New weapon could mean the end of collateral damage

Insight Magazine ^ | 1/30/2006 | Insight on the news

[GEC]

New weapon could mean the end of collateral damage

The U.S. military has been developing a gunship that could literally obliterate enemy ground targets with a laser beam.

The military plans to test the Advanced Tactical Laser, a laser weapon mounted on a C-130H air transport that could destroy any weapon system without collateral damage.

The laser could have tremendous repercussions on the battlefield, particularly in urban warfare in such countries as Afghanistan and Iraq. "It's the kind of tool that could bring about victory within minutes," an official said.

The applications of ATL could change military dynamics on the battlefield. Officials envision the laser being able to destroy or damage targets in an urban area with virtually no collateral damage. The range of ATL was expected to be 10 miles.

The project has been headed by Boeing Missile Defense Systems in a project with the U.S. Air Force. Boeing has already taken delivery of the aircraft and plans to modify the platform for the ATL program.

Officials said a C-130H transport that belonged to the U.S. Air Force's 46th Test Wing was being modified to contain a high-energy chemical laser. The platform would also contain battle management and beam control subsystems.

Under the program, Boeing would test the aircraft in July 2006. The aircraft would have all subsystems on board except the high-energy laser. Officials said a low-power surrogate laser would be used instead of the kilowatt-class, high-energy laser.

At the same time, the high-energy laser would be completed in Albuquerque, N.M. Officials said the first ground tests of the laser would take place in the summer of 2006.

By 2007, Boeing plans to install the laser on the aircraft and operate the weapon during flight. The laser, designed to be fired through an existing 50-inch-diameter hole in the aircraft's belly, would be demonstrated for military missions.

Officials said ATL was being developed through the Pentagon's Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program. Should the tests in 2007 prove successful, the Pentagon was expected to approve full-scale development of the airborne tactical laser.

The ATL was deemed as complementary to the Airborne Laser program for the Missile Defense Agency. ABL was meant to mount a megawatt-class chemical laser on a Boeing 747-400 freighter aircraft.

[drhogan]

as soon as the democrats next get into office.

[Jhohanna]

POPCORN!!!!!!!!!!!

[Colorado Doug]

Spooky on steroids

[Mike Darancette]

TOP SECRET

[fso301]

What happens when the target has a multi-axis, highly reflective radar controlled surface plate?

[Dustbunny]

Sounds good, hope it is all that they 'hype' it to be.

[Puppet]

Can someone explain to me why a simple mirror isn't (or maybe it is) an effective countermeasure to a laser?

[TChris]

Have got everything but for the collection CDs, that includes Freudiana and Keats. Talk about hard to get.

Well, I wasn't even counting those. :-)

I need Gaudi and On Air ... and those two. :-/

[TChris]

"I only have two more CDs to go before I own them all."

I wouldn't want to be like you.

Oh, Life, There Must Be More! :-)

[MindBender26]

By your comment "Laughable post", are you disagreeing with the original post or my conclusion that this weapons system could do much more harm to us than an enemy?

Semper Gumby
(Always flexible)

[MindBender26]

No mirror is 100% reflective. In combat environment, 80% would be about the best you could hope for.

So, since laws of physics state: "energy is neither made or destroyed, only converted to other form" then mirror would absorb remaining 20% of energy, convert it into heat and mirror would quickly shatter from ezxcessive heat.

[MilspecRob]

It's the kind of tool that could bring about victory within minutes," an official said. This is the stupidest statement I've seen in quite awhile.

Darn only 5 posts to say what caught my eye about the article. I agree 100%

[okie01]

"Shock and awe" still wins wars where antiseptic surgical precision will not. Most conceivable fights in the future will still need boots on the ground.

Still, a smoking hole in the ground can have a high persuasion quotient.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am disagreeing with your comment. What kind of argument is it that claims we should not develop better weapons because some country may steal the technology? Fortunately such thinking is rare or we would armed only with a sharp, pointed stick.

[MindBender26]

I don't disagree with the development of the weapons system. If we didn't do it, someone else would.

My only worry is that this could make life very difficult for TACAIR and we (and the West) depend on TACAIR as a critical integral part of our warfighting capability.

Gulf War One was won on the ground in 100 hours because of what TACAIR did in the six weeks running up to those 100 hours. Take away the softening TACAIR did and it would have been a very different ground war.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Who is going to be able to produce and deploy this before we have a defense against it?

[MindBender26]

We are far from the only technologically advanced society in the world. For example, night vision was issued to Sov troops before we ever had any clue about it being in development. The USSR, supposedly 2 decades behind us but they had a DEPLOYABLE H-Bonb before we did. The Brits are far ahead in defensive armor metallurgy, the French in deflected thrust flight controls, etc.

In addition, size is a big issue in weapons development. For example, our nuc warheads are far superior in size/weight/yield ratios, but that advantage can become meaningless. We can deploy a 500 Kt fission-fusion weapon in a relatively tiny package, about the size of large suitcase.

The Islamoterrorists would need a device that would require the space inside a large van or truck for a weapon of 1/4 the yield, but when you are going to deliver it by van or "Ryder truck" not a missile and in the process take out the lower 2/3 of Manhattan, who cares about size.

To think that we are the only nation capable of deploying this system, especially in a large, "sloppy" truck mounted configuration, is foolish overconfidence.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I fear the next attacks will be of the Breslan nature not sophisticated weaponry. After all the greatest yet was simplicity itself requiring a tiny amount of resources and producing a prodigious cost.

[MindBender26]

I have to clear airport security about 2-6 times a week. I know exactly what you mean. Millions of man hours and dollars, not really wasted, just without effect.

This isn't terrorism, it's classic guerrilla war. They are simply following Mao's rules.