Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Watch a Lockheed Martin Laser Destroy a Missile In Flight

Posted by timothy on from the missiles-missiles-missiles dept.

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."

18 of 177 comments (clear)

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

    But can it be mounted on a shark?

  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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    5. 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.
    6. 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 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. 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?

  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

    Actually, that's been done.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/nathan_myhrvold_could_this_laser_zap_malaria.html

    Pretty cool, imo.

  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 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. 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.