Laser Shoots Down Artillery Shell In Flight 795
An anonymous reader writes "The Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser is a joint project between the US Army and the Israeli Defense Ministry, with much of the work being done by TRW. Tuesday they had a spectacular success when they shot an artillery shell out of the air."
So what happens... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So what happens... QWZX (Score:2, Funny)
GREAT BALLS OF FIRE!
Re:So what happens... (Score:5, Funny)
melts down to nothing, anyone in the vicinity
would be made very, very unhappy.
Re:So what happens... (Score:5, Funny)
> melts down to nothing, anyone in the vicinity
> would be made very, very unhappy.
Aren't people in the vicinity of disco balls very unhappy all the time? That and people in the general vicinity of Abba tribute bands. They're unhappy, too.
Re:So what happens... (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought her victory representing her country was A Good Thing, purely because it pissed off the fundies!
The song was shit, of course, but then all Eurovision songs are.
Re:So what happens... (Score:3, Funny)
Disco Stu: 'Hey, Disco Stu doesn't advertise.'
Start Wars lives on... (Score:2, Funny)
If not, you'll have to use the (air)force, George...
More details please (Score:5, Interesting)
How much does one unit cost?
How long is the "reload"/"re-aiming" time?
Will it survive real heavy artillery battle?
Re:More details please (Score:5, Interesting)
The system uses chemical cartridges that last a few seconds each, and tests have shown it capable of engaging at least two targets during that time (I don't remember the exact time, but the video was relatively short). The re-aiming time is also quite low, less than a second.
Re:More details please (Score:2, Flamebait)
Seriously, I imagine the Israelis are looking at this for intercepting the occasional terrorist mortar or shell. If it was an actual war, Israel would nuke them first.
Re:More details please (Score:4, Insightful)
Israel... yes, they're probably expecting more Katyushas c/o Hezbollah, and all the mortars that the Palestinians technically agreed not to have, but do have anyway.
Re:More details please (Score:2)
Re:More details please (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:More details please (Score:5, Informative)
With UAVs, counter-battery radar and mobile systems like Paladin and MLRS, it's suicide for Opfor with Soviet doctrine and Soviet arty to fire on US/NATO/IDF positions.
If you are lucky Opfor with South African guns, you can stand off from normal 105/155 NATO guns, but you are still in MLRS range.
Re:More details please (Score:5, Interesting)
It won't happen anywhere in the world, unless you are talking about battlefield missiles and China pointing them at Taiwan, which I'm not.
No one outside of the Chinese are going to have 300 howitzers, but for shits and grins lets say they do.
Soviet Doctrine is to line them up wheel to wheel in a phase-line that's been surveyed and to toss round after round at the Yankee pigs while T-72s and T-80s roll across in an advancing line.
Sounds swell, but it won't work.
In the 1970s the US Army in Europe came up with Air-Land Battle which was designed to counter this plan.
You take some Apache and Kiowa Warriors (soon RAH-66s) and swoop in Hellfiring the crap out of the tanks, then you zap some of the supporting infantry and softer AAA and mobile SAMs with Hydra-70 rockets while the A-10s Maverick the advancing line and F-16s throw HARMs at the AAA and SAMs dumb enough to light up thier radars.
As soon as the D-30s open up, it's go time, the M-109s counter battery fire and scoot before the first rounds impact, then without a surveyed position form up and counter battery fire more while the MLRS's throw some bomblet love in the direction of the Red Arty.
In 10 minutes 70% of the static Soviet Doctrine guns are foil.
Most conventional USSR units were NOT nuclear armed, tactical nuclear weapons were closely controled by the Communist Party and the Red Army.
I'm not talking about blind-faith, Iraq was a very viable opponent on Jan 14 1991, but they made grave tactical mistakes, driven from the Soviet, Chinese and East German advisors and thier own experiance in dealing with American equipment in the Iran-Iraq War.
Air-Land battle, with combined arms operations and movement destroyed Soviet Doctrine formations, units and hardware.
Soviet Doctrine calls for close management from a higher headquarters, when that is cut off, the army withers and dies. Soviet Doctrine and equipment does not allow for mobile combat formations that can move quickly, the US/NATO doctrine does.
M-1A2, M-2, AH-64, H-56, A-10, F-16, M-109, MLRS, MAV, M-60A3, M-113A3, F-117 and F-15E are all desgined/upgraded to exploit faults in Soviet Doctrine as illustrated in Korea, the Golan, Sinai, Inter-Germany observations and Iraq.
The only nation-state that could give the US a run for the money is Communist China. Russia could at a nuclear level, but not a conventional level.
Israel would be a tougher nut to crack than the EU.
Re:More details please (Score:3, Informative)
Which wasn't a given considering the size and quality of the opposing forces. These air forces couldn't have been knocked out preemptively or *first* (current US doctrine seems to apply a domino strategy, first air defence, then infrastructure, then battlefield components - highly effective I have to say).
Without air superiority, the battlefield aircraft would have had a quite *difficult* time.
Further, until air superiority was gained, it would have been the German grunt (albeit in a Leopard or two) who would have been trying to stop the Red Army, he would have been vulnerable to artillery. And the Mi-24s. And the T-72s. And the Specnacz running around behind Nato lines.
As far as going to war with the EU, hmm, that's a lot of (nuclear armed) territory to conquer and occupy. Unlike Isreal which you can drive through and across in an afternoon.
Re:More details please (Score:3, Interesting)
All military commanders have nice thought out plans how they are going to wipe the enemy without a single loss to their troops, but when it comes down to reality, people start to realize that the enemy also has exactly these plans.
Such well thought out scenarios like you paint there only happen in war games when the OpFor is playing especially nice and lets the four star general win to not endanger their military career (unlike this [guardian.co.uk])
In actual combat, you can count on being taken by surprised by some enemy action and having to reform your plans on the go or lose.
