US Military Testing Jet-Mounted Lasers in 2014

[Norix596]

The article fails to mention what is probably an important factor in the development of this project -- the expansion of anti ballistic missile defense systems, as China is currently showing off. These laser weaponry systems would not only be able to act AS anti-missile systems but to bypass them.

 

[rcs619]

I find the practice of "signature strikes" to be morally reprehensible, tactically wasteful, and diplomatically stupid)

How so? Particularly if you can make it as surgical as that?

Well the thing about signature strikes is that you do not know who you are hitting. Like, there are two different types of drone strikes currently in use. You have a "Personality strike" where you know the target, know exactly who it is you're shooting at, and you kill them. I can actually sort of support personality strikes, so long as they are against legitimate military targets. In a "Signature strike" you don't know who you are shooting. They just look for patterns, like individuals carrying guns (which is a lot of civilians in the middle-east too), or groups of people congregating regularly, and when they think they see a pattern, they just lob a missile at them. We don't even know who we're killing, or who the collateral damage is killing along with them. We're just tossing missiles down from the sky at unknown, unidentified people we *think* might be enemy combatants.

Then there's the "double tap". A common practice in signature drone strikes is to wait a while after the first missile hits. Let the first-responders show up to try and help the wounded or to retrieve the dead from the first impact... then lob a second missile at them. Or sometimes they will wait a day, and toss a missile into a funeral being held for the people the drone killed before, to kill their friends, family and whoever else is there too.

Not only do I feel it is a waste of resources (hellfire missiles aren't free, not to mention the man-hours the drone pilots are putting in), but it is diplomatically toxic. You've got drones, hovering around an area 24/7, randomly killing people we only *think* might be enemy combatants (which is defined by our military as any 'military-aged male within a conflict zone'. Pretty damn broad if you ask me) and then we intentionally wait to kill first-responders or shoot at their funerals. Like I said, I support drones in support of ground troops, and even personality strikes depending on the target... but we have to know *who* we're killing.

 

[You Can't Take the Sky From Me]

An AR-15 isn't going to be much help against an ICBM with a nuclear payload. The whole lazors things is mostly about developing a defensive platform for feasable use in defending against nuclear payloads, without much risk to the environment because of atomic radiation. With North Korea and Iran getting closer and closer to nukes, and getting more belligerant by the second, developing something that can safely and reliably shoot down a nuke is the differance between a feasable way to finally phase-out nuclear weapons (due to being obsolete), and some idiot lighting a match and starting a global nuclear war.

Also, adapting lasers for smaller platforms means a drone strike can be a precise thing instead of "We'll bomb this village and hope that the blast wave, fireball, and shrapnel don't kill all of the children this time."

Hey you, Spartan guy, stop ruining everyone's good, clean, American bashing by bringing logic and likely outcomes of developing technology into the debate. All is does is make you look reasonable and this is the Internet there's no place for reason here, dammit!

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

Listen, laser beams are awesome. Questions and criticisms are invalid.

This ... well, up to a point. You have to take care to watch out for the power they bring being abused. Same as heavy conventional weapons getting into the hands of inbred southern Joe Q Nutjob-Racist...

The amount of power required for inbred southern Joe Q Nutjob-Racist to actually use a laser capable of killing people is too large for a person to carry in a battery. It would take say, a pick up truck to carry the power source necessary. Really, it would be easier (and cheaper) to just load up a truck with rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Which he already has access to.

But more importantly, questions and criticisms are invalid in the discussion of laser beams.

 

[Antari]

snip

When projects go black so does the FUNDING.

 

[TornadoADV]

yes, all the enemy fighter planes need to do is to just stand still for some seconds..

So missile guidance systems from the 70s are able to keep a rocket-powered bundle of explosives accurately on target whilst hurtling towards an unfortunate, violently jinking MiG at a potential closing speed of about Mach 5, but we haven't in 2013 the ability to keep a laser beam sufficiently focussed on the same target (who may not have even yet noticed a threat, as there's no flaming tubes of death hurtling through the sky) long enough for it to have an effect?

In any case, you're thinking all wrong. If you've got a megawatt laser at your disposal, and you're taking on fighter planes, you don't aim for the plane itself at first unless you can take them down within a second or so, as it'll quickly launch countermeasures and go into a defensive aerobatic display. You aim your sky-penetrating laser sword at the pilot's face. Or at the tips of any externally mounted ordinance. Or, hell, just part of the canopy support so it pops off - the 600 to 1800mph hurricane that the pilot suddenly encounters will do the rest.

Once the plane is sufficiently out of intelligent control, you can either proceed to carving up the engines, wings and bodywork at your leisure, or just watch as it crashes by itself.

yes, and while you at it, being the "BESTEST PILOT EVAR!" why you dont just jump out of your fighter plane, fall on the enemies jet and surf on its wings while killing the 2 pilots inside the enemy aircraft with your 2 handguns akimbo style, then hop into the plane and land your and the enemy aircraft back in your base.

you dont have any idea how fucking hard it is to hit a moving target while you are yourself moving around.

Do you know how CCIP and Computerized Gun Aimpoints on HUDs work?

 

[Albino Boo]

yes, and while you at it, being the "BESTEST PILOT EVAR!" why you dont just jump out of your fighter plane, fall on the enemies jet and surf on its wings while killing the 2 pilots inside the enemy aircraft with your 2 handguns akimbo style, then hop into the plane and land your and the enemy aircraft back in your base.

you dont have any idea how fucking hard it is to hit a moving target while you are yourself moving around.

but if you can give headshots on targets that appears to be almost the size of a ricecorn during a dogfight, then why dont you just train every fighter in existence to not suck.

also you should watch the video again and tell me how much of an instant "penetrating laser" it is.

The Israeli iron dome missile system is designed to hit shells and artillery rockets and in the recent conflict it hit 98% of targets engaged. How do think those missiles are guided? The problem is not an issue of guidance but energy. The system that is being talked about is designed to burn through a few mm of steel at ranges of less than 500m. The same system can accurately hit a jet but only leave scratch mark. The size and weight of a laser that could shoot down an aircraft, even with the new generation of lasers, could only be carried on a much larger aircraft. Even then, because of issue of thermal blooming they would be out ranged by the current generation of air to air missiles and unable to engage targets in clouds.

 

[TornadoADV]

yes, and while you at it, being the "BESTEST PILOT EVAR!" why you dont just jump out of your fighter plane, fall on the enemies jet and surf on its wings while killing the 2 pilots inside the enemy aircraft with your 2 handguns akimbo style, then hop into the plane and land your and the enemy aircraft back in your base.

you dont have any idea how fucking hard it is to hit a moving target while you are yourself moving around.

but if you can give headshots on targets that appears to be almost the size of a ricecorn during a dogfight, then why dont you just train every fighter in existence to not suck.

also you should watch the video again and tell me how much of an instant "penetrating laser" it is.

The Israeli iron dome missile system is designed to hit shells and artillery rockets and in the recent conflict it hit 98% of targets engaged. How do think those missiles are guided? The problem is not an issue of guidance but energy. The system that is being talked about is designed to burn through a few mm of steel at ranges of less than 500m. The same system can accurately hit a jet but only leave scratch mark. The size and weight of a laser that could shoot down an aircraft, even with the new generation of lasers, could only be carried on a much larger aircraft. Even then, because of issue of thermal blooming they would be out ranged by the current generation of air to air missiles and unable to engage targets in clouds.

It's why it's for defense as far as fighters go. For a B-1B, you could easily fit a large enough chemical LASER into it's bomb bays to be offensive in scope.

 

[Do4600]

Never mind that flesh sears and chars a WHOLE lot MORE readily than plate steel.

At a lower temperature you mean, but if this thing instantly puts out temperatures of about 9000 degrees, the steel will probably melt before the flesh does because the flesh will resist the temperature change more than the steel, it being a conductor and all.

