Military Review

The Pentagon has promised to develop anti-missile lasers by 2021

94
K 2021 g Pentagon plans to develop a "laser weapon airborne to intercept ballistic missiles, "transmits RIA News the message of the head of the missile defense agency, Admiral James Syring.


The Pentagon has promised to develop anti-missile lasers by 2021


This admiral said at a hearing in the Senate. Siring explained that "the program will be launched if approved by Congress."

For these purposes, the agency asks to allocate $ 2017 mln to 90,3.

“We want to have a final demonstration (of laser weapons) before 2021,”
said the seiring.

The agency recalls that "in 2011, the US Department of Defense conserved the cost of building a laser-based laser instrument based on cargo Boeing 5-747F, which cost about 400 billions of dollars."
Photos used:
John F. Williams / US Navy
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Observer2014
    Observer2014 April 14 2016 11: 01
    +7
    "The Pentagon has pledged to develop anti-missile lasers by 2021" laughing laughing laughing
    1. tiredwithall
      tiredwithall April 14 2016 11: 06
      +3
      They took the task right. The Pentagon continues to effectively cut the budget. It is possible that they will even achieve laser illumination of missiles.
      1. Byshido_dis
        Byshido_dis April 14 2016 11: 12
        +1
        Lasers have great prospects, but also ways to counter laser systems do not stand still. The difference between them and us is significant, we are not trying to build existing facilities with ghostly charms, it seems to me that we are absolutely doing the right thing, we are doing research and theoretical work on the sly. Mattresses try everything at once. As a result, huge expenditures on an unfinished and non-working installation ... We are still far from real combat lasers! And give them everything at once ...
        1. Thrall
          Thrall April 14 2016 11: 37
          +10
          The Chinese have already done laughing
          1. hohkn
            hohkn April 14 2016 12: 18
            +2
            And a bunch of nozzles - for different types of missiles? wassat
          2. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre April 14 2016 13: 32
            0
            This is a serial photonic rocket. With replaceable "nozzles".
        2. tiredwithall
          tiredwithall April 14 2016 11: 54
          +6
          "Mattress toppers are trying all at once."

          Dear, do not underestimate science in the United States. It is there at a high level, in sufficient quantity, with a mass of foreign brains. Here we are talking more about PR and budget cuts. By the way, this proposal gives away the SDI mold, which was launched in the 70s, not least, to reinforce the economy of the USSR.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. g1v2
          g1v2 April 14 2016 11: 56
          0
          Kiriyenko spoke at a speech before the Federation Council about the laser installation on a movable chassis, which ROSATOM made for GAZPROM in order to cut metal structures in case of a fire on the towers. From a distance of 100 m, it cuts metal 100 mm thick under smoke conditions. The Pentagon has no laser tank, but Gazprom has it. wink
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre April 14 2016 13: 35
            +1
            Here is the key phrase: "from a distance of 100 m." Things get much sadder as the distance increases. Especially if by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
            A reliable interception of launching ICBMs is necessary by 4 orders of magnitude - that is, 1000 km or more.
        5. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 14 2016 12: 50
          0
          The practical result, although negative, is also the result of further technological improvements.
        6. Saburov
          Saburov April 14 2016 16: 53
          +3
          Quote: Byshido_dis
          Lasers have great prospects, but also ways to counter laser systems do not stand still. The difference between them and us is significant, we are not trying to build existing facilities with ghostly charms, it seems to me that we are absolutely doing the right thing, we are doing research and theoretical work on the sly. Mattresses try everything at once. As a result, huge expenditures on an unfinished and non-working installation ... We are still far from real combat lasers! And give them everything at once ...


          Lasers do not have any prospects at all, as long as there are fundamental laws of physics, just comrades from the Pentagon had to learn better and not be surprised at the beautiful videos about lasers from George Lucas. There are insurmountable factors of the inability to use laser weapons, the first and most basic is the physical law of diffraction, which states that laser radiation always diverges from angle = wavelength / beam diameter and of course the power sources and cooling system, since the laser efficiency is of the order of 20%, the remaining power will remain you and her must be taken somewhere. That is why the focusing camera itself is small, but everything else is a refrigerator. Practical experiments have already been scientifically proven, documented, and even carried out on the example of the Laser program in the USSR long before the USA and Israel such as Terra-3, A-60, SKIF space program, ship Foros and Dixon, etc., the main problem has not been solved (if suddenly the laws of physics will not change). So these stories about shot down missiles and shells (which by the way are not confirmed by anything, except for commercials where there is no data on range, nature of the target, trajectory, number of salvos, material, etc.) are not worth a penny, unless of course you are friends with physics .

          PS The USSR at one time went all the way to create a combat laser from and to what the United States is now doing and reinventing the bicycle, I won’t be surprised if they soon begin to build an installation similar to Terra-3, but in the USSR they realized the futility of these weapons in time, except to blind and burn the enemy’s optics, the laser is not capable of more in combat conditions, due to weak power, irresistible laws of physics and elementary and CHEAP methods of protection against it.
        7. gridasov
          gridasov April 14 2016 21: 06
          0
          A wonderful comment. Most importantly, the reasonableness of the approach of scientists shows. This is really not the case. when you can make the installation without knowing and not owning the theoretical foundations of the process and its control.
          Therefore, I am saying that the beam can only work as a longitudinal impulse of perturbation, with the spin being the dominant parameter, and accordingly the generator of such an impulse works on a fundamentally new form of modulation of this impulse. In the textbooks this is not mentioned at all. Not to mention the methods of mathematical analysis of such a process, which should also be radically different.
          1. Saburov
            Saburov April 15 2016 19: 14
            0
            Quote: gridasov
            A wonderful comment. Most importantly, the reasonableness of the approach of scientists shows. This is really not the case. when you can make the installation without knowing and not owning the theoretical foundations of the process and its control.
            Therefore, I am saying that the beam can only work as a longitudinal impulse of perturbation, with the spin being the dominant parameter, and accordingly the generator of such an impulse works on a fundamentally new form of modulation of this impulse. In the textbooks this is not mentioned at all. Not to mention the methods of mathematical analysis of such a process, which should also be radically different.


            There is nothing new in physics. If for a shot you need to save for example 60 megawatts, then these 60 megawatts need to be developed and saved! Even if without losses with 100% efficiency and type on superconductors, all the same huge nuclear reactors let’s say an aircraft carrier on 300 megawatts will pump 15-20 minutes of energy ... until the next shot. You’ll kill yourself, but the laws of physics can’t get around in any way, and to shoot 5 rounds per minute, you need the energy of 100 aircraft carriers ... LITERALLY 100!
            1. gridasov
              gridasov April 15 2016 21: 25
              0
              How to explain this? But you are right, like everyone else. who will express their opinion. However, there are moments that nevertheless bring us all closer to the truth. And the essence of this truth is that the time has come to perceive new concepts that define a new quality of the definition of energy itself. Indeed, when you talk about megawatts, then this is understood as a concept related to the quality and conditions of reproduction and implementation of these phenomena. I don’t know if you will understand, but if WATTS are perceived as an opportunity to increase the density of magnetic force flows, as well as taking into account all types and processes that determine the processes of accumulation and movement of EMF, then everything seems to be in a new quality. , that is, it seems like all physical laws are old, but the quality of the process is completely different. For example, due to a certain technology, we create a device with a potential density of polarization of magnetic force processes to levels higher than those magnetic devices that work in the collider. Moreover, they are primitive and it is impossible even to protect them from breakdown to Earth. Then the selection of a certain necessary level, we will say the charge, can be carried out in any selected quantity from any level of the supported density of magnetic fluxes and their interactions. It seems clear to say? At the same time, we are talking about a generator of the corresponding new quality of these magnetic force processes, in which magnetic fluxes have dominant properties based on spin elements of motion, and not as now longitudinal and amplitude ones. Therefore, if the essence of the same laws of physics is considered as a totality of a sequence of stages, then these stages can be formed as on the new algorithms of its sequence. And while the essence of the law itself may not change. But then the results may be more significant.
              1. Saburov
                Saburov April 16 2016 02: 45
                +1
                Let's go in order. Show me an article where, for example, it is clearly described in technical and scientific language how they managed to get around the main problems of building a laser? The natural divorce of suckers (military and taxpayers) on the headstock by American scientific and technical swindlers. For the reason that in the foreseeable future, “combat lasers” are not able, in principle, even to approach combat good old good guns / missiles. In the best case, their destiny is extremely narrow, specific areas of application such as burning optics for reconnaissance. equipment, sights, etc. If we talk about the use of lasers on the battlefield to “burn” tanks / infantry / missiles / aircraft, then this is just technical nonsense. And that's why. First, you only have to make a small introduction to the topic - how to evaluate and compare the impact on the target of different types of weapons. Those who are well versed in weapon physics may not read. For the rest of the educational program: What determines the degree of destruction of the target?
                1. Saburov
                  Saburov April 16 2016 02: 46
                  0
                  It is determined by three factors: 1) The power supplied from the weapon to the target. A commonplace banal example: the more you hit a person with your fist, the more damage he will inflict, all other things being equal. “Stronger” means applying more muscle at a greater distance in less time. This is power. With regard to guns: the faster the projectile flies, and the heavier it is, the more power. The more he damages the tank, all other things being equal. With reference to the laser - the greater the power of the beam in kilowatts, the stronger it will burn the target. And in the same kilowatts you can translate the damaging properties of any other weapon and compare them. What will we do later. 2) The second factor is the area on which we bring power from the weapon. The smaller it is, the more concentrated the target experiences, the stronger the defeat (we don’t take extreme cases!). If you push the bully with your fist, there will be nothing for him. If you poke him with an awl with exactly the same effort (power), he will not be greeted. When they want to break through a tank, they try to make it a thinner striking element. So as not to “spread” power over the area. If we shoot a beam - we must collect it on the smallest possible area. Remember children's games with lenses and the Sun. A lens collecting the light of the Sun from a circle with a diameter of 5 cm - burns paper perfectly when this beam is compressed to a size of a couple of millimeters. In principle, the first and second factors are usually combined into one - the energy flux density. That is, they receive power in watts divided by the area of ​​impact. The higher this density, the more dangerous the impact. Measured in watts per square centimeter. But I decided to break them down for clarity. 3) The ability of the target to reflect, fend off the power of the weapon. That is, for example, if we take two armor plates and a projectile flying in them, but put one sheet at an angle, then the projectile can bounce off the inclined sheet. All else being equal. That is, the degree of destruction of the target very much depends on its specific vulnerability to this type of weapon with the first two factors being equal. It’s so simple not to sort through the interaction, there are dozens of types of interaction, but then it will be easier. For now, just remember that this must be taken into account. So, we repeat once again: in order to assess the damaging effect of a weapon, we are primarily interested in its power, concentration and methods of protection. Now let's see what has been achieved in the field of lasers and conventional weapons in terms of the above criteria.
                  1. Saburov
                    Saburov April 16 2016 02: 46
                    0
                    Power criterion. The most powerful laser today is the ABL chemical COIL laser. Its power is about 1 megawatts. For comparison: the power of the 76-mm division gun F-22 of the 1936 model of the year is about 150 megawatts. 150 times more! Count yourself - the kinetic energy of the projectile (M * V ^ 2) / 2 divided by the time it is reached (about 0.01 seconds). We still do not take into account the explosive energy in the projectile itself. There are still as many. Think about this simple fact: a small ancient cannon from the time of the Second World War at a price of scrap metal is hundreds of times more powerful than an ultramodern “battle” laser weighing tens of tons and costing over 5 billions of dollars. A shot from ABL alone costs millions of dollars. And this energy shot is comparable to the burst of a heavy machine gun. The power of a Kalashnikov assault rifle is about 100 kilowatts. A US-Israeli laser with the same 100 kW (THEL) power was tested, they wanted to use it to protect against Grad missile shells. THEL installation in size - 6 delivered next to the bus. The project was closed at 2006 for complete inadequacy, although it still successfully shot down missiles and mines. By heating them in flight for several seconds. (The question is - what about the volley ????) Characteristically, no one even mentioned the possibility of defeating infantry with such a laser. Otherwise, even a child would clearly see its true capabilities, comparing it with an ordinary machine gun. It should be noted that it is no coincidence that the US military and experts believe that the minimum required laser power for combat use is 100 kW. As we see, this is really enough to at least get closer to the striking power of small arms.
                    1. Saburov
                      Saburov April 16 2016 02: 47
                      0
                      Laserophiles will say: well, maybe the beam can be concentrated on a small area and thereby achieve a much greater effect with less power? Indeed - after all, industry uses laser machines that quietly cut centimeter steel with powers of only about a few kilowatts. At the same time, their rays are focused on a patch of several millimeters in size. Alas! Here, the physically irresistible diffraction law comes into force, which states that the laser radiation always diverges from the angle = wavelength / beam diameter. At distances of the order of meters, it can be ignored. So what is next? If we take specifically a combat infrared laser with a wavelength of 2 μm (THEL combat lasers work at such a length, etc.) and a beam diameter of 1 cm, then we get the angle of divergence 0.2 of the milliradian (this is a very small difference - for example, ordinary laser pointers / rangefinders diverge by 5 milliradians and more). Divergence 0.2 mrad. at a distance of 100 meters it will increase the diameter of the spot from 1 cm to approximately 3 cm (if anyone else remembers school geometry). That is, the impact density will fall in proportion to the area in 7 times only by 100 meters. That is: if we know that a laser with a power of 100 KW burns an inch steel plate at point-blank somewhere in 2-3 seconds, then at a distance of 100 meters it will do this, roughly, 18 seconds. All this time, an armored personnel carrier (or whom you are going to burn there) must by itself patiently stand and wait. Do not violate those. process, so to speak. Well, as you know - a furrow of a couple of centimeters is unlikely to upset him anyway. For comparison: armor-piercing bullets from Kalashnikov calmly pierce 16 mm steel at the same distance. And I repeat - today the 100 kW laser is a huge installation weighing tens of tons, with huge tanks of toxic chemicals and sophisticated optics. When he "shoots" - huge clouds of poisonous smoke come from him, poisoning the entire vicinity. What will happen to all this if the enemy strikes from 100 meters throughout this kitchen from his good old large-caliber KPVT - you can imagine. And the rocket can accidentally hit ... And on a kilometer the beam density will fall already 300 times.
                      1. Saburov
                        Saburov April 16 2016 02: 47
                        0
