Anti-Missile Laser Weapon Successfully Tested 636
xPertCodert writes "A latest attempt to build a futuristic laser weapon appears to be a success.
Joint Israeli-US developed laser destroyed a large caliber rocket in a latest New Mexico test. The press release also contains links to some interesting video and photo material, related to THEL (Tactical High Energy Lasers) defense systems."
A few flaws (Score:5, Funny)
"Do not look into laser with remaining eye."
Sorry, it had to be said.
Re:A few flaws (Score:2)
Re:A few flaws (Score:5, Interesting)
An inbound missile usually gives a few minutes (radar). With a sniper shot, the first indication is the bullet itself, since it's supersonic.
Re:A few flaws (Score:5, Interesting)
Supersonic ~ 335m/s Light (Radar, etc.) ~ 300,000,000 m/s
Consider the muzzle velocity of a
100ms is a long time.
Normal RADAR has crappy resolution, this is a problem. 40GHz RADAR has ~7.5 mm wavelength, which is far too large for accuracy. The solution of course would be to move to a higher frequency detection method. Some of the research done in the 10^12Hz range might be promissing in another decade. Or something in the 10^14 to 10^15Hz range (IR, visible). Any of those would give the required accuracy to track a bullet sized object.
Processing time for tracking is negligable. Positioning and pointing of the beam shouldn't be to much of a problem either, not given ~100ms to do it (and if it is then one could just limit the angle of effect for a single system). The problem it seems would be outputting enough power to have a noticable effect on a non-volatile slug in that small of a timeframe.
Lots of problems sure, but not totally impossible to consider in the not so distant future.
Re:A few flaws (Score:4, Interesting)
It was tacked on in the end there, easy to miss I suppose.
It's a point that a bullet is an inert kinetic kill weapon. In order for the system to be effective it would have to either vaporize the bullet, or vaporize enough of it to knock it significantly off course. I'd give you a better answer, but I don't feel like looking up the thermodynamic stats for lead. It's dense though, so it's probably going to be a pain in the ass.
Re:A few flaws (Score:5, Funny)
ObSimpsons Quote (Score:4, Funny)
(from the one where Bart spots a comet headed towards springfield)
great... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:great... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:great... (Score:3, Funny)
Dr. Dodd: Why is that toy on your head?
Chris Knight: Because if I wear it any place else, it chafes.
Tiring work (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tiring work (Score:3, Funny)
General question... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood the logic. Defensive weaponry helps reduce the threat of war.
Re:General question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, don't look at me like I'm a peacenik, I am all for the developement of weapon technology for the obvious combat advantage and the spinoff technologies. BUT, this technology is completely irrelevent to counter-terrorism. Even if a terrorist gro
Re:General question... (Score:5, Interesting)
North Korea may shoot another missile across Japan's bow.
I'd imagine both of those countries would like to have this type of defense.
IR and radar guided missiles were gimmicky at first, too. GPS was pie in the sky. The airplane istelf was considered to be of little military use at first.
OBTW, it's also for artillery size shells, not just ballistic missiles.
Re:General question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:General question... (Score:4, Insightful)
- William Pickering, Astronomer (1908)
"Airplanes suffers from so many technical faults that it is only a matter of time before any reasonable man realizes that they are useless!"
- Scientific American (1910)
"No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris."
- Orville Wright.
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
- Marshal Ferdinand Foch [Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre] (circa 1911)
He was Supreme Commander of Allied forces, 1918
"Aviation is good for sport, but for the Army it is useless!"
- Marshal Ferdinand Foch
Re:General question... (Score:5, Informative)
One of those apparently sourceless quotes made all the more suspect by the attribution itself. The United States does not have a parliamentary system - the only "ministers" in the US are charged with church congregations. Second, the Department of Defense did not exist until 1947, and was not so named until 1949 - Newton D. Baker was Secretary of the War Department under Woodrow Wilson, from 1916 to 1921.
Yeah, I know - offtopic. Whatever.
Read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a tactical defensive weapon for use on a battlefield, not strategic defense. This is a mobile system meant to protect against small rockets like Katyusha class weapons. To understand why Israel is involved, you only have to look at the map on this page. [iris.org.il]
They would also be useful in defending targets against rocket attacks like the ones that have occurred in Iraq.Re:General question... (Score:2)
Yes, it's not going to protect against terrorists who fight more efficiently (targeting civilians/semi-civilians, as opposed to armies that fight against like-trained armies), but it's still very useful for "standard" warfare.
