Military laser weapons

[steve001]

This laser would deliver more than 500 kW and have a range of hundreds of miles. The first step in this endeavor will be a competition to develop a low power demonstration laser to explore beam control and tracking at altitude.”
DCS 2018: Laser weapon ramp ?inevitable and imperative?

Remember the next time you laser a helicopter you could be on the receiving end of all kinds of HEL.

US MILITARY FIRES LASER 'CANON' from HELICOPTER
US military contractor Raytheon and the US Army say that they recently completed the successful flight test of a high-energy laser (HEL) system on board an Apache AH-64 helicopter. http://optics.org/news/8/6/43

 

[paul1598419]

I wonder if the cost/benefit ratio for these weapons to shoot down UAVs is worth the money taxpayers are shelling out for them. Seems like other methods would work as well, if not better. But, who doesn't like a multi kW laser?

 

[steve001]

I wonder if the cost/benefit ratio for these weapons to shoot down UAVs is worth the money taxpayers are shelling out for them. Seems like other methods would work as well, if not better. But, who doesn't like a multi kW laser?

In the long run it's likely a whole bunch less expensive. As far as I know conventional weapons that go boom are single use and you can't pick up the pieces to recycle. Shooting down uav's is just the near
goal. Consider for a moment what a 500 kW beam capable of hitting a target at several hundred miles can shoot down. It ain't gonna be uav's I tell ya.
Would love to see what a visable 100kW, 500kW beam would look like.

 

[Nutball]

So, I guess there's a fine line between a laser blindness war crime, and just another every day weapon with big lasers? Or not? Your thoughts...

What diameter of beam do you want to see in that power? I'd want to see 6", 1", and 5mm

 

[Benm]

These would probably not be considered against the rules of warfare. Sure they could blind you, but then again so can some shrapnel from a shell or anything like that if you happen to get it in your eye.

Plus that the targets so far are unmanned UAVs, and probably ICBMs to some degree (shooting those down with lasers has been a long standing desire).

At these power level naval applications may also become attractive against larger targets - you could perhaps even burn holes in the hull of an enemy ship just above the water line so it will sink when the waves spill water in. That's not much difference than blowing a hole in one with a torpedo.

On the other hand it could also be used with more precision, perhaps just disabling the main gun on an enemy destroyer without sinking that ship, resulting in far fewer casualties (the guy standing between the laser and the gun will be toast, but that's a lower casualty count compared to the average warship sinking).

Another benefit is that you hit with light speed, so there is no way for the enemy to evade your weapon by getting out of the way (like aircraft can dodge missiles sometimes).

One simple countermeasure would however be to paint the target in something that is reflective at the wavelength used, or even retro-reflective if you want to shoot the laser back at itself. The downside of the latter would be that you make yourself incredibly easy to see using light of that wavelength. That could be a downside if you're otherwise stealth, but otherwise a fine method to defend against it.

 

[steve001]

So, I guess there's a fine line between a laser blindness war crime, and just another every day weapon with big lasers? Or not? Your thoughts...

What diameter of beam do you want to see in that power? I'd want to see 6", 1", and 5mm

I was thinking the size they are now. At those diameters you've listed I think the air would ionize.

 

[H2Oxide]

What is the advantage of CW laser weapons when compared pulsed lasers? It seems like you could do a lot more damage in a (much) smaller amount of time with some of the insane pulse energies that have been achieved (think NIF).

I was thinking the size they are now. At those diameters you've listed I think the air would ionize.

Even better!

 

[steve001]

What is the advantage of CW laser weapons when compared pulsed lasers? It seems like you could do a lot more damage in a (much) smaller amount of time with some of the insane pulse energies that have been achieved (think NIF).



Even better!

These lasers cause damage by excessive heating and melting.

 

[H2Oxide]

These lasers cause damage by excessive heating and melting.

Well yeah, I get how they work, but I still fail to see how that is preferable to vaporizing a part (or all) of your target. Keep in mind direct CW radiation is quite easy to deal with, e.g. by spinning.

 

[Cyparagon]

Changing the UAV chassis outer few microns to metal would render this multimillion dollar weapon useless.

If your bleeding edge sci-fi gun is defeated with foil tape, it's a shit idea.

 

[steve001]

Let's all keep in mind that other countries are developing laser weapons.

 

[paul1598419]

I remember back in the 1980s Ronald Reagan had an idea not based in science, but from his days as an actor in films called the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars by the public. It was an idea to cover the country in lasers to shoot down any missiles fired at the US from another country, but was mostly supposed to protect us from the USSR. It ate up close to a trillion dollars and never went anywhere to this day. Last article I read on it was back in the 80s and was about the development of the X-Ray laser. It died from total apathy.

 

[Benm]

Well yeah, I get how they work, but I still fail to see how that is preferable to vaporizing a part (or all) of your target. Keep in mind direct CW radiation is quite easy to deal with, e.g. by spinning.

Originally pulsed lasers (pumped by chemical reaction, not electricity) were the only option to provide adequate power output to do significant damage.

If you are using a pulsed laser you have to hit the target straight on when firing the pulse, if you miss, you must wait for the system to cycle before you can fire the next pulse, and on those COIL laser types the pulse rate was not that high.

One way to ensure a hit would be to run a small guide laser to see your main big beam is on target, but that would be visible to the target as well so they could evade you keeping a 'lock' long enough to confidently fire the pulse laser.

With a CW laser you can keep track of the target even if it does some manoeuvres to avoid the beam or spread it over a larger area. A missile you can spin to change the focal point from a spot to a ring, but something like a UAV may not be maneuverable enough to avoid to do something similar whilst staying in flight.

An erratic flight pattern may be good enough to avoid a hit with a single shot laser, but with a CW you can keep tracking it. And as it's likely your optical system (with automated tracking) would be able to correct faster than the target could evade it has advantages.

 

[lazeristasUVISIR]

Changing the UAV chassis outer few microns to metal would render this multimillion dollar weapon useless.

That would make thing heavier and less moveable (speed, range). Also it would make them better recognizable in air.

 

[kecked]

Aerogel ablative coatings. Dispersive snaps.

At those high powers objects tend to be damage by threshold so even if it was reflective, if the power is high enough it will damage the surface causing less reflection. That cascades fast. I’ve seen this in nanosecond lasers where coatings were vaporized. This is where gigawatt pulses do the work followed by CW lower power. Heck the X-rays might be enough to set off explosivesin the device.

You can impart a charge as well and make a mini emp blow navigation. Best to just make a hole and let the propellent do the rest.
This isn’t going to stop a kinetic weapon in the shape of a rod. The hyper speed Russian stuff might well survive as it is meant to take the heat of Mach 7 plus at sea level.

Etc....

 

[Benm]

That might be an option indeed - some layer that can be ablated, especially against pulsed lasers. For CW this would be a bit more difficult to do, but you could ultimately make the UAV reflective for the wavelength used.

If you make it retroreflective it'd basically automatically shoot back at the laser source, but if you make it normally reflective it would just act as a mirror surface and reflect the beam into in the inverse of what it hits you at (on average nowhere in particular) it would not make it more detectable.

From a military perspective UAV's are also very different from normal fighter aircraft: it doesn't matter how many you lose as long as you accomplish the mission. There are no pilots on these planes, so if you send 1000 of them and only one makes it and completes the objective that'd effectively be a win, albeit quite expensive.

Also you could used UAV's in kamikaze mode - if you know some enemy aircraft will be incoming to drop a nuclear bomb you just swarm it with drones. Even when shot down by a laser the remaining mass would still be on the same trajectory, possibly colliding with the attacking craft, getting sucked up in engines and such.