Laser=coherent (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, this is a coherent beam of laser photons. Lasers lose little of their energy and gain only slightly in cross-sectional area with increasing distance. It is likely that any deployed system will have a range vastly greater than artillery. These things can be miles behind the front or even in the air. Plus, the accuracy is such that we will soon be able to vaporize selected individuals in a crowd.
Before long we will have the ability to render even sophisticated armies totally obsolete. I think this is a good thing. We'll turn opposing officers and armor into cinders in the first fifteen minutes of any engagement, sparing not only civilian bystanders but the great majority of the troops.
Thirty years from now, the greatest challenge to our armed forces will be how to deal with the POWs. No power on Earth will be able to oppose us when we decide to bend other nations to our will.
You may like this situation (I certainly do) or not, but be prepared to face the reality. Our obligation to the rest of the world, as American citizens, is to work to keep our Constitutional checks and balances in place so that our mighty power is used for worthy ends.
-ccm
Re:Laser=coherent (Score:4, Insightful)
I recognize Americas (as much as any nations) right to arm itself as well as it can. But I don't see overwhelming strength, used at will against other nations, as a long term path to world peace.
America, and Americans, have a responsibilty to the world. The world can use a cop. But we've all seen bad cops.
Re:Laser=coherent (Score:3, Insightful)
When the parent to this post says "Well, be carefull with your checks and balances" using an all too apt analogy using good/bad cops (all too apt seeing the corruption in business and politics around the world) he gets flamebait? Wow.
Re:Laser=coherent (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not going to pretend that the US is perfect, it's not, but no country is. =) The US's checks and balances system is working fine, don't let a single election sway your opinion of our political system.
Office of Homeland Security + USA-PATRIOT (Score:3, Insightful)
I *am* American, and I have serious doubts about America's system of checks and balances.
The really frusterating thing is that the executive branch (and specficially the President) has consistently taken power away from the legislative branch for two hundred years. The recent introduction of the massively powerful and almost unrestricted Office of Homeland Security and USA-PATRIOT is uncomfortably close to the point where it would be easy to pull a transition to a dictatorial-like government, a la the Nazis. The way the Nazis worked:
* Economy was slumping, people were worried and looking to anyone with a solution (not there yet...our "recession" is actually pretty minor).
* Physical intimidation of opposition politicians (again, not there yet).
* National security issues (the Reichstag Fire) that was "dealt with" (immediately taken advantage of) by suspending many civil rights and granting unprescedented power to the government. USA-PATRIOT isn't as strong as this -- it isn't full martial law -- but most people are willingly allowing the elimination of many once-strongly held civil rights to "stop terrorism". Search and seizure, free speech...
* The establishment of powerful organizations like the SA and the SS that operated with few restrictions. This is where the Office of Homeland Security comes in -- it has more funding than even the FBI. It has zero of the restrictions that were placed on the FBI (like inability to pull things overseas, spy on overseas nations, etc), none of the restrictions on the CIA (can't spy on domestic citizens), has many of the powers of the INS. It's quite similar in name to the KGB, and essentially forms a "domestic monitoring and early response" organization. The integrity of something like that is very fragile, and could be used to pull off too many unpleasant things. It is not subject to an amount of oversight anywhere near proportional to its powers. It is, in essence, a "secret police".
Other interesting bits was government-induced imperialism and expansion (not necessarily supported by everyone involved). As we wipe out Afghanistan's government and set up our own puppet government, and start actively threatening more governments than we had for a long, long time (Iraq. North Korea. Indonesia.), we're trying to exert a significantly increased control over other countries (though not occupy them).
Also, America would make an awful world cop. America does what's in her own interests, which is at least somewhat her responsibility to her people. However, America (unlike most other countries) has been *firmly* opposed to a world court or global police system, because it would be a challenge to her own power.
I don't see overwhelming strength, used at will against other nations, as a long term path to world peace
Yes, but conflict does work well for rallying and unifying your people behind you. Hitler knew it. 1984 knew about it. If Bush didn't know it before, he does now from his massive ratings spikes (from his earlier pathetic ones). Nationalism was at its strongest during the World Wars. Nothing like a good war to secure your position.
America has little interest in world peace. At the very least, maintaining a divided, weakened Arab region (at least until the oil is gone) is very much in her interests.
Re:Laser=coherent (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because the laser has essentially a limitless range doesn't mean the targeting systems do. Remember, the precision needed for hitting a specified target increases as the square of the distance between the laser and the target does. The curvature of the earth also presents difficulties when targets are at far distances. For every mile the target is away, the laser must be 25 feet higher in the air than the object targetted. This essentially precludes ground based long range attacks. The mounting of the laser on an aircraft presents even more difficulties in getting accuracy and precision out of the targeting system due to the movement of the aircraft.
Re:Laser=coherent (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmmmm, now this may be slightly off-topic but....
Here's what makes me doubt your comment. We are getting very close on some of this cool-high tech stuff. But there's one weapon system in particular that gives me pause. HERF. High-Energy Radio Frequency. The military refers to it as High Power Microwaves. Imagine a steerable localized EMP. This is what HPM is. Have some electronics that aren't protected by a Faraday Cage that depend on transistors or microprocessors and these weapons will fry the systems.
That's all nice and good, if it's the good guys that possess the technology, but what if the bad guys get ahold of it. The United States Military has become the HERF Gunner's dream target. Can you imagine a HERF weapon system combined with a phased array radar? Hell the systems could be one-in-the-same with enough design. Now Saddam's AAA just watches for Aircraft coming by and zaps their computers. An F-117 won't fly without it's computer. Even if the planes manage to get their JDAM's off before they turn in jumbo sized lawn darts you just zap the guidance package on the bomb and your $100k precision guided munition just became a dumb bomb again.
