U.S. Military to Test Lasers for Warplanes in 2014

A new class of laser weapons 10 times smaller and lighter than current lasers of similar power could protect U.S. aircraft from ground-based threats


TechMediaNetwork













Share on Tumblr



A mockup photo of how a B-1 bomber might deploy a laser weapon. Image: DARPA

Laser weapons small enough to fit aboard fighter jets could begin ground-based firing tests aimed at shooting down threats to U.S. military warplanes in 2014.

The 150-kilowatt lasers would represent a new class of weapons 10 times smaller and lighter than current lasers of similar power, according to the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The Pentagon agency issued a special notice on Jan. 17 for General Atomics - Aeronautical Systems Incorporated to build a second laser weapon so that both the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy could carry out laser tests by 2014.

Such lasers represent part of DARPA's High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System. They would mainly aim to shoot down rockets, surface-to-air missiles or other weapons that threaten aircraft during the ground-based field testing scheduled for 2014. But the lasers could also possibly act as offensive weapons against some ground targets.

Past military testing included much larger laser weapons, such as the megawatt-class laser weapon that flew aboard a modified Boeing 747 during the cancelled Airborne Laser Test Bed program (1 megawatt is equivalent to 1,000 kilowatts). By comparison, the smaller 150-kilowatt laser could enable smaller military aircraft or even drones to carry it as a weapon.

The Navy's interest in the 150-kilowatt laser weapon involves testing it against surface ship targets before the end of 2014. Past Navy tests have already shown how lasers can shoot down aerial drones and disable small boats. [Video: Navy Fires Laser HEL on Target Vessel]

But the past testing with the Airborne Laser Test Bed — originally intended to hunt ballistic missiles — revealed the existing challenges facing laser weapons. Aerosols, dust particles and weather conditions can make lasers lose focus and limit their effectiveness over great distances.

U.S. military leaders, scientists and weapon experts also don't necessarily see airborne lasers as battlefield game-changers. A series of war games held as part of the NeXTech Workshop at the U.S. Army War College in August 2012 found that laser weapons didn't seem to make a big difference in any of the four scenarios discussed. (Robots and drones evoked much greater enthusiasm.)

Some researchers still see great possibilities for airborne lasers. An Australian physicist recently launched a project on the crowdfunding website Kickstarter to help attract money for his idea of testing small lasers that could use just hundreds of watts of power to create electromagnetic pulses that can knock out incoming guided missiles.

That may sound wild by even DARPA standards. But the Australian researcher found a way for people to contribute even if they didn't believe his idea would work — he asked people to donate money in exchange for receiving a copy of his upcoming science-fiction story that imagines a futuristic war between the U.S. and China.

Copyright 2013 TechNewsDaily, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


TechMediaNetwork

4 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. RSchmidt 08:56 PM 1/29/13

    How about using a powerful space based laser and bouncing it off an awacs type plane that can focus a single incoming beam onto multiple missile targets? Seems to me the battlefield is moving in the direction of semi-autonomous platforms. The fear won't be mid-range missiles but small bird sized drones spraying anthrax on a community or military base. But perhaps this is just one of those situations where scientists want to do some basic research on lasers so they convinced DARPA that it could be weaponized.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. allaphor 05:41 AM 1/30/13

    Correct! As the quality of off-the-shelf components increases, it will become easier for any nation or group to produce a very large number of inexpensive, highly autonomous and deadly flying robots. Unless you use a EMP you are not going to stop a swarm of thousands of independently targeted, evasive bombs.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. Postman1 in reply to RSchmidt 11:25 PM 1/30/13

    I agree, and both comments may be right. If so, the next escalation will, of necessity, be a massive EMP surprise attack to take out the entire enemy nation's electronics. Followed in kind by the attacked nation, and leaving a large part of the world back in a pre-industrial state.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. bucketofsquid in reply to Postman1 06:01 PM 2/7/13

    No worries. Many countries are creating an electrical and communications core infrastructure that is hardened against EMP so massive EMP strikes will destroy much of the infrastructure but a core will remain to rebuild from.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

Tweets could not be retrieved at this time

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

U.S. Military to Test Lasers for Warplanes in 2014

X
Scientific American MIND iPad

Tap into your MIND

Get Both Print & Tablet Editions for one low price!

Subscribe Now >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X