Solid State Laser News

TomcatViP said:
Double posting from US UCAV thread:
Working as part of a layered approach to counter-drone defense, MORFIUS units will be launched at hostile drones, or drone swarms, and then disable them in close proximity, with potentially a gigawatt of microwave power — or, as Lockheed put it, a million times the power of a standard 1,000-watt microwave oven.
Click to expand...
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/03...d-morfius-uses-microwaves-to-kill-swarms/amp/
Click to expand...
Damm that pretty cool
 
I still don't see how they can power an effective HPM in such a small device, even with a close range effect. Surely it must have to be charged ahead of time; I can't see that tiny engine providing the power in a timely fashion.
 
Something along the lines of a explosively pumped generator perhaps? I wonder if there is any connection to this 2010s U.S. Army EMP grenade project.

The Army is requiring companies participating in the project to design their prototypes to fit the size of "hand or robot delivered munitions, 40 mm grenades, Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), and Stinger, Hydra, and Javelin missiles." The next step is figuring out a working design itself.
Click to expand...
 
Static discharge. That what I proposed long ago (2014) and it should work.
Pre-launch, the charge is passed from the launcher battery to the CUAS and stored in a capacitor (can be structural).
The discharge time from losses is made superior to the vehicle flight time (this is an interceptor).
Charging the battery can be done using the ICE engine of the towing vehicle.
 
stealthflanker said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proc...5d-jQnBPGUpi9BZhM0yO5EMKPbfOuKVeP1ekoWuce9JKg
Click to expand...

hmmm. I'm curious what version of the AMDR she would carry. Still tho it's considerable. the 37 RMA version would sap about 2.7 MW of power for all its 4 faces. 69 RMA would need about 5 MW to run. The 9 RMA version would need about 662 KW for all of its faces.

The laser would need anywhere between about 150-750 KW to run.
Click to expand...
Talk of AMDR upgrade for Flight IIAs with SPY-6(V)4, 24 RMA per panel, but its not a POR and think unlikely, Navy continues having to fund its black holes, LCS, Ford and Zumwalt.

The initial 60 kW Helios, due to fitted end of this year to USS Preble a Flight IIA for trials, the trials need to be a success and confirm Helios can reach TR7 level.
 
https://k5dwlhlpblpuz2i36lhj475zn4-...ate.goog/bespilotnik-s-lazerom-v-izraile.html :cool:

"The Israeli company Elbit Systems has demonstrated a new concept of missile defense (A MISSILE) with laser weapons. The video, posted on the company's official channel, shows a UAV with a laser emitter designed to destroy enemy missiles on the ground and after launch. The video, posted on April 13, shows the potential of the unmanned platform to complement ground-based missile defense systems. A drone with a laser emitter mounted in the bow of the machine can create a "dome" impervious to missiles. Despite the fact that the video demonstrates only the concept, the Israeli industry has the prerequisites for the development of such systems.

So, even last year, the Israeli Ministry of Defense announced a breakthrough in the development of laser technology, carried out by the Office of Defense Research and Development (DDR & D). We are talking about the ability to accurately focus laser beams on a target, overcoming atmospheric obstacles. The same technology will allow directing the laser beam to the target in the shortest possible time. The details of the development are kept secret, but it is known that it was the result of the development of electrically pumped lasers."
 
Raytheon under contract to USAF to deliver an upgraded "dune buggy mounted High Energy Laser Weapon System (HELWS) for airfield defense to destroy small unmanned aerial systems within three kilometers by keeping its beam focused on the threat for five consecutive seconds".

The first time I've ever seen range quoted for one of the new laser systems, 3 km, to destroy small unmanned aerial systems (how small is small, a 20 oz DJI drone), qualified by "beam focused on the threat for five consecutive seconds" the small slow/light UAV will be bouncing around in the atmosphere and targeting system will be required to keep laser on drone to an accuracy of a few sq cm continuously, no mention of power, possible a 40 kW generator could be fitted to a dune buggy. The other capability consideration is numbers, if 5 secs to destroy single drone plus the acquisition time presumably requiring a volume search radar system on buggy or connected to airfield radar, overall 15 sec per target?, how many cheap drones would it be able take out before it runs out of time and overwhelmed, expect will require more than several to protect a large airfield.

From <https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2021/04/07/raytheon-awarded-155-to-upgrade-laser-weapon/>
 
TomcatViP said:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/03/acting-pentagon-chief-miller-attacks-485236
Click to expand...
'As soon as the official described his symptoms, Miller knew right away that they had been caused by a directed-energy weapon.'

Miller is neither a doctor nor an expert in directed energy weapons. Jumping to the wrong conclusion could be dangerous. There has to be a threshold of evidence passed before acting.

I edit scientific papers for a living and the leaps of logic in that article well and truly ghasted my flabber, or flabbered my ghast.

Mass psychogenic illness is at least an equally plausible explanation and has centuries of precedents.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ake-up-the-strange-truth-of-mystery-illnesses
(You'll be asked to register. Just click on 'I'll do it later'.)