I mean really HERF/HPM is something to worry about. What's to stop AlQuida from aquireing the technology and camping out on the approach lanes to JFK or National? I mean if the Airlines complain about walk-mans and laptops interfering with aproach and landing signals how are they going to do when the bad guys start zapping airliners with directional EMP?
Re:Laser=coherent (Score:3, Funny)
Thirty years from now, the greatest challenge to our armed forces will be how to deal with the POWs. No power on Earth will be able to oppose us when we decide to bend other nations to our will.
Unless they have box-cutters.
Re:Laser=coherent (Score:3, Insightful)
Native Americans.
Sure, we're apologetic now, but the damage's done. Similarly slavery--although we fought a rather large internecine war partly over the issue.
Real Genius.. (Score:5, Funny)
How in the world... (Score:4, Funny)
Where does the momentum go? (Score:3, Interesting)
Thus, if you want to protect the target, you either have to vaporise the entire projectile so the momentum is dispelled by the air, or maybe it's an explosive shell and the laser persuaded it to explode (which is another way of vaporising it, I suppose).
Breaking it in two or poking a hole in it wouldn't be sufficient.
Does anyone know exactly what they meant by the laser "destroying" the projectile?
Re:Where does the momentum go? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where does the momentum go? (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, raining shrapnel from the sky could still be dangerous, but it would land short of the original target. So just overshoot?
Re:Where does the momentum go? (Score:4, Informative)
If the shell detonates below this height, the resultant spread of the fragments will be limited. If it detonates above this height, then the fragments will both be spread over a wider area and lose more energy to air resistance.
In either case, you're better off than if the shell detonates at the proper altitude.
Re:Where does the momentum go? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not nuclear (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where does the momentum go? (Score:3, Insightful)
History clearly demonstrates that all surface-to-air weapons systems demo slightly better when you pack the target to the gills with high explosives.
But yeah, the original momentum isn't getting "blown up", so if the thing that's shooting at you is a battleship lobbing volkswagon-sized projectiles, the fact that you warmed it up a little bit before it hit you isn't going to make much difference.
But if the enemy is going to helpfully pack all his warheads with heat sensitive HE, then this should work great!
G.
Re:Where does the momentum go? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where does the momentum go? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where does the momentum go? (Score:2)
Re:Where does the momentum go? (Score:2)
Re:Where does the momentum go? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wonder if this was a gimmee (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the test plan... (Score:5, Informative)
The purpose of the test was not in acquisition and tracking, but in the kill vehicle technology (plot a path to a moving point, get within infrared range, correct course, and detonate). Sounds simple, but it gets a bit trickey a closing speeds of ~10km/s.
The x-band satellites just weren't operational over the pacific when these tests were being done. So, when Colo springs control asked Hawaii where the missle was, it responded with information from the GPS receiver but provided artifically 'degraded' data stream. This was underlined and not hidden in the test plan (released before the test). It was done as a 'simulation' of x-band (national missle defense system) data.
Honestly, peoples hostility to this program in current time has me baffled.
The reson pundits of ABM tech would underscore every little failure, or break out conspiracies and wave around "rigged" results, was that we should not be researching ABM technology. Russia's on board now, you can stop pissing your pants worrying were going to invoke a nuclear war by having this technology.
If you hate being lied to, you should take the time to better research what people (including myself) and news sources in general tell you.
-malakai
Re:Read the test plan... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the unfairness was pre-published doesn't mean the test had scientific validity.
The purpose of the test was not in acquisition and tracking, but in the kill vehicle technology
That's plenty difficult, but easy compared to the target identification problem. A chain is as strong as its weakest link. There's still no plan for how the acquistion can work and not be defeated by simplistic countermeasures. Without that, the high speed missile impacts are worthless.
(Ok, not quite worthless- there is one EASY way to solve the detection problem: give up on kinetic kill, and just load the anti-missile missile with an atomic warhead. You don't need to worry about which fragment contains the enemy bomb if you can just liquify everything in a 10km radius. For some reason, the Pentagon hasn't wanted to take this plan to the American public...)
Honestly, peoples hostility to this program in current time has me baffled.
What's so odd about an fighting an expensive program that'll never work?
Regardless of if the TBM can work mechanically (kinetic kill) and tactically (satellite detection of launch), there's no way it will work strategically.
Scenario 0: Terrorists. A small, well funded group acquires an atomic warhead. Either they're supplied by an "axis of evil" state, or they loot one from a under-defended Russian bunker. Now they've got 600 lbs of pure destructive power- why bother attaching it to a missile, which is expensive, risky, error-prone, and open to detection- when they can simply carry it into their target city with an SUV / powerboat / Cessna? If they did launch a nuclear ICBM, a pair of Tridents would glaze the entire originating nation before the first mushroom cloud has faded.
Scenario 1: Nation. A large country developes nukes and strikes the US. For each warhead, they fly out 3 dummy missles and maybe mix in some MIRV technology as well. The dummies can be cheap, they don't even need real guidance. Remember, atomic weapons are NOT kinetic-kill. You can (conventionally) explode the rocket in midflight, or otherwise jink and be evasive, without reducing your destructive power. (Accuracy doesn't matter with a 50 megaton bomb). As long as the first bomb is detonated anywhere with line-of-sight to US defensive sensors/satellites, it will disrupt enough radar to make cover for the rest.
Any nation big enough to build & fire a few ICBMs is also big enough to make enough dummies to swamp any TBM defense system. (Our existing atomic warheads provide a strong deterrent protection, of course)
Scenario 2: A lone madman. Some lunatic gets hold of a Russian missile silo, and on the spur of the moment fires a warhead at NYC.
This is the only place where the TBM plan could concievably help, and its so unlikely compared to the other scenarios that its hard to argue that TBM is cost effective. (Unless you think the expenditure would help the economy, which is actually likely). But much better would be to solve scenario 0 & 2 at the same time, by reducing nuclear proliferation worldwide. I won't get into the steps to do that- there's two well-documented approaches, neither one attractive to the American mood.
