It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Boeing: Blown Away HEL MD Destroys Mortors Mid Flight

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 10:24 AM
a reply to: Xeven

You might have seen my thread about Lockheed laser turrets being tested on aircraft. It will make an excellent close range defensive weapon, maybe replacing the CWIS system on ships and providing that capability in the air and on mobile ground platforms.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 10:35 AM
a reply to: CovertAgenda

The thing is the YAL-1 was a chemical based laser system and the recent addition of solid state lasers ups the game a bit. Fundamentally, range and power at range will be a factor as different atmosphere conditions will effect the laser but as the are developed more range and power will also increase.

One could compare the YAL-1 to the first massive room sized computer, as the technology is developed laser systems will become smaller and more powerful.

edit on 23-10-2014 by StratosFear because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: Xeven

defense laser: $100,000,000

mortar round: $30

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:49 PM

originally posted by: StratosFear
One could compare the YAL-1 to the first massive room sized computer, as the technology is developed laser systems will become smaller and more powerful.

Yes: lasers will become smaller and more powerful
No: they will NOT advance at anything like the rate of computers.

Remember: computers are the ANOMALY in technology. They advanced faster because they were processing information, not energy or momentum. With computers you could shrink them down to, literally, atoms, and gain increased capacity and performance. We're close to physical limits now. Less is more.

With everything else that needs energy: More is more. Rockets today are every bit as big as they were in 1962, because the strength of gravitation and the energy in kerosene is exactly the same. SpaceX's rockets use the same system as Wehrner von Braun thought was engineering optimal, and the reasons are the same.

A laser to shoot things---if you need power and range, and not small scale precision (like for making microcircuits)---there's no Moore's law.

No Moore's law with energy or momentum EVER.

What they don't tell you is that it's much easier to fry soft squishy eyeballs than it is to fry fast moving metal armored devices.
Against treaty. But blind ISIS guys are only useful as a suicide wheelchairs.
edit on 23-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 06:48 PM
a reply to: mbkennel

I made the comparison with the point that as they do develop laser technology it will get smaller and more powerful, not that it would advance at the same rate.

When the gun was first developed its nothing like what they are now.
The first A2A missiles had a much different success rate than the ones now.
TVs used to be huge, now there are plasma flat screens

The YAL-1 is massive compared to that sexy little package being tested on the F-35.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:38 PM
a reply to: StratosFear

Hey you're both right. The YAL was a cold war era idea and was never going to be practical today no matter how well it worked.

What we are seeing now is DIRECT implementation of that legacy into a sector of warfare that matters today.

Hey kennel what about the soft squishy eye ball of an IR seeker on an R73? Doesn't require much energy but the computing powers to aquire and keep on target do exist now and hadn't before. And that's due to Moore' law.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:51 PM
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

That doe'snt sound right mate... wrong connotation

lets just say the internet was laggy... ;-)

(P.S. nice graphic... rush rulez!)

edit on C2014vAmerica/ChicagoThu, 23 Oct 2014 19:53:38 -050031PM7America/Chicago10 by CovertAgenda because: add comment

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:02 PM
a reply to: StratosFear

I believe you will find that it will be some time before SS lasers will compare with chemical lasers, the problem being heat dissipation at those power levels. Chemical lasers are cooled by the consumables.

The other problem is that atmospheric effects become more significant as the range increases (and hence power input), a point of diminishing returns so to speak.

Probably why these tactical shorter range devices are more effective.

Of course, my ASSumption is based on available mainstream info.... who knows WTF could be hidden deep black.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:11 PM
a reply to: Xeven

We kind of need this considering that Russia has the upper hand with missile technology right now from what I gather here on ATS. That means everyone who is willing to shoot one at us will soon enough. I hope they incorporate these into all branches of the military.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:50 PM
a reply to: CovertAgenda

Well when you are in the air traveling at a few hundred MPH then cooling really isn't an issue and you are not limited in firepower do to "consumables", and yes lasers are effected at range through the atmosphere but think short range anti-projectile point defense system, rather than long range anti-ballistic missile.

Then there is also a laser or light based communication systems alluded to.

posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 12:17 AM
a reply to: StratosFear
Hi Bandwidth but only line of sight - not a whole lot to write home about. I think optical weaponry has a long way to come and will certainly make great changes to warfare. We are where we were with cruise missiles at the end of WWII where we are now with this technology. Brass knows its a game changer and research will not stop. I'll bet my left foot we see long range laser or phased weaponry within a short time span.

posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 12:46 AM

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Xeven

Airborne laser already trialled...and failed.

