8 ms·
High-Energy Lasers
- wefarrell 4y agoI’m curious to know how fog/clouds affect performance. I would expect a large drop off due to scattering.
- LordHeini 4y agoReally badly. Fog quickly dissipates the laser beam. It is basically impossible to shoot through a cloud to hit a target behind it.
- GenerocUsername 4y agoIs this posted due to all the balloons/objects being publicly shot down recently? I suppose a cheaper way to shoot down trash will be a good thing if this keeps pace. Currently thos could be a scheme to get the US to waste 1M dollars to shoot down a 20k drone/balloon... The tactic only works when the cost is imbalanced
- brk 4y agoKeep in mind US pilots are frequently flying training missions against targets we create just to have something to engage with. Shooting down these balloons does not necessarily need to be a net cost increase.
- panarky 4y agoIs it effective practice to shoot targets that don't camouflage, don't maneuver, don't evade, don't shoot back?
- rolenthedeep 4y agoIt's the aerial equivalent of a shooting range. Does firing a gun at a static target teach you anything about shooting?
- gnad_sucks 4y ago> Is it effective practice to shoot targets that don't camouflage, don't maneuver, don't evade, don't shoot back? You mean, like balloons?
- mastax 4y agoStill have to take off, navigate, talk to ATC, talk to wingman, talk to AWACS, send/receive target data, maneuver, sensor lock, fire, maneuver... Not exactly a top gun mission, but good practice.
- phkahler 4y agoJust book it as a training exercise ;-)
- howmayiannoyyou 4y agoGround lasers unlikely to be effective at the balloon altitudes, and especially with atmospheric interference (eg. weather, moisture, etc). Airborne and/or space-based lasers are a different story and may work well when they're ready to be deployed. I believe the plan-based solutions are in trials.
- antihipocrat 4y agoI was interested in checking whether any treaties exist to limit the use of space based lasers.. and surprised to see that there are no rules against using them. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol93/iss1/6/ https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol93/iss1/6/
- mik1998 4y agoI would be sincerely surprised if there were any treaties, since I don't think any space lasers have ever been used.
- antihipocrat 4y agoThere's one in place for WMDs, and I don't think one was ever delivered from space.
- aintgonnatakeit 4y agoOf the Gentile variety, anyway
- icegreentea2 4y agoSome other bits to read: * Popsci got a range day with an earlier 10kW version (https://www.popsci.com/technology/firing-raytheon-laser-weapon/ https://www.popsci.com/technology/firing-raytheon-laser-weap...). The version being deployed is 50kW. Naively extrapolating - they were able to pop unarmored drones in ~10-20 seconds at 10kW. * Some scant technical details (https://www.laserfocusworld.com/lasers-sources/article/14277939/highenergy-laser-weaponry-delivers-speedoflight-hard-kills-to-drones https://www.laserfocusworld.com/lasers-sources/article/14277...). It's a fiber laser system
- Havoc 4y ago20 seconds still seems like a long time. Especially if you can presumably add something heat tile-ish to buy you extra time The trend is strong though. Laser wars are coming
- sandworm101 4y agoMirrors and/or tinfoil are remarkably effective against lasers. Also, the IR reflective coatings found on most car windows.
- XorNot 4y agoThis is nebulously true. The best reflector is silver for visible light, and that's about 95%. But as soon as you discolor from heat on the surface, the reflectivity plummets and the beam can then burn through - the first failure compounds into the rest.
- sandworm101 4y agoSilver across frequencies, but engineered substances, the type used in laser safety devices, can have very good reflection at specific wavelengths without the weight of silver. For a flying object at any distance, anything close to 90% reflectivity for a few seconds would radically extend survival time. Local burn through can be survived as the beam will by dancing across the target.
- windowshopping 4y agoMakes me think of the frequent redditism "you do NOT want to find out why Americans don't have healthcare."
- TeMPOraL 4y agoIn this case, the old saw applies: do not look into the laser beam with your remaining eye.
- ajiionadiofgnio 4y agoThat's not really true, though. In the U.S., public spending on health is comparable to private spending. Currently, the public/private split is very nearly equal. https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/national-health-spending-grew-slightly-2021 https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/national-health-... The U.S. spends more money per capita on healthcare than any other country. It's not even close; only six countries spend over half what the U.S. does. This means the U.S. spends more public funds than socialized systems like those in France, the U.K., or Canada. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?most_... For all its callousness, the American system doesn't save the taxpayer a dime. There is no tradeoff being made here. It's just plain corruption and stupidity.
