Slashdot Mirror


Anti-Missile Laser Weapon Successfully Tested

xPertCodert writes "A latest attempt to build a futuristic laser weapon appears to be a success. Joint Israeli-US developed laser destroyed a large caliber rocket in a latest New Mexico test. The press release also contains links to some interesting video and photo material, related to THEL (Tactical High Energy Lasers) defense systems."

46 of 636 comments (clear)

  1. A few flaws by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

    The test went fairly well, but it wasn't without incident. After reviewing the field test, the project lead recommended adding the following warning label:

    "Do not look into laser with remaining eye."

    Sorry, it had to be said. :)

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    1. Re:A few flaws by red+floyd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Problem with small arms fire is the warning time frame.

      An inbound missile usually gives a few minutes (radar). With a sniper shot, the first indication is the bullet itself, since it's supersonic.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    2. Re:A few flaws by Spetiam · · Score: 4, Funny

      though imperfect, for years we've had a version that destroys small arms fire...it's called "return fire" ;o)

    3. Re:A few flaws by Makoss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Supersonic != fast.

      Supersonic ~ 335m/s Light (Radar, etc.) ~ 300,000,000 m/s

      Consider the muzzle velocity of a .50cal bullet, ~3000 ft/sec. Consider a very close range shot from 300ft. You have 100ms to respond to the threat correct?

      100ms is a long time.

      Normal RADAR has crappy resolution, this is a problem. 40GHz RADAR has ~7.5 mm wavelength, which is far too large for accuracy. The solution of course would be to move to a higher frequency detection method. Some of the research done in the 10^12Hz range might be promissing in another decade. Or something in the 10^14 to 10^15Hz range (IR, visible). Any of those would give the required accuracy to track a bullet sized object.

      Processing time for tracking is negligable. Positioning and pointing of the beam shouldn't be to much of a problem either, not given ~100ms to do it (and if it is then one could just limit the angle of effect for a single system). The problem it seems would be outputting enough power to have a noticable effect on a non-volatile slug in that small of a timeframe.

      Lots of problems sure, but not totally impossible to consider in the not so distant future.

      --
      Building a better backup.
      Zettabyte Storage
    4. Re:A few flaws by Makoss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To quote myself "The problem it seems would be outputting enough power to have a noticable effect on a non-volatile slug in that small of a timeframe. "

      It was tacked on in the end there, easy to miss I suppose.

      It's a point that a bullet is an inert kinetic kill weapon. In order for the system to be effective it would have to either vaporize the bullet, or vaporize enough of it to knock it significantly off course. I'd give you a better answer, but I don't feel like looking up the thermodynamic stats for lead. It's dense though, so it's probably going to be a pain in the ass.

      --
      Building a better backup.
      Zettabyte Storage
  2. great... by arctan1701 · · Score: 5, Funny

    now all we need are the sharks...

    1. Re:great... by ajlitt · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, all we need is a giant foil pan full of popcorn.

  3. Tiring work by KanSer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm glad they figured out how to balance the phase variance in the polaric energy they had to run through the deflector array to fire up the phaser arrays. Ver admirable work, but it's no match for my Klingon Disrupters!

    --
    • MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward Wednesday April 20, @4:20
  4. General question... by boomgopher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do peace-types protest defense systems like this so much?
    I've never understood the logic. Defensive weaponry helps reduce the threat of war.


    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    1. Re:General question... by Blastercorps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This system defends against balistic missiles. The only countries that have missiles capable of reaching US soil are Russia and China. Both of these nations are friendly towards the US currently. This is an example of the military preparing to fight the last war.

      Now, don't look at me like I'm a peacenik, I am all for the developement of weapon technology for the obvious combat advantage and the spinoff technologies. BUT, this technology is completely irrelevent to counter-terrorism. Even if a terrorist group gets ahold of a nuclear bomb, it would be easier and cheaper to sneak it into the US than to develope and build ICBMs.

      And even then, this system can only shoot down missiles as they are launched by flying over the enemy's territory. This means that the government has spent billions on a gimmicky star wars program that only works if we invade another country's airspace, a.k.a. an act of war.

    2. Re:General question... by MJOverkill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because it is wasteful and will lead to another arms race.. So a U.S.-Isreal team develops. Now. someone will develop energy absorbing/reflecting/deflecting/whatever missiles. Then another defense system, then another missile to defeat it. Wash Rine, and Repeat, and we have another cold war.

      Instead of using the money to develop new defense systems, they could have used the money to tackle the underlying social problems that cause the "bad men" to be mad at us in the first place. This way, we solve the underlying problem that facilitated the need to create the defense system. Its much more effective to plug the hole in the bottom of the boat, instead of just continuously bailing the water out.

    3. Re:General question... by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Some people see building defenses as giving us a tactical offensive advantage, which it does. That is to say, if we have a fleet of these while nobody else does, that delicate balance that existed during the cold war would be no more. The threat of retaliation in kind is reduced, if not eliminated.

      It's no big deal on its own, but as Dennis Leary once said, "We've got the bombs, okay people? Nuclear f*cking weapons!"

      That changes things some.

      I'm all for anything that actually improves our safety, but often a lot of money goes into things that are supposed to but don't. This could well end up being one of those things. It's also better if we don't piss off the neighbors in the process.

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
    4. Re:General question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because of the way people look at it. Nuclear weapons are a trump card, something that essentially makes you, in the limit, invulnerable - maybe that other nation can pound you with conventional forces, but you can always hit them with a nuke. It keeps things at arms length, in a sense. It has enforced, more or less, a military peace since the end of World War II where, despite armed conflict, there has been no significant territory change (except the fall of the USSR, which was non-military).

      Imagine you're Nation X. Nation Y, who you may or may not be on such good terms with - it doesn't matter, really - gets a 100% effective Nuclear Missile Shield (this is a theory). Suddenly, you realize that your nuclear weapons are useless. They are free to use their nuclear weapons - and conventional forces - against you with almost pure impunity. This is worrying.

      In a way, gaining a nuclear defense disarms everyone else in the world, and, as a result, presents them with a security threat.

    5. Re:General question... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Terrorism is not the only threat out there. Not all countries are friendly with all other countries. China, for instance, may make a play for Taiwan at some point in the future.
      North Korea may shoot another missile across Japan's bow.
      I'd imagine both of those countries would like to have this type of defense.

      IR and radar guided missiles were gimmicky at first, too. GPS was pie in the sky. The airplane istelf was considered to be of little military use at first.

      OBTW, it's also for artillery size shells, not just ballistic missiles.

    6. Re:General question... by idsofmarch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually this system is not designed for ICBMs, but rather to take out the Katyusha rockets that are periodically tossed in the Israeli's midst from the Golan Heights. This would be most effective in theater against artillery and multiple-launch rockets and possibly against something as large as a Scud. Again, not Star Wars which is space-based anti-ICBM technology that would only be useful against those who actually have ICBMs, but not enough to overwhelm the system. Star-Wars has been a huge waste of money and the anti-ICBM crowd is deluded in thinking this is the big threat, but behind able to knock down a Katyusha, not that's something our military could use. Think of it also as the replacement for the close-in-defense guns currently on US ships which are very ripe targets for Exocets.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
    7. Re:General question... by Naffer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "To throw bombs from an airplane will do as much damage as throwing bags of flour. It will be my pleasure to stand on the bridge of any ship while it is attacked by airplanes." - Newton Baker, US minister of defense (1921)

    8. Re:General question... by MJOverkill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That underlying social problem is something the rest of us call opinions

      No, not opinions, problems. Like poverty and famine for example. These specific issues are never seen in the western world, so we do not place them high on our priorities. We are more concerned with defending ourselves against threats that are not likely to come, or will only arise as a result of weapons development.

    9. Re:General question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When are you guys gonna realize that you need to just use the laser on the enemy ground targets?

      Uh. We're not stupid. Tell people, "we're building a laser that will shoot down ballistic missiles. It will eventually be able to shoot down much smaller mortar fire. It's a defensive project that will make our troops in the field AND people here at home safer," and you get a budget. Tell people, "we want to build a laser to melt vehicles and armaments from the air. It'll eventually be able to melt people's brains if they're on the bottom floor of a three story building," and you don't get a budget. Most of the laser physics that apply to Project A will also apply to Project B, so you pitch Project A and you'll eventually end up with Project A and B completed.

    10. Re:General question... by ReTay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "So a U.S.-Isreal team develops. Now. someone will develop energy absorbing /reflecting /deflecting/whatever missiles."

      Right.... I don't know I personally would like to have the most updated hardware I can if I have to go into battle. You can carry sticks and stones if you want I want the most deadly equipment and as much of it as I can carry.

      And to your second point.
      No amount of money will help religious fever.
      Remember anyone who tells you that tying a bomb to your chest and blowing up civilians will get you attended in the next world by a pack of virgins and they will give lots of money to your family is..

      A Not your friend
      B Probably lying on at least one count
      C Certifiable
      D Someone who is always happy to sacrifice someone
      else

      I don't know just my two bits

    11. Re:General question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Airplanes can barely keep themselves in the air. How can they then carry any kind of load?"
      - William Pickering, Astronomer (1908)

      "Airplanes suffers from so many technical faults that it is only a matter of time before any reasonable man realizes that they are useless!"
      - Scientific American (1910)

      "No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris."
      - Orville Wright.

      "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
      - Marshal Ferdinand Foch [Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre] (circa 1911)
      He was Supreme Commander of Allied forces, 1918

      "Aviation is good for sport, but for the Army it is useless!"
      - Marshal Ferdinand Foch

    12. Re:General question... by Obyron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most scholars of history agree that the arms race you warn about was what brought about the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. The United States is the richest country in the world, and it's got more than its fair share of brilliant minds.

      We develop a laser that can shoot down ICBMs. In response potentially hostile nations (PHNs) begin spending money like a housewife on holiday to develop a weapon that (they hope) can penetrate the defense... Maybe... in the event of a war that may not happen. In the end game we've still got a laser capable of shooting down artillery, cruise missiles, and (I've not seen anyone else mention this yet) enemy aircraft. What do the PHNs have? Debt in the billions-to-trillions of dollars range that they probably can't afford that will play its part in collapsing their economy.

      The best weapons platform you'll ever develop is the one that scares your enemy so much he spends himself into oblivion to counteract it. At the end of the day he's gone, and you haven't really had to do anything. It worked for Reagan with Star Wars, and by the sound of things it might just work again.

      --
      --Obyron
    13. Re:General question... by general_re · · Score: 4, Informative
      Newton Baker, US minister of defense (1921)

      One of those apparently sourceless quotes made all the more suspect by the attribution itself. The United States does not have a parliamentary system - the only "ministers" in the US are charged with church congregations. Second, the Department of Defense did not exist until 1947, and was not so named until 1949 - Newton D. Baker was Secretary of the War Department under Woodrow Wilson, from 1916 to 1921.

      Yeah, I know - offtopic. Whatever.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    14. Re:General question... by mericet · · Score: 4, Interesting
      This system defends against balistic missiles. The only countries that have missiles capable of reaching US soil are Russia and China. Both of these nations are friendly towards the US currently. This is an example of the military preparing to fight the last war.
      No, it's not, it defends against short range rockets.

      Even if a terrorist group gets ahold of a nuclear bomb, it would be easier and cheaper to sneak it into the US than to develope and build ICBMs.
      In fact terrorist groups have these rockets, that's why previous tests were against katyusha rockets, used by the Hizbulla.

      And even then, this system can only shoot down missiles as they are launched by flying over the enemy's territory. This means that the government has spent billions on a gimmicky star wars program that only works if we invade another country's airspace, a.k.a. an act of war.
      IIRC, it's primarily a ground based system, to be used from the privacy of your own country. There is an airbourne version, which can be used after hostilities have begun. Or in peace-keeping missions, when an invasion isn't relevant.

    15. Re:General question... by Avihson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we just hold hands and sing Kumbya all the world's problems will go away.

      The underlying social problem is human nature! Greed, jealousy, avavice, have been problems since the dawn of man.
      If I keep my "riches" you will hate me for having more than you.
      If I give you some of my posessions, you will hate me for making you feel inferior.
      If I destroy all my wealth and become like you you will hate me for wasting what I had.
      If I help you to be like me, you will never like me until you have ground me under your boot heels.

      So I may as well just live my life my way and keep you at arms length.

      Q: Why do you think it is called a social ladder?

      A: You look down, all you see are smiling faces, and you look up and all you see are assholes.

    16. Re:General question... by superyooser · · Score: 3, Informative
      I am still waiting for israel to spend tens of millions of dollars doing something nice for us. I can't wait.

      The next time you want to make a call on your cell phone, see your baby on an ultrasound monitor, or you need an MRI scan to detect the cancer in your body, Israel has done something nice for you.

      Israel is not a money pit. It is an investment! It pays back dividends every day. On the battle field, on the farm, in the hospital, in the research lab, in the plane, at the computer, and much more. Every country of the world is being blessed by the things coming out of Israel, from agricultural innovations to medical equipment inventions to biotechnology and pharmaceuticals to telecommunications to intelligence on terrorist plans.

      RTFA, for one. Israel benefits us in many ways, mostly with their brain power. We use a lot of their technology for our defense. U.S. troops were trained for urban combat by the IDF. Did you know that Saddam's Iraq used to have a nuclear reactor? It was destroyed by Israel in 1991. Ilan Ramon, the Israeli astronaut who died in the Columbia shuttle disaster, helped to destroy the reactor. The world should profusely thank Israel for sparing the world from having to deal with a North Korea in the Middle East. They did something very "nice for us."

      Israel is the West's buffer zone in the war on terror. They were fighting the war for us before the Sleeping Giant realized that IslamoNazis were pulling it into a war. Israel is fighting at the front lines for America and Europe and the civilized world. They live at the front lines. Israel is the beacon of intelligence and enlightenment in a vast Islamic wasteland of medieval warlords and clan feuds. It is very much in our interest, for security reasons if for no other, to help Israel financially and otherwise.

      Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can make claim to the following:

      The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.

      Most of the Windows NT operating system was developed by Microsoft-Israel.

      The Pentium MMX and Pentium M chip technologies were designed in Israel at Intel.

      Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

      Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.

      The technology for AOL Instant Messenger was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.

      An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert.

      The first PC anti-virus software was developed in Israel in 1979. With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and start-ups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world (apart from the Silicon Valley).

      In response to serious water shortages, Israeli engineers and agriculturalists developed a revolutionary drip irrigation system to minimize the amount of water used to grow crops.

      Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.

      Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U.S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions. Israel places first in this category as well.

      Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.

      Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people - as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.

      In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).

      Israel is ranked #2 in the wor

  5. Uh Huh by Crispin+Cowan · · Score: 4, Funny
    Great. So now attackers just have to cover their missiles with bicycle reflective strips and the lasers become approx. 99% less effective.

    Crispin

    1. Re:Uh Huh by Crispin+Cowan · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Are you claiming that it is somehow difficult to make material that is highly reflective in the infrared range?

      I suggested bicycle strips because they have a fascinating property. They are made of zillions of little sphericle beads, with a refractive index of approximately 2.0. Such beads have the interesting property that light shining into them is reflected back directly at the source. For amusement, go get a laser pointer and point it at some bicycle strips, and you will notice that your hand holding the laser pointer is painted with laser light, regardless of the angle you hit the strip from.

      So if I want to beat laser missle defenses, I go into the lab and make milspec beads with a refractive index of 2.0 in the right infrared range, and the lasers suddenly don't work so well.

      Bonus: make the reflective layer 1 inch thick, and make it boil when heated, and you get ablative armor: it fogs the missle with a clound that blocks the laser. IIRC, idea due to Charles Sheffield (RIP).

      Crispin

  6. videos by doormat · · Score: 5, Informative

    are here.

    WMP or QT are availabe.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  7. Oh great.. by Malawar · · Score: 5, Funny

    So that's what happened to my missile.

  8. Dates. by FreeLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most of the pictures are dated 2000. I suspect that in four years since those pictures, the project has made significant advances. However, those results and pictures are likely classified.

    Oh, by the way: FIRE THE FEAKIN LASER!!!

  9. Domestic Use Soon? by Eponymous+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I wonder how long until these will be deployed domestically, around various government buildings (such as the White House, the US Capitol, or the Pentagon).

    They will be touted as the perfect solution to a problem with heretofore only imperfect solutions (until, say, a passenger aircraft is accidentally shot down of course).

    The biggest differences between this and previous missile defense systems are cost and multiple-use capability. You're not talking about using multi-million dollar missiles to shoot down incoming missiles, so you don't need to be so selective about when firing the thing off. And if you miss, you can try again ... and again.

    As a defensive tool, these are, quite honestly, awesome. As an accident-waiting-to-happen in the hands of an overly-enthusiastic operator, they are, well, a little bit scary I guess.

    --
    It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
    1. Re:Domestic Use Soon? by delong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder how long until these will be deployed domestically, around various government buildings (such as the White House, the US Capitol, or the Pentagon).

      It won't. This isn't a "missile defense system" per se, it is a tactical battefield weapon designed for force protection. To be used to defend troops and installations against short range tactical weapons like rockets, mortars, cruise missiles, etc. Not of much use in the continental US.

      However, these lasers, and especially the larger, immobile THEL version, are perfect for Israel. Israeli communities and the IDF are constantly being harrassed by hit and run Katushka rocket, mortar, and guided missile threats from HAMAS and other Pal terrorists in the Territories, and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

  10. Re:wow by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, I guess we WILL get to see a $10 million missile fired at a $10 tent protected by another $10 million laser.

    In the end the guy with the explosive beatup mercedes still wins.

  11. It upsets the balance of power by gotr00t · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As immoral and utilitarian the following may sound, it was the state of political affairs during the cold war, and continues to be this way.

    Both Soviet Russia and the United States had comparable amounts of nuclear weapons, enough to destroy the other several times over by the late 1960's. What was preventing them from simply firing the missiles and ending the war forever was the fact that the other side could, and would retaliate. Even the Soviets were not willing to spend a significant amount of their population concentrated within urban areas for the chance of total victory.

    When the Soviets announced development into an ABM (anti ballistic missile) system in the Stragetic Arms Limitatons Talks in 1969, it was not well recieved by the United States. The existance of such a system would mean that there would be no imperiative at hand for one side to annihilate the other and claim victory. The US, at this time, put research into such a technology as well, though notably less advanced than today's (it was called "setinel," and consisted of a pair of missiles designed to intercept), it was scrapped because it could not guarentee that major urban areas could be protected.

    Such a situation still exists today. The number of nations that have nuclear weapons is higher than ever, not just the Soviet Union and a handful of other nations outside of the US. To think that the United States would never do such a thing like annihilate an entire population is to be naive. There were such plans during the Cold War to literally wipe Russia off the face of the planet. To other nations, this system poses a greater threat than nuclear proliferation, as it nullifies their political leverage in the world arena.

  12. Re:wow by delong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It isn't. Neither is an F-16, does that mean an F-16 is worthless? The weapon isn't meant to counter car bombers, obviously.

    This is a tactical battlefield weapon meant for force protection. The article concerns the mobile THEL laser.

    The larger, immobile THEL theoretically will be able to shoot down *mortar shells*. It has already been tested to successfully shoot down Katyushka small caliber rockets. These are revolutionary weapons systems.

  13. Invisible beams? by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a question: From the video, it appears that the beam is invisible. The reasons for that are pretty obvious. I just wanted to ask, is it possible for a laser beam to get so hot that it causes the air inside of it to turn visibly vapourous? Just wondering if we'll ever see a beam like that so powerful it leaves con-trails like plains leave or something.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Invisible beams? by mpoulton · · Score: 4, Informative

      A sufficiently powerful laser beam will ionize air due to the electric field strength within the beam. This can be achieved on a desktop scale with a small Q-switched YAG laser (I've done it). When the air ionizes, it begins to absorb the beam, which results in even more heating. You get what appears to be a spark floating in air. This is not wavelength dependent (except that field strength depends to some extent on wavelength), and is not related to the absorption of the beam by the gases in the air. In fact, at high enough intensities, the same effect occurs in a vacuum due to particle pair formation. Fun stuff.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
  14. Re:Interesting quote from a Reuters article by pyrrhonist · · Score: 5, Funny
    It would be interesting to find out what those "hostile objects" were, and what exactly they mean by eliminated...

    They were rattlesnakes, and after being lightly fried, they were delicious. Then they were eliminated some time later.

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  15. Read the article by ksheff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a tactical defensive weapon for use on a battlefield, not strategic defense. This is a mobile system meant to protect against small rockets like Katyusha class weapons. To understand why Israel is involved, you only have to look at the map on this page.

    They would also be useful in defending targets against rocket attacks like the ones that have occurred in Iraq.
    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  16. This is the first real laser weapon by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is the first real laser weapon. Unlike most of the stuff to come out of BMDO/MDA, this thing is expected to be useful. It's a joint US-Israeli effort, which gives it some reality.

    We're not talking about ICBMs here. This is aimed more at Katyusha batteries, a WWII truck-mounted launcher for 48 tube-launched unguided rockets. Those things had a range of about 5Km back in WWII. Their accuracy is poor, but they're cheap and can fire many rockets in the general direction of the target. Syria uses Katyusha batteries, and has been developing improved versions.

    Patriot anti-missiles are too expensive to use against those things. The defenders would run out of Patriots long before the attackers ran out of Katyushas. So there's a real application for a laser weapon here. It won't stop all the incoming rockets, but cutting down a few thousand to a few hundred is a big win.

  17. Re:wow by zors · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thats like saying that because a handgun cant be effectively used against airborne targets, its useless.

    You need different defense systems for different offensive systems.

    This is for use againt missiles, mortar shells, and the like.

  18. Great!! What if you miss? by OgTheBarbarian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not so much for a ground based laser, it just keeps going and picks off Hubble, or the ISS or (God No!) Fox. But mounted to an aircraft, if it either misses or punches right through the target object, anything within range before the beam hits it's dispersion threshhold could be toast. Homes, office buildings, people spontaneously combusting, yada yada... You get the idea. The tinfoil hat just don't cut it anymore I guess. Eep. jm2c

  19. It's a tactical weapon, not strategic. by UPAAntilles · · Score: 4, Informative

    The THEL was not developed with anti-nuclear capabilities in mind. It's designed to protect cities, troop movements, bases, etc from cruise missiles, artillery shells, and the like.

    Now, the Airborne Laser was developed as SDI, but it only covers an area of a 100 mile circle around which it's deployed. That's not going to generally help against a large country...but instead was designed for actions against megalomanical 3rd world dictatorships, like say, North Korea.

  20. ObSimpsons Quote by Rob.Mathers · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Aim missile away from face"

    (from the one where Bart spots a comet headed towards springfield)

    --

    My other sig is funny!
  21. As seen by Mastercard.... by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cost of developing anti-missile laser? $50 billion

    Cost of building anti-missile laser? $10 million

    Cost of deploying anti-missile laser? $15 million

    Cost of mirror fitted to missile? $1.99

    Effect of reflected laser on defending forces? priceless.

  22. this is silly by rebelcool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought slashdot was full of nerds? What kind of nerds don't understand simple physics?

    These lasers emit energy in the megawatt region. A mirror takes photons - absorbs them - and then reemits them. There aren't many mirrors that can absorb 10 million watts of energy.

    In fact, that very problem is what makes laser weaponry so damn expensive and difficult to do. They need very heavy, exotic and expensive mirror systems to focus and aim the laser energy without being destroyed by the laser themselves. You can't just go down to home depot and buy a big mirror. You can't just coat a missile in some silly bike reflectors or shiny foil.

    Even if you were to somehow invent a reflective coating that could handle megawatts of energy - and still be light enough to just paint on a missile - you'd have to deal with the coating becoming marred in flight, as anything the laser comes in contact with (ie, birdshit or what have you) its going to superheat to thousands of degrees and burn right through and destroy the missile.

    --

    -