Slashdot Mirror
Laser Shoots Down Artillery Shell In Flight
An anonymous reader writes "The Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser is a joint project between the US Army and the Israeli Defense Ministry, with much of the work being done by TRW. Tuesday they had a spectacular success when they shot an artillery shell out of the air."
... when they fire one of these at a disco ball? heh.
Reading through the article doesn't give much info about details such as:
How much does one unit cost?
How long is the "reload"/"re-aiming" time?
Will it survive real heavy artillery battle?
They say in the article that it was developed by the army and TRW, but we all know it was Mitch Taylor and Chris Knight.
Do you put a GPS and transmitter in an artillery shell?
like the ones used to pass the first generation patriot missle system. The gen 1 patriots were so bad that final analysis showed that in one test the patriot missed the mark only to have the target slam into it, thus causing both to break up. In the official scoring this was marked as a hit and win for the patriot sytem even though it was a random fluke. Unless someone not affiliated with the military or the defense contractor verifies the results I shall remain skepticle until field use proves the system.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
No, that was James Bond.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
They make it sound as if an artillary shell is a HARDER taregt to hit than a rocket. Rockets accelerate, tumble, and move erratically. Artillery shells move in well understood, computable trajectories. They probably had the damn flight path of the shell computed before they fired it. It's one thing to shoot down a shell when you know it's path ahead of time, another entirely to get a fix on an unknown, erratic rocket and destroy it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yipee! Won't we all be safe once the "civilized world" is protected from the barbarians? Why, the "bad people" won't even be able to shoot at usat all, let alone support the "terror-ists" with their insidious "terror-ism".
So, lets review. 'Predator' unmanned aircraft armed with Hellfire missles for patrol and attacks, lasers to shoot down artillery (and you know bullets are coming soon), Star Wars V2 to protect us from missiles, and any country that tries to develop anything we don't like gets a "regime change".
Yeah, I can't see why the rest of the world hates the west, can you? We turn war into a fuckin' video game, and relegate them to attacking us with swords while riding their camels.
I know it's the natural evolution of war, but it also seems like the natural evolution of capitalism applied to the battlefield. He with the most money to make the best toys wins, and he who doesn't hopes for an aid package to be sent to his widow.
Of course, we might get charitable in a few years and let them have some low powered lasers, but only if they attach them to the sharks... I mean, come on, is it too much to ask for some sharks with frickin lasers on their heads?
I think it's time for some sugar... rants like this could be dangerous... nice Echelon, niiiice Echelon.
Hm, maybe I should get a book on lasers from the librar
NO CARRIER
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Lasers to knock out 'metal things' have been around for decades as well. The difficult part has been tracking very high speed objects from a distance.
There was a big Navy project to put a laser on a ship. I have no idea if that was ever put into operation.
There was the 'Star Wars' Alpha program that was run during the Regean military buildup. And King George the Second appears to be trying to breath life back into the project.
What makes this news item 'interesting' is that the DoD seldom comments on successes like this unless program funding is at stake or some politico needs to be impressed.
Regards.
Where does the laser go if they miss the shell? Disperse into a cloud? Hit a passing 747?
Somehow, I doubt a 747 would be flying into a live fire area (Iraqi airliners excepted). Many current artillery shells have high trajectories that go several km in altitude. As a matter of fact, I once worked on a system that had an operator warning "NOTIFY NASA", for when a shell trajectory was computed to go above a certain altitude.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Who? Who is predictable?
Shells don't kill (many) people by ballistic momentum, they kill mostly through shrapnel.
That said, raining shrapnel from the sky could still be dangerous, but it would land short of the original target. So just overshoot?
What if the shell had a very glossy finish (like a mirror or something). Would the laser still have the same impact (no pun intended)? I'm just curious.
"Didn't they have this back in the 60's? correct me if I'm wrong, I was always told this. "
Well, the technnology was developed recently, but yeah it did exist in the 60's. I think it was called the Alan Parsens Project.
"Derp de derp."
A cloud of shell parts has a very different aerodynamic profile. The remnants of the shell might still be initially traveling in the same direction, but the fragments will not maintain that course. You only have to change the trajectory of the shell enough to make it fall short of its target.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
Proximity fuses detonate their shells at an optimum height; the terminal velocity of an artillery fragment isn't very high, it's the fact that it's being driven into you by a bursting charge that's the dangerous part.
If the shell detonates below this height, the resultant spread of the fragments will be limited. If it detonates above this height, then the fragments will both be spread over a wider area and lose more energy to air resistance.
In either case, you're better off than if the shell detonates at the proper altitude.
hehe, you just pointed out one of the biggest benifits of this type of antiprojectile system. If they work and are fast enough you can explode the ordinance over the enemies own lines. If the enemy is using nasty stuff like biological, chemical, or nuclear arms you've just doubled the effectiveness of your defense by making it an offense.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
All I asked for is that the word "la-ser" be printed with quote marks around it, is that so hard?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Linux user since early January 1992.
