It took more than six months, but the Air Force coughed up some details yesterday on a laser program it’s developing to plink drones and other flying objects from the sky.
Out at China Lake in May, a joint team sponsored by the Air Force Research Lab that included the engineers from the Naval Air Warfare Center fired a 2 Kilowatt class laser at a series of five UAVs, tracking them and shooting them down “at long ranges and using relatively low laser power,” according to a release from the laser maker Boeing. The so-called Mobile Active Targeting Resource for Integrated eXperiments beam rides on a trailer and is tethered to a fire control radar that helps it zero in on the drone and track the intruder before zapping it with laser precision.
The Mobile Active Targeting Resource for Integrated eXperiments (MATRIX), which was developed by Boeing under contract to the Air Force Research Laboratory, used a single, high-brightness laser beam to shoot down five UAVs at various ranges. Laser Avenger, a Boeing-funded initiative, also shot down a UAV.
During the same test, the AFRL fired their Laser Avenger prototype at another drone, downing it and giving the engineers a chance to blast the 25 mike-mike the Avenger wields as a “hybrid directed energy/kinetic energy” air defense system.
We’re still looking to get more information on how high these lasers were able to deal their lethal energy. But this, combined with other news coming out about directed energy weapons quietly making strides, goes to show that lasers may be a lethal addition to modern platforms sooner than we think.
– Christian
{ 55 comments… read them below or add one }
I wonder what they mean by long ranges. Is that longer range than a Stinger or standard Avenger? Are they talking the range of a PAC-3 or a HAWK? However good this is there is one issue, they had to use a fire control radar with it. Meaning the countermeasure is the same as any other air defense system out there with radar. Jam it and kill it. And I don't mean the raspberry either.
There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry.
Extra points if you get the movie reference.
spaceballs
U.A.V.'s today, helicopters tomorrow? I thought that lasers were a "dirty" ( = non-conventional) weapon, at least when used against humans?
You're probably thinking of "dazzling" lasers which cause temporary blindness, but with too much power can cause permanent sight damage/loss.
Nooo, I wasn't thinking of "dazzling" lasers: I was rather thinking of lasers with "instant human combustion" Wattage… Look at the picture atop this article.
Um bomb i think your talkin about startrek…….
During WW2 flamethrowers were used against infantry, regularly. It wasn't against the Geneva Convention, nor would having a hole burned through you with a laser be such a violation.
You would not have to destroy the lifting body. All you need to do is disrupt the electonics.
Anybody remember the lasers the Chinese were firing at our satellites?
No but i bet your country did absolutly nothing about it., lol.
Hey, pssst: From
1) the early V-1's ( = drones, or cruise missiles, if you wish)
to
2) the most super-secret stealthy U.S. American bombers,
3) fighters
and
4) reconnaissance planes,
who also navigate completely passively, at least on the way to their targets, to
5) the MX missiles, who, once launched, ignore every ground signal,
and
6) all nuclear warheads re-entering the atmosphere
and lots of things in between: MANY flying objects have NO sensors mounted outside! They don't need any! So there's nothing to be "disrupted" by beaming laser at their skins.
You're referring to the inertial guidance systems?
Triangulation ( = beam-riding navigation), G.P.S., infrared, radar-homing and terrain-matching radar etc. are all passive too.
Another example: Astronavigation.
If you think that I'm talking about Discovery Era stuff, you're wrong: Even the SR-71 Blackbird, the nuclear MX missile and several satellites use it: It's passive, stealthy and "rather difficult" to jam.
freefalling:
-The Germans used beam-riding during WW2 and it was spoofed by the Brits, so I wouldn't put too much on beam-riding. GPS is good, though I suspect the signal can be jammed. IR has range limitations, and "terrain-matching radar" sounds more active. Radar-homing would depend on signal from the target (a la HARM missile)
There can be little if any doubt that any such laser system the Americans make will be lethal but with the usual problems of being decades late, over budget, over weight and a maintainence and reliability nightmare. We British will then buy a cheaper less usefull version of said product whilst under funding the rest of our armed forces. So predictable…
Anyway, enjoy pouring trillions down the drain on this.
Can someone explain to me if the laser would still work if the UAV was coated in a reflective, mirror-like material? I know it would not be a very good material to use for daytime flights, but I am just curious as to how affective the laser would be against simple counter measures like that.
what he said.
In principle reflective materials may not reflect enough energy to prevent the material from shattering. Remember there is heat transfer that will do damage independent of the laser.
The most reflective mirrors still absorb 10-20% of what they reflect, so they'll burn up, distort, or shatter in short order against a powerful laser.
Although, I recall something about Israel and super-Gaussian mirrors and them being able to perfectly reflect anything. But, I don't remember specifics and I doubt it could be used as armor.
This MATRIX uses a fire control radar but an operational version should not need 1. The laser beam travels at light speed in a straight line, same as a radar beam.
I'm surprised that the Laser Avenger has a 25 mm cannon as a secondary weapon. Is a HMMWV big enough to be a stable platform for a gun that big? An "ordinary" Avenger has a .50 cal machine gun for a secondary weapon.
You still need fire control to predict position, especially in the circumstances where the traverse-speed of the weapon mount cannot "catch up" to a moving target (thus you aim ahead). Examples include firing on close-range quick-moving targets.
Has to do with traverse speed. If the target is close then the traverse might not be fast enough to quickly track and engage. Also present lasers don't appear to be insta-kill, the last ABL footage that was posted on here took something like 10 seconds to burn through the target.
Valid observation, Charles. This is all so new that it's hard to say exactly how an operational system might work. In the past, a laser beam would be aimed with a mirror at the "business" end instead of moving the whole laser around. This MATRIX, what do I know? Either way, the beam will have to held onto the target for a bit before it goes down.
When the only known selling point of your technology is that it supposedly greatly simplifies targeting – pitching it to down slow moving drones is what is know as being “off message”.
What’s next for this wonder weapon – heating MREs ?
This would be a big hit at the radio control airfield near my house.
christian,
can you please link the photo to a high-res version that is available to the media (and you probably already have)? I'm interested in the UAV. The planform bears a passing resemblance at this resolution to one that I used to fly called the XBQM-106A. Probably isn't, but call it nostalgia.
LOL Ironic that this was done at "China" lake. …..
just in case but this was not named after yellow people poping out of nowhere.
what we need now is to find some retarded anticom-bitch from Texas and corrupt senator to seel it into China or freedomfighters with relligious touch.
If an Avenger "Laser" can kill drones… I wonder if/when they'll stuff a bigger beam into the old LAV-AD 'Blazer' turret or a Linebacker.
"Light Armored Vehicle-Air Defense (LAV-AD)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XooFmPUt6aA
An Avenger "Laser" leaves me wondering about line of sight & weather affects. Then again a laser could be of great use if they could hoist it atop an extending mast and above the tree tops.
As for a 25mm (don't know if this is it, or not) but ATK offers a LW 25mm and air-burst shells. Which could make a nice combo.
http://www.atk.com/customer_solutions_armamentsys…
So how is are development of Naval Laser systems? Never hear anything but i figure if you have the combined output of a reactor, a series of reactors, or a heavy engine like the ones on our warships you could have one helacious beam.
Valcan I totally agree , they must be working on the ship idea . Also if this is what they are allowing us to know what is the real truth ????
My guess is that the directed energy weapons programme is way in advance of what we are led to believe .
to Will:
A HMMWV can fire a TOW missile with relative ease plus it can take the MK19 which is a 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher. Yeah it can handle a 25mm with ease.
To Oble:
These are in testbed phases, not full production. They also are going after a target that every country with an industrial base and a strong enough R and D component is trying to produce. UAVs are the hot new toy for many country christmas lists. So you demonstrate not only can you target an aircraft, but also one that will be seen more and more on the battlefield. Nice double impact there.
Part I :
To the poster "Ed!" :
You wrote: "to Will: A HMMWV can fire a TOW missile with relative ease plus it can take the MK19 which is a 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher. Yeah it can handle a 25mm with ease."
Not so fast. "Will"'s doubt is pertinent, and your deduction is illogical: Launching or cold-launching a single missile or even rapid-firing 4 cm grenades (which girls can fire from their hips) is NOT the same thing as mastering the recoil of a 2,5 cm round with triple-digit foot-pounds of muzzle energy,
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ATRart.htm
(last line of the last table. It was the best I got in the whole Internet about the 25 mm x137 mm calibre M242 Bushmaster's muzzle energy or recoil forces)
and even less so during automatic fire, and even MUCH LESS so with minimal precision, and even much much less so at safe (for you) distances, say a few kilometers or so! With smart, programmable and maybe even steerable ammunition almost arriving, you'll even need an extra crew just to fire such 2,5 cm anti-tank guns or machine-guns!
(Continued)
Part II :
Watch the shaking Czech all-terrain vehicle at the beginning of this video below, while merely firing a "lousy" Russian 12,7 mm x 108 mm DShK machine-gun, with a muzzle energy of "only" 14.180 foot-pounds (even the Russian calibre 14,5 mm x114 mm rounds “only” produce 22.020 – 24.000 foot-pounds of muzzle energy, and you craze about mounting an A.P.C.- / A.F.V.-busting 2,5 cm gun on a HMMWV !) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YmLAZv0Eu0
In US service, 25 mm is the cannon on a Bradley, M3 or Marine LAV. That high velocity gun has much more recoil than the low velocity Mark 19 grenade launcher. The TOW is recoilless – the energy goes into the back blast. That's why AAA vehicles are built on APC or tank chassis. It's not just for the protection, it's also to provide a stable platform for the gun. You could probably mount a 25 mm cannon a HMMWV to fire forward, but not to fire accurately rotating 360 degrees & up to near vertical elevation. A laser, of course, has no recoil energy at all. On the other hand, once they become practical, they'll be so expensive that they'll want to put some armor around them.
>These are in testbed phases, not full production. They also are going after a target that every country with an industrial base and a strong enough R and D component is trying to produce.
Sure sign the program is dying. With laser programs being canceled all over the place everyone is scrambling to find a niche.
If UAVs is the niche these guys are aiming for then the program wont be around in 2 years.
Oble,____Lasers arent nitch and military lasers have as many civilian perposes as military.____In my mind chemical lasers are over. I see no reasn to have the airborne laser as it is now. Take any money invested in that and spend it on solid state lasers.____In my opinon (mighty as it is lol, and yes i always seem to have one) we need to invest more in space lasers. There is far more power for the taking up there than down here. Yes i know gettin up there cost money but quite frankly space flight is woefuly underfunded. And quite frankly if you have satelites that can drop telephone sized tungsten rods on places or or smash our satelites into oblivion with no rish to themselves then politicians arent going to fight. There going to back down and then your opinon, mine and everyone in between in this country means d^ck.
I wouldn't listen to anything Oble has to say, one has only got to read the Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs article on this very site to see why. I just skim past his posts like i do with free falling bums posts.
You don't need to scramble the UAV's sensors. Hitting the fuel tank and igniting the fuel would be more than enough to bring it down. The same goes for manned aircraft. For missiles in the boost phase, if you can poke a hole in the casing and light the solid fuel the missile will never make it to space. On reentry, I suspect you'd have to hit the actual warhead(s) and cook either their firing electronics or the chemical explosives used to start the nuclear chain reaction.
Since the Navy is involved, I assume the next step will be attaching the lasers to sharks. Then they can retire their current inventory of ill-tempered sea bass…
LOL
Part I :
Why doesn't this article, or even Boeing's article, state at what distance the laser still defeats drones ("…at long ranges…") ? How VERY TYPICAL of "Defense Tech"… If they were born as Russians, they would even brag about it!
I'm also interested in knowing how the MATRIX's / "Laser Avenger" 's secondary weapon, the veeeeeeery slooow firing (only 3,3 r.p.s.), 2,5 cm Bushmaster machine-cannon, is supposed to hit anything small, fast and agile after the target has been scrambled by the laser at great distances! In one word: There is no information about the Bushmaster's FIRE CONTROL RADAR either! (Does it already have a name?)
I say: This air defense system is going to open fire on its targets ( = drones) like all the others too: At maximum range.
But what can this laser / Bushmaster combo possibly do against a distant flying drone?
Come one, folks, think logically. Think… French!
NOTHING !
(Continued)
Part II :
The Bushmaster's machine-cannon won't even be able to TICKLE any drone bumbling a few kilometers in front of its nose, and its laser won't be able to destroy it either, only to damage ("blind") it. AND EVEN THAT ONLY DURING FAIR WEATHER (mist and rain degrade ANY laser's effectiveness!) . "General Gala: It's starting to rain, we're without laser!"
But then that damaged drone's remote-controller flies it safely back home again to repair it ( = simply to change the optics) and to use it again, and again, and again… Because he CAN do that! You could – and would – if you had to.
That's why I'm beginning to suspect that this laser / Bushmaster masquerade is nothing but just another FUCKING TYPICAL multi-billion-dollar Pentagon toy, built only to inflict damages WORTH A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS – to an unmanned plane kit!!!
(Continued)
Part III :
But, as I said in a previous comment, I don't even believe that thislaser / gun hybrid was invented to shoot down any "drones" in the first place: I just can't imagine it sitting idly in a raging high-tech war, "waiting all war for any drones" and watching relaxed, with crossed arms, while all the other air defense systems around it busily defend it against attacking helicopters, fighter-bombers and missiles etc., only because "they're not drones"…
French enough for everybody?
Good observations about drones. The real potential of laser weapons is against munitions. Ground forces can use them as a C-RAM weapon. Warships can use them against high speed cruise missiles. Aircraft can use them for defense against both SAMs & AAMs. Imagine what an AC-130 could do if it did not need to fear short range SAMs.
Part I :
To the poster "Will" :
You wrote: "Ground forces can use them (lasers) as a C-RAM weapon."
(For those not in the know: C.-R.A.M. means "Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar")
Artillery and mortar ammunition have much thicker and harder skins than any aircraft or drones in the World, especially at the tip, but their tips also happen to be the part a laser will aim at / hit most of the time… Melting a flying artillery grenade with a laser (its explosive is relatively heat-UNsensitive, although cooking-off can happen, if it's kept too long in an over-heated barrel) is like lasing through light armour: "It even works out on the battlefield", but in the meantime you spent all your 9 lives!
And what are you going to do against ammunition fired at point blank?
(Continued)
Part II :
If a tank shoots at another tank at only 5 kilometers range ( = "point blank"), his
1) 1.680 meters per second (5.500 f.p.s.) fast grenade
or
2) 1.900 meters per second (6.234 f.p.s.) fast tungsten sabot
only needs 3 – 5 seconds to fly that distance! (Can you even traverse your laser turret fast enough to intercept that round?)
Plus: You wanna MELT PURE MASSIVE TUNGSTEN (whose melting point of 3.422 °C / 6.192 °F is the second highest of all chemical elements!) in only 3 – 5 seconds, or even vaporize it in flight??????? "I think you'll need a bigger boat…"
Even regular steel (for "dumb" ammunition) can be made of increasingly heat-resistant (and reflective) alloys!
Lased on from straight ahead, most ammunition is simply too pointed, too elongated, to concentrate the laser light that strikes it (any beam diameter) on just one tiny spot, and spin-stabilized ammunition also distributes a laser ray's heat over a larger area.