A previous book and brief bio of the author, an actual medical specialist.

https://www.penguin.co.nz/books/its-all-in-your-head-9781473511439
 
Last edited:
Lol.
When you'll see yourself cooked alive by those little b*** that do those things only for some complementary earnings, arguing that there is an ideology behind, I wanna see how flabbergasted you'll feel facing at your feet the absolute sorrow of 21st century mankind.

Sonic attacks are unmistakable and goes well beyond what the press tentatively put forward (lesser symptoms) to allegedly reassure the public. It is potentially the next means of arbitrary domination that could encamp masses beyond any fences.
 
Last edited:
Rhinocrates said:
its-all-in-your-head
Click to expand...
Try telling that to people who've gotten cooked. This is the most useless take of all when encountering any new phenomenon or form of enemy action, particularly one that causes damage and smells like an Outside Context Problem.
 
The row over whether it is a result of sonic or microwave weaponry at play probably hasn't helped matters any. More than likely it is the former.
 
O'Sullivan's points are that it is things that are 'all in your head' are not delusions or malingering, but neurological responses to certain situations. The popular characterising of psychogenic or sociogenic illnesses as 'hysteria' or malingering has definitely not helped diagnosis or treatment. Quite the opposite. What the victims feel is real but what causes it is poorly understood and therefore too often shunted into the the easiest category, such as 'hysteria' or 'unknown weapon'. Nobody likes to be described as hysterical, so they're likely to default to the latter.

Problems with the article: Miller is quoted without question. He has absolutely no expertise in either neurology or sonic or microwave weapons. Nobody with expertise in these areas or an authoritative source is consulted. His evidence amounts to 'it came to me in the bath'.

The word 'attacks' is repeatedly used. From a scientific point of view, this is nonsense. It presupposes a specific series of intent, means and cause leading to effects without any concrete evidence for any of these. By its very vagueness, the hypothesis is unfalsifiable - 'not even wrong' as someone once said.

The issue has been investigated without conclusion. One would think that a technological source would have effects that could be empirically verified. Nothing of the sort has been done, or at least released publicly.

That is what I find flabberghasting. 'Retaliating' on such a weak basis would be extremely foolhardy.

Certainly sonic and microwave weapons exist and harassment is a common tactic. I do not deny that, nor do I believe that it is impossible at they have been used in this case. However, from an empirical point of view, that article puts forward an appallingly sloppy case while there are strong parallels with psychogenic/sociogenic illnesses.
 
A note on falsifiability.

An hypothesis is a tentative explanation of a cause for observed phenomena. Put forward by Karl Popper, falsifiability is the requirement that if your hypothesis is false, it must be possible to prove that it is false. The best way to do this is to make a prediction based on the hypothesis that can only come to pass if it is true. If it is not true, the prediction does not come to pass, hence the hypothesis is falsified and better luck next time. In some cases, previously unexplained or overlooked evidence that matches the prediction serves (e.g., Proxima Centauri C was directly imaged by Hubble a couple of decades ago, but the evidence had been overlooked until a search of archives produced an observation that matched the description from recent doppler measurements).
 
Rhinocrates said:
...

The word 'attacks' is repeatedly used. From a scientific point of view, this is nonsense. It presupposes a specific series of intent, means and cause leading to effects without any concrete evidence for any of these. By its very vagueness, the hypothesis is unfalsifiable - 'not even wrong' as someone once said.

The issue has been investigated without conclusion. One would think that a technological source would have effects that could be empirically verified. Nothing of the sort has been done, or at least released publicly.

That is what I find flabberghasting. 'Retaliating' on such a weak basis would be extremely foolhardy.

...
Click to expand...
My worries exactly. By now I've read quite a lot on this and a variety of physiological effects have been loosely attributed to a possibly singular cause. For an outside observer though the correlation vs. causation dilemma very much remains. A plausibly deniable covert weapon of state terror or key personnel attrition is of course possible and I can only hope that the issue is now approached as methodically and comprehensively as possible. It's not as if diplomats' and natsec professionals' working conditions around the world's more inhospitable places aren't challenging enough already.
 
This kind of weapon have been around since a long time. From HPW that were tested as early as 1970s to plasma induced (laser) effectors in the 1990's.
You might also want to browse this forum to dig all the material that seems lacking to you.
 
Certainly they exist. I don't deny that. What I was questioning is an article that quotes a non-expert as its only source and claims that they have been used with insufficient evidence.
 
Last edited:
GARGEAN said:
Rhinocrates said:
There has to be a threshold of evidence passed before acting.
Click to expand...
Not working these days sadly.
Click to expand...
That is what worries me about the age we are entering. To paraphrase von Clausewitz, politics is the continuation of war by other means. With the emergence of cyberwar, hybrid war or maskirovka, many actions and strategies are going to be testing the line dividing hot and cold war.

BTW, I've once heard diplomacy defined as the art of saying 'Nice doggie' while looking for a suitably-sized rock.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom