Peresvet laser complex

GarryB wrote:

The individual radiating elements in a PESA are connected to phase shifters, see below (from Wikipedia):

There was a book about the MiG-31 that described what it called mirrors to expand the volume of the beam angles.

The scanning volume of the Zaslon was enormous... especially compared with the limited performance of the F-14 equivalent with its mechanical scanning...

Ok, that may be related to going beyond the normally possible deflection angles on an electronically scanned array, was not aware of nothing like using mirrors for that...

For instance, if you would have a 1 MW power source and you were to release its energy with blasts of 1 ms duration each second you would need to be capable of converting and handling 1 GW power with your laser... the technical challenge would be serious.

I would suggest that capacitors are a large part of temporarily storing and releasing power in bursts and that having an external mains method of charging those capacitors would be a good thing.

Regarding bottle necks... having more than one power connection to the system including its on board power generation system would deal with that...

Supercapacitors will most probably play a role if energy is stored electrically. Since most high energy lasers are chemical, I don't know right now if they are used, but for HPM systems most probably yes.

https://www.dsiac.org/resources/journals/dsiac/summer-2017-volume-4-number-3/hpm-dews-and-their-effects-electronic-targets

Regarding depth of magazine, energy is normally stored as fuel so there is plenty of it available

True. Also low reflectivity to lidar would make difficult to concentrate the power on the target. Or using heat pipes or thermoacoustics for heat distribution under the skin. A true hi-tech arms race between the laser and the warhead

One particular heart problem involves the thickening of the heart muscle which reduces the internal capacity and therefore also its ability to pump blood in useful volumes. One solution is to open the chest and expose the beating heart and blast a laser beam through the outer surface of the heart muscle.

It burns a hole straight through the thick muscle but the internal pressure inside the heart turns the straight tubular hole into a cone shape with the narrow end of the cone on the outside... the surface of the tube is cauterised by the heat of the beam but the beam does not go right through the beating heart... the centre is full of blood which absorbs the beams energy so it does not burn right through to the other side... the blood is simply heated slightly by the energy of the beam.

After burning multiple holes the cone shape of the cavities increases the internal volume of the heart and solves the problem...

This was an interesting thing to associate with laser weapons and nuclear warheads

LMFS wrote:many thanks for clarifying! Is there anything that can be said as to why ground-based lasers are considered ineffective against ICBMs?

The problems was of several nature :

1) Time of irradiation of the RV, this problem is amplified, for mere geometrical reasons, by the angle of attack of the incoming RV of ICBM and the eventual presence of low clouds in the LOS (even if this last problem has been mostly resolved in the last decade)

2) Presence of heavy decoys : lasers would be forced to attempt to destroy, one at the time, any single RV and/or decoy present in the useful radiation horizon; this represent an almosty prohibitive task taking into account the very limited time window at disposition of the space defence forces.

3) Above anything the presence of formations of ionized gas around the RV in their re-entry phase in the atmosphere ,working as not permeable shields against those kind of high-coherent beams (it will be very difficult also to modulate the beam because from remote would be very difficult to compute the potential of the local field)

As said previosuly the unique solution allowing reliable destruction of ICBMs through direct laser irradiation, would be theirs placement in space, but this action would open a true pandora box for what concern strategic treaties and MAD balance with the potential triggering of a terribly dangerous rush for weaponization of the space.

LMFS wrote:But on the other hand, RVs electronics are extremely hardened against radiation and EMP for obvious reasons

Electronics have not play in what i was talking about, that is the domain of specialized EW systems.

It will be "hard" area neutralization of those menaces (both today RVs and perspective manouevrable hypersonic missiles), without direct irradiation, a solution for which will be very difficult to find a working counter-countemeasure.

Mindstorm wrote:The problems was of several nature :

1) Time of irradiation of the RV, this problem is amplified, for mere geometrical reasons, by the angle of attack of the incoming RV of ICBM and the eventual presence of low clouds in the LOS (even if this last problem has been mostly resolved in the last decade)

2) Presence of heavy decoys : lasers would be forced to attempt to destroy, one at the time, any single RV and/or decoy present in the useful radiation horizon; this represent an almosty prohibitive task taking into account the very limited time window at disposition of the space defence forces.

3) Above anything the presence of formations of ionized gas around the RV in their re-entry phase in the atmosphere ,working as not permeable shields against those kind of high-coherent beams (it will be very difficult also to modulate the beam because from remote would be very difficult to compute the potential of the local field)

As said previosuly the unique solution allowing reliable destruction of ICBMs through direct laser irradiation, would be theirs placement in space, but this action would open a true pandora box for what concern strategic treaties and MAD balance with the potential triggering of a terribly dangerous rush for weaponization of the space.

