USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons [Archive] - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

Vortex

27th May 2002, 21:09

THEL was the US-Israeli name, but it did originate from another US program. THEL was more of a demonstrator that the Israelis want to use as a basis for their system to protect against short ranged SSMs, but the US is using that simply to see feasibility for a even more compact and better system. As to not fitting on a supercarrier, humm...last time i've heard, a supercarrier isn't smaller than a 747. Wait, not even a Frigate is smaller than a 747. What haven't been demonstrated is against highly manuevering targets and high rate shots. The ABL uses CO2 lasers which i believe is on the orders of tens of microns in wavelength, basically IR lasers. As it turns out the world's first X-ASER was microwave based called MASER, so i think it has more to do with confusing jargons than the USN giving up "directed" energy weapons. I mean, simply put, what is "directed" energy weapons. A magnifying glass burning an ant is directed energy even though it's not purely a "LASER". so what's all this? It should be under a broad category of using focused EM wave as weapons. Philadelphia project, true or not, is a shield not a dagger.

User Flage

27th May 2002, 22:50

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 27-05-02 AT 11:13 PM (GMT)]>THEL was the US-Israeli name, but it did originate from
>another US program. THEL was more of a demonstrator that
>the Israelis want to use as a basis for their system to
>protect against short ranged SSMs, but the US is using that
>simply to see feasibility for a even more compact and better
>system. As to not fitting on a supercarrier, humm...last
>time i've heard, a supercarrier isn't smaller than a 747.
>Wait, not even a Frigate is smaller than a 747. What
>haven't been demonstrated is against highly manuevering
>targets and high rate shots. The ABL uses CO2 lasers which
>i believe is on the orders of tens of microns in wavelength,
>basically IR lasers. As it turns out the world's first
>X-ASER was microwave based called MASER, so i think it has
>more to do with confusing jargons than the USN giving up
>"directed" energy weapons. I mean, simply put, what is
>"directed" energy weapons. A magnifying glass burning an
>ant is directed energy even though it's not purely a
>"LASER". so what's all this? It should be under a broad
>category of using focused EM wave as weapons. Philadelphia
>project, true or not, is a shield not a dagger.

X-rays and microwaves are two completely different things and operate at different area's of the electromagnetic spectrum. If i remember my GCSE physics correctly. An x-ray laser is (i think) not possible with our current technology. We've barely been able to produce blue wavelength lasers (there is a reason why the most common laser you see is coloured red :) )

Wavelengths (i think) determine how far the beam will travel within an atmosphere (vertically not horonzionatly). However the wavelength attained is made 3 times more difficult (the need to correctly produce stimulated emission) the progressivly the shorter the wavelength. As microwaves have a much longer wavelength (i think) there easier to produce (for some reason). So a red laser would travel a smaller distance than a green based laser for the same power output. As microwaves don't have this atmospheric problem they should produce better results than would lasers given our current technology.

A chemical based laser weapon (the ABL laser) is (probably) a lot less powerful due to the need for having a chemical that produces enough energy to sustain the laser proergration whilist being safe enough (im guessing now) so that it doesn't blow up. It also probably results in a weaker beam than would a static laser (one which uses a electrical power continuellly) which would in the carriers case be fed by its nuclear power plant. All you really need to create a laser beam is power. Better quality materials will produce a more efficent laser but just to create a stimulated emmission you need power and lots of it.

Assuming that the "not being able to build one on a CVN" story is true it is because there is not enough power outputed from even a nuclear powerplant to sustain a battlefield grade weapon.

Vortex

28th May 2002, 06:05

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 28-05-02 AT 06:09 AM (GMT)]Not really, more problems on your assumptions there. First of all, "red" lasers, or most likely HeliumNeons are easy and cheap to make...that's why it's the favorite laboratory/acadmeic laser demonstrator. I believe you've remembered wrong as to the Laser wavelengths. Getting something like 200nm is rather easy today, and as you know that's way beyond "blue", that's UV. In fact, even someone not too proficient in lasers like me knows that there are lasers in use that's in the 100nm range. But, getting a "Solid State" laser, or laser "diodes" in the "blue" spectrum is not yet attainable, that's true. Blue laser DIODES are only available in laboratory settings. Those UV lasers mentioned above use 3rd or 4th or maybe even higher harmonics. As to the ABL, it's CO2 laser in the MegaWatt range. I don't think it's straight forwardly the powersupply problem. The powersupply problem can be fixed by using energy storage methods...ie batteries, capacitors, and inductors. These are used in fusion drives, Tokahmaks (spelling?), so shouldn't be a problem there. So, in my opinion, the powersupply is a minor problem. Others such as Optics for that kind of power and wavelength is probably the most problemsome.

GarryB

28th May 2002, 08:33

". As to the ABL, it's CO2 laser in the MegaWatt range. I don't think it's straight forwardly the powersupply problem. "

The ABL has many problems... most obvious with regard to a naval system is rate of fire and total number of shots it can fire before it needs a complete overhaul and 'reloading'.
Other problems for a surface based system is that a missile will always outrange it and a missile with an active seeker is not restricted by the visual horison.
During a monsoon the ABLs range is measured in metres, not km. and few antagonistic countries are going to base ballistic missiles within 400km of their border if they can help it. Unless you intel is unfallible you would need 24hr 7 day a week ABL coverage to stop a launch... which might be a satellite launch for all you know.
Plus 747s are easier to shoot down than most aircraft.

Vortex

28th May 2002, 19:13

what are you talking about Garry...are you taking weeds now? }> Three are no clouds up there for ABL. It was meant to track and attack missiles that just break cloud cover. It's also meant to be used with air superiority in mind and still not really in enemy territory unless when necessary, just like when tankers are sometimes required to venture into enemy air spaces. Please, it's going to hurt your credibility when you talk like that. If you have reasonable critiques, fine, but monsoon season? You sure you can fire SSMs during monsoon reason, theoretically yes, but i haven't heard any tests being done during a storm on purpose. The next thing that might happen is the controls getting overpowered by gust. A naval ABL system would be ideal for point defense anti-air or high altitude attacks. Maybe even shore bombardment much later into the future. It obviously can't bend around the curvature.

GarryB

30th May 2002, 06:26

"Three are no clouds up there for ABL. It was meant to track and attack missiles that just break cloud cover."

Yes, the North Koreans are going to let the US fly a 747 to within 20km of their bases for their ballistic missiles... just like the chinese are.
As you point out the Earth is curved... the atmosphere also curves with it. The ABL will probably be fired from near maximum range simply because the targets it is after will not be on the front line but several hundred kms behind it. What if there is a storm between the 747 and the launch site? How high do clouds go?

"It's also meant to be used with air superiority in mind and still not really in enemy territory unless when necessary, just like when tankers are sometimes required to venture into enemy air spaces."

Any use in air to air will be purely self defence.. if I remember correctly the ABL is capable of only about 15-20 shots before it needs its chemicals replaced. All of the documents I have read have stated that its capability is focused on maintaining a beam of laser energy on one point on the surface of an ICBM to fatally weaken it... holding a laser beam on part of an aircraft for 5-10 seconds... if it is possible will merely weaken a structurally unimportant part (ie the skin). Unless you use it as a blinding weapon and violate a few agreements the US has signed.

"Please, it's going to hurt your credibility when you talk like that."

I love it when people suggest I have credibility... It goes straight to my head... :-)

"If you have reasonable critiques, fine, but monsoon season? You sure you can fire SSMs during monsoon reason, theoretically yes, but i haven't heard any tests being done during a storm on purpose."

Indeed there is risk... much as there is risk in flying at night, yet the US forces believe they have an advantage in night fighting and they ususally try to take on opponents at night. Quite sound with regard to tactics.... Of course if your enemy has a 747 that has a laser that is designed to shoot down your ICBMs you are only going to contemplate using your ICBMs on fine sunny days... in fact you might even consider moving the launch site to the coast to make it easier. Just like you wouldn't waste any time with decoys...

"The next thing that might happen is the controls getting overpowered by gust."

Indeed it would be a risk... much better to not bother building ICBMs at all and just capitulate to whatever the US wants... }>...

"A naval ABL system would be ideal for point defense anti-air or high altitude attacks."

No it wouldn't.
Even laser beam riding missiles like the SA-19 when used as the basis for naval weapons are converted to radar guided... simply because sea spray can interfere with the beam.

"Maybe even shore bombardment much later into the future. It obviously can't bend around the curvature"

You accuse me of smoking weed????

Now you are winding me up aren't you...

Vortex

30th May 2002, 07:01

Air superiority in mind, meaning the US fighters can achieve air superiority where the ABL is flying, isn't it obvious i mean that? Didn't i said earlier that it wasn't proven that the ABL can destroy manuevering targets. I thought that was obvious.(however, i don't think there's a problem there, it's 1MW of radiation man! After seeing people punching through tungstin with a much much lower power laser, somehow i think that's pretty scarry). As to salt sprays? Huh? you don't mean salt sprays, but the evaporation of water vapour with heavy salt concentration (not spray, but evaporation) would create a unstable layer of varying density. But, just like ABL, there are ways of getting around that. As to clouds? humm...i've never noticed clouds above the 747-400 on trans pacific flights...infact, clouds are way way down there.

GarryB

31st May 2002, 01:08

"isn't it obvious i mean that? "

No, it wasn't, but now you have cleared up that misunderstanding.

"however, i don't think there's a problem there, it's 1MW of radiation man! "

The energy released is not important... the sun puts out a trillion times more than that...

"After seeing people punching through tungstin with a much much lower power laser,... "

Yes, I have seen a hand held surgical laser burn through a phone book in less than a second but doing the same thing 100m away let alone 10km+ is much much harder. It is called our atmosphere and it is a B!tch for light or wavelengths near light... that is why stars seem to twinkle.

"As to salt sprays? Huh? you don't mean salt sprays, but the evaporation of water vapour with heavy salt concentration (not spray, but evaporation) would create a unstable layer of varying density. "

No, I mean salt Spray... a Sea Skua or a Sunburn coming in at 3m off the wave tops might be the target.

"As to clouds? humm...i've never noticed clouds above the 747-400 on trans pacific flights...infact, clouds are way way down there. "

Yes, aircraft are not diverted around storms.. that is just make believe, but lets ignore high altitude cloud for a few moments.

Lets take North Korea as our problem country. (They are the smallest of the "Evil empires" created by the Bush administration and therefore they have borders closer to any launch site they might use for an ICBM... they are the easiest targets for ABL).

If you care to look at a map there is only airspace over south Korea and international airspace where the ABL could fly... simply because Japan is too far away and China is hardly likely to allow a US anti missile system in their airspace.
Just looking at potential places for the ABL to fly, the first thing you have to do is eliminate all of the places in or near NK and Chinese airspace. To be effective the ABL must be on station 24/7 during conflict and during peace... during peace it cannot fly over NK or chinese airspace.
I think it would be pretty safe to say that the 400km range would be required and used in most instances.
Draw a straight line 400km long on a globe. Using the scale you can determine how high to lift one end for the ABL.
Use a ruler to represent the beam... which will of course be straight.
I think you will find that even if the target is quite high that the laser will pass quite close to the ground.
Unless the 747 used for the ABL is a new stealth design it will be seen continuously flying circuits.

Vortex

31st May 2002, 01:52

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 31-05-02 AT 01:56 AM (GMT)]You are really really losing me Garry, salt sprays of an approaching sea skimming SSM? wakes are behind, not in front of incoming targets. As to diverting flights due to storm...yes, when landing or judging whether to takeoff or land. On trans Pacific flights, you pretty much fly the shortest possible route. And at that altitude, you don't see storms. Even if you see clouds, it's very very rare. I've forgot the exact altitude where cloudes really don't exist, but i've always thought major storm clouds have very low altitude. I don't know why you're so stubborn on this one, why don't you go search on the internet and tell me exactly when you wouldn't expect clouds 99% of the time. As to range. So, you've forgot the air superiority senario i've kept on mentioning. For example, instead of your hypotheticals, a simple use in historical wars, the Gulf War II versus Iraq, had the US have the ABL ready in service, with the kind of air superiority, not many of the Scuds launched would be able to reach their range. Simply put, the ABL is still a tactical weapon, so it's risks should be taken to be similar to a B-52 or a B-1B doing bombing runs. Now, given the same senario as to NK, you are suggesting that there won't be heavy bomber missions also? For example, had the Talibans some working SCUDs, the ABL again would've been the ideal option to counter that threat. Very effective as you said during the boost phase is the weakest phase of any ballistic missile. Oh, by the way, NK is evil...which country would starve huge percentage of it's own citizens to that extend while still have a luxurious elite class. Just ask any defectors in embassies across China at a alarming high rate, and you stop your ignorant US bashing simply for the sake of criticizing the US. About Iran as Evil, that's certainly debatable, but NK? Come on, use Iran as your future examples, not NK. Again, the ruling elites is evil, no-one ever make reference to the suffering populous as evil.

GarryB

31st May 2002, 10:19

"You are really really losing me Garry, salt sprays of an approaching sea skimming SSM? "

Salt spray is created when wind blows the top of white caps, it also forms on beaches and against ships at sea.
Ask Jonsey or Tom how perfectly flat the sea is all the time, about how weapons systems on board ships don't need any for of stabilisation and the whole deck always remains absolutely dry... no matter what the weather.
A CIWS has to work in light and heavy rain and even snow, as well as clear sunny days.

"Simply put, the ABL is still a tactical weapon, so it's risks should be taken to be similar to a B-52 or a B-1B doing bombing runs."

No, it is not. It is part of NMD and will be used almost exclusively against ICBMs.

"the Gulf War II versus Iraq, had the US have the ABL ready in service, with the kind of air superiority, not many of the Scuds launched would be able to reach their range. "

A very good example... how many Scuds were shot down or destroyed before launch. Total air superiority and not a single confirmed scud destroyed before it got airborne. On some days rather large numbers were being launched, and with total air superiority not one was destroyed before it entered the target area.
Of course now you are going to suggest that the airspace was so clear that you could fly a 747 right through there and not have that multi bilion dollar aircraft shot at.
The ABL is not designed for wartime tactical use, it is part of NMD and will be flown 24/7 around rogue states for unexpected/unintenional or renegade missile launches.

"Oh, by the way, NK is evil...which country would starve huge percentage of it's own citizens to that extend while still have a luxurious elite class"

Which country would pay its farmers to destroy their crops and subsidise inefficient farmers to keep the price of food high while all this starvation is going on around the world.
To suggest North Korea is the only country where those in power get priviledges is a little pathetic. Starvation in North Korea has more to do with isolation caused by sanctions than anything else?...

I chose North Korea because it is small.
If you would like to choose Iran or Iraq then the ABL is next to useless, as getting within 400km of the launch sites before the missile is out of the atmosphere and on its way would be so unlikely that you might as well not bother. Unless you had significant prior warning you'd be wasting your time. Of course if by some miracle you did get that prior warning then you'd send a B-2, not an ABL.

"I've forgot the exact altitude where cloudes really don't exist, but i've always thought major storm clouds have very low altitude. "

The hymalayas covered in cloud at 29,000ft make lovely pictures.
Clouds form in the Troposphere which varies in height from 10km at the poles to 18km at the equator... the latter equating to almost 60 thousand feet... ABL operates at about 40,000 ft.

Jonesy

31st May 2002, 11:19

As usual these days have little time to join in I'm afraid, but, I can completely concur with Garry's argument here. A laser CIWS is a real non-starter in the naval environment. Beam attentuation would be tremendous in the boundary layer and I have serious concerns about how clean laser optics would remain if exposed even to a very few seconds of sea spray.

Doubtless the adaptive optics, developed to remove that atmoshperic star-twinkling someone mentioned, could overcome a percentage of the environmental attentuation but, for me, the idea of have to maintain a system, at sea, containing literally thousands of micro-actuators whose operation must be accurate to a very high degree sounds nightmarish and impractical at least. I mean...what kind of hammer would one hit such a thing with to make it work???! :D

Far more promising noises are coming from the directed EMP weapons that several nations are developing. Quite how these would work aboard ship engaging inbounds without toasting every IC onboard I've frankly no idea, but, it sounds eminently more sensible than trying to take potshots with lasers!

Regards,
Steve

Vortex

31st May 2002, 18:06

Garry was talking about sea sprays, not boundary layers. That's what i'm trying to tell him, varying density boundary layers are there 100% of the time, while salt sprays are not. So, the first problem to solve would naturally be against something that's there all the time. But, as to directed EMP. My earlier points are, what exactly is a "direct" energy weapon? It's a family of focused EM beams. As such, lasers and directed EMPs and other what nots using focused EM waves falls under such a broad catagory. Lasers can be UV, Visible, or IR...while there are others with microwave, that's why i called it X-ASERS.
As to ABL, humm...i've always thought it's for protecting allies, which as you can see it almost always is used against SRBMs. It's a tactical asset as my definition of Strategic would be weapons used for an all out nuke war with the US. There are holes in the IR spectrum through the atmosphere, and no doubt these are the same wavelength that the ABL will use.
As to food. Take care of your own country first before anybody else. The US can take care of themselves, yet NK with all this huge amount of aid from South Korea, Japan, and yes the US, seems to redirect them to the military and the ruling elites. There are consistent reports coming out of these huge surge of defectors. If the US is so bad, why some of them insists on coming here? I haven't hear one that wants to go to NZ. (Garry, why don't you tell me how much of your Kiwi tax dollars is used to help these people before preaching about it, as far as i know, they got a share of my tax dollars).

