I Call It A LASER CANNON!

[SCFalken]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/14/we..._time_for_xmas/

 

US killtech behemoth Northrop Grumman has has said that it is ready to take orders for the "world's first ruggedised, weaponised high energy solid state laser designed for battlefield applications". The raygun module is dubbed FIRESTRIKE™.

 

 

Overkill, you might say, just for lighting campfires.

"This is a rugged electric laser with power levels, beam quality and runtime suitable for offensive and defensive military utility," said Northrop beam-cannon chief Dan Wildt.

 

"Combined with advanced electro optical and/or infrared sensors, the FIRESTRIKE™ laser can provide self-defense [or]precision strike capabilities."

 

Northrop has long been working to produce weapons-grade solid state lasers with US military funding. To date, the only way to make a laser useful as a weapon in its own right - rather than a pointer for other systems, or a dazzler - has been to use chemically fuelled systems.

 

There are two combat lasers under development right now using chemical fuels. The biggest is the jumbo-jet mounted Airborne Laser (ABL), intended to blast enemy ICBMs above their launch bases. Then there's the Hercules transport-plane Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) gunship model, intended perhaps as a silent, undetectable sky-sniper for the US special-ops community.

 

But chem lasers need big tanks of dangerous toxic fuel, and produce equally hazardous and corrosive exhaust products. Their logistics requirements are nightmarish, and realistically they are only for static use or mounting in large aircraft or ships.

 

Solid state lasers, powered by electricity, are much easier to deal with. Until now, however, they have had rather low power levels. As an example, Boeing's Humvee-mounted "Laser Avenger" has to be shone on an enemy munition for quite some time before it will explode.

 

Northrop reckon they've changed all that. A single FIRESTRIKE™ module weighs 400lb and delivers 15 kilowatts. FIRESTRIKE™s can be linked together to get a more powerful beam, apparently.

 

It would seem, then, that FIRESTRIKE™ is simply one of Northrop's previously-announced solid state laser "chain" units, ready for sale. The firm has said that at least eight of these can be linked up to get a proper 100 kilowatt beam, generally seen as the threshold for a true battlefield weapon. Beam quality, for the laser aficionados among those reading, is listed at "nominally 1.5 times the diffraction limit". Others may be pleased to note that FIRESTRIKE™s come with Ethernet interface as standard.

 

Energy efficiency for Northrop's chains is supposedly in the 20 per cent region. This suggests that a full-bore 100kW battle ray will weigh about 1.5 tonnes and require half a megawatt of power. That's pretty hefty, but it's within the ballpark for modern combat vehicles.

 

Portable blaster rifles or carbines aren't really on the cards yet, then. But a reasonably useful laser tank could well be a goer if Northrop can do what they say.

 

 

 

 

Falken

[Guest JamesG123]

US killtech behemoth Northrop Grumman has has said...

 

[Marek Tucan]

Now we'll witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battlastation

[Coldsteel]

This suggests that a full-bore 100kW battle ray will weigh about 1.5 tonnes and require half a megawatt of power.

We're gonna need a bigger shark.

[BansheeOne]

We're gonna need a bigger shark.

 

[chino]

China already has 2 laser weapons in service though they are probably just dazzlers etc... I don't know details.

 

One is mounted on tank commander cupola as an AA weapon to blind/dazzle enemy pilots. The other is handheld like a rifle and probably for SWAT-type jobs.

[shep854]

China already has 2 laser weapons in service though they are probably just dazzlers etc... I don't know details.

 

One is mounted on tank commander cupola as an AA weapon to blind/dazzle enemy pilots. The other is handheld like a rifle and probably for SWAT-type jobs.

 

Back in the early '70s, the USAF experimented with green lasers for AAA suppression. The weapon would lock on an IR source (muzzle flash) and lase to blind the gunner. It was rejected as being inhumane. I read about it in Aviation Week & Space Technology.

[Guest JamesG123]

And don't forget the Bradley based Stingray. Also canceled because it was "unfair".

 

[chino]

Back in the early '70s, the USAF experimented with green lasers for AAA suppression. The weapon would lock on an IR source (muzzle flash) and lase to blind the gunner. It was rejected as being inhumane. I read about it in Aviation Week & Space Technology.

 

Why is it inhumane for the tank commander to blind the enemy about to roast him and his crew alive?