                        Therefore, it is easy to understand that the distance of hitting a target even in 1 km for an 100-kW laser is an unattainable dream in real conditions. Unless you understand, for example, a canister of gasoline. Or a naked man tied to a tree. That is, a minimally protected target cannot be hit with such a laser at REASONABLE distances in combat conditions. By the way! On combat conditions: the battlefield is not always a desert White Sands training ground. It's rain. Snow. Fog. Explosions. Fumes. Dust. All these are almost insurmountable obstacles to the laser beam. Here, in general, you can forget about any concentration of the beam - it simply dissipates long before the goal. Who needs an assault rifle that is unable to hit targets in such conditions? I remember that the earliest firearms could not shoot in wet weather - the gunpowder was drenched. And the "shooters" just cut out the old fashioned way. Here it is, the inevitable fate of lovers of hyperboloids. 3) Also a very unpleasant point for "laser" is the ability to protect the target. And it’s very cheap and very cheerful. Because infrared rays are reflected from anything that is not hit (everyone can play with the remote control from the TV). A cheap window film with metallization reflects the vast majority of infrared radiation. Titanium reflects the IR laser very well. But we already barely brought it to the goal (just poetry!). Worse, there are also sublimation resins that are used to protect spacecraft from gigawatt heat fluxes, combined with the terrible mechanical effects of air pressure. In this case, the resin layer is damaged by a centimeter or two. That is, armor / steel is far from the most resistant material for the laser, no. It has long been an order of magnitude more "laser-resistant" coatings. It follows that even if it is possible to increase the power of laser guns by an order of magnitude, to gigawatts, this will not make them a prodigy at all. In this “sword and shield” competition, the shield has a huge, insurmountable head start. That is why laser-lasers very rarely tell WHAT goals they once again managed to hit and at what distance. And what is shown on the video raises more questions than answers. Ah well? - true laser lovers will say - but what do you all tell about chemical lasers when a technological breakthrough has already been made and “combat” solid-state light-pumping devices have appeared? There are no poisonous tanks, and they are much smaller! And decent power has already been achieved - for 100 kW!
                      2. Saburov
                        Saburov April 16 2016 02: 48
                        0
                        And it's called beautifully - Firestrike. Hmm .. And really, a very compact little thing - 7 blocks each weighing 180 kg. Total 1300 kg. So that? A dream come true? Let's not rush. There are a couple of nuances. This huge cabinet weighing per ton is just the radiating unit itself. At least 500 kW should be supplied with electric power, given that the achieved efficiency of this laser is about 20%. (and even that is very doubtful, usually much less - less than 10%). Thus, 100 kW went into the enemy with us, and 400 kW remained in this cabinet. And these kilowatts need to be put out quickly, right? Otherwise, expensive optics will suffer. The dimensions of a cooling system of such power can be imagined by looking, for example, at a cooling installation. A rather big bandura, weighs 120 kg. The system can just serve for cooling industrial lasers; it diverts power from as many as whole 6 kW. And she consumes the same amount of electricity. So you need something the size of a truck to cool our 100 kW cabinet when firing. And all this in total will consume megawatts of electric power under 1. Well how? Do you still like breakthrough 100 kW solid-state lasers? With the unimaginable power of defeat comparable to a Kalashnikov assault rifle?
                      3. gridasov
                        gridasov April 16 2016 11: 42
                        0
                        I have read all the posts and will repeat again. that your understanding of power is too vague. (Sorry for the tactless frankness. And this applies not only to you). Mankind has come close to such phenomena and processes that cannot be described by low-potential and particular definitions. And I very often repeat that the time has come for a transition to a comprehensive analysis of highly potential and highly dynamic processes. And the devices themselves for the implementation of these processes will be decisive from theoretical calculations, and not vice versa
              2. gridasov
                gridasov April 16 2016 11: 36
                0
                There are such aspects of physical. processes that you do not take into account in this example, but they are extremely important. If, for example, a bump with a fist in and at the same time we use a wrist shift with a torque, then the blow is orders of magnitude striking. This is if expressed in general phrases. Second. If the projectile flies at the calculated supersonic speed, then when it hits the same tank, a dynamic impulse is transmitted through the crystal structure of the material of this tank. it is not the warhead that explodes, but the structure of the material. and the gap will be from the entire surface radially. This is confirmed by high-speed shooting of processes when a bullet hits a watermelon, apple, water bottle, etc. Therefore, the essence of the laser effect is also not determined by the concepts of beam power. And it is determined by a complex of interrelated parameters: both the potential of the perturbation of the beam by the energy source, and the dimension of the frequency-amplitude perturbation of it. Further, by the geometry of the beam, so that it constantly "pre-perturb" itself in the frequency order through the periodic concentration of individual jet streams in the beam. And much more.
            2. gridasov
              gridasov April 16 2016 11: 13
              0
              I fully support your words in this reasoning. Therefore, we are conducting a discussion to at least find ways to resolve the issue. And personally, I am confident in my substantiations that only through the super-dynamic states of "simple" and basic substances can a state of dynamic sonoluminescence be achieved and the further development of the process of higher potential phenomena. At the same time, everything is very simple and financially inexpensive. The main thing is to start. Why am I not really popularizing my methods? Precisely because the very first experiments provide colossal opportunities. Everything is too unusual and radically new, which can be called a new technology and analysis and simulation of physical processes.
              1. Saburov
                Saburov April 17 2016 23: 44
                0
                Let's be more specific, without metaphysics. You are talking about some allegedly hitherto unknown processes, although no one has yet decided the main obstacle to using the laser in combat conditions, namely, the physical law of diffraction, which states that laser radiation always diverges from angle = wavelength / diameter beam. Although the laser beam in the gas can undergo "self-focusing" when the atmospheric channel heated by the laser becomes a kind of optical fiber. The beam is also able to focus to a point that can become a source of x-ray radiation due to colossal heating in the area of ​​self-focusing. But for this it is necessary to use this effect in such a way that such a point arises at the right time and in the right place, which is kind of unscientific fiction. Therefore, if you solve this problem, then I guarantee you a Nobel!
                1. gridasov
                  gridasov April 18 2016 00: 14
                  0
                  I'm certainly not a supporter of idle chatter. Therefore, firstly, the law is rather a dogma of the static order. Therefore, it is worth talking about the successive stages of the process, which can ensure the stability of the beam beam through the direction of the jets (if I may say so, since each jet is also formed according to these rules) of its components. In this case, proceeding from the justified parts (we take the crystal structure of the crystal, too), a part of which can be defined as the beginning of the perturbation of this ray. Secondly, each jet of such a ray can be determined by the dimension of this source (its diameter), which means that we can talk about a numerical algorithm representing a mathematical sequence that determines the dimension of this diameter as an integer and exact value. It is not approximate, as this determines the mathematical sequence determined by algebraic methods, and therefore not transformed accordingly. Further. Such jets form the amplitude and frequency of the wave in such a way that they form an impulse at the point of their periodic contact, which is actually the physical effect of the transmission of disturbances along the beam, which is called the light beam. Therefore, the beam itself is a complex process combining both the exact mathematical dimension of all the geometric components of the beam in combination with the potential between the jets in their radial perturbation processes at the momentum, in the longitudinal vector, which is also determined by the potential.
                  I admit that in general it all looks much easier. Words have to justify complexity with complex phrases. In general, this is the simplest task of the Pharaohs. What I have repeatedly said and am repeating now.
                  1. gridasov
                    gridasov April 18 2016 00: 18
                    0
                    We can add to the above that the justification of the physical process can be carried out not by law and formula, but by a model of a dynamic process.
                  2. gridasov
                    gridasov April 18 2016 00: 36
                    0
                    In order to create a stable beam, the necessary, so to speak, potential opportunity, theoretically it is necessary to change the dimension and the algorithm of the process. And in practice, have an energy source that will disturb the ordinary environment or water to a sonoluminescent state or more. And of course, the concept of such a device creating a new quality of energy is also being considered.
                  3. Saburov
                    Saburov April 18 2016 11: 20
                    0
                    Quote: gridasov
                    In order to create a stable beam, the necessary, so to speak, potential opportunity, theoretically it is necessary to change the dimension and the algorithm of the process. And in practice, have an energy source that will disturb the ordinary environment or water to a sonoluminescent state or more. And of course, the concept of such a device creating a new quality of energy is also being considered.


