Israel Speeds Roll-Out of Laser Defense System (reuters.com) 86
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Israel is accelerating the roll-out of laser-based interceptors as part of a plan to surround itself with such technologies and reduce the high costs currently incurred when shooting down aerial threats, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said on Tuesday. Lifting the veil on prototype interceptors that would use lasers to super-heat incoming drones or the kinds of rockets favored by Iran-backed guerrillas, Israeli defense officials predicted last June such systems would be ready for action in 2025.
But Bennett announced a dramatically shortened timeline. "Within a year already the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) will bring into action a laser-based interception system, first experimentally, and later operationally, first in the south, then in other places," he said in a speech. "And this will enable us, as the years advance, to surround Israel with a wall of lasers which will protect us from missiles, rockets, UAVs and other threats," he told Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies. The laser system would be an addition to Israel's current air defenses based on Iron Dome, David's Sling and Arrow -- systems that launch interceptor missiles costing tens of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars each.
"The equation will be overturned -- they will invest much, and we little," Bennett said. "If we can intercept a missile or rocket with an electrical pulse that costs a few dollars, we will essentially neutralize the ring of fire that Iran has set up ... This new generation of air defense can also serve our friends in the region, who are also exposed to grave threats from Iran and its proxies.
But Bennett announced a dramatically shortened timeline. "Within a year already the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) will bring into action a laser-based interception system, first experimentally, and later operationally, first in the south, then in other places," he said in a speech. "And this will enable us, as the years advance, to surround Israel with a wall of lasers which will protect us from missiles, rockets, UAVs and other threats," he told Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies. The laser system would be an addition to Israel's current air defenses based on Iron Dome, David's Sling and Arrow -- systems that launch interceptor missiles costing tens of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars each.
"The equation will be overturned -- they will invest much, and we little," Bennett said. "If we can intercept a missile or rocket with an electrical pulse that costs a few dollars, we will essentially neutralize the ring of fire that Iran has set up ... This new generation of air defense can also serve our friends in the region, who are also exposed to grave threats from Iran and its proxies.
UAE (Score:1)
Planetary Defense (Score:3, Funny)
Installing some of the space lasers on the ground is a great move, it helps in case an invader using photon torpedoes to knock out our satellites before dropping out of hyperspace. They'll probably see the moon lasers and take those out, but they're less likely to notice surface-based defenses on an industrialized planet.
Re: (Score:3)
It didn't work too well for the Tollans.
https://www.gateworld.net/wiki... [gateworld.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully lasers use photons, rather than ions.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that the technology used to produce the destructive force matters too much as far as aliens targeting your defensive infrastructure goes. In the end, they are all planetary defense weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
It matters a lot, as the Tollans discovered. Ions have to be pushed really hard to reach the target. Photons have a fixed speed and don't need a push. Once released, they are guaranteed to hit what they are pointed at.
Ions can also be redirected, and are susceptible to magnetic force fields.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did not even know lasers that could burn through metals miles away even existed
US has tested them on satellites, and they've been deployed on a few destroyers for years.
The new generation of US destroyers will likely have them as a standard system.
But your idea of burning "through" metals is a little off. The idea is a very short pulse from a very high powered laser ablates the surface. Basically, the top layer of the metal explodes. If it was a big metal ball you might not even see that anything happened. For guided munitions this also destroys most sensors instantly. Rockets with si
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, by "on satellites" I meant, fired from Earth at satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
About a year ago, evidently, a laser was used to damage an unspecified target floating in the sea. A target with no defenses and not maneuvering. It was a small drone, but the PR claimed it was a full size
Re: (Score:2)
China and Russia have destroyed satellites, but satellites are honestly pretty flimsy.
Not having to deal with atmosphere is also hugely important, I'd imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating different technologies, and you apparently don't know about most of the current plans, because when you see headline talking about it you presume it is the drone defense lasers, which you already know about, so you don't read it.
This was common, I hear, to use the laser sights to blind soldiers across the Korean DMZ.
Oh, I see the problem, you're a credulous moron who hears shit and believes it.
Science fiction is fun, but in the real world leads to deaths.
This is an exceptionally clumsy attempt to be Knowy and Real , but yes, war leads to death. You better rush to tell somebody.
Re: How Easy! (Score:1)
Re: How Easy! (Score:4, Insightful)
They encourage their children to write hateful, racist messages on the missiles. I hope they can do something similar with lasers.
If my country was repeatedly attacked, I'd do the same thing. Don't like it, don't attack your neighbors.
But then, when your own people write hateful, racist messages on other people's property, or destroy [haaretz.com] other people's property [timesofisrael.com], it's always a good deflection to blame someone else.
Re:How Easy! (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you ignore stories about Israeli and Arab politics, Al Jazeera has some fantastic reporting on what's going on elsewhere in the world. As an American, I bypass CNN, Fox, NYT, MSNBC, etc. and read a combination of BBC and Al Jazeera. Between the two, I can usually get a pretty good idea of what's going on in the world. Add in local news for regions I'm particularly interested in (assuming they have an English-language news source online), and I feel reasonably well informed most of the time.
All the news outlets are slanted, but AJ and BBC seem to be the least click-baity and more intelligent of the English-language sources remaining. Most of the US "news" sources don't seem to even make a pretense of avoiding bias anymore.
Re:How Easy! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is more-or-less true of foreign news sources. They are biased, but their biases are not the same as American biases, so they are able to see things (in America) more clearly than American news sources.
Re: (Score:2)
This is more-or-less true of foreign news sources. They are biased, but their biases are not the same as American biases, so they are able to see things (in America) more clearly than American news sources.
Sorry but this is utterly incorrect.
Most non-US news sources do a better job of being unbiased than the most unbiased US news sources simply by reporting facts, rather than an editors interpretation (or fantasy). People who are used to the BS train that is Fox News or worse OANN, have difficulty recognising and accepting that news can be reported based on fact, rather than an agenda.
The BBC in particular has a style guide on what language should be used to convey the facts without colouring them with
Re: (Score:2)
BBC is heavily biased.
Re: (Score:3)
US news outlets have no guaranteed funding, so you either cater to a demographic, or cease to exist.
Re: (Score:1)
As opposed to catering to the government funding, a dictatorship, or both?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US news outlets have no guaranteed funding, so you either cater to a demographic, or cease to exist.
NPR is federally funded and yet is one of the most progressive "news" sources in the country.
I strongly disagree with the suggestion that viewers only want hyper-partisan news sources. The "squishy" middle of America is the largest political group.
Back when CNN used to have actual viewers, it was because they kept a veneer of impartiality. Fox was supposed to be right wing, MSNBC was supposed to left wing, CNN proposed to be "neutral". CNN jettisoned that mindset during the 2016 campaign and became just yet
Re: (Score:2)
I maintain that the niche of "old CNN" was split in half by FoxNews and MSNBC, sending CNN grasping. The squishy middle aren't the people who create demand for 24/7 "news," which by necessity of filling airtime is mostly commentary.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire conflict would have ended years ago were Iran not funding and arming the sort of scum who use children as human shields. Bu
Laser cannon, great in sci fi, not so much in the (Score:1)
The laser has to be powerful enough to punch a hole in a target moving at multimach speeds at a spot that will cause enough damage to disable or destroy it in the few seconds available. That's a big ask and even if it's possible it's easily mitigated by having missiles that swerve or roll or simply have a reflective coating. The american military worked in this for decades and got essentially nowhere. I suspect this is more PR than reality.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the volume of rockets. They currently [wikipedia.org] shoot them down with expensive interceptor missiles. Switching to lasers could save a lot of money.
Re: Laser cannon, great in sci fi, not so much in (Score:2)
The dumber the munition the harder it is to kill by putting holes in it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about that. A cat bit and punctured some of my Nerf darts, and now they don't shoot properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Soon the Israelis will launch hundreds of cats into the air to intercept rocket fire.
Not after a certain power level (Score:1)
The dumber the munition the harder it is to kill by putting holes in it.
At power levels we are approaching with lasers, you can easily cause either the fuel or the explosive to combust. It's not the hole so much as an explosive rocket inherently has plenty of stuff a massive burst of heat can mess with and ruin either the trajectory or explosive power.
Re:Laser cannon, great in sci fi, not so much in t (Score:4, Insightful)
What Thelasko said, but specifically the lasers are just a component in a much larger system and are specifically for very short range rockets/missiles. This is not the multi-mach stuff, this is taking the dumb rockets off the board in a saturation attack so the counter missiles can focus on the target the lasers aren't optimal for. It's about reducing overall costs to intercept.
Re:Laser cannon, great in sci fi, not so much in t (Score:5, Interesting)
The laser has to be powerful enough to punch a hole in a target moving at multimach speeds
Qassam rockets, which are frequently launched into Israel, are slow (less than the speed of sound). Their design goal is cheapness and ease of manufacture, but even a Tomahawk missile has a max speed of Mach 0.74.
Re: (Score:2)
A tomahawk missile is essentially a self guided jet plane. Its not your typical missile. FTR a lowly tank shell frequently tops 2000mph.
Re: (Score:2)
An air-to-air missile needs to be very fast. A surface-to-surface missile does not.
Re: (Score:2)
The designers of ICBMs might disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy this. Their speed is a byproduct of their trajectory, not an intentional design feature. Sure, all else being equal, speed is nice to have, but that isn't why they're fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Any just why do you think they were built instead of continuing to carry nukes on slow moving bombers? Take your time.