Yeah, you're going to be able to put "quarter sized potholes a few centimetres deep" into your enemies quite readily with something like this.

Only you have it trained on one spot for seconds, think Goldfinger. Another problem is that once the first or second centimeter of flesh is burnt the remaining ash would serve to slow the process.

Which prompts a pressing question about what's going on in your brain here: wouldn't that kind of injury, in a more traditional setting, be known as "stab wounds where the perp rotated the blade", or "bullet wounds from anti-aircraft cannon shells"? A US quarter is AN INCH ACROSS, give or take a few percent, or about 0.955 / 24mm calibre.

Yes, centimeters, as in two maybe three, so about 3 centimeters shorter than a folding pocket knife blade. Bullet wound from an anti-aircraft cannon? Not at all, not even close, a laser wouldn't have any force behind it. Also, it would instantly cauterize the wound making it even less destructive.

A laser of this size would wound somebody if they got caught in it for seconds, they might die from their injuries a day later if they got hit in the head, the danger would be infection and necrosis as it is with all burns. If the guy is over 300 pounds you probably wouldn't be able to pierce the fat in seconds.

The point is that if you did shoot a person from a B747 with a 24mm cannon round, you would obliterate them, and a laser would more likely than not just severely wound them if you hit them for two seconds. This laser would be less destructive against infantry than a conventional weapon.

ICBMs have trajectories and can't move evasively yet, an easy target for a laser.

 

[TornadoADV]

Never mind that flesh sears and chars a WHOLE lot MORE readily than plate steel.

At a lower temperature you mean, but if this thing instantly puts out temperatures of about 9000 degrees, the steel will probably melt before the flesh does because the flesh will resist the temperature change more than the steel, it being a conductor and all.

Yeah, you're going to be able to put "quarter sized potholes a few centimetres deep" into your enemies quite readily with something like this.

Only you have it trained on one spot for seconds, think Goldfinger. Another problem is that once the first or second centimeter of flesh is burnt the remaining ash would serve to slow the process.

Which prompts a pressing question about what's going on in your brain here: wouldn't that kind of injury, in a more traditional setting, be known as "stab wounds where the perp rotated the blade", or "bullet wounds from anti-aircraft cannon shells"? A US quarter is AN INCH ACROSS, give or take a few percent, or about 0.955 / 24mm calibre.

Yes, centimeters, as in two maybe three, so about 3 centimeters shorter than a folding pocket knife blade. Bullet wound from an anti-aircraft cannon? Not at all, not even close, a laser wouldn't have any force behind it. Also, it would instantly cauterize the wound making it even less destructive.

A laser of this size would wound somebody if they got caught in it for seconds, they might die from their injuries a day later if they got hit in the head, the danger would be infection and necrosis as it is with all burns. If the guy is over 300 pounds you probably wouldn't be able to pierce the fat in seconds.

The point is that if you did shoot a person from a B747 with a 24mm cannon round, you would obliterate them, and a laser would more likely than not just severely wound them if you hit them for two seconds. This laser would be less destructive against infantry than a conventional weapon.

ICBMs have trajectories and can't move evasively yet, an easy target for a laser.

LASERs flash boil fluid in the surrounding tissue of the burnt away flesh. People hit with powerful enough LASERs will pop literally like bloody zits.

 

[Spartan448]

An AR-15 isn't going to be much help against an ICBM with a nuclear payload. The whole lazors things is mostly about developing a defensive platform for feasable use in defending against nuclear payloads, without much risk to the environment because of atomic radiation. With North Korea and Iran getting closer and closer to nukes, and getting more belligerant by the second, developing something that can safely and reliably shoot down a nuke is the differance between a feasable way to finally phase-out nuclear weapons (due to being obsolete), and some idiot lighting a match and starting a global nuclear war.

Not true, or at least not the way they are being developed at the moment. The YAL was more along those lines, though, but then you need to have your planes in the air in advance. The US has been mucking about with ABM systems for decades though.

