PHALANX WITH LASER CANNON: An artist's rendering of a weapon featuring a laser cannon and Gatling gun side by side on a naval vessel, with the laser shooting down a UAV.
Image: © RAYTHEON CO.
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
In a grainy, black-and-white video that looks like a home movie of a UFO attack a sleek aircraft streaks through the sky one minute, only to burst into flames the next and plummet into the sea. The silent video, which Raytheon Co. debuts Monday at the U.K.'s Farnborough International Air Show 2010, however, is not science fiction. The defense contractor says it depicts part of a test conducted in May during which the U.S. Navy used a solid-state laser to shoot down unmanned aerial vehicles over the Pacific Ocean.
During the test, the Navy's Laser Weapon System (LaWS), guided by Raytheon's Phalanx Close-In Weapon System sensors, engaged and destroyed four UAV targets flying over water near the Navy's weapons and training facility on San Nicolas Island in California's Santa Barbara Channel, about 120 kilometers west of Los Angeles. The Phalanx—a rapid-fire, computer-controlled, radar-guided gun system—used electro-optical tracking and radio frequency sensors to provide range data to the LaWS, which is made up of six solid-state lasers with an output of 32 kilowatts that simultaneously focus on a target.
See video below
The maritime UAV target practice session could be a significant step in a decades-long quest undertaken by the U.S. military and several defense contractors to bring lasers to the battlefield. Raytheon's latest test follows related experiments in 2006 and 2008. In the former, Raytheon used a solid-state laser to destroy a static mortar, whereas in the latter, the laser blew up an incoming mortar shell over land.
Knocking down drones over water is a different matter though. The effect of the moist maritime environment on a laser's ability to propagate has been a nagging question for the technology, says Mike Booen, vice president of Raytheon's Advanced Security and Directed Energy Systems product line. Now that the laser-enhanced Phalanx has demonstrated the ability to find and hit incoming UAVs, the weapon will be installed on an operational Navy test ship for additional testing, he adds. Still, even if the laser system continues to test successfully, such a weapon would not be fully developed for combat before 2016, according to Booen.
The U.S. military has used Phalanx for decades to shoot down mortars and rockets. The weapon combines a 20-millimeter Gatling gun that fires at a rate of either 3,000 or 4,500 shots per minute, with radar to search for and track targets. The U.S. Navy has used a land-based version of Phalanx in Iraq since 2005. Mounting a laser cannon beside the Gatling gun should extend the range at which incoming ordinance and UAVs can be eliminated. Although Booen says that for security reasons he cannot divulge the distance at which the laser-based systems can shoot down incoming threats (or the UAVs' altitudes during the Navy test), he notes that the military would not be interested in the new laser technology if it could not at least double the range of existing weapons.
A UAV's altitude depends largely on its design and its mission. Hand-launched unmanned aircraft systems made by AeroVironment, Inc., for example, typically operate at altitudes below 150 meters but are able to fly much higher, according to Steve Gitlin, a spokesman for the Monrovia, Calif.–based company. "[Altitude] is largely driven by the resolution of their imaging sensors," he adds. Larger aircraft that AeroVironment and others are developing are expected to be able to operate at upward of 16.5 kilometers.
Much of what the public knows about UAVs comes from news reports describing how the U.S. and its allies use drones to attack enemy fighters as well as incidents where civilians have been killed by unmanned aircraft. Booen points out, however, that enemies of the U.S. and its allies are also using UAVs either to attack troops or to track troop movements. Iran reportedly has been doing this for years.
In addition to Raytheon's work, fellow defense contractor Northrop Grumman plans to test its solid-state Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD) system with the Navy by the end of the year. For the at-sea demonstration, Northrop will power its laser up to 15 kilowatts in order to defend against simulated attacks of a Navy ship by smaller boats. A relatively low-power laser beam could set alight wood or fiberglass hulls, fuel or vulnerable weapons from stand-off distances of a kilometer or more, according to a May 14 Scientific American article.
