DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Lasers and Ray Guns » Radar = Ray Gun?

Radar = Ray Gun?

The British gov­ern­ment was spooked back in 1935. Not because of Hitlers air force or his infantry. Because of his death ray.
Newspapers screamed that the Nazis might have a super-​​weapon that could incin­er­ate liv­ing tis­sue or det­o­nate a bomb at long dis­tance. Flooded by let­ters beg­ging for a response, the British Air Ministry asked promi­nent physi­cist Robert Watson-​​Watt to see if a radio-​​wave-​​based death ray was fea­si­ble.
killer-radar.jpgWithin ten days Watson-​​Watt reported that such a weapon was unlikely. But using radio waves to locate an approach­ing bomber was a real pos­si­bil­ity. And that’s how radar was born.
Now, sev­enty years later, the inven­tion may be com­ing full cir­cle, Aviation Week reports. The Pentagon is actively devel­op­ing active elec­tron­i­cally scanned array (AESA) radars that might be “used as weapons. They are ful­fill­ing the U.S. Air Force’s desire for offen­sive tools that can find enemy threats, accu­rately iden­tify them and imme­di­ately strike.”

Some of the air­borne AESA radars… use thou­sands of small transmitters/​receivers, each a cou­ple of inches square, that allow the array to con­duct many tasks simul­ta­ne­ously. Those include detec­tion of small, even stealthy tar­gets, track­ing and com­mu­ni­ca­tions… and “jam­ming”… Possible AESA tech­niques for attack­ing another radar could include burn­ing through the tar­get radar’s antenna side-​​lobes, fil­ter side-​​lobes, or other known fea­tures of the tar­get sys­tem. Radar spe­cial­ists sug­gest it is rea­son­able to sup­pose this capa­bil­ity is already avail­able to some fielded sys­tems…
[Airborne radar weapon devel­op­ment] appear[s] to be focused on cruise mis­siles and self-​​defense against anti-​​radiation, home-​​on-​​jam and air-​​to-​​air mis­siles. The radars seem par­tic­u­larly effec­tive against the lat­ter cat­e­gories because energy avail­able to focus on the approach­ing mis­sile increases as an inverse square as dis­tance decreases.


Radar’s close cousins, High Power Microwaves (HPMs), are also being groomed as energy weapons. They tend to gen­er­ate ultra-​​strong bursts across a range of fre­quen­cies, for just a few tril­lionths of a sec­ond. AESA would zap tar­gets with longer, more directed blasts.

While HPM pro­duces higher peak power, AESA often gen­er­ates greater aver­age power. That pro­duces dif­fer­ent oper­a­tional and tar­get­ing strate­gies. For exam­ple, Raytheon’s [HPM-​​based] air­port pro­tec­tion sys­tem uses infrared sen­sors to find the tar­get and deter­mine where to focus its beam. It also pro­duces effects at longer range, pos­si­bly as much as 100 mi., because it pro­duces pow­er­ful pulses of energy. AESA radar has the built-​​in abil­ity to find and track a tar­get, so it can be held on the tar­get for the nec­es­sary addi­tional microsec­onds needed to cre­ate its weapons effect.
Some HPM pulses are designed to be very broad­band, cov­er­ing “many giga­hertz” of fre­quen­cies, so they are more likely to find any open­ing or vul­ner­a­bil­ity in a tar­get, the radar spe­cial­ist says. AESA radar has a nar­rower fre­quency range, but it uses its radar capa­bil­ity to iden­tify a tar­get, search a library for its vul­ner­a­ble fre­quen­cies and then tai­lor the sig­nal for the spe­cific target.


THERE’S MORE: Just in case this story couldn’t get more sci-​​fi, some in the Defense Department think that unmanned planes are the best place to put these ray guns.

“High-​​power microwave [HPM weapons] on an air­craft is an engi­neer­ing chal­lenge, par­tic­u­larly when you have a per­son in it,” says a senior Pentagon offi­cial. “It’s a lot eas­ier to shield elec­tron­ics [needed to con­trol the air­craft] than it is to shield a body. Also, the closer I can get to the tar­get, the more pre­cise I can be [with an energy beam], the less power I need and the wider range of effects I can achieve.”

But take this all with a healthy spoon­ful of salt. So-​​called “directed energy” weapons have been just around the cor­ner for decades.

Share |

September 9th, 2005 | Lasers and Ray Guns | 16512 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/09/09/radar-ray-gun/Radar+%3D+Ray+Gun%3F2005-09-09+07%3A00%3A10noahmax You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Darpa’s Crisis Code | Internet Phone, Lifesaver » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Tom Billings says:
    September 7, 2005 at 10:29 pm

    Uhh,
    Noah?
    A work­ing limk to the arti­cle is needed for this inter­est­ing post! I can find none in the post, as expressed through my Firefox browser. Did the link get blooped?

    Reply
  2. Jill says:
    September 7, 2005 at 11:20 pm

    I’d love to see the arti­cle, too!

    Reply
  3. ANONYMOUS says:
    September 9, 2005 at 1:25 pm

    plz try to fol­low the appro­r­i­ate man­ner when send me the copy.
    ANONYMOUS.

    Reply
  4. stephen russell says:
    September 9, 2005 at 9:41 pm

    Lets test it in Iraq & Afganistan the­atres.
    Or use device to melt ice­caps for nuclear subs
    Emergency use only.
    OR for sur­face war­fare use.
    OR test on the US Mex border.

    Reply
  5. stephen russell says:
    September 9, 2005 at 9:42 pm

    Lets test it in Iraq & Afganistan the­atres.
    Or use device to melt ice­caps for nuclear subs
    Emergency use only.
    OR for sur­face war­fare use.
    OR test on the US Mex border.

    Reply
  6. John Williams says:
    September 10, 2005 at 3:14 am

    You wrote: ” … Possible AESA tech­niques for attack­ing another radar could include burn­ing through the tar­get radar’s antenna side-​​lobes, fil­ter side-​​lobes, or other known fea­tures of the tar­get sys­tem.“
    This seems to be non­sense. “Side lobes” refers to the inten­sity pat­tern (in trans­mit­ting) or sen­si­tiv­ity pat­tern (in receiv­ing) of an antenna sys­tem; it is not part of the appa­ra­tus and can’t be “burned through” by another radar being used as a weapon.
    The main lobe of the pat­tern defines the direc­tion in which the antenna is aimed; side lobes are much smaller, usu­ally, and are to the sides of the main lobe. You can’t “burn through” a side lobe any more than you can “reach” the end of a rain­bow!
    Who wrote that quote: They might as well claim they can tie up a pris­oner with a line of latitude!

    Reply
  7. Art says:
    September 10, 2005 at 6:39 am

    the same tech­nol­ogy was devel­oped by my father 20 some years ago, and yes it works. Too bad no proper credit was given!

    Reply
  8. crake says:
    September 10, 2005 at 12:45 pm

    sounds like scalar beam weapons

    Reply
  9. G.W.Green says:
    September 13, 2005 at 12:25 am

    What ever hap­pened to our own “death ray” gun, which was capa­ble of melt­ing a tank to ashes in sec­onds, and which was in paper-​​back mag­a­zines back in the 1940’s. Its size was the hold-​​up on it being pro­duced. One silent shot melted every­thing in front of the ray. Is that one of our hid­den secrets that will be pulled out of the box of good­ies if and when ever needed ? It could melt a power plant in seconds.

    Reply
  10. WB says:
    September 14, 2005 at 10:48 am

    Not around in the 1940 because lasers hadn’t been invented yet — but do a google search for the THEL, ABL, or ATL. Comes pretty close to the ‘death ray’ you describe. They are mostly designed as mis­sile defense applications.

    Reply
  11. redfireant3 says:
    October 14, 2005 at 9:59 am

    its easy to make one, punch a hole in a microwave make a “dish” out of wire lathe to fun­nel the energy and it will fry cats from down the street. there was a rocket sci­ence major in my plt in the marines that did it. i know i know but he joined cause he didnt have any­more money to fin­ish college.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage