Laser shoots down 4 drones

[broberfett]

Raytheon corporation, a defense contractor, and the U.S. Navy used a laser system to shoot down four drones. It is only a matter of time before we see sharks with frickin' laser beams on their head.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20011041-501465.html

 

[Windoze 95]

That is cool!

There wouldn't be SHARKS with lazers on their heads, we'll have a fully operational battle station! (Star Wars reference!)

 

[Holdfast]

I didn't click the link, but I read the story elsewhere and the Raytheon rep had a great line: "it was a bad day for UAVs and a great day for lasers".

Damn, I want a job where I can say stuff like that.

 

[Capn Flukie]

Pfft. I'm holding out for photon torpedoes.

 

[captcalhoun]

Photons?! get with the 24th century man, it's all about quantums now!

 

[Rii]

Heh. Talk about small steps; check out the dwell time on that thing.

Taking 20 seconds to shoot down an unarmed, subsonic UAV flying at high-altitude in a straight line bears zero resemblance to any conceivable threat scenario. When it can hit and kill a maneuvering target 20ft above the waves travelling at Mach 3 - the attack profile of modern anti-ship missiles like India's BrahMos - in ten seconds or less, let me know. Given that even a momentary break in contact will permit the target airframe to rapidly dissipate the energy received (as with momentarily pulling one's hand out of hot water) I suspect such an achievement will be a long time in coming.

And of course, if and when such a system is fielded, it'll still be relatively easy to defeat: you simply saturate it. Heat dissipation issues will limit the ability of any given emitter to handle multiple or sequential targets, and power demands rise linearly with the number of the targets which must simultaneously be engaged.

No; this is a cute toy, and may become a viable system one day, but there's precisely zero chance of it replacing the surface-to-air missile as the bedrock of modern air defence systems.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

I thought they tested that years ago on TWA Flight 800.

 

[Mr Awe]

You can defeat this very simply: reflective surfaces.

Mr Awe

 

[JustAFriend]

No you cant. No surface is PERFECTLY reflective and will always absorb some of the radiation, so its just a matter of a little more time or power before it goes POOF.

Time to go back and watch Real Genius.... especially the title sequence!

 

[MANT!]

Heh. Talk about small steps; check out the dwell time on that thing.

Taking 20 seconds to shoot down an unarmed, subsonic UAV flying at high-altitude in a straight line bears zero resemblance to any conceivable threat scenario. When it can hit and kill a maneuvering target 20ft above the waves travelling at Mach 3 - the attack profile of modern anti-ship missiles like India's BrahMos - in ten seconds or less, let me know. Given that even a momentary break in contact will permit the target airframe to rapidly dissipate the energy received (as with momentarily pulling one's hand out of hot water) I suspect such an achievement will be a long time in coming.

And of course, if and when such a system is fielded, it'll still be relatively easy to defeat: you simply saturate it. Heat dissipation issues will limit the ability of any given emitter to handle multiple or sequential targets, and power demands rise linearly with the number of the targets which must simultaneously be engaged.

No; this is a cute toy, and may become a viable system one day, but there's precisely zero chance of it replacing the surface-to-air missile as the bedrock of modern air defence systems.

Watching the vid.. the kill appeared to be 12 seconds not 20 seconds..and the probable lethal damage was more like 10 seconds..

This appears to be an anti-aircraft system not an anti-missile system...

but you can easily fry the terminal guidance electronics (esp. camera, radar,radio and infrared guidance packages ) using only a fraction of the power required to actually shoot down the missile..this turns a precision guided missile into a rocket or an unguided drone..that often, will miss the target entirely....


This is a big step forward for directed energy weapons..

 

[Mr Awe]

No you cant. No surface is PERFECTLY reflective and will always absorb some of the radiation, so its just a matter of a little more time or power before it goes POOF.

In the battle between reflection and absorption, for this scenario, reflection will have the advantage. You'd need a lot more power to overcome the reflection to a degree to where you'd build up enough temperature. And, you're not getting any more time.

To say that you just need a little more time or power,

Mr Awe

 

[gturner]

Reflection has been abandoned as a defensive counter because your surface must be highly reflective everywhere. Keep in mind that aluminum is already a highly reflective surface, so 80-90% reflectivity is already factored into the laser power.
Making a surface 98 or 99% reflective, perhaps by coating it with mylar, sounds like a fairly simple thing to accomplish -- until you've hit a flying insect. That leaves a spot on the surface that will quickly (almost instantly) heat up enough to destroy the surface's special reflective properties in an expanding wave. Considering the incoming radiant flux, this effect looks like "poof!".

Also, the Air Force has been using airborne lasers to shoot down drone aircraft targets for decades. I think Obama just cancelled that program, though.

 

[captcalhoun]

let me know when they deploy the thermite plasma warhead missiles and the AL-52 Dragons...


bet no one gets the references...

 

[propita]

YAY!! The shit I worked on over 10 years ago actually did its job!!!

