US Air Force abandons development of combat lasers

15 179 68
US Air Force abandons development of combat lasers
Mockup of a SHiELD container in a wind tunnel, 2021.


The Pentagon is showing great interest in the so-called. arms directed energy of various types and is developing a number of projects of this kind. In particular, in order to develop the air force, several programs have been launched in recent years to create combat lasers. Promising projects made it through the early stages, but then encountered serious difficulties. As a result, the Pentagon has to abandon them without getting the desired result.



Laser for self-defense


In the early 1900s, the Pentagon initiated the development of the concept of a combat laser suitable for installation on tactical aircraft aviation. It was proposed to use such weapons to destroy incoming missiles, to combat ground targets, etc. The theoretical development of this idea continued for several years, after which full-fledged experimental design work began under the name SHiELD (Self-protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator).

Several leading enterprises of the military-industrial complex with experience in the development of combat lasers took part in the competitive part of the SHiELD program. The overall coordination of the work was carried out by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The most successful project was proposed by Boeing, and in 2016 it was entrusted with further development of the program.

The AFRL and Boeing project envisaged the production of a combat laser complex in the form of a suspended container compatible with tactical aircraft. It was proposed to place the laser itself, guidance and control systems, as well as a power source inside such a container.

In the second half of the tenth years, the Boeing company produced several prototypes of the SHiELD product and conducted various tests. Tests were carried out on the stand and in the wind tunnel. In addition, in 2019, a mock-up of a container with a weight imitation of equipment was flown for the first time on an F-15 fighter.


Combat use of the SHiELD laser - only in graphic form

By the end of the last decade, SHiELD prototypes reached “fire” tests. Products of this kind were tested on stands in laboratories and test sites. The container's main systems have confirmed their functionality. Thus, in April 2019, a prototype placed on the ground was able to hit a flying target missile. However, there were still a lot of different tests to be carried out.

Apparently, already at the development stage, the SHiELD project encountered certain difficulties, which, in particular, forced a revision of the work schedule. Thus, in 2017, it was reported that flight tests of the laser container would begin in 2021. By the beginning of the next decade, such events were postponed to 2025. In this regard, the theoretical time frame for launching production and adopting SHiELD into service gradually shifted to the thirties.

Unexpected final


However, there was no need to revise the schedule again and shift the deadlines to the right. In addition, the program was not transferred to the next stage of testing, which involved the involvement of carrier aircraft. As it turned out, the Pentagon studied the current state of affairs and curtailed the work.

The completion of the program was reported on May 17 by the American online publication Military.com. It was able to contact SHiELD program manager from AFRL's Directed Energy Directorate, Ted Ortiz, and ask him pressing questions. A representative of the Laboratory responded to the publication and revealed the current state of affairs.

According to T. Ortiz, the SHiELD project has now been completed. All previously planned tests on ground stands were carried out. Flight tests were not carried out. AFRL currently has no plans to restart the program and conduct new tests in any given setting.

Airborne laser


In the mid-130s, the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) initiated the development of a project to modernize the AC-XNUMXJ Ghostrider air support aircraft. It was proposed to change the weapons system again: the existing artillery decided to supplement it with missiles and a combat laser.


Plans for the development of aircraft laser weapons from 2013

The program to develop a laser with a power of tens of kilowatts, designed to destroy ground targets, was called AHEL (Airborne High Energy Laser - “Airborne High Energy Laser”). The first few years were spent on preliminary research and drawing up technical specifications, as well as conducting competitive development.

At the beginning of 2019, Lockheed Martin was chosen as the developer of the AHEL product. Over the next years, she had to complete the design of the combat laser, manufacture it and conduct tests, both on a ground stand and on a carrier aircraft. Flight tests of the new combat laser were going to begin in 2021.

Due to the overall complexity of the project, by the specified deadline they only managed to manufacture a prototype and transfer it for installation on a carrier aircraft. In parallel, ground tests were carried out, during which the calculated characteristics were generally confirmed. Based on the results of these events, it was reported that the set goals had been achieved and that the project would soon move to the next stage.

However, difficulties arose, and the work schedule was revised several times. The first flight of the AC-130J with a laser on board was constantly shifted to the right. So, in November 2023, AFSOC announced that flight tests will begin in January 2024 and will last until mid-year. As we now know, this did not happen.

Disappointed customer


Apparently, failures and delays during the development phase undermined the Pentagon's faith in the AHEL project. Seeing no clear prospects, the department began to reduce funding for this program. Thus, in the military budget for FY 2023. approx. was allocated for the laser for support aircraft. $15,4 million. In the current financial year, project costs have been reduced to 3 million. The military budget for next year is currently being developed, and AHEL is not included in it at all.

On March 19, 2024, Military.com reported on the current state of affairs. An AFSOC representative told him that the AHEL program had not met the required time frame and therefore it had been decided to abandon it. Flight tests, the start of which was delayed for several years, will not be carried out. Accordingly, the Air Force will not receive AC-130J aircraft with artillery, missiles and laser weapons.


AC-130J fire support aircraft with AHEL laser

However, AFRL and Lockheed Martin are not going to abandon the developments on the topic of combat laser. Work on this project will continue, and additional ground tests will be carried out. These activities will ensure that the design is refined in order to obtain the required level of combat performance and reliability. It is assumed that the resulting laser will be of interest to other departments and structures.

Subtotals


Thus, the next two attempts by the US Air Force to obtain laser weapons for aircraft did not give the desired result. The SHiELD and AHEL projects reached the stage of preliminary testing, but they decided not to conduct full tests of prototype weapons. Both programs were closed due to the lack of the desired result. However, the possibility of using their developments in new projects is not excluded.

It is easy to see that both programs were closed for similar reasons. The AHEL and SHiELD projects proved difficult to implement, and their developers were unable to meet deadlines. It is also likely that it was not possible to achieve the assigned tasks within the allocated budget.

All this shows that the development of combat lasers, regardless of the requirements or platforms offered, remains a complex undertaking. To create such a weapon requires solving a number of difficult engineering and technical problems, and the desired result is not guaranteed. In addition, additional difficulties may arise. Thus, in the case of the SHiELD and AHEL projects, the designers had to take into account the characteristic limitations of aircraft and suspended containers.

Obviously, developing a combat laser with a power of several tens of kilowatts that can fit into a compact container or does not take up much space inside the cabin has proven to be an extremely difficult task for the current level of technology development. Probably, Boeing and Lockheed Martin were able to offer certain solutions, but in general their samples were far from perfect and did not meet all customer requirements. It was necessary to fine-tune the projects, which could take an unknown amount of time.

In general, the Pentagon’s decision to close two laser weapons projects, which in the past seemed promising and promising, looks logical and understandable. However, to reach such a decision, it took several years and tens of millions of dollars. It is unlikely that the accumulated experience and understanding of the problems justifies such costs.
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    23 May 2024 05: 12
    Well, we've firmly established that no one can shoot down a ballistic missile warhead with a laser beam, and we've made great progress on lasers
    (Academician N.G. Basov, Nobel laureate, Head of the Soviet program for the development of combat lasers "Terra...")

    The Americans confirmed the conclusions of the Soviet academician from 1977.
    1. +1
      23 May 2024 21: 19
      Based on simple calculations, then, for example, the energy (muzzle) of a 7,62x39 bullet is equal to 2100 J. A laser with such energy should have a power of 2,1 kW and shine for at least 1 second (which is a lot for fast-moving objects), and It’s not a fact that the effect will be like a bullet.
      For real destruction, a combat laser should, in my opinion, “shoot” short pulses of energy, but this requires hundreds of kilowatts per pulse. I don’t know whether this can be realized in principle using conventional energy sources.
      1. 0
        13 August 2024 09: 44
        .....Megawatts....The problems are not in the power supplies!
        1. 0
          13 August 2024 15: 04
          If there is a threat to an aircraft, it would not be easier to drop a towed bomb with wings and an explosion cone directed in the opposite direction from the movement. So that when an anti-aircraft missile approaches, the automation detonates the explosives and throws balls/bolts towards the attacking missile.
          Hang on pylons...
    2. 0
      24 May 2024 02: 39
      You apparently read the article in the wrong place. The article is not talking about the ballistic missile warhead. And yes, the conclusions of Soviet academicians from the 70s are not an axiom.
      1. +2
        24 May 2024 05: 35
        You apparently read the article in the wrong place

