We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Laser defense I have been following the slow transition of laser weaponry from infancy to toddler over the last 25 years so I keep my eyes open for interesting developments in that area. This small item from Jane’s (subscription only) is quite interesting:
Lasers for area defence. Raytheon is forging ahead with a demonstration programme to show that a laser can equal or better the performance of traditional gun-based systems, with greater development potential and at reduced cost. The company’s Laser Area Defense System (LA DS) utilises the Phalanx platform, combined with current solid-state laser capability to tackle the very real threat of mortars and Katyusha rockets.
I saw video of a laser taking down two Katyusha’s in flight quite some time ago and am pleased to see things developing apace. I can think of one small Middle Eastern democracy which might find a system of this type highly efficacious.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Dale,
This small democracy was looking for some time for a defence system. I doubt such a system is posible, as what you have to intercept flys some 8 seconds or so, from shooting to target – being extremely short range.
A system named “iron dome”, under development in Israel, has been choosen more than a year ago, based on an interceptor missile. This looks to totally crazy, as there is no way you can fire a counter missile and hit within 8, or 15 seconds, or whatever. Second, there is no way you can fire a 30K $ missile to kill a 100$ katiusha. So the ‘iron dome’ looks very much like spin to me.
Laser manufacturers, Raytheon among them, were trying to peddle their ware to replace the ‘iron dome’. Seems that much of their announcements is sale talk, not to be taken too seriously. That is what some experts in the defence ministry are saying, they say they checked the laser systems, and they did’nt work.
In general I think that mortars and katyushas can be stopped onlty the old fashioned way – you have to go in and kill the shooters.
Dale, does a laser actually knock out the mortar (or whatever) physically, or does it merely disable its guidance system?
Amazingly it uses off-the-shelf optical and solid-state components, rather than the $3000 per shot Northrop Grumman Skyguard chemical laser system, developed in conjunction with that certain Middle Eastern democracy.
Boeing have been working on a system that can engage ground targets. It’s a 12,000 pound integrated laser module that’s strapped into a C-130H and uses a beam control system to direct the laser beam to its target. The laser is fired through a rotating turret that extends through the aircraft’s belly.
Tests were scheduled to take place this year sometime, in fact they may have already taken place. I last read up on this subject back in Dec. 2007.
However, the system Boeing use is a chemical laser and therefore very fragile and possibly years away from seeing real action, if ever.
That said, the lid’s of the box and lasers weapon systems will have their day. They are a great solution to saturated artillery and cheap Russian/Chinese rockets. And collateral damage will be generally minimised.
The question comes down to the trade offs between chemical lasers (The bird in the hand) and solid state lasers (The bird in the bush)
Chemical lasers are within a few years of being fully operational. The ABL based on a 747 is planed to have its first full test next year, the C-130 based ATL will also begin tests shortly. Both systems have enough power to destroy their targets.
The problem is, do they have enough of their chemical fuel to fire more than just a few shots? And can they be refueled (rearmed) quickly enough. Someone in a position to know, once called these systems flying toxic waste dumps. They are at this time the best we can do.
Solid state lasers are not anywhere near as far along, but due to their technological similarity to the computer/communications/information industry the technology could move forward much faster than we have seen with chemical lasers.
Dale should have some good stuff to say about this.
I was a Fire Controlman in the US Navy back in the 90s. I worked mostly on the Mk 23 Target Acquisition System which is the search radar for the NATO Sea Sparrow Improved Point Defense Surface Missile System (IPDSMS). I also worked with the MK 115 Phalanx CIWS to a lesser degree.
As long as you don’t have to have an operator in the loop, any of the modern systems can detect and engage in far less then 8-15 seconds.
The detection to engagement part of the system is all known technology. The only challenge is designing a laser that can reliably get enough energy to the target. In the long run, a solid state laser would be the best choice as it would eliminate the need for ammunition or replacement chemical used in the chemical lasers.
Dale, does a laser actually knock out the mortar (or whatever) physically, or does it merely disable its guidance system?
My impression is that the lasers either cause a premature detonation of the warhead (in the case of mortars and the like) or ignite the fuel (in the case of rockets, missiles, etc). In both cases, the weapon still detonates, but without reaching the target (and hopefully while far enough up that stuff on the ground will be in minimal danger).
