Laser Weapons on Aircraft by 2007

[Brasidas]

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

212292[/snapback]

 

I noticed in his original statement that he was asking about an "area-blinding" laser, which implies laser energy diffused over an area. I would guess the ability of any glasses to stop a given laser would depend on the glasses being engineered to block a specific wavelength or set of wavelengths, and then the irradiative power density being at or below the level that the goggles could handle. So in Theory it is possible to block an area blinding laser, but it just isn't very likely I think.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Can somebody explain to me why a multi-million dollar laser is a more effective weapon than a gun for targets other than missiles? When you get past the gee-whiz, it is a heavy, fragile and short range direct fire weapon.

[Brasidas]

Can somebody explain to me why a multi-million dollar laser is a more effective weapon than a gun for targets other than missiles?  When you get past the gee-whiz, it is a heavy, fragile and short range direct fire weapon.

212507[/snapback]

 

You could pick one target out of a crowd. Other than that, it has enormous growth potential.

[Stevely]

Can somebody explain to me why a multi-million dollar laser is a more effective weapon than a gun for targets other than missiles?  When you get past the gee-whiz, it is a heavy, fragile and short range direct fire weapon.

212507[/snapback]

 

How do we know it's short ranged?

 

EDIT: one thing that comes to mind, if the fire control was up to targeting a missile, on an aircraft the weapon could be used to both shoot down both other a/c and engage incoming missiles (would be effective vs. BVR radar guided missiles and SAMs, probably not vs. short range IR missiles). One weapon system would provide excellent offensive and defensive capabilities, you could save on the gun and ammunition. If the range is long enough, maybe on some of the missiles too.

Edited August 26, 2005 by Stevely

[Tony Williams]

one thing that comes to mind, if the fire control was up to targeting a missile, on an aircraft the weapon could be used to both shoot down both other a/c and engage incoming missiles (would be effective vs. BVR radar guided missiles and SAMs, probably not vs. short range IR missiles). One weapon system would provide excellent offensive and defensive capabilities, you could save on the gun and ammunition. If the range is long enough, maybe on some of the missiles too.

212538[/snapback]

 

Got there before you . This is a quote from: 'Flying Guns – the Modern Era: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations since 1945' by Emmanuel Gustin and myself:

 

"Work is also proceeding on airborne lasers; initially these will be huge weapons carried by large transport aircraft for intercepting ballistic missiles at long range, but fighter installations are also being considered. Raytheon is working on solid-state lasers for this purpose, with the possibility of using fibre optics later. The aim is to mount such a weapon on the F-35 by 2010. The beam could obviously be steered by mirrors in any direction, potentially very valuable in a dogfight. Such a system could conceivably be used to provide an anti-missile self-defence for the fighter. However, a laser is susceptible to adverse atmospheric conditions and no doubt countermeasures will also be developed, perhaps involving ablative coatings which not only absorb the heat of a laser strike but produce a highly-reflective surface when hit."

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Coldsteel]

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]

 

You're mostly right regarding Hollywood, although I can think of one exception: the future battle scenes of the first Terminator movie. Apart from perhaps the sounds I thought it was quite well done, things catching fire, people exploding ...

 

Decisions, decisions what to order? a Kill-o-zap blaster? Der plasma rifle in der 40-watt range? How about a Smith-Hitachi Godzilla blaster?

[Josh]

You're mostly right regarding Hollywood, although I can think of one exception: the future battle scenes of the first Terminator movie. Apart from perhaps the sounds I thought it was quite well done, things catching fire, people exploding ...

 

Decisions, decisions what to order? a Kill-o-zap blaster? Der plasma rifle in der 40-watt range? How about a Smith-Hitachi Godzilla blaster? 

212602[/snapback]

 

<Mr. Picky>That's a phase plasma rifle in the 40 Megawatt range...</Mr.Picky>

[Christian Lupine]

What if you had a large ground stationed laser that used some type of beam reflection to direct the laser goodness down on targets? ie. satellites or airship with prisims?

[JOE BRENNAN]

What if you had a large ground stationed laser that used some type of beam reflection to direct the laser goodness down on targets? ie. satellites or airship with prisims?

212675[/snapback]

That was one of the original SDI concepts, as an alternative to space based anti-BM lasers. More recently a press report said Boeing was proposing relay mirrors (on airships or long endurance UAV's) to work with weapons like ABL, to for example attack BM's still on their TEL's.

