiates evenly.

The whole point of a laser is that it is a coherent beam of light. All the photons are in phase and PARALLEL. That is why a laser beam is strait, and does not suffer from the inverse square law.

That is why industrial IR lasers are so dangerous. Unlike an oxy-acetalene torch, which is visible and has a short, defined range, IR lasers are invisible and travel hundreds of meters with little appreciable reduction in power.

Posted by: cthelmax at October 17, 2007 05:19 AM

@lee - "to the person that thinks it would take 'hours' for a 1kw laser to cut through steel, apparently you're wrong:" and then quoting some 1 KW laser steel cutters.

Sometimes it's helpfull to have actually listened to the physic teacher in highschool. You have obviously not done so.

There is an Inverse Square Law involved with light:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
"In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that some physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity."

A 1 KW laser at half an inch distance will produce the heat of a small light blub in 1 km distance - if at all.

@Christian - "Hey "b", here's what Boeing told me: "Yes, 1 kilowatt. It can destroy IED and UXO targets in single-digit minutes or less."

This is what I wrote: "The Boeing stuff is pure PR - why repeat it without even bothering to factcheck it and/or to analyse the valitidity of the PR claims."

It's a PR machine: "Boeing told Christian and Christian publishes it without checking the validity"

Did you ask Boeing at what distance they tested? Why not - it is one real important factor here.

BTW: Here is what DefenseTech.org told me in January:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003156.html

"Raytheon's announcement is interesting, because solid-state, electric lasers haven't yet hit the 100 kilowatt threshold which many people consider to be the minimum strength for weapons-grade lasers."

1 KW is Boeing bullshitting.

Posted by: b at October 17, 2007 04:47 AM

1. You can shoot an IED or UXO with anything at all, so long as you're far enough away, and don't care about the damage. All you need is a payload geared to the target set.

2. Lasers allow more scalable effects. As a more direct form of energy, they offer you the option of cooking and disabling materiel in place. Chip a hole in the side of a Russian 122mm round, and you can boil out the payload, and/or burn it. You can also theoretically disable part of an explosive train, with a narrow beam, and enough accuracy.

Cluster munitions would still be a bitch, but you can't have everything. Where would you put it?

3. Don't assume you have to heat slowly, OR send a burst. Pulsed lasers allow other modes of attack, like creating a plasma event on the target surface.

4. Don't assume we're talking visible light, or IR.

5. Yes, the Zeus team did this first. But, they're not Boeing, or Raytheon. Both are showing competing systems. The little kittens get squeezed away from the teat.

6. It's sort of nice to hide a system like this in an Avenger platform. The Zeus team put one in a 113. I think we have a few of those left, too. We've left spare parts all over the planet.

7. As for the UAV thing, if you know some of those were non-metallic, or could absorb or refract particular wavelengths, you might want to evaluate that target set under tightly controlled conditions -- for example, seeing what happens to the engine, vs. the electronics, and not having to pick up the pieces over a few hundred yards.

8. As for guidance systems, well, scalable could mean lidar and a weapon, combined. Worse comes to worst, with a laser, the Mark 1 eyeball shines, too. Worst goes TARFU, and our E grades will be making their own sites out of coat hangars and duct tape.

9. Hey, Chief -- you did the full Navy cruise, and you don't like the taste of bullsh$t? And here I was thinking lifers were immune.

Or at least, hoping SOMEONE was.

Live and learn...

Posted by: demophilus at October 17, 2007 02:42 AM

cool!

now thats what i thought early 21st century stuff would look like when i was a kid!

Posted by: diablotakahe at October 17, 2007 01:56 AM

1kw may not be much but I know some people have developed solid state lasers that are approaching 30 and 40 kw. So while this story is not big news, it won't be long until a platform like this can do some real damage.

Why the anti-air platform? Because once they work the existing tracking system to work with the laser, it can start knocking UAVs, helicopters, and maybe even mortors and artillery shells out of the sky. And that would be very useful.

Mount a system like this on a hybrid HMMWV where the engines can be used as generators and you get mobile functional total air protection.

I don't see lasers helping much with ground warfare because a laser could be countered by typical armour. However, with air threats, heavy armour is not practical.

Detonating IDEs from a distance is okay but like one person said, it should be mounted on an IDE destroying vehicle like the Buffalo or Cougar. Maybe the Avenger had better electricity output right now and that is why they mounted it on that platform.

Posted by: morpheus at October 16, 2007 05:40 PM

Hey "b", here's what Boeing told me: "Yes, 1 kilowatt. It can destroy IED and UXO targets in single-digit minutes or less."

Thanks for the analysis...

Posted by: Christian Lowe at October 16, 2007 04:06 PM

They mounted this on an Avenger because they're using their own money to pay for the project and thought they'd save some dough by using a pre-existing turreted weapon system rather than building one from scratch. As for shooting at immobile UAVS, they could easily have shot at buckets. The demonstration was meant to show the beam's ability to disable military equipment, the targets were representative of such.

Posted by: Moose at October 16, 2007 03:52 PM

Oh, we should definitely write fat checks to Boeing. I gotta admire the chutzpah, the raw moxie, of even bothering to shoot at UAV's while they're on the ground, and then claiming that it represents some kind of "capability". We shouldn't even ask the good folks at Boeing to build hardware. We should grant them fat contracts for performance art.

Posted by: sglover at October 16, 2007 03:36 PM

Also, to the idiot that said "Chemical lasers are no where near safe to use on the battlefield", The article says right at the top that it's a solid state laser. those are powered by electricity.

see:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021020-laser1.htm

"
The beam from a solid-state laser is powered by electricity, which can be generated by a gas-powered jet engine or the turbines of a tank.
Chemical lasers are capable of producing much more energy, but because the energy output relies on the quantity of chemicals used, they take up a lot of space.
"

Posted by: lee at October 16, 2007 03:14 PM

to the person that thinks it would take 'hours' for a 1kw laser to cut through steel, apparently you're wrong:
these two quotes taken from:

http://www.industrial-lasers.com/articles/article_display.html?id=305169

"
In 2003, the Brahmastra (Ultimate Weapon) was introduced, with the first 1kW unit sold to M/s Lancer Lasertech Pvt. Ltd.-a fabrication job shop near Ahmedabad-in March 2005 to cut 8mm mild steel and 6mm stainless steel used in the automobile, electrical panel, textile, pharmaceutical, and construction equipment industries.
"

and

"
A third 1kW fiber laser cutter was installed in December 2006 at ACME Lasertech Pvt Ltd, a laser cutting job shop in Mumbai, for cutting mild steel up to 8-10 mm and stainless steel up to 6 mm. Services are offered to surgical and hospital equipment manufacturers, automobile, retail infrastructure, and pharmaceutical machinery manufacturers.
"

Posted by: lee at October 16, 2007 03:08 PM

"Yup. That there is one impressive bit of gee-whiz-bang rocket science, son. Hell, that'd impress the hell out of Hyman G. himself! But, my young and full of piss-and-vinegar Ensign, that there is sorta like developing a better treatment for the clap, rather than figurin' out a better way to keep yer Sailors from gettin' it in the first place!"

If we put a tenth of the money, half the effort, and a whisper of spine into defeating this Johnny Jihadi guerilla crap AT ITS SOURCE, we'd no more need HUMVEEs with laser beams than we'd need frickin' sharks with laser beams on their heads.

Our Pollyanna pas-de-deux with the Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, and the rest of the Cult O' Death in and around Iraq is dumb. Not just dumb but stunningly dumb. Western governments natter on endlessly about the UN and political solutions to Iraq et. al., Mahmoud Ahmadportajohn gets to speak at Columbia U., our own politicians are engaged in a frenetic game of internecine war on Capitol Hill, the Saudis are funnelling cash and splodeydopes into Iraq at a flank bell, and the rest of us are merrily sucking down Saudi crude at 89 bucks the barrel! Joseph Heller couldn't have penned this any better. (Could there be a Milo Minderbinder somewhere pulling all the strings?)

Johnny Jihadi does not give a tinker's dam about political borders are any of our high-falutin liberal ideas about how we should carry out our national strategy to politely kill people and destroy their things.

We are as effed as Hogan's Goat if we continue to pursue this in the same way we did in Korea and Viet Nam; trying to limit a war to political borders is just plain dumb.

And in combat, dumb gets lots of folks killed.

Unless and until the leadership figures this one out... and then decides to actually do something about it (other than talk) we and our Iraqi allies will just continue to suffer. A fancier treatment for the symptoms is not a cure.

Chief B.

Posted by: Crusty Old Chief at October 16, 2007 03:01 PM

Chemical lasers eh?
And what happens if the Humvee gets blown up? Soldiers in the Humvee will be victims of a small Chemical war..... come on...

Chemical lasers are no where near safe to use on the battlefield.

Posted by: Foreign.Boy at October 16, 2007 02:33 PM

Didn't the Zeus already do this(anti-IED via lasers)?

Posted by: atacms at October 16, 2007 02:19 PM

Wait a second - one kilowatt - how many hours will you have to target a one kilowatt laser on a metalshield until it even starts melting?

That is if the laser can operate more than a few seconds and there is no distortion of the beam.

Unless the laser comes up with 100+ KW it is unlikely to have any value in a military environment. And then the next question is up how will you transport the generator and fuel to drive the 100KW laser ...

The Boeing stuff is pure PR - why repeat it without even bothering to factcheck it and/or to analyse the valitidity of the PR claims.

Is this site Defense Tech or PR machine?

Posted by: b at October 16, 2007 02:13 PM

Haven't we already developed laser based mine neutralizer in the form of the Zeus?

Posted by: atacms at October 16, 2007 02:00 PM

We're just being teased & seduced with all of these modern technologies & weapons.Someone will come up with a reason why we don't need a laser on an Avenger because"nobody has an air force that would threaten us today......AND.......we haven't faced threats from an enemy air force since WWII,or.... was it the Korean War,or..... was it Vietnam,but they only had fighter aircraft." I'm still waiting for the multitudes of TALON SWORDS robots helping our soldiers or all of those other UGVs that we are also being teased & seduced with. Its like looking at the toys in the Sears Christmas catalog knowing that you'll never get to own anyone of them that you see on those pages.

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 16, 2007 12:55 PM

Why not mount this to something that we use to clean up IEDs and the like. Why that anti-air system?

The test they did against UAVs on the ground is a horriable test and I am pretty sure the stingers would do just as good a job on something in the air already.

Posted by: The Cenobyte at October 16, 2007 12:43 PM

Sweet ace, were can I get one. I love the idea, but I still like the idea of just shooting em with a .50.

Posted by: 22lr at October 16, 2007 12:01 PM