4 ms·

I imagine Israel would be at the top of the list of interested parties for this technology -- it sounds much cheaper than the Iron Dome since I assume there isn

I imagine Israel would be at the top of the list of interested parties for this technology -- it sounds much cheaper than the Iron Dome since I assume there isn't a real per-shot charge other than the energy required. It would also be much faster than their current interceptors. I just wonder how well it would work against low-tech targets.

azernik 7y ago
It also would be well-suited to shorter-range attackers - Iron Dome can only intercept missiles with a minimum range of about 2.5km. Israel is pursuing its own high-energy laser defense program, Iron Beam (yes, not so creative). From public sources, it's not clear if the thing is 1-2 years from deployment, or if it's in development hell; the US is uniquely public about these high-budget prestige projects for internal political reasons.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  > Israel is pursuing its own high-energy laser defense program, Iron Beam (yes, not so creative). Clearly should have been called God Ray or Finger of God.
  - nullwasamistake 7y ago
    The official that named "iron dome" purposelly did so because most suggestions sounded quite regal. Seems like Isreal has decided to stick with the naming scheme, and I'm glad. Naming your weapons after religious artifacts reminds of Monty Python's holy hand grenade. Probably not a great idea to connect your religion to something that explodes and kills people.
    - acct1771 7y ago
      You realize this thread is about Israel?
    - azernik 7y ago
      Israel's generally quite comfortable with making religious allusions in its weapons systems - for example, the next step up in range/speed from Iron Dome is called David's Sling, and there have been military operations named e.g. Pillar of Cloud and Nachshon. Usually when they do that, though, they're direct Biblical quotes.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - gdy 7y ago
      They are not ashamed of what their military does and of their religion. Merkava is their main battle tank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah_mysticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah_mysticism
      - nullwasamistake 7y ago
        There's no shame I just think it's a bad idea to connect any religion to weapons. I remember reading that the official behind the naming of Iron dome shared this opinion.
        gdy 7y ago
        Old Testament's god is not a pacifist. His nuking of Sodom and Gomorrah is first that comes to mind.
- chmod775 7y ago
  > the US is uniquely public about these high-budget prestige projects for internal political reasons. I don't know if there's prestige in being 7 years late to the party. Rheinmetall demonstrated this tech in 2012. https://newatlas.com/rheinmetall-laser-test/25504/ https://newatlas.com/rheinmetall-laser-test/25504/
  - adventured 7y ago
    That's pretty amusing. The US has been far ahead of everyone else in military laser tech for decades. Rheinmetall didn't demonstrate what you're implying. You're conflating two entirely different systems. The US has so many laser programs that predate the Rheinmetall example, it's hard to decide where to start. HELLADS, AN/SEQ-3, Boeing YAL-1, HEL-MD, THEL, MLD, etc. Like this one: "On March 18, 2009 Northrop Grumman announced that its engineers in Redondo Beach had successfully built and tested an electric laser capable of producing a 100-kilowatt ray of light, powerful enough to destroy cruise missiles, artillery, rockets and mortar rounds." Or: Precursor to the Boeing YAL-1: "The Airborne Laser Laboratory was a less-powerful prototype installed in a Boeing NKC-135A. It shot down several missiles in tests conducted in the 1980s" THEL: "The Tactical High-Energy Laser, or THEL, was a laser developed for military use, also known as the Nautilus laser system. The mobile version is the Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser, or MTHEL. In 1996, the United States and Israel entered into an agreement to produce a cooperative THEL called the Demonstrator, which would utilize deuterium fluoride chemical laser technologies. In 2000 and 2001 THEL shot down 28 Katyusha artillery rockets and five artillery shells. On November 4, 2002, THEL shot down an incoming artillery shell. The prototype weapon was roughly the size of six city buses, made up of modules that held a command center, radar and a telescope for tracking targets, the chemical laser itself, fuel and reagent tanks, and a rotating mirror to reflect its beam toward speeding targets. It was discontinued in 2005"
  - azernik 7y ago
    None of this stuff is yet operational. In any of these cases.
mariefred 7y ago
> That's not to say that SHiELD, at least as described presently, doesn't have limitations. A turreted laser can only ever engage one target at a time and there is the aforementioned risk of atmospheric disruptions reducing the beam's range and efficacy So to intercept 20 missiles you'll need 20 expensive "turrets", your enemy knows how many "turrets" you have and can easily flood it with more cheap missiles. Also remember that target destruction is not instantaneous, this limits the amount of targets per "turret" and the minimum range.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > So to intercept 20 missiles you'll need 20 expensive "turrets", your enemy knows how many "turrets" you have and can easily flood it with more cheap missiles. That was Soviet Frontal Aviation's strategy for dealing with carrier battle groups as far back as the 60s. It's certainly in the DOD's considerations, and it isn't as easy as it sounds. For starters, you need to let the firing platform get within range to being with.

azernik 7y ago

It also would be well-suited to shorter-range attackers - Iron Dome can only intercept missiles with a minimum range of about 2.5km. Israel is pursuing its own high-energy laser defense program, Iron Beam (yes, not so creative). From public sources, it's not clear if the thing is 1-2 years from deployment, or if it's in development hell; the US is uniquely public about these high-budget prestige projects for internal political reasons.

blattimwind 7y ago
> Israel is pursuing its own high-energy laser defense program, Iron Beam (yes, not so creative). Clearly should have been called God Ray or Finger of God.
- nullwasamistake 7y ago
  The official that named "iron dome" purposelly did so because most suggestions sounded quite regal. Seems like Isreal has decided to stick with the naming scheme, and I'm glad. Naming your weapons after religious artifacts reminds of Monty Python's holy hand grenade. Probably not a great idea to connect your religion to something that explodes and kills people.
  - acct1771 7y ago
    You realize this thread is about Israel?
  - azernik 7y ago
    Israel's generally quite comfortable with making religious allusions in its weapons systems - for example, the next step up in range/speed from Iron Dome is called David's Sling, and there have been military operations named e.g. Pillar of Cloud and Nachshon. Usually when they do that, though, they're direct Biblical quotes.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - gdy 7y ago
    They are not ashamed of what their military does and of their religion. Merkava is their main battle tank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah_mysticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah_mysticism
    - nullwasamistake 7y ago
      There's no shame I just think it's a bad idea to connect any religion to weapons. I remember reading that the official behind the naming of Iron dome shared this opinion.
      - gdy 7y ago
        Old Testament's god is not a pacifist. His nuking of Sodom and Gomorrah is first that comes to mind.
chmod775 7y ago
> the US is uniquely public about these high-budget prestige projects for internal political reasons. I don't know if there's prestige in being 7 years late to the party. Rheinmetall demonstrated this tech in 2012. https://newatlas.com/rheinmetall-laser-test/25504/ https://newatlas.com/rheinmetall-laser-test/25504/
- adventured 7y ago
  That's pretty amusing. The US has been far ahead of everyone else in military laser tech for decades. Rheinmetall didn't demonstrate what you're implying. You're conflating two entirely different systems. The US has so many laser programs that predate the Rheinmetall example, it's hard to decide where to start. HELLADS, AN/SEQ-3, Boeing YAL-1, HEL-MD, THEL, MLD, etc. Like this one: "On March 18, 2009 Northrop Grumman announced that its engineers in Redondo Beach had successfully built and tested an electric laser capable of producing a 100-kilowatt ray of light, powerful enough to destroy cruise missiles, artillery, rockets and mortar rounds." Or: Precursor to the Boeing YAL-1: "The Airborne Laser Laboratory was a less-powerful prototype installed in a Boeing NKC-135A. It shot down several missiles in tests conducted in the 1980s" THEL: "The Tactical High-Energy Laser, or THEL, was a laser developed for military use, also known as the Nautilus laser system. The mobile version is the Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser, or MTHEL. In 1996, the United States and Israel entered into an agreement to produce a cooperative THEL called the Demonstrator, which would utilize deuterium fluoride chemical laser technologies. In 2000 and 2001 THEL shot down 28 Katyusha artillery rockets and five artillery shells. On November 4, 2002, THEL shot down an incoming artillery shell. The prototype weapon was roughly the size of six city buses, made up of modules that held a command center, radar and a telescope for tracking targets, the chemical laser itself, fuel and reagent tanks, and a rotating mirror to reflect its beam toward speeding targets. It was discontinued in 2005"
- azernik 7y ago
  None of this stuff is yet operational. In any of these cases.

mariefred 7y ago

> That's not to say that SHiELD, at least as described presently, doesn't have limitations. A turreted laser can only ever engage one target at a time and there is the aforementioned risk of atmospheric disruptions reducing the beam's range and efficacy So to intercept 20 missiles you'll need 20 expensive "turrets", your enemy knows how many "turrets" you have and can easily flood it with more cheap missiles. Also remember that target destruction is not instantaneous, this limits the amount of targets per "turret" and the minimum range.

vonmoltke 7y ago
> So to intercept 20 missiles you'll need 20 expensive "turrets", your enemy knows how many "turrets" you have and can easily flood it with more cheap missiles. That was Soviet Frontal Aviation's strategy for dealing with carrier battle groups as far back as the 60s. It's certainly in the DOD's considerations, and it isn't as easy as it sounds. For starters, you need to let the firing platform get within range to being with.