Solid State Laser News

Focusing news

Mini lasers

 
Last edited:
Defence Secretary saying Dragonfire entry into service has been accelerated from 2032 to 2027 but they would look to see whether they could rush it into service in Ukraine. The new technology development approach is to not wait until kit is 99.9% effective but to get it into the field when its about 70% done and continue to improve it in service.

 
It appears US Army has its doubts on lasers and wants realistic testing to prove they will actually work operationally in practice not just in the lab.

 
That was the Lockheed Martin program to scale a 100kw laser to 300kw wasnt it? Though that program was only $700m to procure four 300kw lasers and $4bn on microwave weapons, if they have axed $4bn from the budget it must be the microwave part of it being axed.
 
Last edited:
That was the Lockheed Martin program to scale a 100kw laser to 300kw wasnt it? Though that program was only $700m to procure four 300kw lasers and $4bn on microwave weapons, if they have axed $4bn from the budget it must be the microwave part of it being axed.
I find that hard to believe as insidedefense.com write up explicity refers to "High Energy Lasers" and by far the majority of funding has always been devoted to lasers and not microwaves. Does anyone have ref to the figures quoted by insidedefense.com?

PS If remember correctly did not General Atomics and Boeing as well as Dynamics and Lockheed win contracts for higher powered lasers plus funding to develop an ultrashort pulse laser (USPL) system.
 
Last edited:
I find that hard to believe as insidedefense.com write up explicity refers to "High Energy Lasers" and by far the majority of funding has always been devoted to lasers and not microwaves. Does anyone have ref to the figures quoted by insidedefense.com?

PS If remember correctly did not General Dynamics and Boeing as well as Dynamics and Lockheed win contracts for higher powered lasers plus funding to develop an ultrashort pulse laser (USPL) system.

I assume it will be a series of pulses, because 1TW for 200fs is only 0.2J.

 
My simplistic view is if you have a 300kW electric motor and the laser is 40% efficient ??? in converting the electric power into laser beam power that means you have to dissipate the remaining 180kW as heat, not simple, so perhaps why below regarded as so important.

 
My simplistic view is if you have a 300kW electric motor and the laser is 40% efficient ??? in converting the electric power into laser beam power that means you have to dissipate the remaining 180kW as heat, not simple, so perhaps why below regarded as so important.

Interesting:

“One of the companies that is receiving [AFPIT funding] is a small company that is building a phase modulator that will decrease the amount of cooling required for fiber lasers by 50%,” Shyu said on April 17. “Think about that.”
 
Laser Cannon, Energy Field Shield? Wow,So science fiction, I have a question.------

Can this laser Cannon of USA puncture the energy field shield of a space ship?
 
RN is very happy with Dragonfire/concerned by Houthis, and accelerating plans for deplyment.


 
...This damned timeline. Back when I was growing up you read science fiction stories that had laser cannons in them, and hackers that carried cyberdecks that connected to computers all over the world, and read comics that had rockets launching AND landing on their tails.

And now everyone carries a cyberdeck in their back pocket, rockets launch AND land on their tails, and the military is getting laser cannons.

The future is here.
 
...This damned timeline. Back when I was growing up you read science fiction stories that had laser cannons in them, and hackers that carried cyberdecks that connected to computers all over the world, and read comics that had rockets launching AND landing on their tails.

And now everyone carries a cyberdeck in their back pocket, rockets launch AND land on their tails, and the military is getting laser cannons.

The future is here.
Just need nuclear fusion power and it’s the quadfecta
 
USNI News May3
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) took the Navy to task for cutting its request for directed-energy research and development from $181 million to $55 million, which he said made no sense. “Budgets are policy,” he said when Guertin mentioned experiments the Navy was making in the field.
 
May 16


Mentions heat dissapation amongst other issues with the Stryker 50 kW DE M-SHORAD and questioning if it can achieve the spec? of 4 kW on one sq cm at 10 km target.
50kW was never enough for 10km. Early studies indicated that more like 1MW was required. 50kW is strictly a 2-2.5km affair.
 
Laser tech

Optics
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-temperature-pulse-irradiation-technique-enables.html
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-thousand-smaller-grain-sand-glass.html

For sound?
 
Oops…:rolleyes:

It would appear the Air Force/Lockheed with SHiELD was unable to solve both the well known fundamental technical problems that make using lasers on aircraft impracticable, vibration and wind turbulence, besides providing the required electrical power

The then-Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Mike Griffin stated in 2020 that the program’s goal shooting down missiles midair with an airborne laser was unlikely to work and has now been proven to be right.
“I’m extremely skeptical that we can put a large laser on an aircraft and use it to shoot down an adversary missile, even from fairly close,” said Griffin. “It has been done as an experiment, but as a weapon system to equip an airplane with the kinds of lasers we think necessary, in terms of their power level, and all their support requirements, and get the airplane to altitudes where atmospheric turbulence can be mitigated appropriately, that combination of things doesn’t go on one platform.”

GAO stated
"For example, flight at high speeds generates vibrations that requires DE weapon designs to be ruggedized to a flight environment. In addition, the typical turbulence caused by airflow moving around the aircraft or a DE weapons system at high speeds—including supersonic speeds—would make it difficult to use HEL weapons, because the beam could get distorted or disrupted by this turbulence. The Air Force invested in developing technology to reduce turbulence affecting these DE systems "
 

Attachments

  • SHiELD.jpeg
    SHiELD.jpeg
    207.3 KB · Views: 3
No laser NGAD then? :confused:
e82bc37cc876e825499f67f1b62ec402
 
Perhaps a better integration, or some better electronics? It seems counter-intuitive to have that failed. The pulsed negative narrative surging in the press all together is of no help to be empathetically credulous.,,
 
Oops…:rolleyes:

There are a few negative over reactions to this article in the comments on it. Those comments ignored the following statements in the article:

"Air Force officials remain bullish on the potential for airborne laser weapons to reshape the battlefield.

"Through SHiELD and related efforts, [the Air Force Research Laboratory] has made significant advances in the readiness of airborne [high-energy laser] technology, and we continue to mature airborne HEL weapons technology for the operational needs of today and tomorrow," Ortiz said...

the Army recently deployed a pair of ground-based laser weapons overseas to help counter incoming drones and is investing heavily in the development of more powerful systems designed to counter even fast-moving cruise missiles. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is spending around $1 billion per year on at least 31 directed-energy programs, according to C4ISRNet...

But developing effective and reliable airborne laser weapons has proven challenging compared to their ground vehicle- and warship-based counterparts, as former Pentagon research and engineering chief Mike Griffin detailed in 2020, according to Breaking Defense...

With the SHiELD program concluded and the AHEL defunct, the Defense Department's dream of airborne laser weapons seems as distant as ever. But as the Pentagon continues to invest in directed-energy programs to deal with the rising tide of adversary drone and missile attacks, chances are high that the Air Force's efforts in that arena are far from finished.

"After many years of development, HEL weapons are now a battlefield reality," Ortiz said. "The game-changing features of HEL weapons -- deep magazine, scalable effects, and speed-of-light engagement -- combined with the potential logistics benefits of a weapon that effectively uses jet fuel for ammunition, make air platform integration a natural next step.""
 
"After many years of development, HEL weapons are now a battlefield reality," Ortiz said. "The game-changing features of HEL weapons -- deep magazine, scalable effects, and speed-of-light engagement -- combined with the potential logistics benefits of a weapon that effectively uses jet fuel for ammunition, make air platform integration a natural next step.""

The sentiments expressed by the Under Secretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz that HEL is now a battlefield reality, would then question why did the Air Force cancel both SHiELD and AHEL, and also seem contridictory to the recent comments by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Doug Bush on the 50 kW DE M-SHORAD.
“That [50-kilowatt] power level is proving challenging to incorporate into a vehicle that has to move around constantly — the heat dissipation, the amount of electronics, kind of the wear and tear of a vehicle in a tactical environment versus a fixed site.”


https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05...ith-50-kilowatt-lasers-service-official-says/
 
The sentiments expressed by the Under Secretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz that HEL is now a battlefield reality, would then question why did the Air Force cancel both SHiELD and AHEL, and also seem contridictory to the recent comments by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Doug Bush on the 50 kW DE M-SHORAD.
“That [50-kilowatt] power level is proving challenging to incorporate into a vehicle that has to move around constantly — the heat dissipation, the amount of electronics, kind of the wear and tear of a vehicle in a tactical environment versus a fixed site.”


https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05...ith-50-kilowatt-lasers-service-official-says/
The reasons the Air Force cancelled SHIELD and AHEL are stated in the article: "But developing effective and reliable airborne laser weapons has proven challenging compared to their ground vehicle- and warship-based counterparts, as former Pentagon research and engineering chief Mike Griffin detailed in 2020, according to Breaking Defense."

Different platforms, operating environments, and targets present different challenges for all military systems, not just HELs, and some environments are more challenging than others. Just because HELs may not be suitable for some platforms, operating environments, and/or targets, does not mean they are not suitable for other platforms, operating environments, and/or targets.

Also, all new military systems have issues during the transition from R&D to fielding. Usually these issues are identified and resolved during operational testing and initial deployment during the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phases. Usually these issues get blown out of proportion by opponents of the new systems and the press during this phase. This is what is happening with the 50 kW DE M-SHORAD system. Whether or not the challenges faced by the 50 kW DE M-SHORAD listed by Doug Bush will be overcome remains to be seen, but these kinds of challenges are usually faced by new military systems.

For example, the power packs of the M1 tank prototypes delivered for testing in 1976 had issues. After redesigns, 11 XM1 pre-production models were manufactured between February and July 1978, but quality problems with the engine quickly became apparent in testing. Critics of the M1 program emerged in the early 1980s, particularly the newly formed Project on Military Procurement (PMP) (later renamed the Project on Government Oversight). American tank historian Steven J. Zaloga characterized American press criticism of the M1 during this time as "ill-founded". Zaloga wrote the issues uncovered by the tank trials were "not particularly serious". PMP's criticism failed to generate any serious opposition to the program, which maintained strong support from Congress and the Pentagon. Responding to some of the alleged issues with the tank in King of the Killing Zone (1989), journalist Orr Kelly wrote that "The truth is close to the opposite." Kelly said the program "ranks as one of the Army's best managed", producing a tank in "a remarkably short time" while avoiding "gold-plating" and utilizing effective competition.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom