Slashdot Mirror
USAF Readies Laser of Death
An anonymous reader submits: "From the SkyNet Terminator Death Beam Dept...The London Telegraph is carrying this article about U.S. military plans to outfit AC-130 Spectre gunships with a chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) which can be used against personnel and materiel for lethal and nonlethal missions."
"The special operations AC-130 Spectre gunship, whose conventional weaponry has been used to devastating effect since the Vietnam War, is to be fitted with a laser that can shoot down missiles, punch holes in aircraft and knock out ground radar stations."
IIRC, use of lasers to kill/wound/maim/blind soldiers is illegal under international law. Not to say it's never done, but as a recongnized capability-- I doubt it. Besides, the article only says it'll be (intended to be) used against hard targets.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
The New York Times had a blurb about this about three months ago. For the lazy, a chemical plant that fills about 3/4 of the cargo space feeds the lasing system in the turret. Desgined to be part of the "missile shield" for the US and allies. Seems like a boondoggle to me, but who knows? The article I read focused on the laser taking down cruise missiles and other aircraft. Not usable for ICBMs for obvious reasons. I didn't know that they were going to use these against ground targets. Yikes!
Now that it's a crime to have a Death Ray, on criminals will have Death Rays...
Something to think about.
Who did what now?
Isn't this the most powerful weapon we're ever going to see on a battlefield?
Think about it. The time to take to shoot down a wing of jets - five of them, say - is five times the time it takes to reposition the laser, fire, and acquire a new target. Maybe a few seconds.
The Airforce might be useless. This would completely change warfare - obselete the modern armor which is dominating the battlefield; make the shield against the laser more neccessary than standard metal plating.
It's scary, guys. The United States Military might become obselete by the technology it's procuring.
Because 5000 years of human history has shown that the side with the better weapons usually wins. Everybody wants to be a winner. That's why whole world is spending money on bigger guns.
In all seriousness, you create a population inversion in a lasing medium by "hitting" it very hard. In a ruby laser, for instance, you can hit the ruby rod with the light from a flash lamp. In a CO2 or a HeNe you hit the medium with an electric discharge. In a laser diode, you pass current along a semi- conductor junction.
A chemical laser "hits" the medium by burning together two materials. The materials are chosen such that most of the combustion products are in an excited state, thus generating the population inversion.
The lasing effect, as you put it, only occurs when you put the population- inverted medium in a resonator chamber, i.e. between two mirrors. In that sense, there's no "radiation stimulus" in any laser. Instead, at some point one of the excited molecules will lose energy spontaneously. If it's lucky, that photon will hit one of the mirrors and be sent back through the medium. If it's real lucky, it'll interact with another excited molecule or atom, and make it release its stored energy. Then you have two photons, in phase. Repeat many times a second, and you have a laser.
FWIW, I heard a report about a gasoline-powered chemical laser made by the Israelis a couple of years back.
"Despite the successful operations against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, the emergence of asymmetric terrorist warfare - attacks such as September 11 where the enemy is unseen - has led the Pentagon to identify the need for a more sophisticated and deadly weapons system."
So.... what they're saying is "We didn't see them coming, so we need bigger guns". Is it just me, or is that logic flawed? How do they get from A to B there? I think that the real need should be for better intelligence so they know more about what's going on, not bigger bang-bangs. Proactive is always better than Reactive, IMHO.
"Lasers could also be used as an additional weapon system to fighters, bombers, helicopter gunships and warships but this is unlikely for a decade."
I find this quite puzzling. One of the big threats to warships (i.e. aircraft carriers) today, is cruise missiles.
To defend against those, we use missiles and gatling guns today.
Wouldn't something like this be a ideal supplement to CIWS? Moving a mirror around, directing the laser beam, to hit a sea-skimming cruise missile, should be easier than hitting that missile with lots-of-flying-lead[tm].