 

On lasers compared to other weapons, as I understand relatively near term state of art:

I don't see them as ground direct fire weapons, too bulky and expensive as was mentioned relative to the range which in that case is typically limited by the physical line of sight to quite short. On input/output power I haven't seen a figure for projects like HELLADS or JHPSSL but older stuff speaks of boosting solid state HEL's from 1% to 10% efficiency; even if substantially better still a sizeable generator.

 

For pure defense, as against missiles, arty rockets, etc. the drawback seems to me weather sensitivity. This might be limited to short periods in some climates, but OTOH an enemy can concentrate his attacks in those periods. This is especially true of ground based systems, much less so of anti-BM ABL since the target pretty much has to emerge from weather and the ABL can fly above it too, but also true of using even airborne lasers against say cruise missiles or planes.

 

So except ABL v. BM's, offense seems more suitable. Against ground targets the niche would seem high precision, low collateral damage use by a/c beyond the effective range of relatively small caliber guns (either shooting in or back at the plane). The most obvious tac air use is self defense against AAM/SAM. On missile countermeasures, reflective or ablative coating on missile seem logically obvious, but OTOH missiles as built are very thin and delicate, even large BM's typically 1mm or few skin. I've never seen a detailed discussion of the real feasibility of anti-laser coatings on missiles in terms of overall design impact. One other aircraft self defense use in the power range above current IRCM lasers but probably below 100kW lasers is physically blinding, as opposed to spoofing, missile IR seekers potentially on wavelengths the seeker must be open to to see the target.

 

Joe

Edited August 26, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Samson]

All interesting comments.

 

I think the laser is going to have a huge impact on warfare, but the particle beam is what realy is going to change things.

 

All of the positive properties of the laser but with much greater leathality and much less prone to weather conditions from my understanding.

 

Back to laser.

 

One of the big advantages of a laser over a projectile is time to target. Its hard to miss with a laser.

 

How about huge ground based lasers as AAA. Tied right into the power grid, cooled by rivers or whatever it takes. You could possibly wipe out anything in the sky with an integrated system.

 

ZAP!

 

With current technology how powerful of a laser could be installed inplace of the 30mm on an Warthog?

 

Would it be possible to fuel the laser with some sort of enerator?

 

So you would have the straffing laser and a bunch of external fuel tanks. Stay high up and ZAP away.

 

Somebody shoots a SAM at you, shoot it down with your laser.

 

AAA gun, stay above it or ZAP it.

 

realy the gimble mount thing on the front would mean you wouldnt have to dive/staff the target. Hmmm, lots of potential.

 

How about a UAV that loiters for long time periods and ZAPs whatever the grunts on the ground designate/tell it to?

[Josh]

All interesting comments.

 

I think the laser is going to have a huge impact on warfare, but the particle beam is what realy is going to change things.

 

All of the positive properties of the laser but with much greater leathality and much less prone to weather conditions from my understanding.

 

Back to laser.

 

One of the big advantages of a laser over a projectile is time to target.  Its hard to miss with a laser. 

 

How about huge ground based lasers as AAA.  Tied right into the power grid, cooled by rivers or whatever it takes.  You could possibly wipe out anything in the sky with an integrated system.

 

ZAP!

 

With current technology how powerful of a laser could be installed inplace of the 30mm on an Warthog?

 

Would it be possible to fuel the laser with some sort of enerator?

 

So you would have the straffing laser and a bunch of external fuel tanks.  Stay high up and ZAP away.

 

Somebody shoots a SAM at you, shoot it down with your laser.

 

AAA gun, stay above it or ZAP it.

 

realy the gimble mount thing on the front would mean you wouldnt have to dive/staff the target.  Hmmm, lots of potential.

 

How about a UAV that loiters for long time periods and ZAPs whatever the grunts on the ground designate/tell it to?

212754[/snapback]

 

Going to somoe points above, the laser wouldn't be drastically more effective than larger calibre gun or missile systems, along with limitations of LOS, weather, and volume and expense of the system. An AC-130 can already drop artillery shells in individual people from almost 10,000 feet; a laser isn't going to bring much leathality to the picture. As said above, lasers seem to come into their own against air targets, particularly air targets opperating at altitudes above weather. There is a lower degree of armoring possible on a vehicle that also has to fly and have good aerodynamics.

[Chris Werb]

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.

212413[/snapback]

 

 

The penetration figures presumably assume the laser is held absolutely steady, aimed at a motionless target. Something that's unlikely to occur in an air to air scenario.

[gewing]

I agree that anti aircraft is going to be the primary role for lasers. Whether Ground or air based is another issue.

 

Even if the laser is not able to be "held steady" on target for multiple seconds, as burning through steel would require, the thermal shock of a hit from a weapon level laser should be significant. I don't know how composit structures will deal with it, possibly not well. Aluminum? It doesn't take much to burn through. I believe the mirrors used to aim the lasers will be between .5 and 1 meter in diameter. This means a good chance the cockpit will be hit...

 

Or an area with fuel tanks.

 

Or an external weapon.

 

All in all, I wouldn't want to be a pilot flying against laser weapons.

 

Missiles might not be destroyed easily, but if a fin is burned off, it should lose a lot of accuracy.

 

 

Lasers might also be useful in long range "harrassment" roles, setting fires, targetting radar antennae, etc.

[DB]

I noticed in his original statement that he was asking about an "area-blinding" laser, which implies laser energy diffused over an area. I would guess the ability of any glasses to stop a given laser would depend on the glasses being engineered to block a specific wavelength or set of wavelengths, and then the irradiative power density being at or below the level that the goggles could handle. So in Theory it is possible to block an area blinding laser, but it just isn't very likely I think.

212505[/snapback]

Ah, I missed that. However, I wonder how much lower the energy density needs to be if you have a CW laser with that power - surely you'd just scan a box at full intensity - if the foliage catches fire, you know you're doing it right.

 

Way back in 1988 I worked for a few weeks one summer at a laser laboratory (I've mentioned this before, perhaps, and you've indicated that optics is far from a mystery to you, so this isn't news, but anyway).

 

The "mirrors" used were thick, very flat pieces of glass that were given a coating that reflected the laser wavelengths with very high percentage reflection. The experiment used two IR wavelengths and frequency-doubled one beam to get green, and three different mirror coatings were used. All three were see-through, the green wavelength one looked, well, very faintly green.

 

The mirrors weren't exactly suitable for field use.

 

David

[Coldsteel]

<Mr. Picky>That's a phase plasma rifle in the 40 Megawatt range...</Mr.Picky>

212615[/snapback]

 

Really? (goes away and checks) It has been a while since I last watched it. OK, you're right about the phase, but he does only say 40 watts.

[Exel]

A newbie question: How easy / hard is it to protect personel or material from high-energy lasers from that 150kW upwards? For example, could you effectively make a plane or a tank immune to it with simple laser-deflecting add-on plates (or coating)? Could you engineer personal body vests that would protect from at least man-portable laser weapons (not necessarily 150kW)? Considering the available tech for both the weapons and the protection measures in the forseeable future (til 2020 or so).

Edited August 27, 2005 by Exel

[Brasidas]

A newbie question: How easy / hard is it to protect personel or material from high-energy lasers from that 150kW upwards? For example, could you effectively make a plane or a tank immune to it with simple laser-deflecting add-on plates (or coating)? Could you engineer personal body vests that would protect from at least man-portable laser weapons (not necessarily 150kW)? Considering the available tech for both the weapons and the protection measures in the forseeable future (til 2020 or so).

213078[/snapback]

 

Depends. When I left the laser research area back in 98, there was a lot of work being done in these little objects called "micospheres" which were basically different types of ceramic spheres in the range of a micron or so in size. They had the ability to "absorb" the energy of incident laser energy that was an integral wavelength of the sphere diamter, and over time even use complimentary destructive interference at specific integral resonant frequencies to accomplish this goal. Google "whispering gallery modes" and you'll get more than enough returns to answer most questions.

[gewing]

JMO, but

 

The biggest problem armored vehicles would have with lasers would be destruction of optics and exposed crew, I would guess.

 

If held on target for a longer period, it would probably be possible to damage ERA, the smoke grenade launchers, etc, but I would guess a quick "flash" to hit any exposed crew and damage the optics would be a more cost effective tactic.

 

 

Helicopters, however...

 

 

and artillery would be an "interesting" target.

[Tomexe]

JMO, but

 

The biggest problem armored vehicles would have with lasers would be destruction of optics and exposed crew, I would guess.

 

If held on target for a longer period, it would probably be possible to damage ERA, the smoke grenade launchers, etc, but I would guess a quick "flash" to hit any exposed crew  and damage the optics would be a more cost effective tactic.

Helicopters, however...

and artillery would be an "interesting" target.

213289[/snapback]

 

Its going to be interesting. But I have never seen any article tout even 100+kw power level lasers as being useful against armored vehicles. They talk about aircraft, trucks, and personnel as targets.

 

Western MBTs with their partially hollow armor "boxes" composed in part of non-metallic materials would be tough for lasers to go through because of the difference in heat propigation.

 

For protecting the lighter vehicles and aircraft it should be noted that carbon nanotube based materials conduct heat VERY well. If there was a heat-sink attached that heat could flow to it might make getting burn through quite complicated...

[EchoFiveMike]

Burning through anything more significant than sheetmetal from a moving aircraft at combat ranges is a dream for a distant future(25+ yrs). Personally, I think lasers on aircraft will have use vs incoming missiles and other aircraft, but ground based lasers will have MUCH greater capabilities at any given tech level and so it would be unwise for aircraft to come within LOS of such weapons.

 

The only real advantage I see over a cannon is the lack of recoil issues and perhaps cumbustion gas ingestion problems, as on the A-10. And the utility vs incoming missiles but that would probably be better served with a much more limited power laser on a gimballed of some sort. S/F....Ken M

[gewing]

Its going to be interesting.  But I have never seen any article tout even 100+kw power level lasers as being useful against armored vehicles.  They talk about aircraft, trucks, and personnel as targets.

 

Western MBTs with their partially hollow armor "boxes" composed in part of non-metallic materials would be tough for lasers to go through because of the difference in heat propigation.

 

For protecting the lighter vehicles and aircraft it should be noted that carbon nanotube based materials conduct heat VERY well.  If there was a heat-sink attached that heat could flow to it might make getting burn through quite complicated...

213740[/snapback]

 

 

That was what I meant. I imagine it would take a David Webber range laser to have significant ARMOR penetration.

 

but external stuff might be damaged. Particularly electronics or PEOPLE.

[Brasidas]

I really fail to see how optics can be damaged by lasers. Optics might transmit laser energy readily, but they tend not to be affected by lasers. Electro-optics on the other hand, that's a different animal.

 

Laser efficacy on armor will be dependant upon emitted wavelength and emitted power density per incident area. IOW, until you start looking at short UV or soft X-ray wavelength lasers, the likelyhood of armor penetration enough to kill AFVs, from airborne lasers is highly unlikely IMO. By that time, there may well be some counter measure in place.

[Tony Williams]

I really fail to see how optics can be damaged by lasers. Optics might transmit laser energy readily, but they tend not to be affected by lasers.

Well, for optics to be of any use you need one of two things at the other end of them - either an electronic sensor or an eyeball. Both are potentially very vulnerable to lasers.

 

TW

[FirstOfFoot]

I really fail to see how optics can be damaged by lasers. Optics might transmit laser energy readily, but they tend not to be affected by lasers. Electro-optics on the other hand, that's a different animal.

214614[/snapback]

 

But optics on their own don't achieve much. The problem is the sensor at the other end of the optics. It's either the Mk.1 eyeball with its rods and cones (sensitive to kilowatts of laser energy, you'll agree) or a semiconductor device at the other end.

 

Overheat the semiconductor, and bye-bye sensor. A soft kill is almost as good as a hard kill, I'm sure you'll agree. Try searching on "Nemesis DIRCM".

[Brasidas]

But optics on their own don't achieve much. The problem is the sensor at the other end of the optics. It's either the Mk.1 eyeball with its rods and cones (sensitive to kilowatts of laser energy, you'll agree) or a semiconductor device at the other end.

 

Overheat the semiconductor, and bye-bye sensor. A soft kill is almost as good as a hard kill, I'm sure you'll agree. Try searching on "Nemesis DIRCM".

214695[/snapback]

 

Fine, then say "electro-optics" or "humans operating the optics", but don't say "optics taken out by lasers" cause it ain't gonna happen. There's always another eyeball and lasers can't keep lasing all day.