backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by Smilin.. on May 21 at 6:40 PM


Soon lasers may go from the realm of science fiction to real battlefields.  (Source: LucasFilm Ltd.)
Next-gen solution will supplement today's projectile-based auto-turrets

Perhaps it's the indelible "cool" factor of having a weapon that long has been a dear dream of the science fiction agency.  Perhaps it's practical considerations like range and time to target impact.  But for whatever the reasons, the U.S. armed forces and its contractors remain dogged in their pursuit of real-life laser weapons.

I. Projectile-Equipped Auto-Turrets Pave the Way For Laser Defenses

The current line of thought is to use lasers onboard sea ships and on armored vehicles as automated turrets capable of creating a shield against incoming hostile projectiles.  While ineffective against solid slugs, high powered lasers could successfully detonate more-destructive explosion ordinances -- rockets, mortars, and explosive shells.

Col. Pete Newell, the head of the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force, says that such systems are crucial for defending locations like small outposts in the mountains of Afghanistan from deadly rocket and mortar fire, which are often directed over rocky outcroppings.  States Col. Newell, "No radar can find that."

For now, the Army is looking to field defensive auto-turrets to target such projectiles.  Key to that effort is the Counter-Rocket and Mortar (C-RAM) Land-based Phalanx Weapon System (LPWS).  Developed primarily by the U.S. Navy, but also fielded on land, the C-RAM system has been relatively effective, considering that it's not far from being a glorified tech demo.

Phalanx C-RAM
Proven effective in real-world deployments, the Phalanx C-RAM auto-turret could be enhanced by anti-ordinance lasers. [Image Source: PopGun Reviews]

While the C-RAM's "kill sheet" is relatively small -- 170 mortar and rocket attacks in the battlefield since 2005 -- the Navy says it has proved equally valuable for its early detection capabilities, helping warn of over 2,000 attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last seven years.

The life-saving system is hauled on a trailer.  Precise details are scarce, but it is known to be a scaled down version of the Navy's Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS).  The sea-based Phalanx CIWS packs a 20mm M61A1 Gatling gun capable of firing between 3,000 to 4,500 high-explosive self-destruct rounds per minute at incoming enemy munitions.

II. More Turrets Incoming

Top defense contractor, Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC), in February scored a $132M USD contract to install and sustain several of the LPWS units at bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The lead designer of the sea-based CIWS, Raytheon Comp. (RTN) (which acquired the project as part of its recent acquisition of General Dynamics), has also scored an estimated $78.3M USD contract to develop the LPWS/CIWS successor, dubbed the Accelerated Improve Intercept Initiative (AI3).

Steve Bennett, project leader for the AI3 says it will be "saving soldiers' lives by 2015."  He comments that the refined anti-projectile system will leverage "technologies from the Sidewinder, Avenger and Small Diameter Bomb II programs as well as leveraging program and IR&D efforts from our key suppliers."

III. Multiple Laser Solutions Vie for Land, Air, and Sea Supremacy

But what about the lasers?

Many commanders remain hopeful that lasers will be a crucial part of future campaigns, as do defense contractors like Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. 

In the air realm The Boeing Comp. (BA) is showing off its advanced YAL-1 Airborne Laser (ABL) system [1][2], a system designed to ward off enemy rockets and even potentially shoot down incoming ballistic (nuclear) missiles.  The chemical laser system has been in the works since 1980s, which could be seen as either a source of optimism given the long string of improvements or pessimism given that it's still not fully battle ready three decades later.

Boeing ABL
Boeing's ABL has been stuck for three decades in development purgatory. [Image Source: Boeing]

Boeing has also showed off a second design, geared towards gunship use, dubbed the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL).  Packed aboard a Hercules C-130H gunship, Boeing is targeting a power of 100 to 300 kW laser with up to 100 shots.  It hit a stationary Humvee in 2009 tests, burning a hole in its front hood.  The status of the project is unclear, with little news since that high profile success.