                    No matter how sad it sounds, the beam then alas diverges.
                  4. Saburov
                    Saburov April 18 2016 11: 20
                    0
                    26 March 1983 year in an underground mine at a test site in Nevada in the framework of the Cabra program was the first, and so far the only, explosion of an X-ray laser with a nuclear pump power of 30 ct. Of this enormous energy, only the miserable 130 kJ hit the tip of Excalibur. An attack with such a sword would not be so far away, because the beam of radiation diverged significantly: every 10 m by a fraction of a millimeter, and after 100 km by almost a dozen meters.
                    Instead of miraculous weapons, a zilch turned out - in the most ideal case, at least one nuclear missile defense had to be spent on one warhead. And when you consider that many missiles carry several warheads and in addition there are a lot of false targets ... And it is not so easy to disable the target with a laser beam, even an X-ray, because modern warheads can withstand close nuclear explosions. In addition, the moratorium on nuclear tests following the first experiment completely transferred the task of creating nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers to the field of theoretical research. What, admit, we especially do not regret.
                    Well, for everything else, if we talk about chemical lasers, it’s pointless to constantly shine a laser through empty space - first you need to point it at the target and only after that “cut” it at full power. The reactor does not work well in such a "torn" mode. In battle, if enemy warheads fly in hundreds, and there is no time to allocate false targets, the laser will have to be fired quite often, and for this reason most of the developed combat lasers are chemical. Combustion of gaseous fuel (remember the pyramids of engineer Garin?) Brings the internal environment of the laser into an excited state, and it begins to generate powerful electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, it is necessary to act in the following way - fired, purged the system, delivered a new portion of reagents, and only after that - a new salvo ... And yet, suppose that energy is found: for example, 1 ton of fuel per 1 shot. As is known, the usual laser operation scheme provides for the “pumping” of the working medium (crystal or gas) with energy up to a certain level, and when a jump occurs, the accumulated energy is discharged by a light beam of a certain wavelength. But where to get that energy that did not go to the goal with the beam? So, for the most part, it will stand out in the firing device in the form of heat. Thus, only 40% will go to the goal (although in reality no more than 10%), but the remaining 60% will remain with us. And therefore, even having damaged an enemy ship, we can easily vaporize our own. It is no accident that even in much less powerful earthly installations, flowing water cooling is used not only for mirrors, but also for the working volume of the laser. There is another problem - existing beam focusing systems use reflective mirrors. So what prevents the enemy from using the same mirror coating as a defense? Not to mention the simple rotation of the warhead, tens of times lowering the effectiveness of beam weapons. Lasers had two drawbacks: low power and beam divergence. Whatever the power, but if a beam of radiation with a diameter of several kilometers falls on the target, the benefit of such a laser is zero — unless you can make a rangefinder out of it ... There is only one way to deal with beam divergence — by reducing the wavelength. However, it follows from the fundamental laws of physics that the shorter the wavelength, the more difficult it is to implement quantum amplification of radiation, or, in human terms, to build a laser.
                  5. Saburov
                    Saburov April 18 2016 11: 27
                    0
                    So no matter how beautifully this is described, these hypotheses are not presented, the same thing happens in reality (although everything is beautiful in the commercials, especially since the viewer does not know about the interception range, the material and nature of the target, and the number of attempts and takes) alas diverging confirming the fundamental law.
                  6. gridasov
                    gridasov April 18 2016 14: 53
                    0
                    Have you ever seen how water flows on the surface of the earth. Everyone was of the opinion that it flows only under the influence of gravity. But it turns out she always creates energy conditions for free flow. And along all axes of space coordinates. The same KARMANA path is nothing more than an energy condition for the course of a river or any stream. In general, this is a whole system. And those who do not understand these patterns, then it is useless to explain to him if he either does not want or is not capable. In the same way, a ray of light. And you are all rightly saying that a rectilinear ray of light is always energy not provided. But once it is given algorithms of some regular properties, it will be self-sustaining as a water stream. Generally in nature, straightforwardness is an anomaly or an unstable state of form. And the laws of parallel processes are generally an illusion. At least because in nature there are no static states. They are all multidynamic. So the processes cannot be absolutely identical. This also proceeds from the model of the simplest spatial geometric calculations. on the sphere there is not a single point repeating another. Why? Because any object. like the same abstract sphere, and the real one is all the more in the system of influence of external force. The same gravitational vector of the Earth. Therefore, a point may have polar symmetry in its eight forms, but they all have their own unique identity.
                2. gridasov
                  gridasov April 18 2016 12: 00
                  0
                  I do not have time to read your full post now. Then I will answer. But I will say one thing. Which is quite logical that if the potential of the energy source for beam formation is excessive, then it will produce a radial polarization perturbation. For a simple reason, there will simply be an explosion or breakdown to the external environment. This is also the secret of technology, when it is possible to accumulate potential in local space through its high density so that there is no breakdown to the external environment. If this were not so, then man would have long destroyed his world. But other processes would go beyond the energy balance of the system.
              2. gridasov
                gridasov April 18 2016 11: 55
                0
                So I'm talking about the reasons why the beam "diverges" and how to "connect" it. By the way, all other properties of light to propagate in any medium are also justified.
                In principle, Schauberger also described the mechanism of movement of water in a stream and stream. Surprisingly, no one sees this. And the same principles are inherent in the mechanism of light propagation. Therefore, I repeat once again that for analysis it is necessary to combine the entire totality of the complex process. But how can this be done on the basis of modern methods of mat. analysis? No how! You can only find individual private solutions. Therefore, I often repeat about the function of a constant value of a number, on the basis of which it is possible to construct a model of dynamic space with the entire totality of processes.
              3. Saburov
                Saburov April 18 2016 12: 53
                0
                Quote: gridasov
                Therefore, I repeat once again that for analysis it is necessary to combine the entire totality of the complex process. But how can this be done on the basis of modern methods of mat. analysis? No how! You can only find individual private solutions. Therefore, I often repeat about the function of a constant value of a number, on the basis of which it is possible to construct a model of dynamic space with the entire totality of processes.


                Well ... it is possible and will be, but not today and not tomorrow, and not even in 100 years.
              4. gridasov
                gridasov April 18 2016 14: 15
                0
                I believe that you are wrong. It only seems that the technique of "digitizing" space is complicated. Although I am overwhelmed with horror, if I imagine that I will have to justify it to someone. Well, with theory, it still did not go anywhere. I think there will be people who, at a subconscious level, are already ready to perceive all this. Moreover, I know that the Americans. are moving in that direction. But, it is a fact that it is already possible to create new basic technical devices on this analysis technology. I have already mentioned them.
                As for lasers, the key element of a breakthrough in this topic will be the so-called magnetic force flux density control device. But in essence it is a new induction device, which in essence will repeat the properties of permanent magnets of various configurations. Since the solenoid principle is generally no good. The growth of positive properties in the solenoid is accompanied by negative responses. Although they can be turned into a positive function.
  • Major Yurik
    Major Yurik April 14 2016 11: 15
    +2
    What hallucinations only a printing money machine will not cause when it is in personal use! The next admiralug from the Yankees has turned off, hearty! negative
  • vovanpain
    vovanpain April 14 2016 11: 06
    +8
    By 2021, the Pentagon plans to develop “airborne laser weapons to intercept ballistic missiles

    And what about F-35 they don’t give grandmas yet, we decided to arrange a laser cut.
  • Teberii
    Teberii April 14 2016 11: 06
    0
    Soon, the elections need to be staked by the grandmother, otherwise it is not known who will come to power.
  • KAV
    KAV April 14 2016 11: 09
    +2
    Shaw ?! Again?!?! (from)
    This song is old, justify its time. ;)
    Partners are trifling out. Well, if you create something, you need an annihilator right away! Schaub finally destroyed matter without a trace. And laser lasers - pampering is everything. :)
    1. Michael67
      Michael67 April 14 2016 11: 24
      0
      Hard to believe. "pindagon promised ...". It would be something serious, they would find out last and not very soon.
  • Samen
    Samen April 14 2016 11: 35
    0
    "The Pentagon has pledged to develop anti-missile lasers by 2021"

    Well, well ... And laser swords for space marines ....))))
  • stas
    stas April 14 2016 11: 50
    0
    Pin..sy promised this back in Brezhnev’s time, to develop SOI in space.

    But their promise has not yet grown.
    They scare us if we catch up with us, we will show you something that we ourselves have not seen.
  • Totalwar
    Totalwar April 14 2016 12: 11
    0
    another mega-saw from the US armed forces good
  • Stalker.1977
    Stalker.1977 April 14 2016 12: 45
    +1
    Yeah and collect this laughing
  • Shuttle
    Shuttle April 14 2016 13: 33
    0
    Quote: Observer2014
    "The Pentagon has pledged to develop anti-missile lasers by 2021" laughing laughing laughing

    I think that Putin, Shoigu and Rogozin will personally buy Alenka chocolates for the children and feed them, and the remaining golden grains will be fixed on the surface of the warheads. This will be the Pentagon's asymmetric response to the old idea of ​​laser weapons. tongue
    Measures to counteract laser radiation are still many orders of magnitude lower than commotion in organizing its effects at such speeds and, importantly, at such distances and under such conditions.
  • salad
    salad April 14 2016 11: 02
    +1
    Have the spacecraft been postponed? wassat
    1. subbtin.725
      subbtin.725 April 14 2016 11: 28
      0
      The Pentagon promised by 2021 ...

