New US laser weapon tested for Iraq

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B118EB78-425B-4E9D-B6E7-4EE85A434811.htm

A Pentagon-funded laser weapon prototype - capable of bringing down rockets and even helicopters - is currently under assessment for use in Iraq despite major funding problems.


The laser system has passed several successful tests after a decade of development, prompting the lead contractor to suggest the weapon could be used in Baghdad's Green Zone to protect it from mortar attack.

However, the project's manager said on Monday that Congressional budget cuts meant the weapon's future was uncertain.

Lieutenant-Colonel Jeff Souder, who oversees the directed energy applications at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, told an MIT-linked science website that the billions of dollars that had already been spent on research had not guaranteed its future


...rummy and his unusable costly toys.

Oh, I see. They want to use it on incoming mortar shells.

'Scuse me while I crack a rib laughing at that idea...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And HOW much did it cost?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

before they hit their target! Wow! Just like a miniature "missile shield" that will protect the whole US one day! Man, is there any limit to how stupid they think we are? Geeze...

Wow,-- the NeoCons and their handmaidens, THE BUSH CRIMINALS will achieve arousal over this !!!!

is a bad thing, wait until they are issued focused beam weapons. No problem breaking up that bunch of grannies protesting the president! Hmmm...smells just like bacon, don't it?

Ahmed,
shoot the tires.

Mustafa,
you go round to the other side and fire into the sunroof
while I fire mortars in the air to keep it distracted.



The (Mobile Tactical High Energy) laser
is powered by toxic chemicals like deuterium and nitrogen triflouride.

Oh Peter,
I keep getting this burning sensation every time I ejaculate
and the doctor tells me that my sperm are hunchbacked and have two heads.

The latter gas (nitrogen triflouride) shows up on a variety of hazardous products safety sheets if you google it. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen (heavy water is made of oxygen and deuterium). If nothing else, it would probably be highly flammable. I don't think I would want to be in the area. Another post says each firing of the laser consumes 3000 dollars worth of chemicals. It probably uses plenty of power too.

It seems like a bit of a stretch to consider the things in the picture mobile. A convoy with a few of those would be a tempting target.

what exactly about the story leaves you feeling like someone is trying to dupe you? All other politics about Iraq aside.

intercept mortar rounds in the air before they strike their target. I find it very, very hard to believe that that is feasible. They are telling us that they have come up with a "Star Wars" weapon to use again guerrillas - don't buy it...

can already buy very bright green laser pointers.

People who have some skill can build thier own lasers capable of burning stuff I dont find it all that hard to believe that the government with much more resources available to it can burn things enough to prematurely ignite them.

They are already planning to some of the JSFs with some form of air to ground laser.

IMO the hard part isnt burning stuff its finding and tracking the target over the distances required.

I don't buy that they have the capability to "intercept mortar rounds in the air before they strike their target". Now, all of my mortar training was done over thirty years ago, and maybe mortars and their crews aren't as good these days as they used to be, but the idea that in a combat setting these lasers will actually be effective - I just don't buy it.

It's the targeting thats going to kick their ass. Incoming mortars and high angle artillery comes in pretty slow.

Nope.

... for directed-energy weapons have been building since the Star Wars days. They'd already passed out of the research phase and into the development phase in 1990, at least at Sandia and White Sands.

My guess is that the cumulative costs are in the several billion dollar-range right now.

What is so funny about the idea?

They don't have the science to do this. They can't target a flying mortar shell right now, no way, no how. Especially if they don't find out about it until after it's been fired.

It's a lame excuse to find a way spend a lot of our tax dollars on a porkbarrel weapons program looking for a purpose.

on edit: it's the Pentagon equivalent of me saying, "Give me a couple of billion dollars, and I'll figure out how to make a horse fly on it's own". Whatever happens at the end of it, I'll still have made a couple of billion dollars.

Are you absolutely positive about that?

This particular program is not something conceived without a purpose. It's purpose is exactly as stated, to shoot down mortars, rockets, artillery shells, helicopters, etc.

The article originally posted seems to focusing on funding problems and not the science. This system is not some pie in the sky idea, it's been successfully tested and seems to be showing a great deal of progress.

