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.

 

Are Laser & Kinetic Weapons Closer Than We Think?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Intelgurl, couldn't it be possible to hook a mirror up to a missle so the laser bounces back?




posted on May, 4 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
The principal problems in the devellopement of high power LASER are :

The construction of optical able to support high energy charge (This problem dont exist with X-ray LASERs)

Devellopement of movable plate-forms of targeting, with a high power source : (This problem is impossible to solve for the space system, because of the tons of chemicals needed) ;

Possibles counter-measures :
Missiles can be cover with a film of Phenol-Carbon : vaporized by the laser beam, this film would create a protection plasma during a few seconds,

polish the missiles surface (The energy would be send back to the source, directly),

Low power lasers are still used for targeting, guidance, detections and other counter measures.

In 2000, the Nasa studied that an Asat (Anti-Satellite System) system operational with a laser beam would cost : 50 billions $, and a spatial system anti-ICBM (ABM) : 500 billions de $.

In 2000, USA spent approx 2 billions $ to ABM systems.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
what about ICBMs like the satan or topol-m..


This missile has Multiple Independently - Targetable Reentry Vehicle and is still invulnerable for anti-missile systems. SS-18 missile bears 16 platforms, one of them contains false targets system. After reaching high orbit, all missile heads become hidden in the cloud of false targets and therefore invulnerable for radars.

The missile heads are armored with the use of extremely dense and heavy metal Uranium-239. Such an armory cannot be burnt by laser in foreseeable future.




also,:
Sorry, those new missiles don't work


This year, we will see the purported fruition of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars dream.

By October, up to ten missile defense interceptors will be lowered into the ground of a remote Alaskan military base. The Pentagon and the Bush administration will crow about how the United States is now protected against missile attack. The sad thing is that our missile defense protection is at about the same level it was back in Reagan's time -- that is to say, nonexistent, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

www.cdi.org...



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Raytheon makes a laser weapon. It's the size of semi and it shoots down artillery shells. It just passed it's IOTE (Initial Operation Test and Evaluation).



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Let me offer this up as an initial disclaimer; anyone who is in weapons and countermeasures development knows that no system is 100%.

Now on with the show...

Nans, your first statement refers to the "principal problem in development of high power laser"(s):
Nans: "The construction of optical able to support high energy charge (This problem dont exist with X-ray LASERs)"

You are absolutely right, the optics which include mirrors and lenses on a weapons grade high power laser must be of an extremely high quality but this is already a non-issue with the current field of high energy lasers. The optics of such devices are usually sealed to keep out foriegn particles that could cause an internal meltdown or combustion. Much of the weapons quality optics comes from German firms that are highly experienced in ultra-high quality optics under contract through TRW/Northrop and Raytheon.

Your next point...

"Devellopement of movable plate-forms of targeting, with a high power source : (This problem is impossible to solve for the space system, because of the tons of chemicals needed)"

Your conclusion that chemical lasers powerful enough to be used from space are not feasible as weapons due to being far too heavy to transport into orbit is correct. There are at least 2 ways to get around the weight issues:

1. Break down the laser into seperate parts and send it into orbit on multiple launches as opposed to a single launch - then assembling the seperate parts once all are in orbit.

2. The Second option is to simply wait until solid state weapons grade lasing devices are potent enough to be applied to targets from space. Solid state lasers in space will also not have as much of the cooling issues that land based high power solid state lasers are currently experiencing. At the current rate of development, the wait for such space-based devices will be less than the 5 years estimated to deploy land based devices.

The next issue you bring up is Nans: " Possibles counter-measures...
Missiles can be cover with a film of Phenol-Carbon : vaporized by the laser beam, this film would create a protection plasma during a few seconds"


2 points that should be made regarding plasma being used to sheild against a laser.

1. As you have already stated any such shielding would last a very short amount of time considering the volume of energy a laser weapon of this caliber would produce. "A few seconds" is a really optimistic estimate for a "film"-like coating.
This is similar to having a bullet proof kevlar vest able to withstand a 357 magnum and declaring you are immune to bullets - only to have someone shoot a 105mm howitzer point blank into your chest. The ABL and MTHEL have a massive focused output and it is doubtful that any such coating on an airworthy missile or artillery shell would prolong the inevitable for more than a few nanoseconds.

2. The next issue regarding plasma protection of a missile or artillery shell centers around the actual method. The idea of using a plasma shield goes something like this... a directed energy weapon fires at the protected missile and the DEW's energy is caught up within the plasmas electromagnetic fields and dissipated or deflected into the surrounding airspace.

This kind of defense is problematic in that the temperature of the plasma produced by a high energy laser weapon would aid the laser not hinder it in destruction of the missile. So hot plasmas while dense would only serve to help in the destruction of the incoming missile, not protect it.

Theoretically COLD plasmas can be made denser and could deflect a particle beam or laser attack but it would also depend on what type of laser is being shot at it and how high you can tune the plasma frequency. Presently, a film coating of plasma generating material does not produce cold plasma, and you cannot "tune" the frequency of the plasma to fit the lasing device being shot at it, also the weight and energy requirements to produce cold plasma are not currently feasible on a missile or artillery shell using technology available now or for years to come.

There are also inherent issues with infrared lasers and the ability of plasma to reflect or deflect high power IR beams. It is certainly possible but the issues involved present definite cost, logistic, weight and technical problems for protecting a missile where weight and areodynamics are an operational issue.
There is a good read on this in a paper entitled, "The Plasma Mirror: A Subpicosecond Optical Switch for Ultrahigh Power Lasers" by B. Dromey and associates.
I believe it will help explain these problems better.

Another countermeasures method you bring up is this...
Nans: "polish the missiles surface (The energy would be send back to the source, directly)"

If you are implying that a polished missile surface would reflect back and do harm to the DEW firing at it - this just is not going to happen.
A missile by design is cylindrical in shape and from a DEW/laser perspective is like shining a flashlight onto a convex mirror which deflects the beam of light in all directions - definitely not a full strength reflection directly to the DEW attacking it.
What you must now be thinking is if the laser's beam is deflected in all different directions then the laser's effect is nullified - this question was also posed by Laxpla a few entries up on this thread.

The effects of the laser are however not nullifed - Here's why:

1.) No surface is 100% reflective.
The energy that is not reflected is dissipated by the surface as heat. As heat builds up, the reflectivity of the surface will decrease, and it decreases exponentially from that first contact. Obviously this will increase the time it takes for a laser to inflict damage on a target, but at the power levels we're talking about, it would be measured in nano or milliseconds as opposed to seconds.
It bears mentioning that mirrors for industrial lasers need to be water cooled, in spite of being over 99.5% reflective for this reason.

2.) For a surface to remain highly reflective, it has to be kept incredibly clean. A $600 germanium mirror for a 500 watt CO2 laser can be easily destroyed in a fraction of a second if it has so much as the residue of a finger print that has been wiped off with a lens cloth without benefit of cleansing solvent.

For tanks/aircraft/missiles to be able to reflect enough of a weapons-class laser beam to be impervious, they'd need to be polished to an optical grade and wiped off up to clean-room specs. Not the sort of thing that's practical in combat.

You must also consider that as the projectile flies through the air/atmosphere the heat generated, the humidity, air pollution, dust particles and general oxidation cause surface anomalies imediately upon being fired or launched - this spotting on the projectile gives the attacking DEW ample nonreflective surface area to heat and thereby neutralize it.

3.) As alluded to while discussing plasma shielding, surfaces are only reflective to a certain range of wavelengths.

As an example, the germanium mirror I talked about above is reflective to CO2 lasers in the far infrared wavelengths (10.6 microns), it is glossy black and completely unreflective to visible light which as a reference centers around .4 microns.

On the other hand, a mirror for a Ruby laser, which outputs radiation at .69 microns is standard silver. If you switch the two with their respective lasers, each will shatter immediately.

If an enemy were to armor their vehicles/missiles with a reflective coating, provided they could keep it clean and polished throughout it's flight trajectory (impossible unless in a particle free perfect vacuum), the resonant cavity optics of the laser could theoretically be changed to amplify a wavelength that the shell or missile would be vulnerable to.

The ultimate laser weapons goal in the future is to have a free electron solid state laser - the laser operator could select any wavelength desired at the push of a button neautralizing the effectiveness of reflectivity and therefore decreasing the power needed to accomplish what is now accomplished with multiple megawatt devices.

Your best bet for negating the effect of weaponized lasers:

One weapon that a DEW/laser would no doubt have a problem destroying is a non-explosive artillery round. There is no fuel to heat up and no explosive to ignite. The heat of the laser could possibly cause it to veer off course but consider this... the space based "Rod from God" concept where a non explosive steel rod is fired at a target on earth's surface from a satellite in orbit. The sheer speed of the weapon and it's weight/mass would cause great destructive impact. The speed, the fact that there is nothing to explode or ignite could very well impede a laser weapon's ability to defend it's valued assets.

Another similar option would be an EM rail gun firing non explosive rounds where, once again the sheer speed involved makes it highly destructive.

Well, that's enough for now, I have meetings to go to and will check on this thread later.

Natalie~



[Edited on 5-5-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
In that the US has 'no' military laser weaponry, care to explain these Nans?
PROOF USA HAS LASERS
Airborne laser

Here's a valid question:
Does France have a military 'ready' laser system?




seekerof



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Please don't use France and military in the same sentence. I was laughing so hard I couldn't read your post through the tears in my eyes.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
In that the US has 'no' military laser weaponry, care to explain these Nans?
PROOF USA HAS LASERS
Airborne laser

Here's a valid question:
Does France have a military 'ready' laser system?




seekerof


France have one of these defense system like natalie told in another post in this thread :

It's called LATEX and is develloped since 1986.

And this is the only type of laser I have found with a search about best americans laser weapons with google on he weeb :

www.weebl.jolt.co.uk...






posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Thank you Nans.
I will gladly read up on it.




seekerof



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   
damn nice post Intelgurl!

It definitely answers some questions I had regarding mirrors - espcially why some lasers are reflected in glass mirrors and other lasers shatter glass mirrors.

I remember seeing an experiment in college that had to do with this very thing.

Cool!



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
[EDIT] I'm sorry seekerof, I felt on it and didn't resit to post that link...[EDIT]


Originally posted by intelgurlAnother countermeasures method you bring up is this...
Nans: "polish the missiles surface (The energy would be send back to the source, directly)"

If you are implying that a polished missile surface would reflect back and do harm to the DEW firing at it - this just is not going to happen.
A missile by design is cylindrical in shape and from a DEW/laser perspective is like shining a flashlight onto a convex mirror which deflects the beam of light in all directions - definitely not a full strength reflection directly to the DEW attacking it.


I'm not sure : Because the density of molecular structure should decrease the derivation of the laser ray on the surface of the missile.
But anyway, you are right, polishing the missile is not the good solution, to hard to do, and there are no perfect mirrors.

I have think of a new counter-measure.

It's a little wicked but...

Imagine that the head of the missile is equiped with a cooling system. Like a frozing circuit, all around the rocket body and head, something working with Azote for example.

This would empeache the laser to heat the missile and destroy it ?


[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
why use a laser when a rail gun can do the job just as good and obliterate the missle instead of it falling on some poor farmer (i did not mean this specificaly)
but lasers could be good against infatry



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
Imagine that the head of the missile is equiped with a cooling system. Like a frozing circuit, all around the rocket body and head, something working with Azote for example.

This would empeache the laser to heat the missile and destroy it ?

This is a good question...

There are certainly a lot of variables to consider here.
The projectile/missile would of course become heated as it flies through the air on it's trajectory. So the natural friction with the air will help the laser.

There are weight considerations where a missile is concerned, are you going to have refrigerant as a payload or explosive?

A coolant system may slow down the heating process but by how much would depend on the size of the projectile in question and the amount of coolant being used inside it.

Keep in mind that any significant cooling system would have it's coolant presurized in one form or another. The heat of the laser would cause the refrigerant to expand and rupture it's container - and such a rupture under extreme thermal duress would most likely be explosive in nature regardless of whether the coolant was flamable or not, thereby neutralizing the missile.

Also these are BIG multi-megawatt lasers - the heat generated by a laser of this size and strength should overpower most any cooling features by tremendous proportions.

You are coming up with some good ones here... consider a smoke screen, lasers have a reduced capacity in smoke.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Smoke screens are too volatile to be used by a missile or a rocket in flight.

I was thinking about something like there is in some nuclear reactors.
A coolant circuit, with isoterm matters around the rocket...

Anyway, we wont find the adapted counter-measures now.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
smoke at mach 3?
i understnad the lasers being useless in fogy areas but in a desert or somewhere youv got a pretty good AA defense system
although ur scrwed if a wire breaks or the circuit breaker goes



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
smoke at mach 3?
i understnad the lasers being useless in fogy areas but in a desert or somewhere youv got a pretty good AA defense system
although ur scrwed if a wire breaks or the circuit breaker goes

Re; Smoke screen - I did not mean that the missile itself would be putting out a smoke screen... any kind of smoke screen beteen the missile and the laser is what I meant...



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
lol was jwking one thing im thinking what would the size of the laser i mean come on its goto be the size of a bus



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
lol was jwking one thing im thinking what would the size of the laser i mean come on its goto be the size of a bus

Yeah, actually it started out the size of 2 semi truck trailers - size reduction efforts are ongoing...



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 06:58 AM
link   
www.cnn.com...

Laser shoots down large-caliber rocket

on cnn.com



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
www.cnn.com...

Laser shoots down large-caliber rocket

on cnn.com

Thanks Mark, that story is also covered on ATSNN...
here's the link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join