Re:Read the test plan... (Score:5, Insightful)
Get real. You develop a complicated system a piece at a time and you test the pieces as you develop them. You bring several pieces together in a "technology demonstrator" and then, maybe, just maybe, you move on to a prototype and only if that works do you develop a fieldable system. You are using the criteria for a multiple fieldable systems to criticize the demonstration of a component and, on top of that, you are criticizing said system because it may not be able to do something its not intended to do. Shheeeessh. I suppose you also don't like seatbelts in your car because they won't save your sorry behind if someone fires an anti-tank missle at you.
I haven't heard a single missle defense person claim we're safe now. We're just a little further down the road to maybe developing a system that might be able to keep us safe from a specific threat.
Re:Read the test plan... (Score:3, Interesting)
Each defensive rocket will have at best Probabilty-Kill 90%, so you'll want to use more than one per incoming agressor. If the attacker is a manuverable cruise missle and not just ballistic, you'll want more. (Submarine-launched cruise missles are really a whole different problem than ICBM interception. And a harder one). Or if there's a MIRV, then that's another multiplier on the target count.
The cost advantage of the defense missiles is that they have less distance to travel, and need less metal and fuel. I can't say for sure how much that'll reduce the overall cost, though. And you'll want protectors to engage at the longest range you can (so that if one fails, you have time to fire more). The price war is no slam dunk.
Remember the Missile Commmand game? It wasn't much fun, you could never win...
More likely than wanting to really be able to neutralize an aresnal the size of Russia's, we'd just want 50 missiles on each coast that could go forth in groups of 5 against "rogue madman" warheads.
Shells easier to hit than rockets (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shells easier to hit than rockets (Score:2)
Re:Shells easier to hit than rockets (Score:3, Interesting)
I would think that a shell starts with an initial velocity, and slows down due to air resistance and gravity as it arcs upwards.
As it begins it's decent, itmay speed up with gravity, or slow down even more, depending on the air-resistence. If it slows down, it will slow down slower (if that makes sense).
Second, a shell goes much faster than a rocket. If the aim is off by just a little, a rocket might not have moved that much. A shell would probably be long gone.
Third, I believe shells are smaller than rockets. Smaller target requires more accuracy.
Ergo, a shell *IS* harder to hit than a rocket.
Re:Shells easier to hit than rockets (Score:5, Informative)
It's still going to closely approximate an ideal paraboloid, except at the terminal stage of flight where it's going to travel more vertically than ideal equations predict. In addition, the shell travels way up high, easily visible to radar, where most missiles people on the surface worry about tend to lose themselves in ground clutter, SR/IR/ICBMs aside.
Second, a shell goes much faster than a rocket.
No, not really, especially during the terminal stage when the shell's maximum speed is limited by terminal velocity; a shell gets one big push at the start of its flight, and is purely passive afterwards (well, excepting rocket-assist and basebleed, but still). A rocket continues to accelerate as long as the motor burns, and can reach speeds far in excess of artillery shells, which can routinely be seen with the naked eye as they hurtle downrange. The trouble here is that "rocket" spans such a wide range; a rocket can be a nice slow fat subsonic target like a Silkworm, or a Mach 2.5+ evasive-action-capable SS-N-22. HARM missiles have a top speed of 2300kph, ferinstance, a good bit faster than terminal velocity of most things that only travel ballistically.
But in either case, shooting down a shell in flight is really nothing new. The Brits had Sea Dart back in the Falklands, and that was capable of shooting down 4.7" artillery shells. Shooting down the shell is *not* new, or exciting or innovative. Doing it with a laser is.
Re:Shells easier to hit than rockets (Score:2, Informative)
The BBC has more [bbc.co.uk].
Phil, just me
Re:Shells easier to hit than rockets (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that depends on how you look at it. A rocket, while certainly being much harder to target and track with the laser, is still holding volatile propellent, which the artillery shell would lack. The artillery shell would also have a thicker casing then a missile. This makes me wonder the same thing as another poster, what they mean when they say the shell was "Destroyed". Still, it is interesting to see lasers coming into use in the military, for purposes other than just targeting things.
Re:Shells easier to hit than rockets (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a simple formula for calculating how far you will miss by if the laser is misaligned: e = d tan t where t is the angle of misalignment and d is the distance from the laser to the target. Disclaimer: this formula is only accurate for extremely small angles, but those are the kind we're dealing with here.
Say, for example, you're shooting at a missile that's 1500 meters away, and you are misaligned by 15 arc minutes (0.25 degrees). The laser will miss the rocket by 6.5 meters, according to the formula. That's a significant error.
Not only do you have the difficulty of tracking the rocket to within sub-meter accuracy, you also have the problem of keeping the laser in constant alignment to extremely low tolerances, for a long enough period of time to actually destroy the target.
This accomplishment is no laughing matter!
Re:Shells easier to hit than rockets (Score:2)
I saw a thing on the Discovery Channel once where they had a video camera that could watch for bullets. They had a computer hooked up to it that could detect the bullets, watch their movement, and show where it originated. It was even capable of predicting where the bullet'd end up before impact.
Damn cool demo, but I cannot recall what the context of it was or what show it was. They wanted to use it to locate snipers.
Re:Shells easier to hit than rockets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shells easier to hit than rockets (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right that it is easy to compute the trajectory of an artillery shell if you know the speed (and this you can measure by radar). You just solve the same equations that the artillery battery did before firing. These computations are very well understood. That being said, I disagree with the statement that (cruise) missiles are easier.