Army's Tactical High Energy Laser Shoots Down Mortar Rounds
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04r.html

High-Energy Laser Destroys Large-Caliber Rocket
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04g.html

THEL hits 'Katyusha'-type rocket in first test
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw000612_1_n.shtml


"Especially if they don't find out about it until after it's been fired."
Tracking mortar shells after they are fired is nothing new. Counterbattery radar (used to hit back at opposing artillery by tracking rounds to their source) has been deployed for at least two decades. For an example.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/an-tpq-36.htm

"In testing to date, the MTHEL testbed has destroyed 28 Katyusha rockets and five artillery shells in flight."

For example:
- what is the success rate? 28 rockets out of 28 tested or 28 out of 2800? no details.

- were the rockets and/or mortars sending out any kind of signal to aid detection?

- was the apparatus pointed in a convenient direction and all powered up at the right time to score a hit?

- were the test rockets/shells in a typical trajectory, or were the trajectories tweaked to make the test easier?

- could some simple counter-measure overcome the system (chaff, decoys, a bigger salvo of rockets, or a quick relocation of a launcher for example)?

- would the devices own radar make it electronically obvious, and therefore easy to take out?

- would the laser work in dusty, sandy, rainy, humid, cloudy, snowy or otherwise less than ideal conditions?

Not to mention, they don't say anything about size, power needs, cost, transportability, effect of environmental conditions, etc.

My hunch is this would be hyper expensive, and only actually work sporadically under ideal circumstances, if that. This has frequently been the case with the gee-whiz weaponry. Not always, though.

for kicks, that they do make an IDEAL laser to take down mortars. Now, is it possible that the resistance (or any other enemy) could just launch several mortars at once. Sure, go ahead and neutralize a few rounds while the majority hit the target. Yeah, great success from a tactical standpoint.

The instances where the resistance has used mortars against the US showed that the US could not accurately find out where they were coming from until after it was an issue (aka they got away).

Also, the resistance could very easily concentrate on targets that would not be likely to have such weaponry (remember that mortar attack on Abu Graib? I wonder if all incarceration centers in Iraq will now be fully equipped with such ridiculous devices).

It's like Carrhae all over again....

The system now can hit multiple targets and has enough chemicals for 60 shots, most mortar attacks against the green zone, which where the article mentioned deploying it are less than 10 rounds at a time.

Nowhere in the articles was their a claim that this was a super all perfect wonder weapon, its a new technology that's evolving. I posted a reply because critics here seemed to dismiss that it was even possible to shoot down a mortar with a laser as if it were some far off sci fi idea or have it confused with the failure to come up with a national missile defense. It may never be the perfect defense against mortars but it is on the road to being more capable and more cost effective (lower cost per shot) than other systems used now for other targets (cruise missiles and helicopters). Intercepting mortars is a plus.

Eventually these systems will become less expensive, more mobile and have lower costs per shot and therefore able to defend more locations. It is an important technology for the stated purpose in it's infancy (I dont want to sound like a warmonger here, maybe humans would be better off with one less weapon system but I am holding off on the pacifist arguments for now). I don't think it was painted any other way. R&D for anything new is usually very expensive (even a civilian car like the ford taurus cost 2.5 billion to research and develop and it was not great leap in technology). When you start with a new technology many times you cannot see how far it will evolve. Many people in the early 1900's might not have believed transoceanic ariliners were possible when they say the first biplane. Early knee jerk blanket criticisms often turn out being a little short-sighted.

I know you weren't claiming that it is a "super all perfect wonder weapon". What I was saying was that there are way too many problems to implement this successfully. If it has enough chemicals for 60 shots, it would be simple to launch duds or something else (diversion) and deplete the chemicals, while allowing the real mortars to get through. Please, if I can think of an easy, effective way to get around this, I am anxious to think of what the resistance can think of (they have been VERY resourceful). This will probably be akin to all those concoctions the US tried to use in Vietnam against the tunnels, and they were ultimately failures.

Yes, this technology COULD evolve into something, but you must forgive people for being critical, especially when you consider the Star Wars misadventure.

The M-16 was developed to be the next generation infantry weapon, but when it was first put to use, soldiers found that it jammed in combat, it was pretty ineffective and many resorted to using captured AK-47's as their primary weapons. This is most likely what we will find here: A weapon that develops into something fine later on, but when first used on the battlefield, it is defective and a failure for its use at that time (it would have been better if the US stuck with something like the M-1 for the time being, while working out the kinks of the M-16).

Many people in the early 1900's might not have believed Zeppelins being used in warfare in the future, and they were correct. I believe this is a better analogy.

At Carrhae, Cassius thought he was set with his Gaelic cavalry. Yes, they were pretty good light horsemen, but when the Parthians used hit and run tactics on his army and he sent his exceptional cavalry out against this threat, the Parthians just withdrew, led them into a trap, and obliterated them when they were isolated. The Roman Army was then utterly annihilated (just a little coincidence: where did the battle Carrhae take place? Not too far from Iraq). Can we see some parallel here?

The article mentions deploying in the green zone because the green zone has many high value targets. Having mortars land into an area that is central to your activity in Iraq I guess is embarrasing to the Pentagon and a morale boost to the insurgents. It is akin to someone mortaring the middle of D.C. Even if it is only moderately effective it is worth deploying. Most countries would spend a little more to defend a capital or government center, purely because of the symbolic/morale value. May seem unfair to troops in outlying bases but I think that was the point of the article.


Most of the attacks launched are less than a dozen shells, with a few going over but well within the limit of a 60 round magazine.


Blasts hit Baghdad's 'Green Zone'

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/03/sprj.irq.main/ - three rounds

Mortar attacks launched at Baghdad Green Zone

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1197709.htm - A little more than a dozen.

Deadly attack on Iraq Green Zone

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/21/iraq.main/ - three rockets - 2 dead Iraqis


Four Gurkhas die in Baghdad Green Zone mortar attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1360784,00.html?gusrc=rss - Is it worth $3000 a shot to save some lives?


Forgiveness of criticism is hard because even those who are by nature anti-pentagon and anti-military have to at least concede the fact that the U.S. military when given the proper resources does most of what is asked very, very well and is very technologically capable. Criticisms of new high tech weapon systems often turn out wrong and overblown or premature (the Apache, Bradley, M1, B2, F117, etc. all were criticized many times yet all those systems found a useful place in service even though they may not funtion ideally all the time) yet many people still expect you to accept a knee jerk criticism because they cannot themselves fathom a technological possibilty. The moral of the story here if one is to criticise is that because of an ill managed Iraq war there is no money left to buy even promising weapon systems (some may not see that as a bad thing). The THEL is not the first program to have a funding problem under Bush and Rumsfeld there are many others.

Blanket, knee jerk statements (there are a few good ones, I grant daleo and manic expression valid counterpoints) viewed through the lens of Bush-hate on something reported elsewhere as promising well before 2004 (Jane's is a very objective, more credible source of info - maybe not perfect but still not as compromised intellectually as other sources nowadays) let the other side paint everyone here as uninformed kooky liberals with an agenda that does not consider real plausible facts. Why give them that ammo when you can use the same article in another way and point out how Bush and Company's fiscal/overall bungling has hurt out troops by denying them something potentially effective that can save lives.

There are LIDAR techs that can track a sniper's bullet in flight and tell you where it came from. U.S. warships have high-speed Phoenix cannons that can track and shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles as well as high-speed aircraft. To extend the techs to a point-defense laser isn't that big of a stretch. The catch, however, is threefold: one, how effective is this particular PDL? The technology may work, but if you can't make it do its thing regularly in the real world, it's useless. It's only as good as it's built, and you know our contractors. Two, how much money would it cost to outfit every truck, Hummer, and base in Iraq with these things? Probably more than the war itself has cost. Maybe two or three times the cost. And third, high-tech defenses can often be overcome with a relative minimum of ingenuity. Like someone said earlier: one guy keeps the thing distracted while the other guy laces it with machine gun fire. Or they shoot out the tires. Or better yet, start firing mortars loaded not with explosives, but with fuel: when the laser hits it, you have an instant freefalling firebomb.

