It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Boeing Installs High-Energy Laser On Laser Gunship Aircraft

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Boeing Installs High-Energy Laser On Laser Gunship Aircraft


www.spacewar.com

Boeinghas installed a high-energy chemical laser aboard a C-130H aircraft, achieving a key milestone for the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program. Boeing completed the laser installation Dec. 4 at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. The laser, including its major subsystem, a 12,000-pound integrated laser module, was moved into place aboard the aircraft and aligned with the previously-installed beam control system, which will direct the laser beam to its target.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   
A high energy CHEMICAL laser weapon....

um, are chemical weapons supposed to be banned. regardless of how it's deployed?

This may be able to pinpoint exact targets, yet it can be fired more than once, making it a chemical wmd.

And don't you find it funny how this has been fitted and tested now?
Just in time for a particular invasion to go ahead. (if it does at all)



www.spacewar.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


First off a chemical laser is not a WMD.

Chemical warfare involves using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate an enemy.

wiki

Second a twelve thousand pound laser unit, wow that is huge. I would like to know what makes this laser unit weigh so much and if it is actually going to be practical.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate an enemy.



I realise you got that from wikipedia, but it clearly states exactly what this chemical laser is, a weapon to kill, injure or incapacitate.

And if you read the full report on the chemical laser weapon, they state that this is exactly what the weapon is designed for.

Making a chemical(s) into a weapon is a chemical weapon no matter how you sugar coat it.

Ok, I might have gone a bit overboard on the WMD theory but otherwise the statements made by wikipedia and the report on the chem laser speak for themselves.

And i wouldn't trust everything you read in wikipedia anyway...

One has to wonder how reliable an encyclopedia is when it peddles government propaganda in an almost Orwellian manner and forces people who disagree with it to ‘disappear’ from history.

www.truthnews.us...



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   
First, as was said, chemical lasers are NOT illegal.

As to installing it "just in time for a certain invasion", it hasn't even been fired from the plane yet, and won't be until 2008. And you are NOT going to be sending in a C-130H into a combat situation. Even if it IS armed with an almost untested laser. They have fired it so far from a GROUND based unit, that was not moving at the time. There has NEVER been a firing of ANY sort of high power laser from an aircraft. The middle of an invasion is NOT the time to be testing this weapon.

[edit on 12/14/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
A chemical laser is a laser that uses chemical reactions to obtain its power. Calling it a WMD is the same as calling a bullet a WMD because it uses chemicals to propel it.

And I was under the impression that something like this has already been done with the YAL-1. Airborne Laser returns for more testing



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien
Making a chemical(s) into a weapon is a chemical weapon no matter how you sugar coat it.


I'm sorry, but your theory is flawed, because everything on this planet uses, or is a product of, a chemical reaction.

A bullet is a very good example. It uses a chemical reaction to propell the bullet and kill someone.

You can not define it as a chemical weapon however, since it's not the chemicals themselves that kill, but the bullet propelled by them.

Using your theory, you could outlaw bullets, and if you would state, that knives are a product of a chemical process, you could try to outlaw them aswell.

You could even outlaw combustion engines used in military vehicles, since they use a chemical reaction.

Or you could go on to say that military helicopters use computers which use parts made by chemical reactions / processes, and try to outlaw them as well, (and so on, just an example) and then try to outlaw ALL the weapons that use computer parts.


The term chemical weapons is meant to cover poisons (using the toxic properties of a substance), which are spread over a certain area, and can kill anyone who comes in touch with them, and absorbs them. (ingestion / inhalation / absorption through skin...)

There's a distinct difference, and every comparison is a long stretch.


Even so, lasers can, and often do contain toxic substances, but it is not the toxic property, that kills.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by deezee]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
It clearly states that it is a chemical laser.

The use of chemicals to make a projectile does not make it a chemical weapon.

A bullet is not a WMD, but a gun could be considered to be if you want to go further along the theoretical route.

the use of a chemical to make the actual element that inflicts damage is a chemical weapon.

A petrol bomb is a chemical weapon.

Napalm is a chemical weapon.