First of all, rockets don't really "accelerate, tumble, and move erratically" that much. They can be mostly considered like an artillery shell with a constant forward force. A cruise missle may make one or two smooth turns during its flight, rocket artillery not a single one. If you are firing a laser it is a safe bet that the missile will keep on the same path for a couple of more seconds - and remeber, the laser reaches its target instantaniously so it is easy to cancel or readjust your beam.
Now a couple of factors that makes it harder to kill the artillery shell
-It is much faster than a (cruise) missile -It is smaller, about one third of the size -It is not particullary sensitive. The shell is basically a piece of metal shaped like a cone travelling only by momentum; the cruise missile has little wings, complex control systems and yes, it burns rocket fuel.
I think this is quite revolutionary. I venture guess they will put these bastards on Aircraft carriers. Not a hostile shell, missile, airplane or UAV will come within miles. And there are nuclear power plants to drive them.
Tor (served in the Swedish artillery)
Awesome, (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if they can make it look like an animated running man? Those are the best!
Visit Richard Gere's Ass Zoo [lostbrain.com]
tcd004
Good, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Guys, really, once they demonstrated shooting down Katyusha's, the artillery shells were pretty certain to be a succesful shootdown. I am glad to see that they are not just sitting on their laurels tho.
Look here [prnewswire.com] for TRW's story and here [trw.com] for press info on the MTHEL.
It does look like they just used the THEL tho for the test. I am more than willing to be wrong though.
Well now, Black Bart... (Score:2, Funny)
If I can shoot yer
pilgrim.
Yay! (Score:4, Funny)
So, lets review. 'Predator' unmanned aircraft armed with Hellfire missles for patrol and attacks, lasers to shoot down artillery (and you know bullets are coming soon), Star Wars V2 to protect us from missiles, and any country that tries to develop anything we don't like gets a "regime change".
Yeah, I can't see why the rest of the world hates the west, can you? We turn war into a fuckin' video game, and relegate them to attacking us with swords while riding their camels.
I know it's the natural evolution of war, but it also seems like the natural evolution of capitalism applied to the battlefield. He with the most money to make the best toys wins, and he who doesn't hopes for an aid package to be sent to his widow.
Of course, we might get charitable in a few years and let them have some low powered lasers, but only if they attach them to the sharks... I mean, come on, is it too much to ask for some sharks with frickin lasers on their heads?
I think it's time for some sugar... rants like this could be dangerous... nice Echelon, niiiice Echelon.
Hm, maybe I should get a book on lasers from the librar
NO CARRIER
Re:Yay! (Score:3, Interesting)
Hrm.. well we [Americans] have to get something out of our tax dollars. It sure made my day when CNN reported they were able to identify the target of the hellfire by the leg fragment they found by the blast site.
One meeeelion dollars! (Score:4, Funny)
Who? Who is predictable?
Laser weapons (Score:3)
The future is coming (Score:3, Interesting)
Now if this prediction made in the 1969 edition of Popular Mechanics would just come true:
"Future watches won't just be for keeping time either. Wlatham engineers forsee this exciting possibility: Wristwatches in the year 2000 will be used for more than time measurement. They will be total communication centers, containing devices not only for accurate timing but also for voice and vision communication; and simple recording -- they'll even contain simple miniaturized computers"
Wow -- imagine that, a miniaturized computer in your wristwatch -- nah, it could never happen!
But a Dick-Tracy wristwatch communicator, yeah, that'll work
Mirror coating? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mirror coating? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mirror coating? (Score:5, Informative)
The answer I've seen most often is that even the best mirrors don't reflect 100% light, and any laser light that gets "through" will quickly degrade the mirror from the inside out, allowing even more light through.
But for even more info... try a slashdot search for laser stories, and then search the comments for the word "mirror."
Throw me a frickin' bone, people (Score:5, Funny)
Targeting is the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how the laser could do this. This is indeed the most technicaly challenging part of the task. I visit military exhibitions regularly but I never heard of a system that could work against targets of that size (projectile). Even tracking rockets is very difficult and they're way bigger and emit a lot of detectable heat.
My guess is that in their setup the targeting system knew from where exactly the gun fired. In a real-life war this is usually not the case. So until the tracking is reliable (and not easily fooled), this sounds entirely vaporware.
Re:Targeting is the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Tracking a shell can be very easy, depending on the circumstances. They are made out of conductive metal, so a radar can certainly track them.
You detect the firing with a rapid scan radar, then lock onto it with a finer resolution radar. Then you use lidar (Laser radar) for final tracking and range finding.
This really is not much of a trick.
What is impressive is integrating all of that technology with a laser that is powerful enough to damage the projectile while at the same time being able to track it.
Vaporware. Hardly - this system is already being used in Israel and to shoot down Katyusha rockets. In this sort of issue, the main difference between an artiller shell and a rocket is that the rocket is likely to be longer. But an artillery rocket doesn't burn for long, and then it is just another ballistic projectile.
Nasty chemicals (Score:4, Informative)
It took a little poking around, but I found an explanation [peacevision.org.uk] of how this thing works... looks like deuterium gets them a longer wavelength that travels through the atmosphere better.
Whatever the reasons are, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that thing while it's fueled. Raw flourine is incredibly nasty stuff, and the hydrogen flouride exhaust is really awful [ilo.org], too... it dissolves in water to form hydrofluoric acid, which is reactive enough to eat glass (you have to keep it in teflon bottles). I hope they're not discharging it into the atmosphere!
Don't Forget ... (Score:3)
IIRC, one of the goals for the first computers was to calculate the trajectory of the anti-aircraft (read: anti-bomber) fire.
Scroll 60 years ahead, and we have even more precise shooting at the air-based attack weapons.
artillery expert (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what I can tell you
I worked on the m198 Howitzer, which can fire a 100 pound 155mm HE (high explosive) shell at a muzzle velocity of around 750m/s. With other combinations of propellants and rounds, the velocity could easily reach 1 kilometer per second or greater. Not too shabby for a 100+ pound piece of steel going down range into a target the size of a 5 gallon bucket.
