Slashdot Mirror
Watch a Lockheed Martin Laser Destroy a Missile In Flight
An anonymous reader writes "As well as providing the equipment necessary to fire missiles, defense contractors also want to offer customers the ability to defend against them. Lockheed Martin is doing just that with its Area Defense Anti-Munitions (ADAM) system. ADAM is a high energy laser system mounted on a trailer allowing it to be transported around quickly to help defend high-value targets. It is still in prototype form, but basically uses a 10-kilowatt fiber laser which can be focused on to a moving target up to 2 kilometers away."
But can it be mounted on a shark?
Bet it costs a fortune, though.
Considering this a defensive system 2 kilometers means the high velocity threat is nearly on top of what you want to protect. It's 'destruction' is still likely to rain down debris nearby.
How long before we start seeing missiles with highly polished chrome finish on the outside?
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
>> As well as providing the equipment necessary to fire missiles, defense contractors also want to offer customers the ability to defend against them.
Naturally. How else would you extract top dollar from both sides?
The final application doesn't need GPS units as sharks can find their way without GPS guidance.
Maybe carriers won't go extinct after all
A trailer is considerably more maneuverable than a 747. It also uses a lot less gas if defending a stationary target. And a lot less $$$ overhead just to mount a weapon.
Plus pretty much all of the other reasons why automakers are still around when aviation manufacturers can make stuff that *flies*
Actually, that's been done.
http://www.ted.com/talks/nathan_myhrvold_could_this_laser_zap_malaria.html
Pretty cool, imo.
These are designed to defend against qassam type rockets. Qassam rockets are very simple rockets (steel tubes, warhead on the tip, no electronic gizmos) that are fired into Israel by the Palestinians. I doubt that they could defend against something more substantial.
Considering this a defensive system 2 kilometers means the high velocity threat is nearly on top of what you want to protect.
Let's say we have a cruise missile traveling at roughly mach 1 or about 1,150 kph - actually pretty slow compared to many missiles. That means that the missile would cover the 2 kilometers in about 6.25 seconds. Better have a hell of a good target tracking system...
In response, all the worlds missles are now chrome plated, and you're burning the city or a forest, or whatever on the ground.
That wouldn't work. The reflective surface wouldn't be able to do that with the beam hundreds of meters away. Why do you think that optical mirrors are so precisely shaped?
Ezekiel 23:20
Better yet, print one and start shooting down the drones, or at least blind all the surveillance cameras.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I always wondered. What if the targets are covered with a high quality reflective mirror surface?
Ft Bliss USA, they were testing lasers on conventional ballistics. Maybe the program finally completed and this is the end result. But I suspect this can also shoot down ballistics as well.
Sharks have built-in GPS. You just need to purchase it's use "in-app".
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
you forgot that part.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
So at mach 5, you really don't have much time to kill the missile...
Why don't you take an existing product and put it on a truck.
Boeing did this years ago from a 747, while in flight.
so LM, who makes planes, said lets do that but do it easier by not making it fly.
yawn.
The Boeing system(the YAL-1) was a chemical laser. Those things are markedly better at high power compared to ordinary photopumped gas lasers or solid state lasers; but are somewhat disliked because of the difficulties involved in supplying and exhausting substantial quantities of nasty halogens under field conditions.
The rockets were painted black. What happens when a rocket is not painted black?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'm guessing you need pretty clear weather for the targeting system to work.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Missile defense system is designed to operate when the target is in *clear* sight? What if skies are not so clear - heavy rain, fog, or dust?
"Baron, my apologies. These madmen are attacking under cover of the storm." --Frank Herbert, "Dune"
A) This is for targeting smaller missile (non-balistic). Smaller missiles are... well smaller. They take less heat to damage and cause failures and they have less surface area to spread the heat out over.
B) That was 30 years ago. Laser power and tracking has improved just a bit since then.
C) This is more about defending against the kind of dumb rockets that Hezbollah fires into Israel every so often as it is about an engagement with a highly funded modern military.
Terminator: "Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range."
Shopkeeper: "hey, just what you see here pal..."
Terminator: "Uzi nine millimeter."
Shopkeeper: "You really know your guns. This baby's perfect for home defense..."
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Apparently no birds were harmed in the making of that video.
We'll probably never see the videos where they were :-)
Honest question.
What alternatives are there to a low-production, high-powered laser that likely requires a ton of support crew/machinery to take out missiles?
Phalanx or successors? Are these considered competent?
What about missile-to-missile platforms?
And how useful is this thing if it's not an on tangential course?
There is no defense, like a good offense.
--fatboy
They are very different creatures. The Boeing YAL-1 was deigned to shoot down missiles 100s of miles away (ballistic missiles in launch phase.). And part of the problem was its lack of range– it had to linger close (for ballistic missiles that is) to its target, which means you would have to have multiple plans covering the same area to accommodate refueling, service, etc.
ADAM - Absolute Destruction of Available Mass
(Megazone-23, part 2)
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
I have wondered why they just don't use the good old CO2 industrial lasers scaled up instead of halogen based ones. Then again I am not big into knowledge of lasers and the how and why but it would seem that if a 100W CO2 laser is good for welding then why wouldn't a 10KW one be good for burning through missles?
Time to offend someone
2KM is kinda useless once the missile has achieved ballistic trajectory.
At speed of 2.5km/second, the missile will whiz pass this thing quicker than any damage can be done to it.
Note both the videos show the missile at launch, when they are not at top speed, may work for Hamas to Israel scenario, won't work for North Korea to South Korea type of scenario.
As a practical test to prove the potential I'd say it was a pretty good success. Imagine if you will mounting several of these things inside a 747 with some being able to shoot the laser out the bottom, the sides, and even the top of the jet. You'd have a mobile platform that can get reasonably close to the launch site and destroy missiles before they got close. From the looks of the size of the trailer I'd say you could easily fit 4 to 6 of these inside a jumbo jet or retrofitted B1 bomber and still have plenty of space for crew that may work on the things. Put them on a stealth bomber and you could easily destroy those missiles on the launch pad.
It would get expensive but firing more than one missile at your target would defeat a laser that can only target one. The launch sites would have to be located far enough away from each other that the missiles would be out of the blast radius for most of the flight. With civilian GPSs and wireless communication, I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to synchronize the firing so that the missiles reach the target at the same time. (GPSs not for guidance but for calculating firing delays)
Given the history of these contractors of doing rigged demos... Remember back to the rocket defense system where it came out they put tracking devices into the the rocket so all it had to do was fly towards the beacon in the target? After that huge PR nightmare one would think they would learn .... and usually it is not the right lesson (make it actually work) but to learn to do a better job of not getting caught.
Everybody forget the F-22? That was lockheed martin. So, does this laser work in the rain? wouldn't be surprised... they managed to sell Americans an F-22 that didn't mix with water... I could see how falling water could mess a laser beam... And if the scattered light blinded people (a mile around) that would not only be bad for the people it protects but would violate Geneva.
None of this matters-- They will sell a $billion+ of them if they work or not and we will buy it just to subsidize their company (hoping they make something better later - because our military is all about space weapons just waiting for when the politicians change their minds.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news