Laser Weapons on Aircraft by 2007

[Eric Johnson]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/militar...reut/index.html

 

Okay seems to be pushing a 2007 date, my question here is HOW will they cool this system and what would be the range?

 

Anyone know anymore on this?

[DB]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/militar...reut/index.html

 

Okay seems to be pushing a 2007 date, my question here is HOW will they cool this system and what would be the range?

 

Anyone know anymore on this?

211811[/snapback]

Previous discussions on the cooling issue have leant on using the fuel as a heat sink, and presumably rely on time and perhaps some secondary cooling loop to cool the fuel again after it gets "charged up".

 

Now, my speculation:

 

Consider that pre-heating fuel before it gets injected into the engine and burned would be a good thing, so imagine that a small header tank of fuel was heated by the waste from a laser burst. That could be fed directly to the engine, and therefore not add to the heat of the main fuel tank. If it wasn't used, it could be cycled back into the main tank and the heat would dissipate normally.

 

Expect to see this in the CTOL and CV versions of the F-35, slotted in where the lift fan goes in the STOVL variant.

 

David

[Brasidas]

During some recent interviews, I got some skinny on the chemical fueled lasers. The "fuel" would be useless as a coolant, since it is consumed within less than ten seconds with continuous lasing. Evidently, a pretty significant centrifugal pump is needed to keep the laser powered. No news on the cooling scheme however, but I would assume liquid nitrogen is the favored solution.

[GiantSpaceLaser]

Hmm, the hybrid liquid solid-state concept sounds interesting, I wonder how much input power that 150KW beam would require, how much has efficiency been improved? Well, power probably won't be much of an issue.

 

The implications seem to be pretty promising, I'd imagine that it would be entirely feasible to implement a laser capable of shooting down incoming missiles, which could potentially render an aircraft nearly invulnerable to enemy ground fire at suitably high-altitudes (assuming that the enemy hasn't drastically revolutionised their anti-air defenses, perhaps implementing rail-guns, lasers, or what have you). I'd also imagine that a similar system can be implemented on a tank for active protection against RPGs and ATGMs (although wattage might have to be decreased given that even the M1's turbine only produces the equivalent of about 1 megawatt- which given my current ideas of efficiency, probably won't be enough to support a 150 kilowatt beam).

 

Heres another article on the development of tactical lasers:

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/200...l-bff053102.php

 

Apparently, this 13 KW laser was able to burn a 1 centimeter diameter hole through two centimeters of steel in 6 seconds. Now imagine what a laser thats over 10 times as powerful could do (well, your not going to bust any tanks anytime soon but still).

Edited August 25, 2005 by GiantSpaceLaser

[JOE BRENNAN]

, my question here is HOW will they cool this system and what would be the range?

211811[/snapback]

I think the laser they are speaking of is a hybrid in the sense that in a chemical laser the chemical reaction excites the lasing medium, generally a gas or mix of (like the ABL's Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser). In a solid state HEL, like the sort of competing Joint High Power Solid State Laser program within DoD but not DARPA like HELLADS, also to produce a tactical a/c high energy laser, you have solid state electronic components exciting a solid lasing medium. A big issue is cooling, particularly the exciting components (like diodes), like they said. JHPSSL teams have been working on improved ways of doing that with helium, I gather from articles, at least among the coolants, and more efficient diodes to kick out less heat. The HELLADS set up I believe has solid state components exciting a heterogeneous liquid lasing medium that's also the coolant.

 

On range I've seen ballparks of several to tens of miles for lasers in the range aimed at for JHPSSL, like 100kW. I guess it would really depend what slices of the atmosphere (low or high altitude) you were firing through, weather conditions obviously, and how resistant the target is. The ABL is usually quoted as something like 1 mW hoping to attack BM's at several hundred miles, but that assumes I think 40k ft. for the plane, and it would generally be firing up at the missiles.

 

Joe

[SCFalken]

Seems like it would make a good weapon in the the anti-personnel role. Wide-angle beam for area-blinding? Enemy troops cannot see, so they cannot fight.

 

 

 

Falken

[Djuice]

If they do make a blinding laser weapon for anti-personnel use, hope its only temporary, not permanent.

[EchoFiveMike]

If they do make a blinding laser weapon for anti-personnel use, hope its only temporary, not permanent.

211933[/snapback]

 

Sorry, that's not how it works. Blinding is very bad and very permanent. Also, blinding weapons are illegal due to treaty, but since we don't seem to have the balls to enforce any treaties, why not use 'em? S/F....Ken M

[Samson]

Lets set aside the blinding for a second and consider this weapon in use as a MG/Coax is now.

 

I can not recall the name of the effect, but when a laser strikes a target the outer layers of material are vaporized creating a cloud. The cloud can detract from the effects of the laser because it blocks part of the energy and become super heated.

 

As its super heated a powerful shockwave forms, IE like a thunderclap. This shockwave can have almost as much destructive effect as the laser it self form some reports.

 

If a laser as described in the articles above would strike a grunt I woule expect:

 

- And explosive like effect on the direct target area. The fluid in the cells/viens would instantly become steam, expand 1000 fold, and a large chunk of the poor fellow would basicaly explode like something you left in the microwave to long.

 

- The super heated vapor cloud would create a shockwave and send the poor bastard flying or at least knock him down very hard.

 

- Kit/body armor would melt and burn the area around the impact zone.

 

- If it hit him in the eye you would have the steam explosion taking placein an eyesocket...

 

Very nasty, very effective, completely silent (i am guessing), instant time to target, hmmmmmm.....

[pluto77189]

Lets set aside the blinding for a second and consider this weapon in use as a MG/Coax is now.

 

I can not recall the name of the effect, but when a laser strikes a target the outer layers of material are vaporized creating a cloud.  The cloud can detract from the effects of the laser because it blocks part of the energy and become super heated.

 

As its super heated a powerful shockwave forms, IE like a thunderclap.  This shockwave can have almost as much destructive effect as the laser it self form some reports.

 

If a laser as described in the articles above would strike a grunt I woule expect:

 

-  And explosive like effect on the direct target area.  The fluid in the cells/viens would instantly become steam, expand 1000 fold, and a large chunk of the poor fellow would basicaly explode like something you left in the microwave to long.

 

-  The super heated vapor cloud would create a shockwave and send the poor bastard flying or at least knock him down very hard.

 

-  Kit/body armor would melt and burn the area around the impact zone.

 

-  If it hit him in the eye you would have the steam explosion taking placein an eyesocket...

 

Very nasty, very effective, completely silent (i am guessing), instant time to target, hmmmmmm.....

212109[/snapback]

 

All the test footage shows what a laser would do to metallic targets. I have never heard of any research as to how a high energy laser would affect a human target. It seems simple, setting up some dead pigs in body armor. I guess high energy lasers are just too expensive to waste time on testing them for stuff like that.

 

The instantaneous superheating of water can cause massive, nasty explosions. The way some of these lasers burn through metal, I woudl think they'd cause catrstrophic damage to personell. It probably would be a horrific way to die. All the more reason not to **ck with us.

 

I think they should stick one of these SS lasers into an AC-130. IT might prove extremely effective against personel, and soft targets.

 

One of the ideas flying around was to have multiple crystal/diode assmblies. One would fire, another would move into place, fire, then another, and another... a laser gattling gun. a liquid cooled version would be better, I guess.

[Christian Lupine]

Could a laser aimed at soldiers be reflected back on the source?

[tankerwanabe]

Wouldn't getting some laser-safe goggles nullify an area-blinding laser weapon?

 

So a $20 goggle just rendered a multi-million dollar state of the art laser system obsolete.

 

And I think the goggles are already fielded. You can get them off the shelf.

[larrikin]

Sorry, that's not how it works.  Blinding is very bad and very permanent.  Also, blinding weapons are illegal due to treaty, but since we don't seem to have the balls to enforce any treaties, why not use 'em?  S/F....Ken M

211951[/snapback]

 

So's the standard issue 5.56mm round and white phosphorous used as an AP solution. What's your problem? The US (and many other nations) mealy mouth around Hague as it is, doing it on lasers wouldn't be much of an extension.

[Stevely]

So's the standard issue 5.56mm round and white phosphorous used as an AP solution.  What's your problem?  The US (and many other nations) mealy mouth around Hague as it is, doing it on lasers wouldn't be much of an extension.

212209[/snapback]

 

I assure you, Ken has no problems with lasers permanently blinding the savages.

[Burncycle360]

I wonder if they could make a mini ABL based around a C-2 for use by carriers.

 

It wouldn't have the range of the 747 version, but I imagine it can be more powerful than the small fighter sized versions.

Edited August 25, 2005 by Burncycle360

[DB]

Wouldn't getting some laser-safe goggles nullify an area-blinding laser weapon?

 

So a $20 goggle just rendered a multi-million dollar state of the art laser system obsolete. 

 

And I think the goggles are already fielded. You can get them off the shelf.

212206[/snapback]

Not many laser safe goggles cope with 150kW lasers. The kind of laser used as a plumb line would be five orders of magnitude less than that, or worse.

 

David

[Burncycle360]

Yes, because we all know insurgents can get laser safe goggles in the local farmers market in Iraq.....

Edited August 25, 2005 by Burncycle360

[DB]

During some recent interviews, I got some skinny on the chemical fueled lasers. The "fuel" would be useless as a coolant, since it is consumed within less than ten seconds with continuous lasing. Evidently, a pretty significant centrifugal pump is needed to keep the laser powered. No news on the cooling scheme however, but I would assume liquid nitrogen is the favored solution.

211847[/snapback]

I've heard that large scale chemical lasers bear more than a passing resemblance to a rocket engine, so perhaps an SSME turbopump might do the job

 

The fuel I was talking about would be the aircraft's fuel, though, not the laser's fuel. You'd need a heat exchanger to get the heat out of the laser assembly and into the fuel tank.

 

A hint at military.com suggests that the "breakthrough" may be in using a liquid to act as the mirror surfaces, which presumably could be pumped through at a rate high enough to keep them cool.

 

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1463...ELLADS,,00.html (paragraph 4).

 

David

[EchoFiveMike]

So's the standard issue 5.56mm round and white phosphorous used as an AP solution. What's your problem? The US (and many other nations) mealy mouth around Hague as it is, doing it on lasers wouldn't be much of an extension.

 

Yes, I've used the IR aiming lasers to blind dogs and would have no problems using them to blind savages, but what's the point? If you could blind them, why not shoot them with a real weapon?

 

DB, you have the goggles sitting there in a pile of ash, kinda like the old Oakley T shirts:)

 

Tanker, protection is wavelength specific and works up to a given flux density. Direct 150kw is so far past anything a goggle could cope with, it's to the point of humor. Like I said, think of said goggles sitting in a pile of ash. S/F....Ken M

[Stevely]

All the test footage shows what a laser would do to metallic targets.  I have never heard of any research as to how a high energy laser would affect a human target.  It seems simple, setting up some dead pigs in body armor.  I guess high energy lasers are just too expensive to waste time on testing them for stuff like that. 

 

The instantaneous superheating of water can cause massive, nasty explosions.  The way some of these lasers burn through metal, I woudl think they'd cause catrstrophic damage to personell.  It probably would be a horrific way to die.  All the more reason not to **ck with us.

 

I think they should stick one of these SS lasers into an AC-130.  IT might prove extremely effective against personel, and soft targets. 

 

One of the ideas flying around was to have multiple crystal/diode assmblies.  One would fire, another would move into place, fire, then another, and another... a laser gattling gun.  a liquid cooled version would be better, I guess.

212171[/snapback]

 

I've heard that too, that high powered laser like the 150kw version talked about here could cause horrendous wounds by flash heating organic tissue causing it to explode.

 

This is a case where Hollywood has (as so often in its sci fi) really stunted the imaginations of people. Laser weapons would cause some radical changes in warfare and make their movie counterparts (Except the Death Star... ) look pathetic. Those just tend to be guns that shoot light and make funny noises, but otherwise act like normal guns. A laser that could kill instantly at line of sight would change battlefield dynamics radically.

[GiantSpaceLaser]

I've heard that too, that high powered laser like the 150kw version talked about here could cause horrendous wounds by flash heating organic tissue causing it to explode.

 

That wouldn't be surprising, as I pointed out in a previous post, a 13kw laser can burn through 2 centimeters of steel in 6 seconds, a 150kw laser would be over 11x as powerful.

[gewing]

I wonder if they could make a mini ABL based around a C-2 for use by carriers.

 

It wouldn't have the range of the 747 version, but I imagine it can be more powerful than the small fighter sized versions.

212276[/snapback]

 

 

 

THere is the "tactical Airborne Laser" that is supposed to mount on C-130 or heavy helicopter.

 

smaller, iirc it is a 100-150 kw.

[FlyingCanOpener]

This is a case where Hollywood has (as so often in its sci fi) really stunted the imaginations of people. Laser weapons would cause some radical changes in warfare and make their movie counterparts (Except the Death Star... ) look pathetic. Those just tend to be guns that shoot light and make funny noises, but otherwise act like normal guns. A laser that could kill instantly at line of sight would change battlefield dynamics radically.

212307[/snapback]

 

Hmm...but what happens on a battlefield like the Middle East, where dust could (theoretically) reduce the killing power of the laser?

 

If this is true, I can see the US use this through thinking that only exists at the Pentagon to create lasers with reduced output that are designed to wound, not kill, because it would take 5 extra men out of the fight to care for the wounded soldier. Completely usefull weapons will be replaced with reduced power versions and as a result, I can see the 100-page TankNet threads already... "Maiming Lasers v. Killing Lasers: Just let me kill the %()*%# Savages with my Zapper Already!"

[Samson]

Wow, a 150kw laser in a C130 would be impressive!

 

Thats getting up there in the rage of light AFV killer, or at least it seems it would be. Anybody?

 

Straffing just got a whole lot more interesting....

[Brasidas]

I wonder if they could make a mini ABL based around a C-2 for use by carriers.

 

It wouldn't have the range of the 747 version, but I imagine it can be more powerful than the small fighter sized versions.

212276[/snapback]

 

Range isn't that dependent on power, but more on the wavelength of the emitted radiation.