Non-Lethal Laser Weapon Halts Aggressors (Jafa! Dial the Chapha-Hai!)

TransFormation DoD ^ | Nov 1, 2005 | Eva D. Blaylock

[SandRat]

Non-Lethal Laser Weapon Halts Aggressors

By Eva D. Blaylock / Air Force Research Laboratory Directed Energy Directorate Public Affairs

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M., Nov. 1, 2005 – A laser technology being developed by Air Force Research Laboratory employees at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., will be the first man-portable, non-lethal deterrrent weapon intended for protecting troops and controlling hostile crowds.

The weapon, developed by the laboratory's Directed Energy Directorate, employs a two-wavelength laser system and is the first of its kind as a hand-held, single-operator system for troop and perimeter defense.

The laser light used in the weapon temporarily impairs aggressors by illuminating or "dazzling" individuals, removing their ability to see the laser source.

The first two prototypes of the Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response, or PHaSR, were built at Kirtland last month and delivered to the laboratory's Human Effectiveness Directorate at Brooks City Base, Texas, and the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate at Quantico, Va. for testing.

"The future is here with PHaSR," said program manager Capt. Thomas Wegner. He is also the ScorpWorks flight commander within the Laser Division of the directorate.

ScorpWorks is a unit of military scientists and engineers that develops laser system prototypes for Air Force Research Laboratory, from beginning concept to product field testing.

U.S. Air Force Capt. Drew F. Goettler, of the Air Force Research Laboratory' Directed Energy Directorate, demonstrates the Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response, or PHaSR, a non-lethal illumination technology developed by the laboratory's ScorpWorks team. Air Force courtesy photo

The National Institute of Justice recently awarded ScorpWorks $250,000 to make an advanced prototype that will add an eye-safe laser range finder into PHaSR.

Systems such as PHaSR have historically been too powerful at close ranges and ineffective but eye-safe at long ranges. The next prototype is planned to include the addition of the eye-safe range finder and is planned for completion in March 2006.

[SandRat]

SG1 just might be for real.

[Tax-chick]

LOL!

[andyk]

It would look a lot more impressive in Amanda Tapping's hands.

[Dog]

Phasers set to stun Mr. Scott.

[Twist_T]

sounds like a good tool to use for the Minutemen.

[Right Wing Assault]

Could be a while before the handgun version is out, I guess.

[Dutch Boy]

A violent crowd will continue to be violent if they know they will not be killed. (refer to the increase of taser usage) The quickest way to stop a violent crowd is to kill the instigators. Israel does this very efficiently.

[Ninian Dryhope]

I hope that it at least blinds permanently blinds the bast*rds.

[Bratch]

[sirjohn]

What is the focus on the light beam? (Can one blast be used against a crowd, or must the beam be aimed at one person at a time?)

Do they have a right-hand version?

[SandRat]

All good questions that we'll have to wait on for the answers.

[Ostlandr]

Interesting.

Is it possible that this is all very carefully crafted disinformation, and the weapon is actually a very lethal directed-energy infantry weapon? Not having to supply troops with conventional small arms ammo would be a huge logistics advantage for our troops.
Let's say this weapon can transfer the same energy as an M-16 round.
Figuring the muzzle energy of a 5.56mm NATO round as 1,743 joules, and figuring 1/100 second duration, that's 174.3 kw. Figure a 100 round capacity between charges (for a total of one second operation) that's 1,743 watt/seconds. Divide by 3,600 to get , and that's 484.16666 watt hours or 0.484166666 kwh. A standard "D" battery has .002 kwh capacity.
So the power source on this critter would have to hold the energy equivalent of 250 "D" batteries (+/-).
A high tech battery might have 160 watt hours per kilogram,
so that's three kilos/seven pounds of battery give or take.
Possible.

BTW if I messed up the math or physics anywhere, please let me know.

[sirjohn]

It almost resembles a sniper weapon. Could explain the need for a "range-finder"?

Another interesting choice of words: "removing their ability to see the laser source". Only the source? Not a temporary loss of all vision?

[sirjohn]

(otherwise, why the mounting stand?)

[Ostlandr]

If it works like they say (temporary blindness) you have to gauge the power level at the target very carefully. Too much power and the efffect is permanent, too little and it doesn't work. That's why a laser is used rather than another type of light source- laser output per square inch varies less with distance (but it does vary, especially in atmosphere.) The range finder computes the exact distance to target, and I bet measures the atmospheric distortion also. The weapon would then calculate the exact power level needed to temporarily blind a target at that range in those optical conditions. This would happen automatically in a fraction of a second when you pull the trigger.

Or, if I'm right, it works like "big gun" laser weapons, measuring range and atmospheric distortion so that a precise focus can be achieved at the target, drilling a hole through it rather than just heating it up a bit.

[Species8472]

I don't know about this application, but I can get about 15 - 400 watt/second shocks from a standard (new) defibrillator battery (4 inch by 6 inch by 1 inch thick and around 1/2 pound) or about 6000 watt/seconds total.

[sgtyork]

The French are inquiring about a rush order

[RandallFlagg]

Awwww! I'd hoped they'd have lightsabres first.

[Ostlandr]

Hmm. . .

So even if I'm off by a factor of ten, a half-pound battery would give you twenty shots or so. The soldier could carry several "clips" as they do now, but these could be recharged from a generator overnight rather than shipping new ammo in from the factory.
Definitely food for thought.