This thing has potential uses, but it won't do what they hope it will.

I'll replace the microchip in the aiming system.

"Everybody want's to rule the world"

:wtf:

in that MIT article:

Here is a quote from another source:

"The laser could be in use in 2007. Since development began in 1996, the Army, the Israeli Defense Ministry and TRW had spent $250 million on the project through 2002"

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html

Other sources on the net also seem to be in the low hundreds of millions.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2001/Sep/Directed-Energy.htm

"The Army is expected to complete a study next month on the development of a mobile THEL. Funding could be a problem, given that all $200 million spent on THEL so far have been congressional add-ons.

For fiscal 2002, Congress is expected to allocate $30 million for THEL."

"The development of small chemical lasers falls under a program called advanced tactical laser, which is expected to cost $180 million through 2005, said Bradshaw. ATL uses a chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) that generates up to 70 kilowatts of power."

...The next Star Wars movie is out soon - hope they don't find any new inspiration for more fancy gadgets to waste $$$ on.

The kind that could....I don't know.....hit an airline pilot in the eyes?

I remember the story a few years back about the Navy helicopter pilot that lost alot of his vision because he was blinded by a laser from one of those Russian spy trawlers.

If you are really lucky you could probably blind a pilot with a normal green laser pointer.

I have one and I remember once I was able to see it reflect off of low level clouds.

Men, woman, children, babies. Just melt 'em!

/Sarcasm

"I canna do it, Captain Boosh. The Green Zone warp engines are gonna blow any minute."

To boldly go where no chimp has gone before.

:-) :-) OUTRAGEOUS

:rofl:

..

MY ASS IT IS! I betchya bucks we're going to use this in Iran.

can now enjoy laser hair removal like the
women in 'murikkka!
Freedumb is on the march!
BHN

In 2002...

<However, Northrop Grumman reports that it is in new discussions with the Pentagon that may see the laser prototype resurrected for use in Iraq's Green Zone. An answer is expected within two months.>

Good gawd, They think this high tech loser will protect the puppets we install and the shiny new 3000 person Embassy in the GZ! If it weren't my tax dollars I would laugh. :(

protecting the U.S. Embassy in the GZ. :scared:

Are we turning into The Empire (lasers and all) or what?

MUST........FIND......SARAH........CONNER........

The scenes from the future where SkyNet flies over the burned out rubble in armored machines shooting lasers down on small bands of ragged, dirty insurgents who are fighting back with AK47s and RPGs.


Guess who is who!

with an air to ground laser for use against "soft targets" like unarmored vehicles, fuel tanks, and I believe people fit into that catagory aswell.

in Iran and then from space to keep those bad, evil countries in line. You betcha.

Yiftah Shapir, an associate at the Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, said Israel "didn't want to spend $3000 on chemicals for every shot at a mortar shell which isn't capable of doing that much damage even if it landed right on a house".

Good thing the US government maintains its own printing press.

Oddly, that was one of Ossama's claims.

No doubt dubby could do some serious damage with some lasers, but I don't buy the mortar thing either.

For lasers. I suppose you chose that phrase for that very reason.

Think BIG.

Is he at the back of the waiting list, or at the front?

thrown by crowds of protesters

What makes it determine an airborne object is a mortar round?

A "civil disturbance" with people throwing objects from beyond the
blast barrier will either trigger a $3000 wasted shot or risk having
the trigger mechanism temporarily disabled. This forms an ideal window
of opportunity for a couple of real mortar rounds to be aimed at the
MHEL itself ...

On the other hand, if this really is to be deployed in the Green Zone,
the siting is going to be pretty crucial as it will only be able to
protect maybe 120 degrees laterally - any more flexibility will mean
it is positioned in a (vulnerable) 'spike' in the perimeter (or else
it will start hitting the buildings *inside* that it is supposed to
be protecting ... while they're at it, they might as well paint a
bullseye on the buildings on the other side of the zone from this
toy - no point in risking the mortar rounds being intercepted in one
place when you have unprotected targets elsewhere ...

Nope, this is just another megabuck defence industry toy to save old
Rumpsfelt from having to spend his money on boring old body armour.