Messing with the guidance is more of an ECM/ECCM thing, not something you’d use a laser for. A lot of the threats people want to use lasers on don’t have terminal guidance- RPGs, Mortars, and Katyushas are all unguided once you fire them off.
Taylor – The problem is, do they have enough of their chemical fuel to fire more than just a few shots?
The YAL-1A program on the 747 was test fired for 10 seconds continuously. In reality I imagine short bursts of 3 to 4 sec. will be the norm.
The benchmark requirement back in early days was 20 shots. After plane modification this was doubled to 40. By 2012 it might be as high as 100 shots.
I have heard very little about this system before this bit associated with an arms show. Solid state is certainly the way to go in the long run. They have not (until now?) had sufficient power, so most of the demos you see and most of the strategic systems are based on chemical lasers. These are very potent but they use a lot of fuel and are very large. I was even rather surprised that the technology had advanced to the point where a C-130 could manage one, albiet a bit smaller than the strategic missile defense laser in the 747.
The solid state laser only needs power to fire; the firing rate is probably limited only by how fast you can charge up for the shot and how fast you can reject the heat left over from the last one.
On the downside, might I suggest that a laser emplacement will be a very bright thermal target? It had better be able to fire quick as I do not believe a heat seeker could miss it.
As to shooting down missiles with classical firepower… the Phalanx is an awesome weapon and it can put up a wall of depleted Uranium to bring down an anti-ship missile on terminal guidance.
I have read about Iron Dome and although it might work, the cost trade off just does not work. Trade offs like that let a low tech attacker bleed the enemy’s economy dry. You have to have a lower or similar value on the defensive arms to win.
Dale Amon – You have to have a lower or similar value on the defensive arms to win.
Which is why – and apologies for going OT – that particular Middle Eastern democracy should meet every $100 rocket with 2 $100 rockets.
Any defence based on shooting arrows and not archers is a losing proposition long term.
The best this system would do is force an earlier release of sub-munitions.
Is there a technical term for the twenty years that things like hand held laser weapons, cheap, plentiful fusion power and flying cars will take, (and have been going to take throughout my lifetime), to come into mass use?
I think it’s called “before I retire” by the people who have already worked their way into positions of power and then make the public estimates.
Kevin, actually you are talking about three different categories. Fusion power has remained 20 years away because the only thing we generate in Tokamuks are PhD Theses. We’ll lick it eventually but I would just about put money on it happening via one of the alternatives or by a method not even discovered yet.
Flying cars have been feasible for decades. Training the average yob to be a pilot is still beyond our technology. You’ll get your flycar when AI gets smart enough to do most of the piloting and not before.
Lasers are a whole different kettle. They have been advancing steadily and sometimes faster than I expected. They have gone from wild eyed concept in the 1980’s to demonstration weapons systems. Some of those demonstration systems will go active over the next decade and then we will see a slow improvement.
Just remember how long the bow co-existed with the musket as a military weapon. Not to mention cold steel which is still in use today for close-in fighting.
Your hand laser is probably several decades away I am afraid though. Nearest we’ll get is arming Fighter planes with them around 2030 or so. I’d guess 2060 or later for your hand weapon to be an acceptable side arm… sooner if the Wall really does arrive around 2040.
What Dale says, first comment. By definition, this sort of anti-missile is not much use against nutters lobbing home made bombs over the fence, the flight time is not long enough to work out trajectory etc.
Miracles happen though. When Obama wins election, he shall be stopping mortars, rockets, katjushas, Kassams with his mighty, messmerising words…
I don’t see why much time is needed to work out the trajectory of a mortar. When you’re aiming a weapon that moves at the speed of light it’s surely even easier because you only need to know the *current* position, not the speed and direction.
With enough computation, why would this take longer than a few milliseconds?
I built the first high energy chemical combution laser in 1955 first walk I ever took to a chemical store to purchas some hot chemicals. The same day made I started taking casulties killed a few with it.
Later on while experimenting with other fuels discover a propellent began making satellite sentrys. That sputnik was my satellite some Marine with two reporters got carried away and blame the Russians.