Skip to comments.
Big stakes for lab to build battle laser
Oakland Tribune ^
| October 27, 2003
| Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
Posted on 10/27/2003 12:45:44 PM PST by demlosers
General says he'll come up with $150 million if scientists produce mobile device within 18 months.
A two-star Army general threw down a challenge last week to Lawrence Livermore scientists: He will beat the bushes for more than $150 million if scientists can build the world's first mobile battle laser for test firing in 18 months. Livermore laser engineer Bob Yamamoto had been begging for this chance. But Livermore, specializing in nuclear explosives, never has built a full-up, firing weapons system for the battlefield.
"Eighteen months is very aggressive, and I'm saying that very politely," said Yamamoto.
On Tuesday, Major Gen. John M. Urias, the Army's chief acquisitions officer for air and missile defense, drew lab scientists and defense contractors into the hallway of an Albuquerque hotel so they could voice last-minute reservations.
Yamamoto, grinning wildly, said not a word.
The general then strode into a convention room and told 640 top U.S. directed-energy experts that Livermore's laser -- today, a profusion of wires, crystals and diodes on a tabletop -- was ready to be shoehorned into a Humvee and prove its mettle as a tactical weapon.
"We are no longer technology-limited. We are resource-limited," Urias said by phoneFriday. "I think we should charge on."
If he gets the money for Livermore and its team of defense contractors, the general suggested, the Army would get a prototype weapon that could open the military's imagination to what mobile lasers can do on the battlefield.
"I am convinced personally that the technology is evolving fast enough that we can do this," he said.
Three weeks earlier, the general donned green goggles in Yamamoto's lab and saw the world's most powerful solid-state laser drill through an inch of steel in two seconds.
"If anybody doubts what I am asserting, they need to go out to Lawrence Livermore lab and see this demo," said Urias, deputy commander of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command and acquisitions executive for Air and Missile Defense.
More than the flying sparks and burning steel, he noted that the laser's components -- hundreds of lithium-ion batteries, a chilled-water cooling system, control chips and the nine-foot laser itself -- could be shrunk at least in half, even as engineers install bigger slabs of garnet to create more light and a more powerful beam.
If Urias can find the money, the clock starts ticking for Yamamoto to triple his laser's power to 40 or more kilowatts and, within a year, make it hardy enough for firing out of a Humvee. Fortunately, Yamamoto said, the thick, clear crystals of manmade garnet already are being grown.
"It will be ruggedized so it doesn't fall apart when they hit a pothole. We'll be able to drive around and hit targets on the ground and maybe -- maybe -- targets in the air," Yamamoto said. "That's a little fuzzy right now...But we'll be able to hit targets out of the sky."
Ultra-high power diodes like the ones in CD players and supermarket scanners have propelled solid-state lasers into an arms race with giant, chemical-powered lasers. The Army's Tactical High Energy Laser, pumped by combusting chemicals, already have shot Katyusha rockets and artillery shells out of the sky.
Those shootdowns ushered high-energy lasers out of Buck Rogers science fiction and into military reality. But for years to come, chemical lasers are likely to remain bulky and needful of fresh chemical supplies at a time when the Army wants high mobility and less reliance on supply lines. Solid-state lasers are electric. They can run off a Humvee's diesel-hybrid engine or perhaps a jet fighter's turbine.
"I see ultimately that for U.S. Army purposes, we will most likely and even definitely down-select to a solid-state implementation. Because it works," Urias said.
Yamamoto shares the faith. But he's a bit unnerved at being handed the challenge that he courted.
"Twelve months is as challenging as it gets to put a six-slab system, ruggedized, in a Humvee," he said. "We won't see our children in those 12 months."
Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com .
TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Technical
KEYWORDS: 100kilowattlaser; 25kilowatt; cool; deathstar; laser; lasers; lawrencelivermore; miltech; solidstatelaser; stardestroyer; tiefighter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
To: Starwind; Light Speed; kattracks; Alamo-Girl; Travis McGee; Jeff Head; belmont_mark; maui_hawaii; ..
Ping. SDI finally is pushing to field weapons.
21
posted on
10/27/2003 1:55:38 PM PST
by
Paul Ross
(Don't get mad. Get madder!)
To: Paul Ross
Yeehaw! Thanks for the heads up!
To: SJSAMPLE
I bet it would be good for anti aircraft and anti missile.
23
posted on
10/27/2003 2:11:12 PM PST
by
PuNcH
To: Laserman
BQ for the jhpssl, no way and they know
24
posted on
10/27/2003 2:15:28 PM PST
by
inPhase
To: Laserman
no thermal blooming for air platform if you could get any on ax intens at range
wrt TB, dwell time is way too short
even head on
25
posted on
10/27/2003 2:17:33 PM PST
by
inPhase
To: demlosers
Muttly WANT mobile Battle Laser !
