Solid state laser weapon in testing....

[Dr Mordrid]

Once again, science fiction has predicted science fact.

Remember those movies where the hero (or villain) uses a beam from a compact laser to blow a rocket out of the sky? Last December, that generic bit of sci-fi drama took a step closer to reality. In a demonstration at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, the solid-state heat-capacity laser (SSHCL) burned a 1-centimeter-diameter hole straight through a 2-centimeter-thick stack of steel samples in 6 seconds. The electrical current to do so came from a wall outlet and cost no more than 30 cents. While large chemical lasers have successfully shot down tactical rockets, the SSHCL design supports the weight and size requirements for a future mobile deployment.

The SSHCL, designed and developed at Lawrence Livermore, is the prototype of a laser tactical weapon, which shows promise as the first high-energy laser compact enough in size and weight to be considered part of the Army’s future combat system (FCS) for short-range air defense. The FCS is a component of the Army’s vision of sensors, platforms, and weapons with a networked command and control system. The more advanced version of the laser weapon system, now under development, will be battery-powered and—at 2 meters long and less than a meter across—small enough to be mounted on a hybrid-electric high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (Humvee). In this configuration, the Humvee’s generator and batteries could power both the vehicle and the laser, requiring only diesel fuel to support full operation.

edit....

A team led by *** ***** in the Physics and Advanced Technology Directorate is developing an adaptive resonator system that will sense distortions in the wavefront and correct them in the system. The resonator—which is based on adaptive optics technology developed at Livermore—includes a deformable mirror, control electronics, and sensors to detect the shape of the laser pulse’s wavefront. A deformable mirror will be placed inside the laser resonator, and a wavefront sensor will be used to measure the output beam during operation. The sensor measures the difference between the actual shape and a perfect, flat wavefront. Computer-controlled actuators on the mirror then raise or lower small sections of the mirror’s surface to correct distortions in the incoming light so that a high-quality beam is maintained from the laser resonator.

This was a 13 kilowatt prototype laser diode-pumped neodymium-doped glass (Nd:glass) solid state laser.

The tactical version is to be neodymium-doped gadolinium–gallium– garnet (Nd:GGG) crystals 20 cm in diameter generating 100 kilowatts and firing at up to 200 times a second

Dr. Mordrid

[GT98]

Hey Doc,

Are these new generation lasers eye safe? Or do we have to have our GIs and what not where protective glasses all the time now when the stuff is feilded?

[Dr Mordrid]

Eye safe? Only if you aren't in front of 'em...otherwise there won't be a head there to worry about it

The usual laser goggles should take care of any backscatter near the shot, and they are intended for aerial targets anyhow. It would be interesting though to see what one would do to another vehicle

Dr. Mordrid

[RedRed]

wasnt there work some time ago directed at firing relatively lowpower lasers into the eye of fighter pilots? This was to have a ludicrus range ?50 miles? the weapon was mounted on ships to prevent actions like the falklands bombing runs....

I cant remember the details - this might have been 5 years ago...

what would the effective range of one of these babies be?

dosnt laser power drop off dramatically with distance? and isnt it very sensitive to particulates ie battlefield smoke? Sounds like a load of old balls to me - unless you are using it at 36000 feet +

sounds like the resonator would be OK if you plant the laser on a 20 feet deep foundation... any vibration - the 'clump' of mortor fire or arty or the vibration of a jet sounds like it will screw up royally..... Sending 100Watts of power off at a tangent - or dissapateing the beam would not be too healthy for the device or the operator!
Give it another 20 years and 20Billion $

Who is for use against anyway? The US military is already by far the most technically superior army in the world....

RedRed

[GT98]

Originally posted by RedRed
Who is for use against anyway? The US military is already by far the most technically superior army in the world....

RedRed

Only way to stay ahead of the game is to keep developing new weapons...also boils down to building a better mouse trap

[Dr Mordrid]

Range wise the solid state laser is likely only a few tens of km.

MTHEL, which is made for theater missile defence (as in scuds and other theater missiles) supposedly has a range of about 100-150 km.

The laser in the ABL (airborn laser) platform has a range of about 500 km for shooting missiles down during the boost phase.

All use adaptive optics and a reference beam to keep the main beams wavefront stable through atmospheric disturbances.

The US military is in the midst designing and implementing what they're calling "Transformational Weapons", meaning systems designed for high impact theater domination. This requires a far different mix than the cold war's strategic weaponry that still dominates our inventory.

Other things coming down the pike involve the grunt in the field. Advances here include research into exoskeletons, uniforms that can instantly harden to form casts for injuries (or protective armor for hand-hand combat), the Land Warrior network/computer system, a new shoulder arm that can shoot bullets or laser guided grenades with a video & nightvision sight linked into Land Warrior, adaptive and metamorphic camo (see: the movie "Predator") for both men and vehicles, active infrared shielding for men and vehicles (makes 'em invisible to IR detection systems), vehicles with fuel cell or hybrid electric drive etc. etc.

Dr. Mordrid

[GNEP]

RedRed - I thought that battlefield lasers designed to blind were banned under one of the international treaties? If so, then the US or the UK or whoever wouldn't be designing them, would they?

[redgreenbluex3]

i think a cow launcher would be far more effective

[redgreenbluex3]

esspecially against hindus

[ZokesPro]

Originally posted by redgreenbluex3
i think a cow launcher would be far more effective

This sounds like a device from Earth Worm Jim!