Re:General question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:General question... (Score:4, Informative)
The next time you want to make a call on your cell phone, see your baby on an ultrasound monitor, or you need an MRI scan to detect the cancer in your body, Israel has done something nice for you.
Israel is not a money pit. It is an investment! It pays back dividends every day. On the battle field, on the farm, in the hospital, in the research lab, in the plane, at the computer, and much more. Every country of the world is being blessed by the things coming out of Israel, from agricultural innovations to medical equipment inventions to biotechnology and pharmaceuticals to telecommunications to intelligence on terrorist plans.
RTFA, for one. Israel benefits us in many ways, mostly with their brain power. We use a lot of their technology for our defense. U.S. troops were trained for urban combat by the IDF. Did you know that Saddam's Iraq used to have a nuclear reactor? It was destroyed by Israel in 1991. Ilan Ramon, the Israeli astronaut who died in the Columbia shuttle disaster, helped to destroy the reactor. The world should profusely thank Israel for sparing the world from having to deal with a North Korea in the Middle East. They did something very "nice for us."
Israel is the West's buffer zone in the war on terror. They were fighting the war for us before the Sleeping Giant realized that IslamoNazis were pulling it into a war. Israel is fighting at the front lines for America and Europe and the civilized world. They live at the front lines. Israel is the beacon of intelligence and enlightenment in a vast Islamic wasteland of medieval warlords and clan feuds. It is very much in our interest, for security reasons if for no other, to help Israel financially and otherwise.
Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can make claim to the following:
The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.
Most of the Windows NT operating system was developed by Microsoft-Israel.
The Pentium MMX and Pentium M chip technologies were designed in Israel at Intel.
Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.
Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.
The technology for AOL Instant Messenger was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.
An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert.
The first PC anti-virus software was developed in Israel in 1979. With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and start-ups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world (apart from the Silicon Valley).
In response to serious water shortages, Israeli engineers and agriculturalists developed a revolutionary drip irrigation system to minimize the amount of water used to grow crops.
Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.
Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U.S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions. Israel places first in this category as well.
Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.
Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people - as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.
In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).
Israel is ranked #2 in the wor
Re:General question... (Score:3, Insightful)
You say that Israelis are richer and more educated then it's neighbors. Ok. So what? How does that help America? Is this really surprising given the amount of money We give to israel? If you were to add up the money the US govt gives israel and the private US citizens give israel it would be hundreds of billions of dollars.
So they take this money, educate their kids, invent stuff, manufacture stuff, and sell it to us. How does that help us? I can see why it's great for
Re:General question... (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's not. They hate israel because israel was formed in their land. There was no israel and then there was one. The people that used to live there got fucked.
They also hate israel because israel is currently occupying 3.5 million people. These people are for all practical purposes domesticated animals to the state of israel. They live within Israeli borders and yet they have no legal rights whatsoever.
They also hate israel because israel kills around a thousand people per
Re:General question... (Score:3, Informative)
First of all you are talking about trade. Trade deficits are bad. They help them more then they help us.
I am talking about us foreign aid. Not trade. Foreign aid is charity given by the US because people are destitute, starving or because we feel somehow justified in giving our money away.
Nobody has ever convinced me that giving charity to israel is justified. They are not destitute, they are not starving, they don't need our help and they give us back nothing in return.
Re:General question... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's not, it defends against short range rockets.
Even if a terrorist group gets ahold of a nuclear bomb, it would be easier and cheaper to sneak it into the US than to develope and build ICBMs.
In fact terrorist groups have these rockets, that's why previous tests were against katyusha rockets, used by the Hizbulla.
And even then, this system can only shoot down missiles as they are launched by flying over the enemy's territory. This means that the government has spent billions on a gimmicky star wars program that only works if we invade another country's airspace, a.k.a. an act of war.
IIRC, it's primarily a ground based system, to be used from the privacy of your own country. There is an airbourne version, which can be used after hostilities have begun. Or in peace-keeping missions, when an invasion isn't relevant.
Re:General question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of using the money to develop new defense systems, they could have used the money to tackle the underlying social problems that cause the "bad men" to be mad at us in the first place. This way, we solve the
Re:General question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right.... I don't know I personally would like to have the most updated hardware I can if I have to go into battle. You can carry sticks and stones if you want I want the most deadly equipment and as much of it as I can carry.
And to your second point.
No amount of money will help religious fever.
Remember anyone who tells you that tying a bomb to your chest and blowing up civilians will get you attended in the next world by a pack of virgins and they will give lots of money to your family is..