GarryB

1st June 2002, 05:25

""(Garry, why don't you tell me how much of your Kiwi tax dollars is used to help these people before preaching about it, as far as i know, they got a share of my tax dollars)."

No, you are right, the fact that the US gives away billions of dollars every year means it is OK for it to do what it likes.
Why is everything black and white to you... is everyone who gives a few dollars a good person??? even if they are child molestors or murderers?
Or is it a question of how much they give... you gave 20 million so you must be good... despite all the blood on your hands.

"There are consistent reports coming out of these huge surge of defectors. "

Yes, defectors leaving a country are always going to be the best ambassadors for that country.
I am not suggesting NK is the land of Milk and honey. Certainly the governent seems to look after itself and its cronies quite well while members of the society have basic problems like getting food on the table.
Of course if they were not under threat of attack 24/7 with enemies on all sides I would suggest they were paranoid.
But considering their position and sanctions that are imposed the negative effect that would have on any democracy, I'd say they were damn lucky to be a communist country or there'd be a lot more suffering.
In trying to get the world to like his NMD plans Bush jnr has continually stated that the cold war is over... ask NK... in fact ask Cuba... if the US can't defeat someone on the battlefield they crush them with sanctions and threats and isolation... it takes longer and is very cruel, but the strange thing is it is the fault of the victim when their society fails... a great joke... I am sure historians of the future will have a great laugh about it.

"Garry was talking about sea sprays, not boundary layers. "

I am talking about enough impurities in the air to make the laser useless.

"varying density boundary layers are there 100% of the time, while salt sprays are not. "

And what sort of up time would you like your last line of defence to have?

"There are holes in the IR spectrum through the atmosphere, and no doubt these are the same wavelength that the ABL will use."

Strange that these holes exist and the military don't know about them... LGBs could be used in allweather if you'd be so good as to pass on the frequency of these holes... }>

But these holes are temporary... a sudden drop in moisture content or dust levels.

"If the US is so bad, why some of them insists on coming here?"

I really don't know... something about a promise of liberty and justice, land of opportunity... I'll ask one of the many Americans that chose to come here.

Not sure why you are confusing the fact that your government is much like any other government... including those of dictatorships like NK and Iraq... with the idea that I don't like the people of America.
So far the ones that haven't gone off their heads screaming "I'm a Bl00dy Canadian!" have all seemed OK to me. Even these Canadians seem OK after you stop calling them Yanks... but if the US is so bad as you say then I guess I'd have to accept your word.

Even if you have heavy duty blowers keeping the lenses clean... even if you have the best stabilisers in the world... what is to stop missile designers putting a radar transparant ceramic block in the nose of the missile. The Anti Ship version of the AS-15 Kickback dives on its target at mach 5 and already uses an ablative shield to protect it from heat... what chance has a weapon that relies on destroying its target via heat buildup in such a situation. It is useful against ICBMs because they are basically aluminium balloons pumped upright with highly volatile chemicals. A short range ballistic missile could have sides that are several cm thick... compared with the mm for ICBMs. The cost of developing these laser defence systems will not be justified when your enemies take simple and cheap steps to make them meaningless.

Weapons useing EMP are far more useful in that their frequency means moisture and dust and even changes in air pressure don't effect them.

Vortex

1st June 2002, 06:11

Basically my point Garry is "directed" weapons and by what definition does that mean? Also, CO2 lasers used are IR...your everyday experience with visible light doesn't always apply to IR. So, the question is, have you seen the absorbtion spectrum in the IR? Do you know exactly what is the attenuation of the specific wavelength(s) of the ABL? Lights getting blocked with object A, doens't mean it'll be the same in IR or any other wavelengths. It's such a cliche to say "attenuation"...obviously there's attenuation. By how much? You don't know. Just like stealth nay sayers who thinks detecting a stealth plane in 2-3 miles, or even 10 miles, means defeating it. That's all i can say. As to NK's case, my point is the worst kind of people is one who criticize on others on things they have no stake, or unwilling to take actions on their own what-so-ever. The idea isn't who gave who money being "good", but who actually did something about it and take a stand. If NZ feels for NK, why don't you guys trade with them. If it's the US actions against NK is so evil, why don't you angelic kiwis do something. Just like all the Europeans would only bitch about the middle east, why don't they do something, instead just criticizing the US. Because they, like NZ, have no back bone. If your government is so righteous, why don't you stand up to the big bad Americans? Do something. The point is, you have your agendas and national interests too. So, don't be a hypocrite.

GarryB

2nd June 2002, 07:03

"Also, CO2 lasers used are IR...your everyday experience with visible light doesn't always apply to IR. "

True, but experience in TI and other night vision technologies is quite relevant.

"So, the question is, have you seen the absorbtion spectrum in the IR? Do you know exactly what is the attenuation of the specific wavelength(s) of the ABL? Lights getting blocked with object A, doens't mean it'll be the same in IR or any other wavelengths. "

Night vision pods on aircraft cover a wide range of frequencies... or they could if that was useful, yet there are often times when they are useless. Now of course this is at low level and this is the worst place for these devices, but if there were some magic frequency for each atmospheric condition then don't you think that would be applied to vision as well as the use of lasers?

"As to NK's case, my point is the worst kind of people is one who criticize on others on things they have no stake, or unwilling to take actions on their own what-so-ever. "

So when does the bombardment of Switzerland begin?

"...but who actually did something about it and take a stand."

So in this case doing something about "it" and making a stand would be for the US to drop all sanctions and send enough food for everyone in NK to prevent starvation... I don't think that happened.
For any other country to take such a stand they would need to stand up against the US... which country is in a position to do that?
What would the cost be?

There is a bully in the school that is all powerful. Because this bully is the principle and he makes up the rules.
He has a child cornered and no-one else has the courage to stand up against him... well some have in the past like Vietnam, and Iran, and Lybia, and Cuba... the rest of the kids saw what happened to them and have decided it is not worth the trouble.
Of course what you are saying is that these children are more guilty than the principal because they do nothing.
I'd suggest that self preservation is not a negative characteristic and nor is common sense.
The fact that NK has been embargoed and crushed by its neighbours does not make NZ or Switzerland etc responsible... the only countries that could be responsible are those that can actually do something to change the situation. This of course includes NK itself, but it also includes the US, SK, China, and possibly Japan (being a powerful country in the region).
Ahhh but it is the corrupt communist system you say.
The US can treat countries any way it likes and that countries future depends on which type of treatment it receives.
Countries like China do reasonably well despite being a corrupt communist country. Countries like SU, Cuba, NK, etc suffer with few allies and corrupt communist governments. Countries like SK, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwaite thrive with corrupt dictatorships or semi military governments.

So lets look at the keys to not having your population starving.
Oil works for SA and Kuwaite. China is an ally against North Korea, SU. SU was an ally against the Axis, but was too much of a rival that was too different from the US for them to remain friends. NK and Cuba and Vietnam were unlucky enough to have beaten the US in one of the latters many little military interventions. Fortunately for Vietnam it is not completely out in the cold as long as Vietnam war vets still hold out hopes of finding live US prisoners. NK and Cuba has nothing to offer. (If Iran let the US oil companies back in they'd lose their isolation in a heartbeat...).

"If it's the US actions against NK is so evil, why don't you angelic kiwis do something. "

No, you are right. A small south pacific country with just over 3.5 million people is just as bad as the US for our inaction. We could have solved all of the problems. The power we wield we could have fixed all of the worlds problems in a heart beat.

We are not stupid enough to believe that the principal deserves his job. He is just a child that is much bigger than all the others in the school. Many of the other kids have been able to read and write and have much longer written histories than the bully, but he listens to noone unless it suits him.
He thinks what he is doing is right, but most often what he does makes things much worse. Like any child he thinks himself blameless.

When it is suggested he has done something wrong he says "Well what did you do?" to one of the few children younger than him...
Of course he is not listening to the answer...

Vortex

2nd June 2002, 08:25

yeah, this school principal must be really nice because little kids like NZ bitch all day and don't get punished. Really Garry and you call me naive, why don't you just admit that NZ also have their own "agendas" and unlike your assertion of standing up against the US, in reality nothing happens. I thought you are so eager to oppose the US, yet you asked for "price to pay"...what happened to righteousness? Talk is cheap, you can say all you want about the US, but the reality is you don't and won't make a difference. That must be really depressing sometimes huh?
As to thermal imagers...instead of saying general stuff, you do know what's inside it and how it sense IR radiation right? You do know that the device is inherently AC and that the detection "bandwidth" is actually based on what kind of emission is created by the target. Because of the attenuation of water vapour to specific IR wavelengths a lost of gain happens. But that's because the emission of the target happens to be the strongest at certain IR wavelength. But now you're saying the opposite is also true? That a specifically tuned IR laser will happen to be attenuated by the same principles? No, that's not true, because if you understand what i mean by "holes" in the spectrum, then you'll know it's not the same as a detector detecting the target emission through those holes. Why? Because the target are not and cannot be tuned that way. Emission of a target is natural and is very very difficult to alter the emission spectrum. You can omit some, but you can't totally refocuse it into another wavelength like in the case of laser emissions.

GarryB

3rd June 2002, 06:17

"yeah, this school principal must be really nice because little kids like NZ bitch all day and don't get punished. "

Yes, quiet child! or I'll make you sit with the axis of evil...

How dare you think for yourself!

Why bother with NATO and UN... why not just give the US army jackboots and come out? }>

"Really Garry and you call me naive, "

Only about some things and only when you earn it.. }>

"...why don't you just admit that NZ also have their own "agendas" and unlike your assertion of standing up against the US, in reality nothing happens. "

That is what I have been trying to tell you... they all do. Suggesting one country is evil because their agenda is not the same as yours is what I am talking about.
BTW we do sometimes stand up... admittedly we rolled over for the French with regard to the Rainbow warrior affair because they threatened us financially (dairy exports to the EU), but I don't see any Nuclear powered US ships visiting... seems like we can stand up sometimes (and I'll be the first to admit it was because all the US could threaten us with was to not play war games with us any more via ANZUS).

"I thought you are so eager to oppose the US, yet you asked for "price to pay"...what happened to righteousness? Talk is cheap, you can say all you want about the US, but the reality is you don't and won't make a difference. That must be really depressing sometimes huh?"

See above.

"As to thermal imagers... ...emissions."

All I am doing by looking from the point of view or TI is looking at the transmission medium that is the atmosphere. I think you'll agree that this is as relevant to a viewer as it is to a transmitter.
Of course when they were designing TI they just chose freqencies at random.... no hang on a minute they analysed the IR and UV spectrums for "Holes". They found two. These are the two they use now. The TI instruments they use on aircraft and armoured vehicles look through these holes but they still are not 100% all weather... they can't be. Any laser design will come up against the same problem unless it goes to freqencies that are not so close to light as to be effected by the atmosphere in the same way light is.
Microwaves have been mentioned as has EMP. These are much better options which it seems the US navy agrees according to Ja's first post here.

