Slashdot Mirror
Laser Cannons Coming to an F-16 Near You
dxprog writes "Reuters is reporting that the US Pentagon is designing a laser cannon that's small enough to fit onto a fighter jet yet powerful enough to knock out a missile. "The High Energy Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS), being designed by the Pentagon's central research and development agency, will weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures the size of a large fridge." Now all we need to do is make fighter jets space worthy for that true Star Wars feel."
Will there be friggin sharks on them too?
Once we get them into space, will they make roaring, whooshing noises and manuever just like they did in atmosphere? 'Cause otherwise, forget about it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The High Energy Laser Area Defense System
So what's the other L for?
I swear, the military just loves acronyms, whether they make sense or not! And what's an area defense system?
There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend more steel plates for their humvees, not another toy for the flyboys.
But will it cook a Jiffy Pop container 20' in diameter?
That's right, I read at +2 and post at +1. Not even I care what I have to say.
I just did some quick searching and found only this on laser weaponry in the Geneva Convention:
"Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to the naked eye (or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices). Countries that are party to the Convention and Protocols will not transfer such weapons to any country or other entity."
So I guess to conform to the Geneva Convention, the lasers will just require the same stickers that they put on childrens water guns: "Point Away From Face"
"0101100101? It's just jibberish. *looks in mirror, gasps* 1010011010@!? AHHHHHH!!"
Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?
Number Two: Sea Bass.
Dr. Evil: [pause] Right.
Number Two: They're mutated sea bass.
Dr. Evil: Are they ill tempered?
Number Two: Absolutely.
Dr. Evil: Oh well, that's a start.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
I don't think the Geneva convention includes energy weapons, it dates back to pre-world war 2 I believe.
You may be thinking about weapons in space, if I remember correctly the USA and Russia agreed not to militarise space, which essentially meant no orbitting satellites with either lasers on them or nuclear missiles. (it may have taken kinetic weapons into account too, i'm not sure on that)
XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-U
source http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2585
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
HELLAD DARPA PAGE
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Pew pew or Brzzap?
No, to conform to the geneva convention, it just has to be powerful enough to kill you outright. The issue is blinding lasers. They would be classified as maiming weapons, and thus not really cricket. If it blows your head clear off, then it's all fine and dandy.
Sorry, defending against a laser isn't that simple.
You ever felt how hot a mirror gets in sunlight? Well, a lot of the light that hits it is converted to heat. Even a highly mirrored surface would get incredibly hot under a 150Kw laser beam. A missle is essentially a flying tube under a lot of stress, so a small non-uniform structural weakness would have the capability to tear it apart if it was travelling at high speed....
I'm too close for lasers, switching to Scientology.
Hello Mr. Enemy Pilot, may I Audit you?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
and measures the size of a large fridge. Cool! Lasers have been used for measurement before, but I bet this is the first time the military has been able to measure your fridge in your kitchen from 20,000 feet. The small hole in the kitchen ceiling is a small price to pay for this protection from oversize fridges.
Not really.
It'd be smaller than a 370 gallon external fuel pod.
No one said it was gonna be shaped like a cement block.
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
F-16 operating ceiling = 15.240 kilometers
Minimum LEO satellite altitude = about 150 kilometers
I couldn't find any information about the range of the HELLADS system; that information is probably classified. However, TFA claims there will be a 150 kilowatt version of the laser by 2007. Any laser experts know if that power of laser can take out a target 135 kilometers away? Is the idea even feasible?
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
To quote a friend from the Israeli army that is sort-of relevant:
"M16's are not designed to kill, they are designed to maim, because a wounder soldier is more of a liability to the enemy than a dead one."
But we still use M16s... odd... (well, WE use M2's or something like that)
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Yes one must be fucking living to be blind. Just like telling no tales, the dead don't see shit..
For all of the people who criticize your "mirrors" proposal: ablatives.
You can even combine defensive concepts. Missiles being relatively small, relatively mass produced items, processes that normally cost a lot can be proportionally cheap compared to the cost of the guidance systems, propulsion system, and handling costs. So, for a multipart defensive system:
* A "shiny" ablative system on the nosecap and leading edge fins - perhaps something as simple as silicon-impregnated cork mixed with aluminum, silver, or gold (better at IR) powder.
* The nosecap and leading-edge fins made of silvered (again, with a good visible/IR reflecting material) RCC (again, since they're small and the process to make them can be automated, the costs shouldn't unreasonable). RCC can take extreme temperatures without becoming ductile.
* Other parts of the body made out of unpainted, shiny aluminum or a silvered surface.
It's less extreme than other defensive mechanisms used for various kinds missiles - MIRVed warheads, anti-ship missiles that hug the water and then take a sharp climb and descent, etc. And it's certainly simpler than many of the counter-countermeasure methods used by modern missiles.
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
Do you actually have some evidence to back that claim up? I thought not. The people who come up with ideas like military lasers are actually smart enough to have thought of things like mirrored surfaces on enemy missiles. They wouldn't have put all that time, effort, and money into the project if it could be stopped by such a simple countermeasure.
Common mirrors are not 100% efficient; they absorb some fraction of the light rather than reflecting it. The actual reflecting layer is also quite thin. The small amount of absorbance is enough that a high energy laser will destroy an ordinary mirror very quickly, at which point the remaining energy is absorbed efficiently. The kind of extremely efficient mirrors needed for ultra-high power lasers are fantastically expensive and fragile enough that it's hopelessly impractical to try putting one on military gear.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The reason for using very high-power lasers is the same they prefer to use hyper-kinetic missiles: at some energy density, no plausible molecular material has sufficient bond strength to withstand it, effectively obsoleting armor.
The modern M16 fires a 5.56x45mm NATO round, while the previous generation (original AR15 platform) used a .223 caliber Remington round. The NATO round is a very standard round used in quite a few weapons. The newest weapon in wide use is actually the M4, which is also based on the AR15 platform.
The M2 is a retired weapon, and pretty much has been since the 60s. The AR15/M16 was adopted to replace it then. It wasn't really accepted until the 80s, however.
The 5.56mm NATO round is also used by the Steyr AUG, FN FNC, British L85, FAMAS F1, HK23/53, the Israeli SAW and TAR21, several Berettas, and the standard police rifle (Remington 7615). There are quite a few more than those, though, these are just popular.
The older 7.62mm NATO round was used in a lot of weapons, including the M14, M60, Kar-98k, and the Winchester model 70. It was very popular, as well.
The M16 isn't designed to maim, but they are easy to do this with. They are rather accurate, have a good range, and don't do full auto. One of the major design goals of the platform was penetration of combat helmets at range. It was designed to kill, like most other modern firearms. The general exception to that rule is for things like PDWs, where the goal is defense of wielder. They will still kill very effectively, but you're aiming a lot less.
High Energy Laser Area Defense System
...or
I think Gasseous Optical Nuetral Area Defense System would have been a better name. What do you suppose would instill more fear in the enemy?
"Run for your life! The HELLADS are coming!"
"Run for your life! The GONADS are coming!"
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I love your writing style - it reminds me of a Star Wars into crawl.
Episode IV: A New Lack Of Hope
It is a period of civil war. Rebel guerrillas, striking from hidden bases, have won their first victory against the PENTAGON. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to America's ultimate weapon, the MISSILE FRIGATE, an armored aircraft with enough power to destroy an entire peaceful wedding party.
Pursued by the sinister agents of CONGRESS, Princess Raghad Hussein races home aboard her taxi, custodian to the stolen plans that can dominate her people and change type of tyrannical rule in force in the country.
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
The answer to this paradox, IMO, is that war is simply incompatible with civil society.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
It's not the Geneva convention, it's the Hague convention, and the relevant part is "In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden - ... To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04 .htm#art23. Maybe you're thinking of the Geneva Protocol to the Hague Convention which outlaws biological and chemical warfare? The Geneva convention mostly outlines basic minimum treatment of enemy POWs.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
150 kilowatts is 201 horsepower. (conversion link; 1 horsepower = approximately 745.7 watts)
F-16 Aircraft use a powerplant ranging from 15,000 to 19,000 (28,000 to 32,000 with afterburner) pounds force of thrust.
To convert between thrust and horsepower, use this formula: [(Thrust in lbs x Speed in mph) / 550] x 1.47 = horsepower (formula link)
So let's assume an airspeed of 400 miles per hour.
Without afterburners:
Low: ((15,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 16,036.3636
High: ((19,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 20,312.7273
And with afterburners:
Low: ((28,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 29,934.5455
High: ((32,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 34,210.9091
So let's say about 18,000 horsepower on average regularly and 32,000 horsepower on average with afterburners.
A 150 kilowatt laser requires 1.1% of the total engine power produced (on average) by an F-16 turbofan engine, and 0.6% of the engine's power with afterburners engaged.
In other words, I think they've got all the power they need.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
"I believe in Intelligent Design. It was all done by Benevolent Space Aliens. How else can you explain Tom Cruise?"
You call that benevolent?
I went to U.S. Airforce Space Readiness Briefing while I was a Congressional intern this summer.
Lasers were covered and I had a brief chat with the Air Force representative after the briefing.
The USAF is sticking lasers in 747's and the army is testing ground-based systems.
The aircraft-based lasers cannot inflict any physical damage. They are powerful enough to scramble electronics. The goal is to target a missile shortly after it is launched so that its guidance systems fail and the missile lands in the enemy's territory, never reaching its target (us). Their goal is to use this as a powerful deterrent by making it very risky to launch missiles.
The ground-based systems can inflict physical damage, but are nowhere close to being airborne (they're much too massive). They are, as I was told in July, still "in the lab." (I later saw a full-page ad in "The Hill," a capitol hill newspaper, promoting Lockheed Martin's ground-based laser systems as though they were about ready. I'll trust the USAF officer's discussion more than the corporate advertisement.)
A key misunderstanding of lasers is in the kind of damage they inflict. Lasers will poke holes through objects but do not cause a target's destruction or explosion -- however, shooting through or over-heating a target's fuel tank will cause an explosion. And of course, to re-emphasize my major point, we don't have airborne laser cannons --- their goal is basically to inflict a kind of EMP-like damage to missiles. I asked about getting these things into UAV's and was told they'd love to do it, but don't expect anything for another 50 years.
By the way, you write like a schizophrenic dope head. Nothing personal. I'm just glad you're in the NRA.
It was badly worded. I meant soldiers are needed to kill, not that they have a need to kill.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
"It is impossible for most psyches to kill a human they have not dehumanized
You give people alot of credit where none is due. People do not have to dehumanize anyone to kill them. Case in point? Most murders (76%) are comitted by people that know the victim. 22% of the murders in 2002 were comitted by family members.
Logically it would semm to be much more difficult to "dehumanize" (whatever the $%^@ that referrs to in a psychological sense) someone that you know personally than a total stranger. Seems to me like it takes knowing someone to be able to to kill them, not the other way around.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
When "Star Wars" was heavily funded in the '80s, the Russians did a little bit of investigation into what it would take to thwart both kinetic vehicles and energy weapons. The actually deployed the Topol-M, which has a lower arc and "jinks" in-flight, makeing it almost impossible to hit with another missile. It takes so long for your interceptor to get to the intercept point that a really tiny course deflection on the part of the target means you'll miss by a hundred miles.
On the energy side they came up with ablatives (which could be refitted to existing missiles) with, literally, a twist.
Since you have to hold the laser on a specific spot for some length of time (governed by the power of the laser, atmospherics, etc), you could significantly enhance the survivability of the missile by having it slowly rotate during the launch phase. We're talkin' about a reasonably simple software change that makes it 10x harder to shoot down with a laser.
This weeks New Scientist has some interesting statistics that will be relevant here. (The article isn't online, unfortunately.)
"researchers have documented how soldiers will often go to great lengths to avoid firing directly at enemy soldiers, especially if they can seem them - and the distress they suffer when they do kill.
A famous example is the Battle of Gettysburg, where thousands of soldiers on both sides loaded their weapons over and over to avoid having to fire them. Similarly, during the second world war, S.L.A. Marshall, a US army historian, found that on average only 15 to 20 per cent of American infantry troops actually fired at the enemy when they had the oportunity to do so."
The article goes on to talk about how the US army managed to increase the firing rate in later wars by de-humanising the enemy and training soldiers to shoot on impulse.
The main articles are about the Post-Traumatic Stress suffered later by the soldiers as a result of this.
A latent existence
Actually the F-22 Raptor already has a laser system that's been designed for it and [I think it] fits in place of bombbay doors.
It is the F-35 or the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) that has a laser on the drawing boards.
The thing about a laser system like this is that it need a lot of electricity to run, and the vast majority of fighter aircraft do not produce the kind of juice needed to run one of these. The thing that makes the JSF capable of handling a system like this, is the way the VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) version of the aircraft was designed. Unlike previous VTOL fighters (AV-8 - Harrier and the Boeing consept for JSF) which use a series of nozels to redirect thrust the engine was already making to get vertical thrust, the Lockheed JSF (the one that was selected) has a secondary fan, driven by a shaft from the main engine and door that open above and below the fan.
Using the lift fan in the VTOL plane means that the engine in the CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) and CV (Carrier Varient) has the capacity built in to drive a shaft, and the aircraft themselves have a lot of room right in front of the engine/behind the cockpit. This shaft can then drive a large generator to fire the laser.
I used to be an analyst at the company that builds the engines for the F-22 and the JSF. I worked on both programs.
The laser is ultraviolet, thus it would allow an F22 to loiter in an area and attack ground targetes (Geneva conventions state that we can't attack people with lasers) However, we can cut the truck they're driving in half and thus detonating the fuel tank...
Conventional fuels (gas/diesel) do not detonate unless they are vaporized, or atomised. They will burn pretty fast though.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.