A Not your friend
B Probably lying on at least one count
C Certifiable
D Someone who is always happy to sacrifice someone
else
I don't know just my two bits
Re:General question... (Score:4, Insightful)
The underlying social problem is human nature! Greed, jealousy, avavice, have been problems since the dawn of man.
If I keep my "riches" you will hate me for having more than you.
If I give you some of my posessions, you will hate me for making you feel inferior.
If I destroy all my wealth and become like you you will hate me for wasting what I had.
If I help you to be like me, you will never like me until you have ground me under your boot heels.
So I may as well just live my life my way and keep you at arms length.
Q: Why do you think it is called a social ladder?
A: You look down, all you see are smiling faces, and you look up and all you see are assholes.
Re:General question... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not opinions, problems. Like poverty and famine for example. These specific issues are never seen in the western world, so we do not place them high on our priorities. We are more concerned with defending ourselves against threats that are not likely to come, or will only arise as a result of weapons development.
Re:General question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, add Christianity and Judiasm as well, and you will be (mostly) correct.
Re:General question... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's no big deal on its own, but as Dennis Leary once said, "We've got the bombs, okay people? Nuclear f*cking weapons!"
That changes things some.
I'm all for anything that actually improves our safety, but of
Re:General question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine yo
It upsets the balance of power (Score:5, Interesting)
Both Soviet Russia and the United States had comparable amounts of nuclear weapons, enough to destroy the other several times over by the late 1960's. What was preventing them from simply firing the missiles and ending the war forever was the fact that the other side could, and would retaliate. Even the Soviets were not willing to spend a significant amount of their population concentrated within urban areas for the chance of total victory.
When the Soviets announced development into an ABM (anti ballistic missile) system in the Stragetic Arms Limitatons Talks in 1969, it was not well recieved by the United States. The existance of such a system would mean that there would be no imperiative at hand for one side to annihilate the other and claim victory. The US, at this time, put research into such a technology as well, though notably less advanced than today's (it was called "setinel," and consisted of a pair of missiles designed to intercept), it was scrapped because it could not guarentee that major urban areas could be protected.
Such a situation still exists today. The number of nations that have nuclear weapons is higher than ever, not just the Soviet Union and a handful of other nations outside of the US. To think that the United States would never do such a thing like annihilate an entire population is to be naive. There were such plans during the Cold War to literally wipe Russia off the face of the planet. To other nations, this system poses a greater threat than nuclear proliferation, as it nullifies their political leverage in the world arena.
It's a tactical weapon, not strategic. (Score:5, Informative)
Now, the Airborne Laser was developed as SDI, but it only covers an area of a 100 mile circle around which it's deployed. That's not going to generally help against a large country...but instead was designed for actions against megalomanical 3rd world dictatorships, like say, North Korea.
Re:It's a tactical weapon, not strategic. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:General question... (Score:2, Insightful)
A waste of money all around...
Re:General question... (Score:2)
Re:General question... (Score:5, Insightful)
We develop a laser that can shoot down ICBMs. In response potentially hostile nations (PHNs) begin spending money like a housewife on holiday to develop a weapon that (they hope) can penetrate the defense... Maybe... in the event of a war that may not happen. In the end game we've still got a laser capable of shooting down artillery, cruise missiles, and (I've not seen anyone else mention this yet) enemy aircraft. What do the PHNs have? Debt in the billions-to-trillions of dollars range that they probably can't afford that will play its part in collapsing their economy.
The best weapons platform you'll ever develop is the one that scares your enemy so much he spends himself into oblivion to counteract it. At the end of the day he's gone, and you haven't really had to do anything. It worked for Reagan with Star Wars, and by the sound of things it might just work again.
Re:General question... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:General question... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:General question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, this system lowers the threshold of going to war. You can bet they will try to make mobile versions of these lasers that can be shipped to other countries to protect deployed troops. That means lower US casualties, which means Jeb Bush may be little less hesitant to invade Iraq.
WTF: '20% Flamebait 10% Troll' (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:General question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they allow you to attack with impunity.
Re:General question... (Score:3, Informative)
Congratulations, you just made the economic case for this device.
Re:General question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh. We're not stupid. Tell people, "we're building a laser that will shoot down ballistic missiles. It will eventually be able to shoot down much smaller mortar fire. It's a defensive project that will make our troops in the field AND people here at home safer," and you get a budget. Tell people, "we want to build a laser to melt vehicles and armaments from the air. It'll eventually be able to melt peop
Re:General question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Systems like THEL are battlefield weapons, meant for relatively short range. They're meant to replace Patr
Real Genius (Score:2, Funny)
Uh Huh (Score:5, Funny)
Crispin
Re:Uh Huh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uh Huh (Score:5, Interesting)
I suggested bicycle strips because they have a fascinating property. They are made of zillions of little sphericle beads, with a refractive index of approximately 2.0. Such beads have the interesting property that light shining into them is reflected back directly at the source. For amusement, go get a laser pointer and point it at some bicycle strips, and you will notice that your hand holding the laser pointer is painted with laser light, regardless of the angle you hit the strip from.
So if I want to beat laser missle defenses, I go into the lab and make milspec beads with a refractive index of 2.0 in the right infrared range, and the lasers suddenly don't work so well.
Bonus: make the reflective layer 1 inch thick, and make it boil when heated, and you get ablative armor: it fogs the missle with a clound that blocks the laser. IIRC, idea due to Charles Sheffield (RIP) [wikipedia.org].
Crispin
this is silly (Score:4, Insightful)
These lasers emit energy in the megawatt region. A mirror takes photons - absorbs them - and then reemits them. There aren't many mirrors that can absorb 10 million watts of energy.
In fact, that very problem is what makes laser weaponry so damn expensive and difficult to do. They need very heavy, exotic and expensive mirror systems to focus and aim the laser energy without being destroyed by the laser themselves. You can't just go down to home depot and buy a big mirror. You can't just coat a missile in some silly bike reflectors or shiny foil.
Even if you were to somehow invent a reflective coating that could handle megawatts of energy - and still be light enough to just paint on a missile - you'd have to deal with the coating becoming marred in flight, as anything the laser comes in contact with (ie, birdshit or what have you) its going to superheat to thousands of degrees and burn right through and destroy the missile.
Re:Uh Huh (Score:3, Informative)
Diffraction limits the degree to which the laser can be focused. The fixed-site version of THEL (the big, stationary version) has an aperture of less than a metre. Even in near-IR, that gives it a divergence of about one part in a million, meaning a kilometre away the spot is going to be a metre or two wide. Farther away, bigger area painted.
Re:Uh Huh (Score:3, Insightful)
The laser's still bright enough to kill the missile with or without the retroreflective coating (reflection isn't perfect). That means it's bright enough to harm itself, with or without a reflective or ret
Re:Uh Huh (Score:2)
Re:Uh Huh (Score:2)
Lasers can shoot anything! (Score:2)
Oh dear. By that argument, Ashcroft's stormtroopers really are a threat to national security. I should never have doubted... we're all gonna die!
Now I understand (Score:2, Funny)
videos (Score:5, Informative)
WMP or QT are availabe.
Oh great.. (Score:5, Funny)
Dates. (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, by the way: FIRE THE FEAKIN LASER!!!
Domestic Use Soon? (Score:5, Interesting)
They will be touted as the perfect solution to a problem with heretofore only imperfect solutions [ceip.org] (until, say, a passenger aircraft is accidentally shot down of course).
The biggest differences between this and previous missile defense systems are cost and multiple-use capability. You're not talking about using multi-million dollar missiles to shoot down incoming missiles, so you don't need to be so selective about when firing the thing off. And if you miss, you can try again ... and again.
As a defensive tool, these are, quite honestly, awesome. As an accident-waiting-to-happen in the hands of an overly-enthusiastic operator, they are, well, a little bit scary I guess.
Re:Domestic Use Soon? (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't. This isn't a "missile defense system" per se, it is a tactical battefield weapon designed for force protection. To be used to defend troops and installations against short range tactical weapons like rockets, mortars, cruise missiles, etc. Not of much use in the continental US.
However, these lasers, and especially the larger, immobile THEL version, are perfect for Israel. Israeli communities and the IDF are constantly being harrassed by hit and run Katushka rocket, mortar, and guided missile threats from HAMAS and other Pal terrorists in the Territories, and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Interesting quote from a Reuters article (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Interesting quote from a Reuters article (Score:5, Funny)
They were rattlesnakes, and after being lightly fried, they were delicious. Then they were eliminated some time later.
Sooo... (Score:2, Funny)
Invisible beams? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Invisible beams? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Invisible beams? (Score:2)
Re:Invisible beams? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Invisible beams? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Invisible beams? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. I've seen pictures of the effect, possible from as early as the late 1960s. Turns the air in the beam into a plasma.
The problem is, that plasma is generally much less transparent to the laser than the air was (although that wasn't perfectly transparent or it wouldn't have absorbed any laser light), so the beam wastes its energy close to the laser emitter.
The goal with these things is to com
Wow (Score:2, Funny)
Oh yes, I feel safer already! My neighborhood is not a terrorist target at all now. F%^&kin press releases!
