The US Army Finally Gets The World's Largest Laser Weapon System (bizjournals.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The US Army Finally Gets The World's Largest Laser Weapon System (bizjournals.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday March 19, 2017 @02:34AM from the lights-from-the-sky dept.

It's been successfully tested on trucks, as well as UAVs and small rockets, according to a video from Lockheed Martin, which is now shipping the first 60kW-class "beam combined" fiber laser for use by the U.S. Army. An anonymous reader quotes the Puget Sound Business Journal: Lockheed successfully developed and tested the 58 kW laser beam earlier this year, setting a world record for this type of laser. The company is now preparing to ship the laser system to the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command in Huntsville, Alabama [according to Robert Afzal, senior fellow for Lockheed's Laser and Sensor Systems in Bothell]. "We have shown that a powerful directed energy laser is now sufficiently light-weight, low volume and reliable enough to be deployed on tactical vehicles for defensive applications on land, at sea and in the air..." Laser weapons, which complement traditional kinetic weapons in the battlefield, will one day protect against threats such as "swarms of drones" or a flurry of rockets and mortars, Lockheed said.

130 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 02:41 · Score: 3, Funny

I hope a system like this will one day make nukes obsolete so that we can start having big wars again....
1. Re:Nukes by dimko · 2017-03-19 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  As weird as it sounds, I tend to agree with that and I am native Russian speaker.
2. Re:Nukes by sycodon · 2017-03-19 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  In one sense, you are both right. For all the hysteria, nuclear deterrence has been instrumental in preventing major wars which were in fact quite likely given the giant political conflicts of the cold war.
  On the other hand, when laser weapons get to the point where they can take out nukes on all their various delivery platforms, they will undoubtedly be more than capable of taking out artillery rounds, tank rounds, small buildings, revetments, groups of infantry, etc.
  Kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
3. Re:Nukes by dougdonovan · 2017-03-19 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  hopefully the US Military will have the best of the best, made in the US by legal US citizens.
4. Re: Nukes by sseymour1978 · 2017-03-19 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you want big wars?
5. Re: Nukes by TuballoyThunder · 2017-03-19 05:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  To end the scourge of people who like to override the default font.
6. Re: Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Because nothing smells good like a battlefield after about three days, with the unburied, maimed corpses of young promising people strewn all about it.
7. Re:Nukes by HornWumpus · 2017-03-19 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  I've long held that the participants in the Manhattan project deserve the Nobel peace prize. If one is alive it's still possible to pull off.
  I'd hand out a second Nobel for the H bomb.
  Perhaps a third for the Neutron bomb, just to stick a thumb in the peaceniks eye.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
8. Re:Nukes by gtall · 2017-03-19 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  They won't make nukes obsolete. And the reason we don't have really big wars is that no big country sees much to gain after the last big one. Russian was decimated and then lost the cold war. China was a basket case until Mao went round the bend. Japan was defanged. The U.S. never really cared much for imperial conquest after country solidified following the Civil War (and no it wasn't the fucking War Between the States).
  The next nasty war will either (1) start with Pakistan losing control of the nukes and doing something stupid against India. India will retaliate but get a blast of radiation back in the face due to the wind direction, or (2) the little fucker in N. Korea doing a first strike against U.S. bases and allies in Asia.
9. Re:Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  Am I the only one who remembers Real Genius?
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2YMmYx2qj4
  He even looks like the character.
10. Re:Nukes by slashrio · 2017-03-19 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Only on sunny days...
  
  --
  "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
11. Re:Nukes by Darinbob · 2017-03-19 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  They haven't prevented a lot of acts of aggression, small wars, etc. The threat of nuclear war keeps other countries from interfering, such as sitting back and chewing on fingernails while Russia invades Georgia and Ukraine.
12. Re: Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Because nothing smells good like a battlefield after about three days, with the unburied, maimed corpses of young promising people strewn all about it.
  young promising people? hardly
  The people who matter have doctors to write deferments for a "foot problem".
13. Re: Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  Good, goood.
  Now witness the POWER of this fully armed and operational laser weapon system!
14. Re:Nukes by bhiestand · 2017-03-19 10:31 · Score: 2
  
  They haven't prevented a lot of acts of aggression, small wars, etc. The threat of nuclear war keeps other countries from interfering, such as sitting back and chewing on fingernails while Russia invades Georgia and Ukraine.
  That is largely regarded as the point. Intervention in those smaller conflicts by other major powers could lead to World War III, which would dwarf World War II even if nukes were not used.
  Conventional weapons have progressed rapidly, as has manufacturing. I'm afraid to know how a conventional modern World War would play out.
  
  --
  SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
15. Re: Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  Lol. The US is the largest empire in the world. It has achieved this through imperial conquest. You missed out on the last century bro.
16. Re: Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  Here's how it will look. Push everything on your desk onto the floor and stomp on it. Now do that to everything you see.
17. Re: Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  You need to look into history to really understand want an empire is. Not you 'idea' based on some feel good bullshit you discuss in your circle jerk.
18. Re:Nukes by arglebargle_xiv · 2017-03-19 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  I hope this world's largest laser the army is getting will involve a monster truck with a giant penis-shaped laser on top, driven by Beef Supreme. Then we can Monday Night rehabilitate Russia! Murica, Fuck Yeah!
19. Re:Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 13:54 · Score: 0
  
  At most it'll make missiles obsolete, you can always smuggle in a nuke and detonate it on land or use torpedos to hit coastal targets.
20. Re:Nukes by rtb61 · 2017-03-19 15:37 · Score: 0
  
  That is really awful. Georgia, the Russian were there as UN approved peace keepers when Georgia attacked under US provocation by US lobbyists with McCain as the key go between to use it in the US election at that time. The Crimea was a part of Russia and given to the Ukraine by the so called evil Soviet Union, if the Soviet Union did it by US definition it is evil, than that act was also evil, so the Crimeans choose to return. How many countries has the US actually invaded, pushed through coups, launched terrorist wars. According to you all the US nukes should have spontaneously self detonated due to the recorded and validated depth and breath of evil committed by the various US governments, serving the greed of various US corporations, chief of which is Goldman Sachs.
  High energy lasers are just plain stupid. Low energy radiation targeted at the transistors themselves to switch their states is more than sufficient, done well it can not only prevent activation but can trigger it, right in the silo. Similar targeted radiation can fry the brains of crew, either temporarily or permanently. You can even trigger effects at the target zone by resonant application of energy and coinciding waves, so it will pass through everything but generate the desired effect at the target location, from strokes to memory loss (use quite a bit of energy but still way less than dumb lasers).
  Keep playing stupid games and you will end up destroying yourselves and the US is well on the way there, cutting social services and infrastructure spending to pretend to fight wars using crap equipment with massive profit margins. Crap planes and broken ships, the US has to go to war with no one to start losing ships and planes to corporate greed, simply failing again and again till they have to be replaced and failing again and again until they have to be replaced ad nauseum.
  Still waffle shit, when the US is increasing defence spending by the equivalent of the total Russian defence budget, whilst Russia is cutting theirs by 30% to spend on infrastructure, honestly, who the fuck do you think will win in the end based on that. I hope Americans can learn to eat tanks, planes, and ships (I hope swimming lessons are compulsory in the US for coastal cities likely to be victims of rising sea levels, any place with major bridges and all those town downstream from damns). I know, blah, blah, blah, more guns more bullets, kill, kill, kill, the bible sez so (no it doesn't).
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
21. Re:Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 16:51 · Score: 0
  
  It will just up the hypervelocity arms race.
  
  “The US may not be planning to use hypersonics for nuclear delivery, but US statements allege that Russia and China do intend to do so, and the technical possibility is clear,” he says. “More importantly, even non-nuclear hypersonic weapons would be mainly intended to attack strategic targets including nuclear weapons and the infrastructure of nuclear war. The best way to prevent this needless uptick in the nuclear arms race would be to initiate a moratorium on hypersonic missile testing (both glide vehicles and cruise missiles) and challenge Russia and China to reciprocate and to negotiate a permanent ban.”
22. Re: Nukes by fubarrr · 2017-03-19 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  lololo man, it was Russia who sent saboteurs to attack Georgians in a false flag operation. Go suck putins dick
23. Re: Nukes by fubarrr · 2017-03-19 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  Nuclear war is fought like a duel in a Western movie - who takes out the gun first wins.
  Your luck was that both sides were led by pathologic cowards during the cold war.
24. Re: Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 19:53 · Score: 0
  