Too bad Boeing couldn't get YAL-1 to work effectively....

That is a chemical laser. Not at all what is being discussed. Really the only limiting factor is the power source. Technically they could use nuclear power in an airplane, but I am sure they have something better (safer). They just trialed a plane for use with a laser system, and the F-35 was initially designed with a laser system in mind as well I believe.

They will be putting FEL systems on nuclear powered craft such as aircraft carriers.

posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 12:49 AM
a reply to: StratosFear

Ok then, lets say cooling @ speed isnt an issue, except that some sort of heat exchanger must be used. This usually causes drag. Drag creates loss of airspeed, or at least requires extra power to overcome the 'drag hump' of the cooling system and still keep flying. More power requires more fuel, more refuelling, less time on station...catch22. Slow down and the exchange is less efficient, system heats up... Catch22 again.

Of course thinking outside the box, they could close-loop the system and use the waste heat to drive the aircraft's engine as per the convair x6 development, replacing the reactor as a heat source.

Though i did find this re SSL's... (although it mentions SSL's it talks about using Liquid lasers)

While slab lasers deliver the hottest burn, solid state lasers are most likely to be chosen for use aboard aircraft because of their light weight. General Atomics is developing a single High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) 150 kW laser for DARPA, with the first due for field testing this year, integrated with an existing US Air Force ground-based beam-control system. Lockheed Martin could also be in the running to develop a laser weapon to work with ABC - the company has been working on high-energy lasers for 30 years, alongside supporting technologies such as precision pointing and control, line-of-sight stabilisation and adaptive optics, and high-power fibre lasers.


Still, to me sounds like a contractor's sales hype, more funding please.


Liquid lasers that have large cooling systems can fire continuous beams, while solid state laser beams are more intense but must be fired in pulses to stop them from overheating. (However, as long as the heat transfer requirements are met solid state lasers can run continuously.) In the past, both types of lasers were very bulky because of their need for these huge cooling systems. The only aircraft in which they could fit were the size of jumbo jets.

''but think short range anti-projectile point defense system, rather than long range anti-ballistic missile. ''..

Isnt that what I said?.... 'Probably why these tactical shorter range devices are more effective. '

Laser or light based comms.... really?... imagine info pumping that down an internally reflective conduit... maybe even a glass or a fibre.... fibreoptics anyone....LOL. Nothing really new... mucked about with laser comms back in the 80's in university. Not solid state though... just old surplus ruby based tubes.

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 11:43 AM
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh, i thought we were talking lazors, Fricken Lazors.
If SSL's are being discussed , then why do you mention Free Electron Lasers.... they are not SS?
If someone makes either laser system work, do you really think the recipient is really going to care if its a SSL or a CL?

Anyways... from Xeven..

Current demonstrations utilize a 10 kW-class laser. In the future, a 50 kW-class laser will be integrated into the HEL MD platform. The 50 kW laser will be increased to a 100 kW-class laser two years later. The supporting thermal and power subsystems will be upgraded to support the increasingly powerful electric lasers.

YAL-1 was in the 'multi megawatt' category (couldnt find exact power) and yet required 20 to 30 times the power.

Former Secretary of Defense Gates said that "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire.

From mbkennel's post..

Yes: lasers will become smaller and more powerful No: they will NOT advance at anything like the rate of computers.

So no moores law for lasers...

SSL...Current at 10kW... 'in the future'?? 50kW... 2 years later 100kW.....
CL...YAL1 @ (Multi megawatt (2?) times (20 or 30 times) .... so closer to 60~100 MW required to be effective at distance.
So SS still a few orders of magnitude away from the power capability of CL's... how long until they can match? how long until the required power levels are achieved? Not to mention the waste heat issues discussed previously.

Just because SS works well in an electronics sense, doesn't necessarily mean they will perform in other areas.
Case in point, if SS is the be-all, why are thermionic valves still used in some electronic applications? High power radio, radar, musical equipment? Why? Because its a better fit for the application (reliable higher power handling/resistance to EMP/just plain sounds better)

Still sounds like defense contractors hyping up for the open chequebook.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in