Re: (Score:2)
The laser has to be powerful enough to punch a hole in a target moving at multimach speeds
Qassam rockets, which are frequently launched into Israel, are slow (less than the speed of sound). Their design goal is cheapness and ease of manufacture, but even a Tomahawk missile has a max speed of Mach 0.74.
Whist "Qassam" is a catch all term for any kind of improvised rocket used by Palestine these days, these are typically very short range weapons as well as being quite slow. Typically having a range between 4 and 20 KM. So lasers are able to target them in the boost phase when they're going even slower.
Also the laser only really has to do enough damage to knock it off course, although destroying it in the air is preferable.
Re: (Score:2)
"There's no such thing as a perfect reflective coating and that means any imperfection immediately suffers the full brunt of the heat and becomes a major imperfection rendering the entire "mirror" defence utterly useless."
Yeah, right.
"Given a laser literally moves at the speed of light then it's going to have no problem tracking a moving target"
Yeah, right. The laser light itself follows the target, it doesn't need any sophsticated tracking system that has to be accurate down to a few cm at a distance of a
Re: (Score:3)
You are misinformed.
Such laser systems exist and are deployed since nearly 10 years.
Also you do not shoot with one laser, you shoot with half a dozen.
Fire rate is quite high too, and the radar systems track and prioritize dozens of incoming shells or missiles simultaneously.
E.g. https://rheinmetall.com/en/rhe... [rheinmetall.com]
I guess you can find their videos on youtube, pretty impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the link exactly describes lasers that take out mortar shells in flight.
As I said: google for the youtube videos by that company.
Re: (Score:2)
You should tell them, I'm sure they didn't think of reflective coatings.
Iran (Score:2)
Man, they really don't like Iran. So then why aren't they going the regime change route? Their current methods seem like the least effective war strategy. I feel that special forces, education, and media are the most stable way to fight a war. I like lasers too, but purely defensive posturing will only encourage military buildup on both sides and in the end it will harm civilians the most. I am not saying they shouldn't build this stuff, but it seems like it is the ONLY thing they are doing.
Re: (Score:1)
It might be the fact Iran keeps throwing explody toys over the fence at them (particularly via some of their sponsored rebel groups). Just a guess. Not saying Israel is completely innocent in all this, but even if Israel completely, totally, 100% turned off their war machine, Iran would keep throwing explody toys at them until there was no more Israel. So yeah, I'd be kind of grumpy if I had a neighborhood full of that kind of friend, too.
Re: Iran (Score:2)
But I was not talking about whether they are justified or not, I was referring to the overall non-holistic strategic route they are taking. Their defensive strategy and objectives do not seem to line up. I mean, I could be wrong maybe they are trying but failing.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, they definitely use their special forces / intelligence operations to make it more than a defensive situation. Mossad has been behind a lot of little bits and pieces of the Iranian nuclear program going wrong, for example, and some of its top scientists going dead. I suspect Israel doesn't start a full-scale attack (or even do things like send special forces after Iranian leadership) in part because a power vacuum could be even worse than the situation they have now, not to mention hugely unpopular
Re: (Score:2)
why aren't they going the regime change route?
Ignoring whether they have that capability, a regime change often ends up worse. There's no guarantee the new ruler will be better.
Exactly (Score:1)
Ignoring whether they have that capability, a regime change often ends up worse. There's no guarantee the new ruler will be better.
Case in point: The last regime change in Iran.
You have to let that stuff happen organically. The people are Iran are not any happier with its leaders than the people outside Iran. Eventually, something will probably change.
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point: The last regime change in Iran. You have to let that stuff happen organically.
Exactly.
The people are Iran are not any happier with its leaders than the people outside Iran.
It's a "relatively rich" vs "working class" demographic divide, where the people who are relatively rich are tweeting online, visiting other countries, and frustrated with the oppressiveness of their government; whereas the lower classes support the oppressiveness of the government (maybe because it is small compared to the economic oppression they feel).
Re: (Score:2)
Israel is committed to fight Iran to the very last US soldier and the very last US dollar. Remember Iran is less than 3 years from a nuclear weapon, and has been for 30 years...
Re: (Score:2)
Regime change is the poster child for unintended consequences.
This guy must be someones nephew (Score:2)
"If we can intercept a missile or rocket with an electrical pulse that costs a few dollars, "
He'll be in for surprise if the tests the US marine did are valid, it's more expensive than missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't cost them a penny.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd prefer he call you goys?
Re: "Reduce the costs of ethnic cleansing" - TIFI (Score:2)
It's only terrorism if you don't get your way.
Re: "Reduce the costs of ethnic cleansing" - TIFIF (Score:1)
Bring out (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The “wall of lasers”. (Pinky finger at edge of mouth).
Sharks can't live in the salt of the Dead Sea.
Mosquito laser fence (Score:2)
We already have a wall of lasers for killing airborne threats, it's friggin awesome, and it needs to be deployed more places. [fastcompany.com] There are also reports that the demo was a little bit faked. [nymag.com]
It won't make any difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody loves that bit in Aliens, where Newt is about to go hide down in the machinery again, and Sigourney Weaver assures her that she's safe now, these are Marines, and they have all kinds of guns, they can keep you safe. Newt: "It won't make any difference".
The thing about the "wars on terror" that got to me was how much BETTER America got at warfighting the whole time. Drones were just for surveillance at the start, but turned the whole game around to "defeating a network" by one-by-one pinpoint assassinations. Surveillance included every phone call on Earth, practically, with supercomputers turning sounds into words, searching for word patterns, automatically finding network connections. Stan McChrystal marveled at how many key people they'd killed, one network leader after another; the original Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was truly broken up and scattered.
It was awesome warfighting capability, barely imagined at the start of the war...and it didn't make any difference.
It all worked out as predicted by Gwynne Dyer in his "Afghanistan in Sixteen Characters" column in 2010: certain defeat for the people who were not fighting for their own home.
Israel hasn't been "defeated" in the sense of having to give up and go home like America has repeatedly, but only because they are ALSO at home. But there will never be victory.
it will make a difference in this case (Score:4, Interesting)
there will never be victory.
"There will never be victory" is quite a long way from "it will make no difference".
In fact we already know it will make a difference, because Iron Dome has made quite a bit of difference - Iron Dome is just very expensive to intercept, when it costs a lot of take down cheap rockets. But it does work pretty well in terms of stopping rockets.
When Israel can knock out a rocket for just a few dollars as they said, suddenly you don't care if you have a wall of cheap rockets coming at you constantly, because your defense is even cheaper...
So cheap in fact that it can also be used to stop things like the fire balloons that were being sent over from Palestine to just set random fires on people's houses in Israel. You could easily set up a few lasers to drop anything even small (like drone or fire balloon) that gets near the wall, and it's still even cheaper than drones they might send over.
So I think this system will fare pretty well, help save lives and property, and maybe help make peace cheaper than war for both sides.
Re: it will make a difference in this case (Score:2)
It will make the slow ethnic cleansing more peaceful sure, but there can be no peace until the ethnic cleansing is complete. Likely they will start inside their legal borders too if a big enough international upheaval gives them an excuse.
Anyone who thinks that Israel is now finally going to stop expanding settlements but this time really, is deluding themselves. Israel inherited the spirit of national socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a much easier way to save lives and make peace. Just stop occupying parts of Palestine.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair they tried that in Gaza and it didn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian" worked for the United States - the native are no longer a problem.
The "Residential Schools" worked for Canada, almost completely wiping out the culture.
The "Spanish Inquisition", and many Christian missionaries were quite successful.
Schools thing false (Score:1)
The "Residential Schools" worked for Canada, almost completely wiping out the culture.
As with most modern liberal freakouts, the residental schools thing from Canada turned out to be a blatant lie.
Turns out what they were scanning was tree roots - zero bodies found so far [dorchesterreview.ca].
But thanks for making horrific accusations without proof! We'll make a note of that for the validity of future complaints.
Are you also a Nazi who thinks Israel preventing hospitals and schools being hit by Palestinian missiles is somehow
Re: (Score:3)
I'm always amazed when I read people saying outrageous things like the war on terror has failed or was pointless.
Have you noticed that it's been over 20 years since the last major mass-casualty terrorist attack on US soil? Do you think that's just blind luck? It's because of the efforts of countless agencies working to understand and neutralize the very-real threats.
9/11 was a rallying call around the jihadist world. Al-Qaeda and ISIS would have liked nothing better than to duplicate it 1000 times over. The
Re: (Score:1)
The reason there have been no recent attacks on US soil is because the Taliban is still celebrating their victory over the US in Afghanistan.
The only thing the US has been effective in doing was using US servicemembers as bait in Afghanistan. This policy essentially exported terrorist attacks overseas, out of the public eye. But as the recent attacks in Iraq and Europe (last 5-10 years) have shown, the US is anything but effective at terrorist interdiction. They couldn't even win a war against disorga
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, or other terror-attack plans, I can't help you. Or the 9/11 was planned anywhere but an apartment in Bremen.
Sharks? (Score:2)
Where are they sourcing the sharks from? Are they wild caught or organically farmed?
Invest in cornercube manufacturers? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, invest in Jiffy Pop or similar product manufacturer. The Israelis plan on planting huge caches of popcorn in suspects' homes and whacking 'em with a laser when they're bored. "It's like lasing a stick of dynamite...", as the movie goes.