At sea, Northrop Grumman is leading efforts with its Maritime Laser Demonstrator (MLD).  Armed with a $98M USD contract, Northrop Grumman is aiming to install 100-kilowatt lasers on ships.  Last April the system scored a "kill shot" on a small ship, swaying in a choppy sea.  The U.S. Navy is also working on free electron lasers, hoping to produce an in-house one megawatt design, a systems so powerful that it could penetrate armored ships.

Raytheon is working on a rival system.  It has paired the aforementioned Phalanx's artificial intelligence with a battery of six 32 kilowatt lasers to form the Laser Weapon System (LaWS), which shot down four unmanned aerial vehicles in 2010 testing.

IV. HEL MD Looks to Give Enemies Land Projectiles Hell

The latest efforts in laser weapons have been to bring a laser-endowed auto-turret system onto land.  Boeing is working on a contract with the Army’s Space & Missile Defense Command to produce the High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD).  A prototype unit was successfully integrated onboard a Oshkosh HEMTT A4 vehicle last summer and underwent low-power testing in the fall and winter.

Boeing DES
Boeing is developing laser war-wagons. [Image Source: Boeing]

Assuming the Army bites on a follow-on contract, Boeing will next engage in field testing in 2013.  Blaine Beardsley, HEL MD program manager at Boeing, spoke to Defense News about the program. 

He emphasized its virtually-unlimited "magazine" and early succes in tracking targets, remarking "[The system was] very successful in acquiring and tracking the object and putting the beam on it.  [Y]ou can drive it out to any location and emplace it quickly and be able to set it up with full 360-degree coverage.  Even while you're utilizing the magazine and engaging targets, you’re charging that magazine."

The new system's test targets included 60 mm and 120 mm rounds.

V. Laser Weapons -- Wither Art Thou?

It's reasonable to take such claims with a degree of skepticism, or even pessimism, given that laser weapons have been a regular promise since the 1980s.

But the advent of high-power solid-state lasers -- a recent development, may prove the salvation of the promising future-weapon.  Unlike gas lasers, which often require toxic chemicals and costly-charges, the solid state laser offers a virtually unlimited number of shots, as long as you can keep it powered and cooled.

Mark Gunzinger, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, says lasers have the advantage of instant kills -- crucial for anti-ordinance systems.  He remarks, "You don’t have to wait for a kinetic weapon to fly to a target — it goes at the speed of light."

Storm trooper shooting laser
Real-life laser weapons may soon become a reality. [Image Source: LucasFilm Ltd.]

But even if the state of the art can be advanced to the point of having limitless shots and reliable target striking, traditional projectile weapons will still be needed, he argues, "Directed energy weapons can't completely replace kinetic defenses. They’re complementary.  You need both of them because lasers have limitations in bad weather and so forth."

Ultimately the best counter to the laser -- a crucial future weapon -- may be yet another future weapon -- the rail gun.  By delivering slugs at hypersonic speeds, future rail guns' ordinance may be too fast for a laser defense system to hit.  And even if the laser system was fast enough to react, it would likely be unable to harm the projectile, as rail guns aim to deliver solid slugs with equivalent destructive force to explosive munitions.  The laser need to be able to set off an explosive in order to "kill" an incoming round -- for now, at least.

Source: Defense News



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2012 6:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? If something like the Phalanx system can mate a Naval tracking radar to a minigun and shoot down missiles with simple shells, you don't think a Railgun with it's hypersonic velocities could do just as good if not better?

quote:
They are fast sure, but not instant.


LOL umm, Bugs Bunny was "fast". Railguns are insane. 5,000+ MPH, and that's only the test unit.

quote:
some ballistics calculations will do but if you need to hit a distant moving target (inland vehicle convoy) then inflight adjustments will be needed.


Umm again, I don't know what you're talking about. Check my math here but assuming a velocity of 5,000 MPH is 7,333 feet per second, that means a Railgun slug fired at a target five miles (26,000 feet) away would have a travel time of only 3.6 seconds. You don't need in-flight adjustments for today's modern fire control computer systems to make that shot.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Smilin on 5/14/2012 9:05:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What are you talking about?


Do you ever think stuff through before you fly off the handle?

No, I don't think a railgun would do it better. Know why? Because the guys who build railguns and lasers chose the laser. But I'm sure some intarwebs fellow like yourself knows better.

The railguns they are developing are not to replace the vulcans on R2D2s. They are being developed as long range naval guns capable of hitting inland some 200 to 250 miles. Travel times would be 30-60 seconds. It would punch through god knows what but won't hit a moving target without guidance systems.

Current airborne lasers doing missle interception have an effective range of some 150-350 miles and hit instantly.

A railgun's speed is going to minimize wind and such but it won't be viable against long range vehicle sized moving targets until they can get guidance systems to survive the shot.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2012 9:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The railguns they are developing are not to replace the vulcans on R2D2s. They are being developed as long range naval guns capable of hitting inland some 200 to 250 miles. Travel times would be 30-60 seconds. It would punch through god knows what but won't hit a moving target without guidance systems.


That's TODAY. They will eventually be miniaturized and the problems solved. Or do you suppose all metallurgy and materials research is suddenly going to stop?

To say railguns won't hit moving targets is pure ignorance. They aren't hitting them now, but they most certainly WILL be.

Muzzle velocities will also increase over time. What is 6,000 mph today will become 11,000 mph+ in the future.

Lasers aren't without their problems either, remember? I think both have a ways to go. But I believe Railguns to be more practical and realistic than laser based systems for actual combat use.

Plus they are so freaking cool. Lasers are sooo 1980's, didn't you hear? :P


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Kyuu on 5/14/2012 11:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
So your argument to issues raised with railguns is "they'll get better, R&D duh", but your argument with regards to a material to defend against a laser weapon is "there is no light material with a high melting point that can reflect a broad spectrum of wavelengths effectively and zero materials research can take place to possibly make one"?

Oh-kay then.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 1:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
The whole argument is silly. People do not armor missiles against attack. When you understand what kind of lasers we're going to be dealing with, you should logically arrive at the same conclusion.

If this was the case, anti ship sea-skimming missiles would be wrapped in Kevlar and composites and steel plates to protect from flak cannons, Phalanx mini-guns, and other anti-missile counters. Why do you think nobody does that?


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Smilin on 5/15/2012 10:46:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The whole argument is silly. People do not armor missiles against attack from kinetic or explosive weapons


There fixed that for you.

Missles, aircraft and other devices that require light weight to function don't handle traditional armor well but armoring against lasers may indeed be possible.

The tiles on the Space Shuttle would make an excellent starting point.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 12:11:12 PM , Rating: 3
There's only one material I can think of that could withstand something like the Navy's laser. And even then who knows for how long. It's called Starlite I believe? And the man who invented it is an idiot that refuses to sell the formula or even market the product because he wants to do it all on his own. Or he's going senile, whatever.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5158972/Star...

It's almost criminal that this isn't a widely available material today. It's uses and benefits to mankind seem almost unlimited.

But I digress.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Smilin on 5/18/2012 10:35:24 AM , Rating: 2
Cool link, thx!


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Smilin on 5/15/2012 10:03:35 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, today.

You seem to be wanting this railgun vs laser debate and you're basing your argument on the assumption that railgun R&D will continue and overtake lasers yet laser R&D will stop.

I happen to think railguns are indeed much cooler than lasers...I've been playing BattleTech since it was a board game. (PPC + Gauss combo was a nice balance of weight and heat :P )

I'm not going to let my preference lure me into obviously flawed logic though.

quote:
Lasers aren't without their problems either, remember? I think both have a ways to go. But I believe Railguns to be more practical and realistic than laser based systems for actual combat use.


Putting all future speculation aside (so you can stop making up your dream facts) laser weapon systems are currently deployed. Railguns are not. You've lost your 'practical and realistic' argument.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By AssBall on 5/14/2012 9:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it won't be viable against long range vehicle sized moving targets


That's what the skeptics said about rocks when we started throwing them. Then spears, arrows, muskets, rockets. I'm pretty sure we can figure it out if we were doing it 30 thousand years ago.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2012 9:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
lol Yeah.

I like how he brings up range in a discussion about Rails vs Lasers. Last time I checked a laser couldn't hit something beyond the horizon.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Smilin on 5/15/2012 9:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked lasers can be airborne.

"lol yeah" indeed.

I've made valid points here man. You seem to jerk off in the bathroom to railgun weekly or something.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 11:44:58 AM , Rating: 2
The airborne laser? You mean the longest running golden goose in the history of our country? The one that's failed in nearly every test to bring down the target?

quote:
I've made valid points here man.


Yes and so have I. We both get cookies I guess! :)


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Smilin on 5/15/2012 9:48:27 AM , Rating: 2
Boy it sure is easy to make your point when you just lop off half of my sentance to create the context you wish for. Here is the rest of that quote:

quote:
until they can get guidance systems to survive the shot.


Muskets didn't start hitting anything until they got rifled. Rockets didn't start hitting anything until they provided uniform thrust (and later guidance)...and railguns aren't going to hit distant targets until they get guidance.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 10:49:14 AM , Rating: 2
Try telling battleship gunners that they can't hit anything because their platform is bobbing in the water, the target is over the horizon and their 1 ton dumb shell has no terminal guidance.

Hunters have a similar problem. A moving target won't be there when the bullet/arrow/spear arrives.

Simple solution found millennia ago ... you aim at the place you expect the target to be at when the shot arrives...defense is to dodge...Not dodging at just the right time is the reason long range dumb rounds are considered effective.

Napoleon would disagree with your remark on muskets as would a great number of soldiers who died after receiving musket fire. Rifling reduced the grouping of the shot allowing smaller targets to be hit at long range. It did nothing for terminal guidance.

There were many battlefield rockets (still are) that have no guidance and primitive drives with little or no acceleration control...they exist because they are effective for their intended mission (killing targets)

Railguns are artillery (current designs) or hand cannon (think gauss rifle). Terminal guidance is unnecessary if the gunner is able to aim the weapon.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Smilin on 5/15/2012 11:04:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try telling battleship gunners that they can't hit anything because their platform is bobbing in the water, the target is over the horizon and their 1 ton dumb shell has no terminal guidance.


They won't hit with the first round. A Mk 38 fire control system will track that first round with radar and the second round will hit (being fired even before the first lands). In the meantime those gunners better hope the target isn't firing back with guided munitions like an Excalibur.

I get the idea of ballistic calculations ok? Give me some credit.

What I'm saying is when something takes 30-60 seconds to reach a target the target may move in a manner not predictable at the time of firing. This problem becomes even more pronounced when you're trying to deliver pinpoint kinetic energy instead of an explosive that has a radius. A railgun round hitting 50 feet from me wouldn't be pleasant but it's not going to kill me like 1000lbs of explosives would.

As for Napoleon..I'm sure he would recognize my hyperbole for what it was.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 11:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
The deadliest anti-armor rounds are kinetic or contact explosive designed for penetration kills. They are not area effect munitions. They are quite effective against moving targets and can be fired accurately from moving platforms.

The only part that a railgun changes is the excellerant. explosive mixtures for traditional weapons vs maglev tech for railguns. The shell still delivers a kinetic payload that is charged by 'firing' the weapon.

Whether the shell is a ton of high explosive or a few kilos of depleted uranium, it is useless if it cannot be delivered to the target.

LoS railguns will not need ranging shots any more than LoS artillery does. The ballistics of the weapon are known and are accounted for when aiming. Over the horizon shots are similarly aimed by caculating, distance, direction and ballistics. If you get the math right, the second shot won't be fired at the same target. The ranging shot is used to verify the accuracy of the data the gunner has available.

Kinetic kill weapons with high tech, high cost terminal guidance will be highly specialized, limited use weapons. There will be applications for them, but LoS railguns and battleship grade railguns are probably not where you will find them. Railguns are not limited to kinetic kill rounds, though an LoS weapon can use them quite effectively as the history of hand cannons has shown.


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 12:05:11 PM , Rating: 1
You're just so full of shit. This isn't WWII anymore. "Ranging shots" are practically a thing of the past. With the incredibly accurate and predictable ballistic properties of a Railgun, your first shot WILL hit. And that's the only shot you're going to need.

quote:
I get the idea of ballistic calculations ok? Give me some credit.


Apparently not. The reason for ranging shots and ballistic calculations is that traditional ordinance, no matter how advanced, still has many variables that effect accuracy. First off the recoil on ship sized cannons is significant. Secondly you're dealing with exploding chemicals to propel a shell, the speed at which they burn and the rate of gas-expansion simply cannot be exactly equal for every shot. This combined with the recoil actually causes the barrel to quake and torque very slightly, but enough to cause slight aiming deviations. And of course you have travel time, lots of it.

Railguns have NO recoil, will fire exactly the same every time, and have absurdly low travel time at realistic ranges. Gee can you guess what this does for ballistic calculations? They get a hell of a lot simpler.

quote:
A railgun round hitting 50 feet from me wouldn't be pleasant but it's not going to kill me like 1000lbs of explosives would.


/facepalm

Yes, you absolutely would be dead or several injured at the least. Do you understand physics? A railgun slug isn't just going to harmlessly dig itself into the ground. The massive kinetic energy and heat of the round is going to cause a blast similar to a bomb hitting the ground and the same shock-wave effect.

Good grief man. I suppose you think you can stand 50 feet from a meteor impact as well. Since it's not a bomb, you should be fine right? Wrong! Where did you learn physics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1q_rRicAwI&feature...

Observe please, and educate yourself. This was just a test slug, not even a warshot. It doesn't just punch a hole through something, it causes it to EXPLODE instantly and violently!


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By JDHammer on 5/15/2012 1:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
This is awesome, I finally get to throw a comment in:

I guess so we're veering into Startrek / Mechwarrior age, but it seems more Mechwarrior than Startrek, so maybe the next best thing we'll start seeing are: Autocannons, followed by Gauss Rifles, then most likely, 100T BattleMechs. Hopefully by then we'll have ventured into space beyond this galaxy...


RE: Mirror, Mirror...
By Smilin on 5/18/2012 11:07:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're just so full of shit. This isn't WWII anymore. "Ranging shots" are practically a thing of the past. With the incredibly accurate and predictable ballistic properties of a Railgun, your first shot WILL hit. And that's the only shot you're going to need.


Flying off the handle again...and now insulting.

They didn't have radar enhanced ballistic computers in WWII. The first shot today is not a ranging shot. However it is tracked with radar as it begins its trajectory so that deviations in flight from calculated values can be determined. The second shot will be fired *after* a calculation adjustment, but *before* the first shot hits the ground (so it can't very well be a ranging shot can it?)

quote:
Railguns have NO recoil, will fire exactly the same every time, and have absurdly low travel time at realistic ranges. Gee can you guess what this does for ballistic calculations? They get a hell of a lot simpler.


Railguns fire a lighter weight round but you're not getting rid of newtonian physics I'm afraid. And no, it does nothing for ballistic calculations (didn't you just accuse me of not getting it?). The calculations would be the same but there would be less influence from undeterminable variables (like wind variations along flight path)

quote:
Yes, you absolutely would be dead or several injured at the least. Do you understand physics? A railgun slug isn't just going to harmlessly dig itself into the ground. The massive kinetic energy and heat of the round is going to cause a blast similar to a bomb hitting the ground and the same shock-wave effect.

Good grief man. I suppose you think you can stand 50 feet from a meteor impact as well. Since it's not a bomb, you should be fine right? Wrong! Where did you learn physics?


facepalm indeed. I do understand physics. The interesting bit here is energy being a square of velocity. There will be a lot of energy imparted on the target and it will indeed cause an explosion like shockwave (similar to tungsten kinetic energy penetrators today). Energy from a blast also degrades with the square of distance. So yeah being 50feet away wouldn't be pleasant but you're not going to kill a target with such a miss.

quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1q_rRicAwI&feature...

Observe please, and educate yourself. This was just a test slug, not even a warshot. It doesn't just punch a hole through something, it causes it to EXPLODE instantly and violently!


Nothing I haven't seen before.

BTW if you want to respond turn down the tool-ness a bit would you mind?


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














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