- fragmede 4y agoThe way I read it, The reason Americans don't have healthcare is because of all the money that gets spent on the Department of Defense. If that $800 billion were spent on healthcare does Americans, I imagine a lot of the callousness could be worked out.
- corbulo 4y agoFar too many don't trust the us gov to run such a critical service and our defense budget already effectively subsidizes Europe's socialized healthcare.
- 4y ago
- AlbertCory 4y agoSkeet shooting with "bullets" that go at the speed of light would be a lot easier. No need to lead your target. I do follow these things, casually, and AFAIK they're mounted on ships or tanks -- not on planes. So unless the range is a lot greater than I think it is, they won't be much use against an object in the stratosphere.
- WatchDog 4y agoNot this system in particular, but they have tested plane mounter megawatt class lasers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
- dtgriscom 4y agoA system that requires a 747 to carry it is just barely "plane-portable."
- phkahler 4y agoNext generation lasers will improve power density by orders of magnitude.
- AlbertCory 4y ago"It was ultimately scrapped in September 2014 after all usable parts were removed." says Wikipedia doesn't sound like they were too happy with it.
- mavu 4y agoI'm aware how terrible this will sound, but is there any reason why lasers are not already commonly used against infantry? I mean, you could just sweep the enemy fortifications periodically, and, well, inflict terrible harm by blinding.
- joshuahaglund 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bmitc 4y agoThe inanity and insanity of humans is that we have rules for our violence, from war to fighting sports.
- Dalewyn 4y agoPeople often forget that "proper" wars are really just another facet of diplomacy, with certain rules to be followed. Incidentally, no, what Russia is doing in Ukraine is not even anywhere remotely close to a "proper" war.
- gnad_sucks 4y agoThank you for your perspective, I agree on both counts. Sorry youre getting downvoted, but this is HN after all.
- l33t233372 4y agoWhat you describe may have existed for parts of a few hundred years in areas of Europe, but it’s not the rule, and it’s certainly not the case today.
- abledon 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ChuckMcM 4y agoI always wonder what happens to the energy that goes past the target and heads out into space. Seems like an upper limit on these things. :-) That said, if the Russo-Ukranian war has shown us anything it is that drones, even ones that are either unarmed or carrying around one or two grenades, are a credible threat. Both from the role of "forward observer" for indirect fire, and "precision low yield bombardment." Clearly opportunities in locating drones at a distance as well.
- giantrobot 4y agoThe light that doesn't hit the target has to travel through a hundred miles of atmosphere before getting to space. Between diffraction of the beam and all that atmosphere only a fraction of the light will make it out of the atmosphere.
- everyone 4y agoPerun released a video on drones in Ukraine today https://youtu.be/AlpZf1hpQYM https://youtu.be/AlpZf1hpQYM
- ChuckMcM 4y agoThis was fabulous! Thanks for the reference.
- bamboozled 4y agoThere’s a commonly held misconception that lasers “go forever”. I’m not sure how practically true that is in a vacuum, but I understand why the person said it.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoLike all light, they do go forever. Like all light, they disperse, following the inverse square rule. Unlike with an omnidirectional source (e.g. a lightbulb), for the purposes of inverse square rule the source of the laser beam is an imaginary light source far behind the emitter, and far more powerful than it; this makes the beam seem to disperse slower, but disperse it does.
- Oxidation 4y agoAnother domain name that looks more like a phishing domain then anything else. Reminds me of an IT email warning against clicking links to strange domains, followed almost immediately by a password reset reminder to something like microsoftlogin.com rather than login.microsoft.com.
- anon291 4y agoAnnounced just in time for their UFO marketing ploy to spend yet more taxpayer money.
- WatchDog 4y agoIt's one thing to shoot down slow moving and fragile drones, but they also claims the system is effective against mortars, artillery, and rockets. Which seems more impressive if true.
- scotty79 4y agoThey should demonstrate it in the Ukraine.
- robotresearcher 4y agoThe country of Ukraine wants you to drop 'the', since 1991. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-ukraine-isnt-the-ukraine-and-why-that-matters-now-2013-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-ukraine-isnt-the-ukraine...
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y agoThey should demonstrate it in drop the Ukraine.
- RobertRoberts 4y agoWe can say "nitch" instead of "neesh" and we can say "legos" instead of "lego bricks" and we can certainly put a "the" in front of any word we want in our own language. This is another example of cultural bullying and it's becoming pervasive. People shouldn't let freedoms, no matter how tiny and miniscule, be tossed around by corporate or political marketing machines.
