Defense Tech: Laser Gunship Revealed


	Subscribe via RSS


	Archives by Date
		September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 See all Archives


	Archives by Category
		'Canes Afghan Update Ammo and Munitions Armor Around the Globe Av Week Extra Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere) Bizarro Blimps Blog Bidness Body Armor Blues Bomb Squad Brownshoes in Action Bubbleheads, etc. Cammo Green Catch the "Buzz" Chem-Bio Civilian Apps Cloak and Dagger Commandos Comms Contingency Ops Cops and Robbers Cyber-warfare Data Diving Defense Tech Poll Dissent Tech Door Kickers Drones DT Administrivia Eat DT's Dust Extra! Extra! Eye on China Fast Movers FCS Watch Fire for Effect FOS Files Friday Funnies Gadgets and Gear Going Green Grand Ole Osprey Ground Vehicles Guns Homeland Security In the Weeds with Eric Info War Iraq Diary Jarhead Jazz JSF Watch Just War Theories Lasers and Ray Guns Less-lethal Logistics Los Alamos and Labs M4 Monopoly Medic! Mercs Missiles Money Money Money Most Wanted MRAP Edge Net-Centric Nukes Old Skool Our Shrinking Planet Planes, Copters, Blimps Politricks Polmar's Perspective Popular Mechanics Rapid Fire Raptor Watch Red Team Retro-Futuro Robots Roll Your Own Sabra Tech Ships and Subs Snipertech Space Special Ops Star Wars Strategery Stray Trons Tactical Development Terror Tech The Deadlies The Defense Biz The Peoples' Site The Sunday Paper The Tanker Tango The View from Av Week Those Nutty Norks Training and Sims Trimble on the Case Video Lounge War Update Ward'z Wonderz You can run... See all Archives


	Newsletters


Edited by Christian Lowe \| Contact

Laser Gunship Revealed

So, a few months ago you might remember we talked about a series of tests of Boeing's airborne laser - a massive, Rube Goldberg contraption housed in a 747 freighter aimed at knocking down ballistic missiles.

During a phoner press conference, Boeing officials mentioned in passing they were working on another system that could engage ground targets. To me, this seems far more logical for such a weapon than one that's designed to knock out missiles...that mission strikes me as redundant.

Well, now it seems Boeing has taken the first step in making the laser gunship a reality by installing the weapon on a C-130H...

Boeing completed the laser installation Dec. 4 at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. The laser, including its major subsystem, a 12,000-pound integrated laser module, was moved into place aboard the aircraft and aligned with the previously-installed beam control system, which will direct the laser beam to its target.

With the laser installed, Boeing is set to conduct a series of tests leading up to a demonstration in 2008 in which the program will fire the laser in-flight at mission-representative ground targets to demonstrate the military utility of high-energy lasers. The test team will fire the laser through a rotating turret that extends through the aircraft's belly.

"The installation of the high-energy laser shows that the ATL program continues to make tremendous progress toward giving the warfighter a speed-of-light, precision engagement capability that will dramatically reduce collateral damage," said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems.

"Next year, we will fire the laser at ground targets, demonstrating the military utility of this transformational directed energy weapon."

I just love the idea that a JTAC could soon call in for a laser strike on a target. Move over Spectre, say hello to the new "Vulcan" cannon (Star Trek reference here).

ATL, which Boeing is developing for the U.S. Department of Defense, will destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations. Boeing's Advanced Tactical Laser industry team includes L-3 Communications/Brashear, which made the laser turret, and HYTEC, Inc., which made various structural elements of the weapon system.

Can't wait to see the test shoot next year...

-- Christian

Comments

OR we could spend the money on international events, education upgrades to understand eachother and lets have peace instead??

I own 2 rifles but use them for sport. I don't believe in war.

Posted by: Steven at July 3, 2008 07:11 AM

I can't believe they finally got it to work. This is cool.

The technology is so intense... pretty much impossible for the freaks to steal it.

Posted by: JON at April 6, 2008 07:06 AM

the americans are masters when it comes to building all types of terrible weapons that they can use to steal the wealth of other countries in the name of demoncracy.then they tell the innocent SHEEP of the world, that they protect and advance demoncracy.the americans and the brits are the lakeys of the money power the HOGGENHEIMERS.they gave all of africa demoncracy now the monkey tribes are destroying themselves. the most lethal weapon of mass destrion and suffering ,is demoncracy they will think up all shit to blind the SHEEP of the world,, to prevent them from seeing WHAT'S REALY GOING ON!!!!

Posted by: WITBOER at January 7, 2008 05:23 AM

"Monkey Tribe" Wars? what an ignorant twit Elen Prague is....

Posted by: SBD at December 24, 2007 12:23 PM

"Monkey Tribe Wars"? Elen Prague is an ignorant racist, who is too stupid to constructively get ANY point across without trying to slander another race. I hope 9 huge black dudes run a creampie train on you, what a filthy piece of garbage you are.

Posted by: MonkeyTribes at December 24, 2007 12:21 PM

what a dumbass racist cunt Elen Prague is. "Monkey tribe" wars? how does that have anything to do with the discussion at hand? what a dumbass bich, I hope 9 huge black dudes run a creampie train on your ass you piece of trash!

Posted by: Idiotbasher at December 24, 2007 12:19 PM

Some of these systems are capable of hundereds of pulses a second. I read a report in the seventies where a military test only knocked out 4 targets in a second. They were trying for a lot more. It is more than likely that the military has a secret orbiting laser and smart bomb cannons on a platform in space, opperational for years. .

Posted by: Paul at December 18, 2007 11:13 AM

They had laser cannons in airplanes, jeeps and ships for over thirty years. Reagan gave the technology to the reds when he announced his so-called "star wars" program to prevent a first strike by them. I have no doubt that our "government by crooks" will use the technology for "assassinations from space" IE "spontaneous combustion's" to control the masses. Our secret laser missile shield has been operational for years.

It is being made public so they can start selling these systems, more than likely to the Arabs. Pretty soon Mohammad will be the only one with enough money to buy them.

Posted by: Paul at December 18, 2007 10:57 AM

I just thing that this is a fantasy of officials. If not, it is far more worse - what would happen to the rest of weapons, If the US Army converts to laser? I tell you what. They will distribute them for affordable prices to Muslim and African countries, so they could carry on their 'monkey tribes' wars.

Posted by: Elen Prague at December 17, 2007 07:35 AM

I wonder if it is anything like the 400 Terra Joule (400,000,000,000,000 Joules (Watts / second) chemical laser that I attended the course for back in 1977 - this had to use a 'pre-cursor' laser to part the air molecules so that the main laser didn't turn the air to plasma trying to fight it's way through.

Posted by: Vulcan_Bomber at December 16, 2007 10:28 PM

Sounds like the old theol laser technology,I have sitelinked in some asimilar projects of usefullness on my online magazine and also from Defensetechs older editor in cheif Noah Schactmann in now Wired Danger Room:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-O1ahRPI8er4gvVWAGF6W_kZB?tag=emerging_science

blog.wired.com/defense/2007/07/monster-truck-g.html

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-O1ahRPI8er4gvVWAGF6W_kZB?p=17

with a newer properly mounted laser gun turret on the bottom of the ship now. Imagine slicing a tank in half or a fighter jet. The lasw of engagement have changed. Cargoe planes are now the hunter killers.

Imagine also jeeps that rip a tank in half. Think about a spaceship that could attack future moonbases or guard them, like "Space Marines Units." It is not so far off in reality people. When global warming kicks in and earth is a "virtual noahs ark once again", then we have 2 choices to wait it out like mel gipbsons moovie waterworld, or we could evolve as a species. This would mean we would have to evolve from the arms race to a space race to ensure the stability of human, plant, and animal life.
max1mos111

Posted by: Max Anderson at December 15, 2007 03:33 PM

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-O1ahRPI8er4gvVWAGF6W_kZB?tag=emerging_science

blog.wired.com/defense/2007/07/monster-truck-g.html

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-O1ahRPI8er4gvVWAGF6W_kZB?p=17

Imagine also jeeps that rip a tank in half. Think about a spaceship that could attack future moonbases or gurad them, like "Space Marines Units." It is not so far off in reality people. When global warming kicks in and earth is a "virtual noahs ark once again", then we have 2 choices to wait it out like mel gipbsons moovie waterworld, or we could evolve as a species. This would mean we would have to evolve from the arms race to a space race to ensure the stability of human, plant, and animal life.
max1mos111

Posted by: Max Anderson at December 15, 2007 03:32 PM

I just want to see a large a spaceship called enterprise, lol. What are we going to do when the enemy shots one down and acquires the technology? We need more technology war machines like this, but technology and economy plays hand and hand so we have to sit on the more amazing stuff we have.
If we had a real world war againthe government would release the higher technologies they have been sitting on for over 40 years, would be nice.

Heart of War
Shawn Earnest
Sun Tzu.

Posted by: Sgawn Earnest at December 15, 2007 08:12 AM

Let's give the technology to the Japanese. They always figure out how to build things smaller, quickly. Then take the miniature version and mount them on remote control planes. Fly about 50,000 of them through the mountains of Afghanistan and eliminate anything that doesn't belong there. Snap, crackle, POP!

Posted by: Dennis at December 15, 2007 01:27 AM

Posted by: Dennis at December 15, 2007 01:26 AM

It will never be deployed. The lawyers running the Army set up the rules of engagement; you must stop them and ask them to surrender, if they don't, you hit them with a marshmellow and detain them in our local Holiday Inn.

Posted by: Bill at December 14, 2007 07:27 PM

Are the humanists worrying over nothing ? Isn't this laser a target acquisition device and NOT a blinding, constant ray of light that the bad guys could home in on for their own AA ? It would appear to me that the "RAY" would last only long enough for a near perfect burst of rounds to be sent downrange. A computer guidance system would "read" the tracers, triangulate and analyze all the variables like airspeed, weather conditions, angle of deflection etc so that the beam would NOT last very long. Hook it up to a Vulcan or a combination with Gatling guns and enjoy the fireworks @ night. Tactical air support in an urban environment or mountainous terrain would be far more accurate with a guidance system they are developing.

Posted by: SSG Yankee Medic at December 14, 2007 05:09 PM

What if, what if, what if? The US would never us this if not already at war as the congress wouldn't let them period. It is like the nuke, who many have been used since 1945?

Posted by: Larry at December 14, 2007 12:44 PM

What if, what if, what if? The US would never us this if not already at war as the congress wouldn't let them period. It is like the nuke, who many have been used since 1945?

Posted by: Larry at December 14, 2007 12:44 PM

'Because we are dealing with an enemy that is by and large ignorant, primitive and superstitious a sudden death by flash fry would have a significant effect.'

that is so true.

remember towers?

Posted by: osama at December 14, 2007 10:27 AM

Mr. Scott: it is as if I had written it myself but to not let these idiots teach their "rot" would be far worse. There would be no comparative thought, which is necessary to be educated. That is why the dems wanted the 18-year old voting act: the younger, the more one can be molded to liberalism, or any "ism" for that matter.

Posted by: dah at December 14, 2007 09:52 AM

Don't get all excited. This is an early test model. In time all your concerns will be addressed and it will be the preferred weapon
Sleep well. Just do your job.

Posted by: Don Herrick at December 14, 2007 04:53 AM

Another problem is if the weapon is accidently fired towards the horizon instead of the ground. My knowledge of laser physics is very small, but I think the beam would defocus and scatter, spreading over a fairly wide area and potentially causing vision loss for people several kilometers away. Humans are so reliant on their eyesight that the thought of partial or complete blindness is a source of unique horror for most people.
This could become, like napalm, a serious blot on America's reputation.

Posted by: CSS at December 13, 2007 07:32 PM

The trouble with the ATL as a low collateral damage weapon is that you can be 100-500 meters away from a laser strike and probably still suffer significant vision damage. I don't think you can say that about weapons like viper strike.

@people who say that ABL is useless

That's just nonsense. The ABL is our best shot at boost phase interception, period. As for justifiable cause, etc etc. First of all, no one will care. Second of all, the NK are not crazy enough to start a war because No Dong 5 has been shot down. Lastly, they are not stupid enough to start a war after their only means at striking US and allies have just been defeated.

Posted by: citanon at December 13, 2007 06:04 PM

I see several posts about this and the ABL being useless. I disagree. These are the future. Those enemies who can afford them will develop them as well - thats the nature of weapons. "if we don't they will". At any rate, both of these systems, with their somewhat limited ranges are theatre weapons.

Both will be deployed with hostile intent, or the threat of hostile intent, whenever and whenever tensions are high. But they're no more and provocative than say cruise or other missiles including ABM's - like say a PAC3, especially one on an F-15. But for many types of attacks they will be much more effective, and actually considerably less provocative than explosives.

As to those concerned about accidently blinding civilians - of course that will happen. Innocents will always be injured in conflict. But as a civilian in an insurgency zone would you rather take your chances with the accidential reflections of a laser off your highly polished Mercedes or would you rather be in the vicinity of a highly accurate ATACMS, a small Viper Strike, or a burst of 30mm rounds from an AC-130?

Posted by: nb at December 13, 2007 05:13 PM

When's this thing going to be available for air-to-air combat?

P.S. EVIL!

Posted by: deaths_little_helper at December 13, 2007 03:35 PM

This version makes a lot more sense doctrinally than the ABL. The ABL is a wonderful piece of equipment, if not horrifically expensive. Unfortunately it’s completely unusable.

As a missile denial system that destroys incoming missiles in the early stages of a launch, it treads on a lot of international law. Who’s going to grant that authority? First you don't know where the rocket is going. Second, you don't know what’s on the rocket. Unless you have really good Intel, which we don't, you’re not going to shoot down a rocket in the early stages of a launch. It makes sense if you’re engaged in a war but we already have systems that successfully intercept missiles.

Let me put it this way. We have nukes, and everyone knows it. Let’s say china has the capability to shoot down missiles on launch and they get jittery. They think we may launch a surprise attack. They see us launch a missile and they shoot it down. Only it’s the space shuttle. Oops. In a less extreme version they destroy a missile putting up a satellite. How would we feel if china blew up “spirit” or “opportunity” before they got to mars?

That’s how this other country would feel.

Let’s say that North Korea suddenly launches a missile, and suppose we had one of these worthless machines anywhere nearby and operating; are we going to shoot it down and start a war? BTW this war would be our fault because we were the first to engage in hostilities. They can deny what was aboard the missile. It could have been a test shot. Point is we destroyed it. Instead I think we'd wait until it was arching towards the U.S. or our allies when we would use conventional systems. That way the suspicion could be justified.

Posted by: Champion at December 13, 2007 10:22 AM

Looks like it is a COIL.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/22975

Posted by: Jack D. Ripper at December 13, 2007 06:12 AM

If this weapon can accidently blind civilians, then it is not a "surgical" weapon and is probably not suitable for counterinsurgency warfare.

Posted by: CSS at December 13, 2007 01:42 AM

Can we also give this to law enforcement, security guards, bodyguards and private investigators. We can replace Tasers with this technology. It is for our own security and protection.

Posted by: HEY COOL at December 13, 2007 12:42 AM

I just betcha that this thing would be good for making popcorn on movie night. It would probably also be good at interior decorating as well.

Posted by: Boomer61 at December 13, 2007 12:38 AM

could we use it to blow up alderaan

Posted by: dan at December 12, 2007 11:12 PM

A infrared laser of only a few hundred milliwatts can permanently damage your eyesight. A coworker related a story of how a German laser specialist was working on a metal cutting laser and doing mode tests. The German accidently stepped into the beam path and mistakenly told a coworker to activate the laser. He instantly got a laser target burned into his face (test modes usually are only a few Watts), scarring his face for life. A beam of several KW in power would, most likely, instantly vaporize the retnas of anyone who had the misfortune to get hit in the eye(s). When cutting metals with a laser you often get a plasma jet of hot metal blowing out the backside of the sheet.

When this weapon gets put into the field, expect many people to complain about the horrific wounds that it causes. Probably, the anti-war types will compare it to napalm in the effects it has on humans.

http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/laser/Publications/FM8-50/FM8-50.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200404/ai_n9394579

http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/122/8/1210/FIGESA30014F2?ck=nck

The last link has information in it for actual injuries due to a laser range finder.

Posted by: Jack D. Ripper at December 12, 2007 10:51 PM

It will truely be "silent death" incarnate.

________________________________________________

I don't see how you could burn someone to death with a 4 inch blow torch and not expect him to scream.

Posted by: citanon at December 12, 2007 10:34 PM

ABL is a "Rube Goldberg" device? Not at all biased are we? But thats not on topic.

The C-130 (C-130ABL?) will be a great weapon in support of ground troops. It will surgically take out weapons, people, and vehicles. Unlike an AC-130's guns, it will do so with little indication of where the laser "blast" originated from. It will do so perfectly quietly - except for the noise from it's turboprops. Insurgents might not even hear their comrade die and thus not be alerted to run. It could kill an Iraqi insurgent even as he's standing in the doorway of a mosque and maybe (...) even in the interior courtyard - something you wouldn't dare try with explosives. It will truely be "silent death" incarnate. If it can do this from 20,000ft - it will be even better (I'll be interested in seeing what the final range it).

Not mentioned is that this system may be able to also take out local theatre incoming cruise and short-range missiles, hostile UAV's, fixed and rotary aircraft, and perhaps as it evolves even SAM's and AAM.

Get this thing in the air and watch its missions grow. This thing may be far more useful than the 747 ABL - its easier to deploy, durable, and less expensive to operate.

Wish they could get the weight of the laser down just a bit and put it on a V-22. It could deploy to the front lines and fly defensive patrol without ever leaving.

Posted by: nb at December 12, 2007 09:10 PM

I don't think they'll be instantly blinded, but over the course of a few hours people will start seeing dark spots in their eyes. Infra red lasers are notorious for doing permanent eye damage without people realizing it's happening. Vision is lost over the course of a day or so but might be salvageable with timely medical intervention.

If you have a vehicle suddenly starting to melt, that might attract a lot of attention, exacerbating the problem.

Posted by: citanon at December 12, 2007 09:08 PM

I'm more interested/concerned by the main side effect: blindness among bystanders. Even the current targeting lasers can blind people quite easily; if this bigger laser hits something somewhat reflective (such as a car fender with the paint boiled off), anyone looking generally in that direction might be instantly, permanently blinded (unless they're wearing goggles to filter out the laser radiation, or stop any high-powered flash in general). The "Stingray" system, from 10 years ago or so, was pretty much stopped due to this issue.

Posted by: Michael Blum at December 12, 2007 08:56 PM

As with any new weapon it will take time to perfect. The more work done on it , the smaller it will be and the more power it will have. A 500lbs. bomb might be better now but how many times can you you use that 500lbs. Bomb ? Some of you sound like the chief of ordnance during the civil war. He didn't want repeating rifle's because they used too much ammunition.

Posted by: chuck Regnier at December 12, 2007 06:21 PM

Posted by: chuck Regnier at December 12, 2007 06:19 PM

lots of money for little or no effect. Don't get me wrong I like the idea of lazer weapons (if we can put them on Sharks heads I am totally there). But a the cost per shot it is going to take to fire a chem lazer of that size is just not worth it.

We need to start thinking about the fact that we can't afford to continue to have this $650 billion defence budget anymore and start thinking about what is just a ltitle over the top.

Posted by: the cenobyte at December 12, 2007 04:43 PM

I am all for research and development; and I understand the need for weapons with less collateral damage; But it seems like a lot of money is going to spent to do something an guided 500 pound bomb, that can be carried by anything flying, can do.
If this is developed the only people who will be using it is the CIA and the Israelis.....
And I think the CIA is to stupid to have such a toy.

Posted by: Dennis at December 12, 2007 04:33 PM

I'm all for the development of weapons like this. It's true that we're nowhere near REAL GENIUS--sadly, no one has brought in Val Kilmer to do the heavy lifting on this research. Or that guy in the closet. We aren't going to find a laser that will vaporize enemy infantry or tanks in our arsenal anytime soon. What we may have, however, is a weapon that can ignite fuel tanks, set off munitions, or disable vehicles in a crowded area. It will undoubtedly cost more money per shot than simply firing from a Specter gunship, at least for the next few years, anyway. As the weapon currently exists, it is probably inferior in most respects to those currently available. The only advantage I can see is the ability to strike a hostile vehicle surrounded by civilian targets (something you can't do with the Specter). The real advantage with this weapon is where it is 10-15 years from today. Remember, at one point, crossbows were superior to muskets.

Posted by: Brian at December 12, 2007 04:18 PM

For starters who even mentioned that this would be a COIL? At 12,000 lbs it isn't big enough to be a COIL. I suspect that it is a Fiber Optic Laser for both the small size and the fact that it is going to be mounted on a C130. You don't need to vaporise a target in order to disable it. A melted engine block means you won't be going anywhere. Same thing with a fire in an ammunition dump. Zap a pile of RPG rounds and you get a lot of excitement. A beam diameter of 2-3 inches is more than enough to cause serious damage.

Regarding superstitious peoples, this weapon would frighten people just because it would appear to come from nowhere (even twenty miles away).

Posted by: Jack D. Ripper at December 12, 2007 03:09 PM

Did it say they were using it to target people? NO.

This kind of thing would be used to destroy ground targets like radar/missle sites, not to fry someone standing around pickin' their nose.

Seriously, some of these comments must have been made by the terminally brain damaged....

Posted by: SBD at December 12, 2007 02:53 PM

Although I'm not an expert on the physics of vehicle-mounted laser generation, I know a thing or two about the ablative properties of water and human tissues. The energy required to inflict a mobility kill (subject cannot maneuver) on a vehicle is comparable to the amount of energy required to kill one human with a laser. Water in organic tissue vaporizes easily, carrying away the energy at the contact site and scattering some of the incoming beam. Killing people and animals with a laser is a longer process than Star Trek would have us believe. The same laser can heat-stress and warp the moving parts in a motive drive (tracked, wheeled, whatever), rendering an armored transport or a tank immobile until repairs can be made. As a preparatory strike before conventional weapons are brought to bear, it's wonderfully efficient. As a surgical anti-personnel weapon, it's not.

Posted by: Niali at December 12, 2007 02:39 PM

Ah yes, everybody's an expert.
Especially those having absolutely no knowledge about the subject matter.

If it saves 1 American life, I'm for it.

Posted by: SubVet at December 12, 2007 02:28 PM

What do you think a phase conjugate tracking system is for? A big laser needs a big mirror, Kent.

Posted by: Calamormine at December 12, 2007 02:24 PM

Does anybody have a price tag on this?

The really key question is whether it is cheaper or more expensive than the alternatives that can do the same things (e.g. small laser guided air to ground missiles designed to do the same thing from a fighter platform that is a cheaper aircraft to buy).

Posted by: ohwilleke at December 12, 2007 02:11 PM

Ah, yes. The demo next year will target nonmoving items on the ground. In recent years we have selected the wrong targets in various countries and killed civilians including children. Now our efficient military will be able to select the incorrect targets and kill innocent people in a more spectacular manner. - - - How about correcting our error-ridden target-selection process first?

Posted by: Lorelei at December 12, 2007 01:58 PM

How the hell are you going to get a 12,000 lb laser on a friken shark's head?1?!!?

Posted by: Sorbi at December 12, 2007 01:29 PM

Imagine the psychological effects of a group of terrorists getting ready to deploy when suddenly one of them bursts into flames and vaporizes. Silent, without a terrestrial line of sight and basically invisible. So there is a plane many miles away, that would be the last consideration.
Because we are dealing with an enemy that is by and large ignorant, primitive and superstitious a sudden death by flash fry would have a significant effect.
I agree that we are probably seeing the last days of close air combat but then again the air force jockeys days were numbered with the successful use of ground controlled aircraft.
Now perhaps they could use them to torch the 'elusive as Osama' opium fields that are supporting the terrorists (both domestic and foreign)

Posted by: C Murray at December 12, 2007 01:13 PM

I think this is retarded and a waste of money. The airborne laser is much more practical then this. Airborne laser is suited for shooting down missiles, this thing is impractical. Here is why.
1. Its a huge flying tank of volatile chemicals. One heavy round through the plane has the potential to make it explode or catch fire. This makes it a bad close air support weapon when enemy is around.
2. The laser is not that strong.
3. It is expensive.

Basically being so vulnerable, and with more effective aircraft out their like the specter, this is just a waste of money.
BTW, I love the specter and support the airborne laser.

Posted by: Mike at December 12, 2007 12:59 PM

>i'll just pull out a mirror and reflect the beam back to the plane, problem solved.<

I don't think a mirror on a vehicle would be an effective defense against lasers by reflecting the beam back to, and destroying, the plane or weapon. First, the mirror would have to be scrupulously clean, otherwise the beam would be diffused, or the mirror destroyed. As anyone who has served in the field knows, everything gets covered in dirt in tactical operations. So this rules out covering an entire vehicle with mirrored surfaces. This would mean a mirror placed behind a protective cover, that could be moved into the path of the laser, aimed, and uncovered at the right moment. But how would you be able to place a mirror in the right location on the vehicle and tilt to the correct angle to hit a moving target, before a beam traveling at the speed of light could disable the vehicle? Doesn't sound feasible to me.

Posted by: Bob at December 12, 2007 12:57 PM

Brian - The "real genius" reference was just awesome.

Posted by: Mike at December 12, 2007 12:48 PM

Oh great! Another rat hole to throw taxpayer money down. Very little of what these guys make actually works. It is al about ripping off the government treasury.

Posted by: bruce at December 12, 2007 12:44 PM

sounds pretty cool. WAY better than the 747.

just pray that one of these things never crashes! that would be a pretty big mess. i say stay away from chemical lasers.

Posted by: jay at December 12, 2007 12:32 PM

psst!!! beat me up snotty!!! i'll just pull out a mirror and reflect the beam back to the plane, problem solved.

Posted by: jim at December 12, 2007 12:08 PM

The popcorn scene was clearly awesome.

Posted by: Brian at December 12, 2007 11:31 AM

All I can say is this.... Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in sort of sun-god robes on a pyramid with a thousand naked women screaming and throwing little pickles at you?

Posted by: Bill at December 12, 2007 11:28 AM

is funny how I remembre playig asteroid in the arcade for noe defence it should be play now for nasa i wonder waht can be done with the mercury.probably not go any where with out getting canser.ha!

Posted by: lopez at December 12, 2007 11:05 AM

Hiya folks. Excimer is a UV laser, capable of extremely narrow beam widths because they operate below 390 nanometres wavelengths.
A CO2 (carbon dioxide) laser is the sort used for cutting steel slab and has an operating wavelength of 10.6 microns (infra red). A Yag (yttrium aluminum garnet) laser such as is used for treating eye problems, or as a range finder, operates at 1.064 microns in the NIR (near infra red. Things like HeNe's operate in the visible. I don't know what the eggheads have got in mind, but I'd go for the CO2 if we can find a way to diminish atmospheric absorbtion.

Posted by: old bob at December 12, 2007 10:44 AM

What a rich topic! Let's look at some of the ideas out there.

First to the video game kids. Sorry to say, but we haven't made enough progress on fusion to even DREAM of moving it out of the lab--and that's after pouring BILLIONS of dollars into research. Do not expect to see fusion power in your lifetime. (But note that solar power IS fusion power--from a certain point of view--to paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi!) As an energy source earth-surface fusion may well be forever out of the question due to the massive heat dissapation issues (think carbon-linked globabl warming times 50 to 500 and you'll get the idea).

Progress on autonomous vehicles in response to DARPAs last few challenges has been pretty remarkable. However, integrating and miniaturizing such capabilities into something fully autonomous and battle-ready is at least a decade away. The upside is that we can probably add robotic vehicles to convoys almost immediately (given enough money). We can also derive great value from this research such as collision and/or roll-over avoidance systems that monitor the space around vehicles.

The comment about using MASERs to detonate IEDs is quite correct. It's my understanding that we are already doing this. There are certainly a plethora of technical hurdles. Under the right conditions, a strong microwave signal that rapidly sweeps through the resonance frequencies of common explosives can directly detonate those explosives. The 20GHz resonance frequency of water is probably best avoided. Such a beam shouldn't cause serious or permanent injury--just rapidly increased warmth for a very limited duration. However, it might double as a crowd control device; it's unpleasant to be rapidly heated!

Though roughly analogous to a commercial microwave oven, an effective anti-IED MASER would ideally NOT be tuned heat biological systems (which is exactly what those ovens ARE tuned for operating in the 1-3GHz range). Such specificity may be impossible considering the huge variety of biological molecules, and the overlapping breadth of explosives molecules. Other portions of the EM spectrum such as terahertz waves might serve better (and also better penetrate all practical methods at sheilding).

As for the demise of various airborne weapons systems, I doubt it. Silvering and cooling the exterior of an aircraft GREATLY diminish such effects--though UV lasers can cut through most anything. But human pilots can't be silvered. I predict that either the role of UAVs will increase or else pilots will need to fly windowless aircraft using only synthetic vision (which sounds terrible, but would be vastly superior to current night vision systems). In a perfect scenario of synthetic vision recall the alien's visual system in the second Predator movie. Our pilots could conceivably see through a wide variety of visual obscurations or macroscopic noise (including things like snow, leaves, dust and smoke) just as their NVGs now see through aerosolized moisture better than natural eyes. I don't know if research in windowless aircarft is ongoing. One can't blame pilots for wanting their eyes as a fall-back. It's profoundly unsettling for operators to know that a synthetic vision failure would leave them blind in the sky.

In terms of the weaponization of lasers, I think super-fast & high-energy chemical lasers offer the best solution, but have highly toxic by-products. Gas (excimer) lasers come next. These are followed by more traditional gas column or solid state lasers. The best laser weapons would act so quickly that no amount of (low frequency) aircraft turbulence,vibration or mid-frequency (atmospheric focus variations due to heat-related refractive turbulence) would blur the fastest beams within their action period.

As for stopping earth-crossing asteroids, this is NOT your weapon. The best model for managing such a strike is to launch an impactor which will pepper the target's surface (i.e. blow up just right) with a sufficient mass to alter the trajectory of such an object so that it avoids hitting the earth-moon system. A heavy, space-based solution would be prudent, but the motivation to spend billions building such a thing for a "just in case" scenario is politically low. Instead, a space colony located at a Lagrangian point (L4 or L5) could be sacrificed to save the planet. Realistically, we are probably as far from such a colony today as the ISS is ahead of Sputnik. Accumulating useable materiel at a Lagrangian point makes great sense and should be added into NASA's budget. When a few hundred tons of equipment is pre-situated, we will be ready to start constructing a habitat. All of this could be held together with a large net until the time came to begin building.

Killing terrorists is best done by human intelligence. An army of doe eyed virgins (or young boys) probably has a better chance of getting close to them than a bunch of misapplied technology. As in all idealogical wars, winning the hearts and minds of the youth is one of the biggest objectives. This has a history dating back at least to Socrates. Hitler and Lenin made good use of it. Paradoxically, in light of the absolutely rock-solid factuality of this, our (U.S.) educational establishment has managed to teach a vast number of children that our nation is evil, that it is based on corrupt concepts (i.e. The Constitution and The Bible), and that it is committed to white supremacy and religious intollerance. Many such messages violate the oath that everyone who has ever served in a uniform or an elected office swore, I remain mystified that it's allowed to persist. While our teachers are free to assault on founding principles, they are not free to defend them--something is wrong with this picture. Even in our universities, a tiny minority dictates the public face of our politics. Anyone faculty member (in almost any institution of higher learning) that publicly stands for truth, discipline, the value of tradition, etc. will be quickly silenced and vilified--despite the fact that the majority of us share the same values as the majority of society.

I didn't address silly things like the Stargate, sharks with lasers and the popcorn scene in REAL GENIUS. I hope that you all have lots of fun and keep thinking about this stuff. Aye, it's gratifying for this old science teacher to see so many clearly younger people taking an interest in real science.

One to beam up, Scott out.

Posted by: Mr. Scott at December 12, 2007 05:28 AM

Screw the fusion tank, with stuff like this, it's time the U.S. military invests in fusion-powered mech warriors.

Specs:
At least eight-stories high, walks on two feet
SPY-1 radar, 360-degree coverage
Non-lethal microwave crowd-dispersal device
Non-lethal acoustic crowd-disperal device
Lethal high-energy laser
Automatic grenade launcher
Two, hellfire missile pods (4 missiles per pod)
MLRS backpack
Belt-fed M-60 (liquid nitrogen cooled)

...and a giant flame-thrower (for effect)

Posted by: Dan at December 12, 2007 03:39 AM

It's kind like when I was eight, sitting in the back yard on a sunny Saturday killing ants with a magnifying glass. The pilot will have to be an only child.

Posted by: Zac at December 12, 2007 12:22 AM

Two of my favorite words. Phasers . . . Fire!

As I recall, they work on almost anything.

Posted by: different Jeff at December 11, 2007 10:04 PM

I'm a little confused about this weapon's utility. It sounds like it's packing the energy content of a welding torch into a 2 ton flying maglight.

How are you supposed to kill terrorists with this? Hold the beam on him long enough until he fries? Wouldn't that be kind of difficult/cruel?

I guess you could clear mines like mentioned earlier, or cut wires, but are there really enough situations where this will be useful?

I'm all for laser guns, but it doesn't sound like they have quite enough energy output yet.

Posted by: citanon at December 11, 2007 09:48 PM

One interesting thing about this is that you could bring down an aircraft before the target's pilot realized he was being targeted. Think 6.2usec/mile and 100 miles would be only .62msec (pretty fast for most humans to respond to). I suspect that manned aircraft face many issues when they begin using these lasers in a dog fight. We may be witnesses to the beginning of the end of close in air to air combat.

Posted by: Jack D. Ripper at December 11, 2007 09:10 PM

Would this be a one-time use weapon, or could it be fired several times in one sortie, without needing heavy-duty maintenance? also, would it be solid-state, gas, or liquid-based?

Posted by: Jim at December 11, 2007 07:50 PM

This would make an excellent addition to the AC-130 Gunship's weapons system.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 11, 2007 07:09 PM

Wait, anti-ballistic missile capbility is redundant, but air-to-ground destruction isn't?

Think about how many systems can destroy a ballisitc missile in it's boost phase. Now think about how many systems can destroy a target from the air. I don't think we need another of the latter as much as one of the former

Posted by: Pantera at December 11, 2007 06:54 PM

Now we can clear mines easier and safer!!

Posted by: anthony bauwens at December 11, 2007 06:06 PM

Now we can clear mines alot faster not mentioning locating them easier!

Posted by: anthony bauwens at December 11, 2007 06:04 PM

"All I want is freaking sharks with LASER BEAMS"

Posted by: jeff at December 11, 2007 05:14 PM

Only a REAL GENIUS could come up with something like this.

Posted by: Rob1855 at December 11, 2007 05:01 PM

>This would be very useful if they could use this to clear routes of IED.

Only if it is near the surface where the heat could self detonate the IED. Electro-optical frequencies do not have good penetration characteristics as electro-magentic radio frequencies. I would propose "MASERS" for that use.

Posted by: pedestrian at December 11, 2007 04:43 PM

I wonder how the engagement will happen... can you request an intensity level: Med, Well, Crispy, or Crunchy? And if you used a laser designator with it, I guess it becomes be a Laser Guided Laser (LGL) then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmFag3hiu70

Posted by: Camp at December 11, 2007 04:23 PM

Yes,but can it stop asteroids dead in their tracks that would cause extinction-level events that would threaten ALL mankind(& womankind & animal kind & plant kind & fish kind too)? AND could it penetrate space aliens' force fields if they try to conquer us like in the TV show "V" or the movie "Independence Day?" Another gripe at the Air Force,they sure have been doing a lousy job protecting the Stargate.No wonder they closed down the Cheyenne Mountain Complex.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 11, 2007 03:53 PM

This would be very useful if they could use this to clear routes of IED. I remember reading somethig about a General asking if industry could come up with something to mount on a HUMVEE, using laser to cut wires etc.

Posted by: Jeff at December 11, 2007 02:47 PM

Would this be the L3Comm that they are trying to merge with the Chinese government owned company?

Posted by: Roger Tipton at December 11, 2007 02:06 PM

As a fan of Keith Laumer's BOLO sci-fi novels featuring self-aware tanks, it will be both interesting and ironic to see if directed energy weapons spell the demise of airborne weapon systems on the future battlefield.

Energy weapons could negate incoming missile and artillery fire, and any aircraft approaching within line-of-sight to engage with an energy weapon could be destroyed by heavier armed and armored ground units.

Anyone for a fusion-powered 15,000 ton tank?

Posted by: Scott Drumm at December 11, 2007 02:01 PM

The ABL does make a grand ASAT platform, don't you think? Even if its boost phase mission is usurped it still could intimidate any that want to take a shot at our birds in space.

Posted by: whatmeworry at December 11, 2007 01:35 PM

Laser Gunship Revealed

Comments

Post a comment