/Styx
I don't think that Bush has ignored the Geneva Convention. I do think that Bush has recognized the simple reality that adhering to the Geneva Convention does not make sense in the modern world of terrorism and unseen enemies. How can you expect to defend yourself if you're playing by your old set of rules and nobody else is bound to follow them as well? Simple, you can't.
Now, without getting into a political debate, the reality of the situation is that the Geneva Convention was signed by a group of nations who formally recognized each other and formally agreed (generally) to be bound by a set of "honour" rules of engagement and warfare. Do you see any of the so-called terrorist organizations stepping up to the plate and agreeing to be bound by those rules? Heck, do you see any of these terrorist organizations actually having a majority representation in the countries that they are apparently trying to liberate (or whatever they're trying to do)? Simple answer, no. They know that they can't win by playing by the formal rules of engagement, so they don't bother. Why should the USA allow it's hands to be bound? It shouldn't.
In a nutshell, if you want to hit somebody who's big then you can now expect them to hit back. The rules of engagement have now changed. Good for Bush. He's a dumbass, but a dumbass who's stepping in the correct direction.
pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
Line of sight is going to become really, really important in the battlefield. High-flying non-stealth aircraft would be in serious trouble if accurate enough fire-control systems for ground anti-aircraft lasers could be developed. Armored ground forces would regain importance. The derided Crusader artillery system could suddenly look prescient (antiaircraft suppression being one of its combat roles), assuming tracking lots of artillery shells is more difficult than tracking aircraft. F-117's ought to remain effective, but I still think it's dangerous to become overreliant on air power.
The new Spectre's might not work against ICBMs, but what about shorter range ballistic missiles, like the several hundred missiles China has pointed at Taiwan? (Yeah, why China's bitchy about America dumping the ABM treaty with that nation that no longer exists...)
Nice coincidence that it takes a free nation with a free-market economy to finance a proper high-tech military, long-term at least. Hopefully no one will figure out how to dump the "free nation" half of the equation.
Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. The laser doesn't burn through the target it literally hits it with more energy than it can deal with - sure making it refective would help - but only a little. Plus, there is the majordisadvantage of being poorly concealed to conventional weopans.
--- My dad's political betting
Because a big gun can sometimes save you from a fight, when negotiation fails. Five guys with baseball bats and a problem with a pissant are going to be reluctant to start a fight once that pissant produces a pistol.
99.9% of avoiding war is diplomacy, negotiation, and just knowing how to step lightly and not be a jerk. Those won't save you from irrational people, and that's when you need to use physical intimidation.
I support this laser project 100%. My concern isn't with our military development, it's with our short-sighted attitude about foreign policy, which arguably has been a major contributing cause of the last four wars (Afghan, Gulf, Panama and Vietnam), and has lent support to human rights abuses worldwide. The fact that our President decided to mix it up with North Korea and Iran in the State of the Union Address doesn't exactly help things either. If your concern is about peace, you should focus on that rather than on weapons R&D. We've got nukes and we haven't blown ourselves up yet, but we just might unless we clean up our act, pronto.
Finding God in a Dog
That's always been the government's logic too. You remember the devices terorists used to take over those three planes? They were box cutters. Would baggage handlers have stoped them for those? No. It wasn't there fault for being lazy or underpaid or underqualified, there wasn't anything against having box cutters. That's one of those items that could end up in your bag by accident. But now a lot of people in government are screaming about federalizing bagage handlers; there's no connection.
The military always needs more funding for their little toys, so the best way to get funding is to tell the government that they need money to thwart a threat, even if the weapon doesn't counter the threat. Usually this type of funding is masked under the rhetoric of "military readiness" and "military effectiveness."
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
So, in my non-geek life, I am an Army Field Artillery officer, and I have some background in Fire Support and Close Air. This thing will be used to support US ground troops( army or marine) in the middle of bad fights, where Field Artillery, or bombs are not availble or inappropriate. AC-130s are big, slow, relatively low flying aircraft, and they are generally committed to support our guys that are in a bad fight. This weapon probably will not be used as some sort of non-discriminate area fire weapon, ( would take too much energy, plus there is a higher risk of losing it to ground fire), but it will help our guys in a fight. If we had used a Spectre in Mogadishu, you folks wouldn't be watching "Black Hawk Down" in the theaters right now. Obviously, I am for it.
For the moralist out there, I wish to ask them one simple question: If we are to be continually called to be the world's cop, like we were in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia, why are you against giving the guys who are doing the dirty work the support to do their jobs? If you don't want us to be the world's cop, then do you have any right to be self rightous about the massacres in these same countries? I oughta know. I did a tour in Sarajevo, Bosnia, right at the beginning of the US mission. So, either you want us to do these missions, and you give us the tools, or you convince your elected officials that you won't get upset by the pictures on TV, and then we don't need these sorts of tools.
Does it have any advantages over a missile? Well, it's bigger, it doesn't go as far, it inflicts less damage, and it costs more.
Costs more, or costs more per shot? Missles may be less per weapon, but presumably a laser could be reused. There is the prospect that this is merely the first implementation, and as such the likelihood of major improvement is large.
In addition there is the prospect that R&D into lasers could benefit other, peaceful uses as well. After all, improvements in laser power handling could translate into many other uses.
Like it or not, much of the technical progress that we have enjoyed since WWII has come out of R&D originally targeted for military applications. Hell, the first electronic computer was first built for a military application.
To me, R&D into lasers, even if the initial justification is a military use seems like one of the best uses of tax dollars that one could concieve of.
Well, let's see... what advantages does it have over a missle? Mainly, it's a tad faster---the difference between the speed of sound and the speed of light. There is no time for evasive maneuvers and no time for countermeasures. Either you already have defenses in place when the button is pushed or you get blown up. And it will be at least a few decades before most nations have any effective defense.
It might be better to deploy something that would diffuse the laser's energy before it reached it's intended target...smoke, thick clouds of dust, water vapour, mylar 'chaff', etc...
Ideas anyone?
You're using her as bait, Master!
You mentioned Switzerland and Iceland as countries that have "tried peace," with the implication that they have been enlightened and successful in this endeavor. It's worth pointing out that Switzerland has been avoided as a target for a couple of reasons: First, their geographic location is a very difficult for occupation; and second, virtually every male citizen of Switzerland is not only required to be a member of the military (militia) but is required to keep their equipment (read guns) in their home for rapid mobilization.
Iceland, on the other hand, is a barely noticeable strategic target except in terms of its possible use as a base in an "east versus west" war. It's also worth noting that Iceland is NOT really neutral in that they are a member of NATO for Heaven's sake!
Finally, being intelligent, educated and compassionate as a nation should never have anything to do with defending oneself or initiating military action. Violence is unfortunately sometimes necessary. Most of us don't like it, but if we ever forget it I'm sure that someone will come along to remind us (you may remember 9/11?).
Good luck with Utopia ("no place").
I respectfully submit that you're mistaken here. This laser is the tip of the iceberg. What the Bush Administration is doing is creating a brand new war, the War on Terrorism, to replace the Cold War. Like the Cold War, we will be lucky to see it end in our lifetimes. This is exactly what the defense contractors need: something that will put them on the gravy train for 50, possibly 100 years.
What comes after the laser? Autonomous, unmanned combat vehicles. Better body armor. Improved infantry weapons that can blow up a grendade just on the other side of hard cover. Mechanized infantry companies and light armor companies that can deploy and be in combat position with 48 hours notice. Low-grade nerve gas that knocks out an entire village or a few city blocks for just long enough for troops to sweep in and arrest people. And that's just in the next 10-15 years. All of this represents trillions (that's 10^12) of dollars in revenue for defense contractors, and to defense contractors' investors.
I used to think that Aerospace would be the next big growth sector after Biotech. At this point, I think they're going to boom simultaneously.
Finding God in a Dog
Yah, these terrorists sons of bitches don't play by the rules. But if we don't play by the rules, even with scum like these, then other countries start doubting whether we'll play by the rules with them. And that's the path to a whole world of diplomatic hurt, my slashdotting friends. That's how negotiations the world over break down - when a little voice starts whispering in your head "can I trust these people to keep their word?" The United States must always adhere to the Geneva Convention, even with people who never signed it, or we will never be trusted to adhere to the Geneva Convention.
I'm the stranger...posting to
...that's the question that I'm sure you (and most other) americans are afraid of asking (or answering).
You're using her as bait, Master!
when the m-16 was first introduced, there was some controversy over the design. a bullet, when fired from an m-16, would tend to wobble as it flew, making it more messy when it hit a target.
... early in vietnam, but i don't recall the outcome. they might have redesigned the ballistics, but i don't recall.
Here you go, an article talking about FMJ and the M-16
Snippets from the above:
The landwar convention from The Hague doesn't allow fragmenting bullets for purposes of war, so every army in the world uses FMJ bullets. Usually a hit from a conventional FMJ doesn't kill, but leaves a clean hole. No hunter will use FMJ, since they want to kill, not to wound.
[snip]
This, in theory is better for two reasons -- one, it creates a situation where instead of creating a dead enemy soldier it creates a wounded one, which must be cared for by his buddy, thus taking two men out of action with each hit. The second reason behind the idea is that it is more humane to wound than to kill. This type of ammunition was agreed upon by the Geneva convention, and both sides of the vietnam war agreed to it's use.
[snip]
So I think the difference is between temporary wounding (the above) and permanent scaring (say from blinding lasers, mustard gas, biological agents, dirty nukes). The Geneva Convention is for the former and against the latter.
What is music when you despise all sound?
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
I just read Sean Rayment's breathless title and note a couple of things.
- Although the article is entitled "America's laser of death cleared for take-off", a quick glance over the article itself reveals that the laser in question will be "capable of carrying out lethal and non-lethal attacks". I guess the chosen title plays better than "America's laser of death (or not) cleared for take-off".
- Mr. Rayment does a good job of noting the weaponry that was available on the AC-130 before the advent of the laser of death (or not) in question. I think we can take it for granted that getting hit by a round from any one of the "twin 20mm Vulcan cannon (capable of firing 2,500 rounds per minute), 40mm Bofor cannon (100 rounds per minute) and a 105mm Howitzer" is at least as unhappy an event as being hit by a pulse from the laser of death (or not). In fact, the laser of death (or not) may be a more humanitarian (as it were) weapon than anything the AC-130 has had to date. Of course, presenting that notion probably won't sell much copy.
My thoughts, this hyperventilated Sunday afternoon.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Because 8000 years ago, Og the caveman picked up a big stick and beat the living crap out of Ug the other caveman who didn't know what a 'tool' was. Since then, it's been the universal rule - he with the most guns rules.
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
...in attacking Afganstan *after* verifying facts well enough for 3/4's of the world, *after* demanding the surrender of the peoples that we felt were responsible. After all, we didn't just fly in there immediately and started killing *everyone*! Right?
The Taliban kept putting up rediculous road blocks while saying that the US would drown in our own blood.
The Taliban and its ilk are terrorists who would love to see the US and anyone who is like-minded to us brutally killed.
Did we have to attack Afganinstan to oust the Taliban and the Al Queda? Yup, because they were more than happy treat their own, deprived, *downtrodden* people as a shield in their war against the hated 'satan'.
But in a war like that, the US played the *moderate* card. We didn't aim at civilians if we could help it. We minimalized the deaths (and if you don't think we did, you haven't checked your WWII battles.)
The US, if it had wanted to, could have wholy depopulated the entire country. And we would have been rightly called barbarians for doing it that way.
Now the US and Great Britan are helping to rebuild that country as best we can under the constraints of international law.
It sucks to be the US. We're the bad guys even when we're doing the right thing. Just because we're on top.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)