Laser Gunship Revealed

[Susano]

Boeing has taken the first step in making the laser gunship a reality by installing the weapon on a C-130H.

 

Boeing completed the laser installation Dec. 4 at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. The laser, including its major subsystem, a 12,000-pound integrated laser module, was moved into place aboard the aircraft and aligned with the previously-installed beam control system, which will direct the laser beam to its target.

 

With the laser installed, Boeing is set to conduct a series of tests leading up to a demonstration in 2008 in which the program will fire the laser in-flight at mission-representative ground targets to demonstrate the military utility of high-energy lasers. The test team will fire the laser through a rotating turret that extends through the aircraft’s belly.

 

ATL, which Boeing is developing for the U.S. Department of Defense, will destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations.

 

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003897.html

 

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

I hope, when they do the demonstration, that there's video available. I'd love to see the effect.

[sbarron]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

Aren't lasers like this usually invisible? No Star Wars light show? I guess it just might look like a car melting or blowing up.

[Susano]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

Depends on the laser, but yes. Unless there is a lot of dust in the air. Then you get a beam. Of course, IIRC, the "lasers" in Star Wars were "blasters" firing plasma gas down a laser carrier beam.

[Beast]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

it would also depend on how fast and hot the air got along the beam path

 

if we are talking about melting a hole thru a tank you would see the air go incandesant

if we are talking about disabling optics blinding/3rd degree burns to flesh probably not

[gewing]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

I suspect it would look something like a straight bolt of lightning, though possibly a fairly dim one.

 

I would think it would heat a path through the air to incandescence, though I could, of course, be wrong.

 

I knew they were working on the system, but I did not realize they were this far along.

 

12000 lbs?? I wonder how much volume it occupies? An armored command vehicle based on the 10x10 version of the LAV or a simpler militarized Container could probably carry it.

 

 

OTOH, airborne has some serious advantages.

 

 

 

Oh, how is this for a potential future gunship?

 

Northrop Grumman has proposed a "flying wing" transport that would carry a larger payload than the C-130, and with blown flaps should be a Very STOL aircraft. Some relatively minor "stealth" treatments...

 

It is in the Current Aviation Week and Space Technology, but it seems to not be available free on their website.

[Labrat]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

What would be the beam's diameter? Seems like there would need to be a rastering attack of pulses forming a pattern... much like using an eraser to wipe out pencil marks on a page. The power would have to be impressive to effectively melt anything in the 'pass-by window' that the plane's velocity would have. The whole method of flying these lasers in might have to be reconsidered. Obviously the unit is currently too heavy for a helicopter, but that would be a perfect delivery vector. Sorry, just thinking too loud, I really want to see this thing in action though!

 

No collateral damage = good

Too much time spent on destroying a single target = not so good

 

Hitting the gas tanks of vehicles would give the same collateral damage as a grenade or maybe even a bomb. Punching holes in defenses would be good, but as an offensive weapon the laser might be impractical.

 

Maybe I'm thinking about it too hard... you can take the boy out of the physics field but you can't take the physics out of the boy.

[Susano]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

The real question is -- do you hook up a set of speakers so blare the Imperial March as the plane comes in for it's attack?

 

And how do you lower the S-Foils in attack position on a C-130?

[Game Show Man]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

Actually, if I were the military, I'd be worried about Chris Knight and Mitch Taylor showing up to sabotage the laser after it was stolen by Professor Hathaway so he could take the credit for it.

[st barbara]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

The real question is -- do you hook up a set of speakers so blare the Imperial March as the plane comes in for it's attack?

 

And how do you lower the S-Foils in attack position on a C-130?

"Ride Of The Valkyries" surely !

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

Actually' date=' if I were the military, I'd be worried about Chris Knight and Mitch Taylor showing up to sabotage the laser after it was stolen by Professor Hathaway so he could take the credit for it. [/quote']

 

Vintage Val Kilmer; I loved that movie. Repped.

 

X.O.

[Vondy]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

Energy requirements for mobile systems are an issue with current laser technologies. It may have a serious limitation in terms of shots fired before recharge - and if you can only get a few shots off it might not be any better in logistical terms than current technologies. It may also suffer reduced effectiveness in some weather conditions. Cool sci-fi effects (and admirable reduced collateral damage) aside, it may be less effective in terms of practical ordinance payload (i.e., bang-per-buck-per-mission) on the battlefield for a decade (or more). Even so, it should still prove useful within those constraints (i.e., pre-targeted strikes on high-quality strategic targets, etcetera).

[Markdoc]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

Energy requirements for mobile systems are an issue with current laser technologies. It may have a serious limitation in terms of shots fired before recharge - and if you can only get a few shots off it might not be any better in logistical terms than current technologies.

 

More to the point, can they actually make it work?