Navy planners are interested in using lasers in to help naval vessels fend off potential attacks by squadrons of small boats, citing an incident that occurred in early 2008 in the Strait of Hormuz (a waterway connecting the Gulf of Oman and Persian Gulf). "The MLD system we are under contract to build for [the U.S. Office of Naval Research] will be scalable to a variety of power levels," according to Northrop spokesman Bob Bishop. "That means that laser power can be added—or subtracted—to meet the level of response necessary to address the threat, all within the same modular laser weapon system."
The military hopes that, in addition to extending the range of their weapons, lasers will also improve targeting precision. Another advantage, Booen says, is that lasers require electricity rather than ordinance. As long as there is current, the weapon will not run out of ammo.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
59 Comments
Add Commentwow. That is pretty cool. I didn't know that lasers had become that powerful. I wonder if they are any other uses for this tech besides military.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf, as it appears, several seconds of targeted heat absorption are required to impart damage, couldn't damage be avoided by simple evasive actions? Even automated electronic detection of focused heat might be programmed to initiate evasive maneuvers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am going to guess that it is pretty much the same deal as when the lasar/radar detector in your car goes off now-adays.
It does not mean slow down, they are in the neighborhood, like it did when the Police were using the first generation tripod mounted radar antennas that threw signal all over the place.
With the new narrow beam, ultra fast moving precision aimed weapons available now, it does not mean "incoming", it pretty much means bail out now, your fried.
teabone - If the effect of this weapon is based on heat damage to critical components, it effectiveness depends on its rate of heating and the duration of exposure. If the target can detect the weapon's heating effect before its exposure duration can cause damage, it may be able to interrupt its exposure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain I'm just guessing from the apparent exposure time before explosion in the video of an apparently passive drone.
Would making the drone out of reflective materials be an effect countermeasure?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskatman13 - I think so: reflecting radiation away the target must reduce its absorption and effectiveness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis weapons technology has been in development since U.S. President Ronald Reagan created the Strategic Defense Initiative ('Star Wars') on March 23, 1983. It seems to still require additional research and development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps it's time, after more than 25 years, to pull the funding on this nonsense and invest in methods of defending the power grid, or something useful. It served its main purpose long ago...
This program did cause the Soviet Union to realize that their crumbling economy could not continue to fund development of competitive weapons technology, leading to the end of the Cold War.
Kind of hard to outrun light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismtheory42 - You probably never watched an old cowboy movie in which the bad guy made the city slicker 'dance' to a six-shooter... Nobody gets hurt even though nobody outruns a bullet. They weren't very good, anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany fighter pilots have successfully evaded faster missiles to survive live combat. I think that evasive maneuvering is a fundamental tactic taught to all combat pilots.
I think it is impossible to perform evasive action when under attack by a weapon that hits at a speed of light, there is no time to detect the laser beam and perhaps there is non time to evade the exposure because it can follows the enemy at the same speed of light being controlled by automated systems, perhaps the perfect weapon as long as nobody pulls the plug out of the socket.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdanielx - Perhaps I'm wrong but my impression is that there is a significant delay from the time the laser hits a targeted area and the destruction of the craft: that critical components (such as the fuel tanks) must be heated for a time before catastrophic failure incurs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the target can maneuver such that the heated component is no long visible to the laser, heating must be begun again.
Of course I may be envisioning the process incorrectly, but I don't think there is any immediate destruction of the target when struck by the laser beam.
It could be a waste of money unless it can overcome reflective targets. This was noted previously by another post. We are concerned about spending, right? Sexy weapons are a lure. "beware of the industrial military complex" I think Ike said that a long time ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering that they have a laser system that can track and destroy a mosquito when it flies into range, I think they can track an aircraft without too much of an issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am amazes no one is thinking here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith more power the delay factor would cease to be a problem, bang you are fried.
And the question of money is, what do you save by not having to build physical missiles with sophisticated electronics that are destroyed each time you use one or even practice.
Reflective aircraft will never be 100% reflective and world be expensive to build. The idea is to be able to shoot down what the enemy has, and many have stock piles of old slow stuff. With a proper laser system you could shoot these down all day with little cost to YOU.
Lithale - Tracking a mosquito is a challenge; destroying it - not so much. A mosquito can't really turn its back to the laser.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdavekyte - I am amazes also. A laser with enough power could melt New York City, but I don't know how feasible or cost effective it would be on the battlefield.
I don't know how perfectly reflective the target would have to be in order to prevent heating, but polished aluminum was a popular exterior finish for aircraft around 80 years ago.
For all you enthusiasts, let's just say that the video is only convincing evidence that a laser can destroy a passive drone. One would like to see a more convincing demonstration.
This weapons technology has been in development since U.S. President Ronald Reagan created the Strategic Defense Initiative ('Star Wars') on March 23, 1983. It seems to still require additional research and development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps it's time, after more than 25 years, to pull the funding on this nonsense and invest in methods of defending the power grid, or something useful. It served its main purpose and achieved it's strategic objective long ago...
The SDI program forced the Soviet Union to recognize that their crumbling economy could not continue to fund development of competitive weapons technology, leading to the end of the Cold War.
Reflecting the laser would require the target surface to be polished to optical grade. Difficult and expensive to do on mass produced aircraft. Maneuvering to avoid the beam would also be difficult due to the rapid tracking and response of the laser system. The target would have deviate dozens of meters from track while the laser would only have to deviate a few tenths to a few degrees in the same amout of time. The Raytheon system uses electonically scanned optical arrays on seven axial aligned laser units and each of the beams are combined to arrive in phase at the target. (Aviation Week and Space Technology, Jan. 12, 2009 gives a complete rundown of all the publically available programs) Finally, the wattage indicated in the article is low compared to the 150KW+ solid state lasers now in development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most interesting aspects of this and other lasers in development is the range of power available and accuracy. If the shooter just wants to put a bad burn on a small area of some bad guy, this is possible. Or, if a vehicle needs to be destroyed quickly without collateral damage, then this too is possible with the same weapon. Bombs and bullets are pretty much all or nothing events with high probabilities of collateral damage. Another advantage is that no "duds" get left on the battlefield that could be used to make IED's to attack us with our own weapons. This adds up to a bad day for the bad guys if their thin skinned aircraft, boats, or bodies wind up in the crosshairs of video game junkies with real weapons.
I like the idea of using it on attack boats. You could quickly make things HOT for the crew of a attacking boat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the days of spears and arrows some saw the idea of firing a slug of metal from a tube ridiculous and costly. This replaces the bullet with foucused energy.
Next step? Air to air laser dog fights?
tichead - Scattering of the laser may be sufficient to reduce the apparently necessary heat absorption, possibly achievable with polished aluminum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd want my military budget decision makers to demand a more realistic demonstration of an attack in which available countermeasures were employed.
This demonstration proved only that this weapons system can effectively knock down commercial airliners. More proof is required.
Also making the target reflective would make if glow on radar. You cannot have stealth and reflection at the same time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisetepperman - Good point. Perhaps some method of light scattering might be effective, but I'd still want to see an evasive target shot down. I'm not arguing that it can't be, but why the demo using a passive target?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving seen a few of each, the video looks more like a project funding pitch or a Sales & Marketing demo rather than a technical requirements acceptance test.
What happens if the target maneuvers? Oh, that's included in the next round of project development funding...
jtdwyer: These systems are currently operating in the 1 micron wavelength, much longer than the 400-700 nanometer wavelength of visible light. A simple "see youself" shine probably has nothing to do with the thermal effect of the beam. Not being an expert in optics, I don't know what type of surface is required to reflect enough thermal energy to render this weapon useless. As the melting point of aluminum is only about 660 degrees C (slightly more for aircraft alloys) and because it conducts heat extremely well, it would expect it to melt fairly quickly under high beam intensities. Additionally, such a finish would substantially increase radar cross section making any form of stealth impossible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the more proof you require, this was an early low scale test of a stack system wherein only the required number of stacks were deployed for the chosen target. I expect that pending tests will use all the stacks on larger more robust targets. Also, the system was ground tested on stationary targets and I would be stunned if the developers didn't test a polished aluminum target since that appears to be such an obviously simple way to defeat the laser. My guess is they did test that scenario. But, then again, even the best brains can chose to ignore or fail to notice the obvious so we'll all just have to wait and see.
As for available countermeasures against high powered lasers, I am not aware of any really good ones, but if you know of any other than smoke (which a concurrent targeting beam burns through) or mirrors (which are not very aerodynamic and difficult to deploy), then I'm sure the Air Force Research Lab and DARPA (the program managers of these weapons) would be interested to hear about it before the bad guys figure out how to use this stuff on our assets.
"mtheory42 - You probably never watched an old cowboy movie in which the bad guy made the city slicker 'dance' to a six-shooter... Nobody gets hurt even though nobody outruns a bullet. They weren't very good, anyway."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer - That analogy makes absolutely no sense. Also, evading a missile is not like evading a laser. After you avoid a missile, it continues beyond the target. A laser is just always there. It takes very little movement of the laser to stay on the target. Think about shining a laser pointer at a car from 50 meters. Do you really think the car could turn fast enough that you'd lose it? Then add computer guidance.
@jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor reflective materials to aid the target, they would have to be reflective in the wavelengths the laser is using. A typical solid state diode pumped laser is in the infrared, though it's possible another wavelength was chosen. However, the atmosphere is optically clear to IR for a good range of wavelengths, so IR is a reasonable choice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the long dwell time (~14 seconds), this appears to be the "heat beam" type laser. However, if they develop a pulse based approach (e.g. modern femtosecond lasers) that form of laser propagates cracks in materials, and reflective surfaces don't help.
From the video, looks like the target drone was about 10,000 feet up (i.e. 18 seconds of falling ~ 3000 meters). That probably gives it better range compared to the Phalanx at 9,000 meters overall. The fact that there's no ammo to carry and the barrels don't wear out makes this potentially a superior weapon.
Lasers are only getting better, especially with modern semiconductors research, so the call to end the program seems premature. It's quite likely that we're seeing the beginning of the revolution in energy weapons (e.g. lasers, railguns).
yeah, move faster than a laser; good idea...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho was the idiot who thought that the height of the drone could be kept secret when releasing this video? Simple physics equations of a free fall object (which the drone becomes) essentially puts the resulting height from an ~12 second fall to be close to 2400 feet. And I am pretty sure that the EOUS (enemies of the United States) have people with more than the two years of college physics that I have to pinpoint that number more accurately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer - in your cowboy films, the guy shooting is not aiming at the person but around their feet, purposely missing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for missiles, it is a completely different principle all together. The missle IS aimed for the pilot but reletive to the distance in a gunfight is travelling much slower. Plus most missle are heat-seeking and to evade them has little to do with move and more to due with decoy heat signals.
moreover, all of this is mote when you consider the relative speeds and distances of a bullet in a gunfight, a missle in air combat, and a laser in air combat. The only way to compare your scenarios to evading a laser is if you were talking about a target on Mars.
It seems that a possible method of evasion might be a system the deploys a large smoke cloud in the air. The particles would defract the laser and the plane could fly in a line away from the laser battery. Similarly, it could be possible to disable the laser capability of an entire ship if it were somehow surrounded by enough airborne particulate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisacgetchell - the calculation for height would be y = 1/2 g t^2 or 1/2 (32.15 ft/sec^2) (14 sec)^2 = 3151 ft ... for 10,000 feet the fall would have to be like 24-25 seconds in length.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFactor of 2 error. Actually doesn't account for air resistance, so actual height lower.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFactor of 2 left out. Height less than 5,000 due to air resistance. I saw 18 seconds of fall (0:14 to 0:34), so height greater than your 2400 foot number.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissince the tracking system is radar, the normal radar jamming techniques would work as well on such a long duration "burn through".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto reduce the 8 seconds to a second i believe the wattage would need to be raised to something like 1.536 megawatts.....
just some thoughts...
Long range rockets are very expensive,but a laser can be fired thousands of times reducing the cost of defence considerably,and we once again stay one step ahead.As for a fighter pilot moving out of the way,by the time they know something is wrong it's to late.Cost of laser shot hundreds of dollars,cost of a aircraft 10 million plus.But things are not all joy,because the Russians now have stealth.Lets hope we now have better radar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about if the aircraft automatically starts rolling if it detects heat? Then the laser will be spread out, heating up many different parts of the plane and take longer to burst into flame giving time to escape.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of 1 part continually being heated, it would get heated for a fraction of a second, and have a second or so to cool down a bit while rolling before being heated again for another fraction of a second. That should buy several times the amount of time to escape out of range.
