Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Directed Energy weapons in US Military

    Share
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Directed Energy weapons in US Military

    Post  Sujoy on Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:07 pm

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Directed Energy weapons in US Military

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:47 am

    After reading the first paragraph of that article I lost faith my friend...

    Gyros were used in navigation systems for bombers well before the V-1 and there were several designs of what one would called cruise missiles before that too including both Soviet and US models from the 1930s.

    The sorts of technologies they are talking about like lasers and EMP are big, bulky and extremely expensive, not to mention most of the laser types require large amounts of very toxic chemicals.

    Russia is a country at the forefront of laser development... and notice they haven't stopped with missile design yet.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Directed Energy weapons in US Military

    Post  Sujoy on Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:17 am

    GarryB wrote:Gyros were used in navigation systems for bombers well before the V-1 and there were several designs of what one would called cruise missiles before that too including both Soviet and US models from the 1930s.

    The sorts of technologies they are talking about like lasers and EMP are big, bulky and extremely expensive, not to mention most of the laser types require large amounts of very toxic chemicals.

    The ability of potential shielding from EMP to reduce the weapons effectiveness is definitely one of the things they have not investigated in this research project.

    Also, according to this author ...... you can't protect devices against EMP attack completely. All it takes is a small gap in the "protection shield" through a loose screw or gap in mechanical design and the EMP will find its way into the circuitry and cause damage regardless of a Fraday type cage design being implemented. EMP protection is all about minimizing damage as much as is feasibly possible....but it can never eliminate EMP damage.

    Aircraft are usually fitted with lightning protection but the ability of this technology to protect all the electronic systems against the more "rapid and intense" threat of EMP in a plane is minimal. It is actually possible to offer an improvement in EMP protection by one or two orders of magnitude ie: 90-99%)....but this requires every circuit in the plane to be modified and adds huge cost and weight.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Directed Energy weapons in US Military

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:38 am

    but it can never eliminate EMP damage.

    But isn't that key?

    EMP is effected by distance, and of course power... suggesting a modified HARM missile with an EMP warhead is somehow going to make missiles obsolete is ridiculous because any ground based system is going to have far more power potential than any missile, or for that matter any aircraft that can carry it, so any attacking aircraft or missile that hopes to penetrate the air defences by EMPing them on its way in might find the enemy using a ground based EMP device on them before they get within range to use their own EMP device.

    I find it expecially naieve of them to put a non explosive EMP payload on a missile that flys through the air at 3-4 times the speed of sound because they don't want to hurt anyone... that missile is going to hit the ground somewhere and the impact will be fairly substantial... but most importantly an ARM like HARM would have a warhead of 100-150kgs of HE which would have about a 20m effective radius... and they are replacing that with a small EMP device that has... about a 20m effective radius.

    WTF is the point?

    Aircraft are usually fitted with lightning protection but the ability of this technology to protect all the electronic systems against the more "rapid and intense" threat of EMP in a plane is minimal. It is actually possible to offer an improvement in EMP protection by one or two orders of magnitude ie: 90-99%)....but this requires every circuit in the plane to be modified and adds huge cost and weight.

    Or modern resettable fuses that stop the current flow during the peak blast of EM energy that reset a half a second later?

    I would just say that EM stuff lacks range unless it is a nuke so you have to use missiles to deploy the payload anyway, and Lasers are simply too expensive... even in comparison with current rocket technology.

    Missiles using scramjet technology will be faster and lighter and cheaper.

    ATGMs have been promising the end of armoured vehicles for a few decades now, MANPADS have been doing the same with Helos, but the makers of armoured vehicles and low flying aircraft came up with APS and DIRCMS respectively... who knows where it will lead... but certainly not to the end of anything. Smile


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Directed Energy weapons in US Military

    Post  Sujoy on Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:08 pm

    GarryB wrote:Missiles using scramjet technology will be faster and lighter and cheaper.

