Slashdot Link: LASER WEAPONS!!!

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2002-10-30 09:20am

http://slashdot.org/articles/02/10/30/1 ... ml?tid=126
Laser Guns on Fighters, Humvees, and Destroyers! W00000000000000000000000000t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 The JSF laser will be only 100KW, but it's a start to the monstrous weapons of sci-fi... Lata and Watch Out for Aliens with Lasers...

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-30 09:32am

Bah, When we have a man protable 50 KW laser, then I will be happy

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-30 11:46am

I've known about these projects for a long time. Here's a rundown:

Airborne Laser (ABL)

A modified 747-400F with a megawatt-range (IIRC) laser for engagement and four others for targetting issues. The prototype will have at minimum 25 shots against ballistic missiles, probably more against aircraft and those type of weapons.

They'll be travelling in pairs to cover each other, probably with AWAC support and a CAP screen. For all points and purposes, they'll probably be virtually invincible to all but the largest saturation attacks.

Space Based Laser (SBL)

Laser planned for a boost-phase intercept. Probably not that useful for anything else, but would be the first layer in the the US NMD.

Airbone Tactical Laser

Hundred-kilowatt range (I think 300kW) laser for tactical purposes, mounted on a C-130 or V-22. The ultimate sniper weapon for killing stuff on the battlefield.

Joint Strike Fighter Laser

To be mounted on the USMC version of the F-35. They expect a 4-sec burst, 4-sec recharge, 4-sec burst, 30-sec cool cycle. It'll probably be on a retractable turret.

Theatre High Energy Laser (THEL)

Laser designed to kill rockets and artillery shells being lobbed somewhere. Aircraft, too, probably. Israel should be deploying it sometime soon (it has been jointly developed between the US and Israel).

Mobile THEL

Make THEL solid-state and put it on wheels.

Naval THEL

Put THEL on a ship and using as a point-defense missile system. Nothing concrete here, though.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-10-30 01:20pm

I'm still waiting for the equivalent of the Maser Tanks that were showing up as part of the JDF in 60's Kaiju films.

The artilery pieces in ATOC were very similar, although they looked less mobile.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-10-30 02:21pm

So they have got the power requirements down a bit...Interesting stuff. Up there with the railguns I saw on another web page.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-30 03:42pm

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c ... sd0926.xml

Aerospace Daily: Keeping Cool A Big Challenge For JSF Laser, Lockheed Martin Says

By Jefferson Morris/Aerospace Daily

26-Sep-2002 11:44 AM U.S. EDT

One of the biggest challenges facing Lockheed Martin in its efforts to install a high-energy laser on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is the question of what to do with all the excess heat generated by the system, according to the company's lead for directed energy programs.

Laser systems use electricity to produce highly focused beams of light, as well as considerable amounts of waste heat that must be dissipated. Lockheed Martin believes that a 100-kilowatt laser is the minimum power level needed to be an effective weapon for a fighter.

However, "to get 100 kilowatts of light out, you've got to put a megawatt of electrical power in, so somewhere along the way you've got to deal with 900 kilowatts of cooling," Tom Burris, lead for directed energy at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, told The DAILY. "That's a ton, for a fighter that normally does tens of kilowatts of cooling."

To dissipate the heat, cooling loops will be employed to take heat from the laser system and transfer it into the aircraft's fuel tank, where it can be burned away.

"Just like a radiator in your car takes the heat from the cooling that goes into your engine and puts it into the air, this just puts it into the fuel," Burris said.

This process won't compromise the JSF's stealth, Burris said, because it will have no appreciable effect on its infrared signature.

"If you think about the amount of fuel onboard a jet aircraft, if you put all that heat in the fuel, you might raise it by a degree, something on that order," he said. "So in terms of signature, it has no impact."

Lockheed Martin plans to make space for the laser system by pulling out the Rolls-Royce-built shaft-driven lift fan in the Marine Corps short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the JSF (DAILY, Sept. 23). Within that 100-cubic-foot space, used largely for fuel storage in the other variants, the laser can draw wattage from a shaft connected directly to the aircraft's JSF119-611 engine.

Solid-state lasers, which use a solid material such as crystal or glass as the lasing medium, are the most mature and promising laser technology for this application, according to Lockheed Martin. Single-digit-wattage solid-state lasers already are commonplace on today's fighters, where they perform tasks such as rangefinding and target designation.