(Continued)
Part III :
Guided missiles will also be programmed to make automatic violent evasive maneuvres when they sense a laser's heat, and the rocket artillery will simply switch from rockets and missiles to hyper-speed missiles, too, to shorten their exposure time. Hyper-speed rockets or missiles are effective even without warheads, explosions and much guidance, just by hitting any armour plate on Earth at Mach 5 + (Swedish hyper-speed rockets even made it to Mach 8 once, during the 80's – INSIDE the atmosphere!!!) :
This U.S. American "L.O.S.A.T." anti-tank missile simply destroyed a tank by hitting it at 1.524 meters per second / 5.000 f.p.s. / Mach 4,4 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCmSs6hXWoU
And, once again: How do you intend to use any C.-R.A.M. laser in bad weather…? Quick, it's raining shells!
It's exactly because of all these technical challenges that I expect lasers to be used primarily OFFENSIVELY , NOT for any defensive purposes = to be used against every other conceivable target EXCEPT ammunition!
No matter what bed-time stories the Pentagon tells you.
I know LOSAT seemed awesome but wasn't it cancelled? I havn't heard a thing about it for years and thats why i assume it went in the bin.
Yes, bit of digging and I found it did indeed get cancelled, a follow on using the same tech called 'Compact Kinetic Energy Missile' is the new version of it, expect that to be canned too and your tax money wasted…
I can't figure out the "reply" thing to save my life.
Anyway, to "Ed!" way back up there, the HMMWV can't handle a 25mm with ease. MK 19 has low recoil (more than a 203 though) and TOW is recoil-less. I've shot 'em both off HMMWVs and they don't rock the truck. The M242 25mm cannon has 9000 ft/lbs of recoil (if I recall correctly from my PL days). A HMMWV weighs about 7500 lbs. You do the math. This is some other 25mm on this truck besides the familiar M242 which the M2/M3 family mounts.
Totally forgot about astrogation. Star maps loaded into a "computer" and having position computed based on positioning of the stars.
To the poster "Charles" :
Part I :
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
You wrote: "The Germans used beam-riding during WW2 and it was spoofed by the Brits, so I wouldn't put too much on beam-riding"
ALL strategic bombing campaigns over Great Britain and Germany – and later over Japan, Korea, Vietnam and Serbia too – were an utter failure, at day and at night, whereas the Second World War's "Battle of the Beams" retained a general tug-of-war character until the end, like the fighter-plane war and the war under water too. It took the British Air Ministry's "scientific Intelligence" quite a while ( = quite a few burning cities) to figure out how to counter the Nazi bombers' "X-Apparatus" (C.E.P. : ~ 100 yards!) and they couldn't do much to spoof the Nazi nightfighters' "Wild Boar" tactic either, except to pray for many clouds…
(Continued)
Part II :
But beam-riding isn't used by bombers only, and today's radars use extremely fast frequency-hopping, which is impossible to jam, except with a general black-out of all (including your own!) frequencies, or with strong electro-magnetic pulses.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
You wrote: "GPS is good, though I suspect the signal can be jammed."
Better: The G.P.S. satellites can be blinded, jammed or destroyed (even LASED , like the Chinese did once to an U.S. American satellite)
(Continued)
Part III :
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
You wrote: "IR has range limitations…"
About two kilometers, active and passive. Although I never understood in my whole life how satellites can take infrared images then from Space, even of individuals!
Anyway, inside this short range infrared technology is mature and miniaturized enough even for tiny little sub-munitions to detect hot targets in the dark, so the "Laser Avenger" better sees the drone before the drone on auto-pilot SEES IT !
(Continued)
Part IV :
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
You wrote: " 'terrain-matching radar' sounds more active."
Nix work over ocean. Write letter to Mr. Charles Lindbergh, ask politely.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
You wrote: "Radar-homing would depend on signal from the target (a la HARM missile)"
One day there will be cheap laser-homing missiles with mirrored, cooled seeker lenses! Ain't I simply brilliant?