      Quotes of the classics:

      The strongest promises are made without further ado.
      (Perry Mason)
  • Marconi41
    Marconi41 April 14 2016 11: 02
    0
    What?! Is SOI dreaming again? Well, no, now Russia will not bite this bait. We will wait and watch this laser show from the side.
    1. Observer2014
      Observer2014 April 14 2016 11: 06
      +1
      Quote: Marconi41
      What?! Is SOI dreaming again? Well, no, now Russia will not bite this bait. We will wait and watch this laser show from the side.

      We will not look from the outside. We will calmly deal with this topic without noise and dust. Without snot and ah, ah, what to do, now what to do and everything is gone. hi
  • Vladimirets
    Vladimirets April 14 2016 11: 04
    +5
    “In 2011, the US Department of Defense mothballed a $ 5 billion project to create a laser gun based on the cargo Boeing 747-400F.”
  • Stiletto
    Stiletto April 14 2016 11: 04
    0
    Optimists, however. They believe that they will survive to 2021. winked
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 14 2016 12: 51
      0
      You don’t worry - they will surely survive.
  • vglazunov
    vglazunov April 14 2016 11: 04
    0
    The foggy future of this boy.
    Star Wars Episode I. The Phantom Menace
  • gergi
    gergi April 14 2016 11: 05
    0
    Under this business, money is shoved in pockets. Hello to American taxpayers. Get ready to turn out your pockets. Then the movie will be shown to you. Hyperboloid Smith Engineer.
  • DenZ
    DenZ April 14 2016 11: 06
    0
    Ours, too, were also going to resume the laser project based on the Il-76MD90A. But so far no news has been heard.
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 14 2016 11: 08
    0
    To promise is not to marry.
    Maybe they will, but talking about the timing is PR itself.
  • Arkan
    Arkan April 14 2016 11: 14
    0
    Lasers are losers. For the next Hollywood movie, the bestseller is trying.
  • Gray brother
    Gray brother April 14 2016 11: 21
    0
    Money again for the fish.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 14 2016 13: 05
      0
      Science is the best thing to satisfy your curiosity, at the expense of the state.
      1. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak April 14 2016 13: 24
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        Science is the best thing to satisfy your curiosity, at the expense of the state.
        Well, why? This can be done at your expense. All you need is a trifle, your consent to financing.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 14 2016 13: 53
          0
          And private investors too.
  • sodick
    sodick April 14 2016 11: 22
    0
    New anti-ballistic lasers with their operators
    1. Gray brother
      Gray brother April 14 2016 11: 37
      0
      Quote: sodick
      New anti-ballistic lasers with their operators

      smile
  • Disorder
    Disorder April 14 2016 11: 25
    0
    We decided to shake off the dust from the SDI. I remember there were planned lasers with chemical and nuclear pumping, placed in orbit. But they were abandoned in view of low efficiency.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets April 14 2016 11: 31
      0
      The agency recalls that "in 2011, the US Department of Defense conserved the cost of building a laser-based laser instrument based on cargo Boeing 5-747F, which cost about 400 billions of dollars."
      Well, they’ll put nuclear-pumped lasers on this plane so that it’s pumped up.
  • demiurg
    demiurg April 14 2016 11: 28
    0
    Create a good missile defense? But how on TV to explain that she is so good? And then the death rays .... Triumph in contrast. Either drank or an attempt to make money for the accused friends (us and the Chinese).
    That's when they create a battery with the same energy per kg of weight as the gunpowder at least, and the possibility of the same quick discharge as the burning of gunpowder, then you can raise the question of combat lasers. By the way, they will shoot down drones well.
    A laser of such power (albeit ground-based) to bring down missiles has been around since 1980, there is a question of guidance, and there is the problem of energy dissipation in dense layers of the atmosphere. If you solve the issue with guidance, then lasers are not needed at all, Vega / Dubna s-200 missiles will be enough (more modern s-300s and higher are economical). You can remove the atmosphere for the convenience of laser shooting, but then you no longer need to fight for this planet.
  • gridasov
    gridasov April 14 2016 11: 32
    0
    There are no prerequisites for taking what has been said seriously. Even if an energy source is created that can operate in the required mode to support the process, it will still not be able to provide a sufficient density of magnetic force fluxes. Non-smart people do not understand at all that magnetic fluxes have a complex of properties that are expressed precisely by density in radial space, and not linear. Therefore, the same modern-design capacitors burn in a very specific place. Without such a source of high density of interaction of magnetic fluxes, as well as a generator, not even current or voltage. but with a high density of magnetic fluxes, the process will not work. Moreover, the beam is formed "on the crystal", and then "squeezed" by the magnetic coils, while it is more convenient to roll it in the back. This means that the essence of the technology is completely different.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 14 2016 12: 59
      0
      Read about chemical lasers.
      1. gridasov
        gridasov April 14 2016 15: 49
        0
        Personally, I think neither chemical. no others can be effective. No one will ever be able to provide an energy density sufficient to obtain an impulse of the corresponding potential. Therefore, only the method of exposure to ordinary water can only be applied. I don’t even write what and how to influence. everything is very simple.
  • Muvka
    Muvka April 14 2016 11: 34
    0
    Guys, what about a rocket with a mirror surface? Will it melt it?
    1. LVMI1980
      LVMI1980 April 14 2016 11: 40
      0
      what for? you can just twist it ..
      1. gridasov
        gridasov April 14 2016 11: 57
        0
        I recommend reading scientific journals. In particular, about the achievements of Italians on this topic, which does not contradict what I said.
    2. Samen
      Samen April 14 2016 11: 41
      +2
      Quote: Muvka
      Guys, what about a rocket with a mirror surface? Will it melt it?