 

Remember this is the same team who promised us the first airborne laser test back in 1997. The one, that, uuhhh, didn't happen. It didn't happen again in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2006, which was when they got their budget cut by congress.

 

This particular system - the ATL - was supposed to fly in 2005, then 2006, then in 2007. Now it's just around the corner, one more time

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/atl.htm

 

Quotes like this make me instantly suspicious - "ATL will do for air-to-ground combat what ABL will do for missile defense: revolutionize the battlefield," said Pat Shanahan, Boeing Missile Defense Systems vice president.

 

Since the original airborne laser program (ABL) has been flirting with cancellation for years now and has yet to even work once, I wouldn't be at all surprised if ATL was every bit as successful.

 

To me, this smells like the ABL team trying to introduce a new weapons system, with greatly reduced specs in an attempt to keep the tax dollars flowing. Just like the cancelled Israel/US ABM laser, which the maker is now repackaging and trying to sell as a really expensive way of getting rid of IEDs.

 

That's enhanced by the milnet statement which simply says "The Airborne Tactical Laser program is a pure concept project at this time". No timelines, no weapons. When you dig into the background a little more, you find that the "laser gunship" will be mounting a low-power solid state laser of the kind already used for target spotting. The actual high powered laser required to damage things, uhhhh ... apparently hasn't been built yet.

http://www.kirtland.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070404-027.pdf

 

Dig a little further and you find what's actually in the DoD contract is "The primary task of the effort is to maintain the hardware in a condition capable of providing the required fluence of laser energy on a ground-based aimpoint from the airborne platform"

http://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/AAC/Reference-Number-08-AAC-XR-SSN-001/SynopsisR.html

In other words, simply demonstrate that you an actually hold a laser - any laser - on target from a flying aircraft.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

More to the point, can they actually make it work?

 

Remember this is the same team who promised us the first airborne laser test back in 1997. The one, that, uuhhh, didn't happen. It didn't happen again in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2006, which was when they got their budget cut by congress.

 

This particular system - the ATL - was supposed to fly in 2005, then 2006, then in 2007. Now it's just around the corner, one more time

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/atl.htm

 

Quotes like this make me instantly suspicious - "ATL will do for air-to-ground combat what ABL will do for missile defense: revolutionize the battlefield," said Pat Shanahan, Boeing Missile Defense Systems vice president.

 

Since the original airborne laser program (ABL) has been flirting with cancellation for years now and has yet to even work once, I wouldn't be at all surprised if ATL was every bit as successful.

 

To me, this smells like the ABL team trying to introduce a new weapons system, with greatly reduced specs in an attempt to keep the tax dollars flowing. Just like the cancelled Israel/US ABM laser, which the maker is now repackaging and trying to sell as a really expensive way of getting rid of IEDs.

 

That's enhanced by the milnet statement which simply says "The Airborne Tactical Laser program is a pure concept project at this time". No timelines, no weapons. When you dig into the background a little more, you find that the "laser gunship" will be mounting a low-power solid state laser of the kind already used for target spotting. The actual high powered laser required to damage things, uhhhh ... apparently hasn't been built yet.

http://www.kirtland.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070404-027.pdf

 

Dig a little further and you find what's actually in the DoD contract is "The primary task of the effort is to maintain the hardware in a condition capable of providing the required fluence of laser energy on a ground-based aimpoint from the airborne platform"

http://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/AAC/Reference-Number-08-AAC-XR-SSN-001/SynopsisR.html

In other words, simply demonstrate that you an actually hold a laser - any laser - on target from a flying aircraft.

 

cheers, Mark

 

As much of a science fiction fan as I am, I'm more enamored of reliable, tested, pragmatic technologies. Zap doesn't do anything more for me than Slash, Bang, and Boom. Even if it did work, it would have to be more practicable than current technologies before I'd be hooting and hollering over how cool it was. You could - theoretically - have a working laser weapons system that wasn't worth the money in terms of practical battle-field impact. I'd rather make sure the target was neutralized economically than go broke drooling over how nice the light show was. When it comes to the real world I'm not a romantic.

[gewing]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

I think that laser weapons will have more usefulness versus aerial targets than ground targets. Lighter structures and less armor, plus lightspeed should make targeting easier.

 

we will see.

[Bygoneyrs]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

Until they get Plasma weapons to actually work, these lasers are just to costly to

maintain and deploy and extremely unreliable!

 

Penn

[Susano]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

I think that laser weapons will have more usefulness versus aerial targets than ground targets. Lighter structures and less armor, plus lightspeed should make targeting easier.

 

we will see.

 

But what if the fighters are too small and agile for our turbolasers?

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

But what if the fighters are too small and agile for our turbolasers?

 

We'd have to take them on ship-to-ship.

[gewing]

Re: Laser Gunship Revealed

 

But what if the fighters are too small and agile for our turbolasers?

:D