backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by knutjb.. on Jul 24 at 3:52 PM


Raytheon's test of its laser weapons tracking system was a resounding success, scoring 4 UAV kills.  (Source: Raytheon)

Raytheon has released video of the test.  (Source: Raytheon)

The new laser version of Raytheon's Phalanx tracking system could be used to counter UAVs from hostile nations such as Iran (U.S. armed "Reaper" UAV pictured).  (Source: The Real Revo)
Company shows off video of lasers shooting down a drone

Even as the Northrop Grumman tests out its new 100 KW solid state laser cannon as part of a $98M USD Maritime Laser Demonstration program with the U.S. Navy to defend against ships, Raytheon is offering a new guidance system that may be capable of aiming laser batteries against airborne targets.

In May, the U.S. Navy coupled six solid-state lasers with an output of 32 kilowatts (the Navy's Laser Weapon System, LaWS) to Raytheon's Phalanx Close-In Weapon System sensors.  The result was successful kills of four unmanned aerial vehicles.

Raytheon is showing grainy black and white video of test for the first time at the U.K.'sFarnborough International Air Show 2010.

The tests were conducted near the Navy's weapons and training facility on San Nicolas Island in California's Santa Barbara Channel.  Phalanx used radio-frequency (radar) sensors and electro-optical tracking to direct the laser's aim on targets.

The results were impressive and easily surpassed Raytheon's 2006 destruction of a static mortar shell, and 2008 destruction of an incoming (in motion) mortar shell over land.  Still, Mike Booen, vice president of Raytheon's Advanced Security and Directed Energy Systems product line insists that the successful tests are only the start and that the full system will not be finalized until 2016, at the earliest.

Interestingly, the Phalanx system is nothing new.  It has typically been coupled, though with traditional munition based weapons, such as the 20-mm Gatling gun.  The laser-equipped system would likely more than double the range of the traditional Gatling gun.

The laser anti-aircraft batteries could be useful to counter hostile nations like Iran that have reportedly developed UAV capabilities.  Coupled with the Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD) cannons, they could offer an unprecedented warship.  States Northrop spokesman Bob Bishop, "The MLD system we are under contract to build for [the U.S. Office of Naval Research] will be scalable to a variety of power levels.  That means that laser power can be added—or subtracted—to meet the level of response necessary to address the threat, all within the same modular laser weapon system."

The MLD program will complete its tests by the end of year.  The tests will be performed at 15 KW -- a mere fraction of the laser's full power.  If all goes well, Northrop Grumman may be able to test shots at higher power levels, afterwards.

Both the U.S. Army and the Air Force are also currently evaluating and testing laser weapons.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

"...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By hubbabubbagum on 7/21/2010 8:02:39 AM , Rating: -1
Iran has never acted aggressively against the US in spite of decades of American interference in their politics (sponsoring coups, funding their enemy Iraq in a long war, etc.)

Iran is only a "hostile nation" because they have massive oil reserves.




RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By Lord 666 on 7/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By martinrichards23 on 7/21/2010 8:35:56 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Shutup terorrist loving troll


Respond with a rational argument next time.

You could have pointed out that Iran has done a series of aggressive things (taken hostages a number of times, Lockerbie bomb etc.).

You could also have justified the times the US has interfered within Iran.

Telling someone to just shut up and insulting them weakens your point of view.


By dubldwn on 7/21/2010 12:17:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You could have pointed out that Iran has done a series of aggressive things...Lockerbie bomb


No.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By gamefoo21 on 7/21/2010 12:56:54 PM , Rating: 1
The US basically installed the current government and Iranians hatred toward the US.

The US/Britain screwed up when they forced a revolution, and installed a 'pro-west' dictator. All because the wanted oil... Remind you of someplace else?


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By dgingeri on 7/21/2010 2:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
um, no. Remember when the Iranian revolution happened? Carter was president. They took several American hostages that they didn't release for over a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

the Iranian government is an Islamic government that ousted the pro-American (Shah) government. They have been very hostile to us since then.

Nobody mentioned their aggressive actions against many ships at the entrance to the Persian Gulf (Strait of Hormuz), including playing chicken with a US Navy Destroyer.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U3TFRG0

They aren't so innocent as they seem, the media, including American media, just likes to bash anything American.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By gamerk2 on 7/21/2010 3:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, YOU forgot to mention that the "pro-American (Shah) government" was run by a brutal dictator while being backed by the US, as he was anti-communist (which coincidentally was the same exact thing the US did in Vietnam, and we know how that turned out).

And people forget, Imanutjob (my nickname for Irans leader) was third in the polls with a week to go, until a certain US President who shall remain nameless decided to make a snide comment about Irans "democracy". Imanutjob used that to strenthen his pro-US position, and became our biggest headache.

The lesson being:
A: Don't back brutal dictators, whatever the reason
B: Don't make snide comments about other countries "democracies" (free or otherwise) until AFTER the elections end.


By knutjb on 7/24/2010 3:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
You need to go back and see what happened to Iran. The Shah was a bad guy, the Ayatollah even worse. We had monitoring stations in Iran for the cold war, look at the map, it was that and not oil as so many cry about.

We are not an awful nation but we have made some mistakes and one of those was not going in to rescue our embassy immediately after the overthrow. That failure by Carter only emboldened the new and very violent regime.

Since the overthrow Iranians have become more oppressed by the same kind of violence the Shah used. On top of that, the newly emboldened Ayatollah expanded his influence into Lebanon, Gaza, and meddles in the region.

So which is the lesser of evils? I think the Shah because he could have, eventually, been pressured into backing off the public and he primarily kept his violence domestic. The Ayatollahs, the real leaders, blow off any attempt by the international community to change their ways and create a number of other problems.


By General Disturbance on 7/21/2010 3:38:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the Iranian government is an Islamic government that ousted the pro-American (Shah) government. They have been very hostile to us since then.


Ooooohhh, oh nooos! They've been hostile by not talking to us much since their population did the only patriotic thing a typical American WON'T do, and overthrew their fraudulent gov't for one the people wanted.

quote:
Nobody mentioned their aggressive actions against many ships at the entrance to the Persian Gulf (Strait of Hormuz), including playing chicken with a US Navy Destroyer.


Ooohhh my, how can this stand? They're being "aggressive"! They're not letting us walk all over them and steal from them and they're defending their territorial waters and borders! Oooohhh what aggression they're SO scary!

/This is why the world hates you.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By afkrotch on 7/21/2010 10:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ooohhh my, how can this stand? They're being "aggressive"! They're not letting us walk all over them and steal from them and they're defending their territorial waters and borders! Oooohhh what aggression they're SO scary!


International laws allow innocent passage of military vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran of course threatened to seal off the Strait of Hormuz for any vessels. Both commercial and military.

After sending 5 battle groups (as in, 5 aircraft carriers, with up to 450 aircrafts, including about 40 escort ships) to the coasts of Iran, they sure seemed to stfu.


By hubbabubbagum on 7/22/2010 10:18:53 AM , Rating: 2
International law also makes the US invasion of Iraq illegal.

Or did you want it both ways?


By spread on 7/21/2010 10:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
You tellim Bo! Now comme on over here and help me out with these here freeedom fries. The Glenn Beck show's comin on.


By threepac3 on 7/21/2010 8:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah there couldn't possibly be another reason...?


By bug77 on 7/21/2010 8:36:51 AM , Rating: 5
Quite the contrary. They have been known to throw 444 days long parties for americans sometimes.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By amanojaku on 7/21/2010 8:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
Iran is a hostile nation, and it's hostility began in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution. Read up on the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; he started all the mess. Iran is pretty much at odds with everyone, including Muslim countries. It just doesn't have the military might to start a fight and win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah_Khomeini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By hubbabubbagum on 7/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By NanoTube1 on 7/21/2010 9:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah right.

Furthermore, Iran never launched any terror campaign against the US. Al Aqsa brigades ring a bell? Mahdi army anyone? Taking US citizens hostage for 444 days? Arming Hizballah (the same guys that blew the Marines barracks in lebanon)?

I can go on and on. The only reason why they are not openly attacking the US is that they do not have the military might.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By Kurz on 7/21/10, Rating: 0
By Anoxanmore on 7/21/2010 10:18:03 AM , Rating: 2
After you slept with her first. :)

You forgot that part.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By bug77 on 7/21/2010 10:44:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well... they wouldn't need to wage a terror campaign if we didn't meddle in their country.


And you came to that conclusion how? By their own words, they won't rest until the whole world bows to islam and all infidels are history. American/jewish/whoever presence in the Middle East is just the pretext of the day.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By TerranMagistrate on 7/21/2010 11:05:57 AM , Rating: 3
Ignorance probably.

How else does one ignore the basic fact that the Iranian regime is an fanatical Islamic theocracy with some rather ominous Islamic aspirations for the West. Their nuclear program being just one of several means to that end.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By MojoMan on 7/21/2010 2:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
Be careful who you call ignorant. Nobody is saying they aren't a hostile regime. However... Study the term blow back. What we are saying is we're simply giving them a reason to fight us. Even for religious reasons it is historically hard to get people to get up and go fight a war, especially against a far off country. As soon as you start messing with people's home turf though... All of the sudden that validates their religious leanings, and it becomes a rallying cry. Imagine someone invading our country "preemptively." Your reaction is to protect your home, your family, and your country. Oh... When you do defend yourself, or counter-attack, the world will look at you can go, see? We needed to attack. Look how hostile they are!

