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."

31 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 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.

    2. 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)

    3. 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

    4. 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

    5. 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

  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. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.

  16. 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.