Oh...right.
Muttly want BIGGER mobile Battle Laser !!!!
26
posted on
10/27/2003 2:17:50 PM PST
by
PoorMuttly
(Would YOU mess with a Muttly who even sleeps with his racoonskin cap and sixguns on ?...)
To: Laserman
27
posted on
10/27/2003 2:24:26 PM PST
by
inPhase
To: SJSAMPLE
MIRACL is DF and not airborne, but on the ground
airborne laser would use much longer wavel, COIL
techies,
why can't they get COIL to higher powers, just a fact and the why of a need to phase together
28
posted on
10/27/2003 2:28:04 PM PST
by
inPhase
To: .cnI redruM
It depends on the range .
But you are right,
the path from the lab to field of jitter is a long road for some lasers and some engagement geometries.
Not necessarily easy to spoof, many many scenarios involved.
But governmment weinies (NOT MIL incl) have no training and just want big laser viagra programs, often no chance to work.
Need rockets too.
Lasers will be developed by other countries.
The euros are beating us in space, transferring bigger images and faster
29
posted on
10/27/2003 2:33:33 PM PST
by
inPhase
To: PuNcH
"I bet it would be good for anti aircraft and anti missile."
Maybe, but you have to keep it trained on the incoming threat for long enough, a difficult task if the threat is coming in at +Mach numbers.
The targeting systems are the main weakness in the SDI scenarios for ICBMs, although considerable progress has been made since Reagan first coined the term "Star Wars".
To: inPhase
Actually the COIL is SHORTER wavelength. The problem with making COIL larger is a plumbing problem- very nasty chemicals and complex mixing processes, especially to fit into an aircraft.
31
posted on
10/27/2003 2:55:35 PM PST
by
Laserman
To: Laserman
yep is 1.3
wrt plumbing
df is doing ok at HP
but there are no HE coils
strange
maybe they thought would be more compact?
but abl 14 mod would be heavier bigger than thel
32
posted on
10/27/2003 3:01:19 PM PST
by
inPhase
To: webstersII
Actually, for SDI type systems the ATP (acquisition, tracking and pointing) and Fire Control are on the same order of difficulty as the laser device itself, unless you consider full blown scenarios with 100's or 1000's of simultaneous launches and deployment of 10,000 midcourse objects. Then ATP-FC is THE challenge. The laser device problem is how to either put many (10-30 or more) huge lasers into space and keep them running, or how to relay a ground generated beam to the target via big space mirrors. Both are tough problems.
33
posted on
10/27/2003 3:02:42 PM PST
by
Laserman
To: Consort
I hope they have a coherent plan. I think I'm the only person who got that one, so I guess it falls on my shoulders to break it to you that it wasn't very funny. But, don't feel bad: they can't all be masterpieces.
34
posted on
10/27/2003 3:04:27 PM PST
by
Yeti
To: inPhase
The attraction of COIL is both the wavelength (thus smaller optics), and the beam quality (allows easier/cleaner propagation). Powers similar to HF/DF have not been achieved yet. But then some of the biggest lasers ever were CO2, but because of their even longer wavelength and large size, they too did not cut it. Looks like solid state lasers, fiber lasers and maybe some new electric gas lasers may be where it is at for the future.
35
posted on
10/27/2003 3:08:18 PM PST
by
Laserman
To: Yeti
no
many people know, there are many physicists here
just obvious that "they" do not have coherence when they phase their systems being discussed
ie BQ
36
posted on
10/27/2003 3:08:32 PM PST
by
inPhase
To: Yeti
Fortunately, we have our birghtest working on the problem!
37
posted on
10/27/2003 3:09:30 PM PST
by
Laserman
To: Laserman
but COIL is not new
fiber lasers need phasing together
although German trumpf (5KW reasonable BQ SSL) and southhampton uk are ahead (fibers 600 mW polarized and 1+kW non pol both single single mode)
38
posted on
10/27/2003 3:14:56 PM PST
by
inPhase
To: inPhase
Thermal blooming develops in a fraction of a second. Fortunately, for moving targets and slewing shots the clearing time is sufficient to mitigate much of the effect/loss. When a target is coming right down your beam, especially for a ground system, the TB problem can be significant, and AO can ony correct a portion of it. Pulsed lasers can do better, but the best is having two systems for mutual defense.
39
posted on
10/27/2003 3:16:52 PM PST
by
Laserman
To: inPhase
Phasing fiber lasers is coming. Sounth Hampton's work looks very promising.
40
posted on
10/27/2003 3:19:52 PM PST
by
Laserman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson