Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Directed energy: a new kind of weapon
OpenDemocracy ^ | July 31, 2002 | Paul Rogers

Posted on 08/03/2002 6:02:52 PM PDT by gcruse

31 July 2002

Directed energy: a new kind of weapon
Paul Rogers

The US development of directed energy weapons – designed to advance protection of its forces, control of space, and the capacity to strike foreign targets at will – appears to be a seductive and effective route to guaranteeing US security in the 21st century. But, in the absence of any arms control regime, could the result instead be a higher level of threat?

Some time next year, a unique new weapon will be tested by the US Air Force in an attempt to destroy a Scud missile. It is a high-energy laser known as the airborne laser (ABL), the first element of an innovative system that could end up arming a series of powerful satellites able to target anywhere on the Earth’s surface with near impunity.

The impact of directed energy weapons over the next quarter of a century could be huge, and some analysts argue that they are as potentially revolutionary as was the development of nuclear weapons sixty years ago.

For now, directed energy weapons are being seen as an answer to ballistic missile defence but, in the longer term, military planners are already viewing them as serving many other functions. The United States has a pronounced lead over all other countries, but its potential success may encourage others to follow suit, setting up a new kind of arms race; it may also lead to opponents developing new ways of retaliating. In the light of the attacks of 11 September, this is not to be discounted.

Under President George W. Bush, the US has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and has substantially boosted funding for missile defence. A significant part of this is being directed towards the new ABL but there is also increased funding going into the much more powerful space-based laser.

Both are designed initially to destroy ballistic missiles early in their flight; that is, in the part of the flight path when the missile has just been launched and is in what is known as its boost phase. Depending on the range of the missile, for up to five minutes the missile accelerates rapidly under the power of its rocket motors. When the fuel is exhausted, the motors cut out, and the missile warhead carries on along a ballistic trajectory to its target.

After cut-out, the missile warhead may split into many components, including sub-munitions and decoys, making the whole system much more difficult to intercept. For this reason, what is termed ‘boost phase interception’ is a popular approach to missile defence. But it means having some kind of weapon within reach of a missile immediately after launch, and able to respond with extraordinary speed. This is where directed energy weapons come in, since they operate at the speed of light and are therefore able to deliver energy over substantial distances almost instantaneously.

Why missile defence?

For the US, missile defence may appear to be about defending the US homeland from attack, but a much more immediate aim is to protect US forces when they are involved in overseas interventions, especially in the Middle East. Much of the motivation for this comes from the experience in the Gulf War, when Iraq’s Scud missiles proved so difficult to counter, diverting resources into the so-called ‘Scud hunts’.

The Scuds themselves were inaccurate and unreliable, but even these 1960s vintage missiles caused the US forces the worst casualties of the war when one hit a depot in Saudi Arabia, killing 28 soldiers. Although not reported at the time, another missile came close to causing a massive disaster, when it landed in the sea off the Saudi port of Al-Jubayl, only 300 metres from the US Navy support ship Wright, and close to the amphibious warfare ship Tarawa. Moreover, both of these ships were moored alongside a large jetty crowded with petrol tankers and munitions stores. If the Scud had hit these, it would have had a catastrophic effect.

This, and related incidents, convinced many US military planners that forces engaged overseas were going to be vulnerable to opponents who had sought to develop missile systems to hinder US intervention. This was simply unacceptable to the US military; so, from the mid-1990s, missile defence became a priority.

From this perspective, it became obvious that boost phase interception was important, and early plans for directed energy weapons – developed under Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative (‘Star Wars’) in the 1980s – were revisited. As a result, the development of high-powered lasers made real progress from the mid-1990s, and these became seen as significant candidates for missile defence.

The airborne laser

The ABL is the linchpin of the current directed energy programme, being developed jointly by three of the largest arms corporations in the US – Boeing, Lockheed and TRW. The system is based on a highly modified Boeing 747 transport aircraft, which will house a three megawatt chemical oxygen–iodine laser (COIL) taking up most of the fuselage. This, along with targeting beams, will be directed at an ascending missile over a range of up to 400 miles, and will lase (i.e. irradiate) it to heat the metal casing, making it crumple and collapse. If the system works, this could be done in a matter of seconds, largely because an accelerating missile is under tremendous stress, and even a modest weakening of the structure should cause implosion.

Of course, there are possible countermeasures, such as strengthening the missile or making it spin in flight, but both are difficult, and the ABL team is convinced the system will work. The plan, within six to nine years, is to have a number of ABLs deployed, able to move to crisis areas within 48 hours, loaded with laser fuel and able to fire up to 40 shots before refuelling. Two planes, with support, would be able to maintain continuous airborne patrols, well outside the airspace of an opposing state.

The ABL is leading-edge technology and it may well run into major problems. It could even be cancelled. At the same time, it has lagged very little in its planned development compared with other programmes of similar complexity, and its success so far has helped spawn numerous other directed energy projects.

Among these has been a US Air Force study investigating whether such a system could be used to destroy other planes or to hit targets on the ground. Problems include the manner in which the atmosphere limits the range of a laser, making it more useful in space or in the upper atmosphere. But research is under way to combine a laser with a particle beam system in order to overcome atmospheric effects.

In other programmes, the US Army is testing a prototype Solid State Heat Capacity Laser. Also, a separate system – the Tactical High Energy Laser – has already been used to shoot down short-range Katyusha rockets, and is arousing interest in the Israeli Army. The US Navy is looking at high-energy lasers to be mounted on warships, and the US Air Force is investigating the use of relay mirrors to extend the use of future systems. There is even a plan to fit a hundred kilowatt infrared laser weapon to the new F-35 strike fighter.

The space-based laser

The ultimate prize for all these research efforts is the development of a powerful space-based laser able to destroy missiles as soon as they are launched but also with the capacity to hit other targets on the Earth’s surface – anything from refineries and factories to warships and barracks.

This is a much more long-term programme than the ABL and was originally expected to be deployed towards 2020. It would form a key part of US Space Command’s intention to gain control of space and would utilise the extensive experience the US has gained in satellites and space launchers over half a century.

Each space-based laser would be 22 metres long, would weigh 17 tons and would be equipped with an alpha laser capable of hitting missiles within ten seconds of launch and able to be re-targeted in half a second. It would also be capable of hitting other targets. At least 12 and as many as 24 of these satellites would be deployed in 650 mile orbits, enabling them to target any point on the Earth’s surface at very short notice. In essence, it is the ‘death ray’ of science fiction made fact.

Until recently, the space-based laser was seen as a weapon of the fairly distant future. But two things have changed that may bring deployment forward by some years: firstly, the progress made with the ABL and other directed energy weapons; secondly, the coming to power of the Bush administration, with its commitment to missile defence and the control of space.

There is strong support among many Republicans in Congress for a speeded-up programme, and US Air Force officials say the whole programme could be brought forward so that a prototype space-based laser could be launched within eight years from now, and tested a year or so later.

An uncertain prospect

What therefore appears to be happening is that the whole scope of directed energy weapons is being extended, more money is going into research and development, and new uses are being found. The ‘dream’ is for the effective control of space, since these weapons could certainly target satellites, combined with a capacity to strike targets on the Earth’s surface at the speed of light.

As always, though, there are more worrying implications. Apart from the risk of setting off an arms race with countries such as China, such control of space would imply a monopoly not just over other states but also of the wide range of commercial satellites. This is an aspect unlikely to appeal to some of the world’s largest high-tech transnational corporations, many of which are not American. Moreover, such apparent control is far from complete and is likely to engender asymmetric response.

A couple of years ago, a British newspaper presented a series of articles on the future, which included a scenario that is highly relevant to these developments. By around 2018, the US space-based laser was fully operational and one of its early deployments was to support the Saudi government in its fight against rebel forces seeking the overthrow of the regime. It proved effective, destroying numerous targets on the ground.

However, two years later (according to the scenario), a paramilitary group allied to the rebels released a particularly potent strain of anthrax up-wind of the huge US spy base at Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire, killing many people in the surrounding area and leading to a bitter row between London and Washington.

In other words, what may appear to be a seductive and effective way of maintaining control may, in the longer term, have a very different effect. For the moment, there are no arms control processes that affect directed energy weapons and there are no immediate prospects of controlling their development. It looks very much as if we are at the beginning of a technology revolution with extremely uncertain consequences.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: miltech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
To: gcruse

21 posted on 08/03/2002 6:35:07 PM PDT by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud
ping
22 posted on 08/03/2002 6:36:04 PM PDT by Dark Wing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Read Tom Clancy's "The Cardinal of the Kremlin".

One Soviet directed energy weapon used a nuclear explosion to create a particle beam. the nuclear bomb would explode in a metal lined chamber. When the metal shell vaporized it would form an instantaneous electrical differential within a circuit which would produce an electrical current which would then produce the proton particvle beam. Kinda like "chained lightning".

23 posted on 08/03/2002 6:44:30 PM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fzob
I think we are more farther along than just "remotely:"

Laser Team Fires Up The Raygun


the only way to repeatedly hit a "bullet" will be with a laser beam

Los Angeles - Apr 30, 2002
The Air Force's Airborne Laser (ABL) team successfully completed test-firings of the first flight laser module (LM-1) in March. The firings produced record power levels of 118 percent of the laser's designed power output and exceeded the power requirements of the ABL mission. The ABL system will use six such laser modules to create a megawatt-class chemical laser flying in a specially built Boeing 747-400F to shoot down missiles in the boost phase.

The high-power laser is coupled with a revolutionary optical system capable of focusing a basketball-sized spot of heat that can burn through a missile skin from hundreds of miles away. The laser and optical systems are controlled by a sophisticated computer system that can simultaneously track and prioritize potential targets.

²We are extremely happy with TRW's work on the laser and with the potential this holds for the nation's missile defense program," said Col. Ellen Pawlikowski, director of the Airborne Laser System Program Office at Kirtland AFB, N.M.

The series of laser performance tests, culminating more than a year of integration and testing by TRW, was completed in January at the company's Capistrano Test Site in southern California. TRW is disassembling LM-1 in preparation for delivery to Edwards Air Force Base for integration into ABL's flight system. The company has also begun delivery of the components required for the integration of the remaining five modules needed for the first ABL-equipped 747.

"I'm very proud of the technical innovation and collaboration within our team that helped us complete this test program," said Steve Hixson, TRW's ABL program manager.

"Not only did the laser exceed performance goals, but our team overcame significant engineering challenges, including demonstration of a new two-stage turbo pump capable of the chemical flow rates required for full-power lasing. The successful tests of LM-1 mark a major step forward in overcoming the technical risk in developing the world's first airborne directed energy weapon system."

Development of the ABL demonstrator now shifts to the ABL System Integration Laboratory, a new facility at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. There the ABL team will assemble the five additional laser modules, integrate them with LM-1, then perform a ground-based demonstration of the integrated high-energy laser that will fly on the first ABL system.

The LM-1 test program was conducted as part of Team ABL's Program Development and Risk Reduction contract with the Air Force Space & Missile Systems Center.

The Airborne Laser program is managed by the Air Force ABL system program office, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., which reports to Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. The Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has management authority and funding responsibility for the ABL program.

Boeing is leading the team selected by the U.S. Air Force to develop and demonstrate the ABL. Team ABL includes Boeing, Lockheed Martin and TRW, working closely with the Air Force and MDA. Boeing is responsible for developing the ABL surveillance BMC4I, integrating the weapon system and supplying the modified 747-400 Freighter aircraft.

TRW is providing the complete chemical oxygen-iodine laser system. Lockheed Martin is developing the beam control/fire control system, which will acquire the target, then accurately point and fire the laser.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-02b.html

24 posted on 08/03/2002 6:44:49 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The United States has a pronounced lead over all other countries, but its potential success may encourage others to follow suit, setting up a new kind of arms race; it may also lead to opponents developing new ways of retaliating. In the light of the attacks of 11 September, this is not to be discounted.

What a stinking load of unprocessed sewage. The 9/11 attacks didn't take place because we had developed weapons that worked too well. So now because of the 9/11 attacks, we're supposed to hamstring ourselves, for fear that if we gain an unfair advantage, it will make somebody mad enough to hurt us?

25 posted on 08/03/2002 6:47:20 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Manilow? My god man, that's a war crime!

I bad...must have gotten out of touch with my "FEELINGS"!

BWAHAHAHAHA!!

FMCDH

26 posted on 08/03/2002 6:47:27 PM PDT by nothingnew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther
Kinda like "chained lightning".