Over the summer, Lockheed Martin signed an agreement with the Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) Directed Energy Directorate to cooperatively explore high-energy laser concepts for fighters (DAILY, June 6). AFRL will furnish the laser, while Lockheed Martin concentrates on integration into the aircraft.

Lockheed Martin anticipates the JSF using lasers against both air and ground targets, at a typical range of 10 kilometers (6.2 miles). The laser itself would be housed in a dome that would emerge from the aircraft when needed, Burris said.

"When you want to use it, you'll deploy the turret, so it'll pop out into the airstream," he said. "You'll get a target cue from somewhere, just like all weapons do. It'll slew over to where you think the target is, acquire the target, and then it'll start lasing it."

The earliest opportunity the company will have to place a high- energy laser system on the JSF will be beginning with the Block Four version around 2012, according to Burris.

Optics

The other major challenge in putting lasers on the JSF is keeping the laser beam focused properly as it passes through the turbulent air around the Mach 1 aircraft.

"That flow field around the aircraft will distort the laser beam," Burris said. "So you'll have to have some sort of system onboard ... that'll sense that distortion and then correct for it."

The solution is adaptive optics - a technology developed by AFRL that is already in use on the Airborne Laser (ABL) program and at many astronomical observatories around the world. An adaptive optics system performs real-time compensation for atmospheric distortion by using deformable mirrors that can "pre-distort" the beam in such a way that the atmosphere itself straightens it out.

Aerospace Daily is a newsletter from Aviation Week's Business Intelligence Services. Click here to try a FREE TRIAL subscription.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-30 05:44pm

ALL HAIL THE IMPERIUM AMERICANA!

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-30 06:38pm

Cyril wrote:ALL HAIL IMPERIUM AMERICANA!

Exactly

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-10-30 07:16pm

High-powered lasers... How much would they cost? A million? A billion?

Anyway, they sound cool.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2002-10-30 07:21pm

EmperorMing wrote:So they have got the power requirements down a bit...Interesting stuff. Up there with the railguns I saw on another web page.

From MegaToyko? That stuff is great

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-10-31 10:59pm

Where are they going to fit the turret in the F-35? Last I saw, it doesn't have that much spare room for equipment (especially trying to shoehorn it around the lift fan and engine ducting in the Marine Corps variant). I'd figured they would go for a 30mm cannon like the Harrier's Aden, since the M61/A1 Vulcan's basically an overweight piece of junk and a GAU/8 Avenger cannon wouldn't fit on the JSF. I like the idea, I'm just trying to figure out the engineering on it. I hope LockMart knows what they're getting into by releasing that info already.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-31 11:06pm

The Dark wrote:since the M61/A1 Vulcan's basically an overweight piece of junk and a GAU/8 Avenger cannon wouldn't fit on the JSF.

The M61 is a POS? Explain to me....

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-10-31 11:16pm

Not so much a POS as wrong for the job. It's not terribly accurate (according to AF acquaintances of mine) and the gun has problems damaging structures. Since the Marine Corps variant is intended as a ground attack fighter (like the F/A-18) the Vulcan would be a poor choice of gun for it. Plus, a rotary cannon really isn't necessary for the aircraft. In ground attack, a high rate of fire is less important (most of the time) than armor penetration. The extra weight of the rotary mechanism could be used on a single-barrel machine cannon to increase round caliber and ammunition capacity.

Sorry if I didn't write that clearly. I consider the Vulcan to have been a fine piece of equipment when it was developed, but it now is relatively underpowered.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2002-10-31 11:39pm

Just how much damage could a 100 kw laser do anyways?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-10-31 11:42pm

The Dark wrote:Not so much a POS as wrong for the job. It's not terribly accurate (according to AF acquaintances of mine) and the gun has problems damaging structures.

Thats why its been in use for 40 years, in many uses in which accuracy is paramount (Phalanx comes to mind)?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-01 12:07am

I'll agree that Phalanx is a good anti-missile weapon, but anything capable of throwing out 4,500 rpm in 100 round bursts can put up solid defense at its maximum range of approximately one mile even if it's considered relatively inaccurate. Also, I said it was my AF acquaintances. Firing a Phalanx from a relatively stationary target with full computer assistance like an aircraft carrier is quite different from firing a Vulcan in an airplane attempting to hit a target while simultaneously avoiding enemy fire using primarily the Mk 1 eyeball.

On a side note, the Navy is planning on phasing out Phalanx and using RAM instead, which is a missile system with either an 11 or 21 round magazine and a 95% accuracy rate in testing. It's already installed on Peleliu and Kitty Hawk.

I don't intend to get into a debate about the merits of the guns. As I said, I think the M61 was and still is a decent gun, but it is not appropriate for the F-35 JSF, and I still want to know where they're planning on fitting in that laser turret.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-11-01 04:07am

Listen, if Star Trek has taught us anything, it's that cooler sounding stuff is always better, practicality be damned. Therefore the US should scrap all projectile weapons and put lasers on everything. We can keep our nuclear missiles, but only if we start calling them Quantum Detonation Devices.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-11-01 04:33am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Listen, if Star Trek has taught us anything, it's that cooler sounding stuff is always better, practicality be damned. Therefore the US should scrap all projectile weapons and put lasers on everything. We can keep our nuclear missiles, but only if we start calling them Quantum Detonation Devices.

Plus it is better for the economy for us to go with the all new cool and expensive stuff instead of staying with the old, reliable gets the job done stuff.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-11-01 10:07am

Phalanx is a lousy CIWS. RAM is far superior at the antimissile role. Phalanx had the advantage that it was relatively inexpensive and could be placed pretty much anywhere on a ship - things like Goalkeeper needed space underneath it.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-11-01 10:08am

About the F-35 laser, I've heard that they're going to delete a fuel tank or two to put it in. Rumors, of course, though it makes some sense.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-01 04:52pm

phongn wrote:About the F-35 laser, I've heard that they're going to delete a fuel tank or two to put it in. Rumors, of course, though it makes some sense.

The space there using is normally used by the lifting fan for the USMC STOVL variant. The other variants don't have this fan and use this space for added fuel.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-01 04:58pm

The Dark wrote:I'll agree that Phalanx is a good anti-missile weapon, but anything capable of throwing out 4,500 rpm in 100 round bursts can put up solid defense at its maximum range of approximately one mile even if it's considered relatively inaccurate. Also, I said it was my AF acquaintances. Firing a Phalanx from a relatively stationary target with full computer assistance like an aircraft carrier is quite different from firing a Vulcan in an airplane attempting to hit a target while simultaneously avoiding enemy fire using primarily the Mk 1 eyeball.

On a side note, the Navy is planning on phasing out Phalanx and using RAM instead, which is a missile system with either an 11 or 21 round magazine and a 95% accuracy rate in testing. It's already installed on Peleliu and Kitty Hawk.

I don't intend to get into a debate about the merits of the guns. As I said, I think the M61 was and still is a decent gun, but it is not appropriate for the F-35 JSF, and I still want to know where they're planning on fitting in that laser turret.

There's no place to put an M61 on the F-35. Both it and the F-32 where designed to and will carry a Mauser 27mm revolver cannon, a much more compact weapon.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-01 05:00pm

Tsyroc wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Listen, if Star Trek has taught us anything, it's that cooler sounding stuff is always better, practicality be damned. Therefore the US should scrap all projectile weapons and put lasers on everything. We can keep our nuclear missiles, but only if we start calling them Quantum Detonation Devices.
Plus it is better for the economy for us to go with the all new cool and expensive stuff instead of staying with the old, reliable gets the job done stuff.

Most of these laser systems won't be replacing anything at all. There offering new capability that simply does not exist with any other system.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-01 05:13pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: There's no place to put an M61 on the F-35. Both it and the F-32 where designed to and will carry a Mauser 27mm revolver cannon, a much more compact weapon.

But not as good as the old M61 for sheer "fill the sky with lead"......the
M61 has a VARIABLE rate of fire, due to it's electric drive....

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-01 05:40pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: There's no place to put an M61 on the F-35. Both it and the F-32 where designed to and will carry a Mauser 27mm revolver cannon, a much more compact weapon.
But not as good as the old M61 for sheer "fill the sky with lead"......the
M61 has a VARIABLE rate of fire, due to it's electric drive....

Sure, but the JSFs were designed primarily as a replacement for the Harrier as a ground attack aircraft, so having penetration power is more important than rate of fire in most cases. I don't think a Vulcan (and I mean the gun, not Sarek) will do much against a T-72 or a HAS.