If someone was to seriously take your points on chemical usage in military vehicles and if it stopped wars for profit, then good.. it's about time.

Please bare in mind that none of us know the exact design of this weapon or how the chemicals are introduced to make a laser that kills.

I am reading what is written, a chemical laser. This highly suggests that chemicals are used in the process of making a laser beam that kills, injures or incapacitates. A bullet comes complete with the chemicals behind the actual projectile to be used as a weapon to kill. That is a big difference.

I was under the impression that a laser was formed by shinig light through crystals and magnifiying the light beam and then you get a laser. But in this case it does not appear to be so. If chemicals are used, then surely the laser beam must have chemical elements in the beam itself.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Oh, and BTW, a laser can not be called a WMD, since a WMD is supposed to be a weapon that is deployed only once and destroys a huge area.

In reality, bullets can easily do more damage, than lasers.

Most of the energy coming from a laser can easily be reflected away simply by using shiny or white surfaces. Now if something is painted black, it will absorb most of the energy, but everything else will simply reflect most of it.

How do military lasers even work? This is not something that can be circumvented, and you can't convince an enemy to paint everything black, or at least dark.


I mean, if one side stars shooting rockets down with lasers, the other side can simply make the rocket have a reflective surface (alluminum would be great), and the laser won't have any effect anymore.

I have played with "powerfull" lasers (red, IR, blue) a lot in the past, and while they can for example cut a black floppy disk in half easily, they can't even warm up a reflective or white surface.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien
If chemicals are used, then surely the laser beam must have chemical elements in the beam itself.


Chemicals can NOT be in the beam itself. You are confusing something here.

A chemical reaction is used to produce the light, which is then collimated by a lense into a beam, that is narrowest at the point it hits the target.

Chemicals do not leave the laser module, while they do leave a bullet, just like you described.


Chemical reactions are used everywhere. There are many types of lasers, but all of them use products of chemical reactions to produce the ellements that emit light. The chemicals do not leave the module however and are not in the beam, they create the beam.

I have many different lasers, and some of them even contain toxic substances (which are listed in the datasheet), but the output is allways just a beam of light and nothing else.

The term "chemical laser" only means that it uses a chemical reaction for the SOURCE of the light.

Again, no matter what type of laser it is, the output is photons and nothing else. No chemicals.


EDIT: Oh, and a laser beam is not made by shining light through crystalls. Crystalls (created by chemical processes) can be used with some more chemicals, but they emit light, it doesn't shine through them.

EDIT EDIT: And BTW, i am against fighting wars. This has nothing to do with it. I'm just trying to explain something here, because i'm also against false logic.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by deezee]

[edit on 14-12-2007 by deezee]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by deezee


Most of the energy coming from a laser can easily be reflected away simply by using shiny or white surfaces. Now if something is painted black, it will absorb most of the energy, but everything else will simply reflect most of it.

I mean, if one side stars shooting rockets down with lasers, the other side can simply make the rocket have a reflective surface (alluminum would be great), and the laser won't have any effect anymore.


Thanks for your input.

As it is this simple to stop a laser, then it brings into question what do they mean by a 'chemical laser'.

If it does have the ability to kill, as has been stated, then maybe what they really mean to say is a plasma beam weapon (or similar) rather than laser.

either way, the entire idea of a public anouncement of such a weapon is a bit odd if it can be easily stopped.

Why spend all that cash on a weapon that may prove to be ineffectual in the long term?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien


Making a chemical(s) into a weapon is a chemical weapon no matter how you sugar coat it.



Very well then that will also mean any form of explosive is a chemical weapon, including fire arms as they use chemical explosion to fire the projectile.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Bad Chemistry


Originally posted by Extralien
As it is this simple to stop a laser, then it brings into question what do they mean by a 'chemical laser'.

I know you've expressed skepticism of Wikipedia as a source, but this may help:

Wikipedia: Chemical laser

Note the sources used for the article.

Hope that helps.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien
As it is this simple to stop a laser, then it brings into question what do they mean by a 'chemical laser'.

If it does have the ability to kill, as has been stated, then maybe what they really mean to say is a plasma beam weapon (or similar) rather than laser.


I already explained the "chemical" part. It's just a means of creating the light.

Plasma is something else entirely. It is ionised gas, that can reach insane temperatures, but can not be put into straight, and infinitely far (theoretically) travelling beam. Plasma cutters work much like torch cutters that are using simple flames, only that the "flame" is much hotter here.

As i said, i have built and used many different lasers, so i know for sure what chemical laser means.

On the other hand, i do not know much about how industriall lasers work, for example.

I do know they are capable of cutting steel, but i do not know how they achieve this, since steel is very reflective.

Of course in industry, you have acess to the object you wan't to use the laser on, and can treat it, to make it more succeptible to the beam, while in a war, you don't have access to the enemy rockets or anything else you want to use the laser on.

There are many variables here, and i mentioned it only in very simple terms - reflectivity, while there is much more to it.


For example:
I have a red match, and put it in front of a red laser collimated into a tiny spot. Guess what. Nothing will happen. The match looks red, because it reflects red light, so most of the red laser light will get reflected.

If i use a blue or a green laser on the other hand, the red match will ignite almost instantly, since both blue or green do not reflect red light, meaning they absorb it.

The same thing happens if i paint the match head blue or green and use the red laser. Since they are the oposite colours, most of the energy will get absorbed, and the match will again ignite instantly. Oposite colours work almost as good as black here.

It all has to do with wavelengths (colour) of the laser, and the colour AND reflectiveness of the surface. (colour of the surface is which wavelengths of light it reflects)

Or course the industrial and military lasers do not work in the visible spectrum, but in the IR instead.

This is something i don't know that much about. I don't know the laws of absorption or reflectivity for IR light, but there must be a science behind it, or it wouldn't work.

But even IR lasers can be reflected, and working (or playing) with them can be very dangerous, since they can get reflected from somewhere and shine into your eye, possibly making you blind, without you even realising it, while you would at least blink, if the beam was visible, and protect your eye at least a little bit.

This (especially the unwanted reflections) is the reason we have to wear protective gogles when working with lasers. These gogles are made to prevent a certain wavelength from passing through. You have to chose the gogles depending on the colour (wavelength) of the laser you're working with.


Anyway, even tho i don't know, how the military lasers are supposed to work, i do know, what "chemical laser" means, and that it only has to do with what is emitting the light. But the output is allways just the light and nothing else.

Lasers are special in that they can emit the light in a way that nothing else can - so that using a simple collimator lense, it can be bundled into a straight beam going to infinity (theoretically), or focused into a tiny dot (if you know the distance) putting ALL the energy into that tiny spot, for cutting purposes.

How they deal with reflectiveness however, i don't know, but i know people who might, so i'll ask them, and come back here if i learn something new.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I was thinking..

Maybe they just don't care about the reflectiveness of the target, but simply make the laser powerfull enough, so even if most of the energy gets reflected, the remaining energy, that gets absorbed is still enough to destroy the target, especially, since chemicall lasers can have output in Mega Watts.

For comparison: A 200mW (milli Watt) laser will cut a hole through a black floppy disk in five seconds. (if you remove the white padding from the inside).

A 1W laser could then do it in one second, and a 1MW laser could do it in 1 nano second.


So if you have a 20MW laser, and shine it onto a reflective surface for long enough, it will get hot, even tho most of the light get's reflected away. So eventually (after a few seconds) it will make a hole, and destroy the insides of the target, especially since once it's inside, the energy can not escape anymore, even if some of it still gets reflected.

I'm guessing they target the part with the payload, when it comes to shooting down rockets, which would then explode, when it gets hot enough, thereby destroying itself. If you target something else, you only get a clean hole through...



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
More information, copied from here.


Operational Sequence
1) The Airborne Laser uses six strategically placed infrared sensors to detect the exhaust plume of a boosting missile.
2) Once a target is detected, a kilowatt-class laser, the Track Illuminator, tracks the missile and determines a precise aim point.
3) The Beacon Illuminator, a second kilowatt-class laser, then measures disturbances in the atmosphere, which are corrected by the adaptive optics system to accurately point and focus the high energy laser at its intended target.
4) Using a very large telescope located in the nose turret, the beam control/fire control system focuses the megawattclass laser beam onto a pressurized area of the boosting missile, holding it there until the concentrated energy causes the missile to break apart.


It does not talk about the absorption issues, but it shows the importance of holding the thinly collimated part of the beam in one and the same spot on the most sensitive part of the missile, the whole time, to achieve any effect.

The targeting and tracking mechanisms are extremelly sophisticated - six IR sensors and two relativelly powerfull (killo Watt class) lasers just for this. The Mega Watt class laser is then used for the actual "destruction".


The Wikipedia entry on "chemical lasers" also mentions the wavelengths, which seem extremely long, compared to what i'm used to. Micro-meters instead of nano-meters. It's far infra red, and could have something to do with absorption. The longest wavelength i've personally used was 800nm, which is 0.8um (micro meter) and is already considered IR, and is invisible.


EDIT: BTW, when lasers are used for cutting, the beam is not straight and parallel, like in the movies, but is focused, depending on the distance, into a cone like shape, with the tip at the target, forcing ALL the energy into one that tiny spot. That's what the "tellescope" at the end of the laser turret does. It moves the collimating lense, to achieve this, depending on the distance from the target. And this "tip" has to remain perfectly still, relative to the target, even when it moves. This is why the tracking and targetting mechanism has to take all these parameters into account. It even measures atmosferic disturbances, to compensate for them.

It's definatelly an amazing piece of technology, from the scientific point of view. And if it makes you feel any better, it can only be used as a defensive weapon.

Poking tiny holes into stuff is not really all that usefull for offense, and is especially not a weapon of mass destruction. Explosions are much better at destroying stuff. The only advantage this has is it's (light-) speed and precision at removing missiles, and maybe enemy planes, from the sky.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by deezee]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
According to the OP's article:


With the laser installed, Boeing is set to conduct a series of tests leading up to a demonstration in 2008 in which the program will fire the laser in-flight at mission-representative ground targets to demonstrate the military utility of high-energy lasers.
Source | Boeing Installs High-Energy Laser On Laser Gunship Aircraft

Sounds like they intend to use this against ground-based targets, not just missiles in flight.

Poke a hole in the right place and you can still cause a lot of damage.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by goosdawg]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It's threads like this that demonstrate both the positive and negative of the general public being largely ignorant of military matters, technology and affairs. COIL's as WMD (chemical weapons) and weapons grade lasers being reflected by white shiny surfaces? Too funny.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
weapons grade lasers being reflected by white shiny surfaces? Too funny.


If you think it's funny, you must know more about lasers. In this case, please explain about long wavelength light absorption please, instead of just being amused by it.

I mentioned, that i work with lasers proffesionally. But they are all in the visible spectrum, except for those i built just for experimentation.

So i can tell you for sure that surfaces reflect different wavelengths in different ways, thereby "throwing" some (or sometimes most) of the energy away from the reflective surface.


I also mentioned that i don't know much about absorption of very long wavelength light, so please enlighten me.

In any case, there is NO wavelength, that could get absorbed COMPLETELY. Perfect black bodies are just theoreticall, and you would be surprised how much light even a matte black surface can reflect, once the laser melts it, and makes it glossy - enough to permanently blind a person not wearing protective gogles, standing in the wrong spot. And that is just from a 1W laser.

Thanks!


EDIT: BTW, i did not simply say "it can't work", i specifically asked "how it works" and later even posted a possible explanation. So i really don't understand what's funny about that.

Now either post some scientific facts, or continue being amused. It's your choice. All i did was post what i know about lasers from my own personal and proffesional experience with visible and near IR lasers.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by deezee]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
In the Nov.26 article of the Air Force times they interview Greg Hyslop from Boeing and he stated that the AF ask them if they could used this technology for other applications besides shooting down missiles.

He said that they are currently working in making this technology useful to target airplanes and surface to air missiles.

This is going to be the weapon of the future IMO.

In regards to chemical laser being a chemical weapon, isn't depleted uranium a chemical component and its used in many conventional weapons?

[edit on 14-12-2007 by Bunch]




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join