- tylerag 4y ago[flagged]
- RobertRoberts 4y ago[flagged]
- mberning 4y agoThe ABL was a megawatt class laser and when they cancelled it the reasoning was that it would need to be 10x more powerful for the mission. They wanted to knock out ICBMs during the boost phase from a considerable distance. This one is much more of a close in system, but the power level does seem to be a bit “low” for the claimed mission.
- icegreentea2 4y agoABL wanted to shoot down missiles like 300km+ away. Lasers in atmosphere drop off faster than inverse square (because absorption and scattering are significant), so long range lasers need huge amounts of power. Conservatively assuming inverse cube, going from 300km to 10km engagement gives you like 27,000x increase in flux.
- Robotbeat 4y agoNo. The reason they canceled it was because it was a chemical based laser system and thus a logistical nightmare with a shallow magazine. The operational laser weapons are electrically pumped.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y agoFrom what I recall, the chemicals in question, were kind of a “Satan’s Soda Pop” brew, and were quite difficult to manage.
- CPLX 4y agoRelevant footage: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rthHSISkM7A https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rthHSISkM7A
- ccn0p 4y agoanybody else feel like that marketing video was a let down?
- TeMPOraL 4y agoWell, it lacks the expected sci-fi beam and flash effects, but if you think about it some more, this version is actually much more scary. This beam will reach out across dozens of kilometers, to set your drone on fire. Or your plane. There's shit all you can do about it. This is not Star Trek, there are no shields or hull sensors. Your flyer likely won't realize it's being shot at until it suddenly stops flying. You can not see the beam. If the beam sees you, even in a faraway reflection, you won't be ever seeing anything anymore. I suppose it's the appropriate counter to the experience that military drones serve, i.e.: There's a buzzing sound permeating the air. You may or may not hear it. Some time later, you die, and don't even have time to notice the fiery explosion that killed you. Modern weapons are stuff of nightmares.
- hyperific 4y agoThe video made it look like a continuous beam laser versus a pulsed laser (unless it's just pulsing very very fast which is a distinct possibility). Would there be any advantages or disadvantages to using a pulsed laser over a continuous beam?
- analog31 4y agoThe instantaneous energy level of a pulsed laser can ionize things, making them more susceptible to combustion. Indeed, there are different rules for the safety ratings of pulsed and continuous wave (CW) lasers at equal average power. An analogy is a spark plug in an engine -- it produces relatively little average energy, but the instantaneous intensity is quite high.
- pstuart 4y agoIf it had a micro-nuke onsite it would be like having infinite ammo.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago“With a low cost-per-shot ratio, lasers offer a nearly infinite number of shots,…” We should tell them how big infinity is… Reminds me of some fun calculations on how to get the most value per photon, electron, fission event, etc. depending on industry.
- colordrops 4y agoNot a fan of Raytheon but at least they are one of the few sites that I've seen that don't use dark patterns for their cookie modal. One of the choices is "necessary cookies only" right there front and center.
- blobbers 4y agoIs it just me or did this look like some kid's high school CG project. Drones? Fake looking. Laser? Fake looking. Marketing? Check.
- blobbers 4y agoWatching more of the marketing videos, they show someone using a video game controller to engage targets. Why are they doing that? Why not just have computers do the aiming and you just hit 'k' for kill on your keyboard?? Is there something related to 'human in the loop' in the geneva convention because it seems a lot like a waste of time and effort.
- hiddencost 4y agoBecause this is how these systems are controlled. Because the operators grew up using XBox controllers. Because they're dirt cheap (by military procurement standards). And Just Work. https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/19/16333376/us-navy-military-xbox-360-controller https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/19/16333376/us-navy-military...
- blobbers 4y agoI can tell you from personal experience working on missile defense systems that they don't use xbox controllers. When a track is established, the phalanx will be controlled automatically to probabilistically aim for targets as they come over the horizon. This is a matter of seconds. Why would a drone swarm require humans to target? The computer would make the decision much faster. And as any gamer would know, you're much better with a mouse and keyboard than you are with an xbox controller.
