# laser weapon feasable yet?



## jkthomson (Oct 2, 2003)

I know that it is 2003, and we are supposed to have flying cars, and robots that do housework...

I've noticed that you can get high power greenie laser pointers. how many mW of energy will it take to become a true "weapon", I don't think it should be able to cleave a person in half, but should definitely burn a hole in wood...

second, how portable are the types of laser that could output this much power? could you possibly carry it, ignoring power supplies for the moment... is it fragile?

or is the hand lasergun just like the flying car? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Oct 2, 2003)

I think the handheld laser or phaser pistol or laser weapon like Walter Koenig had on Space: 1999 is like the flying car...probably still a ways off. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif


----------



## BlindedByTheLite (Oct 2, 2003)

well.. i know scientists work with very powerful lasers.. i imagine the technology could be applied to weapons.. but not affordable ones or practical ones..


----------



## RevDavid (Oct 2, 2003)

Too bad, you could go deer hunting, and cook that venison from your tree stand. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

David <><


----------



## soloco (Oct 2, 2003)

The USAF has airplane mounted energy weapons. I think an effective hand held energy weapon is pretty far off, at least for most tactical uses. Maybe a long range hyper-accurate, silent sniping 'system'. Probably not man portable; need at least a squad to use in the field.


----------



## kev1-1 (Oct 2, 2003)

The U.S.A.F Anti-Ballistic missile laser mounted on a 747 conversion is incredibly heavy...and can only manage a few shots before requiring refueling (which means a landing is needed.). Although, it does generate enough energy to heat up a missile 50 miles away...at least it should do when it goes from testing to production!!


----------



## E2E4ME (Oct 2, 2003)

USAF'S LASER

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-02c.html


----------



## 83Venture (Oct 2, 2003)

Think I remember a thread here a few months ago that had links to articles about a hand held laser being developed that acted as a wireless TASER.


----------



## kakster (Oct 2, 2003)

Lets not forget SDI from the 80's, Regans "Star Wars" . The heart of this system was an X-Ray laser mounted on a satelite. Anything caught in its beam casts a negative shadow and combusts most impressivley.


----------



## LED-FX (Oct 2, 2003)

ABL:

http://www.airbornelaser.com/

Big Lasers

http://members.rogers.com/biglasers/index.html

Adam


----------



## Al_Havemann (Oct 2, 2003)

A portable laser weapon system might be technically feasible, it's possible to design a laser pump with sufficient output and small enough to classify it as a portable weapon but the sticking point is power.

Such a weapon could be designed with current material science but the power requirements would be prodigious indeed. We're not talking about a few batteries with a few watt hours here, we need hundred of amps/kilowatts to drive such a portable system and give it equality with conventional portable weapons currently available. For a laser to deliver the same power to a target as a conventional high-powered rifle bullet would take a power pulse of at least 25kw into a laser. Not trivial!.

A major byproduct would be large amounts of heat. It's conceivable that the cooling requirements could be managed by incorporating a defused refrigeration laser as a component of the system, but again, where do we get the power?. Conventional battery technology isn't even close with the very best available. 

What's needed is a breakthrough in power generation, a quantum leap, if you will, and there's not a hint, not a whisper, not the slightest sign of a breakthrough in physics that point in that direction. Nothing at all, and it would seem like there should be at least some hints by now if there are any to find. Is it possible we?re hitting the wall with physics?.


----------



## nattuggla (Oct 2, 2003)

For something _really_ far out, you can read about the Stavatti TIS-1 gasdynamic laser rifle here (PDF): http://www.defensereview.com/352003/TIS1.pdf

Requires almost impossible amounts of Po-210 (it's made in microgram amounts and extremely expensive), would produce 50-100kW of heat _when_idling_ (in a 5kg weapon, that's hot, hot, HOT!), have a recoil force of 90lb over the 0.35 s "burst" (not exactly what _I_'d call a "practical" personal weapon).

(If you go to Stavatti's web page, you'll se aircraft designs, but if you read this http://www.stavatti.com/customer_support.html you'll get a better idea of what the company really does.)
------------------------------------------------------
Leaving the world of fantasy, this one is certainly feasible:
http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm
But at 180 tons, it's not exactly portable.

More on lasers: http://www.afa.org/magazine/sept1999/0999lasers.asp

Not as big as the AL-1, the F-35 will possibly get a 100kW electrically powered laser in a compact package:
http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_military.jsp?view=story&id=news/masd0926.xml

Lasers have been used as weapons: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/laser.htm

An old article which mentions some systems, don't know how many of them were realised in any way:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=D8n8I2.C6t%40ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com


----------



## Gransee (Oct 2, 2003)

Traditionally, the challenge of a man-portable LASER was one of mostly power supply. But just as there have been incredible advances in LEDS, LASER diodes have made incredible advances in efficiency in the past 10 years. Quantum efficiency of 40% or more is now possible. Osram for example, has 5mm laser diodes that can produce 75watts for 100ns. They have larger diodes in TO packages rated at several watts CW. You can also purchase diode arrays that have CW power levels of 100 watts or more and pulse power levels much higher than that. 

Combine this with a high densitiy power source (LiIon, fuel cell, etc), power supply and aerogel capicitor and a man portable LASER weapon that can deliver 500watt pulses is now doable.

Now, the problem becomes reflection. At 500watts, even the reflection off a dull metal surface can permantly blind a person. Having a bird fly across your beam would create a reflection strong enough to at least temporarly blind everyone in your squad. If you are going to use a laser weapon, everyone in a mile or two radius must have eye protection. It is against the geneva convention to use a laser on the battlefield that is intended to blind people.

A lot of the systems planned by the military involve shooting things in flight high above the battlefield. I imagine some of this is for safety, but mostly LASERS are very good at shooting fast moving things.

Another possible use for LASERs is for extending/reducing the range of artillary rounds.

Peter


----------



## funkmasterta (Oct 2, 2003)

Why spend so much time & money on this when a simple, shiny reflective surface can just bounce the laser off?


----------



## Gransee (Oct 2, 2003)

That was suggested as a defense against SDI. Another was spinning the missile to diffuse the laser power. Other ideas were electrical curtains and particle clouds.

Yes, this would deflect quite a bit of laser energy. But the response is to turn the laser power up even more.

Needless to say... Unless they have a nicely polished, mirror exactly where the laser is targeted, the target is going to go boom.

On the ABL, an oversized, cooled mirror is used to focus the laser energy. 

Peter


----------



## McGizmo (Oct 2, 2003)

I hope all of this loose and intellectual information on a public forum isn't picked up by the wrong people. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif I'm glad to here that the Geneva convention has "outlawed" the use of lasers on the battle field. Now as long as everyone abides by the Geneva convention, there shouldn't be any problems, right? I have certainly heard enough about lasers in off forum discussions to be very concerned about the implications and ease of the wrong stuff getting into the wrong hands! I'll be darned if I'd discuss it here!

- Don


----------



## BuddTX (Oct 2, 2003)

[ QUOTE ]
*jkthomson said:*
I know that it is 2003, and we are supposed to have flying cars, and robots that do housework...


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget the food replicators, People living on the Moon and Mars, and of course, EVERYONE WEARING ONE PIECE SILVER JUMPSUITS!


----------



## kakster (Oct 2, 2003)

I already have the jumpsuit, just waiting on the others now...


----------



## Roy (Oct 2, 2003)

Back in the '70's, I talked with some of the guys at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds pulse nuclear reactor. They were talking about a Gamma laser that NASA had brought up for testing. The devise shot a coherent beam of gamma rays (x-rays)but needed a nuclear reactor as a source of the gamma rays! They were talking about having gamma pulse reactors in orbit to pulse the gamma lasers. Even today, it takes the output of a small powerplant (20-40 megawatts) to power a weapons grade laser.


----------



## Ratus (Oct 2, 2003)

AFAIK the laser is not used to burn or melt a target, but to transfer energy *into* it.

Mirrors used with high energy lasers are polished metal with a cooling system on the back. But the light does not reflect off the metal, but an "Optical Coating". If the cooling system fails or the "Optical Coating" is too thin, thick, wrong compound, etc. It absorbs too much energy, and goes *BOOM*


[qualifier] I an not an expert in this or any other field. [/qualifier]


----------



## Unicorn (Oct 2, 2003)

The Geneva Conventions don't really have much to do with any type of weapons. It was one of the Hague Conventions that dealt with weapons, and then it banned weapons that were designed to increase the suffereing, or just wounding weapons. LASERs that are intended to just blind others are banned, but if one were made to kill another, it would be fine.


----------



## Atomic6 (Oct 3, 2003)

Hey-how long did you think I would wait until chiming in anyway /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif and Don is correct: You can't talk about the cool stuff here...

The place I hang my labcoat during the day makes these toys you have been discussing. I have supported this technology for almost 20 years. I will tell you that the power of a Chemical Lazer is truley devistating. The ABL system is just that. Sure it may only be able to pop a few targets; but there is a fleet of them hunting the skies (or soon will be anyway).

Did anyone bring up THEL? 
THEL Laser Page

We make just about all varieties of lasers. The scariest laser of all time is the FEL. 

FEL Stuff here 

and here:
More FEL and page down for Antimatter news 

This forum amazes me...........


----------



## bj (Oct 3, 2003)

The exact definition of 'weapon' is what we always seem to get stuck on. Most of the smaller stuff (man portable) has been used to disrupt optics (both organic and otherwise). The man-portable DAZER was designed to disrupt enemy optical systems, as well as blind people. Needless to say, never quite made it to production, though a couple dozen prototypes were made before the legal and political winds changed.

Getting a little bigger, you have vehicle mounted systems specifically desinged to scan for enemy optics and take them out. The Outrider mounts atop a HMMWV, while the Stingray mounts on a Bradley. 

There's an Air Force gadget that mounts in an M203 grenade launcher as a deterrent device. Very bright, but not blinding, lets you know you've been spotted. It's called Saber.

The pulsed impulsive-kill laser, affectionately referred to as PIKL, has had it's ups and downs, but it's a promising technology that would allow tunable effects easier than some more traditional laser technologies.

Course, if you really want power in a small size, you need to go to explosive generators. A one-shot, of course, but gobs of power from a small device.

Trust me, this stuff's all on the web. Certainly the details of some are not for discussion, and the stuff being worked on today... Let's just say, impressive.


----------



## Phaserburn (Oct 3, 2003)

Craig,

Wasn't Walter Koenig on Star Trek (Chekov), not Space: 1999? I believe he carried something like I am in my avatar.


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Oct 3, 2003)

[ QUOTE ]
*Phaserburn said:*
Craig,

Wasn't Walter Koenig on Star Trek (Chekov), not Space: 1999? I believe he carried something like I am in my avatar. 

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he played both characters... let me google that name and see what comes up...BRB...hmmm...some websites say he played Chekov on Star Trek *and* Walter Koenig on Space: 1999, and others say that John Koenig was on Space: 1999.
Now I'm all "cornfused". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif


----------



## outlaw918692000 (Oct 3, 2003)

Everything you read is 20 year old technology, in terms of the military. The reason they don't persue a laser field weapon is it will reflect and is absorbed by flat paint. Force weapons are more what they want like microwave and sonic. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dedhorse.gif


----------



## Frangible (Oct 3, 2003)

The problem with high energy lasers is how inefficient they are. It takes a lot of input power that's not really feasible. The polonium power source is cute in theroy, but enough polonium to power a small car, which is less than what's required for a laser weapon, would kill you even through 15cm of lead shielding. Not to mention polonium decays quickly and makes gold look cheap.

You'd want a beam that's about a half inch wide to be competitive with bullets (the goal is to cause blood loss and starve their brain of oxygen), and probably an x-ray or gamma ray to minimize the reflection problems.

Perhaps someday, we'll have a very effecient gamma ray laser head driven by some nuclear or biochemical power source that works better than a firearm.

But I wouldn't hold my breath over it. Firearms are incredibly good relative to lasers as weapons right now. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.


----------



## Marked (Oct 4, 2003)

Better idea.
"Kindergarten Solar-powered Death Squad
Take a large crowd of children out into the sunshine and give each one a 20cm square mirror. Show them how to aim all of their little spots of sunlight at the same distant object, then stand back and see what they do. Better yet, run away. 
FAST!"

http://amasci.com/hoax.html


----------



## Blackbeagle (Oct 4, 2003)

For the near future, I doubt there is going to be much in the way of laser weapons. Most of the lasers used in modern warfare are primarily for ranging and target designation. There is some work on trying to use lasers to blind personnel and to blind equipment such as the night optics on weapons or the television target sensors on things like the Maverick missile or the Tomahawk. The problem with that is the same problem the Phalanx CIWS has - trying to shoot down something coming at you at multiple mach speed - by the time you see it, you don't have much time to target it and even less time to hit it. Not so much the weapon as the ability to see the incoming, move your weapon into an interdiction trajectory and firing it at the right time.

Something to think about: go out in a dark field. Have someone shine a light. Makes them very visible and very targetable. Now, imagine you have a missile with a laser seeker - just shoot it at the laser source. Your weapon becomes a homing beacon and gets you killed. Sort of the same problem with radar and radar killing missiles like the Harm.


----------



## markus_i (Oct 6, 2003)

And let's not forget a quote from a children's comic (ca. 1975): "the best known defense against beam weapons is fog". Drop a few fog/smoke grenades (or you might even use a continous fog generator?) and watch the light show...

Sure, a sufficiently powerful laser will burn through the fog and still carry sufficient energy to damage the target, but as long as laser weapons will be scraping the bottom of the barrel to deliver enough energy under optimum atmospheric conditions, worsening those conditions will make them unuseable. (Near) Vacuum conditions are something else, but I can't see a handheld laser weapon with any advantages over e.g. a high speed small calibre gun (like the current/new army developments).

Bye
Markus


----------



## PsycoBob[Q2] (Oct 9, 2003)

I'd get really upset if someone told me I was going to be using a rifle-type Gamma laser. Anything that I have to stick my head near that is designed to produce enough gamma-ray energy to kill the target (and not by radiation sickness) will likely have enough leakage out the side to make my little radiation badge go all dark....


----------



## blahblahblah (Oct 10, 2003)

http://www.spacewar.com/rayguns.html


----------



## Hemingray (Oct 14, 2003)

Walter Koenig was Chekov on Star Trek (the original series), and appeared again as a PSI on Babylon 5. John Koenig was on Space 1999.

My previous job (about 4 years ago) I worked with an engineer who was from the Ukraine, and he specialized in optics and lasers. I asked him what power level would be needed to shoot flies down, he told me that 0.5 to 1 watt should be sufficient. Let's see,,, Some of the green laser pointers have IR lasers in this power output range. Perhaps one that has been dropped one too many times, and the wavelength conversion crystals have been damaged, might have a second life as a hi-tech fly swatter. One that should definitely NOT be used in the presence of other people or pets, or reflective surfaces. Best to drop this idea altogether before someone loses an eye. 

Until lasers and power sources become more efficient and portable, the best light-emitting weapon is a 6D M*gL*te with a Luxeon star LED. Not as a light, but as a wallopin' stick. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twakfl.gif The best offense is a good defense, etc...

ed B in NH /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hahaha.gif


----------



## Turd_Ferguson (May 8, 2004)

Here's the answer to your question. I don't consider this a weapon, though, more of an anti-weapon. I deleted a humorous post that was moved to the cafe so that this link could be more appropriately discussed here. 

Looky here. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif


----------



## Sub_Umbra (May 8, 2004)

The airborne laser in a 747 seems to make the most sense to me. 747s regularly fly at 41,000 feet on long runs like Singapore to LAX. At 41,000 feet they are above 95% of the atmosphere. Who knows how much higher they'll *actually* shoot them from.


----------



## ws (May 12, 2004)

My two cents worth:

There are already laser weapons around: the ordinary laser pointers that people use all the time for lectures and indicating stuff. The earlier models, cheap imitations and those that are not designated as eye-safe are particularly dangerous. Kids especially like to shine them at the drivers of cars and buses. One case I read in the newspaper was that a kid shone a laser pointer at a bus driver who was on duty, and the poor guy was blinded permanently in one eye.

I guess it is up to the individual to use them responsibly, and to ensure that they are not used recklessly. But I believe lasers are in operational use already. There were reports of a system called Dazzler, if I remember correctly. And weren't there reports of some laser devices being used in the Falklands War to interfere with aircraft bombing runs on ships by temporarily making the cockpit windows bright and opaque, like shining an M6 HOLA on a very dirty and oily car windshield at night? Dunno if I am correct. Maybe someone out there can help confirm or deny this.


----------

