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."

34 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting by LocutusMIT · · Score: 5, Funny

    But can it be mounted on a shark?

    1. Re:Interesting by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      I'd settle for a video of this thing destroying a shark which has been launched into the air.

  2. 2 kilometers isn't very far away. by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:2 kilometers isn't very far away. by CrimsonKnight13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since it's a prototype, I'm sure progress will need to be made to extend the range & power of the laser. Otherwise, it'll only be a short-range solution.

      --
      Libera te ex Inferis!
    2. Re:2 kilometers isn't very far away. by tsadi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The 2km limit is likely due to the heat lost due to the atmosphere.

    3. Re:2 kilometers isn't very far away. by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      well.. most missiles aren't kinetic energy weapons.. few broken windows isn't as bad as a warhead exploding inside your building.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:2 kilometers isn't very far away. by westlake · · Score: 2

      It's 'destruction' is still likely to rain down debris nearby.

      Which would you prefer? Debris or an explosion?

    5. Re:2 kilometers isn't very far away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why does everything always have to be a binary choice? I'd like debris and an explosion.

    6. Re:2 kilometers isn't very far away. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Since you can deal with that using a proper wavelength, I'd go for thermal bloom problems instead.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:2 kilometers isn't very far away. by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which would you prefer? Debris or an explosion?

      Depends, how big is the debris and what's it made of, and how far away is the explosion?

      Big giants chunks of debris would be no fun, nor would it be if the missile had radioactive material and destroying it turned it into a dirty bomb.

      I'm more curious to know how much of this test was 'real', and how much relied on some of the tricks they've done in the past by essentially making it impossible for it to miss.

      It's not like they haven't stacked these tests in their favor in the past to the point that you'd need whoever might be shooting at you to schedule an appointment and tell you exactly where the missile is coming from. Which kind of defeats the purpose.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:2 kilometers isn't very far away. by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Big giants chunks of debris would be no fun, nor would it be if the missile had radioactive material and destroying it turned it into a dirty bomb."

      No, that would be the BEST CASE scenario.

      If the missile has radioactive material then:

      1)- It is already a dirty bomb. Destroying it minimizes the damage.
      2)- IT IS A NUKE. Destroying it saves likely a city.

      Neither of these are likely, but you'd rather 1000 dirty bombs than one fissile warhead.

  3. Hmm... I have a question. by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How long before we start seeing missiles with highly polished chrome finish on the outside?

    --
    No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
    1. Re:Hmm... I have a question. by Brandano · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's small battery powered ones already...

    2. Re:Hmm... I have a question. by LocutusMIT · · Score: 2

      That raises some interesting questions:

      Given the stresses of launch, how long would such a finish remain highly polished, or at least reflective enough to protect against a laser?

      Is the laser accurate enough to target the engine nozzles, which would very quickly lose any lustre they may have?

    3. Re:Hmm... I have a question. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Given the stresses of launch, how long would such a finish remain highly polished, or at least reflective enough to protect against a laser?

      I think you're dealing with a cascade degradation problem anyway. Once a tiny part of the reflective surface loses its reflectivity because the beam melts it, or for whatever reason that can happen, the rocket is done for. There's no problem with laser weapons that can't be solved with the pulse being strong enough and short enough, since you'll never have a 100% reflective surface. Even in experiments with laser-initiated fusion, where the cleanliness and optical properties of the whole system have lab-grade care taken of them, the optical interfaces are a bitch.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Hmm... I have a question. by bcmm · · Score: 2

      What about retroreflectors? Presumably, it would require only a miniscule fraction of a missile-killing laser beam to screw up the tracking optics.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    5. Re:Hmm... I have a question. by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Aluminum is usually the go-to material for broadband reflectance in the visible spectrum. It's about 93% reflective when freshly applied (it corrodes on contact with oxygen to form a thin layer of transparent aluminum oxide which helps protects it from further corrosion but degrades reflectivity - better to coat it with something else). You can improve it a bit with coatings, but those are highly directional. Silver is a bit better for most of the visible spectrum, but falls off quickly towards the blue/ultraviolet end which is where many powerful chemical lasers emit (dunno what this system uses). Chrome is actually pretty bad, usually around 60%-80%. Other tricks like dielectric mirrors are highly sensitive to wavelength and incident angle, while total internal reflection prisms (common in binoculars) only work for a narrow range of angles.