The inherent problem with an artillery shell is that its trajectory is highly predictable... its all about math. So, for the purposes of a high powered laser, as long as it can perform some really nifty calculations in a split second, and point itself right into the path of a traveling artillery shell, then the shell will actually fly into the laser if everything goes according to plan.
Artillery shells can also be detected with radar
So, whats next... assuming that the laser works by calculating the trajectory of the shell, and positions itself ahead of the shell, would the next advancement in artillery be shells that wobble to avoid running into a high powered laser?
Besides these basic artillery shells, there are also laser guided and rocket assisted shells, whos trajectories may be a bit harder to calculate.
Here are just some of the factors that go into calculating the trajectory of an artillery shell...
1. The exact weight of the shell.
2. The type, amount, and temperature of the propellent.
3. Resistence of travel (air friction) based on weather conditions and altitude.
4. Curvature of the earth and gravity.
So there you have it folks... this laser is an amazing piece of technology.
Great! (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, all we need to do is to find an enemy to use it against.
If we don't know where the shells are coming from, what's the chances that this system will be able to realistically identify a genuine incoming round, activate (from idle) and reliably shoot it down in time? We're not getting the first couple of rounds, and after that, our existing counterbattery systems will be silencing the enemy artillery.
If we do know where they're coming from (and we damn well should, given what we spend on reccetech), then why aren't we pasting them with our existing overwhelming air superiority and artillery?
So what's the theatre? Where are these systems going to be deployed?
One in the White House, one in the Pentagon... where else? Whatever we build on the WTC site? But do we reckon that any grunts are going to get the benefit of it? Hmmm.
It's neato technology, but it seems like a solution to a problem that the US has spent trillions to ensure that it doesn't have any more.
Re:Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
a real world application? (Score:3, Informative)
They probably shot some shells before and got the flightpath recorded into a computer. Then they shot the "test" shell during compareable weatherconditions and perhaps they even did some minor adjustments, it doesn't really matter, they knew the trajectory beforehand, so when they shot the "test" shell the laser knew exactly at which point to fire at which coordinates.
This isn't how things go in the real world, so I wonder how much of an defense contractor technology bragging hype this is and whose interests are behind this (it's not difficult to make a guess here).
A little bit too much artist license (Score:4, Funny)
"the laser tracked, locked onto and fired a burst of concentrated light energy photons at the speeding shell... Seconds later, at a point well short of its intended destination, the projectile was destroyed"
I dunno what kind of crazy trajectory that laser had, but at 300km a second, this thing must have been pretty darn far away...
One would think that "instantly, the projectile was destroyed" would sound even better--and more importantly, have been accurate.
Re:You are so wwrong!@F (Score:3, Funny)
<SARCASM>
Yeah, that's why pilots of supersonic jets don't bother with radio, because they fly faster than the radio signals.
</SARCASM>
Begging to violate the Geneva Convention (Score:4, Interesting)
(A gentleman's agreement between the respective military-industrial-complexes, really. Dead soldier -> proud military funeral -> enhanced militarism and anticipation of future retaliation. Wounded soldier -> disabled veteran begging on sidewalk -> budget pressure for providing care, and public squeamishness about enrolling in future conflicts. Too much peace hurts our economic growth!)
This means no chemical weapons (tell that to Russia!), no hollowpoint or fragmentary bullets, few shotguns, and no lasers aimed at people. Because the easiest ways to hurt someone with a laser is to burn his eyes out, this is consistent with Geneva.
But, today's new, powerful anti-munition lasers will be an attractive option in the anti-aircraft role as well. Military planners must be thinking of this, but they don't want to talk about it for fear of striking taboo/war-crimes territory.
But I wonder what'll happen if a laser-defense battery suddenly finds themselves face to face with an enemy Hind who snuck up terrain-masked. Will they run for it and hope he's a slow shot, or light it up and watch the fireworks?
And, if the the ABL gets built and we get another hijacker repurposing an airliner into a weapon, the president will be hard pressed not to order him zapped, too.
(Of course, another reason planners might not talk much about targeting aircraft with lasers is that the US and Israel have no potential opponents whose aircraft can't be simply destroyed with Beyond-Visual-Range missiles. Won't stop me from speculating.)
You'll be blinded for a millisecond... (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that a laser that can pump enough energy into a rocket or a shell to destroy it is going to pump enough energy into your face to melt it off. I really don't think being blinded is much of a concern. That's like saying, "watch where you point that shotgun! You could put someone's eye out!" Sure, their eyes come out the back of their head. They ain't blind... they dead.
Define "aimed" (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that this system will be used principly for shooting down shells, not people. It'll most likely be aimed up, 24/7 to do it's job. If a Hind should wander into it's attack radius, maybe it'll lock on, maybe it won't, but I serverly doubt it will specifically target the people inside, just the big radar blob that represents the helo. Tough shit for them. If you could ban it on that point, well hell, lets ban all surface to air weapondry while we're at it.
As far as the ABL against terrorsists, sure, why not. That's why the white house has SAM sites and marines equipped with Stingers. Again, the effect is the same.
what it means to destroy an incoming projectile (Score:5, Informative)
If you hit a rocket with a laser, your best shot would disable its guidance and control systems. This would quite possibly shut down its engine, but would certainly prevent it from hitting you at all. Secondary targets on a misile include control surfaces, engine, and fuel, all of which have the potential to destroy the misile before it reaches you.
Now if you are applying these countermeasures on a misile that is already very near you, another factor comes into play... what kind of a hit it is. If you're on an aircraft carrier and someone shoots an antiship misile at you from reasonably close range, and it's of a Russian design, it's going to fly up at 45deg, and then sharp down at 45 degrees at you, very fast. If you manage to detonate the propellant or disable the rocket, there's still a good chance it will hit you and deliver its full damage. (a "hard" hit) If you get luckier and detonate its payload, or destroy the control and detonation systems, you are still going to get hit, but this is a "soft" hit. The misile body, rocket motor, and all the other bits (in one piece or many) will still do appreciable damage, but at least it's not likely to sink the boat.
Shells are different. Major shells are going to have armor piercing or high explosive payloads, and C4 just doesn't blow up if you vaporize it with a laser... it burns. So you are not all that likely to detonate it. Shells are fired with great precision, and if all factors are known, they will land with that same precision. Your best hit on a shell is to damage it physically, and change its aerodynamic characteristics. Take a shell and scar the nose with a pocket knife, and it's totalled... you won't hit anything with it, it's not going to fly straight anymore. The laser just has to damage the casing. It's worth noting that if you punch a hole in it fast enough and start burning up the C4 inside, you might just plain burst the shell by simple gas expansion. In any event, it's effectively dealt with. It may still land and blow up, but it's not going to hit what it was aimed at.
Even changing the orientation of the misile/shell is very useful in countermeasures. Most of these have "shaped charges", where the explosive payload is directed in a very carefully engineered way to do maximum damage. When hitting a tank with an antitank round, having the "business end" hit the tank is the difference between destroying the tank (piercing the armor and sending chaff all around the cabin to kill the crew) or doing negligible damage by exploding harmlessly outside the tank. Misiles are essentially the same... a misile that would normally destroy a target may not even detonate if it's tumbling when it hits and contacts sideways, and if the target is even lightly armored, damage will be minimal rather than fatal.
I expect lasers to prove very effective as a projectile countermeasure.
I did have one curiosity about the shell test they did... does anyone know how long they "beamed" the shell before it was effectively dealt with? That's one thing that must be considered... if you have to hold the beam on the target for a considerable length of time, it may be much more difficult to get in a fatal shot. Misiles tend not to roll, so if you are shooting at it from the side, (i.e.you're not the target) you still can hit one spot continuously. Shells on the other hand, are usually designed to spin as they fly downrange, and so targetting the side is actually targetting a band around the shell.
Yes, the guidance systems today are _that_ good (Score:5, Informative)
The system consists of a tracking radar system with enough computing power to track up to 150 threats at once. It prioritizes the targeting system based upon inbound speed, size of the object, IFF status, and distance from the ship. Once this sucker is enabled, you'd better hope your planes have their IFF turned on, or they'll be shot down quicker than you can blink.
The system did all this using a Vulcan cannon, which is a gatling gun design throwing depleted uranium rounds downrange. The system was designed to fire and correct inflight to hose down a target until it dropped out of the sky. The system's biggest weakness was the fact that it went through rounds so fast (up to 6,000 rpm theoretical, 2,000 rpm typical) that the magazines had to be HUGE. I once saw a picture of the USS New Jersey after its refit. The 4 magazines on board held enough rounds to fire for a grand total of 15 minutes without stopping. The smaller ships that had the system frequently were limited to less than 2 minutes. A decent laser system's power plant occupying the same space would solve this problem.
This system was successfully demonstrated almost 25 years ago. Its first active deployment was in 1980 or 1981. And you "experts" are trying to tell me that the targeting technology hasn't improved enough since to take down an artillery shell? Oh, please. Go do some very basic research on what's in use TODAY before hollering about weapons tests for stuff that might be deployed tomorrow.
The only question in my mind is the size of the power plant necessary to drive a powerful enough laser to be useful. Can it be mounted on anything smaller than a ship? Anyone know?
Re:Isn't this old news? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Isn't this old news? (Score:5, Informative)
Lasers to knock out 'metal things' have been around for decades as well. The difficult part has been tracking very high speed objects from a distance.
There was a big Navy project to put a laser on a ship. I have no idea if that was ever put into operation.
There was the 'Star Wars' Alpha program that was run during the Regean military buildup. And King George the Second appears to be trying to breath life back into the project.
What makes this news item 'interesting' is that the DoD seldom comments on successes like this unless program funding is at stake or some politico needs to be impressed.
Regards.
Re:Isn't this old news? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Isn't this old news? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, the technnology was developed recently, but yeah it did exist in the 60's. I think it was called the Alan Parsens Project.
Re:Isn't this old news? (Score:3, Funny)
Evil: "Well what, what should we?"
Scott: "Nothing, I'm sure Operation Bananarama will be huge!"
Evil: "What are you saying?"
Scott: "If you..."
Evil: "..Shh!"
Scott: "..trying to be hip."
Evil: "double-u, double-u SHH dot com. Dot org."
Scott: "You suck!"
Evil: "SHH!"
Re:Real Genius (Score:2)
Re:Real Genius (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What happens if you miss? (Score:5, Funny)
Somehow, I doubt a 747 would be flying into a live fire area (Iraqi airliners excepted). Many current artillery shells have high trajectories that go several km in altitude. As a matter of fact, I once worked on a system that had an operator warning "NOTIFY NASA", for when a shell trajectory was computed to go above a certain altitude.
Re:What happens if you miss? (Score:2)
Re:Psh. (Score:2)
So, if it hits Europe, that's ok?
Re:Ballistic Missle Defense wasn't enough eh? (Score:2)
Re:Israel? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Israel? (Score:2)
I have no problem with the Jews taking thier land back. Even if it is after 1300 years. If Native Americans started a revolution in A.D. 3000 to take North America Back, who's side would you be on?
Re:Israel? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a different world over there. The children are terrorists. [worldnetdaily.com] It's a shame the Israelis didn't finish the job.
Or forcing people out of there own land because of their religion?
Excuse me, what Muslim countries is Israel attacking? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Quatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Chad, Libya, Lebanon, Jordan, Indonesia, the Phillipines? Hmmm, there must be some other factor [canada.com] (Google News: 13 hours ago) that you're missing. Israel's not attacking any Muslim country. Just some Arab-Israeli ("Palestinian") misfits wanting an overthrow of Israel.
