Laser Gunship
The USAF is experimenting with Airborne Laser technology in the ground attack role. Putting a chemical laser on a C-130H would produce a “super Spectre” gunship. The article suggests that there would be no collateral damage — there would be minimal collateral damage.
In the late 1970s the USAF experimented with a chemical laser in the tail position of B-52s– to use to shoot down enemy missiles attacking the plane. That laser had a relatively short range. The article says the gunship laser would have a range of ten miles (15 kms?).
Put one of these on a Predator drone. At high altitudes, the range must be 50 miles or more. If a missile is launched, shoot it down. Now put up a dozen or so laser-predators - the country is blanketed.
Comment by red river — 2/1/2006 @ 6:03 pm
No collateral damage eh? What happens when you lase a building packed full of ammo> The military calls that a secondary explosion which often is larger than the weapon used to cause it.
Comment by Agesilaus — 2/1/2006 @ 8:33 pm
As with the Spectre these aircraft will be vulnerable to ground fire.
Comment by davod — 2/2/2006 @ 5:23 am
WILL IT WORK IN THE RAIN AND CLOUDS OR FOG?
Comment by PETER DECEW — 2/2/2006 @ 7:11 am
I’m afraid laser-drones might be a while in coming. Note that these devices are chemical lasers, which are big, bulky things powered by nasty chemicals. Hence the C-130 and not something smaller.
Comment by TrustButVerify — 2/2/2006 @ 7:34 am
They do sound mighty complicated http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm, but things always get smaller, and eventually safer. Radioactive hydrogen fluoride - cool. If it malfunctions just drop it on the target.
Comment by Jeff Cook — 2/2/2006 @ 8:53 am
I hadn’t thought of that angle, Jeff. People already get fired up over DU and nuclear reactors passing through their territory… Imagine the furor over a crash involving radioactive chemicals.
Comment by TrustButVerify — 2/2/2006 @ 11:12 am
I thought there was a UN treaty against using energy weapons on personnel so deployment of this is really contingent and getting that treaty updated.
Comment by norm — 2/2/2006 @ 12:23 pm
If I’m not mistaken, the Russians and Chinese- and the North Koreans- already have the technology. Last year DT (I think) had a blurb about Kiowas on the DMZ getting flashed by lasers, and back in the 80s it appears that the Soviets did the same thing- to a space shuttle at that- with a laser at Sary Shagan. (www.astronautix.com/flights/sts41g.htm) I’d like to see more on this UN treaty- never heard of it and would like to know a bit. Everyone else does it, why can’t we?
Comment by TrustButVerify — 2/2/2006 @ 1:27 pm
I have this mental image of Iran firing nukes at Israel, blown up over Tehran by lasers, raining radio-active material down on the mullahs and Ahmadinejadontknowhowttospellitanddont caretolearn. Iran will burn effigies in anger…probably shout slogans too.
Comment by PM of the POL — 2/2/2006 @ 3:05 pm
Lasers are, by definitation, line-of-sight weapons. How will they work against a target under the slightest foilage, or behind a few walls (such as in an urban setting)? I still think ABLs are best as a missile defense system, and probably a cheap way to get rid of the smaller drones (Raven etc — in a few years the enemy will have them, too). Deny the enemy intelligence and ranged strike capability, instead of actually being used to kill the enemy. OTOH, sending one of the laser beams down the path of an enemy radar beam will probably really ruin their day. And the ability to ‘blanket’ Iran and so deny the mad mullahs the ability to threaten Israel and Iraq with ballistic missiles would make the ABL project worthwhile, even if it had no other battlefield use.
Comment by wuyanei — 2/2/2006 @ 8:43 pm
MIRACL doesn’t involve any radioactivity. Deuterium is not radioactive.
Comment by ATM — 2/3/2006 @ 9:42 am