Advanced Technologies in US Military applications

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.

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 ?

Sounds like a plea for money Max.

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

GarryB wrote:

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.

These propaganda stories are just ridiculous the kinetic railgun artillery was the worst. These idiots also seem to think dispertion does not apply to railguns as the effective ranges the give are just ridiculous. I remember reading the BR-2 was a bad artillery pice because the velocity was too high although that might just have been an attempt to discredit the BR-2.

But as far as the actual use of railguns goes they are only useful as AT weapons and against ships all they will do is make tiny holes however the only thing that con carry all the capacitors and batteries is a ship so they mount it on a platform that it will not benefit ships just do not go to the shore to shoot at tanks.

I wonder why Russia has not shown its energy weapon programs...oh wait maby because they do not like showing off useless equipment that cannot even be fielded where it would be of any use.

Now may I ask again what these "amazing" pices of junk will be mounted on bearing in mind it will be useless against soft targets and infantry due to a lack of an explosive shell.

Ok, follow up question.

How effective will the new U.S laser defense system be against past, current and soon to be deployed anti-ship missiles?

AlfaT8 wrote:Ok, follow up question.

How effective will the new U.S laser defense system be against past, current and soon to be deployed anti-ship missiles?

Totally useless. Antiship, specially those faced by US navy, missile are sea skiming and lunched in salvos.

Laser weapons needs to find the target on radar then point the camera and then wait untill it burns the missile.

With supersonic missile like oniks you have 30 sec to do all of this. Finding on radar then looking at it with the laser would recquire some seconds. Burning through oniks is not like burning this small drone. They are meant to resist mach 2 at very low altitude which means it resists high temperatures. So you would definitly need much more than what you see on the video with the drone. And if you have 4 or 5 coming at you ... you are dead. And they could just add a inside material that resist to laser to make it even harder to destroy it. If the weather is bad then its totally useless. To much disadvantages...

Lasers are studied since very long. It's not new at all. There is a reason why no one used them during all this time. I would go with a 57 mm gun which would have same range (around10km) and would use a radar or a laser to track the target. The air burst ammunition like we see on WW2 era film when the rounds explode need the fighters would have a time fuze so that it would be send to  an interception point and explode at the target. Cheap and very reliable. Fore and forget. It could track maybe ten targets and shot a round at each of them in less than 2 sec for each target.

If you really want want an energy weapons then you should go for something that burns tge electronics with micro waves or something like that.

Development of a combat laser system based on the Stryker armored vehicle

On July 26, 2019, the U.S. Army issued $ 203 million worth of contracts to Northrop Grumman and Raytheon corporations for the competitive development of prototypes of a 50-kilowatt combat laser system based on the Stryker armored vehicle (8x8). The contractor for the development of a laser system for both participants under a separate contract with the US Army is the American company Kord Technologies.


Image of the proposed Northrop Grumman 50-kilowatt combat laser system based on the Stryker armored vehicle (c) Northrop Grumman


The ordered laser systems are designed to provide military air defense (M-SHORAD), combat UAVs, as well as the destruction of artillery shells, missiles and mines. Contracts are issued under the Other Transaction Authority (OTA) accelerated and simplified financing scheme. Under the terms of the contracts, each of the corporations must supply one prototype of a combat laser system based on the Stryker during the year, and by the year of2222 make three more units for testing.


Tested by the U.S. Army experimental installation of a 5-kilowatt fiber-optic laser based on an armored vehicle Stryker. Fort Sill (Oklahoma), April 2017 (c) C. Todd Lopez / U.S. Army

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3730018.html

HELWS mobile laser system to combat small unmanned aerial vehicles

On August 2, 2019, the U.S. Air Force issued a $ 23.818 million contract to Raytheon Corporation for the development of a low-cost, light-weight, quick-deployable mobile ground combat laser system High Energy Laser Weapon Systems (HELWS) to combat small unmanned aerial vehicles.


An experimental model based on the Polaris MRZR lightweight all-terrain vehicle of a combat vehicle developed for the US Air Force by the Raytheon HELWS (High Energy Laser Weapon Systems) light fast-deployable mobile ground-based combat laser system for combating small unmanned aerial vehicles (c) John Hamilton

The contract provides for the delivery of two HELWS prototypes and their 12-month field trials outside the US continental territory. Work should be completed by November 1, 2020. The complex should be mounted on a light car (pickup or buggy - the experimental sample is installed on a light Polaris MRZR all-terrain vehicle) and controlled by one operator. The laser system is combined with an electron-optical target detection system (UAV). The battery charge should provide 4-hour standby time and from 20 to 30 laser shots. Charging the batteries of the complex should be provided from a household electrical network of 220 volts.



An experimental prototype based on the Polaris MRZR lightweight all-terrain vehicle of a combat vehicle developed for the US Air Force by the Raytheon HELWS (High Energy Laser Weapon Systems) light fast-deployable mobile ground-based combat laser system for combating small unmanned aerial vehicles (c) John Hamilton and Raytheon

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3730222.html

US Air Force sends first laser weapon system to test abroad

According to the American resource Task & Purpoise, the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) handed over the first installation of the HELWS (High Energy Laser Weapon Systems) fast-deploying mobile ground-based combat laser complex for 12-month tests outside the continental part ( OCONUS) USA.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3984497.html

ahmedfire wrote:

Watch this US Navy ship destroy a flying drone with a laser weapon

That's a joke. Just look at the dispersion of the laser beam. After around 50m it's 2x bigger than at the beggining. One km away it would have energy to do nothing. Where is the full video ?

Anyone with laser knowledge could analyze my interpretation ?  Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to be a weired laser.

ahmedfire wrote:In 2019 , they said they would have a 300-kilowatt by 2022 and 500 kW by 2024 against cruise missiles .

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/12/exclusive-three-ways-to-kill-cruise-missiles-pentagon-to-test-rival-lasers/

Meanwhile the Russians already have Peresvet that's 1-10 MW, on top of that it's a MASER and a GRASER.

GarryB wrote:

Nuclear tank? Are they serious?

I just worked it out... they think that because the Armata will have a 152mm gun it will be able to use the 2.5 kiloton nuclear shell that the Coalition can use.

Dumbasses... when would a tank use such a shell... with a 20 degree gun elevation it wouldn't be able to fire it far enough to be outside its own blast radius...

Well if they used a gun launched missile to deliver the warhead it could be quite useful for cleaning up insignificant parts of eastern europe and the remainder of the enemy's conventional forces during the nuclear war.

If you think about it you could be in ukropia commanding a small tank force and be tasked with removing some remaining pindos from a town with a few multi story buildings but artillery support is in short supply as it is all needed for more intense theatres, you could just go in and lose a few tanks to some bushwacking vermin hiding in the rooftops or you could just load up a nuclear missile and be done with the lot of them.