I worked 16 years at Raytheon (formerly Hughes Aircraft/GM Hughes) in the Primary Standards Lab. Much of that time was in the Radiometric/Photometric Labs, where there were, at most, just two of us testing such equipment. We'd test meters and probes to make sure they were reading within spec, and sources to make sure they were outputting within spec.

I tested A LOT of laser power and energy meters and probes--many for this program and others like it. They were for shooting things with lasers, range-finding, and targeting. I never got to see the products, only the equipment used to make them and test them.

Nice to know the stuff worked. Most likely, it was working a few years ago and only now can be made public.

 

[broberfett]

Heh. Talk about small steps; check out the dwell time on that thing.

Taking 20 seconds to shoot down an unarmed, subsonic UAV flying at high-altitude in a straight line bears zero resemblance to any conceivable threat scenario. When it can hit and kill a maneuvering target 20ft above the waves travelling at Mach 3 - the attack profile of modern anti-ship missiles like India's BrahMos - in ten seconds or less, let me know. Given that even a momentary break in contact will permit the target airframe to rapidly dissipate the energy received (as with momentarily pulling one's hand out of hot water) I suspect such an achievement will be a long time in coming.

And of course, if and when such a system is fielded, it'll still be relatively easy to defeat: you simply saturate it. Heat dissipation issues will limit the ability of any given emitter to handle multiple or sequential targets, and power demands rise linearly with the number of the targets which must simultaneously be engaged.

No; this is a cute toy, and may become a viable system one day, but there's precisely zero chance of it replacing the surface-to-air missile as the bedrock of modern air defence systems.

Except it will just get better and better and there will be more than one laser. So imagine several lasers all hitting the target.

 

[FPAlpha]

Impressive and a glimpse of future war technology.

It is however still in an early stage and not combat applicable yet but that's normal given that i's still in development. Give it a few years and it will probably exceed at least the current Phalanx system and replace it too.

If i recall correctly new ship designs are also taking into account additional power needs for future energy based weapons that are in development currently (lasers, rail guns) so i guess we'll be seeing those on ships in a decade or two.

 

[Rii]

This appears to be an anti-aircraft system not an anti-missile system...

A line-of-sight anti-aircraft system? Again, I'm not sure what benefit this sort of thing can provide except over point-defence systems like the Phalanx CIWS.

And even there you have to balance the increased range of such a system against the power draw, which ships often like to reserve for things like radar. The power requirements of the radar being planned for the CG-21 vessels are already causing major design issues (i.e. 'the necessary power plant doesn't fit') so it's difficult to see how they're going to accommodate a large power delta on top of that for laser systems, particularly if it's meant to defend against more than one or two inbound targets.

but you can easily fry the terminal guidance electronics (esp. camera, radar,radio and infrared guidance packages ) using only a fraction of the power required to actually shoot down the missile..this turns a precision guided missile into a rocket or an unguided drone..that often, will miss the target entirely....

Good point, although I suspect that counters to this wouldn't be too difficult to field. Move the non-seeker electronics aft and have the missile guide itself intertially based off the target's last known position (+ course/speed) at the time the seeker was incapacitated. It's not like the ship (unlike, say, an aircraft) is going to be moving very far. It'd probably necessitate the missile abandoning some of the more radical terminal evasive maneuvers and also abandoning specific target areas in favour of centre mass, so it's still a win. But of course another feature of some modern anti-ship missiles like the SS-N-22 Sunburn is that they network and share data between themselves, so knocking out the seeker doesn't necessarily mean it isn't ... seeking.

 

[Rett Mikhal]

These weapons will be the future eventually. For the simple reason they're a non-redundant destruction system. This means every time you fire a laser, that's it, it fires a laser. It costs only the power and gas (which are both pretty cheap), as opposed to a missile, which costs a lot in parts, labor and logistics.

The laser system itself costs a lot, yes, but it almost never runs out of ammunition and pays for itself after a few firings versus missile systems. Besides, multiple missile launcher systems aren't free, either.

There's also accuracy. There aren't many things faster than light. The only real advancement that needs to be made is the delivery system's maneuvering speed.

Of course there will eventually be a counter because that's how things work. Stealth technology is more than likely on its last leg as detection technology closes the gap. My prediction is a speed race will take over.

 

[Rii]

These weapons will be the future eventually.

In space where there're few LOS obstructions (like, in the most optimistic scenario, the horizon) and no atmosphere to disrupt the beam, sure. Down here they're of limited utility.

 

[FPAlpha]

Wouldn't count on it.

Sure.. they can't fire over the horizon but pop a missile or plane past that and you are flying into a death zone if multiple lasers lock onto you.. you may see your target but then you will be shot down.

The horizon problem can also be mitigated by the employment of self defence drones hovering past the horizon to give the vessel an advance warning system together with a defence system if the drone is equipped with a laser (assuming it will be developed to a point that it can fit and operate within a drone).

The possibilities are there and as Rett said the logistics and costs are also far lower since you don't have to lug around so much ammunition (which can be an added danger given a hit on the munitions depot).