New anti-droning “multi-barreled” laser system for ship placement from Rheinmetall Defense Electronics




Drones - the headache of our time. They are more and more, and they have become a big problem for the armed forces around the world. They (UAV, UAV) are small, cheap, difficult to detect, difficult to knock down (and it is expensive to shoot down).

They are used by armies and PMCs, terrorist groups (Hezbollah and Hamas), the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the separatists, and simply private owners (or teapots).

The threat posed by drones is not limited to the Middle East or Ukraine.

In 2014, South Korean authorities discovered that North Korean drones were watching the Blue House / Korea-Seoul-Blue House (the official residence of South Korean President Park Geun-hye, Park Geun-hye)



And there was a whole bunch of them. Tired of catching the South Korean security officers ...

Drones are everywhere: above the positions of the DNR / LC militia forces, over the Crimea, over the naval ships, over the stadiums ... and, possibly, over your backyard plot or near the window of your apartment on the 25 floor (or on 1 m). Watch and dirty, dirty and watch, or write what you do there.

This week at the Defense and Security Equipment Industry exhibition in London, German military contractor Rheinmetall Defense Electronics demonstrated a new sea-based antidron-laser system.

And this is not the first "application" of RDE for a total clearing of the sky from these annoying robotic bugs.

2012-2013, HEL 30 kW Air Defense Tower Skyshield
New anti-droning “multi-barreled” laser system for ship placement from Rheinmetall Defense Electronics




Mobile variations on different platforms: GTK Boxer BTR (5kW HEL), modified M113 BMP (1 kW HEL), and 8xXNNXX Tatra (8kW-HEL) cargo chassis, respectively, called Mobile HEL Effector Wheel XX, Mobile HEL EffectorTEL Track V, Mobile HEL Effector Container L.





The test results were as follows.

GTK Boxer (but with the 20kW installation) can destroy an oversized heavy machine gun on a pick-up platform, hitting the ammunition of the cartridge belt with a beam. The "terrorist" -counter remains alive, the BC burns down with the likelihood of damage to the feed mechanism.



At a distance of 70 m, the crew detected mines and improvised explosive devices, irradiating them with a laser from a safe distance, which caused them to burn for a few seconds.

Also with 70 meters successfully cleared an obstacle from a barbed wire.
At distances up to 2000, the radar power supply cables, power sources, the radar mast itself were cut and cut, and the optics were damaged.




Skyshield HEL with a power of 30 kW (demonstrator) destroyed a 82-mm mortar shell at a distance of up to 1000 meters. The chance of hitting 5 from 5 in the first shot and 4 from 5 in the subsequent ones.

There were also successful interceptions of UAVs at distances up to 500 m.



What is the "novelty"?

Germany's Got a 4-Barrel Laser Gatling Gun is a four-barreled Gatling laser machine gun from Germany.

The system, according to informed Chinese sources, has not one, but four high-energy lasers (HEL) mounted on a turret or turret, which makes it look like a Gatling gun. And the "similar" only in appearance, but not at all in meaning.



The four 20-kW HEL lasers are designed for firing simultaneously using a technique known as spatial overlay technique. All beams of mono-power in 20 kilowatts are radiated simultaneously and converge on the target into one spot (of the same diameter as the 20-kW laser) with an 80 kilowatt power, naturally, minus the loss of photon motion in the medium.

According to the company's press release, when using spatial overlay, any amount of energy can be focused on the attacked target - you just need to add the NECESSARY number of lasers.

The lens of each ruby ​​red laser is protected by a special coating that prevents the rays from scattering due to fog, rain or water drops.

A new gun hit a demonstration drone at a distance of 500 meters. Also, lasers (as already mentioned above) can undermine ammunition, detonate artillery shells in flight, dazzle the sensors of other ships and even burn holes in the hulls of light watercraft.

I don’t even dare to judge who was the first who “invented” the Gatling laser machine gun.

1. Sergey Lukyanenko in 1995 ("Line of Dreams", heavy army laser weapon "Chance")?

"The six-legged automatic non-targeted laser fire system, otherwise - the fan laser design of the famous Martizen, in common parlance - "sawmill"... Six trunks were assembled in a package on a rotating axis. Each trunk was slightly deflected to the side. ”



2. Patrick Priebe (Patrick Pribe) is a German fan of laser weapons who, in 2013, built the Gatling Gun miracle Yodo concept to prove the correctness of the “Laser Gatling Laser” concept.


An interesting and cheap thing by the way.

The base of a seemingly personal weapon is made of aluminum, mounted on it is a rotating turret with 6 blue fourth-class 1,4-watt lasers from Spyder 3 Krypton (for $ 999.95 per piece).



Plus a 100-mW green laser mounted on the side to aid in aiming.

Result?

Rate:


Balloons are destroyed with a bang ... unless, of course, the turret does not rotate too quickly.

The speed of rotation of the turret can be controlled using the knob on the bottom of the "laser meter".

Cheap and cheerful: four ball bearings provide axial fixation and smooth rotation of the turret, the engine and the aiming laser are powered by eight AA batteries, and six blue lasers receive energy from four parallel lithium-ion batteries with a capacity of 18650 mAh.

Patrick, by the way, was previously famous for such creations as Iron Man Gauntlet and Plasma Cutter.

[Center]



Well? We are waiting for the appearance of cheap compact and, most importantly, all-weather free electron lasers (Free Electron Laser, FEL) and capacious energy sources such as Nano Flow Cell (flow battery of liters on 30)?



Indeed, unlike gas, liquid or solid-state lasers, where electrons are excited in bound atomic or molecular states, at FEL the source of radiation is an electron beam in vacuum passing through a series of magnets arranged in a special way - an undulator (wiggler), causing the beam to move along a sinusoidal trajectory by losing energy, which is converted into a stream of photons.

FEL have a wide range of radiation frequency variation (without changing the working medium), which allows you to adjust to the characteristics of the external environment (clear, overcast, fog, rain) and without any adaptive lenses.





* * *

Quotes from S. Lukyanenko:

"Convoy" - a civilian weapon of self-defense. “The Convoy was a low power laser gun. The shot from it brought only a painful, but shallow burn that allows you to stop the enemy. The fact that the gun had a decent energy reserve and a high rate of fire was not delicately taken into account by the law. In the automatic fire mode, a series of laser pulses burned a person through two seconds. ”

Luchevik "Career". "The old woman, engaged in a rather unusual thing: dismantling the ancient sunshine" Career ", put down their weapons."

“Argument - 17” / “Argument - 36”. "- Take the" Argument - 17 ", - decided gunsmith. - Easy, and no need to aim. You just have to enter the identification of all your colleagues, otherwise you will grind them. ”

Used materials, videos and photos:
http://www.gizmag.com
http://www.wickedlasers.com/krypton
http://news.qq.com
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/themen_im_fokus/rheinmetall_hel_live_fire/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a17425/germanys-got-a-4-barrel-laser-gatling-gun/
https://www.litmir.co
http://www.military.com
http://ritworld.com
http://www.youtube.com
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. corporal 26 September 2015 06: 37 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well, come close to creating blasters from science fiction novels?
    And you see, whether you want it or not.
    Article +
    1. Felix 26 September 2015 10: 20 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Yeah. It remains only to come up with a battery with an instantaneous power of 30 kW.
      1. fennekRUS 26 September 2015 22: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Felix
        It remains only to come up with a battery with an instantaneous power of 30 kW.

        is there such)) only sense? http://www.supercap.ru/superkondensatori.html
    2. Samaritan 26 September 2015 11: 28 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Well yes! On the other hand, to shoot down such a "scout" is the very thing:
      (From 30 sec)
    3. War and Peace 26 September 2015 12: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      lasers will not be useful, weak, large dimensions, generators, capacitors, but most importantly, it is a BIG DEPENDENCE on weather, rain, gloom, smoke on the battlefield, all this makes it impossible to use these irradiators reliably.
      And against the flying stuff, you need to use the good old large-caliber high-altitude fluffy guns, and aim it with radar and optics in good weather ...
      1. fennekRUS 26 September 2015 22: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Lens each ruby ​​red laser protected by a special coating that prevents the rays from scattering due to fog, rain or water droplets.
        Having stumbled upon this pearl, I looked thoughtfully at the calendar, no, April seems not to be coming. Apparently the coating is akin to this know-how (which is in the picture.). I still don’t understand how the coating of the lens conducts the beam optical range across the boundary of media without refraction. Apparently "Top Secret Technologies"
        2. FEL have a wide range of radiation frequency variation (without changing the working medium), which allows you to adjust to the characteristics of the external environment (clear, overcast, fog, rain) and without any adaptive lenses.- the size of the emitter of the necessary power can you imagine?
        1. Falcon 28 September 2015 11: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The article is great! I did not expect another from opus!

          In general, VO needs less politics and more technical reviews. And then these eternal undertakers of the West and the states have already got it.
  2. Major_Vortex 26 September 2015 07: 15 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The “combat” laser itself is not a cheap toy, but a “shot” with a laser at a drone is quite inexpensive. To teach such lasers to instantly send a beam of sufficient power to the target to disable the target. Such a laser would not have a price.
  3. rosarioagro 26 September 2015 07: 46 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    in response, a ceramic coating will appear, or as they wrote in the same fiction keramlite :-)
  4. psiho117 26 September 2015 12: 41 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The lens of each ruby ​​red laser is protected by a special coating that prevents the rays from scattering due to fog, rain or water drops.


    Damn, what nonsense ... well as, to hell, coating on the lens will cancel the laws of geometric optics? How can coating reduce the physical constant?
    Idiots. Enchanting.
  5. VSkilled 26 September 2015 15: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Yeah ... Especially for the victims of the "Western model" of education:
    According to the company's press release, when using spatial overlay on an attacked target, any amount of energy can be focused - you just need to add the required number of lasers ...

    Yeah ... "Engineer Garin," when he invented his "hyperboloid," he also thought so. Therefore, he remained a purely invented character.

    A quantitative increase in capacity is possible only under the condition coherence individual components.

    Light is a wave. The waves from individual lasers must be added, they must arrive at the target strictly simultaneously and in phase. Otherwise, they will be subtracted from each other.

    This, in principle, is the reason why it is impossible to focus an ordinary light source into an infinitely thin and infinitely powerful "light cord", as suggested by "engineer Garin".

    Lasers provide their wonderful properties exclusively with the coherence of radiation: all emitted photons "march" strictly "in the foot", as in a parade.

    But this is thanks to the resonant system inside a single laser. But, now, in two lasers such a trick no longer rolls: it is too difficult to make resonators identical in all respects. Plus (or, more precisely, minus) difficulties with synchronization of radiation start strictly simultaneously at different resonators. Plus ... In a word - there are a lot of reasons and circumstances. Even if all of them can be solved, then such a “composite” laser will cost prohibitively expensive. Such a product cannot be put on stream.
    As a result, “on the parade” two or more “boxes” are obtained, inside each of which everyone steps “in step,” but there is already a difference between the “boxes”. Up to the opposite phase.

    All other "nishtyaki" - this is "pistol shooting", in the absence of "body armor".

    The simplest "armored sleeve" and shells in the tape - will not explode. And - the cables are no longer cut.

    In short: frank bullshit and cynical cut taxpayer dough.

    Let them do it.
    1. IAlex 26 September 2015 19: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And how accurate should the resonance be?
    2. Simple 26 September 2015 20: 30 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Light is a wave.

      On the other hand (dualism), light is photons (flux)
      Without mass, but with energy.
      And on the drum, 'in phase' if the photon flux arrives at a point from different sources (different frequency / wavelength: Somewhat different energy)
      The point will absorb photons, heat up and the target will be "cut", or hit
      "resonance", "coherence" and you ...
      All this to get the photon flux at the output, the necessary density and energy. And not a bunch of Light a la flashlight
    3. Cube123 26 September 2015 20: 51 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: VSkilled
      Yeah ... Especially for the victims of the "Western model" of education:
      According to the company's press release, when using spatial overlay on an attacked target, any amount of energy can be focused - you just need to add the required number of lasers ...


      A quantitative increase in capacity is possible only under the condition coherence individual components.

      I'm afraid that you are this victim wink
      Your statement is not true. In fact, with incoherent sources, arithmetic summation of the powers of several beams converging at one point occurs. The condition of their coherence allows us to reduce the total divergence of the beam, and this will allow us to obtain the maximum energy density in the speckles for the target significantly exceeding the arithmetic sum of the powers, provided that they are accurately reduced. The simplest analogue is PAR, where coherence reduces the overall width of its diagram in relation to the width of the diagram created by each individual element. So everything is correct in the press release. And what you offer is the next step that has yet to be done.

      PS - to understand the situation, it is enough to remember how the sun's beam is focused by the lens. Not about any coherence there is no speech, and a piece of wood in focus lights up.
      1. VSkilled 27 September 2015 18: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There is no talk of any coherence, and the piece of wood in focus lights up.

        Not ... well - "a burning piece of wood", this, of course - an "argument". Argument, I would say. From the category: "you see that it is the Sun and the Moon revolving around the Earth ..."

        That's about the divergence of the laser beam and the active phased antenna array (AFAR), you forgive me - just frankly stupidity froze. Dense.

        The small divergence of the laser beam is ensured by the properties of its optical resonator. All.

        The synthesized aperture (radiation pattern) of the AFAR is provided phase control of each individual emitter.

        In fact, this is electronic focusing. But, in lasers (and you yourself admitted it) - this is not yet.

        The most obvious example, for everyone. In Excel, draw graphs of two sines of the same amplitude and frequency, as well as their sum. And then - move one sine relative to the other ...

        You will see that, when the sines coincide (the phase shift is zero), the resulting signal will double, and, here, with the phase difference in "pi" radian (180 °), the "terrible" happens: the sum of the two "powerful" signals becomes equal. .. zero!
        In other words, closer to your vocabulary with a piece of wood: at the entrance there is "power rushing", and at the output - nothing ... what.

        Let me remind you that laser radiation is monochromatic, i.e. it is the "same sinus" that is.

        If we go to set theory and analyze the convergence of a series, with the number of its members tending to infinity, with a random combination of a phase shift, then you will get this very zero at the output.

        In practice, the absorbed power increases only until the photons from different lasers begin to "push" with each other and cancel each other out. And, it should be noted that this is a very decent power: and - the piece of wood will light up, and - even the shell in the ribbon will detonate.

        However, this is not at all the power with which you can cut something at such a distance (cables, for example). Fry the insulation - yes, you can: you look and a short circuit will happen. And, here, cut the metal wires in the cable - already: "alas and ah!"

        Cheap window dressing, i.e., as already noted, outright bullshit and a cynical cut of taxpayer dough.
        1. Cube123 27 September 2015 20: 07 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: VSkilled

          The small divergence of the laser beam is ensured by the properties of its optical resonator. All.


          Sorry, but if you were a good student in high school, then ... you haven’t written this. What interests us is not the divergence of the laser beam, but the divergence at the output of the complex. And there is still a telescope, the multiplicity of which reduces the divergence of the laser.

          Quote: VSkilled

          The synthesized aperture (radiation pattern) of the AFAR is provided phase control of each individual emitter.

          In fact, this is electronic focusing. But, in lasers (and you yourself admitted it) - this is not yet.