Vortex

3rd June 2002, 23:56

Garry, most if not all thermal imagers are broad band...broad in the sense it probably will cover across 10 microns or more, unless you are near the Visible/IR regime, where i think it cuts down to 3 types of detectors (for optimum detection) from 1 to 10 microns. In any case, the medium (through air) will be your "filter". That said, you can't pick a "band" if you are detecting. No, unless you aim for those low wavelengths. In general i believe the current IRs use mid wavelength ones...while researching in both lower and higher frequencies. But, if you are an emitter, then you would naturally try to pick a wavelength where the medium will have high transmissivity, notice that now you get to pick. About detectors picking frequencies, this is probably more attributed to older detector elements, which some types do have a rather narrow higher sensitivities (you really don't have a choice there since it's more of material properties than sensor design points), but we're talking about newer detectors now. Of course i'm not expert at it, and if you have other opinions/facts, i like to hear them. That's what's so great about science, it's theoretically possible to reach the "truth", unlike politics ;)

GarryB

4th June 2002, 02:46

I understand what you are saying but my problem with it is if the ABL designers have gone and analysed all possible weather patterns around every potential battlefield in the world and got these magical frequency holes... why didn't they pass them on to the guys making laser target markers?
If what you say is correct then the appropriate frequency could be calculated and transmitted to a low flying UAV to mark targets in Kosovo, yet so many targets went on their merry way because of the weather. Flying at medium altitude the aircraft were safe, in fact more safe than usual due to the lower threat from visually guided missiles, yet targets were not engaged because the lasers could not penetrate the weather...

ABL is a nice idea but there are other cheaper options with fewer problems to overcome... (Leave lasers in space...)

Vortex

4th June 2002, 17:37

I don't know, there are probably good reasons for that, ie, beam size, beam power, optics for certain frequencies, beam frequency, the type of lasers, etc...ABL is a huge laser by any standard. You can't just fit it on a small UAV with a smaller version....way too heavy. I'm not sure if you can make a laser that small for that wavelength (not a diode laser). As to lasers in space...that's even worse. How are you going to dissipate all that heat? Even with a 99% efficiency (which obviously won't be the case), a 1MW power shot means 10kW of heat. That's a lot of heat to be dumped simply by radiation. Dumping 10kW of heat in air is possible without creating too much of an IR signature if done properly. I'm convinced that it's not that much of a problem. You do know that apollo astronauts put a corner reflector on the Moon and people on Earth measured the exact Earth-Moon distance with a laser.

GarryB

5th June 2002, 05:19

"ABL is a huge laser by any standard. You can't just fit it on a small UAV with a smaller version....way too heavy."

The ABL is as big as it is for one single reason... power.
A laser target marker doesn't need any where near as much power as the ABL. In fact it needs no more power than it already has.

"I'm not sure if you can make a laser that small for that wavelength (not a diode laser)."

I have seen lasers the size of a thumbnail or smaller. The largest part of a modern laser is usually the power supply. As long as the right materials are avaiable a laser in any frequency range could be made. This might require two lasers to be carried... that would be no problem as modern laser rangefinders are light and portable a UAV with a payload of 100kgs or more could easily carry 2-3.
As an example two laser ranger/markers from Russia... not known for their compact small light military gear (though usually rugged and strong) one being the 1D22 which can mark targets out to 7km or range targets to 40km and weighs 45kgs. The 1D26 system can be used to mark a tank size target at 5km and measure ranges of 30km and weighs 13kgs.

As you yourself say they can use lasers to measure the distance to the moon with the aid of proper reflectors... of course pointing a laser directly up means 30-40km of air and the rest of the way in a vaccuum. What the ABL does is actually harder in that it has to travel through up to 400km or air.

"As to lasers in space...that's even worse. How are you going to dissipate all that heat? "

How does the sun disipate its heat?
Simple heat exchangers are very efficient in space... a coil of tubing exposed to the vaccuum of space out of the suns heat will cool any liquid it contains to about minus 100 degrees C or colder. on the sunny side of the machine of course any liquid in the tubing with be heated to a reasonably high temperature too... but that assumes there is liquid in the tubing while it is exposed to the sunlight.
In fact in the cold vaccuum of space it is keeping components roughly the same temperature that is the problem which has been solved. (Think about the problem of spacesuits or space telescopes where when they are in the suns glare half is over boiling point and the other half is well below freezing point... these problems have already been solved...)

Vortex

6th June 2002, 00:28

uh Garry, no...don't tell me that heat transport is solved in space in the context of that much heat generation. You like to believe that and again saying it is much much easier than seeing an actual thing or did design calculations to know what you're actually talking about. Having a satellite facing the sun, but not generating much internal heat is very very different to this situation. Most satellites don't generate much heat anyways, except from electronics. over 10kW (probably over 100kW for a 1MW laser) of electronic heat dissipation? I"m not even sure MILSTAR generates that much heat. As to lasers, if you read my post again you'll see i've mentioned DIODE lasers being small. I'm not sure if you can make the kind of lasers for ABL wavelength that small. I'm sure you understand that there are many kind of different lasers out there and they can't cover that much wavelengths unless you use a dye laser, even that have certain problems and are usually large. Your soldier sized laser markers are nothing more complex than a laser from a laser pen. But, the ABL is a GAS laser which the ones i've seen even for relatively low power is HUGE, not only that, it sucks up a lot of power. It's the same idea of making a miniature robotic insect, but...what about that huge power supply it needs?

GarryB

7th June 2002, 06:56

"Your soldier sized laser markers are nothing more complex than a laser from a laser pen. But, the ABL is a GAS laser which the ones i've seen even for relatively low power is HUGE, not only that, it sucks up a lot of power."

This is quite correct but marking a target with a laser from 10km is quite different from trying to shoot down an ICBM from 400km.
Can you not accept that a laser that relies on "frequency holes" as you put it would not need to be large?

Regarding space based lasers... yes they would be big, but without an atmosphere to burn through they would would actually be effective 24/7 hovering over the target area... well above defended airspace.

If heat transfer is so difficult in space why then do Astronauts have to have layers in their spacesuits to retain their body heat? Why is it that astronauts who are working on the dark side of the space ship or space station only able to work for an hour or two due to the cold. Could it possibly be because their body heat is escaping into space?
Space is cold. If you have something hot inside a satelite, you just pump a liquid (not water as it has to high a freezing point) through tubes that are exposed to the vaccuum of space... simple idea.
Is in use now.
Used in spacesuits too... liquid is pumped around the suit when the astronaut is in the sunlight so that rather than one side of his body freezing and the other side boiling the temp is just right for humans... or is there a seperate freezer and heater for the two sides that move when he moves?

Vortex

7th June 2002, 17:40

>This is quite correct but marking a target with a laser from
>10km is quite different from trying to shoot down an ICBM
>from 400km.
>Can you not accept that a laser that relies on "frequency
>holes" as you put it would not need to be large?
true, but i've consistenly said at that frequency it may well have to be a gas or dye laser, which is quite large from what i know. To make it easier to understand, it's like trying to make a very small antenna for a very large wavelength RADAR...humm, you understand there that the wavelengths are not really that compatible and the losses are huge if outright impossible (i don't know about the specifics, but just an analogy). So, using a DIODE laser to pump out wavelengths in of long IR? I'm not sure if that's possible for the kind of power required also. Another thing, laser heads can be small, but you have to agree that the whole package have to be small, cooling system and power supply.

>Regarding space based lasers... yes they would be big, but
>without an atmosphere to burn through they would would
>actually be effective 24/7 hovering over the target area...
>well above defended airspace.
Only geosynchronous equatorial orbit can have true 24/7 hovering over the target. All other geosynchronous will do a sine wave up and down the equator even though it'll stay at the same longitude. But, ok, i'll accept and assume geosynch equatorial orbit is available for SBL, but what about coverage beyond the tropical zone? Not a good idea. A small fleet of ABLs CAN cover 24/7 with minimum range to target. Not a laser. Besides, at GEO, you are by definition hitting in the coast phase, not boost phase.

>If heat transfer is so difficult in space why then do
>Astronauts have to have layers in their spacesuits to retain
>their body heat?

Garry, the point is cyclical loads and the "range" of heat transport required. The larger that is, the more difficult it is to design exchangers. Humans and almost all spacecrafts don't put out too much heat, compared to 100kWs or more. So your design have to accomodate a huge swing in heat flux to retain the permissible temperature swing. You see, the problem is an engineering problem and most likely solvable, but it's much much more complex than it seems.

GarryB

8th June 2002, 00:55

"have to be a gas or dye laser, which is quite large from what i know. "

A 2-3 watt laser is not going to be the size of a house... whatever its frequency. The lasers used in the Russian laser target markers are not diode lasers or they'd be much smaller. (Western systems are less than 10kgs with GPS receivers included.)

"To make it easier to understand, it's like trying to make a very small antenna for a very large wavelength RADAR...humm, you understand there that the wavelengths are not really that compatible and the losses are huge if outright impossible (i don't know about the specifics, but just an analogy). "

I thought that the frequency of a laser had more to do with the chemicals or medium that was excited in the tube. Certainly the power generated has more effect on the size of the laser than the freqency unless you wanted a wide range of frequencies to be generated.

"Another thing, laser heads can be small, but you have to agree that the whole package have to be small, cooling system and power supply."

In a UAV the cooling supply could be an airscoop. In space they have as many launches of the space shuttle as they need to get as much equipment up there as they need.

"A small fleet of ABLs CAN cover 24/7 with minimum range to target. "

That is the problem though they can't.
The cost of keeping at least one 747 within 400km of Iraq, Iran, North Korea and possibly even China would be high enough if it could even be done but china and Iran and probably Iraq are big enough that they could base their missiles on their territory more than 400km from international or US friendly airspace. A laser from space firing downwards woudl at most have to penetrate 30-40km of atmosphere... 18km of which would have clouds/rain/ice etc.
One SPL over Iran/Iraq, and one over NK that could cover most of China as well.... (and perhaps one over France... }> )

"You see, the problem is an engineering problem and most likely solvable, but it's much much more complex than it seems."

Yes, I never said it would be easy.

I am not trashing ABL on a whim or just because it is American. The Soviets had a similar system in the mid -80s based on an IL-76... they decided the problems outweighed the advantages.

The whole starwars program saw lots of designs and development and appart from a few X-ray lasers (which generated much less power than they thought it would) most Laser work focussed on use in outer space only.

Attacking ICBMs is harder in the boost phase because there is no bright flame coming out the rear of it to make it stand out on IR sensors. However against one or two missiles with radar and a laser a system is possible now. Obviously this means Rogue state launch or accidental firing by China or Russia, but not full scale attack or even malicious attack by a few disgruntalled Russians.

Vortex

8th June 2002, 06:50

>"have to be a gas or dye laser, which is quite large from
>what i know. "
>
>A 2-3 watt laser is not going to be the size of a house...
>whatever its frequency. The lasers used in the Russian laser
>target markers are not diode lasers or they'd be much
>smaller. (Western systems are less than 10kgs with GPS
>receivers included.)
size of a house? Garry, even if it's the size of a laptop for the laser head, and a full size computer tower for the DRIVE, you'll aready have a huge problem. What about the power supply (not cooling, sure i'll give you air), ram air? You got to be joking. First of all, we aren't talking about the units being used today, obviously those are small enough to be mounted on a small pod. But, the question is whether other wavelengths will do better. Please don't deviate and mix different cases to make your point. As to size and wavelength...yes, let's say its' a gas laser, instead of ~1um wavelenght in fundamental mode, you use let's say 10um. Now, in order to get the same power, you'll probably need a tube longer than 10x, because the wavelength just increased by a factor of 10 while the energy associated with it is lower.

>A laser from space
>firing downwards woudl at most have to penetrate 30-40km of
>atmosphere... 18km of which would have clouds/rain/ice etc.
>One SPL over Iran/Iraq, and one over NK that could cover
>most of China as well....

Just exactly which orbit in your mind will these satellites be parked at? You do know the altitudes for even the lowest LEOs don't you? What about GEO? That's straight down, now how about slant range? You better check your orbits Garry.

>"You see, the problem is an engineering problem and most
>likely solvable, but it's much much more complex than it
>seems."
>
>Yes, I never said it would be easy.

And yes, and i'm saying at current level of technology, ABL is more feasible than SBL. Maybe next 20 years will we see a mature SBL, instead of within this decade for ABL.

>I am not trashing ABL on a whim or just because it is
>American. The Soviets had a similar system in the mid -80s
>based on an IL-76... they decided the problems outweighed
>the advantages.

And Garry aren't you guilty of your prejudices like when you accuse others being "Western" lovers? Just because the Soviets think so, you think that's 100% the case to others. So, your FSW S-37 will work will just because the Soviets/Russians said so, even when NASA don't think it's advantages outweighs disadvantages. Talking about biased. Now, why was Gorbachav so eager to eliminate an entire class of ballistic missiles in return for a US pledge to stop SDI? You're telling me that was just somekind of joke? First of all, the real technological challange to SDI/ABL type of system IS NOT the "energy weapon/beam", but something else, i prefer not to talk about that. But keep in mind, stop being infactuated about the problem being the laser beam and related...

>this means Rogue state launch or accidental firing by China
>or Russia, but not full scale attack or even malicious
>attack by a few disgruntalled Russians.

And I and others like Buff repeat, the NMD is not aimed at negating the Soviet or even Chinese ICBMs please stop insinuating on that. It's to stop the high probability of a few missiles (a couple) falling into the wrong hands...and then even worse, the US would have to oblilerate where ever it came from just to prevent further attempts.

GarryB

9th June 2002, 02:26

"size of a house? Garry, even if it's the size of a laptop for the laser head, and a full size computer tower for the DRIVE, you'll aready have a huge problem. What about the power supply (not cooling, sure i'll give you air), ram air? You got to be joking. First of all, we aren't talking about the units being used today, obviously those are small enough to be mounted on a small pod. But, the question is whether other wavelengths will do better. Please don't deviate and mix different cases to make your point. As to size and wavelength...yes, let's say its' a gas laser, instead of ~1um wavelenght in fundamental mode, you use let's say 10um. Now, in order to get the same power, you'll probably need a tube longer than 10x, because the wavelength just increased by a factor of 10 while the energy associated with it is lower. "

Sorry I think we are not talking about the same thing... I am talking about the laser target marker... 2-3 watt is probably much more powerful than is needed... A UAV that can fly for 12 hours with two Hellfires (90kgs total) would certainly be able to carry a laser target marker of similar or heavier weight.

"Just exactly which orbit in your mind will these satellites be parked at? You do know the altitudes for even the lowest LEOs don't you? What about GEO? That's straight down, now how about slant range? You better check your orbits Garry."

Geostationary... 32,000km above Earth... range is rather unimportant in space as ten metres of vaccuum effects a laser as much as 10,000kms of vaccuum... that is the point of putting them in space. (Obviously distance reduces power but not to the extent that atmosphere does.)

"And yes, and i'm saying at current level of technology, ABL is more feasible than SBL. Maybe next 20 years will we see a mature SBL, instead of within this decade for ABL."

Waiting an extra 20 years for a system that could do the job is much better than getting one now that won't.

"Just because the Soviets think so, you think that's 100% the case to others."

I was not suggesting that if the Soviets couldn't do it then the US couldn't... I was saying that my reasons for saying the ABL is no use was not because the ABL is American... which is not the same thing.

"...because the Soviets/Russians said so, even when NASA don't think it's advantages outweighs disadvantages. "

The scientists working on star wars projects could care less whether their proposal would actually work in the real world or not... they just wanted their pet projects funded.

"Now, why was Gorbachav so eager to eliminate an entire class of ballistic missiles in return for a US pledge to stop SDI? "

Because by the time Gorbachav was in power the SU was already short of money. Removing one weapon type (while still retaining the ability to obliterate each other) is much cheaper than starting down a new path of very expensive technologies stationed in space. The ABM treaty had pretty much limited space to sensors... starwars was going to add a new dimension to warfare that the Soviets would have to follow and Gorby knew they couldn't afford it.

"But keep in mind, stop being infactuated about the problem being the laser beam and related..."

My opinion is based on the aftermath of starwars and its many projects.

"And I and others like Buff repeat, the NMD is not aimed at negating the Soviet or even Chinese ICBMs please stop insinuating on that. It's to stop the high probability of a few missiles (a couple) falling into the wrong hands...and then even worse, the US would have to oblilerate where ever it came from just to prevent further attempts."

The guy who signed the papers and pushes the button thinks differently.
Whenever justification for the NMD is asked for the same old excuses come out.... Rogue states launching a missile, Accidental launch of a weapon and malicious renegade launch of missiles due to mafia or corruption or whatever. The first excuse is obviously directed at Iran, Iraq, NK, and Libya. The second is of course directed at any nuclear power likely to have missiles aimed at "Western" allies and is basically Russia and China. (Of course the fact that missiles are supposed to be not targetted at anyone suggests this excuse is rather weak). The last excuse is usually leveled at Russia with hints of China due to levels of corruption and the power of the Mafia there. (The fact that the NMD is supposed to defend from one or two missiles suggests that this excuse is weak as well... if a "bad guy" gets his hands on launch codes then he could launch from 64-200 missiles... not one or two... or do you think that there is one launch button for each missile?).

". It's to stop the high probability of a few missiles (a couple) falling into the wrong hands...and then even worse, the US would have to oblilerate where ever it came from just to prevent further attempts."

The likelyhood of a few ICBM falling into the wrong hands is incredibly low... they can weight up to 200 tons!
More likely is a few warheads and then these people with the wrong hands would just have to spend 5-10 years designing a missile to fire it... or they could smuggle it into the US and detonate it there... just as well you guys have ABL close to service... airbases will be no problem and you can fly them right up to the target area... }>