- chipsa 4y agoThe controller is because they aren't integrated into radar, or the target doesn't have enough of a signature, or it's not in an area the radar can see, and AI vision isn't good enough to pick them out of the image yet. Also, you want to be able to tell the system to hit target X, not target Y, because X is a bogey, while Y is a friendly. A Phalanx CIWS can do fully automatic against a missile, but there's other targets you might want it to take out, like small boats. So they have an electro optical sensor to see, and a controller to let them aim it manually. As to why a video game controller? Because they're cheap and people already mostly know how to use them. Mice might be more precise, until you're bouncing along a dirt road, or in sea state 5.
- tjpnz 4y agoIf you put several of these together could you down a hypersonic missile?
- Deprogrammer9 4y agoThese have been around since the 50s https://youtu.be/vqLkpcHavZE https://youtu.be/vqLkpcHavZE https://youtu.be/sbjXXRfwrHg https://youtu.be/sbjXXRfwrHg
- missedthecue 4y agoI wonder what the countermeasures to these will be. To construct your drones and missiles out of highly reflective mirrors?
- ySteeK 4y agoMaybe retroreflectors?
- Grimburger 4y agoOthers mentioned reflective shielding above but ablative coverings seem to work much better. For lightweight applications like drones I would hazard a guess that specifically engineered aerogels would do well.
- moring 4y agoWouldn't aerogels let almost all of the laser's energy through?
- azernik 4y agoThe aerogels would be thermal insulators under an opaque coating. My Children of a Dead Earth favorite is a thin layer of something reflective for short-burst thermal reflection, under that something that can take high temperatures like carbon-carbon for sustained lasers, and then a big slab of aerogel to keep that heat off of the more delicate bits.
- Quequau 4y agoI just wish the costs of lasers for cutting and welding metals would go down.
- PicassoCTs 4y agoIts actually incredible, how much the us could keep its military industrial complex going, after the soviets basically dropped out in the 70s and china is basically a similar "virtual capabilities" enemy only. Its like a shadowboxer keeping going round after round, long after the opponent dropped with a K.O. and everyone went home. Im sure, if they keep it up, one day a opponent may arise, even if its just the janitor. You got this champ!
- CapricornNoble 4y agoBecause a modern military-industrial complex is not something that can be scaled up and down as easily as docker containers or VMs. If you wait until you actually need to K.O. someone to start shadowboxing after years of sitting on the couch....it's far too late.
- PicassoCTs 4y agoFair. Also, one has to admit that alot of modern society is based upon military ground work. The chip in the device i type this was originally developed to launch ICBMs.
- steve_taylor 4y agopew pew
- GistNoesis 4y agoThe real engineering fun with energy-based weapon will begin when we do battle in space. From the theoretical perspective, light is a wave, and wave tend to spread out following inverse square laws. That is if you are using a standard beam, that doesn't consider the phases of the wave. But if you are using a non-diffracting one, like an Airy or Bessel beam, you can get a wave-packet that doesn't spread out in its working regime. Airy beam only require FFT level to understand : you spatially phase-modulate a beam with a window function, so that the beam doesn't leak out of a spatial region. Of course when you need to beam out huge amount of power, this phase-modulation must be done in a very efficient way so as to not destroy your emitter. In optic's lab, for low-power airy beams, you can use lenses sort-of-like fresnel ones, but this won't for higher power. So you have instead to have a large spatially distributed array of sources (antenna) which you can control precisely the phase. Real Airy beam are only an approximation to the theoretical ones (that require an infinitely spatially-large source). But typically the smaller the wavelength, the more lobes you can match between real and theoretical. But all your nice calculations and perfect orchestration of signal, then encounter the atmosphere that messes everything in an uncontrollable way. So you check your wave-length charts for wavelengths that can go through the atmosphere, but would still impact the target. You are now talking X-ray lasers, or gamma-ray lasers. More power but harder to control precisely (phase wise) because the wave-lengths are roughly the size of atoms. At this point you are in high-energy physics can just strap your run of the mill particle accelerator and aim it at the target, and select the particles you want it to beam. While standard electron-gun won't go through a meter of the atmosphere, because it's electrically charged. So you look at the neutral particles. Neutron beam generator (does seem to have bad radioactive properties so boss won't approve) and they are more difficult to accelerate because they are neutral. What about muonium : One part electron, One part anti-muon, electrically charge so you can accelerate them nicely before combining them and then neutral, they are quite light, they self-disappear after a few micro-seconds (of self-time so you just have to get close enough to c if you want them to last longer). Let's try that : Muonium-aser, 95 balloons to go...
- MrLeap 4y agoThis was fascinating, thank you. The wikipedia articles have gifs that eminently remind me of gliders in cellular automata. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_beam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_beam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel_beam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel_beam