Now you're groovin'!..."Chain lightening, it feels soooo good"

FMCDH

27 posted on 08/03/2002 6:50:12 PM PDT by nothingnew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther
I have read of similar things. The problem seems to be keeping the damned thing aimed during a nuclear explosion.
28 posted on 08/03/2002 6:51:02 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: spetznaz
((((((((((((((((((((PING)))))))))))))))))))))
30 posted on 08/03/2002 6:54:20 PM PDT by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The problem seems to be keeping the damned thing aimed during a nuclear explosion.

We need a recoiless rifle technology for nukes!

31 posted on 08/03/2002 6:56:13 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
"Here, hold muh cigar,,,"
32 posted on 08/03/2002 7:03:59 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The nuclear explosion is underground. The metal sphere is part of an electrical circuit. When it is vaporized a massive electromotive force is created. Ohms law is E=IR. or E/R=I. In theory and practice when R - resistance goes to zero or a very tiny number as the denominator E goes maximum as does I or current. When you have a short in a circuit current rises and the nichrome in your toaster glows and cooks the bread or Pop-Tart. House fires are caused when similar occurrences are not defeated by your fuse box.

Directed weapons using nuclear bombs are just many thousands of orders of magnitude but produce the same energy. Directing it is the "easy" task.

The iodine laser in the Boeing ABL will use similar techniques. Instead of a grain sized laser which is used in you laser printer, the B-747 will carry big chemical lasers!

33 posted on 08/03/2002 7:04:46 PM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
LOL!
34 posted on 08/03/2002 7:04:59 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther
The application I read about, IIRC, was a satellite x-ray laser using a nuclear blast. Keeping it on target during the detonation was iffy.
35 posted on 08/03/2002 7:10:30 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Ha! That question deserves a second viewing of "Real Genius"...

Sure, what could it hurt to send Mike Tyson out in his underwear and gloves against some of these morons?

Shoot him up full of speed and the old adage of "One Ranger, One Fight" might be dispelled. What a sight to behold!

Now back to the homeland problem I wandered into...

Damn straight for the fisticuffs, but locally here at home, since we have plenty to worry about from the idiots who are now self-serving in congress (again, small "C" for a reason) rather than being responsive for the benefit of the Country as a whole.

These people, on both sides of the aisle, are so damned enamored with themselves that you and I have no determining effect anymore.

But when one of these "hard-ons of Hubris" get literally kicked in the ass and the cameras are there, they will have to answer the question the kikker and associates may pose.

Sh*theads like Trent (cheerleader nancy-boy) Lott needs to feel the contact of sports he/she/it ran up and down the sidelines rah-rahing, since he hasn't a clue anymore, if he ever did. Just throwing perverts like Condit out isn't good enough anymore.

What are these asses afraid of? Gut feelings would tell you that there is more to it than just "not being elected for another term", especially for the holier-than-thou political lifers in D.C.

I continue to demand that GW close the border doorways and clean house, and the same cleansing goes for the Legislative wobbling bitching and moaning bunch.

The Executive Branch looks sound, the Judicial a bit lax, but more members of the legislative arm of this country are looking dirtier and dirtier by the hour.

The folks of the country will weather a complete douche of the Legislative Branch, but as it sits right now, the congress is appearing more and more like the packed colon of Elvis Presley, and the stench is reaching far more than the Beltway toads know.
36 posted on 08/03/2002 7:11:25 PM PDT by Vidalia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
I think we are more farther along than just "remotely:"

I know we are alot farther along than just "remotely:" we had lasers weapons developed more then a dozen years ago.
37 posted on 08/03/2002 7:29:51 PM PDT by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Britton J Wingfield
Tesla thought of this at the turn of the century........
38 posted on 08/03/2002 7:31:19 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crazymonarch
In addition to EMP he postulated on the use of Particle Beams as weapons, he was right, but for the wrong reasons. An EMP weapon would not have been to effective against 1940 technology as there was little electronics used then.

As an aside, he also built remote controlled submarines which were offered to the Navy, which they of course refused. The man was WAY ahead of his contemporaries and in some areas and respects, ahead of where we are today. On the other hand, he was quite eccentric to say the least.

---max

39 posted on 08/03/2002 7:35:32 PM PDT by max61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Confederate Keyester
Some of his research he kept to himself after proclaiming it to be to terrible to ever use.

That's why the Feds confiscated his research notes upon his death.

---max

40 posted on 08/03/2002 7:37:13 PM PDT by max61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson