Laser Cannons Coming to an F-16 Near You 757
dxprog writes "Reuters is reporting that the US Pentagon is designing a laser cannon that's small enough to fit onto a fighter jet yet powerful enough to knock out a missile. "The High Energy Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS), being designed by the Pentagon's central research and development agency, will weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures the size of a large fridge." Now all we need to do is make fighter jets space worthy for that true Star Wars feel."
HELLADS? (Score:3, Interesting)
So what's the other L for?
I swear, the military just loves acronyms, whether they make sense or not! And what's an area defense system?
also can be used *against* f16, or any other plane (Score:1, Interesting)
ouch (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm, I'm torn.
On one hand, IF it hits its intended target, that is one less "consumable" missile defense that has to be manufactured and paid for--> not a "one and done" defense.
On the other, it's one thing when stray bullets strafe a school like in New Jersey, but oh my, imagine the holes this could leave.
Anti-satellite? (Score:5, Interesting)
F-16 operating ceiling = 15.240 kilometers [danshistory.com]
Minimum LEO satellite altitude = about 150 kilometers [wikipedia.org]
I couldn't find any information about the range of the HELLADS system; that information is probably classified. However, TFA claims there will be a 150 kilowatt version of the laser by 2007. Any laser experts know if that power of laser can take out a target 135 kilometers away? Is the idea even feasible?
Re:Forbidden? (Score:5, Interesting)
"M16's are not designed to kill, they are designed to maim, because a wounder soldier is more of a liability to the enemy than a dead one."
But we still use M16s... odd... (well, WE use M2's or something like that)
Cool! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Forbidden? (Score:1, Interesting)
Thus, the use of low-energy lasers to blind someone is banned, as are bullets specially designed to injure but not kill. If it's intended for anti-missile work, that's clearly legal regardless of power level (blinding the sensors on a missile is just fine); and if it's powerful enough to slice a person in half, that's clearly legal as well.
Re:Power Source? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Forbidden? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can even combine defensive concepts. Missiles being relatively small, relatively mass produced items, processes that normally cost a lot can be proportionally cheap compared to the cost of the guidance systems, propulsion system, and handling costs. So, for a multipart defensive system:
* A "shiny" ablative system on the nosecap and leading edge fins - perhaps something as simple as silicon-impregnated cork mixed with aluminum, silver, or gold (better at IR) powder.
* The nosecap and leading-edge fins made of silvered (again, with a good visible/IR reflecting material) RCC (again, since they're small and the process to make them can be automated, the costs shouldn't unreasonable). RCC can take extreme temperatures without becoming ductile.
* Other parts of the body made out of unpainted, shiny aluminum or a silvered surface.
It's less extreme than other defensive mechanisms used for various kinds missiles - MIRVed warheads, anti-ship missiles that hug the water and then take a sharp climb and descent, etc. And it's certainly simpler than many of the counter-countermeasure methods used by modern missiles.
Re:Will they make noise in space? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Anti-satellite? (Score:2, Interesting)
Kinda funny actually, my manager and advisor have been gone all day since they're also working on HELLADS. Today was their big DARPA design review.
Re:Power Source? (Score:5, Interesting)
F-16 Aircraft use a powerplant ranging from 15,000 to 19,000 (28,000 to 32,000 with afterburner) pounds force of thrust.
To convert between thrust and horsepower, use this formula: [(Thrust in lbs x Speed in mph) / 550] x 1.47 = horsepower (formula link [americanjetcars.com])
So let's assume an airspeed of 400 miles per hour.
Without afterburners:
Low: ((15,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 16,036.3636
High: ((19,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 20,312.7273
And with afterburners:
Low: ((28,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 29,934.5455
High: ((32,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 34,210.9091
So let's say about 18,000 horsepower on average regularly and 32,000 horsepower on average with afterburners.
A 150 kilowatt laser requires 1.1% of the total engine power produced (on average) by an F-16 turbofan engine, and 0.6% of the engine's power with afterburners engaged.
In other words, I think they've got all the power they need.
So what happens if...? (Score:2, Interesting)
(Honest question, I don't know...)
Re:let's just get this out of the way: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:let's just get this out of the way: (Score:2, Interesting)
I say develop that system, put it under UN controll (or preferably under a UN2.0, without the current corruptive veto system) and sy 'fuck it, there will be NO ICBM launches by ANYONE on this earth [unless the trajectory indicates that the thing is just putting stuff into orbit or launching it into space]'.
Re:let's just get this out of the way: (Score:3, Interesting)
It apears that we can cause the propelent to expload before we actualy cause damage inside the shell of the aircraft. This was the basis of the ground based lasers and the ones mounted in the jumbo jets. I guess the trick would be doing this before the warhead is armed and mounting a laser capable of this task on a jet fighter might give the extra advantage.
At less then 1700lbs, this setup well within weapons payload of the new F22 or more notably the even newer FB22 bomber as well as the existing F15 and F18 if it can be mounted. This will give a greater change of intercepting missles in areas without human population or the ability to take them out before the warhead is armed. I'm guessing the range on a laser this powerfull might be close to line of sight wich might make interception even better. I think this is great news for all.
Re:HELLADS (Score:2, Interesting)
I suppose Adblock will get an update sometime soon...
Re:Forbidden? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I hope not. Here is why. (Score:4, Interesting)
"researchers have documented how soldiers will often go to great lengths to avoid firing directly at enemy soldiers, especially if they can seem them - and the distress they suffer when they do kill.
A famous example is the Battle of Gettysburg, where thousands of soldiers on both sides loaded their weapons over and over to avoid having to fire them. Similarly, during the second world war, S.L.A. Marshall, a US army historian, found that on average only 15 to 20 per cent of American infantry troops actually fired at the enemy when they had the oportunity to do so."
The article goes on to talk about how the US army managed to increase the firing rate in later wars by de-humanising the enemy and training soldiers to shoot on impulse.
The main articles are about the Post-Traumatic Stress suffered later by the soldiers as a result of this.
Reactive armour (Score:2, Interesting)
> through anything less than a polished mirror.
A fact which I would expect countermeasures to take into account, and perhaps even exploit.
Could the target be protected with a thin, easily-penetrated secondary hull and a layer of opaque-when-vapourized material in between? i.e., laser burns through the outer skin, hits the inner material, vapourizes it, and then wastes all its energy burning through the resulting rapidly-changing vapour/plasma cloud.
(Exactly the same idea as reactive armour, basically - defeat a specific munition by disrupting it with an in-armour triggered-active countermeasure.)