[RedRed]

Gnep - heh - yeah riiight

Dr M
I say the discovery 'land warrior' series too and most of that was serious flights of fancy.

The networked warrior idea is doable now - and was dropped when el-squaddie discovered that if was potentialy seriously injured his vital signs being transmitted back could tell GHQ not to bother to collect him... Would you carry that into the theatre.... knowing that if things wernt going acording to plan, you might well be left? - uhhhh no....

I would really like to wander round a tactical theatre transmitting radio waves! it would be WORSE than the IR signal stuff - you pretend to be a wild animal if you are emmitting more EM radiation than KISS FM! Weapon systems already exist to target radio emissions - US & USSR have them....

Question.... re the ABL:
How many nations have ICBM's which actually work and would have the range to strike the US? - addd to that those who will have in the next 10 years.....

How many of those have Sea Based (IE SUBS) and therefore practically undetectable launch platforms..... - your bird needs to be in the air - and not that far from the action.....
How the hell is that beast going to defend the US? its there to knock out ICBMs, and only has a 500K range - will it really get a chance to fly over kamchachka or China to knock this mythical threat down during launch/boost phase? uhhhhhhhhh No.

The range of the solid state is at what altitude? and is it in clear air... if its at sea level and clear air then you are talking about an effective range of perhaps 100-500 METERS in smoke or fog or even in a high particulate atmosphere (like a smoggy city) you know the Physics, Dr M.... lets hope that the bad boys dont attack in the rain!


GT98
What game? No country in their tiny brains would attack the US directly - period. The technical superiority is sooooo far ahead that its not possible for anyone to catch up, never mind overtake the current US aresnal without the rest of the world noticing. The ONLY point to this is to maintain arms spending. Any organisation note NOT country that would wage war on the US NEVER engage in a war theatre - that would bring annhilation. They would attack through terrorism, or through WMD - and preemptively......

if a theatre was opened up then think about it.... In Afghanistan the US rolled out 30 year old bombers and dropped loads of old fashioned ordinance. Thats what it will do in Iraq if it goes in. B52's, Daisy cutters, and bigass gunships throwing out thousands of rounds a second. Not much need for precision, and where there was such a need there is laser guided or GPS bombs. There will be no theatre in which the US will not be able to establish air supremacy in days.



RedRed

[GT98]

Originally posted by RedRed

GT98
What game? No country in their tiny brains would attack the US directly - period. The technical superiority is sooooo far ahead that its not possible for anyone to catch up, never mind overtake the current US aresnal without the rest of the world noticing. The ONLY point to this is to maintain arms spending. Any organisation note NOT country that would wage war on the US NEVER engage in a war theatre - that would bring annhilation. They would attack through terrorism, or through WMD - and preemptively......

Well the problem is back between the 1st and 2nd World War the US Army was cut to the bone and it nearly bit us in the ass, before we pulled our collective heads out of our ass. Western Countries who our allies have techongly that is close to ours and our gap isnt as huge as everyone makes it out to be. We are still using weapon systems that where designed and built back from the Mid 1970's to the early 80's with updates. Currently the US Armed forces aren't looking at replacing this equipment till 2010 or later when the Leapfrog next generation equpiment will come into line. The F-22 has been in deveoplement since the late 1980's and I dont think theres even a full squadron in service with the Air Force. It takes years for equipment to get replaced.

if a theatre was opened up then think about it.... In Afghanistan the US rolled out 30 year old bombers and dropped loads of old fashioned ordinance.

Well those 30 year old bombers are closer in age (design wise) to 50 years old, though the B-52H where built starting 1962. The dropped alot of JDAMS which are GPS guided bombs and if I recall correctly 95% of the bombs dropped in Afganstain where "smart" bombs compaired to 10% used in Desert Storm. Guided bombs overall better then dumb ones since you dont have use half dozen to take out one target.

[Wombat]

We are still using weapon systems that where designed and built back from the Mid 1970's to the early 80's with updates.

Yeah, publically. The other stuff is there, quietly. I have no doubt that if somehow some threat managed to surface, we'd instantly pull a considerable 21st century arsenal out of the closet somewhere.

In Afghanistan the US rolled out 30 year old bombers and dropped loads of old fashioned ordinance.

And the ordinance worked quite well, eh? Also, the daisy cutters bared little resemblance to the ones used in Viet Nam. Just because the bombers are old does not make them old technology. It's just the hulls. They have new engine designs, and technology inside more advanced than you'll see in your home within the next 5-10 years. The "old" is only chassis deep.

Also, if you demand to see more obvious higher tech, look at Iraq 10 years ago. F-117s and Tomahawks, and then some.

How many of those have Sea Based (IE SUBS) and therefore practically undetectable launch platforms..... - your bird needs to be in the air - and not that far from the action.....

Umm, almost zero. Even twenty years ago we could hear the Soviets turn the ignition over on a sub in their own harbors. Putting a sub underwater just makes the detection methods different. Acoustics and satellites do wonders.

[KRSESQ]

ALL WILL FALL BEFORE US!

Oops. Did I say that out loud? Never mind.

Kevin

[Dr Mordrid]

RedRed;

Quit watching Discovery channel and start reading DARPA, Livermore and the other govt. labs working papers.

Also: ABL isn't necessarily for ICBM. It's for IRBM and theater missiles, and a lot of nations have those, including North Korea and a few other nasties.

Dr. Mordrid