[jakec]

China already has 2 laser weapons in service though they are probably just dazzlers etc... I don't know details.

 

One is mounted on tank commander cupola as an AA weapon to blind/dazzle enemy pilots. The other is handheld like a rifle and probably for SWAT-type jobs.

 

Here is the rifle-like laser dazzler...

http://img7.exs.cx/img7/9484/laser-gun.jpg

 

We all know the tank mounted one, its on the back of the ZTZ-99 MBT turret.

http://cfs8.tistory.com/image/9/tistory/20...8/48cfb6e78698a

 

They originated from ZM-87 project shown publicly at a defence expo in 1995...

http://writingcompany.blogs.com/photos/unc.../zm87_photo.jpg

[shep854]

Why is it inhumane for the tank commander to blind the enemy about to roast him and his crew alive?

 

Got me.

[EchoFiveMike]

Nice AAA and C-RAM tool right there. S/F....Ken M

[Ivanhoe]

I predict it will be 2.3 days before the Army's laser artillerists figure out how to heat up MREs.

 

If its practical and cheap on a per-pulse basis, all sorts of oddball applications might arise. For example, shots into soil to create a smokescreen type of effect (flash-heat the soil, steam explosion throws dirt into the air, repeat as needed)? Precision-applied defoliation?

[jakec]

Eat your heart out comrade!

 

http://www.ontoinfo.com/2007/07/31/russian...er-pistol-1984/

[irregularmedic]

Eat your heart out comrade!

 

http://www.ontoinfo.com/2007/07/31/russian...er-pistol-1984/

 

So does the magazine contain flash bulbs?

[Guest JamesG123]

Yes apparently the magazine contained "flash bulbs".

 

 

Also apparently it did not work worth a crap otherwise there would be lazer pistolskis all over the third world by now.

[Gregory]

Can somebody give me an idea of what these modules (appropriately daisy-chained) can be used for, accounting for for output and power requirements?

[Gregory]

OK, since nobody cares to hazard a guess, I'll guesstimate on my own. Assuming a moving target at 10 km/hr, a 15 kW beam would spend about 0.003 seconds on a particular spot ( which I chose to be 1 cm), which means that it would deliver about 50 joules to the target spot, which is equivalent to about what a .22LR would deliver. It is a continous beam, but I don't know how to account for that.

[Lampshade111]

And don't forget the Bradley based Stingray. Also canceled because it was "unfair".

 

 

I thought limited numbers of those entered service. Yet wasn't the Stingray just a high powered laser dazzler type device as seen on some Chinese Type-99 MBTs?

 

This certainly has much potential in this, but what sort of vehicles should it be tested on?

[Guest JamesG123]

It was cleared for production and deployment but was canceled by your buddy and mine, Sec o Def. Donald Rumsfeld (or it was chosen by the Army to cut to save something else it wanted).

[Lampshade111]

My question is if systems like the Firestrike could possibly have the capability to be "toned down" and used as a laser dazzler. It would certainly give such laser weapons a unique multi-role capability. Yet the Army would have to get past the media and their "oh noes, evil blinding death lasers" nonsense.

 

Is a gunshot wound really that much better?

[kaikaun]

Blinding laser weapons are prohibited under Protocol IV of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (aka Geneva Conventions), which came into force in 1998. I do not know if China is a party to this protocol, but the US certainly is. So, no you cannot use this laser to blind enemy soldiers, unless blinding takes the form of burning a hole through his head.

[Lampshade111]

Blinding laser weapons are prohibited under Protocol IV of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (aka Geneva Conventions), which came into force in 1998. I do not know if China is a party to this protocol, but the US certainly is. So, no you cannot use this laser to blind enemy soldiers, unless blinding takes the form of burning a hole through his head.

 

I recall that this was the case, but does the Geneva Convention differentiate between temporarily and permanently blinding the enemy?

 

Regardless, just as they have done in the past I am sure the media will attack this and any future laser devices because they could blind somebody.

[Archie Pellagio]

We're gonna need a bigger shark.

 

BWAHAHA!

Into the TN hall of fame

[DB]

I believe the eye-safe range for the Apache's designator is measured in 10s of kilometers, maybe more than 100.

 

If the primary purpose of the weapon is to dazzle seeker optics, or to designate targets, blinding combatants would be "accidental".