Army Shoots Down Artillery Shell with Laser
-
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army used a high-energy laser to shoot down an artillery shell in mid-flight on Tuesday in a defense industry breakthrough, the Army and the manufacturer said.
The Army and TRW Inc, which developed the weapon, said in a joint statement that the laser tracked, locked onto and fired a burst of concentrated light energy photons at the speeding shell over the White Sands test range in New Mexico.
"Seconds later, at a point well short of its intended destination, the projectile was destroyed," the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command said.
The Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL) is being developed by TRW for the Army and the Israeli Defense Ministry. Lasers have been used in past tests at the range to shoot down slower Katyusha Rockets similar to those fired at Israel by militant guerrilla groups in neighboring Lebanon.
"This shootdown shifts the paradigm for defensive capabilities. We've shown that even an artillery projectile hurtling through the air at supersonic speed is no match for a laser," said Army Lt. Gen. Joseph Cosumano, head of the missile defense command.
"Tactical high energy lasers have the capacity to change the face of the battlefield," he added.
The laser was fired from a static testbed in a carefully controlled test, but TRW officials said they looked forward to producing a truly mobile version as the program progressed.
Tuesday's test -- the first time a laser had shot down an artillery shell -- was part of a new series to determine MTHEL requirements and demonstrate the system's capabilities against a wide range of airborne targets.
In earlier tests in 2000 and 2001 the testbed focused on the threat of artillery rockets and shot down 25 Katyushas fired singly and in salvos.
The U.S. military has shot down dummy intercontinental missile warheads in tests both inside and outside the atmosphere using projectile weapons and is also examining the possible use of long-range lasers to burn up such warheads in flight.
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=1683768# -
Artillery operates in batteries, and they aim to get as many rounds in the air within the first few minutes, saturating the targert.
Now, unless you have a huge number of these, the targert area will be still flattened.
Although the laser may be good for defending key installations, but due to the fact they drawn huge amount of power, they aren't exactly portable. You need huge banks of generators to accompany it, thus in my view, not practial on the field until they improve the energy efficency of the laser.
So far, the best way to deal with enemy artillery is still to take them out before they fire, and counter artillery fire. -
in fact its Quite true,opposition artillery forces batteries tends to fire many rounds into the enemy targets such defense installation can only shoot down several shells but it cant wipe out all the shells.Hey speaking about artillery what about the Astro II MRLS thats even more devastating then artillery shell.Dont tell me singapore is prepare to use Apache to counter it???Originally posted by wombat:
Artillery operates in batteries, and they aim to get as many rounds in the air within the first few minutes, saturating the targert.
Now, unless you have a huge number of these, the targert area will be still flattened.
Although the laser may be good for defending key installations, but due to the fact they drawn huge amount of power, they aren't exactly portable. You need huge banks of generators to accompany it, thus in my view, not practial on the field until they improve the energy efficency of the laser.
So far, the best way to deal with enemy artillery is still to take them out before they fire, and counter artillery fire.
-
Originally posted by Mech^O^GATor:in fact its Quite true,opposition artillery forces batteries tends to fire many rounds into the enemy targets such defense installation can only shoot down several shells but it cant wipe out all the shells.Hey speaking about artillery what about the Astro II MRLS thats even more devastating then artillery shell.Dont tell me singapore is prepare to use Apache to counter it???
-
Not to mention ICMs, which saturate areas with BOMBLETS. Then again, this Laser can probably destroy the shell before it reaches that stage.
Also, u don't really need that many lasers. U need one machine, a prism, and a way of directing the split up beams. So it is possible to be made into a more developed defense system. -
like a shield?
-
I think you played to much command & conquer yuri RevengeOriginally posted by Shotgun:Not to mention ICMs, which saturate areas with BOMBLETS. Then again, this Laser can probably destroy the shell before it reaches that stage.
Also, u don't really need that many lasers. U need one machine, a prism, and a way of directing the split up beams. So it is possible to be made into a more developed defense system.
They have this prism tank with could seperate the beam which could hit several targets with one shot -
Yap, coupled with the counter-battery returns from our own artys. I think the most viable options right now are UCAV like Hellfire-armed Predators UCAVs plus Apaches. Furthermore, the TPQ-37 radars are going to pick up where the MRLS are fired from and the arty can then quickly return fire. As for the use of submunitions, there are also 155mm arty rounds that carry submunitions such as anti-personal bomblets or anti-tank munitions. Don't know if SAF has already invested in those. Furthermore, there are also the swedish BONUS 155mm round that are self-guided using either millimeter wave or IR (forgot which one). Last but not least, laser guided 155mm rounds are also available from both the US (Copperhead) and the Russians.Originally posted by Mech^O^GATor:Hey speaking about artillery what about the Astro II MRLS thats even more devastating then artillery shell.Dont tell me singapore is prepare to use Apache to counter it???
The idea of using laser to hit rockets and arty rounds are in advanced prototype stage but how viable they are to defend Singapore (cost vs effectiveness) is still a big ? -
SAF already possess the ICM artillery cargo rounds carrying submunitions...Originally posted by Joe Black:Yap, coupled with the counter-battery returns from our own artys. I think the most viable options right now are UCAV like Hellfire-armed Predators UCAVs plus Apaches. Furthermore, the TPQ-37 radars are going to pick up where the MRLS are fired from and the arty can then quickly return fire. As for the use of submunitions, there are also 155mm arty rounds that carry submunitions such as anti-personal bomblets or anti-tank munitions. Don't know if SAF has already invested in those. Furthermore, there are also the swedish BONUS 155mm round that are self-guided using either millimeter wave or IR (forgot which one). Last but not least, laser guided 155mm rounds are also available from both the US (Copperhead) and the Russians.
The idea of using laser to hit rockets and arty rounds are in advanced prototype stage but how viable they are to defend Singapore (cost vs effectiveness) is still a big ?
THe ICM rounds are manufactured by singapore technologies... locally...
as for the lazer gun... i think that it could be deployed in areas where there are huge power source... like cities... hydro electric dams... power stations and others....
And since the lazer... has (i would assumed) significant range of interception which is limited probably only by the curvature of the earth.... IT might be more appropriate to place such weapon on the roof of all the skyscrappers.
furthermore... i believe that the key to increase rate of fire for such lazer weapon is not power source... but heat sink...
such lazer cannon if powerful enough could have its beams fire out to intercept huge numbers of incoming warheads in split seconds... assuming that the lazer beam can be directed around as quickly as a phase array radar.... -
be a great idea to put one at the logistic base... i found it damn stoopid that they chose to centralise all the storage rather than decentralise it...
shan't go into details. but that place practically invites attacks in times of crisis. -
Maybe the SAF did not expect the enemy to be able to advance so near to be able to take out the logistic base with arty fire rite? Possible?
-
Mmm..its quite naive thinking that SAF centralise all its logistic in one particular location.there is no way any nations defense are arranged in such away that all logistic is focus at one point this will only invite trouble in time of conflict.Originally posted by CX:be a great idea to put one at the logistic base... i found it damn stoopid that they chose to centralise all the storage rather than decentralise it...
shan't go into details. but that place practically invites attacks in times of crisis.
it better not to assume that they had kept their stuffs in a single location.
Speaking about laser defense i decided to say i prefer missiles.since our logistic and hardware storage are well kept underground protected by soild granite soil and concrete Beside which potential hostile aggressor has the technology to punch a hole through those soild stuffs.Relax.... our "store room" will leach them here and we kill them lo!!! -
Well, we wouldn't have what we have today without "Starwars."
Why not prism' defence arrays? It makes sense, logical, and cost-effective. -
yes...its logical and stuff..
but its easier said than done..
-
So was the entire concept of killer laser beams when Starwars came out. Most people dismissed it, and felt that it was impossible. No way can light be focused in such way, to cut or damage anything. Time and technology has proven them wrong. Prism defense array, highly possible. The thing is, NOT to give up.