        Maybe. Unlike you. I read with my head, and not with what the song says:
        Expresses that face
        What to sit on the porch
  2. 0
    23 May 2024 05: 25
    On Ganship, with its artillery guns, what use is a laser at all?!
  3. +2
    23 May 2024 05: 49
    I always thought that you shouldn’t rush to catch up with all sorts of super-duper striped developments. What about their star wars, what about literal and modular ships.... So the air laser was blown away. They will print as many pieces of paper as necessary. How many other programs like this were there, they would make a fuss and close it. These 5x 6th generation stealth vehicles also look like a big cut. The world has not moved beyond weapons with individual targeting. You can understand scientists; they have countless ideas. Where can I get money for them? Naturally at the Pentagon.
    1. +2
      23 May 2024 15: 19
      Quote from Voronezh
      I always thought that you shouldn’t rush to catch up with all sorts of super-duper striped developments

      Of course, it’s not worth rushing madly to some extent. But as for Star Wars, these are not only fantastic lasers, of course you shouldn’t get hung up on advertising brochures, but today Starlink appeared (this is the not very visible task of the same Star Wars), in other words, the idea is moving and don’t pay attention to it at least at least not recklessly.
    2. 0
      23 May 2024 19: 33
      So, the Russian Federation already has a super-duper combat laser "Peresvet" and a new complex "Zadira", right?
    3. +2
      23 May 2024 21: 04
      Yes Yes! Well stupid! And Starlink is their nonsense, and in general all the pictures are just funny! And drones are toys! Ha ha! Let's laugh!

      It would seem that in 2024 it would be time to stop writing idiotic comments about sawing in the USA and the supposed ineffectiveness of their programs, but creatures like you continue to do this. Underestimating a potential (real?) enemy is the greatest stupidity.
      1. -1
        24 May 2024 02: 26
        Starlink is a completely new word in human technologies, before Musk there was no satellite Internet, and in general there were no radio waves, only telegraphs and pigeon mail. And the Pentagon 10 years ago was blind and deaf, sat without communication, but Musk saved it.
        1. -1
          24 May 2024 02: 40
          Yes, Starlink is something new. Will there be more ridiculous exclamations without meaning?
          1. -1
            24 May 2024 02: 43
            What exactly is new? Elon Musk, the future? Let's give it to the non-believer specifically - what is something new? Something? Somehow you know it’s unconvincing. This is similar to hipster crowing about how coliving is something incredible, and not a communal apartment.
        2. -1
          30 June 2024 09: 55
          Quote from alexoff
          Starlink is just a new word in human technology, before Musk

          There was a fundamentally different approach to creating a spacecraft. Extreme reliability, wild price and resource. But Musk was the first to do the opposite - a huge rocket that has an excess of less reliable engines, and will take off if several fail. A flock of satellites that will do their job, even if several break down.
          1. +2
            30 June 2024 15: 30
            Herds of satellites have been flying for a long time. The breakdown of one did not ruin anything for anyone. Musk's approach to the consumer only changed the price of satellite Internet
  4. +1
    23 May 2024 05: 58
    It's a pity that they canceled the program with lasers. While we are improving missiles and UAVs, let them spend their money on lasers
    1. +2
      23 May 2024 09: 24
      Quote: igorbrsv
      It's a pity that they canceled the program with lasers. While we are improving missiles and UAVs, let them spend their money on lasers

      They didn’t turn around, if you read the article carefully. Scientists and engineers have worked and continue to work. It’s just that now this is not a state program, but an initiative project of Lockheed
      1. -1
        24 May 2024 02: 44
        When should you, those working with laser afar, come to remind you where these lasers are?
  5. +2
    23 May 2024 06: 05
    It may be the weapon of the future and it will be, somewhat, later.
    Enthusiasts, on the topic, will try, but their means will be somewhat limited.
  6. +7
    23 May 2024 06: 06
    Such messages must be treated with great caution. Perhaps this stuffing is a cover operation.
    1. +8
      23 May 2024 07: 59
      Such messages must be treated with great caution.

      One should be careful with propagandists' headlines, like this article, because the closure of one of the programs does not mean that the creation of laser weapons has been abandoned. When creating fundamentally new weapons systems, such closure of programs is a common occurrence, especially when testing begins in real conditions.
      In the United States, since 2020, more than thirty programs have been operating in the field of research and development of laser weapons, on which approximately a billion dollars are spent annually.
      1. 0
        23 May 2024 09: 24
        Quote from Frettaskyrandi
        that closing one of the programs

        But it wasn’t closed, re-read the article carefully winked
        1. +2
          23 May 2024 09: 34
          I seem to have read it carefully. Written verbatim
          The SHiELD program has completed, and there are no plans for further testing and evaluation,
          1. 0
            23 May 2024 09: 44
            Quote from Frettaskyrandi
            I seem to have read it carefully. Written verbatim

            However, AFRL and Lockheed Martin are not going to abandon the developments on the topic of combat laser. Work on this project will continue, and additional ground tests will be carried out. These activities will ensure that the design is refined in order to obtain the required level of combat performance and reliability. It is assumed that the resulting laser will be of interest to other departments and structures.

            Yeah, we're reading winked
            1. 0
              23 May 2024 12: 27
              Yeah, we're reading

              Yeah, we read only original news, not local tautologies.
      2. 0
        24 May 2024 02: 28
        And before 2020 there were 29 programs? Laser weapons are like thermonuclear energy, in development since the 60s and will appear in 20 years from then
    2. +2
      23 May 2024 21: 06
      Well, what are you talking about! At this point they were already laughed at and giggled. Just like they giggled at drone “toys” a few years ago. Some people, it seems, never learn anything.
    3. 0
      24 May 2024 02: 29
      Covers for what? Someone was somehow going to respond and will now cancel the program?
  7. 0
    23 May 2024 07: 21
    Mitrofanov must be forcibly familiarized with the materials of the article - he is a fan of placing non-existent weapons on non-existent aircraft.
    As for us, everything is fine - “And recently, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov announced on Channel One that the first samples of the Zadira complexes were tested in real combat conditions.
    The budget will not be cut by itself.
  8. 0
    23 May 2024 07: 21
    Quote: Volunteer Marek
    Perhaps this stuffing is a cover operation.
    And from whom and what to “cover” if it is well known that laser weapons are being developed in several countries, including Russia. If the Americans achieved great success in this area, then be sure to trumpet their achievements, even embellishing them.
  9. -2
    23 May 2024 08: 12
    In order for the laser beam to pierce the body of the target, it is necessary to firmly hold the beam at one point on the target. How can this be done in conditions where both the beam source and the target are constantly moving? A plane with a laser will have to simultaneously move in three directions. How he will have to tumble!
    1. 0
      23 May 2024 09: 47
      Quote: Yuras_Belarus
      In order for the laser beam to pierce the body of the target, it is necessary to firmly hold the beam at one point on the target. How can this be done in conditions where both the beam source and the target are constantly moving? A plane with a laser will have to simultaneously move in three directions. How he will have to tumble!

      What kind of electronic beam guidance is there like on AFAR? winked
      In the same ASML lithograph, lasers generally shoot rain of molten lead with nanometer precision, so that lasers of a different wavelength resulting from these droplets can draw nanometer semiconductor structures
      1. 0
        24 May 2024 02: 40
        Quote: BlackMokona
        What kind of electronic beam guidance is there like on AFAR?

        What kind of drug addiction is this? Do you know anything about AFAR? How do you imagine this in general?
        Quote: BlackMokona
        In the same lithograph ASML there are lasers with nanometer precision

        with nanometer precision for many drops? Does ASML know?
        Quote: BlackMokona
        rain of molten lead

        Lead, tin, what's the difference?
        Quote: BlackMokona
        so that lasers of a different wavelength resulting from these droplets will draw nanometer semiconductor structures

        there are already nanometers here, after the photoresist layer. What are you talking about? Silicon here is burned with a laser to a depth of several nanometers, it lies at a clear distance in perfect fixation, without dust in a vacuum. Mirrors absorb enormous amounts of radiation. What does the plane have to do with it? Are you going to cover it with photoresist and drill it point-blank with a laser? Or do you traditionally play smart and glorify Americans, but in the end only demonstrate your own underdevelopment?
      2. 0
        24 May 2024 11: 45
        Why, cocoon-macona crowed about her megalasers with lead rain, gave herself pluses, but how can she be responsible for the market like that? That's why Elon's fans are such incredibly illiterate, cowardly narcissists?
  10. -1
    23 May 2024 10: 11
    This is not the first time this topic has been raised at VO, so I will briefly repeat the reason for the problems the Air Force has encountered. It is, of course, not mentioned in the article) So, the fact is that the fighter’s carrying capacity is extremely small. And the power source required to hit something real, and not drawn on a computer screen, is much heavier than a fighter can lift at all.
    If you look at the prototypes of combat lasers used on the ground (there are some results there), you will see that the batteries and generator of such a source occupy the entire compartment of a considerable truck. More often - two kungs. No fighter will ever be able to supply the power source and batteries required to fire at least one laser shot capable of shooting down even the smallest UAV.
    In laboratories, that is, on the ground, when a cable as thick as an athlete’s biceps is connected to the laser, powered by a high-voltage battery assembly weighing several tons, which in turn is charged for days from a huge generator, everything more or less works out. It’s bad, of course, but it works out somehow. On an aircraft smaller than a passenger airliner, all this is completely impossible. And initially it was only and exclusively cutting.
    1. -1
      23 May 2024 12: 06
      The main problem with combat lasers is that they do not work in poor conditions. At the training ground in clear weather, it might be okay, but what if it’s drizzling? Moreover, the battlefield can be quite smokey. Which is clearly not conducive to the use of laser weapons...
      1. 0
        23 May 2024 16: 04
        No) Not the main one. And “bad conditions” is a cool definition. Lasers greatly reduce their effectiveness in fog, smoke, rain and especially dusty air. However, the fact that a plasma sleeve, when the threshold power is exceeded, is formed at a lower value of this power is not always a problem. the range decreases, but getting hit by hot plasma on the body is also... not good.
        That is, there is a certain drop in efficiency. While the impossibility of collecting energy even for one shot completely blocks the use of the weapon)
      2. -2
        24 May 2024 02: 45
        The main problem of the VO audience is that some people really like to comment, but don’t really like to think. This article also discussed a self-defense laser. That is, he must destroy missiles approaching the airplane. And the airplane is in the sky. Above the clouds. There is no drizzle, no fog, no snow, no rain, or anything at all that interferes with the laser.
        1. +1
          24 May 2024 11: 47
          So you don’t know how to think either. How will this laser turn in the right direction?
    2. 0
      30 June 2024 10: 00
      Quote: Mikhail3
      you will see that the batteries and generator of such a source take up an entire kung

      Another option is to switch to a gas laser based on fluorine and some organics like UDMH. But since there will not be perfect mixing, the emissions from this installation will not only be toxic, but also corrosive. But then yes, 10 kilowatts in the beam, 6 shots of 10 seconds, dry weight 40 kg, charged to 80, case diameter 400 mm, case length 700 mm, replacement of mirrors with spare ones at each refueling (and those removed for repair). This is a prototype from the 2000s, if anything.
      1. +2
        30 June 2024 14: 58
        Ten kilowatts in the beam!! Oh my God, that's powerful! Enough to set fire to the tail of a flying parrot. But the parrot must be black. And stand in the air in one place, like a hummingbird. And there must be no wind!
        In general, no matter what harmful gases you use... Do you really think that fluoride would stop the military? chlorine? mustard gas, phosgene, vi-gas, etc.?! E-my...
        1. 0
          2 July 2024 14: 13
          Quote: Mikhail3
          Ten kilowatts per beam!! Oh my god, this is powerful! Enough to set a flying parrot's tail on fire

          Considering that hand-held plasma cutters are 6 kilowatts, I have a suspicion that such a beam will set fire to a soldier’s uniform, cause injury to the body, destroy optics, and damage antennas.
          1. +1
            3 July 2024 07: 49
            Considering that grinders and chisels... Have you forgotten that we are talking about a laser? And what about a laser installed on an airplane? You see, power itself does not have the slightest practical significance. The question is how exactly it is implemented in this device)
            What kind of opponents of the aircraft can such an installation cause even the slightest damage? I'll give you a hint. Mosquitoes. There is nothing else comparable in terms of destructive power in the air) Moreover, the mosquitoes will not be killed, only brutally wounded.
            There is not one in your list of possible damaging factors. Namely, because of which in ground combat no one risks using something like “Compression”. Think it's good for the brain, although it doesn't make life easier.
  11. +6
    23 May 2024 11: 00
    Bad article: the title is self-sufficient; the rest is water.
    What difficulties did you encounter? What didn't suit the customer? If the source revealed the cards, then why not voice them. Briefly.
  12. +6
    23 May 2024 11: 06
    The work will most likely not be lost. This is not the first time for America to freeze programs with certain stages of results, then close them and immediately, practically, open others based on them.
    1. +4
      23 May 2024 17: 08
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      open others based on them.

      Yes. For example, installing such installations on old strategic bombers. They have enough space and carrying capacity, and they fly high, where the influence of the atmosphere is minimal. They will have bombs for the ground, and a laser exclusively for air defense missiles. With cover like this, they don't have to be super expensive invisible. No wonder they still don’t get rid of them.
      1. +3
        23 May 2024 17: 14
        It is quite possible, and in principle, such a thing can be loaded onto a slave UAV; after all, there is no pilot there and you don’t have to add either a catapult system or missiles. Stupidly flying aircraft for intercepting missiles and supporting air combat. It is clearly not worth burying an airborne aircraft, but the optionality of its placement on modern fighter-type aircraft raises well-founded doubts due to the overload of such aircraft and/or their stealth configuration.
        As some smart guy said (I think it was Edison) - “Americans always choose the best solution after trying all the others.” Their progress in technology often follows this path - but they can do it, they have a large budget and large batches..
  13. -2
    23 May 2024 11: 45
    Quote: Amateur
    Well, we've firmly established that no one can shoot down a ballistic missile warhead with a laser beam, and we've made great progress on lasers
    (Academician N.G. Basov, Nobel laureate, Head of the Soviet program for the development of combat lasers "Terra...")

    The Americans confirmed the conclusions of the Soviet academician from 1977.

    Here you are laughing... And someone there also DEFENDED A DISSERTATION on this! wink
    1. +1
      30 June 2024 10: 04
      Quote: RealPilot
      Someone there also DEFENDED A DISSERTATION on this!

      In the early 2000s, when I briefly worked as a LAN installer, we were laying fiber optics at the Institute of Communications. A wild incident - a teacher over 50 attacked a worker with his fists and a chair, and beat him up pretty badly. When they pulled him apart, it turned out that the attacker had defended his dissertation "On the impossibility of transmitting information via fiber optics." And here the worker was unwinding the "optics", and that's where the cognitive dissonance happened.
  14. 0
    23 May 2024 15: 41
    How many years has Boeing been fooling the Pentagon with Chinese laser pointers? I remember in 1972 they gave me a book by a Polish modeller, where he taught how to make a laser at home - and at the end of the article (not verbatim) if your laser does not burn through paper, congratulations on your In the best case, there will be a light pointer, in the worst case, a flashlight. As I understand, things are still there.
  15. -1
    23 May 2024 15: 58
    I’m wondering, if you cover the rocket like a mirror (and twist it to distribute the heat), will it be slightly vulnerable to the laser?
    1. 0
      23 May 2024 17: 11
      Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
      I’m wondering, if you cover the rocket like a mirror (and twist it to distribute the heat), will it be slightly vulnerable to the laser?

      How will she navigate in space and see the target? To do this, she needs a radio-transparent cap - and this is a hole in the “mirror” protection.
      1. 0
        23 May 2024 20: 41
        Quote from cpls22
        and this is a hole in the “mirror” protection.

        Well, tank armor is not without vulnerable zones, and remote sensing is not everywhere either.
        The anti-cumulative grating is generally of the “statistical armor” type (well, there’s about a 50% chance that a cumulative grenade will be destroyed).
        1. -2
          23 May 2024 21: 01
          Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

          Well, tank armor is not without vulnerable zones, and remote sensing is not everywhere either.

          The laser beam covers the entire missile, including the projection that “looks” at the target. When hit by a laser from the side of the target being attacked, the missile has no frontal armor.
          The analogy with a tank and a grenade does not work here.
          1. +1
            24 May 2024 11: 49
            When hit by a laser, the laser shines on the heat-resistant part of the missile, which must withstand heat from friction with the air
            1. -2
              24 May 2024 16: 35
              Quote from alexoff
              the laser shines on the heat-resistant part of the rocket, which must withstand heat from friction with the air

              The surface-to-air air defense missile should not have a heat-resistant part, because it does not go into the airless space to gain speed, and accordingly does not enter the dense layers of the atmosphere at high speed. You probably confused it with intercontinental ballistic missiles.
              1. +2
                24 May 2024 16: 50
                You must think that six swings in the dense layers of the atmosphere is some kind of joke? Or for you, an air defense missile is something about sound, like an iron dome?
  16. +1
    24 May 2024 08: 16
    Quote: BlackMokona
    In the same ASML lithograph, lasers generally shoot rain of molten lead with nanometer precision, so that lasers of a different wavelength resulting from these droplets can draw nanometer semiconductor structures


    Would you like to indicate the duration of the shelling?
    What specific power must a laser system have in order to transmit to a target an energy pulse sufficient to destroy it in such a short period of time?
  17. +2
    24 May 2024 08: 20
    Quote from cpls22
    When hit by a laser from the side of the target being attacked, the missile has no frontal armor.


    Is not a fact. There will be a warhead on the side of the attacked target, and it is made of very strong and refractory materials. Since it must withstand flying through dense layers of the atmosphere at hypersonic (several km/s) speed.
    Destroying a warhead is quite difficult, in fact.
    1. -1
      24 May 2024 16: 46
      Quote: Illanatol
      it must withstand flying through dense layers of the atmosphere at hypersonic (several km/s) speed.

      This applies more to air-to-ground missiles, ICBMs, than to air defense missiles. S-300 - only 2400 m/s
      1. +1
        24 May 2024 16: 58
        Just two kilometers per second in the low layers of the atmosphere, bullshit question. This SR-71, at a much lower speed at a much higher altitude, heated up to 500 degrees and required titanium parts, and here is a freebie.
        Why are the threads about lasers squealing entirely from illiterate Musk fans?
        1. -1
          24 May 2024 18: 44
          Quote from alexoff

          Why are the threads about lasers squealing entirely from illiterate Musk fans?

          Do my arguments sound like a squeal? Rather, your emotional outbursts fit this category. Oh well. Affirm yourself for good health.
          1. +1
            24 May 2024 19: 16
            I take it you have nothing to say about the rest? So let’s write it down - I admitted that I was illiterate, hehe
            1. 0
              24 May 2024 19: 29
              Quote from alexoff
              I take it you have nothing to say about the rest? So let’s write it down - I admitted that I was illiterate, hehe

              Write. I see no point in continuing communication. This is not a job where sometimes you have to endure unpleasant people. Many victories to you.
              1. +1
                24 May 2024 19: 46
                I hope you work in a job that is not too important and your illiteracy will not harm society
  18. 0
    24 May 2024 08: 27
    Quote from Witsapiens
    Just like they giggled at drone “toys” a few years ago. Some people, it seems, never learn anything.


    Drones showed their effectiveness quite quickly. Their effectiveness has potentially even been predicted in fiction.
    They have been tinkering with lasers, like nuclear power plants, for decades, but things are still there. The use of drones has no restrictions from physical laws, but for this “prodigy” there are such restrictions.

    In short, the grapes are still green...
    It is quite possible to use it to fight the same drones; powerful energy is not needed for this. But to intercept missiles - excuse me, except for large stationary installations, which themselves will become desirable targets.
  19. +1
    30 May 2024 08: 44
    Quote from cpls22
    This applies more to air-to-surface missiles and ICBMs than to air defense missiles. S-300 - only 2400m/s


    Firstly, the speed is not low, and secondly, the missile defense system is a highly maneuverable target, which is very difficult to keep in sight for at least a tenth of a second. To transmit enough energy to guarantee destruction in such a short period of time, the power of the laser beam must be incredibly high. The question remains of how to provide such power while remaining within acceptable dimensions of the laser installation itself and the energy source for it.
    In short, this is just fantasy for now. Hitting fragile drones - perhaps missiles - is unlikely.