Re:Wow (Score:2, Funny)
Geeze, kids today just don't have what it takes, anymore!
Sweet (Score:2)
Mirrors? (Score:3, Insightful)
Accuracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Aiming is the same as hitting with an energy weapon in most scenarios, the lightspeed lag only becoming a factor at high speed/long range, light an orbital target. Even then, a computer-aided targeting system should be able to compensate.
Imagine if such a weapon system were mounted in a vehicle (I think I read something about a prototype of a different laser in a 737) where just having the target in the crosshairs is enough to guarantee its destruction. Gives a new perspective to sniping. Should also reduce civilian casualties.
Re:Accuracy (Score:2)
This is the first real laser weapon (Score:5, Interesting)
We're not talking about ICBMs here. This is aimed more at Katyusha batteries, a WWII truck-mounted launcher for 48 tube-launched unguided rockets. Those things had a range of about 5Km back in WWII. Their accuracy is poor, but they're cheap and can fire many rockets in the general direction of the target. Syria uses Katyusha batteries, and has been developing improved versions.
Patriot anti-missiles are too expensive to use against those things. The defenders would run out of Patriots long before the attackers ran out of Katyushas. So there's a real application for a laser weapon here. It won't stop all the incoming rockets, but cutting down a few thousand to a few hundred is a big win.
I wonder... (Score:3, Funny)
did he say "rockets"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Chemical / Biological weapons? (Score:3, Insightful)
That'll make a good press release! But at least the troops were safe.
Re:Chemical / Biological weapons? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Chemical / Biological weapons? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second choice, you destroy soon after launch, so the crap falls on the guy who launched in the first case.
Of course, from a "protect yourself first" POV, launch phase interception is better, but if you're concerned about the innocents the bad guy has placed around the launch site, exo is better.
Great!! What if you miss? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great!! What if you miss? (Score:3, Funny)
A reflective tin foil hat...
Tracking devices? (Score:3, Interesting)
direct video link... (Score:3, Informative)
A simple counter measure... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if the missile used in this test had a finishing that easily absorbs the laser energy. If it would be made of a highly reflective material, almost all energy would be reflected, and it would not be affected.
Steel not quite convinient weapon (Score:3, Insightful)
THEL description [israeli-weapons.com]
Mobile THEL prototype is not close yet (2007 optimists telling ) and will take about three trucks. Looks like existing THEL could be useful only for static defence positions in Isreal and South Korea.
As seen by Mastercard.... (Score:4, Funny)
Cost of building anti-missile laser? $10 million
Cost of deploying anti-missile laser? $15 million
Cost of mirror fitted to missile? $1.99
Effect of reflected laser on defending forces? priceless.
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
In the end the guy with the explosive beatup mercedes still wins.
Re:wow (Score:3, Interesting)
700 american soldiers have lost (their lives) in iraq, but america hasnt lost.. yet.
No side really wins in war - but the objective can fail. In iraq and other occupation situations the occupying army will always fail their objective of occupying, look at vietnam and israel. Israel is only still standing because of the regular injections from the US and look at the meagre resources of those who are against them.
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a tactical battlefield weapon meant for force protection. The article concerns the mobile THEL laser.
The larger, immobile THEL theoretically will be able to shoot down *mortar shells*. It has already been tested to successfully shoot down Katyushka small caliber rockets. These are revolutionary weapons systems.
Re:wow (Score:3, Insightful)
You need different defense systems for different offensive systems.
This is for use againt missiles, mortar shells, and the like.
Re:wow (Score:2)
So, following your logic, I strongly suggest you to remove the locks on your doors.
And, BTW, don't bother with the insurance company, after all they are useless to protect you against anything, even theefs like them.
Re:Jesus Christ. (Score:2, Insightful)
You are being very inconsistent in your statement.
The other guys are 'hostile', but it's the US's fault. hmmmm.
As to the MAD part, MAD is presently kind of irrelvant. US, Britain, France, & Russia have nukes and the long range, accurate delivery systems. And currently, we are all more or less friendly. and building down the nuke inventorie
Re:Jesus Christ. (Score:2, Interesting)
When will people learn that being righteous is not always a good enough reason to do something. Pissing off someone with nukes and reasons to use them is a bad thing. Being right wont matter when you're dead.
"As to the MAD part, MAD is presently kind of irrelvant. US, Britain, France, & Russia have nukes and the long range, accurate delivery systems. And currently, we are all more or less friendly. and building down the nuke inventories."
Re:15th Century Arms Race Redux (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
The cheap, plentiful cruise missle is the m