In other news, there was another suicide bombing this afternoon on the West Bank in the settlement of Tampa. "When I arrived I saw body parts lying on the road," said a woman who witnessed the blast. "I went into the shop and saw some remains covered in blood and nearby a severed leg which belonged to another body." The street was crowded with schoolchildren and shoppers on their way home from work.
The Spanish Authority has condemned the bombing. The Español Inquisition-Jihad is claiming responsibility for this attack, which is in protest of the illegal American settlements on the occupied territory owned by the Spaniards. Gov. Jeb Bush was unavailable for comment as he was attending a funeral of a victim of last week's suicide bomber.
Re:Changing the Face of the Battlefield (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) To feed people, first you need to wipe out the bastards using food as a weapon -- a real problem in many conflict zones. Mogadishu, anyone? Recall what happened when the lightly-armed UN handed out food? It got seized by the militias. In other places, it'd be the government that'd confiscate the food.
(2) Your peace is not their peace. Radical Islamists want the world to be Moslem. Some others would prefer there to be NO Moslems. Some prefer equality of opportunity, while others prefer equality of poverty. Some want a modern world, while others will only be happy with a Year Zero Khmer Rouge-style approach. You can't make them all happy, simultaneously.
At any given point in history, probably a large portion of the human population is Thoroughly Pissed Off. Are you going to tell them to just completely change their value systems and surrender?
Re:Changing the Face of the Battlefield (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone that has lived in several third world countries, I can tell you that the problems in the third world do not stem from lack of money, but rather from rampant corruption.
When someone in Africa starves, it is only because some tinpot dictator wants them to starve, for whatever reason. And when some child in Bolivia gets sick from drinking contaminated water it is only because some politico has embezzled the funds that should have gone to improving the water supply.
The sad part about the debts to most developing nations is that most of the monies were squandered or diverted into private accounts. However, in most cases forgiving those debts would just allow the current leaders to do the same thing all over again. The sad bit is that cleaning up corrupt governments is much harder than building water purification plants. Even the most advanced nations have fairly serious problems with corruption. Besides, no matter how much we gave other countries they would always suspect that we were holding out.
Historically speaking the power to do massive destruction has been a far greater deterrent than paying tribute. That's just the way things are.
Re:USA wins! All your countries are belong to us! (Score:3, Insightful)
There's politics. An enemy does not have to defeat the entire power of the United States; it only needs to plausibly threaten enough damage to make the US reconsider its commitment, and balance the value of objectives versus projected losses. North Korea, for instance, might question whether we'd either (a) offer them a hefty no-questions-asked aid package, or (b) accept the destruction of a major American city on the west coast. The Iraqi ambassador might suggest to the US ambassador that, should the US attack, the first Iraqi action would be launching its entire chemical arsenal at Jerusalem, and query as to whether or not the ensuing chaos would be helpful to the US. And so forth.
Protecting South Vietnam's dictatorship was not worth it, politically...
Oh, and the US does and will continue to cause collateral damage -- we killed quite a few innocent bystanders in Afghanistan, for instance. Some were due to misidentification, some due to misses, some due to accepting bad intelligence. And, should there be war in Iraq, there will probably be deliberate "collateral" damage in the sense that it may be necessary to directly or indirectly damage civillian infrastructure e.g. power grids, water supplies, that sort of thing.
The asymmetry of busted logic. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't get any cheaper than an artillery shell. That's why they are used so widely all over the world. The eqipment is far more rugged and battle tested than any drone to be fielded. Pipe dreams of rapid deployable cruise missile-like weapons are nice, but right now, they're pipe dreams for all but the largest of nations. And even those nations are going to stick with artillery. For the simple fact that it's simple to use and can be rapidly deployed. Maybe someday somebody will come up with the RPG of missile drones (simple to use, advanced AI with decent target recognition on the cheap for use in the rugged third world? Don't hold your breath), but you'll never be able to put more cheap drones into the air faster than I can saturate the area with artillery. Your point about decoys is probably the simplest, best bet, but I'm assuming target discrimination will improve as well. It's the same old game of move, counter-move over an over.
Blackmail. Make the cost of using the lasers too high. An example, they use overt lasers, you use covert biologicals in their civilian sectors. They use space, you contaminate their water in a major city. They use B-2's, you use a dozen or a hundred guys with bic lighters one night. They steal your natural resources when you are a small weak country, you ally with a strong non allied country and promise them 1/2 your resources for help. They do economic sanctions, you make their economic infrastructure non functional, the "backhoe whoops" syndrome, or code red part deux.
Just because you may be able to accomplish your objective by other means doesn't render a specific technology/strategy and/or weapons platform automatically irrelevant as you seem to be implying. In fact, it's the same argument you hear opposing ballistic missile shields. "Well hot damn. They may protect us from ICBMs, but they can still sneak a nuke in across the boarders, therefore a missile shield is completely useless!"
I've always found that particular leap of logic astounding, personally. I can wage war by other means, therefore, that particular defense is useless. No, wrong, BS. Every one of your counter arguments are great, until you add the statement, "but so can your enemy." Fighting the unlimited dirty war you propose against a well armed, well financed opponent will earn you a massive ration of shit in a hurry, no matter who the opponent is. Sure. Nerve gas a city. You just signalled your willing to fight a no holds barred campaign. Your well financed opponent will likely get a lot nastier rather than pliable as you seem to hope. Contaminate Frances major water supplies. It'll hurt them, sure, but mark my words they will get a handle on the situation on come gunning for whatever weak-assed organization that launched the attack. Yes, even France.
On a side note, check out David Drake and his Hammer's Slammers [barnesandnoble.com] series. He fleshes out anti-artillery and guide artillery systems quite well in his works.