"It seems that a possible method of evasion might be a system the deploys a large smoke cloud in the air. The particles would defract the laser and the plane could fly in a line away from the laser battery."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think there would be time for that, but you could have an ablative coating that produces a lot of white smoke.
Another defense for missiles would be to spin rapidly so that the heat is distributed.
Is there any wavelength that would be absorbed well by polished aluminum?
Would a megawatt laser cause eye damage to crew on deck watching the incoming drone or the outgoing beam?
Or maybe Automatic Rolling combined with a smoke cloud combined with a reflective aircraft. That should be able to buy enough time to get out of the laser's range.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI shudder when I imagine the inevitable battlefield use of these weapons. Most casualties will have disfiguring burns and permanent loss of eyesight; this is effectively a long-range flamethrower!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood thing jtdwyer is here to point out the glaring flaws in this program. I'm sure that the engineers behind this weapon system never considered the possibility of a reflective target, or evasive maneuvers, or any other extremely obvious countermeasures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if they build planes and missiles out of perfectly reflective materials? What if the pilot notices that his plane is being hit by a laser, and so he flies away from the laser? Your weapon that hits targets at the speed of light is useless, completely useless.
If this system can do as much or more damage than a projectile or explosive the moment it strikes the target, then it is a significant advancement, seeing as it hits the target instantaneously. Evasive maneuvers are likely impossible. jtdwyer's observations might be interesting if this used, say, conventional projectiles that can be evaded. You can't outmaneuver light, and the distance between the target and the targeting system means that the computer will instantly compensate for any attempt to "just get out of the way".
Also, making all parts of the aircraft extremely reflective and impervious to concentrated energy would be vastly more difficult than making the aircraft stealth, and perfect stealth hasn't yet been achieved. Also consider that stealth aircraft are made of absorbent and non-reflective materials, which means that making aircraft highly reflective probably makes them significantly more detectable.
laserspot...i agree....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjust an update from my previous post...if it takes 1.536 megawatts for the lasers...if they're only active for 1 second...maybe it only uses 426 watts...anybody....
hotdog, LaserSpot Wayne Williamson - Thanks for better describing the kind of process I had in mind for 'evasive maneuvers'. I just can't imagine the 'ducks' would just 'sit' there without coming up with something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis what we needed against O.J.'s white Ford Bronco.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we only had one of these when O.J. was slowly driving his white Ford Bronco down the interstate with a bevy of news helicopters in tow...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does it work in bad weather (fog)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor more info Wiki search: Airbourne Laser, a modified 747 mounted megawatt class chemical laser, and Airbourne Tactical Laser, a C-130 mounted kilowatt class chemical laser.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the rolling maneuver mentioned in some posts, that might work to distribute the energy over enough area that the laser would "time out" before the aircraft suffered structural damage. But I wouldn't want to be the pilot who had to actually fly the target aircraft after scrambling my cranial egg at the G's necessary to survive the shot, and hope that the re-engagement of the laser was longer than what was needed to continue escape from the range of the weapon.
As to the "fried eyes" scenario I post a quote:
"There is serious interest in having an alternative to a 1-micron laser source, a wavelength that is more eye-safe, say around 1.5-2 microns, ... But 1-micron is very effficient versus 1.5 micron." Don Seely, deputy director of the HEL JTO (High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office), responsible for drawing up plans for the RELI (Reliable Electric Laser Initiative,) The intent under RELI is to take 1.5 micron lasers to higher power levels. AWST, Jan. 12, 2009, p. 48.
With regard to the "disfiguring burns", what is different than the way it is now; the missing limbs, the collateral damage (such a skewed euphemism for dead and disfigured innocent people), or the destroyed infrastucture from stray kinetic (bombs, missiles, and bullets) weapons? Have you watched the YouTube videos of our "precision" kinetic weapons?! Except for some incredible sniper shots these things are not that precise. I'll accept a well burnt bad guy from a laser weapon before I'll watch another kinetic "precision strike" on YouTube. Our troops WANT to hit the target with "one shot, one kill", but AC-130 gunships, A-10 'Warthogs', and Comanche attack helicopters seriously splatter up the landscape and everything in it despite the best efforts of the best soldiers the world has ever seen do battle. I, personally don't think we need to be in either war, but since we're there, let's give our people the best weapons available.
Wayne Williamson: the tracking system is radar combined with infrared, so once the beam hits the target the infrared signiture is enhanced and the beam tracks more accurately the hotter the target gets.
A plane wouldn't be able to avoid the laser just by dodging.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuppose the UAV is 5km away, and the regular Phalanx Gatling gun fires rounds at 1000m/s. To hit the UAV, the targeting computer must predict its position 5s in the future. To hit the UAV with a laser, firing at 3e8m/s, the computer only needs to predict its position 17µs in the future.
Even if the computer guesses the plane's path incorrectly, a UAV flying at 200km/h (the Predator's maximum speed) will have moved a fraction of a centimetre in that time.
regarding evasive maneuvers: A pilot can evade a faster missile simply because the missile cannot compensate in time, particularly if the missile is approaching from the front, which significantly cuts down reaction time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, minute adjustments at the point of the laser source results in much larger adjustments at the point of contact which means as long as the targeting system is accurate, then there is, in effect, virtually zero "reaction" time related to evasive manuevers by the target. So it all depends on how accurate the targeting system is.
tichead, et al - Great discussion! So, if the laser heating is powerful enough to produce significant damage quickly enough upon contact, evasive maneuvers should be ineffective and the smartest target will be destroyed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe delay apparent in this video between laser contact with the passive drone end eventual destruction should not be representative of the final product.
I that case, for my money I'd like those capabilities demonstrated in any final acceptance test: I'd specify that the target attempt realistic evasive measures in order to verify the effectiveness of the production unit. Thanks.
The Close In Weapons Systems tracking capability would easily defeat simple maneuvers. The system is sensitive enough to track its own bullets to walk them on target and stay on target when firing at missiles, I am certain the same closed loop tracking is applied to the laser.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLargeRon - Thanks - you seem to be quite familiar with at least one tracking system, although I'm not sure the 'Close In' description would apply for the intended use of a laser weapons system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry to be so skeptical, but in my experience small changes in parameters can make a significant change in performance results. As mentioned, unlike bullets, the laser will require some duration of localized contact to produce necessary heat damage. If that duration is too long a spin maneuver, for example, could make the previously heated area unavailable to the laser.
While this may seem to be an unnecessary concern, if you've ever been involved in new technology acquisition acceptance test procedures you'll understand.
animals type, can sign what happen ! about Tsunami.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOpposing aircraft have to decide between being energy reflective to ward off lasers, or being energy absorbent to avoid detection by radar. Either way, it complicates their strategy.What impresses the most, is the use of only 32 kilowatts to kill these light skinned aircraft at considerable distance. If indeed, Raytheon and the Navy have found a way to scale up output power merely by tacking on more laser units---this is a significant breakthrough. The way I understand it, the laser units themselves are not propriety in the least-- it is really about being about to focus the output from (n) number of solid state laser units, As far as the target being about to evade the heating effects of these weapons: realistic fleet defense would clearly require a coordinated laser response from each ship in the battle group. For example, a frontal attack against the flagship (carrier) would encounter multiple (overlaping) fire points adjusting for error every few milliseconds. Such an object would therefore come under fire from many sources simultaneously, making its destruction virtually impossible to avoid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReflective skin and/or rotation has always been a good defense for this sort of attack.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue would not be the speed of light, but the ability of the targetting computer and aiming mechanics to react fast enough to evasive action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan't this system possibly be used on an Aircraft Carrier to defend against incoming missles??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must agree with JT. The time it seems to take for the results to be achieved makes it too easy to evade (given the proper sensors on the target aircraft). I must also say that the time it has taken the military guys to make SOME use of this idea is far too long to be worth Billions in tax-payer dollars. That money would have probably been better spent on projects with more of a chance of worthwhile results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOoops - July of last year, eh? I'll never understand how easily things can screw me up when I don't look at the date of the article. Thanks S.A.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if it takes several seconds of heating to damage the target the big advantage is that the target can't flee or evade the defense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would try leading with drones spraying a fog like cover with the primary attack system behind the screen.
Can the system vaporize water and produce a visual screen for the ship?