          Again nonsense. Did you get interference at school? Let's remember and make out on fingers without set theory wink
          The difference between the summation of coherent and incoherent radiation lies only in the fact that when the incoherent waves are added, the powers add up, as stated in the article. For two beams power doubles. When adding coherent waves, amplitudes are not added, but amplitudes. If two coherent waves in a phase arrive at a point, then the amplitudes add up. The power is proportional to the square of the amplitude, so the power will increase at this point four times. But violation of the law of conservation of energy does not occur, because next will be the area where the waves come in antiphase and there the amplitude decreases to zero. Those. in bright zones, the power increases four times (for two beams), but the area of ​​bright zones is reduced by half. This effect has nothing to do with focusing. For example, for two bundles of sources located side by side in the horizontal plane, the resulting picture will be in the form of a sequence of vertical stripes. And you can control the phase, but you can’t control it - the effect will be all the same. HEADLIGHT works absolutely the same.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  6. VSkilled 28 September 2015 00: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Cube123
    The condition of their coherence allows us to reduce the total divergence of the beam ...

    Now, what does coherence and divergence have to do with it? HOW does one affect the other?
    Quote: Cube123
    What interests us is not the divergence of the laser beam, but the divergence at the output of the complex.

    Yeah ... I felt that I said stupidity and now you are interested in a completely different divergence ...

    Bravo, citizen lover of "change shoes"! In a jump.

    And what about the "divergence at the exit of the complex", if there is generally, as you say, "there is still a telescope"? Any "divergence" can be focused on the target.

    "Telescope" is also in installations for laser cutting, including metal cutting.
    True, (what a shame!), Radiation focuses strictly from ONE laser there. Therefore, it cuts.

    By the way, why bother with “these” lasers at all, if their efficiency is low, and the power gain, as you are trying to convince us here, is “only twice”? Huh? I can not hear!

    So they would cut themselves "without lasers." Well - more arc lamps. The article says so:
    any amount of energy can be focused - you just need to add the required number of lasers


    An - trouble ... Not cut! Why? Well ... judging by the fact that the example with the graphical addition of sinusoids didn’t make any impression on you, it’s obvious that you’re not strong enough.

    The wave is a very curious phenomenon. A wave carries something, onto a quite material - energy. No, nobody argues that energy is material and even reversible into matter according to the formula of old Heaviside, which was appropriated by one ... Odnokamushkin: E = mc ^ 2.

    However, if the “completely material” mass with us is always positive, then with the energy of the wave, it turns out, not everything is so smooth. A wave can, at each separate moment in time, represent both positive (“hump”) and negative (“trough”) energy.
    And, if two identical waves converge “in antiphase” - they can compensate each other's “humps” and “troughs” - “to zero”. Ideally, of course.

    What do you say on IT, citizen dvoechnik?

    In a separate laser, ALL waves are the same, both in frequency and phase. Therefore, by focusing these waves, one can achieve very impressive results: when cutting, the metal simply evaporates.

    This "multi-barrel" laser system "does not even promise anything similar: so ... local heating to the flash point of gunpowder in the projectile ...

    Conclusion: another expensive bullshit.
    1. Cube123 28 September 2015 09: 17 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Learn materiel, young man.

      Quote: VSkilled
      Quote: Cube123
      The condition of their coherence allows us to reduce the total divergence of the beam ...

      Now, what does coherence and divergence have to do with it? HOW does one affect the other?

      For non-Gaussian, interfering beams, the divergence is usually defined as the divergence of a Gaussian beam, providing for the same radiated power the same maximum energy density on the target at the same range. Therefore, a twofold increase in the maximum energy density on the target at the same radiated power is equivalent to a two-fold decrease in the beam divergence to the root. In our case, this only applies to coherent beams. Those. a four-fold increase in the energy density during coherent addition with a twofold increase in the radiated power. For the case described in the article, this is not so, because the radiated power doubles and the energy density on the target also doubles.

      I will not even comment on the rest. Your technical level does not allow a meaningful conversation with you hi
      1. VSkilled 28 September 2015 12: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Someone from the "great" spoke out in the spirit that if a specialist is not able to explain to a six-year-old child, "on the fingers" WHAT he does, then this is not a specialist at all, but - so ... "guano on a stick "

        I have provided you "on fingers" with an example of mutual compensation of two waves. And, excuse me, you began to stupidly "brainchain" instead of giving a simple answer to a simple question.

        In addition, you still could not mumble the “thread” intelligible, or at least articulate, as to WHY laser cutting exists?

        After all, starting from your “ideas” you can “perfectly cut it like that”, yeah ... such a big lens ... from the Sun ...
        An, "for some reason" - do not cut.

        In general, your reasoning is not very convincing and very reminiscent of futile attempts to cover up the shame ... with a fig leaf.

        The main thing on the topic: it is impossible to cut “in principle” with such a “setting”, although the authors push that, they say, WAS - cut (cables).

        And, therefore, this is not a weapon, but bullshit. An attempt to give the average man a beautiful toy for another "wunderwafel".

        And your agility, by the way, with which you so hastily "merge" - only confirms this.
        1. Cube123 28 September 2015 16: 46 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          How is Priozersk doing in Kazakhstan? The best memories. My ten years of work there on a topic directly related to the subject of the article. No need to blame me for incompetence on this issue.

          http://wikimapia.org/#lang=ru&lat=45.836035&lon=73.578830&z=15&m=b&show=/4191778
          / en / Object-2506-Omega-2
          "On September 22 of 1982, during testing, for the first time in the USSR, the RUM-2B radio-controlled target was hit by laser radiation."

          "I will quote the words of Zarubin Pyotr Vasilievich (Chief Engineer, Head of the High-Power Laser Program Department at the Ministry of Defense (1969-1990).)
          "... and what can I say about Omega," I’ll answer that today there is no doubt of a scientific and technical nature that such a target as an airplane can be hit by a beam of a ground laser of sufficient power (energy). But this is only true if there is no cloud !!!). "
  7. VSkilled 28 September 2015 18: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Cube123
    "I will quote the words of Zarubin Pyotr Vasilievich (Chief Engineer, Head of the High-Power Laser Program Department at the Ministry of Defense (1969-1990).)
    "... but what about Omega" I’ll answer that today there is no doubt of a scientific and technical nature that such a target as an airplane can be hit by a ground beam laser sufficient power (energy). But this is only true if there is no cloud !!!). "


    Duc, on the contrary single laser - no one objects. This is a really powerful thing. Although the laser is like a weapon, it is too expensive, too bulky and too vulnerable for a real war. So ... on the satellites "indulge." But, again, not in order to cut these satellites "into the trash", but, "only" - to disable their curious "eyes", at least.

    The whole "fuss" of our discussion arose only because the article illiterately announced the possibility of an UNLIMITED increase in energy transmitted to the attacked object. "Pure" - by increasing the number of "trunks" and without mutual synchronization.
    I will not argue that the addition of "trunks" - does not add energy. Adds. But, by no means as cardinally and endlessly as the magazines tried to portray the eager for cheap sensations.

    You, oddly enough, "whitewashed and wise," supported this apparent heresy. Apparently - at first they got a little excited, and then - they decided to simply "crush it with authority." Ordinary human weakness. It happens...
    1. Cube123 28 September 2015 18: 42 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Master physics at least at the high school level hi
      1. VSkilled 28 September 2015 21: 21 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Clear. So, but - essentially, on directly posed questions, there is absolutely nothing to “cover up" with?

        It remains, apparently, only to proudly depict, finally, a sort of "celestial" who "just has no time" to exchange for a discussion of "such an elementary thing."

        The artist, I must admit, of you - completely useless, as it seems, and - a laser.

        Well, well ... the "drain", as they say, is protected.

        PS. I remember that in the days of the USSR, in various kinds of research institutes, there were many frank "parasites from science", are you one of them?
        Very similar.
  8. Xwazilb 13 November 2015 17: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As a person who is far from optics and lasers, I could not understand from your argument (and then excrement pouring) whether synchronization between individual beams is needed or not, but the installations work, work as efficiently as the modern scientific and technical level allows.