Again, I have to say that it is a complete luxury to count on this level of contributions in this forum, thanks

I guess the airborne laser (similar to A-60) could be an additional option to counter ICBMS in a limited way without needing to trigger a new arms race in space. It seems anyway US is not giving up their aspirations and Russia will be forced to answer:

https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/20185241638-aWRyO.html

Mindstorm wrote:Electronics have not play in what i was talking about, that is the domain of specialized EW systems.

It will be "hard" area neutralization of those menaces (both today RVs and perspective manouevrable hypersonic missiles), without direct irradiation, a solution for which will be very difficult to find a working counter-countemeasure.  

Probably I am missing something, but as far as I know, the RV will be a Faraday cage but for the few ports, doors and fairings directly linked to sensing / guidance and hence electronic brains of the warhead, which, due to being necessarily based on thin layers of semiconductor materials, are vulnerable to very intense electric fields. Any gap in the casing would allow the EM fields to enter the RV and couple on conductors on printed circuits, cables etc. and generate huge induced currents that would affect the electronics in the first place... On the other hand, the warheads are already hardened against nuclear EMPs which, if I am understanding correctly, have a similar nature to a HPM but a different spectral content:

LMFS wrote:Probably I am missing something, but as far as I know, the RV will be a Faraday cage but for the few ports, doors and fairings directly linked to sensing / guidance and hence electronic brains of the warhead, which, due to being necessarily based on thin layers of semiconductor materials, are vulnerable to very intense electric fields.

Yes you are missing the true subject of the question ; you continue to concentrate your attention on the potential effect of HPM on the electronic content of the incoming missile/RV.
I repeat that this kind of interaction pertain mostly to the domain of EW systems - even more already some domestic EW system operative today use those solutions - ,while the perspective aero-space defense in question will work on a defeating mechanism not acting ,and not aimed, on the missile/RVs vehicles while achieving theirs complete destruction

Mindstorm wrote:

LMFS wrote:Probably I am missing something, but as far as I know, the RV will be a Faraday cage but for the few ports, doors and fairings directly linked to sensing / guidance and hence electronic brains of the warhead, which, due to being necessarily based on thin layers of semiconductor materials, are vulnerable to very intense electric fields.

Yes you are missing the true subject of the question ; you continue to concentrate your attention on the potential effect of HPM on the electronic content of the incoming missile/RV.
I repeat that this kind of interaction pertain mostly to the domain of EW systems - even more already some domestic EW system operative today use those solutions - ,while the perspective aero-space defense in question will work on a defeating mechanism not acting ,and not aimed, on the missile/RVs vehicles while achieving theirs complete destruction  

   

And what would be the scientific principles behind this solution? You're rather puzzling in your expression about how this mechanism will not be acting or aimed at the reentry vehicle. You could at least say what the overall concept would look like. It almost sounds as if you're talking about a "shield" of sorts.

Mindstorm wrote:

LMFS wrote:Probably I am missing something, but as far as I know, the RV will be a Faraday cage but for the few ports, doors and fairings directly linked to sensing / guidance and hence electronic brains of the warhead, which, due to being necessarily based on thin layers of semiconductor materials, are vulnerable to very intense electric fields.

Yes you are missing the true subject of the question ; you continue to concentrate your attention on the potential effect of HPM on the electronic content of the incoming missile/RV.
I repeat that this kind of interaction pertain mostly to the domain of EW systems - even more already some domestic EW system operative today use those solutions - ,while the perspective aero-space defense in question will work on a defeating mechanism not acting ,and not aimed, on the missile/RVs vehicles while achieving theirs complete destruction  

   

Hahaha, that was fun! According to my limited knowledge target information is programmed before launch in the warheads and based on that, if the defeating mechanism is not directed against missile or RV the only way would be to fool the fuzing (radar fuzing supposedly known as vulnerable is apparently not preferred anymore), there are also temperature and pressure sensors that may be (???) fooled by RF heating of the atmosphere, but that may be also solvable. I ignore (again) in what physical principles these new "super fuzes" of US nuclear forces are based on, so alternatively this may be based on exploiting their vulnerabilities.

Additionally, for Avangard the overcoming of the plasma barrier for guidance was mentioned, so maybe all of the above is BS and guidance indeed exists and can be obfuscated. This would look again a task for traditional EW unless it is based in forcefully disabling satellites involved on it...

It is clear that not much can be said about this subject so we can leave it as it is, thanks anyway

x-54-u43 wrote:You could at least say what the overall concept would look like. It almost sounds as if you're talking about a "shield" of sorts.

Oh not, not "shield"  (even if theoretically it would be possible to generate one just with the technology in question........ having a true titanic amount of disposable energy )

It is merely the continuation -А. И. Климов and others -of the achievements of the, at the time, Chief Designer at НИИРП Academician Р.Ф. Авраменко - for the less informed it was the "father" of the unique system at world aero space defense radar tracking system Дон-2Н, and one of the main architect of the Moscow ABM system А-135 and by the mathematical modeling by В.И. Николаева

If you are interested in the bulk of the subject in question it is around that :

http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren8/experim_teor_issled.doc

About the "concept" i will report the words of the same prof. Авраменко on the aerospace defense system (at the end of the Cold War it was even offered, by the treasonous governement of Б. Н. Е́льцин, its co-development to the US, but luckily the lobby pressure of major american weapons companies blocked the initiative before the start) :


"Коротко о предыстории проекта. В 1952 году академик П.Л.Капица работал на Николиной Горе, под Москвой, над лучевым оружием.
И создал уникальный прибор, прототип современного генератора, который в 1970-е годы мы использовали уже при создании оружия плазменного.
В 1953 году академики А.Л.Минц и Л.А.Арцимович разработали проект нейтронного пучкового оружия, расплавляющего ядерную начинку конусов баллистических ракет.
Но смелость проектов Капицы, Минца и Арцимовича вызывала у правительства настороженность. Предпочитая простоту и надежность, руководство сделало ставку на создание противоракет. Ошибочность этого решения остро ощутима сейчас.
Я сам принимал участие в создании ПРО (противоракетной обороны) Москвы: она имела в недавнем прошлом огромное политическое значение.
Предполагалось, что комплексы противоракет, расположенные вокруг Москвы, будут оснащены ядерными взрывными устройствами.
Но этого не сделали из соображений собственной безопасности. И нынешняя система недееспособна.

Теперь — об оружии плазменном. Работы по этой теме начинались в 1971 году с привлечением немалого числа научно-производственных предприятий, включая Арзамас-16.
Ученым давно известно, что, если перед крылом самолета создать разряженную атмосферу, то крылу не на что будет «опереться».
Самолет раскрутится и, испытывая огромные перегрузки, на куски рассыпется в воздухе.

То же и с крылатой ракетой. Если создавать разряжение сбоку от летящей боеголовки, мчащейся вниз к земле со скоростью до восьми километров в секунду, она, как турбина, раскручивается и под действием центробежных сил рассыпается за доли секунды.
Но каким, спрашивается, образом изменить физические свойства среды на пути летящей боеголовки, и строго с одного бока? Как раз при помощи плазмы и мощного локационного оборудования, распознающего и
отслеживающего «свои» цели за сотни и тысячи километров.
Опытные испытания установки по созданию плазмоида — облака ионизированного газа — были успешно проведены в 1974 году.

Антенна (фазированная решетка) сфокусировала высокочастотное излучение мощностью в 20 мегавольт на площади в квадратный дециметр, и в камере образовался плазмоид. Антенна отстояла от камеры на 1015
метров.(прим. первый вариант установки "ТОР")
Но как «зажигать» плазмоид на высотах до семидесяти
километров?

Представьте себе поле стадиона, заставленное мобильными установками, оснащенными параболическими антеннами диаметром до четырех метров.
Триста таких антенн, действующих синхронно, создают гигантскую лупу, фокусирующую общую энергию. Мощность развернутой батареи около 300 мегавольт.
Батарея является одновременно и локатором, и противоракетным оружием. Она не требует дополнительной энергии, мобильна.
Три такие батареи могут обеспечить Москве абсолютную защиту в диаметре до четырехсот километров.
Они в состоянии «переработать» несколько сотен боеголовок, парочку сотен самолетов и полсотни крылатых ракет.
Каждое электронное сражение длится миллидоли секунды.
(прим. вариант установки по постановлению Прави-
тельства от 1976 года)
Но данную систему можно использовать и в мирных целях.
Стоит в блоке управления просто сменить дискету, и, пожалуйста, разгоняйте облака над Москвой, передавайте электрическую энергию на аккумуляторы космических станций и «чистите» от мусора Космос, «изгоняя» опасные
предметы из трубок околоземных орбит.

Стоимость такого комплекса — один миллиард долларов: это несоизмеримо дешевле любой оборонительной системы на базе
противоракет.
Но денег в бюджете не было, а опасность нападения не снижалась.
И в 1993 году на встрече с Биллом Клинтоном в Ванкувере Борис Ельцин предложил создавать совместную оборонительную систему на основе плазменного оружия.
По плану одна батарея дислоцировалась на борту авианосца. Ельцина внимательно выслушали, но ответной реакции не последовало. Позже стало известно, что категорически против выступили фирмы «Локхид» и «Боинг». Если в различных странах появится плазменное оружие, тогда самолеты и ракеты, на которых фирмы специализируются, можно сдавать на слом, и сотни тысяч
американцев окажутся на улице без работы, а это прямой подрыв экономики Соединенных Штатов Америки...

