Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Developing 100-Kilowatt Laser for Strike Fighters
redwolfoz writes "New Scientist reports that American defence contractors, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, are developing a 100-kilowatt infrared laser weapon for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter that may be powerful enough to blind people on the ground, even if they are relatively far from the target."
Article 1 of the Geneva Convention's Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons has laudable aims. It states, "It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision." But Article 3 opens the door to lasers that blind so long as that was not their aim. It states: "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol".
Others have already pointed out the factual error involved here, so I'll simply point out the philosophical one: It's not so much that teh law doesn't apply to the US Military (which isn't to say that it always does), so much as that we work to ensure that the law is crafted in a way that allows us to do the things we want to do.
:)
Same diff really, but obviously this way is vastly superior since you can always end up on the side of law (which you crafted to favor yourself). Isn't being a superpower great?
The enemies of Democracy are
read the article.... they explain the loop holes in the Geneva Convention ban on using lasers for blinding.
Rip form article follows....
Why the Geneva Convention will not stop blinding by laser
Article 1 of the Geneva Convention's Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons has laudable aims. It states, "It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision."
But Article 3 opens the door to lasers that blind so long as that was not their aim. It states: "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol".
Big question is whether the US plans to take advantage of this loop hole to blind enemies on purpose (excluding the usual collateral damage and "accidents" that occur).
- HeXa
I would think this would be dificult for several reasons:
1. the fighter plane will not remain stationary in the air while it fires the laser beam
2. it's not a continuous beam
3. the people on the ground shouldn't have the accuracy that a fighter plane with targeting equipment does
In all likelyhood, reflecting the beam back is a very slim probability, most certainly until ground troops get man-mounted, extremely accurate targeting systems. Which I don't think they have now nor do I think they will have for a while. Especially since one small movement places your point of aim onto a point in space much farther from where it was before, without the stability of the plane, a human couldn't reflect that beam back very well.
Insert mind here.
Found the story:
http://www.house.gov/hunter/LtDaly.htm
I was always under the impression that a kilowatt laser wasn't that impressive
you have been watching too much real genius. one of my friends works with a multiple-laser mass spectrometer over in atmospheric sciences (the Single Particle Laser-Ablation Time-of-flight Mass Spec, SPLAT-MS, if you're curious) - they have a 1.5 watt, 20ms pulsed CO2 (infrared, same wavelength range the military wants to use) laser that will cause third-degree burns if you put your hand in the beam for *two pulses*. now this laser they're talking about is a 100kW; i don't know if the solid-state is less efficient than the gas laser, but either way there's still going to be a lot more than 1.5W coming out, for a lot longer than 20ms. i'd like to see what happens if you blast a chunk of asphalt with that sucker - the SPLAT laser makes little firepuffs of burning tar vapor; the military laser would probably "ablate" (vaporize) the entire rock. and to ice the cake, IR laser emission is totally invisible, even the scattered stuff...
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Here. Also being considered for the AC-130 gunship. Explanation of aiming problems, one turret or two, etc. Much more detail.
Infuriate left and right
WP is currently used by the US and NATO for "marking targets".
Foreward Air Control OA-10 Warthogs, Kiowa Warriors, F-18s and other types use WP fired from 2.75 inch rockets to establish smoke on a target as a visual identifier for follow-on Close Air Support from fixed and rotary wing aircraft. WP is used because it burns well, and burns even in damp conditions.
Goggles may work for *reflected* laser light, but if you actually get hit by that sucker, forget it. Remember, a laser of just 50W could burn holes in a piece of wood (or your flesh).
It's IR, most "reflecting surfaces" themselves will be quickly damaged so they will absorb more heat than they are able to reflect if the initial pulse strength of the beam is strong enough.
So lets get this straight, under the Geneva convention its against the rules to build a weapon that can only maim or mutilate somebody, but its all right to build a weapon if it has a reasonable chance of killing a combatant?
Yes. It's supposed to be the more civilized way to make war. If you think about it, all soldiers who go off to war realize that it may result in their death. Not many think about the potential of being maimed or crippled for life. In the eyes of the government, death is an acceptable side-effect of war. But if someone is crippled or maimed in war, they become a burden on their family and society. If you die your family will probably get over it in a year or two. Your widow/widower won't have your income to help support them, but they will probably find another spouse and go on to make another family. If you come back maimed or crippled, your family may still lose its source of income and will have an additional burden of having to support you. If you can no longer be productive the family may stay together, but they may be driven into poverty. This can be disastrous for a family and to a nation (on a large enough scale).
Think about it this way: what if the Allied and Axis soldiers and civilians killed in World War II were only blinded or otherwise maimed instead? Can you imagine the vast problems that recovering nations would have had trying to integrate and support the millions of victims? It would be only towards the end of the 20th century that the nations involved would have begun truly recovering. In the eyes of governments (and many people), killing is better because your can start over with a relatively blank slate.
No, no, bombs generally are not filled with shrapnel, that is generated by the explosive bursting the case of the bomb. Thin cased bombs generate large amounts of blast and explode at ground level, thicker cased bombs are designed to penetrate either ground or buildings before exploding. The strength of the case is necessary but cannot usually withstand the force applied by the detonating explosive within, hence the shrapnel. In some cases a bomb will have a fuze- extender to cause the explosion to happen a few feet above the ground precisely to act as an anti-personnel weapon.
-- BtB
The calculation isn't an easy one, as there are a number of factors involved:
* Is this near infrared or far? A CO2 laser will put out far IR, with a wavelength of 10.6 microns. At that wavelength the light will damage the cornea, and possibly the lens of the eye. Near IR (under 1.4 microns) will damage the retina, possibly causing a foveal blind spot.
* Specular or diffuse reflection? The big problem with lasers is that you have a serious amount of power focused in a very collimated beam, all of which can get focused into a very small part of the eye. It's a question of intensity -- power per area. Diffuse reflection will send the laser power all over the map, but less of it will get in the eye. Direct reflection won't be spread out over as much of an area, but if it gets in your eye, eyoikes.
We're talking 100 kW, which is a giant dumptruck full of power. A 100-watt CO2 laser, which is nice and invisible, will give you serious burns with a beam that's a centimeter in diameter. Now imagine focusing that power down into your eye. And that's three orders of magnitude less power than this 100 kW laser.
You are exactly right.
And for those who don't see it let me explain...
Why do you think the military is so hot for precision weapons nowadays? Because during the Gulf War (true) precision weapons like the Tomahawk and other fun laser guided goodies accounted for something like 3% of the tonnage of munitions expended, BUT they accounted for something like 90% of the targets destroyed.
That's efficient. Efficiency is a "force multiplier". And force multipliers are what win wars, because you either don't have to try as hard as your enemy or you can try just as hard and get more results.
So now they are deploying the ultimate in precision munitions, the laser. All this bullshit about people being blinded is stupid. These weapons will make many current tactics in warfare completely obsolete. If they work.
"I'm about to drop the hammer and dispense some indiscriminate justice!"