    ATGMs have been promising the end of armoured vehicles for a few decades now, MANPADS have been doing the same with Helos, but the makers of armoured vehicles and low flying aircraft came up with APS and DIRCMS respectively... who knows where it will lead... but certainly not to the end of anything. Smile

    DIRCM and CIRCM systems countermeasure technologies have limitations because these laser jammers are basically a passive solution that allows the plane to temporarily hide. As a passive solution they are susceptible to counter-counter measure technologies ( as per the author of this paper) .

    The weakness of passive countermeasure technologies is always going to be there. For example, DIRCM uses mid-IR lasers from 3-5 microns in wavelength to jam the optical heat seeking sensors so the plane can hide from the missile. Then CCM technologies in missiles recently started to use narrowband optical filters at the main laser lines in the mid-IR to filter the laser jammers out. Now CIRCM uses tunable lasers in the mid-IR (as a laser physicist I will tell you very technically difficult and delicate laser systems) that scan their wavelength across the entire spectrum. However missile manufacturers are already working on tunable optical filters that detect the wavelength of the CIRCM and tune the filter to that wavelength. Passive solutions will always be susceptible to CCM technologies .And another major thing about passive CM.......you really need a suite of countermeasure technologies for both types of missile guidance - heat seeking and radar guided. DIRCM/CIRCM can only jam heat seeking missiles. Electronic warfare platforms, stealth designs and materials are required to avoid radar guided missiles. An active solution with a directed energy weapon is blind to guidance technology and will be the only generic defense solution.

    LEMP as per the author, actually provides a 3-way punch. The plasma produces an EMP pulse....but also a broadband flash that covers the 3-5micron spectrum and much more. This would be much harder to filter out than either a fixed or tunable laser jammer (which have narrowband spectrums) as its broadband spectrum is much more akin to the IR spectrum from a jet engine. Furthermore an acoustic shockwave is also produced by the plasma pulse which has potential to interfere with radar guidance systems. Consequently this technology could be developed into an ideal passive solution against both IR guided and Radar guided missiles

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Directed Energy weapons in US Military

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:33 am

    Yet it is only a matter of time before those DIRCMs increase in power so that instead of just dazzling the incoming seeker they can actually do some real damage... heating the seeker window could render it opaque to all frequencies...

    The point is that it will be measure and counter measure and counter counter measure for the forseeable future, which tells me that missiles are not dead, just like tanks and aircraft are not dead because of missiles.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3220
    Points : 3306
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    devices against EMP attack completely

    Post  medo on Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:35 am

    There will always be measures and countermeasures. This game will never end.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Emerging Military Technologies

    Post  max steel on Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:36 pm

         BAE Railgun Test on JHSV Trenton on 2016 plan  





    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TrAc2PYrRw


    Next year Naval Sea Systems Command will conduct the first at sea test of its electromagnetic railgun, hurling a guided 44 pound projectile and hypersonic speeds off the coast of Florida, NAVSEA officials said on Tuesday .

    The test will validate the assumptions the Navy has made in the decades-old pursuit of the railgun not only as a long range weapon to support troops ashore but start testing new ideas of using the weapon as an anti-surface warfare (ASUW) weapon, a ballistic missile defense (BMD) tool and as a close in weapon system for cruise missile threats.NAVSEA outlined the expanded mission set for the railgun — beyond naval surface fire support — in a request for information issued earlier this year.

    Traditionally, the Navy has used missiles to intercept targets but the railgun promises similar results for less money.“There’s a tradition that every time an enemy throws a threat at us our counter to that threat is one order more of magnitude expensive than the threat costs. This is a technology where we’re engaging threats at similar probabilities of kill for a cost that’s about two orders of magnitude less,” Ziv said.
    “Looking that the missions sets the railgun will be able to achieve the ship or land based facility, it will be able to store a lot more rounds and consummate a lot more engagements than a traditional missile-type system.”

    NAVSEA is also working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to create a modular railgun system for both at sea and on land.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Emerging Military Technologies

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:11 am

    Force Field Made Of Lasers


    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    A Glimpse At Tomorrow’s Electromagnetic Spectrum Weapons

    Post  max steel on Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:31 pm


    A Glimpse At Tomorrow’s Electromagnetic Spectrum Weapons


    Drones and decoys


    Useful for more than loitering over a target and lobbing Hellfire missiles, drones will be used to launch jamming or hacking attacks at short distances. (An example would be this drone that does penetration testing.)

    The key is the unmanned aircraft’s ability to sneak up on an adversary. The closer you are physically to the target, the less power you need to use, which makes your electronic warfare operation harder to detect and counter.

    “The U.S. military could shift toward using unmanned vehicles or expendable payloads that emit low-power jamming noise in the [radio frequency] spectrum … or dazzling [electro-optical / infrared sensors] or narrowly focused radar beams to establish accurate targeting information for attacks,” the authors write.

    But Clark and Gunzinger see another use for drones: as decoys meant to provoke the enemy to activate his fire-control radar and thereby reveal its position.

    Here’s how they describe it: “Use passive sensors to detect enemy [radio frequency and infrared emissions.] Locations of enemy emitters can be determined by triangulating emissions received by multiple, dispersed manned or unmanned platforms or by analyzing the Doppler shift of [electromagnetic] emissions received by passive sensors. It is likely that some targets, such as fire control radars, will only emit after receiving a cue from a sensor…the U.S. military could use emitting decoys to cause fire control radars to activate, allowing passive sensors to geo-locate them.”

    Stealthier sensors

    Lasers aren’t just useful for burning holes in things. Light Detection and Ranging lasers, or LIDAR, is how self-driving cars see the road. The same principle could be used to detect objects that we today hunt with radar — using tightly focused laser beams that are harder to detect than radio signals.

    Another way to reduce U.S. military electromagnetic emissions is to go passive. Instead of powerful emitters, future sensors could use “ambient energy that comes from enemy communication systems, emitters of opportunity such as television and radio transmitters,” they write. “In the absence of a predominant emitter, U.S. forces could use multiple networked receivers to evaluate returns from different aspects of a potential target.”



    EMP cruise missiles

    “Within the next five years, DOD could field cruise missiles with [high powered microwave] warheads that could be launched from standoff distances to attack electronics-based [anti-access/area denial] systems,” the authors write. Think the GoldenEye in missile form.



    Read the pdf.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    US Electromagnetic Railgun

    Post  Militarov on Mon May 09, 2016 1:08 am



    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    This Is Why the Navy Can't Have Nice Railguns

    Post  max steel on Fri May 20, 2016 1:38 am

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Directed Energy weapons in US Military

    Post  max steel on Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:04 pm

    US Army Exploring ‘Devastating’ New Weapon for Use In War with Russia





    Were the United States to go to war with Russia, both sides could draw on deadly weapons that the world has never seen on a battlefield. On the Russian side, there are new and smaller tactical nuclear weapons. To counter them, the U.S. Army is taking another look at a “devastating” weapon, one first tested by the Air Force and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2013, the Kinetic Energy Projectile, or KEP, a tungsten-based charge moving at three times the speed of sound that can destroy anything in its path.

    “Think of it as a big shotgun shell,” Maj. Gen. William Hix, the Army’s director of strategy, plans & policy, said a few weeks ago at the Booz Allen Hamilton Direct Energy Summit. But unlike a shotgun shell, Hix said, the KEP moves at incredible speeds of “Mach 3 to Mach 6.”

    Randy Simpson, a weapons programs manager at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, explains that kinetic energy projectiles are warheads that “take advantage of high terminal speeds to deliver much more energy onto a target than the chemical explosives they carry would deliver alone.”

    Said Hix: “The way that they [Lawrence Livermore] have designed it is quite devastating. I would not want to be around it. Not much can survive it. If you are in a main battle tank, if you’re a crew member, you might survive but the vehicle will be non-mission capable, and everything below that will level of protection will be dead. That’s what I am talking about.”


    The general emphasized that the exploration was in a conceptual phase and not yet any sort of actual program: “We’re looking at ways we might — key, might — use that capability in one of our existing launch platforms as part of the weapons suite that we have.”

    He said the main contender for a launcher would be the Army Tactical Missile System, made by Lockheed Martin.

    In October 2013, an Air Force test team strapped the projectile to a “sled” on the high-speed test track at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. The goal: to get it moving faster than Mach 3 and see how it might actually work in the air. The test showed that the warhead design worked; it also provided data to help simulations and modeling.

    Why would the U.S. military, which has put untold billions of dollars into precision weapons over several decades, need such a blunt and terrifying weapon? To counter small Russian nuclear weapons.

    “The Russians … maintain their tactical nuclear stockpile in ways that we have not,” Hix said.

    Potomac Institute head Philip Karber, who helped write the Pentagon’s Russia New Generation Warfare Study , offered a bit more explanation when Defense One spoke to him in January. While the United States retains just a few of its once-large arsenal of tactical nukes, Karber estimates that Russia currently has anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 of the weapons.

    “Look at what the Russians have been doing in low-fission, high-fusion, sub-kiloton tactical nuclear technology,” he said. “It appears that they are putting a big effort…in both miniaturising the warheads and using sub-kiloton low-yield warheads.”

    Why is that significant? By shrinking the warhead, you can shoot it out of a wider variety of guns, including, potentially, 152-millimeter tank cannons.

    They’ve announced that the follow-on tank to the Armata will have a 152-millimeter gun missile launcher. They’re talking about it having a nuclear capability. And you go, ‘You’re talking about building a nuclear tank, a tank that fires a nuke?’ Well, that’s the implication,” said Karber. Laughing

    Hix says that the use of tactical battlefield nuclear weapons, even very low-level ones, is not part of official Russian military doctrine, but it is a capability that they are increasingly eager to show off (and discuss) to intimidate neighbors and adversaries.

    “They certainly exercise the use of those weapons in many of their exercises, including the one that participated in the parking of 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers on the Ukrainian border right before [the 2014 invasion of] Crimea. That coercive intimidation is a part of their design,” he said.

    And while even Soviet generals may have shied away from using tactical nukes, Blix said, Putin’s military is “a lot more inclined philosophically to see the utility of them.”



    Is it similar to Railgun concept ? Firing projectiles ?

    JohninMK

    Posts : 5032
    Points : 5095
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Directed Energy weapons in US Military

    Post  JohninMK on Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:32 pm

    Sounds like a plea for money Max.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Army Exploring ‘Devastating’ New Weapon for Use In War with Russia

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:12 am

    To counter them, the U.S. Army is taking another look at a “devastating” weapon, one first tested by the Air Force and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2013, the Kinetic Energy Projectile, or KEP, a tungsten-based charge moving at three times the speed of sound that can destroy anything in its path.

    Wow... how could the Russians possible compete... maybe with their 125mm tungsten APFSDS rounds that move at 1.8km/s, which is about mach 5... or almost double the mach 3 (900m/s) speed of this weapon.

    Randy Simpson, a weapons programs manager at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, explains that kinetic energy projectiles are warheads that “take advantage of high terminal speeds to deliver much more energy onto a target than the chemical explosives they carry would deliver alone.”

    Wow... so what they have developed is a kinetic penetrator... amazing... where do they come up with these ideas...

    Randy Simpson, a weapons programs manager at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, explains that kinetic energy projectiles are warheads that “take advantage of high terminal speeds to deliver much more energy onto a target than the chemical explosives they carry would deliver alone.”

    Wow... a kinetic penetrator not quite powerful enough to penetrate an enemy tank... haven't they already got those in 120mm?

    “They’ve announced that the follow-on tank to the Armata will have a 152-millimeter gun missile launcher. They’re talking about it having a nuclear capability. And you go, ‘You’re talking about building a nuclear tank, a tank that fires a nuke?’ Well, that’s the implication,” said Karber.

    What a dick. A kinetic penetrator that can't even penetrate a current tank is hardly the weapon to invest in to use against nuclear weapon armed tanks. This guy is retarded.

    And while even Soviet generals may have shied away from using tactical nukes, Blix said, Putin’s military is “a lot more inclined philosophically to see the utility of them.”

    What a shit story.

    Americans want to spend money developing a new type of kinetic weapon but are desperate for funding and will make shit up like the Russians putting tactical nuclear weapons in their tanks to fire and US forces... how the fuck will a kinetic weapon that can't even reliably penetrate a current Russian tank hope to stop a nuclear shell hitting them... give them lots of money... it will all be over faster when it is all gone.

    Is it similar to Railgun concept ? Firing projectiles ?

    It is an ineffective EM gun...

    The 115mm gun of the T-62 fires a tungsten projectile at higher speeds and is already a mature and developed system.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    JohninMK

    Posts : 5032
    Points : 5095
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Directed Energy weapons in US Military

    Post  JohninMK on Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:16 am

    Video at link nailing a drone and something on the back of a speedboat.

    (CNN)In the sometimes hostile waters of the Persian Gulf looms the US Navy's first -- in fact, the world's first -- active laser weapon.

    The LaWS, an acronym for Laser Weapons System, is not science fiction. It is not experimental. It is deployed on board the USS Ponce amphibious transport ship, ready to be fired at targets today and every day by Capt. Christopher Wells and his crew.

    CNN was granted exclusive access to a live-fire test of the laser.

    "It is more precise than a bullet," Wells told CNN. "It's not a niche weapon system like some other weapons that we have throughout the military where it's only good against air contacts, or it's only good against surface targets, or it's only good against, you know, ground-based targets -- in this case this is a very versatile weapon, it can be used against a variety of targets."

    LaWS begins with an advantage no other weapon ever invented comes even close to matching. It moves, by definition, at the speed of light. For comparison, that is 50,000 times the speed of an incoming ICBM. "It is throwing massive amounts of photons at an incoming object," said Lt. Cale Hughes, laser weapons system officer. "We don't worry about wind, we don't worry about range, we don't worry about anything else. We're able to engage the targets at the speed of light."

    CNN witnessed that speed and power firsthand.

    For the test, the USS Ponce crew launched the target -- a drone aircraft, a weapon in increasing use by Iran, North Korea, China, Russia and other adversaries.
    Immediately, the weapons team zeroed in. "We don't have to lead a target," Hughes explained. "We're doing that engagement at the speed of light so it really is a point and shoot -- we see it, we focus on it, and we can negate that target."

    In an instant, the drone's wing lit up, heated to a temperature of thousands of degrees, lethally damaging the aircraft and sending it hurtling down to the sea.
    The strike comes silently and invisibly. "It operates in an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum so you don't see the beam, it doesn't make any sound, it's completely silent and it's incredibly effective at what it does," said Hughes.

    It is remarkably precise, which the Navy says could limit collateral damage in wartime. "I can aim that at any particular spot on a target, and disable and destroy as necessary," said Wells. "It reduces collateral damage -- I no longer have to worry about rounds that may go beyond the target and potentially hurt or damage things that I don't want to hurt or damage."

    All the $40 million system needs to operate is a supply of electricity, which is derived from its own small generator, and has a crew of three. No multi-million-dollar missile, no ammunition at all. The cost per use? "It's about a dollar a shot," said Hughes.

    Today, the laser is intended primarily to disable or destroy aircraft and small boats. "It's designed with the intent of being able to counter airborne and surface-based threats," said Hughes. "And it's been able to prove itself over the last three years as being incredibly effective at that."

    However, the Navy is developing more powerful, second-generation systems which would bring more significant targets into its crosshairs: missiles.

    Those missions remain classified. However, the commander and crew are very much aware of the potential capabilities. When we asked Wells if the current LaWS could shoot down a missile, he said simply "maybe" and smiled.


    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/17/politics/us-navy-drone-laser-weapon/index.html?sr=twCNN071817us-navy-drone-laser-weapon0119PMVODtop


    Sponsored content

    Re: Directed Energy weapons in US Military

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:37 pm