За минувшие десятилетия мы в своих исследованиях продвинулись значительно дальше, но очень жаль, что даже наработки 1974 года так и остались невостребованными. Надеюсь, это временно.
В заключение — об открывшихся нам созидательных «способностях» плазмы. Обнаружено ее свойство на квантовом уровне черпать дополнительную энергию прямо из окружающей среды и перерабатывать ее
в электроэнергию.
Коэффициент полезного действия такого энергетического процесса составляет несколько единиц! Это, согласитесь, фантастика. XXI век может стать веком экологически чистой энергетики на основе «холодного огня».
Но это — отдельная тема."

Источник : Журнал "Наука и религия "  10/2003

Mindstorm do you have the article link, to be possible to translate?

Definitely was not expecting this. But one very basic thing I am not understanding yet: how is the plasmoid acting on the RV, modifying the environmental pressure or rather exerting electromagnetic forces on it?

BTW, plasma aerodynamic actuators are being proposed, couldn't they counter such environmental influence?

Mindstorm wrote:

3) Above anything the presence of formations of ionized gas around the RV in their re-entry phase in the atmosphere ,working as not permeable shields against those kind of high-coherent beams (it will be very difficult also to modulate the beam because from remote would be very difficult to compute the potential of the local field)

not sure about plasma parameters but isn't it that in some conditions plasma acts actually as a lens focusing laser beam?

It will be "hard" area neutralization of those menaces (both today RVs and perspective manouevrable hypersonic missiles), without direct irradiation, a solution for which will be very difficult to find a working counter-countemeasure.


 

I've heard about plasma shields long time ago but nothing new popped up for years. Perhaps it is not as good or promising since army guys do no follow it up?
Anyway this short video is about your article. Video is in Russian but there is a bit lame translator











@LMFI

detonating a salvo or rocket missiles by EW

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
I've heard about plasma shields long time ago but nothing new popped up for years. Perhaps it is not as good or promising since army guys do no follow it up?
Anyway this short video is about your article. Video is in Russian but there is a bit lame translator

@LMFI

detonating a salvo or rocket missiles  by EW

Thanks! Cool video, I still don't understand why the loss of lift of the plane or missiles, didn't have the time to research on that and the video translator only manages to spit disconnected words Did you get any wiser by listening to it?

As to the Rtut-BM, didn't know it and it is amazing. Apparently fools the proximity fuse, guess only radar ones, but imagine what it could do in case of war in Donbass for instance.

I can confirm the following sites for Peresvet:
54th Rocket Div Teikovo: 56.898703° 40.578555° (two Laser truck verified within the base)
14th Rocket Div Yoshkar Ola: 56.573405° 48.039776° (two Laser truck verified within the base)
39th Rocket Div Novosibirsk: 55.268340° 83.018813° (same base & shelter structure under construction)

In so far I think that the "#Peresvet" Laser is indeed tactically allocated to the future operation procedure of mobile #ICBMs.
My guess: we will see "Peresvet" at all mobile RS-24 bases

task: blinding optical sensors of satellites in case of ICBM launch

It does not make sense that the weather conditions strongly limit this type of laser.

Another guy who is much smarter then all russian scientists and generals combined.

Laser can have a different purpose than blinding optical sensors of satellites. It's just a guess

rambo54 wrote:I can confirm the following sites for Peresvet:
54th Rocket Div Teikovo: 56.898703° 40.578555° (two Laser truck verified within the base)
14th Rocket Div Yoshkar Ola: 56.573405° 48.039776° (two Laser truck verified within the base)
39th Rocket Div Novosibirsk: 55.268340° 83.018813° (same base & shelter structure under construction)

In so far I think that the "#Peresvet" Laser is indeed tactically allocated to the future operation procedure of mobile #ICBMs.
My guess: we will see "Peresvet" at all mobile RS-24 bases

task: blinding optical sensors of satellites in case of ICBM launch

Great job, thanks!

Yes, this capability was hinted at by Mindstorm. So privy eyes in the sky will be "closed" above those sites and so the presence or mobilization of the ICBM units impossible to confirm.

So especially against satellites with Synthetic Aperture Radar

Radars can be jammed. This lasers will do the same with optics (we guess).

LMFS wrote:

Thanks! Cool video, I still don't understand why the loss of lift of the plane or missiles, didn't have the time to research on that and the video translator only manages to spit disconnected words Did you get any wiser by listening to it?

OK tonight now i am at work

As to the Rtut-BM, didn't know it and it is amazing. Apparently fools the proximity fuse, guess only radar ones, but imagine what it could do in case of war in Donbass for instance.

I'm sure in Donbass Russians help logistically too do you think how long could Donbass keep army with ammo supplies and medicament and training in case of total blockade form UKrops?

Few pics from militaryrussia blog:

Some more:

Isos wrote:Not the good thread Hole !

he was blinded by the ray