      So best-case aluminum will still absorb 7% of the laser energy, meaning worst-case the laser needs 14x more time to heat up a target vs. a black one (ignoring cooling). Of course if the range of this laser is only 2 km, that may make a huge difference.

    6. Re:Hmm... I have a question. by Digicaf · · Score: 2

      That would be a 7% absorption in ideal conditions only during initial contact. Once the coating and reflective surface reach a critical temperature then there'd be a cascading failure. The coating would be subject to both ablation and charring, which might actually help the laser more than hurt it.

      There are a lot of factors that would quickly degrade the initial absorption figure (quality of coating, wavelength, surface contaminants, etc...). But even with that, I'd bet that a reflective mechanism would only slow down the process by a second or two.

      Assuming this takes off, what we'll probably see will be an arms race of a sort. Missile designers would start using reflective surfaces and internal insulators while the laser designers would increase power, focusing ability, and introduce wavelength shifts (maybe dynamically). This could get interesting.

  4. Act Now, Supplies Are Limited by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> 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?

    1. Re:Act Now, Supplies Are Limited by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure niether China nor North Korea got their missiles from Lockheed Martin.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  5. Re:Cool by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bet it costs a fortune, though.

    Just ask some loan sharks with lasers...

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  6. Re:home version by SecurityGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting
  7. Just a few seconds to react by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:Just a few seconds to react by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      Sounds like a point defense system--for when all else fails. The targeting/tracking system need not be limited to the effective range of the laser.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    2. Re:Just a few seconds to react by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A target tracking system for an incoming missile will have a much lower slew rate than the video, where the target is flying perpendicular to the beam. Unless the missile starts doing the Harlem Shake on the way in, it's a sitting duck for a laser adjacent to the target. Also note that the internal tracking system is good to 5km out, so that gives it 10 seconds to lock onto the final trajectory, and it can be tied into a larger tracking system as well.

      This is clearly limited to smaller, slower, less sophisticated munitions right now, but I would anticipate larger power as they get better, which means effectiveness further out and quicker kills. Heck, you don't need any laser research to quadruple the power of this laser - just bring in four of them and target the same incoming vehicle.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  8. Re:Cool by RobertNotBob · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sure... but that was implicitly addressed when they discussed the cost of REPEATED use. So this is a Pay (a lot) ONCE, vs a missile (or other ammunition based) system which is Pay (less, but still serious coin) EVERY time you shoot.

    It's not so bad when you put it into context.

    --
    ___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
  9. Re:Aircraft carriers by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

    You watched the wrong (bottom) video then - that was last year's test. This year the missile was in free flight. However, the site provided both videos on the same page.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  10. Re:Did this one havce a GPS unit hidden in it? by davester666 · · Score: 2

    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!
  11. Re:Mirror surface, by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    It just takes slightly longer to destroy them. The best reflective surfaces are easily fouled by handling. Ever see what happens when you accidentally touch a headlamp (or projector) bulb with your finger while installing it? It still looks perfectly transparent, but *boom* it doesn't last long under even a 50W heat load. Now take your awesome mirror finish and send it through tens or hundreds of miles of atmospheric dust/bugs/ impurities. All of a sudden your ideal mirror becomes just good. Then we hit it with a laser and the energy that does get absorbed chars whatever is on there, which makes it even less reflective, and just like that your perfect mirror becomes just another ho-hum surface we can cook popcorn inside of.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  12. Noticed by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    The rockets were painted black. What happens when a rocket is not painted black?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Noticed by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      It takes .125 seconds to destroy a black target, .1251 to destroy a non-black target. Seriously, at these energy levels the color of the target is largely irrelevant.

  13. Re:Aircraft carriers by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    That *might* be true. Remember that Mach 10 is not the likely speed of the craft at full atmospheric density, and at high speeds the integrity of the heat sheilding is very critical to performance. For an incoming missile, the long range slew rate on the laser will be very low (i.e. easy to acquire and track), and actual penetration of the airframe won't be necessary if the skin is at or near it's thermal limits on final approach to the target.

    So, yes, 1.5km will be covered very, very quickly by a hypersonic vehicle on final targeting (likely around 2 seconds, M=2.5, at 1 atm), but it won't take much more before this system will be capable of destroying one as long as it can track it and apply power as soon as it enters the effective zone.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  14. Useless after ballistic trajectory by mrops · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  15. Missing the potential by Viking2054 · · Score: 2

    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.