      Of course not! And also: cloud cover and fog - an ambush for a hyperboloid! The trouble ... crying
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 14 2016 12: 54
      +1
      Of course it will melt.
  • VP
    VP April 14 2016 11: 39
    0
    Good topic, bold, respect. Five years before the cover of the program can be well muddied.
    I think that the opening of the topic will begin to lobby in three years, so far it is necessary to somehow bring down the heat from the 35th.
  • demiurg
    demiurg April 14 2016 11: 48
    0
    Quote: gridasov
    Even if an energy source is created that can operate in the necessary mode to ensure the process, it still cannot provide a sufficient density of magnetic force flows.

    Excuse me, maybe I’m wrong, but in tokamaks, what is the high-temperature plasma held in?
    1. gridasov
      gridasov April 14 2016 11: 55
      -2
      It is the sources of magnetic forces. But the fact is that the Tokomak principle itself is not objectively logical in order not to receive the impulse of the collision of the so-called particles, but to build a stable relationship between two polarized sections with a high energy density.
  • Ronin62
    Ronin62 April 14 2016 11: 49
    0
    "Pentagonal" promises a lot, for example, the F-35 to bring to mind.
  • iouris
    iouris April 14 2016 12: 04
    +1
    Is the next president's last name Reagan?
  • Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf April 14 2016 12: 11
    +1
    Our thieves with Serdyuk at the head quietly rest. There are such cuts and kickbacks, but most importantly, everything under the guise of protecting "crap."
    1. ALEX 100
      ALEX 100 April 14 2016 12: 23
      -1
      Rogozin is far from such cuts, it did not work on the "Vostochny", he needs to revive him under the bases on the moon.
  • Wolka
    Wolka April 14 2016 12: 46
    +1
    hmm, where are we and where are 2021, the Yankees live first
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 14 2016 12: 58
      0
      In 2023, Lockheed Martin threatens to create a fusion reactor.
  • Arktidianets
    Arktidianets April 14 2016 13: 25
    +1
    DARPA rubs his hands in anticipation of cutting another hell of a lard.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 14 2016 13: 36
    +1
    Laser hit on vulnerable 1st stage only
    in the first few seconds after the start.
    The cones of warheads have nothing to think of being damaged by a laser.
    They are in thick organic armor that protects the mechanism from
    melting in the atmosphere.
    And ICBM launches are made from the depths of Russia, where
    the plane does not fly up.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 14 2016 13: 57
      0
      For this you need a cosmic beam weapon, but it is still very far away.
      1. iouris
        iouris April 14 2016 15: 13
        0
        Everything is in a bundle, but we have everything in a bundle ...
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 14 2016 15: 49
        +1
        "For this you need a space beam weapon, but it's still very far away" ///

        Have an idea to use neutrinos
        to neutralize nuclear charges.
        The neutrino passes the earth without noticing, but the uranium is very dense
        and neutrinos pierce it "with little effort."
        If on the other side of the globe hollow a stream of neutrinos
        nuclear warhead (across the globe) then the warhead gradually
        will "corrode" and lose the density necessary for the explosion.
        At the same time, the process is imperceptible, no one will know that the weapon
        spoiled.
        1. gridasov
          gridasov April 14 2016 16: 20
          0
          It is necessary not to use neutrinos, but to understand the consequences of what processes this "material" formation is. Then just such a technology, which we are talking about, will allow us to obtain such a state. By the way, the properties of neutrinos can be manifested in such processes. In general, reading books with fairy tales from the past is already clear that they will not lead to the desired result. Therefore, ideas of a new order and level are needed.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 14 2016 16: 57
            0
            There are ideas of a new order and level - http://www.dailytechinfo.org/news/4743-uchenye-nauchilis-sozdavat-zarodyshi-shar
            ovyh-molniy-iz-plazmy-kotoraya-goryachee-plazmy-solnca.html
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 14 2016 16: 52
          0
          Lockheed Martin on military lasers got something up http://www.dailytechinfo.org/military/5598-lockheed-martin-demonstriruet-novyy-l
          azer-prednaznachennyy-dlya-boevogo-ispolzovaniya.html
        3. Anglorussian
          Anglorussian April 14 2016 20: 29
          +1
          Have you really learned how to focus neutrinos?
  • Verdun
    Verdun April 14 2016 22: 17
    0
    To promise is not to marry. There, Khrushchev promised that by 1980 there would be communism in the USSR, and so what? When the arms lobby is trying to knock out grandmothers for military concerns in the US Senate, you can trick them a bit. Well, how's it going?
  • Buffet
    Buffet April 15 2016 22: 13
    0
    Another child prodigy ... They wanted to install them on the Boeings too? only in clear weather when Jupiter converged with Mercury at the zenith of its 5 moon .....