Slashdot Mirror
Lockheed Martin To Build High-Energy Airborne Laser For Fighter Planes (newatlas.com)
Slashdot reader Big Hairy Ian quotes New Atlas: In a move that could revolutionize aerial combat, the US Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) has awarded Lockheed Martin a US$26.3 million contract to design, develop, and produce a high-power laser weapon that the AFRL wants to install and test on a tactical fighter jet by 2021. The new test weapon is part of the AFRL Self-protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD) program tasked with developing airborne laser systems.
Airborne laser weapons are nothing new. Experimental lasers mounted on aircraft date back to the US Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, but producing a practical weapon system has proven difficult. Previous attempts have resulted in dodgy chemical laser weapons so bulky that they had to be mounted in a 747, but the development of solid state fiber optic lasers is starting to change the game. Earlier this year, Lockheed's ground-based ATHENA system shot down five 10.8-ft (3.3-m) wingspan Outlaw drones by focusing its 30-kW Accelerated Laser Demonstration Initiative (ALADIN) laser at their stern control surfaces until they burned off, sending them crashing into the desert floor.
Airborne laser weapons are nothing new. Experimental lasers mounted on aircraft date back to the US Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, but producing a practical weapon system has proven difficult. Previous attempts have resulted in dodgy chemical laser weapons so bulky that they had to be mounted in a 747, but the development of solid state fiber optic lasers is starting to change the game. Earlier this year, Lockheed's ground-based ATHENA system shot down five 10.8-ft (3.3-m) wingspan Outlaw drones by focusing its 30-kW Accelerated Laser Demonstration Initiative (ALADIN) laser at their stern control surfaces until they burned off, sending them crashing into the desert floor.
To last till 2021????
...will it include sharks?
You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have planes with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
For space battles, the laser weapon is a decent plot device. If you ignore the energy requirements and mass of equipment, the laser solves issues with mass for projectiles and momentum. But in real life we can't ignore energy requirements, the large mass of the unit, and the limited energy density delivered.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
All at a cost of...
One million dollars!
Real Genius
to pull this off.
I will leave this here, without further comment. https://youtu.be/DTx_qTwQqjU
So the same people who brought us the F-35, Trailer Queen of Battle, are now getting even more billions of taxpayer dollars to build a fighter-borne laser?
Unless it can shoot down the enemy from inside a repair facility, I don't see much hope for this project.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
So..... They couldn't build one that could shoot down an ICBM in its boost phase the size of a 747 but they think they can build ones 15 times smaller that can shoot much smaller targets? I realize that they probably intend much shorter engagement distances but I don't think anyone's demonstrated an effective ground based laser weapons system yet let alone an airborne one one. Most of the ones I've seen are only good at melting gas tanks on stationary/slow moving vehicles at about a mile. It might be good for a short range missile intercept system but I'm doubtful that we'll be seeing this thing melting vehicles/aircraft at missile engagement distances anytime soon.
Sort of by definition, correct? So this is a weapon that can only be employed after you survive the red team's BVR missiles.
Was thinking of some of the awesome possibilities for this:
There must be loads more.
Simple defence against lasers - mirrors.
Self-protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD)
Can we stop with the dumb-ass acronyms now. Its like the people coming up with these names have the mentality of a 6 year old, and the names are designed to sell to those with the thought process of a four year old.
I'm not sure what is more disappointing: The fact that there are people who are paid to try this kind of marketing, or the fact that it works.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Lockheed Martin is the company that is building the F35.
Lockheed made the SR-71, U-2, F-117, P-38, C-69 and C-130. All were innovative aircraft that were considered excellent at what they did. They also made the P-80, F-104, P-80, C-141 and C-5 and the L-1011 which were all around good aircraft. Lockheed knows how to make aircraft.
While Lockheed certainly shoulders blame for the turd that is the F-35, the biggest cause is the design by committee approach trying to service the needs of all the service branches (Air Force, Marines, Navy) as well as the international market. Kelly Johnson is surely spinning in his grave. Every time this has been tried in the past it was a complete disaster. The F-111 being the prime example... good plane but development was a complete boondoggle and it never lived up to initial requirements or expectations. The thought this time was that technology would allow them to overcome past problems (which was the same thought with the F-111) but if you put the aircraft the F-35 is meant to replace side by side you're going to see just how insane this is:
The biggest dichotomy is the Harrier vs the Strike Eagle. The AV-8B is small and lightweight to allow for VTOL, the F-15E is a bomb truck whose dry weight is more than the AV-8B's fully loaded rolling take off weight. You just can't have a VTOL aircraft that is stealthy and has a decent bomb load out. You either have a massive internal bomb bay, which pretty much rules out VTOL or you have external stores which rules out stealth. It was doomed before it ever started.
Dude your species is fucking stupid.
You yanks are fucked.
What is the outcome of that photonic energy if the beam misses? What are the technical issues/dangers of such a situation? Could a man out standing in his field suddenly be vivisected by an errant beam? What if the streams cross, dammit?!!
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
Planes don't have bows and sterns, they have noses and tails.
Given how much havoc they raise on pilots, why not just mount one on a swivel to shoot in the eyes of the enemy? Or just keep one in the cockpit for hand-held pointing. Way cheaper, too.
1) The target had to be stationary. The laser just couldn't dump enough energy into the target fast enough for a sub 1 second shot to disable the truck. IIRC, it took almost 5 seconds of continuous laser on a single point for it to work. (Note that this was burning through thin gauge mild steel and not fairly beefy aircraft control surfaces made of aerospace alloys. I think a puncture on an aileron would have minimal effect, you have to damage the linkages inside in order to disable the craft)
2) The demonstration had to be a low altitude strike, similar to what the A-10 Warthog already does so well. The reason being laser bloom. It is very very hard to maintain laser focus over long distances through atmosphere. I can only assume the airflows around target aircraft would be an extra tricky environment to maintain tight focus through. (especially if the attack is coming from behind and has to cope with engine exhaust or thrust induced turbulence.) Aircraft to aircraft combat distances are pretty big, it would be very challenging to maintain focus over distances exceeding 5K while maintaining enough power to do significant damage to control surfaces in less than a second.
Overall, I think a better use for compact lasers is killing sensors. You don't have to destroy a drone to destroy it's utility to the enemy, just burn out the optics. Combine that with conventional EW and the drone becomes an unguided missile. Another use would be on the ground. Vehicle mounted systems could be used to negate the increasing use of backpack portable drones by opposing forces.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
The Outlaw weights 120 pounds and has a maximum speed of 120 mph, a ceiling of 16,000 feet, and a 17HP two-cylinder two-stroke piston engine http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-170.html.
Lockheed, get back to me when your ground-based ATHENA system can shoot down a multi-Mach Soviet aircraft that can pull more than seven Gs.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Or will they just build it?
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Now I have to design my combat drones to survive loss of flight controls surfaces.
So I'll build them as flying wings with tails and tailplanes, and let the software figure out how to fly them without a tail when it's damaged/gone.
Same with either wing, or the nose cone. This is becoming a Black Knight fight. Such a nuisance. All this to get a few pounds of explosives on target. Arg!
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Yesss, auto-tracking airborne laser!
Ooh ooh... DEATH BLOSSOM MODE!!!