Lol...

I see some of you, at least, do your own reading instead of believing everything the government and media tells you.


By gamerk2 on 7/21/2010 3:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Religion is nothing more then an excuse by a nations leaders to garner natonalistic support.

The saddest part of Iran is a majority of people have a positive view of the US, but the US keeps acting like the reverse is true.


By afkrotch on 7/21/2010 10:37:00 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is, we will be damned if we do and damned if we don't. Somalia is a prime example. There to help, we get fucked. Leave and never help again, we get fucked for not helping.


By MatthiasF on 7/21/2010 9:29:32 AM , Rating: 3
What democracy? The Shah was a MONARCH! The country was more like a dictatorship, no democracy involved at all.

Much like most of the rest of the region.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By amanojaku on 7/21/2010 9:57:06 AM , Rating: 5
I know you're not serious, because that made no sense at all. But I'll play along...

The revolution happened for several reasons, none of which had anything to do with furthering Iranian democracy. In fact, the end result was a return to theocracy, where religion rules the state. The Iranian people were AGAINST the idea of Westernizing, which meant treating women as equals (many women supported equal rights, many men didn't), giving religious minorities the ability to hold office, and reducing the power of religious groups.

The Ayatollah managed to rally conservatives to his cause and they ousted the progressive, but arrogant and sometimes incompetent, Shah Pahlavi. Immediately afterward the economy collapsed, there was social unrest, and all the democratic groups (such as the National Democratic Front) were destroyed. Iran pretends to be a democracy, but you'll notice that it dictates more than it listens. Ahmadinejad calls himself a president, but Iran is really run by the Supreme Leader.

Iran is still intolerant: women still do not have equal rights, religious minorities are still treated as inferior, and the religious majority has a say in everything.


By alphadog on 7/21/2010 12:38:27 PM , Rating: 1
> The Ayatollah managed to rally conservatives to his cause

Apparently not the conservatives in the US. Can't all conservatives just get along?!? :)


By inperfectdarkness on 7/21/2010 1:19:03 PM , Rating: 4
i'm glad someone else on here actually understands the real truth behind iran's history.

additionally, iran has been a LONG-TIME supporter of terrorist organizations (hamas, hezbollah, etc). that alone should cause any democracy-lover to question the validity of the iranian state under its current government.

apparently there are a lot of people on daily-tech who forget that until the revolution, iran was a key ally of the USA in the middle-east. there's a reason they got F-14's from us.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By gamerk2 on 7/21/2010 3:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iran is still intolerant: women still do not have equal rights, religious minorities are still treated as inferior, and the religious majority has a say in everything.


Funny, this sentence equally describes Isriel; are you arguing they are an intolerant nation as well?

quote:
The revolution happened for several reasons, none of which had anything to do with furthering Iranian democracy.


Wrong again; The Primary reason for the revolution was to rid the country of the US backed Shah, who was little more then a brutal dictator that had US backing because he was anti-communist. The religious undertones didn't appear until after the revolution ended, when conservatives in Iran created the Supreme Leader position. [Its important to note decisions by the SL can technically be voted, as the origional attempt was to create a form of democracy where religion would have an equal place with law, ironically simmilar to Isriel. As you can see, however, conservatives ended up with more power, and the country veered far to the right.]


By ekv on 7/21/2010 9:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny, this sentence equally describes Isriel; are you arguing they are an intolerant nation as well?
I disagree. Since when did Israel invoke a news black-out for the entire country? at a time when political dissidents were being lured to demonstrations, then attacked by state police and in some cases murdered.

No, I think the question is, are you arguing that Israel is an intolerant nation? Btw, are you deliberately mis-spelling "Israel"?


By gamerk2 on 7/21/2010 3:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Read up on the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; he started all the mess.


Read up on the Shah of Iran and his brutal dicatorship; he was the root cause of the Iranian Revolution. Hence why backing dictators never works.

Look at Irans point of view: The west took land that belong to islamic states to create Isriel, backed several brutal dictators in the region (The Shah of Iran, Saddam, the Saudi Kings, etc), and then expanded their War on Terror to Iraq under false pretenses. Throw in about 1,000 years of Religious undertones, and you make it easy to cause radical elements to rise up and sieze control.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By Daniel8uk on 7/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By ZachDontScare on 7/21/2010 2:35:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iran has never acted aggressively against the US


Oh, so you are saying they weret/arent supplying IED's to insurgents in Iraq? IED's that killed many American and allied military personal, not to mention Iraqis who happen to be at the wrong market or funeral.


By echtogammut on 7/21/2010 7:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Jason Mick is a trolling god. I need to create a news site for him and somehow capture the comment revenue he generates.


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki