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

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?


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














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