Also, it's not shooting down a nuke, it's shooting down a missile, there's other delivery methods. And even if a NK or Iranian nuclear armed missile was shot down, the US would almost certainly level the country anyway. Which is why they aren't going to launch.

Also, adapting lasers for smaller platforms means a drone strike can be a precise thing instead of "We'll bomb this village and hope that the blast wave, fireball, and shrapnel don't kill all of the children this time."

Drone strikes already are very precise, though, the problem is that you have to be very sure what you are shooting at, which is still going to be a problem. You can just as easily kill a random civilian thinking they are someone else with a laser as with a missile.

Okay, you're right - This is more about missiles than nukes in general. However, the point cannot be disregarded that the most common and reliable delivery system of a nuclear payload is an ICBM with a nuclear warhead. In those terms, a laser makes a lot of sense. The problem is creating a ground-based installation that can react quickly and be able to project an energy beam across a long enough range to reach the missile whilst still being able to neutralize the missile. Jets happen to be very good test platforms, and if all else fails, you can try to mount a laser on an SR-71 and hope that it can get to the missile quickly enough and with enough control to destroy the missile with minimal risk to the pilot. Laser-equipped fighters could also take out submarine-based platforms before they can launch, and would deter the more traditional bomber dropping a dumb nuke method.

In terms of NK and Iran launching... it really depends. NK really wants a chance to project it's power, and the government and military still have some holdouts there who believe they're still fighting the Cold War and that the Soviets are still supporting them in the ultimate goal of destroying capitalism. And in terms of Iran, I think cooler heads would prevail in terms of using the bomb against the US. Using it against Israel is the real worry, which many Iranians would not heasitate to do. Iran's current ruling party knows it means the end of Iran if they so much as point a launcher at Israel, but if they get a working bomb and their populace finds out, they may risk it just to avoid being dragged out in the streets and hung.

In terms of strikes, drone strikes are very impercise compared to a laser shot. The advantage of the drone strike is that it can take out a lot of people if it needs to. However, it you end up shooting at a civilian due to faulty information, a laser offers less risk for collateral damage, at the expense of only affecting one target at a time. Instead of shooting at target only to find out you blew up a village that was miles away from any terrorist leader, like what happens with a drone strike, you only leave one incenerated body and a bunch of angry villagers, but the entire populace as a hole could probably care less about what happens to Saif the Cattle Farmer.

 

[Spartan448]

An AR-15 isn't going to be much help against an ICBM with a nuclear payload. The whole lazors things is mostly about developing a defensive platform for feasable use in defending against nuclear payloads, without much risk to the environment because of atomic radiation. With North Korea and Iran getting closer and closer to nukes, and getting more belligerant by the second, developing something that can safely and reliably shoot down a nuke is the differance between a feasable way to finally phase-out nuclear weapons (due to being obsolete), and some idiot lighting a match and starting a global nuclear war.

Also, adapting lasers for smaller platforms means a drone strike can be a precise thing instead of "We'll bomb this village and hope that the blast wave, fireball, and shrapnel don't kill all of the children this time."

Hey you, Spartan guy, stop ruining everyone's good, clean, American bashing by bringing logic and likely outcomes of developing technology into the debate. All is does is make you look reasonable and this is the Internet there's no place for reason here, dammit!

*Takes a bow*

Sir, you are correct, this IS the Internet. And what, my good friend, is more appropriate for the internet than causing chaps such as your good self to inexplicably become irritated when someone dares to use reason? Is it not true that the point of doing this on the internet is for the most part "For teh lulz"? It is times like these, when I read reactions like yours, that I put my feet on the table, adjust my top hat and monicle, pour myself a glass of Chateau Piccard, circa 2360, and enjoy the lulz that those reactions bring me. I then chuckle to myself and ask my butler Jeeves to ready my flying 24-karat gold Ferrari so that I will not be late for my dinner meeting with all past, present, and future world leaders and discuss various things that people who do not use reason on the internet are forbidden to hear.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Okay, you're right - This is more about missiles than nukes in general. However, the point cannot be disregarded that the most common and reliable delivery system of a nuclear payload is an ICBM with a nuclear warhead. In those terms, a laser makes a lot of sense. The problem is creating a ground-based installation that can react quickly and be able to project an energy beam across a long enough range to reach the missile whilst still being able to neutralize the missile. Jets happen to be very good test platforms, and if all else fails, you can try to mount a laser on an SR-71 and hope that it can get to the missile quickly enough and with enough control to destroy the missile with minimal risk to the pilot. Laser-equipped fighters could also take out submarine-based platforms before they can launch, and would deter the more traditional bomber dropping a dumb nuke method.

Launching a plane and getting it to intercept the incoming missile in time is going to be harder than launching a missile, though.

Also, how does a fighter with a laser destroy a submarine? The weapon won't penetrate the water, and if you can find the submarine you can torpedo it, you don't need a laser.

I'm not saying that lasers couldn't be used for missile defence, only that existing missile defence would work better. OTOH, I could see this working as a point defence system like the Phalanx, to defend against anti-ship missiles, rockets and mortars shells.

In terms of strikes, drone strikes are very impercise compared to a laser shot. The advantage of the drone strike is that it can take out a lot of people if it needs to. However, it you end up shooting at a civilian due to faulty information, a laser offers less risk for collateral damage, at the expense of only affecting one target at a time. Instead of shooting at target only to find out you blew up a village that was miles away from any terrorist leader, like what happens with a drone strike, you only leave one incenerated body and a bunch of angry villagers, but the entire populace as a hole could probably care less about what happens to Saif the Cattle Farmer.

Fair enough, though I would say that if collateral damage was a real concern, it could be avoided if necessary. I suppose lasers would make this more convenient, though.

 

[waj9876]

...Yes. Fucking yes.

Now it's only a matter of time before science finds a way to make me immortal. And video games become so realistic it's as if you actually are in the game. MMOs will be so badass when that finally happens.

We are in the future, it took a bit longer than those from the 40s and 50s thought. But we're finally starting.

 

[LtWigglesworth]

Laser-equipped fighters could also take out submarine-based platforms before they can launch, and would deter the more traditional bomber dropping a dumb nuke method.

In terms of NK and Iran launching... it really depends. NK really wants a chance to project it's power, and the government and military still have some holdouts there who believe they're still fighting the Cold War and that the Soviets are still supporting them in the ultimate goal of destroying capitalism. And in terms of Iran, I think cooler heads would prevail in terms of using the bomb against the US. Using it against Israel is the real worry, which many Iranians would not heasitate to do. Iran's current ruling party knows it means the end of Iran if they so much as point a launcher at Israel, but if they get a working bomb and their populace finds out, they may risk it just to avoid being dragged out in the streets and hung.

In terms of strikes, drone strikes are very impercise compared to a laser shot. The advantage of the drone strike is that it can take out a lot of people if it needs to. However, it you end up shooting at a civilian due to faulty information, a laser offers less risk for collateral damage, at the expense of only affecting one target at a time. Instead of shooting at target only to find out you blew up a village that was miles away from any terrorist leader, like what happens with a drone strike, you only leave one incenerated body and a bunch of angry villagers, but the entire populace as a hole could probably care less about what happens to Saif the Cattle Farmer.

A few issues with the issue of lasers as ICBM defense.
1) If you're faced with a full launch of missiles, you'll have a huge amount of targets to detect, track, and destroy:
Lets consider what would happen if China launched its full arsenal. ( Ignoring the fact that the Chinese are lead by logical people and would never sign their own death warrant in that way ).
The Chinese have "only" 200-300 warheads. These would be mounted in the 90 ICBMs that they possess. Therefore you have to track and destroy 90 targets in the launch phase. Once the warheads separate from the missile body you will have to track the warheads and all the decoys, and try to distinguish between the two. You now have about 500-700 targets to track and kill. This is the phase of flight that your lasers will have to operate on. Engaging 500-700 hypersonic targets, spread across the United States' airspace in the minute or so available will be an impossible challenge.

Remember what happens if only one gets through.

Of course that's only Chinas small arsenal. Defending against Russia's 2700 warheads would be completely, utterly impossible.

2) Killing a warhead isn't that easy:
Warheads are designed to re-enter the atmosphere from sub-orbital space and at hypersonic speeds. This means that they are heat-shielded that same as a space capsule, and a point heat of, say 2500 degress celcius, will do nothing. Also the warheads will be spinning to stabilise them. This means that the laser now paints a far larger area of the warhead, and so heats the warhead up by less.
The coating of the warhead can also be adjusted. A mirrored coating ( Or any coating as far away from a pure "black body" as possible) will greatly reduce the head transferred by the laser.

3) Issues with the laser system.
These are mainly engineering ones, such as effective tracking and energy storage. Throwing a lot of money will help. A bigger one is scattering and thermal blooming causing the laser's effectiveness to drop markedly, especially over range. What happens for example if there is heavy cloud or rain on the day that the missiles come?

An SR 71 will be significantly lacking in payload capacity and could never carry a laser with enough power for missile defence, even if they hadn't been retired in 1998.

With regards to destroying a submarine system before launch. No. Just no. No laser will penetrate the 50 odd metres of water they can launch beneath.

I think a bomber, even a B2 or a TU 160 wouldn't need a laser as deterrence. A Patriot or S400 missile does that just fine...

Neither Iran nor NK would be stupid enough to launch a nuke against anyone. As soon as they launch there would be a massive US nuclear retaliation and they know it. The nuclear programmes are merely saber rattling in order to shore up their own regime, or to use as a bargaining chip in diplomatic discussions.
Also don't forget that Israel is a nuclear state.

The use of lasers as point defence for fighters is interesting but I can see many challenges. If anyone is interested I could list some.

 

[Do4600]

LASERs flash boil fluid in the surrounding tissue of the burnt away flesh. People hit with powerful enough LASERs will pop literally like bloody zits.

That's just silly, the heat from a laser is localized and not nearly powerful enough to cause that. People are hit by average lightning bolts that are 2,500 times more powerful than that laser and escape with a few third degree burns, and lightning heats the surrounding air to 54,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The LIPC would cause more damage than these lasers.

 

[Do4600]

Accidental double post, please delete/disregard.

 

[Vareoth]

If the US military stopped spending so much money on ways to kill brown people they might actually be able to get their economy back on track.

I do always have to laugh at all the euros who cant read

> Lasers used to shoot down missiles and projectiles!
> OMG STOP SPENDING MONEY ON WAYS TO KILL BROWN PEOPLE!

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously when discussing things relating to the US.

When you start to generalize an entire continent you know you have reached a new level of ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Vareoth]

If the US military stopped spending so much money on ways to kill brown people they might actually be able to get their economy back on track.

I do always have to laugh at all the euros who cant read

> Lasers used to shoot down missiles and projectiles!
> OMG STOP SPENDING MONEY ON WAYS TO KILL BROWN PEOPLE!

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously when discussing things relating to the US.

When you start to generalize an entire continent you know you have reached a new level of ignorance and stupidity.

Just like said folks do when they go 'MURICA you mean?

Exactly like that. Why would you lower yourself to such a level?

 

[Vareoth]

If the US military stopped spending so much money on ways to kill brown people they might actually be able to get their economy back on track.

I do always have to laugh at all the euros who cant read

> Lasers used to shoot down missiles and projectiles!
> OMG STOP SPENDING MONEY ON WAYS TO KILL BROWN PEOPLE!

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously when discussing things relating to the US.

When you start to generalize an entire continent you know you have reached a new level of ignorance and stupidity.

Just like said folks do when they go 'MURICA you mean?

Exactly like that. Why would you lower yourself to such a level?

Because its fun of course! Plus I have to lower myself to their level from time to time so that when I do argue with such I am not beaten by their vast experience.

So it's a classic example of know thy enemy? That's some ancient wisdom right there. However, take care to not drown in the dense oceans of stupidity that flow trough the interwebz.