It took a little poking around, but I found an explanation of how this thing works... looks like deuterium gets them a longer wavelength that travels through the atmosphere better.
Whatever the reasons are, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that thing while it's fueled. Raw flourine is incredibly nasty stuff, and the hydrogen flouride exhaust is really awful, too... it dissolves in water to form hydrofluoric acid, which is reactive enough to eat glass (you have to keep it in teflon bottles). I hope they're not discharging it into the atmosphere!
--Larry
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
As an ex army cannoneer, I'd like to know more about the artillery shell that was destroyed by the laser.
...
... we used radar at night to track where our shells were landing.
Here's what I can tell you
I worked on the m198 Howitzer, which can fire a 100 pound 155mm HE (high explosive) shell at a muzzle velocity of around 750m/s. With other combinations of propellants and rounds, the velocity could easily reach 1 kilometer per second or greater. Not too shabby for a 100+ pound piece of steel going down range into a target the size of a 5 gallon bucket.
The inherent problem with an artillery shell is that its trajectory is highly predictable... its all about math. So, for the purposes of a high powered laser, as long as it can perform some really nifty calculations in a split second, and point itself right into the path of a traveling artillery shell, then the shell will actually fly into the laser if everything goes according to plan.
Artillery shells can also be detected with radar
So, whats next... assuming that the laser works by calculating the trajectory of the shell, and positions itself ahead of the shell, would the next advancement in artillery be shells that wobble to avoid running into a high powered laser?
Besides these basic artillery shells, there are also laser guided and rocket assisted shells, whos trajectories may be a bit harder to calculate.
Here are just some of the factors that go into calculating the trajectory of an artillery shell...
1. The exact weight of the shell.
2. The type, amount, and temperature of the propellent.
3. Resistence of travel (air friction) based on weather conditions and altitude.
4. Curvature of the earth and gravity.
So there you have it folks... this laser is an amazing piece of technology.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Now, all we need to do is to find an enemy to use it against.
If we don't know where the shells are coming from, what's the chances that this system will be able to realistically identify a genuine incoming round, activate (from idle) and reliably shoot it down in time? We're not getting the first couple of rounds, and after that, our existing counterbattery systems will be silencing the enemy artillery.
If we do know where they're coming from (and we damn well should, given what we spend on reccetech), then why aren't we pasting them with our existing overwhelming air superiority and artillery?
So what's the theatre? Where are these systems going to be deployed?
One in the White House, one in the Pentagon... where else? Whatever we build on the WTC site? But do we reckon that any grunts are going to get the benefit of it? Hmmm.
It's neato technology, but it seems like a solution to a problem that the US has spent trillions to ensure that it doesn't have any more.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This wasn't rigged. Everyone was told ahead of time that the target missle had a GPS receiver on the warhead as well as a C-band beacon.
The purpose of the test was not in acquisition and tracking, but in the kill vehicle technology (plot a path to a moving point, get within infrared range, correct course, and detonate). Sounds simple, but it gets a bit trickey a closing speeds of ~10km/s.
The x-band satellites just weren't operational over the pacific when these tests were being done. So, when Colo springs control asked Hawaii where the missle was, it responded with information from the GPS receiver but provided artifically 'degraded' data stream. This was underlined and not hidden in the test plan (released before the test). It was done as a 'simulation' of x-band (national missle defense system) data.
Honestly, peoples hostility to this program in current time has me baffled.
The reson pundits of ABM tech would underscore every little failure, or break out conspiracies and wave around "rigged" results, was that we should not be researching ABM technology. Russia's on board now, you can stop pissing your pants worrying were going to invoke a nuclear war by having this technology.
If you hate being lied to, you should take the time to better research what people (including myself) and news sources in general tell you.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Nope. This isn't _Star Trek_...
(1) To feed people, first you need to wipe out the bastards using food as a weapon -- a real problem in many conflict zones. Mogadishu, anyone? Recall what happened when the lightly-armed UN handed out food? It got seized by the militias. In other places, it'd be the government that'd confiscate the food.
(2) Your peace is not their peace. Radical Islamists want the world to be Moslem. Some others would prefer there to be NO Moslems. Some prefer equality of opportunity, while others prefer equality of poverty. Some want a modern world, while others will only be happy with a Year Zero Khmer Rouge-style approach. You can't make them all happy, simultaneously.
At any given point in history, probably a large portion of the human population is Thoroughly Pissed Off. Are you going to tell them to just completely change their value systems and surrender?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I'm suprised no one else caught this. The initial description of "concentrated light energy photons" made me a little wary, but then I noticed:
"the laser tracked, locked onto and fired a burst of concentrated light energy photons at the speeding shell... Seconds later, at a point well short of its intended destination, the projectile was destroyed"
I dunno what kind of crazy trajectory that laser had, but at 300km a second, this thing must have been pretty darn far away...
One would think that "instantly, the projectile was destroyed" would sound even better--and more importantly, have been accurate.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
I recognize Americas (as much as any nations) right to arm itself as well as it can. But I don't see overwhelming strength, used at will against other nations, as a long term path to world peace.
America, and Americans, have a responsibilty to the world. The world can use a cop. But we've all seen bad cops.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Most nations have signed the Geneva Convention to regulate the conduct of war- amoung other things, this means that you can only attack people with weapons meant to kill them, but not infect, poison, or maim.
(A gentleman's agreement between the respective military-industrial-complexes, really. Dead soldier -> proud military funeral -> enhanced militarism and anticipation of future retaliation. Wounded soldier -> disabled veteran begging on sidewalk -> budget pressure for providing care, and public squeamishness about enrolling in future conflicts. Too much peace hurts our economic growth!)
This means no chemical weapons (tell that to Russia!), no hollowpoint or fragmentary bullets, few shotguns, and no lasers aimed at people. Because the easiest ways to hurt someone with a laser is to burn his eyes out, this is consistent with Geneva.
But, today's new, powerful anti-munition lasers will be an attractive option in the anti-aircraft role as well. Military planners must be thinking of this, but they don't want to talk about it for fear of striking taboo/war-crimes territory.
But I wonder what'll happen if a laser-defense battery suddenly finds themselves face to face with an enemy Hind who snuck up terrain-masked. Will they run for it and hope he's a slow shot, or light it up and watch the fireworks?
And, if the the ABL gets built and we get another hijacker repurposing an airliner into a weapon, the president will be hard pressed not to order him zapped, too.
(Of course, another reason planners might not talk much about targeting aircraft with lasers is that the US and Israel have no potential opponents whose aircraft can't be simply destroyed with Beyond-Visual-Range missiles. Won't stop me from speculating.)
Just because the laser has essentially a limitless range doesn't mean the targeting systems do. Remember, the precision needed for hitting a specified target increases as the square of the distance between the laser and the target does. The curvature of the earth also presents difficulties when targets are at far distances. For every mile the target is away, the laser must be 25 feet higher in the air than the object targetted. This essentially precludes ground based long range attacks. The mounting of the laser on an aircraft presents even more difficulties in getting accuracy and precision out of the targeting system due to the movement of the aircraft.
"Solution, low altitude cheap drone cruise missiles..."
You can't get any cheaper than an artillery shell. That's why they are used so widely all over the world. The eqipment is far more rugged and battle tested than any drone to be fielded. Pipe dreams of rapid deployable cruise missile-like weapons are nice, but right now, they're pipe dreams for all but the largest of nations. And even those nations are going to stick with artillery. For the simple fact that it's simple to use and can be rapidly deployed. Maybe someday somebody will come up with the RPG of missile drones (simple to use, advanced AI with decent target recognition on the cheap for use in the rugged third world? Don't hold your breath), but you'll never be able to put more cheap drones into the air faster than I can saturate the area with artillery. Your point about decoys is probably the simplest, best bet, but I'm assuming target discrimination will improve as well. It's the same old game of move, counter-move over an over.
Blackmail. Make the cost of using the lasers too high. An example, they use overt lasers, you use covert biologicals in their civilian sectors. They use space, you contaminate their water in a major city. They use B-2's, you use a dozen or a hundred guys with bic lighters one night. They steal your natural resources when you are a small weak country, you ally with a strong non allied country and promise them 1/2 your resources for help. They do economic sanctions, you make their economic infrastructure non functional, the "backhoe whoops" syndrome, or code red part deux.
Just because you may be able to accomplish your objective by other means doesn't render a specific technology/strategy and/or weapons platform automatically irrelevant as you seem to be implying. In fact, it's the same argument you hear opposing ballistic missile shields. "Well hot damn. They may protect us from ICBMs, but they can still sneak a nuke in across the boarders, therefore a missile shield is completely useless!"
I've always found that particular leap of logic astounding, personally. I can wage war by other means, therefore, that particular defense is useless. No, wrong, BS. Every one of your counter arguments are great, until you add the statement, "but so can your enemy." Fighting the unlimited dirty war you propose against a well armed, well financed opponent will earn you a massive ration of shit in a hurry, no matter who the opponent is. Sure. Nerve gas a city. You just signalled your willing to fight a no holds barred campaign. Your well financed opponent will likely get a lot nastier rather than pliable as you seem to hope. Contaminate Frances major water supplies. It'll hurt them, sure, but mark my words they will get a handle on the situation on come gunning for whatever weak-assed organization that launched the attack. Yes, even France.
On a side note, check out David Drake and his Hammer's Slammers series. He fleshes out anti-artillery and guide artillery systems quite well in his works.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
There was some confusion as to what value there was in shooting a hole in an artillery shell.
If you hit a rocket with a laser, your best shot would disable its guidance and control systems. This would quite possibly shut down its engine, but would certainly prevent it from hitting you at all. Secondary targets on a misile include control surfaces, engine, and fuel, all of which have the potential to destroy the misile before it reaches you.
Now if you are applying these countermeasures on a misile that is already very near you, another factor comes into play... what kind of a hit it is. If you're on an aircraft carrier and someone shoots an antiship misile at you from reasonably close range, and it's of a Russian design, it's going to fly up at 45deg, and then sharp down at 45 degrees at you, very fast. If you manage to detonate the propellant or disable the rocket, there's still a good chance it will hit you and deliver its full damage. (a "hard" hit) If you get luckier and detonate its payload, or destroy the control and detonation systems, you are still going to get hit, but this is a "soft" hit. The misile body, rocket motor, and all the other bits (in one piece or many) will still do appreciable damage, but at least it's not likely to sink the boat.
Shells are different. Major shells are going to have armor piercing or high explosive payloads, and C4 just doesn't blow up if you vaporize it with a laser... it burns. So you are not all that likely to detonate it. Shells are fired with great precision, and if all factors are known, they will land with that same precision. Your best hit on a shell is to damage it physically, and change its aerodynamic characteristics. Take a shell and scar the nose with a pocket knife, and it's totalled... you won't hit anything with it, it's not going to fly straight anymore. The laser just has to damage the casing. It's worth noting that if you punch a hole in it fast enough and start burning up the C4 inside, you might just plain burst the shell by simple gas expansion. In any event, it's effectively dealt with. It may still land and blow up, but it's not going to hit what it was aimed at.
Even changing the orientation of the misile/shell is very useful in countermeasures. Most of these have "shaped charges", where the explosive payload is directed in a very carefully engineered way to do maximum damage. When hitting a tank with an antitank round, having the "business end" hit the tank is the difference between destroying the tank (piercing the armor and sending chaff all around the cabin to kill the crew) or doing negligible damage by exploding harmlessly outside the tank. Misiles are essentially the same... a misile that would normally destroy a target may not even detonate if it's tumbling when it hits and contacts sideways, and if the target is even lightly armored, damage will be minimal rather than fatal.
I expect lasers to prove very effective as a projectile countermeasure.
I did have one curiosity about the shell test they did... does anyone know how long they "beamed" the shell before it was effectively dealt with? That's one thing that must be considered... if you have to hold the beam on the target for a considerable length of time, it may be much more difficult to get in a fatal shot. Misiles tend not to roll, so if you are shooting at it from the side, (i.e.you're not the target) you still can hit one spot continuously. Shells on the other hand, are usually designed to spin as they fly downrange, and so targetting the side is actually targetting a band around the shell.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Anyone who has served on board ship in the US Navy since 1980 knows just how good our targeting systems can be. Ever heard of the acronym CIWS? It stands for Close In Weapons System. It was designed to take out inbound projectiles such as cruise missiles between 10 km and 1 km from the ship. It is still actively deployed on many US ships.
The system consists of a tracking radar system with enough computing power to track up to 150 threats at once. It prioritizes the targeting system based upon inbound speed, size of the object, IFF status, and distance from the ship. Once this sucker is enabled, you'd better hope your planes have their IFF turned on, or they'll be shot down quicker than you can blink.
The system did all this using a Vulcan cannon, which is a gatling gun design throwing depleted uranium rounds downrange. The system was designed to fire and correct inflight to hose down a target until it dropped out of the sky. The system's biggest weakness was the fact that it went through rounds so fast (up to 6,000 rpm theoretical, 2,000 rpm typical) that the magazines had to be HUGE. I once saw a picture of the USS New Jersey after its refit. The 4 magazines on board held enough rounds to fire for a grand total of 15 minutes without stopping. The smaller ships that had the system frequently were limited to less than 2 minutes. A decent laser system's power plant occupying the same space would solve this problem.
This system was successfully demonstrated almost 25 years ago. Its first active deployment was in 1980 or 1981. And you "experts" are trying to tell me that the targeting technology hasn't improved enough since to take down an artillery shell? Oh, please. Go do some very basic research on what's in use TODAY before hollering about weapons tests for stuff that might be deployed tomorrow.
The only question in my mind is the size of the power plant necessary to drive a powerful enough laser to be useful. Can it be mounted on anything smaller than a ship? Anyone know?