• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Solid State Laser News

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
It's interesting to see Russia pursuing so many nuclear based weapons (nuclear powered torpedo, cruise missile, and now laser). This makes sense given that Western countries can be expected to forego a direct counterpart and rely on some conventional response.
 

rooster

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
135
Reaction score
46
It's interesting to see Russia pursuing so many nuclear based weapons (nuclear powered torpedo, cruise missile, and now laser). This makes sense given that Western countries can be expected to forego a direct counterpart and rely on some conventional response.
Nuclear weapons offer the biggest bang ( no pun intended! ) for the dollar. Russia cannot even build a new fighter and has resorted to putting a + 30 year old bomber back into production. So they need to build a credible military to counter the US, and the only avenue they have is nukes. For gosh sakes I wonder if they put out the fire on their only aircraft carrier yet? They are a country on the downward slope. But they can build missiles with nukes. This I believe is a very dangerous situation as in 10 years our conventional forces should be full of new subs and stealth aircraft and Russia will be lagging. Do they wait to be surpassed or do they start a war while they have near parity?
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
It's interesting to see Russia pursuing so many nuclear based weapons (nuclear powered torpedo, cruise missile, and now laser). This makes sense given that Western countries can be expected to forego a direct counterpart and rely on some conventional response.
Nuclear weapons offer the biggest bang ( no pun intended! ) for the dollar. Russia cannot even build a new fighter and has resorted to putting a + 30 year old bomber back into production. So they need to build a credible military to counter the US, and the only avenue they have is nukes. For gosh sakes I wonder if they put out the fire on their only aircraft carrier yet? They are a country on the downward slope. But they can build missiles with nukes. This I believe is a very dangerous situation as in 10 years our conventional forces should be full of new subs and stealth aircraft and Russia will be lagging. Do they wait to be surpassed or do they start a war while they have near parity?
Geez quite the steam you got built right up there? https://qr.ae/TJW4R9 I am sure it is also cheap using million dollar missiles to waste stealth aircrafts and an entire Navy with ease that you seem to take alot of pride in. 38,000 combat sorties to defeat Serbia,.......How many stealth aircraft do you think would have gotten hit by missiles when they land, refuel and restock on ammunition? Is there anything else you would like to add?

The only worst part I see about the U.S. is watching our country outsource most of our military development projects to other countries. PAC-3 was considered a failure to Israel, our defense officials tried to refute that, but the PAC-4's development was given to Israel instead. In fact I still wonder how much of them are ex-USSR. We turned down Quick kill for Trophy. I wonder how much of the air to ground weapons on the F-35 are considered made in the USA. I do not feel comfortable watching all this happen while the so called adversary we love to always talk about is switching to domestic production.
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
239
Reaction score
95
https://qr.ae/TJW4R9
Plasma Stealth

This can be achieved not only with power consuming generators but also with just using speeds and altitudes. Everyone remember the working on mach 10 and 40km altitude sources? They are going to be very important for this next explanation.
130,000ft is like 40 kms. These are tests that were conducted by dropping spheres from very high altitudes. As it is seen here plasma conditions for the spheres in high or low frequency radars are effected with lower radar cross sections. The Russians on the other hand are claiming invisibility to radars. I only have sources on spheres but ballistic missiles or nose cones have low radar cross sections to begin with depending on where the radar beams point towards the front. of those objects. So the plasma sheath density can be very favorable to how the Zircon missile is designed.

altitudes around 40kms have some pretty high temperatures, so this can be another reason why they gave those altitude requirements for the Zircon missile.
put 40kms in altitude, speed for mach 10, temperature for 32 Fahrenheit and I got 5630.6759 Kelvin for total temperature for the altitude and velocity section.

And Eyeing this carefully I see that it covers 15ghz. This is an example of the space shuttle and why communication to the shuttle was lost. But this chart is also a good reference to show how frequencies are effected by the speed of an object creating a plasma heat shield. And just in case people want to start pointing out that it would be hard to communicate with the missile when engaging targets there seems to be solutions offered to that problem not that long ago
I am sure it is also cheap using million dollar missiles to waste stealth aircrafts and an entire Navy with ease that you seem to take alot of pride in.
Firstly, the air temperature at 40 km altitude isn't 32 Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celcius), your chart resolution is too low so you estimate the wrong number. The actual, air temperature at 40 km altitude is -22 Fahrenheit
Temp.jpg

Second of all, in the calculator, temperature Increment is how much the temperature increase compares to the standard day. When you put 32 Fahrenheit in the calculator, you make the air much hotter. At Mach 9, you should get 5270 Kelvin instead of 5630 Kelvin, that is a big difference in frequency coverage range



and as we saw from trailblazer study, the plasma sheath reduce RCS in some frequency but also enhance the RCS in the rest.
11.PNG
1 (1).PNG
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
136
The only worst part I see about the U.S. is watching our country outsource most of our military development projects to other countries. PAC-3 was considered a failure to Israel, our defense officials tried to refute that, but the PAC-4's development was given to Israel instead.
Those aren't even the same type of weapons. The PAC-3 was designed to provide better performance (compared to existing PAC-2) against Short Ranged Ballistic Missiles, while also enhancing the magazine by 4x. It achieved that and in doing so destroyed a heck of a lot of targets in testing or during actual conflict. The MSE was developed to extend envelope of the PAC-3 to beyond SRBM and into MRBM territory and to provide for a more agile interceptor without significantly compromising on the magazine (down to 12). It too has been very successful through its development and operational testing and is a fielded system and Lockheed cannot build the darn thing fast enough given global demand.

PAAC-4 or specifically, the Stunner interceptor was designed to be a Low-Cost interceptor against cruise and very short ranged ballistic Missiles (I've seen data that points to the design point being focused around 500 km missiles). It was designed to be a dual-seeker equipped weapon but so far that variant has not yet been operationally fielded. It was and is not designed to be a PAC-3 or MSE replacement but a complement to it when on the Patriot and as a stand alone system. MSE also had a requirement as a medium ranged SAM against ABT's hence the LE was adopted instead of a pure H2K ballistic missile defense system like the THAAD. PAC-3/MSE and PAAC-4 will probably co--exist in the same battery at some point in the future (either in US patriot or foreign country system) as this allows for a much more affordable interceptor acquisition strategy.

Israel's Lower and Upper Tier Air Defense is differently structured than the US's for very obvious reasons. Israel has little expeditionary need, whereas nearly 100% of the US systems are expeditionary. As Such David''s Sling, and Arrow are different than Patriot, THAAD and AEGIS. Stunner is required to co-exist with the Arrow and perhaps protect a same defended area with the layered system. The area being mostly fixed. The MSE along with the future LTFI is designed to both complement THAAD's LT capability but also provide defense when THAAD is not around given that this could well be the case and the fact that THAAD is not as mobile as a Patriot battery.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
nice the staff removes only my posts but not the other ones that are off topic here as well. I wish they let me know they have a bias view on posts.

@bring_it_on I get how it works but its the outsourced development that bothers me.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
136
nice the staff removes only my posts but not the other ones that are off topic here as well. I wish they let me know they have a bias view on posts.

@bring_it_on I get how it works but its the outsourced development that bothers me.
What outsourced development are you talking about?
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
136
Raytheon needing rafael.
Why would Raytheon need Rafael? The PAAC-4 is an option that Raytheon provided because it has a highly successful Patriot franchise and there are benefits that it sees in certain markets that would desire a lower cost interceptor to the PAC-3 but without the magazine impact that comes with the lower cost PAC-2. Raytheon has access to an off the shelf solution that it can package together in a relatively short amount of time and with a relatively modest investment. From a financial and business sense perspective it is a win-win. They would be foolish to leave that money on the table if indeed there is a market out there. Why would Raytheon look to completely re-invent the wheel for such an LCI? Same with the Tamir interceptor. And the US taxpayer has paid for these systems and US industry is involved in them.

Which Raytheon customer would be willing to pay a premium for an LCI that has similar level of performance to something that already exists? I doubt even the US Army would be willing for a number of years and spend millions required to develop something that ended up being comparable to say the Tamir or Stunner. There are other more vital areas to invest in when it comes to Missile Defense and it is wise to go with something already developed for the lower end of the requirement. Raytheon is wise to offer the Stunner as the SkyCeptor insertion into the Patriot franchise while spending its own internal R&D dollars on the systems where it needs to compete at the very high end of the performance requirements - like the LTFI program where competition is going to be high and technology required probably at low readiness levels...These companies don't have infinite pots of cash and with things like the LTFI , the NGI and a whole host of directed energy scaling efforts why would they be stupid enough to sink billions into designing products for problems where perfectly acceptable solutions may already exist.

The part about outsourcing development also has little basis. The R&D and S&T portfolio is what funds technology development work and those have expanded in the last recent years at a pace far outstripping the increase in defense spending. That obviously does not mean that when you can have access to good enough systems which fit your needs you should avoid them and continue to develop duplicates. That has operational impact as well and sometimes you have to pick and choose which areas you want to sink money and time on and where you want to buy off the shelf.
 
Last edited:

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
Raytheon needing rafael.
Why would Raytheon need Rafael? The PAAC-4 is an option that Raytheon provided because it has a highly successful Patriot franchise and there are benefits that it sees in certain markets that would desire a lower cost interceptor to the PAC-3 but without the magazine impact that comes with the lower cost PAC-2. Raytheon has access to an off the shelf solution that it can package together in a relatively short amount of time and with a relatively modest investment. From a financial and business sense perspective it is a win-win. They would be foolish to leave that money on the table if indeed there is a market out there. Why would Raytheon look to completely re-invent the wheel for such an LCI? Same with the Tamir interceptor. And the US taxpayer has paid for these systems and US industry is involved in them.

Which Raytheon customer would be willing to pay a premium for an LCI that has similar level of performance to something that already exists? I doubt even the US Army would be willing for a number of years and spend millions required to develop something that ended up being comparable to say the Tamir or Stunner. There are other more vital areas to invest in when it comes to Missile Defense and it is wise to go with something already developed for the lower end of the requirement. Raytheon is wise to offer the Stunner as the SkyCeptor insertion into the Patriot franchise while spending its own internal R&D dollars on the systems where it needs to compete at the very high end of the performance requirements - like the LTFI program where competition is going to be high and technology required probably at low readiness levels...These companies don't have infinite pots of cash and with things like the LTFI , the NGI and a whole host of directed energy scaling efforts why would they be stupid enough to sink billions into designing products for problems where perfectly acceptable solutions may already exist.

The part about outsourcing development also has little basis. The R&D and S&T portfolio is what funds technology development work and those have expanded in the last recent years at a pace far outstripping the increase in defense spending. That obviously does not mean that when you can have access to good enough systems which fit your needs you should avoid them and continue to develop duplicates. That has operational impact as well and sometimes you have to pick and choose which areas you want to sink money and time on and where you want to buy off the shelf.
Last post for now, to not further astray this topic. So your saying Rafael has nothing to do with the development of the PAC-4? Is this correct?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
136
So your saying Rafael has nothing to do with the development of the PAC-4? Is this correct?
Are you using a translator? Just wondering why its not getting across. There is no PAC-4. The next Patriot interceptor (complement to PAC-3 MSE) is going to be the LTFI. Raytheon is marketing a Low Cost Interceptor complement for its franchise (Patriot) for users who may want something cheaper for the lower end threat. Its based on the Stunner. They've piitched it to the US Army as well. Yes it is designed e Israel. So what?

Why in the world should Raytheon make something themselves and pass that cost on to people looking at an affordable solution? Similarly, US Army is not interested in a LCI for the Patriot. They want the LTFI to go after a different capability set. The US Congress wants to introduce competition and may consider an LCI and if they do, then a logical choice would be the Sky Ceptor / Stunner. Raytheon not designing something on their own, and going instead for an off the shelf solution has no impact on their ability to design and build missiles (just look at their missile and technology portfolio). Their customers want a low cost mature solution and they'll provide it especially one that has been subsidized by the US taxpayer. Meanwhile they will continue to invest their money elsewhere..where alternative solutions are not available.

That is an efficient deployment of US and company funding IMHO.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
259
Reaction score
396
US Navy Virginia Class SSN with High Energy Laser (HEL)


The U.S. Navy's Virginia Class attack submarines are formidable weapons platforms. They carry advanced-capability (ADCAP) torpedoes and Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. But apparently this is not enough. They are to be the first subs in the world armed with a powerful laser as well.

Documents suggest that the High Energy Laser (HEL) could be incredibly powerful, around 300 kilowatts. And eventually be up to 500 kilowatts. The power will come from the submarine’s nuclear reactor which has a capacity of 30 megawatts. And there are indications that it may already have been tested using a towed power generator instead.


 
Last edited:

UpForce

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
12
The U.S. Navy's Virginia Class attack submarines are formidable weapons platforms. They carry advanced-capability (ADCAP) torpedoes and Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. But apparently this is not enough. They are to be the first subs in the world armed with a powerful laser as well.

Documents suggest that the High Energy Laser (HEL) could be incredibly powerful, around 300 kilowatts. And eventually be up to 500 kilowatts. The power will come from the submarine’s nuclear reactor which has a capacity of 30 megawatts. And there are indications that it may already have been tested using a towed power generator instead.
Given the abundance of available power, logical. Wild, but logical.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
313
Why wouldn't you want using it while submerged? Undersea laser beaming to surface ships, torpedoes or other submarines aren't cool enough?

Here :

 
Last edited:

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,631
Reaction score
520
Why wouldn't you want using it while submerged? Undersea laser beaming to surface ships, torpedoes or other submarines aren't cool enough?

Here :
Different sorts of lasers, and vastly different power levels. A weapon-grade laser operating underwater would just vaporize the water immediately in front of the lens and probably cause major damage to its own optics.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
136
Now only if they wrap a decent surface combatant around that reactor and they'll have assured power supply for those 500 kW to 1 MW class High Energy Lasers - the likely power they would need to go after some of the more stressing cruise or ballistic missile threats.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
Why wouldn't you want using it while submerged? Undersea laser beaming to surface ships, torpedoes or other submarines aren't cool enough?

Here :

Most likely a submarine communication laser (blue green wavelength). US spent some time trying to develop one.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
313
Laser is only a wave or a time dependent overpressure. At high beaming power, water will simply cavitate. It's then "only" a problem of finding the appropriate pulses and frequency to get that beam where you want.
It might not kill you as instantly as an airborne laser but you'll feel the heat for sure!

Strangely, I have now in mind the reported sightings from those SH pilots off San Diego (naval base).
A bit too far stretched I guess...
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
Why wouldn't you want using it while submerged? Undersea laser beaming to surface ships, torpedoes or other submarines aren't cool enough?

Here :

Most likely a submarine communication laser (blue green wavelength). US spent some time trying to develop one.
Or alternatively it could be a submarine detection satellite system, similar in concept to what the French were working on some years back.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
Israeli (Rafael) HEL anti quadcopter test. Basically very similar to the Raytheon dune buggy HEL system.

 

TAOG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
57
Reaction score
60
Pentagon punts MDA's laser ambitions, shifts funding toward OSD-led 'laser scaling'

The Pentagon's technology chief has pumped the brakes on the Missile Defense Agency's move toward an airborne, ballistic missile-killing laser, instead consolidating "laser scaling" efforts under the umbrella of his own office. MDA is not requesting any money for its “Directed Energy Demonstrator Development” (DEDD) project this year, according to the agency’s fiscal year 2021 budget request. Congress appropriated $116 million for the DEDD project in FY-20, and the Defense Department’s budget request last year signaled similar levels of funding...



A 300 kw fiber laser prototype will complete in FY2021, and initiate the 500 kw laser design.

BreakingD has reported that the 300kw laser prototype will be available by 2022 and 500 kW by 2024.


Also, an additional novel approach to 300 kW laser scaling will be initiated. I guess this approach is DPAL laser, which is also emphasized in the MDA BPI program.


!.pnglaser.png
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com

"Still, the government has agreed to fund the research – in part because the team has come up with an innovative approach that has not been tried before, according to a scientist involved in the project who was also speaking on condition of anonymity.
The device is designed to generate high-power laser beam pulses in different colours, or frequencies, that allow sensitive receivers to pick up more information from various depths. Those laser beams can scan an area as wide as 100km, or concentrate on one spot just 1km wide.
It will be used in conjunction with a microwave radar, also mounted on the satellite, to better identify targets.
Although the radar cannot penetrate water, it can measure the surface movement with extremely high accuracy – so when a moving submarine creates small disturbances on the surface, for example, the radar will tell the satellite where to throw the laser beam."

"Song said the team aimed to use every available sensing method to achieve the maximum possible depth of detection.
“Sometimes there may not be enough light to reach 500 metres and back, but we can still try to work out what’s down there by taking an indirect measurement at a shallower depth,” he said.
The laboratory has yet to give any indication as to when the satellite will be ready, but Song said the team was under pressure. “There’s still heaps of problems that we need to solve,” he said."
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
Home hobbyist playing with a 100W diode array laser. Gives a hint of what you get if you factor up 1000 times (except of course the beam will be invisible).

 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
Demonstrator Laser Weapon System - older story but searched and didn’t see anything

 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
Raytheon's dune buggy laser for drone countermeasures (likely in Afghanistan).

Raytheon Dune Buggy Laser.jpeg
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,631
Reaction score
520

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
440
Reaction score
181
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
If hand held "blasters" ever show up they will need to use something like this.
Hand-held particle beam weapon is... intriguing, but so much problems with backscatter radiation & a possibility of killing the gunner if magnet system fail at some spot...
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
Dynetics signs contract to upgrade Army IFPC HEL from 100kW to 300kW.

http://www.asdnews.com/news/defense/2020/05/08/dynetics-build-increase-power-us-army-laser-weapons

Marking the official transition to the Indirect Fires Protection Capability - High Energy Laser (IFPC-HEL) endeavor, in January, the U.S. Army modified the existing contract to support on-going efforts to increase laser capability......

.......As the prime contractor for IFPC-HEL, Dynetics is set to demonstrate a 300 kW-class prototype system in FY22.
 

Rhinocrates

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
237
Reaction score
91
It reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago: "Following [villian's name I forget] release on a technicality, Superman begins a harassment campaign by using his heat vision to burn his toast."
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
HEL laser truck demo at West Point. HEL effects are shown starting at 59sec mark. The laser is currently around 30KW and was being upgraded to 60KW. Now they want to boost it up to 300KW.

 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
136
The Army ditched the 150 kW stepping stone to the 300 kW HEL because the former had marginal capability against cruise missiles (if any at all). That added a couple of years to the program but I think it is a right approach. The focus on sub 150 kW should be compact packaging for base defense against C-UAS. Anything that goes into IFPC or other formations must be capable of defeating some of the hardest threats outside CRAM and small drones.
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
91
Reaction score
29
The Army ditched the 150 kW stepping stone to the 300 kW HEL because the former had marginal capability against cruise missiles (if any at all). That added a couple of years to the program but I think it is a right approach. The focus on sub 150 kW should be compact packaging for base defense against C-UAS. Anything that goes into IFPC or other formations must be capable of defeating some of the hardest threats outside CRAM and small drones.
If such a powerful laser can fit on an FMTV truck, what about navy ships?
 
Top