Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Airborne Boeing Laser Blasts Ground Target

Posted by samzenpus on from the lazlo-approved dept.

coondoggie writes "The airborne military laser which promises to destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage has for the first time actually blown something up. Boeing and the US Air Force today said that on Aug. 30, a C-130H aircraft armed with Boeing's Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) blasted a target test vehicle on the ground for the first time. Boeing has been developing the ATL since 2008 under an Air Force contract worth up to $30 million."

20 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. Sigh by Jurily · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So how is it working against mirrors?

    1. Re:Sigh by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A mirror surface will harden the target, but even the best mirrors do not reflect all light and a combat laser can still burn a hole in it very fast.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Sigh by Jurily · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I meant the reflections. Are they willing to blind anyone within eyesight?

    3. Re:Sigh by jpmorgan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're screwed if you're a ground target. On the other hand, a lot of laser systems (although not necessarily this one) are aimed at intercepting missiles. Missiles have more options...

      First, a missile can spin. That help keeps the laser off one spot. Next is to introduce a wobble - difficult to do, although with modern control systems not completely impossible - that also keeps the laser hitting a varying spot. Lastly, if your rocket has a cryogenic fuel (i.e., LOX + LH2), you can pump your fuel through capillaries under the skin of your rocket before entering the rocket motor. That'll absorb whatever energy the laser does impart. Of course, that doesn't work with a ballistic missile after its ascent stage... but at that point you're hopefully relying on decoys.

    4. Re:Sigh by Quothz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A mirror surface will harden the target, but even the best mirrors do not reflect all light and a combat laser can still burn a hole in it very fast.

      Any laser that can melt mirrors very quickly would self-destruct even faster unless its own mirrors were constantly changed. Well, I s'pose you'd only have to change the surface rather than the entire mirror. Either operation would be tricky to do precisely in field conditions. Also remember, the atmosphere itself is gonna tend to scatter that beam, so if you want to melt mirrors from a distance, your own are gonna have to get considerably hotter.

      A decent reflective surface seems like it would be good enough to protect a building from this, although if the planes can also drop, say, rocks, that takes care of that. On a person, running around with a mirror would not do wonders for concealment. Personally, if I thought I was gonna be on the wrong end of a hurtin' laser, I'd light a smoky fire, kick up lots of dust, and/or wear thick layers of heat-resistant material like Kevlar while moving around a lot.

    5. Re:Sigh by Jurily · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Causing blindness is not a combat function of this weaponry;

      Define "combat function". I guarantee you that this thing will hit more eyes than targets.

      Causing blindness is not a combat function of this weaponry; it's a side-effect of the other side trying to subvert the weapon.

      Yeah, those morons should've made their tanks from black holes. (Hint: if you can see it, it reflects light.)

      In most cases there won't even be anybody around to get blinded.

      This thing can blind someone on the moon.

      A bullet through the eye can cause blindness too, that doesn't make it banned. Intent matters.

      Compare "tactical nuclear weapon". Hey, we only wanted to take out that factory!

    6. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      International conventions haven't prevented war, torture, genocide or other massive human rights abuses. They are the constructs of an intellectual class that has their heads in the sand until it is to late to prevent the very acts they claim to be preventing.

    7. Re:Sigh by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Weapons like this actually make an ICBM strike *more* likely against the US. If conventional war were to break out between the US and a country like China, with neither party really wanting a nuclear escalation but reserving their nukes as a deterrent, they'd be afraid that if they lost the ability to effectively shoot down aircraft over their territory they'd also lose the ability to launch ICBM's in case of escalation. So, at the first sign of the US gaining air superiority, they'd go ahead and launch ICBM's.
      Not really. First, this is the ATL. It is a different craft with a different mission. It is designed to take out targets on the ground.
      Second, for us to take out China's missile, we would have to have multiples of these craft located deep inside of this countries AND all over the world. The reason is that China has a number of boomers and is building 1-2 new nuclear boomers EACH YEAR. In fact, they will surpass America's count in the next 2 years. As it is, China now has boomers patroling both the American Atlantic and Pacific seaboards as well as the Mexican gulf (Venezuela has begun quietly allowing them to have port calls). We also know that China has at least 10 boomers, and will surpass it within 4 years (more likely 2). In addition, to be able to take out all of China's sites with this would require us to be in every country that surrounds China, with multiple aircraft (and russia would require at least 4 to 8 of these). Think we can swing that? Neither does China. TO be honest, we will probable need a lot more. China appears to be building new nuclear warheads. They restarted their factory last decade. They started their build-up before we decided anything about the ABLs.

      Finally, the ABL shooting horizontally will have a range of around 500-700. It it probable that it would have a range far shorter over china due to their pollution. In addition, this craft will become more ineffective on 2'nd and third round since dust would have been kicked into the air.

      Neither the ATL nor the ABL will be a threat to China's missiles.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Sigh by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about the Geneva conventions?

      Do yourself the favour of looking up which sections of the Geneva Conventions the USA is a signatory to. Then read those sections. Then come up with examples of us violating those sections.

      Be aware, by the by, that we never signed on to the sections giving near-blanket immunity to guerrilla forces

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:Sigh by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, this is a poster child for why the US should not follow such conventions. Killing someone with a laser while risking eye damage to those nearby is far more humane than bombing the entire neighborhood. Screw the inhumane convention.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    10. Re:Sigh by pwfffff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "This thing can blind someone on the moon."

      Yeah well the sun can blind me from the frickin' SUN.

      "Yeah, those morons should've made their tanks from black holes. (Hint: if you can see it, it reflects light.)"

      OK so according to you, something that can blind you after traveling millions upon millions of miles through space will also inevitably blind you upon reflecting off any visible surface? Just like, you know, looking outside during the day?

      Thanks for letting me know I've been blind since the first time I looked out a window. I feel real silly wearing these glasses, since I apparently haven't been able to see at all for quite a while now.

      You're a moron.

    11. Re:Sigh by RabidMoose · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I was going to moderate, but I feel it more important to ask this question:

      What, exactly, is the difference between a saboteur and a terrorist? Aren't all terrorists out to sabotage?

  2. Still a chemical laser by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's still a chemical laser. It's quite possible to make chemical lasers powerful enough to be used as weapons, but so far the equipment has been too big to be very useful. The Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser is able to shoot down artillery shells and small rockets, but the equipment takes up three trailers and costs too much.

    The solid state laser people are catching up. The current output record is around 100 KW. This is enough to be marginally useful for anti-aircraft use. Around a megawatt, things start to get militarily interesting.

    Cooling is a huge problem for the solid state devices, though. With the chemical lasers, most of the heat is dumped with the spent chemicals. For the solid state devices, the gear has to be cooled, and efficiency is only around 20%.

    1. Re:Still a chemical laser by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the solid state gear, you can use heat exchangers running along the exterior of the aircraft. It's mighty chilly at FL350. You just need efficient heat pipes to get the heat outside (like you mentioned).

  3. Re:no collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    yes, that cauterised tunnel that exited through the back of the cranial cavity was the direct cause of the casualty's blindness.

  4. Re:no collateral damage by religious+freak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."
    ~William Tecumseh Sherman

    More quotes...

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  5. I'm waiting for them to shrink it down... by macraig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... to a size I can strap onto my sharks, since I haven't yet figured out how to grow them to the size of C-130s.

  6. Actually the first SUCCESSFUL attempt... by SunSpot505 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My company's developer had a side job as "computer support engineer" for this group a couple month ago (translate: 45/hr to configure software and as a human "fail-safe"). They actually did the first test fire a month or two back.

    It was only half successful.

    It did destroy the target which he described as a "basketball sized item" while traveling at ~450mph or whatever a C-130 cruises at (not supersonic). Unfortunately one of the chemicals has a ph of 17 and is stored at 2500 psi. When the tank developed a leak everyone had to don gas masks, move the cockpit and then make an emergency landing before it ate the plane. A full hazmat crew run by the company had to be flown in from Albuquerque to run decontamination.

    It makes me think that perhaps if they just shot those chemicals rather than the laser it might be just as effective and quite a bit cheaper.

  7. Toxic gases + low efficiency (from IEEE Spectrum) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Facts are:
    - The laser has a ~20% efficiency (say: 80% needs to be cooled or blows away with hot gases) ...
    - The laser produces "corrosive hydrogen fluoride gas" ...
    - The whole military program costs billions (not only millions) up to now ...

    More details at IEEE-Spectrum:
    - www.spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/optoelectronics/ray-guns-get-real

  8. Impressive journalism by sjbe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From TFA:

    Both systems employ a Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) that is made by combining a bunch of nasty chemicals - potassium, peroxide, chlorine, iodine and other stuff and then fired at supersonic speeds.

    I'm pretty sure the laser fires at the speed of light which I guess is technically supersonic. Correct but a retarded way to explain technology the author clearly doesn't understand.

    Then TFA follows up the next sentence with the following gem:

    According to as post on Wikipedia...

    So Wikipedia is a source of journalistic research now? Oh dear... This guy isn't even smart enough to hide the fact he used Wikipedia as a primary source AND he has a typo in the same sentence. Is he trying to get on the Slashdot editing staff?

    Known as the SWEEPER, which is wicked short for short-range wide-field-of-view extremely-agile electronically-steered photonic emitters

    "Wicked short"? Is this some teenager from Boston writing this? Not according to the picture but the author certainly writes like a high school freshman.