Slashdot Mirror
Drone-Mounted Laser Weapons Are On the Way
Daniel_Stuckey writes "DARPA is funding research into drone-mounted laser weapons. The project, called Endurance, is referred to in DARPA's 2014 budget request as being tasked with the development of 'technology for pod-mounted lasers to protect a variety of airborne platforms from emerging and legacy EO/IR guided surface-to-air missiles.' The budget explains that it will be the first application of DARPA's much-discussed Excalibur laser defense system, which developed lasers powerful enough to use as weapons. With the new program, DARPA is focused on miniaturizing the technology, as well as 'developing high-precision target tracking, identification, and lightweight agile beam control to support target engagement. The program will also focus on the phenomenology of laser-target interactions and associated threat vulnerabilities." In other words, DARPA hopes that drone-mounted lasers will soon be able to shoot missiles out of the sky."
(whilst wearing my tin hat - na na - cannot get me)
So it's both immoral AND unethical...
Warning: Do not look at drone with remaining eye...
They should designate it the Semiautonomous, High-Altitude Recon/Kill drone, so that we can finally have SHARKs with frickin' laser beams.
Power source? I am immediately struck by the design obstacle of stashing enough power capacity onto a 140 hp propeller UAV. Even if designers manage to get enough power stored on board, it will most likely result in the drone being limited to a single blast (while seriously degrading operational range).
Teaching laser drones Phenomenology?
"Let there be light!"
--- Mercutio was right.
Seeing as they specifically mention Electro-Optical and Infra-Red guided missiles, It seems that the objective is not to 'blow up' a missile as the linked article suggests, but rather to use a laser to blind the missile's tracking systems, causing it to lose tracking and veer off target or "generate a miss" as they say.
Getting a laser to destroy a missile requires about 100 kW of energy and a few tons of hardware to focus it.
Getting a laser to blind optical sensors requires a $10 Radio Shack gift card.
Any sort of adjustable mirror designed to reflect lasers seems like it would have a huge impact on missile aerodynamics.
You'd also need to make sure the mirrors stay very clean throughout flight... condensation or dust would absorb the laser's energy and begin melting the mirror underneath. There's also issues with matching the mirror to the wavelength of the laser, the fact that no mirror reflects 100% of light and any distortions in the mirror could make it worse.
You'd be better off with some sort of ablative armor on the missile.
Drone figures from WP show that as of Q1 2009, of the 223 USAF UAVs in operational service, only 4 were shot down. Whereas 11 were lost due to accidents (mainly flying into things), and 55 were lost due to equipment failure, operator error, or weather.
Importantly, the current failsafe for OOC UAVs is to shoot them down with AIM-9 missiles, which is what happened to a reaper on 13 September 2009. Developing an autonomous laser defence would preclude this failsafe.
In brief, the US government should be spending it's money on other problems. Given a vote, I doubt that the US populace would sign up for this particular budgetary spend.
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
I think a reflective surface on a rotating missile is simple and goes a long way.
Except, as I just mentioned, a reflective surface would be a piss poor defense against a laser. Between dust, condensation, wavelengths, and the fact there's no such thing as a perfect reflective surface it would be mostly pointless. An ablative surface, such as the space shuttle used, would be a significantly better defense.
It's kind of brilliant of DARPA, really. If a bit evil. By setting their sights on missiles, they establish the idea of defensive technology, but ensure that any effective weapon will also make short work of a less durable and less agile target like a human being. In this way, the R&D team is spared the thought of building something that will burn a hole through some hapless person, even though the eventuality of their work will be exactly that.
I was always under the impression that arms races were one of those unfortunate systematic effects that arise spontaneously, and don't depend on ego on the part of either side. We certainly seem to see them in scenarios where human actors are not involved.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Better solution: 2+ missiles
Best solution: supersonic rail gun launched iron rods that do their damage via kinetic energy. If they hit as a solid rod or as a molten lump it's mostly the same.
Cheap storage VM.