  That is the complete opposite of how it works. If a major Nuclear war happens it doesn't matter who strikes first. Possibly the side who strikes first will get a slightly larger percentage of it nukes on target but it's not an all or nothing thing like landing the first shot in a gun duel.
25. Re:Nukes by arglebargle_xiv · 2017-03-19 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  Here's what I was thinking of... the biggest, hugest correctional vehicle ever built in history... bigger than the Dildozer, bigger than the Ass Blaster... bigger than Donald Trump's hands... bigger and huger than everything ever before in history... it's the US Army's Laser Anal Intruder.
26. Re:Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-21 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  When do we test it? I think a nuke was exploited between yesterday and today, judging on the shared reactions of schizophrenics, but no way to tell where it happened. Not in NJ, that was another kind of explosion yesterday.
27. Re:Nukes by LienRag · 2017-03-23 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  And if someone invents field-generator shields we can even start having swordfights again!
Mirrors by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 02:44 · Score: 0

Mirrors
1. Re:Mirrors by fisted · 2017-03-19 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
2. Re:Mirrors by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. At least this was an argument put forth my opponents of SDI.
3. Re:Mirrors by fisted · 2017-03-19 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Ok.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
No mention of sharks? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 02:46 · Score: 4, Funny

"We have shown that a powerful directed energy laser is now sufficiently light-weight, low volume and reliable enough to be deployed on tactical vehicles for defensive applications on land, at sea and in the air..."

No mention of sharks.
1. Re:No mention of sharks? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  But, just wait the next Sharknado Movie will have flying sharks with lasers. Tim S.
  
  "We have shown that a powerful directed energy laser is now sufficiently light-weight, low volume and reliable enough to be deployed on tactical vehicles for defensive applications on land, at sea and in the air..."
  No mention of sharks.
2. Re:No mention of sharks? by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-03-19 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Uh...Army? If it was the Navy, that might make sense.
  I'd imagine the Army would mount it on a Horse or a Mule.
3. Re:No mention of sharks? by Bender0x7D1 · 2017-03-19 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Uh...Army? If it was the Navy, [sharks] might make sense.
  I'd imagine the Army would mount it on a Horse or a Mule.
  You either need a sarcasm tag, or you need to catch up on your 20-year old memes.
  
  --
  Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
4. Re:No mention of sharks? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Land Shark?
5. Re: No mention of sharks? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you. I read the comments specifically for this reference.
  Also, what kind of shark would they use? Standard great white?
6. Re:No mention of sharks? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-21 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe you need to realize that you're not the only one with jokes.
Chrome by ealbers · 2017-03-19 02:47 · Score: 0

Reflective coatings...what then?
1. Re:Chrome by mykepredko · 2017-03-19 02:55 · Score: 2
  
  Nothing is 100% reflective; some energy will be absorbed, the object and it's coating will heat, start to char and the reflective properties will be lost.
  The issue is holding the beam on the target long enough so that the absorbed energy will start to damage the coating and what's underneath. The time required drops as the energy level increases.
  
  --
  Mimetics Inc. Twitter
2. Re:Chrome by bill_mcgonigle · 2017-03-19 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing is 100% reflective
  Right - even if you start with a space-telescope mirror quality finish, by time a bunch of GI's handle it and you fly it through the atmosphere you won't, with current materials.
  And in the process of making the missile all shiny you've given up any effort at stealth.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
3. Re:Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  A reflective missile doesn't have to give up stealth. Just don't reflect back to the source of the emission. That's pretty easy to achieve with a facetted design. And while a reflective surface will not prevent destruction by a laser it will most likely delay it. If you spin the missile at a reasonable rate you can spread the laser energy over a larger surface further delaying destruction. When using a multiple missile salvo the laser system might not have enough time to destroy them all.
4. Re: Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  "The issue is holding the beam on the target long enough ..." Thus giving the target a slow spin is probably sufficient to defeat the weapon.
5. Re: Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You could get a cat and mouse game, buy it would not last long as it is much easier to get an order of magnitude more laser power than to get an order of magnitude reduction in absorbed energy in the real world. I've used expensive mirrors in the lab that would never be practice outside of a clean room, and they still get their reflective coating stripped off by an off the shelf laser from time to time if you go slightly too high in power density. When reflective surfaces fail, they become no reflective in a fraction of a second and very quickly absorb a a lot of energy. You would probably buy yourself more time with ablative armor assuming you have room for that.
6. Re:Chrome by Crispy+Critters · 2017-03-19 06:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Maybe a better way to put it is to think of three ranges: At low enough power, a coating isn't needed. At high enough power, any practical coating will be burned through. The in-between range where a reflective coating can make a difference is surprising narrow, not much more than a factor of 10 in power, because really good wide-spectrum reflectivities will be less than 99%.
  The best reflectivity is fragile. A 10 W laser can burn a crater in a beautiful lab-grade mirror. (Flaw in the coating? minuscule deterioration? speck of dust?)
  This can be translated into time instead. So if the laser damages the target in a microsecond, no coating will help. But if the beam has to be held on target for tens of seconds, some reflectivity will turn this into minutes and may make a difference.
7. Re:Chrome by Crispy+Critters · 2017-03-19 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  It is worth noting that the same issue applies to the output window of the laser truck, though to a lesser degree. Very high transmission substances are available for windows, and they are much more robust than reflective coatings. A scratch or coating of dust could probably still destroy the system.
8. Re:Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  A facetted object spinning at a high rate of speed with a stream of photons hitting it... sounds a lot like a flying disco ball.
9. Re:Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 16:26 · Score: 0
  
  Just have the missile rotating, so that no one point is constantly present for the laser.
  That will vastly increase the amount of time needed to burn thru the outer layer of the missile.
10. Re:Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Couple things:
  a) the beam at the power levels being discussed is more than a sand grain in size, so some energy will still be reflected until the deterioration of the coating covers the whole spot being illuminated
  b) They didn't specify the class of UAV used. Time to Kill will be very different from a Class 1 to a Class 4. Thermal mass of the object is probably important as is how exposed and what type the power system is. (exposed battery cells vs. integrated prop / turbine ICE for example).
  The Army will not admit faults as Army & Navy (solid State Laser Program) fighting for acquisition pride and money will keep either branch of the armed forces from admitting any risk without bending someone's arm (doubly since it's Army vs Navy--a rivalry as old as the country itself).
11. Re:Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  The beam diameter is very large at the source, but focuses down to a small spot at the target. This is what keeps the laser from frying its own optics.
  There is no real limit to how powerful a laser can be made; it just needs a larger source diameter and/or better cooling as the power level increases. However, this does mean that super-powerful offensive lasers may never fit on anything smaller than a heavy bomber.
12. Re:Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  From what I can gather about the laser it seems to be either a 1064nm IR diode-pumped Nd:YAG multi-fiber combined-beam laser, a frequency-doubled 532nm green Nd:YAG etc. laser, or can switch between the two frequencies. Those run about 10-30% efficient (that's the percent of pumping energy that's converted to coherent light). It also appears to be a continuous wave beam. That means it destroys targets by heating them. The two main limiting factors on laser weapons right now are power generation and heat dissipation. Both are affected by the efficiency of the pumping, so miniaturization is mostly a matter of making your beam more efficient as of now. Long story short, the beam has to operate with a very narrow set of frequencies to be as efficient as possible and can't change from those like a free-electron laser can. That raises the possibility of using diamagnetic mirror finish to protect against the specific frequencies the laser uses. Diamagnetic mirrors can have a reflectivity of over 99.998% in a specific frequency, meaning a continuous-wave laser could take hours to days to cause enough heating to damage the missile.
RetroReflectors! by ealbers · 2017-03-19 02:48 · Score: 0

Yay, right back at ya!
What is the energy efficiency? by mykepredko · 2017-03-19 02:49 · Score: 2

How much energy goes into the laser to get the 58kW out? 58kW is just over 78 horsepower, so it's not a huge amount of energy coming out and, at 100% efficiency, it could be driven by a fairly small power source.
Are we talking efficiency on the order of 10%, 1%, 0.1% less?
The question comes down to, can the beam be powered by a couple of car batteries or do we need a nuclear power plant?

--
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
1. Re:What is the energy efficiency? by ColdWetDog · 2017-03-19 03:01 · Score: 2
  
  Well, the obvious answer to this question is to ask how much horsepower a shark can develop.
  At least for one of these bad boys the answer is about 300, so there might some headroom for a laser or two.
  I can't wait.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:What is the energy efficiency? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Efficiency would be secondary, especially in a military setting.
  Primary, is energy density on target, for how long, over how much surface area.
3. Re: What is the energy efficiency? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Solid state lasers with some sort of flashlamp pumps tend to be 1 percent efficient. You can get that up to 10% efficient with smartly designed fiber lasers using led pumps, but it adds a zero or two to the price (in this case 600 kW of led pumps would be millions of dollars while 6MW of arclamps would be more like tens of thousands).
4. Re:What is the energy efficiency? by thinkwaitfast · 2017-03-19 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  It's 43% efficient. so 159kw (200hp) should be sufficient.
5. Re:What is the energy efficiency? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  By the time you allow for cooling, you can use a smaller capacitor bank and generator. So, something like 50hp would be plenty since it doesn't need to fire continuously. In fact, unlikely to be designed to do so.
6. Re: What is the energy efficiency? by Miamicanes · 2017-03-19 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  If the laser does its damage in a fraction of a second, 58kW is within the capability of about 30-50 car batteries. If it needs up to 5 seconds, about 100 (200, if you don't want to destroy the batteries after one or two uses. 10-20 seconds is within the capabilities of a small generator with lots of big supercapacitors in parallel (but you might need 30-90+ seconds between shots). Assuming 58kW is the INPUT power, and not the OUTPUT power.
  For comparison, a good car stereo draws 500-1000 watts (RMS), which is why good car stereo == the biggest mixed/deep-cycle battery you can physically fit + upgraded alternator.
7. Re:What is the energy efficiency? by MobyDisk · 2017-03-19 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Where did you get that number? I don't see it in the linked articles.
8. Re:What is the energy efficiency? by Khashishi · 2017-03-20 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds unbelievably high. Citation?
Real Genius by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 02:49 · Score: 1

But can it make popcorn?
1. Re:Real Genius by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently youthful 80's nerd idealism was no match for 80's corporate shit culture.
Once there was the Cold War... by pinzvidz · 2017-03-19 02:50 · Score: 2

...this upcoming war will be the Pew Pew War.
Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 02:50 · Score: 0

How is their cost (both initial and operational) justified? What are they good for?
1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  there was a recent news of shooting down a 200 USD drone with a 3.4 million USD rocket. That was a lol...
2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  That was simply to justify the larger budget Trump wants to give the military.
3. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  The ROI seems rather small...but to take a different view, the cost of shooting down the drone was north of $3 million. What would the cost have been if it wasn't shot down?
  If a $200 drone can lead to $4 million in damage (lives/equipment/etc) from intelligence gathered, that $3 million suddenly isn't so expensive.
4. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  While you have a point, consider what would happen if the bad guys send thousands of those drones. Now you have to shoot missiles worth billions to shoot down something that your enemy can buy for 300. Now your spending billions for shooting drones that could cost you millions if not shot.
5. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. But this is armchair bullshit. 200 drone can't carry much payload. And not very far. And to control them all. And for what? There are much better ways to do the deed. This is why it's a funny story. But then you idiots get involved with your half baked schemes. Not a single thing some douchebag ever wrote on slashdot ever helped. They hire experts for that.
6. Re: Why? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-03-19 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  200 drone can't carry much payload. And not very far.
  I'd be very wary about saying what can or cannot be done with $200 worth of equipment. After all, cheap IEDs kill people, too. And modern SBCs give you a lot of computation for just a few bucks for guidance and control.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
Just two (of many) problems ... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-19 02:51 · Score: 0

Laser weapons, which complement traditional kinetic weapons in the battlefield, will one day protect against threats such as "swarms of drones" or a flurry of rockets and mortars, Lockheed said.
1. Given the boondoggle that is te F35, why believe anything they say?
2. "Batteries not included."

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1. Re:Just two (of many) problems ... by gtall · 2017-03-19 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  The issues with the F-35 were caused by the Pentagon. They decided to cram it full of everything they could think of. The Marines just had to have a plane that went up and down instead of being satisfied with one that goes forward. And if they really need a ground attack plane, they should take control of the Air Force's A-10 and restart the production lines for it.
2. Re:Just two (of many) problems ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  In the history of military aircraft, anything that was successful was funded on the basis that "it was soon realized that there was an urgent need for an aircraft to [perform some specialized purpose] and so the [aircraft name] program was started".
  Long range bombing? B-52
  Long range warning? AWACS
  Anti-tank aircraft? A-10
  Rapid stealthy attack? Stealth fighter
  Long range reconaissance? Blackbird
  With aircraft like the Eurofighter and the F-35, everyone wanted the aircraft for different roles. In theory, they would save money by just having the one platform rather than 10+ different platforms, each with different flight control systems, components, engines, wheels, avionic sensors.
3. Re:Just two (of many) problems ... by LRAD · 2017-03-19 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  You think the A-10 is viable against modern handheld SAMS? They even have them in Syria.
4. Re:Just two (of many) problems ... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-19 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent points. We could also apply this to the space program. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo - designed to do something on a rush basis (less than a decade from scratch to the moon), and amazingly successful. The space shuttle? Immediately compromised by the need to do polar orbits for military spy missions.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
5. Re:Just two (of many) problems ... by jabuzz · 2017-03-19 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  The "problem" with the Eurofighter is that it was designed as an interceptor, and when it first came into service the argument was there was no need for an interceptor anymore because the cold war was over.
  Thing is that Eurofighters are now being scrambled on a regular basis (well I was more aware exactly how often till they moved them out of Leuchars because you bloody well know when they take off on scramble) to intercept Russian planes flying around the coast of the UK.
  So while it looked like an unneeded plane when it when into service, it is in fact required for exactly it's design purpose, at which it is pretty decent.
6. Re:Just two (of many) problems ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  You think the A-10 is viable against modern handheld SAMS? They even have them in Syria.
  Perhaps not, but an A-10 costs only about $19M, compared to up to $130M for an F-35. So I would think per single F-35, that six A-10's might be extremely viable against modern SAMs.
7. Re:Just two (of many) problems ... by angel'o'sphere · 2017-03-20 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Nevertheless the Eurofighter is the only plane on the planet that is in service, excels at multiple roles, and even can be fitted to fulfill more than one role in a single mission, aka an anti tank run with an air to air intercept on the way home. The only other planes that are close to its performance are the Saab fighters and the brand new Su-47 (not so brand new anymore ofc.)
  The Eurofighter does not VTOL, though.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Reflection by fyngyrz · 2017-03-19 02:54 · Score: 2

Reflective coatings...what then?
Reflective coatings tend to not be efficient enough; they ablate and/or lose reflectivity when heated, and then the laser is into the target's vitals. Also, thick armor is heavy; that makes it impractical for missiles. The corresponding truth is that missile skins are very thin.
Also, given a reflective "enough" coating, now the target is easily visible on the battlefield. That tends to work out poorly for the target.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Trucks With Laserbeams by dryriver · 2017-03-19 02:55 · Score: 0

This looks like a lot of highly trained sharks will have to go into retirement now. =)

--
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
1. Re:Trucks With Laserbeams by jfdavis668 · 2017-03-19 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, they can become dancers for Katy Perry.
2. Re:Trucks With Laserbeams by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Are you kidding? The military has already been outsourcing shark jobs to mutated sea-bass for years!
It's like a dream... by Steve1952 · 2017-03-19 02:57 · Score: 1

Chris Knight: Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in sort of sun-god robes on a pyramid with a thousand naked women screaming and throwing little pickles at you?
1. Re:It's like a dream... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Why is this news? I saw a documentary where some Pacific Tech Undergrads got 6 Megawatts back in the mid-80s.
2. Re:It's like a dream... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  [Citation Neede--- Oh. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
3. Re:It's like a dream... by oic0 · 2017-03-19 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Because old high power systems were chemical lasers that fired once. These new ones can go as long as you feed em power.
4. Re:It's like a dream... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  My mom has a device like that...
Mirror by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 02:58 · Score: 0

Just use a mirror.
They forgot to add this... by bogaboga · 2017-03-19 03:07 · Score: 1

Laser weapons, which complement traditional kinetic weapons in the battlefield, will one day protect against threats such as "swarms of drones" or a flurry of rockets and mortars...
That is if their path can be correctly predicted. Some of these missiles/projectiles, especially from Russia, have random flight paths & no one is immune to them I am afraid.
1. Re:They forgot to add this... by ckatko · 2017-03-19 03:29 · Score: 2
  
  Shut up, Russia. :P
  Anything with mass can't magically change direction at infinite acceleration. A laser moves at the speed of light (O RLY?), and likewise, so does vision, so the only thing that has to keep up with the gigantic, multi-thousand pound rocket trying to change direction rapidly is the processing stage. We've had cameras that can auto-follow a target for decades. What's the difference between that and firing a big-ass laser at the focus point?
2. Re:They forgot to add this... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  That is if their path can be correctly predicted. Some of these missiles/projectiles, especially from Russia, have random flight paths & no one is immune to them I am afraid.
  If Russia has missiles that can change their flight paths faster than the speed of light, then yes this laser might be a boondoggle.
3. Re:They forgot to add this... by aliquis · 2017-03-19 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  "The new Canon 9D continuous auto-focus, capable to track up to 40 moving targets traveling at a speed of mach 20" ;D
4. Re: They forgot to add this... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  Not faster than the speed of light. Just faster than the mirrors that focus the laser beam on the target. Still pretty fast though.
Going from Kilowatt to Killerwhat by jfdavis668 · 2017-03-19 03:12 · Score: 1

You name it, we'll kill it.
Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 03:15 · Score: 0

another thing for USA to use to opress the colored people of the world
1. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:17 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  We could already do that. We needed the increased wattage so we can oppress lighter-skinned people, too.
2. Re:Oh great by The+Grim+Reefer · 2017-03-19 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  We could already do that. We needed the increased wattage so we can oppress lighter-skinned people, too.
  So this laser thing is really about diversity. I guess that's simply a natural progression of repealing "Do ask, don't tell"
3. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  America's best wars are against white people. We really can't put our hearts into fighting brown people. Maybe that should tell you something.
Lockheed does a china.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 03:33 · Score: 0

.... and claims on something that was not in any way invented or improved by them. The HEL defense is longer available then this and this is also not the world largest, but we all know the US is going down to shit, so why not BS news on slashdot to Glorify the greater good of the US, feels like the new China to me!
Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 03:38 · Score: 0

Near AA without the need of AA gun parade exercises with Sergei AA guns, or equivalent ones from the US military. It will be heaven!
Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 03:56 · Score: 0

Oh, i've been waiting so long for this. Years and years, on pins and needles, since the military stole the patent from that sonabitch commie Gordon Gould and gave to that patriot Charles Townes. So much money and time have been wasted on children, elderly, and disabled people who contribute nothing to the Imperial Wars and leeches like the unemployable ones and illegal aliens. LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE AND EMPEROR PUTIN! FINALLY!
Mirrored exterior for missiles? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:24 · Score: 0

Couldn't you just add a reflective coating to your missiles (or whatever you want to protect) and completely circumvent the usefulness of this technology?
Just what the U.S. needs by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:28 · Score: 0

more weapons to kill people in countries they have no business in.
THE USA CAN DESTROY ANYTHING !!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:49 · Score: 0

Too bad they can't build anything.
Field testing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 05:02 · Score: 0

I think a good test of any practical weapons system is to give a 12-year-old a BB gun and tell him to try and break it using said gun.
If this thing self-destructs spectacularly when someone shoots a BB or paintball at the "Danger end", I will be highly disappointed.
The Schwartz is strong in this one by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 05:03 · Score: 0

I mean really, really strong.
satellites and testing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 05:26 · Score: 0

So what happens when they are testing and a satellite just happens to be in low earth orbit behind the target?
Will the fire control systems require a map of orbiting satellites to know what areas of the sky are off-limits? For shots near the horizon, this should not be a risk. I'm thinking shots greater than 45 degrees above the horizon.
How far our do you have to be for a shot to drop to a "safe" level (x watts/cm^2). This will vary with angle (straight up and the atmosphere thins out quickly), humidity, pollution, atmospheric pressure, temp...
Dream on. by jcr · 2017-03-19 05:29 · Score: 2

If we gain the ability to disable missiles carrying nuclear warheads, then nuclear warheads will just be delivered in shipping containers.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
1. Re:Dream on. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  Cruise missiles (80s tech) made it impossible to shoot down missiles. Why? A low flying object cannot be tracked/detected by radar, because of interference from the natural landscape. Therefore, missile defense can only be effective against third world countries with older ballistic missiles.
  Doesn't matter if you use a laser, machine gun or anti missile. The low flyers are unstoppable.
2. Re: Dream on. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  A fucking F-14 with a Phoenix AAM could shoot down a cruise missle, and there's nothing keeping us from applying 'look down shoot down' sensor technology to the radar blimps we have in southern Arizona.
3. Re:Dream on. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-21 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  This is an interesting thought. I fully believe that geiger counters are used in ports to detect such things. But if you compromised the port-of-origin scanning, you could get pretty close to the destination port before detonation, with perhaps 4 large warheads per container. It would be tougher in that the epicenter would be just offshore, but for certain cities a GTon yield might make it effective.
Wavelength by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 05:43 · Score: 0

Need to know the wavelength.
Mirror or a crystal by pigsycyberbully · 2017-03-19 06:08 · Score: 0

If you use a skin laser for removing scars or tattoos and point it at a piece of chrome the laser beam will bounce back at you.
With the Mirror, or a crystal you can reflect the laser.
i wonder if this is that difficult to do by cats-paw · 2017-03-19 06:19 · Score: 1

I'm wondering if this actually can be done with parts that are not particularly advanced technologically.
For example let's for the sake of argument assume that they are simply combining hundreds of semiconductor lasers.
I would think that somebody without the budget and resources of the US military could also do this.
Don't know, I'm just wondering exactly how high the barrier to entry is.

--
Absolute statements are never true
1. Re:i wonder if this is that difficult to do by Agent0013 · 2017-03-20 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think it is pretty difficult. Some of the previous laser projects talked about firing a laser to make a path for the high powered laser to travel through the air path in. Without preparing the path the laser gets absorbed too much. You also have to measure how the laser is going to bend through different air densities and stuff, so I think the pre-laser helps there also.
  
  --
  
  -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
I'll bet that you could pop a whole house full... by supremebob · 2017-03-19 06:41 · Score: 1

Of popcorn with that sucker.
Props if you know where that idea came from.
A sufficient number of refractory projectiles .. by retrosurf · 2017-03-19 06:48 · Score: 1

.. will overwhelm the power output of a single truck-mounted laser, even under ideal conditions.
For example, a 300 gram tungsten projectile will require a full second at 58 KW to be melted, assuming no reflection. An alumina projectile of 42 grams will require the same full second at that power.
Oh, so it talks, right? by TheRealMindChild · 2017-03-19 07:24 · Score: 1

Still no 5MW laser

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
1. Re: Oh, so it talks, right? by fubarrr · 2017-03-19 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  Commies had 3MW oxygen laser in sixties, 5MW in seventies (the one used in "shuttle zapping",) and 8 gas dynamic laser in eighties. By late eighties, they had 12MW+ gdl in plans
First target: by BlytheBowman · 2017-03-19 08:04 · Score: 1

How about firing this at the sleazeshitbags who cause people to be homeless, and those who harass and torment the homeless?
I know I know. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 10:29 · Score: 0

Trump did that in three months.
So are they mounted on Friggin Sharks ?? by big-giant-head · 2017-03-19 11:16 · Score: 1

Or Hungry Mutant Sea Bass, Hmm I guess that would have be the 'Navy' .... So Angry Mutant Moose would be what the Army would mount them on ..
BTW I want 1 Million Dollars ..................

--

So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
West Point Required Reading: by grcumb · 2017-03-19 14:49 · Score: 1

Mirrors
Ballistic Disco Balls — A Tactical Threat Model
Baker S and Modesta R; RAND Corporation

--
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
TETSUO!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 14:50 · Score: 0

SOL... we'll use SOL...
Raining molten metal by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 00:52 · Score: 0

"Do you want that egg hard boiled or soft boiled"
With kinetic energy it carries, a projectile is done with only when it is evaporated, not merely melted.
Real Genius by T.E.D. · 2017-03-20 01:31 · Score: 2

This gets us about 95% of the way through the plot of Real Genius. All that remains is for Val Kilmer to distract everyone by hitting on Melania while someone else hacks the laser to fill Trump Tower with popcorn.
You're kidding by AutodidactLabrat · 2017-03-20 05:50 · Score: 1

I've used bigger lasers than this for component welding of cases for RF subassy for satellites.
58KW?
Anything faster than sound will cool faster than this idiotic "weapon" will heat!!