NationStates Jolt Archive

Can anyone think of a way to get an energy weapon to work with modern or near-future technology? I've been pondering it for a while, as it would be a huge step forward in terms of military capability. Soldiers and tanks could simply rearm at any source of power.
The best I've been able to come up with is a big laser. And that would suck, because in order to any damage, you enemy must be unable to do sneaky things like moving out of the way.
So, I ask again: Anyone have even the seeds of an idea?

Wouldn't be nearly as big a step forward as you think, since the weapon would have to be vastly more complex than a simple cannon [meaning it would need specialised techs and have greater logistical requirements and, in the case of an infantry weapon, would be neither user-servicable nor adequately 'soldier-proof.']

Energy weapons also have trouble with indirect fire, meaning a modern tank with a regular cannon would be able to beat your 'advanced' tanks easily at long range, same for artillery.

Your best call in advanced weapons for a near-future military is gyrojet or ramjet guns for infantry and liquid-propellent, rocket, rail or gauss guns on tanks. You're unlikely to be getting rid of boring old shells for quite some time.

Also, while bullets become lodged in their targets, a laser beam will probably just pass through, leaving a nicely-shaped hole...but not much actual damage. I've heard somewhere that laserfire instantly cauterizes a wound it inflicts, and although I'm not sure, something like that deprives lasers of their usefulness.

Actually, it's only lower-velocity [pistol / SMG] bullets that tend to stick in targets, higher velocities [modern high-powered rifle] will simply pass right thought. But yes, lasers being extremely hot will generally cauterise the wound meaning an strike anywhere but a vital organ won't be particularly effective.

Lasers also have overheating problems and are useless against infantry, since humans are mostly water and water has ten times the specific heat capacity of steel, meaning a laser than can vapourise steel will merely give a man a painful but superficial burn.


Townes is wrong, lasers do not make superior weapons.

unless sed person is completly riddled with laser fire

unless sed person is completly riddled with laser fire

Meaning you've firied multiple rounds where a regular gun wouldn't have required you to do so, demonstrating that a ballistic weapon is superior to a laser against infantry?

Well, if you accept plasma shields (which are probably impossible) you could create a tiny shield generator which is fired from a gun. Being about micron-sized, it would go very, very fast, but you would have the ammo problem instead of the charge problem.
Hmm...
humming noise...
clickclickclick...

Maybe something that changes the air around where it hits into something deadly. I'm no Ph.D. so I'll leave "something deadly" to "someone else."

Of course if you put enough energy into a laser the specific heat capacity of water won't matter much. ;) Not that you can fit that kind of energy on a man portable weapon though.

Generally, an energy weapon in an Armored Vechile for example is a bad idea, because simply an energy weapon cant take advantage of ballistics and is usefull only when there is a line of sight to the target. But, on the other hand if you got a really high-powered laser for example, when it hits a tank it will cause rapid-vaporization in the target material and once it gets thru the armor, it will super-heat the air inside the enemy tank and fry the crew. Ofcourse, this requires quite a bit of power.

And about this, "lasers just making a small hole and cauterizing the hole in the process", people do you understand that rapid vaporization of matter creates an explosion in a sense? And when that laser beam gets thru the armor, it will superheat the air inside the tank and instantly fry the crew along with possibly igniting the fuel and ammo in the process.

And about this, "lasers just making a small hole and cauterizing the hole in the process", people do you understand that rapid vaporization of matter creates an explosion in a sense?

If a modern or near postmodern military built a laser that powerful there's no way it'd be useful against infantry, sheer size of the weapon and it's powersource would see to that.

And when that laser beam gets thru the armor, it will superheat the air inside the tank and instantly fry the crew along with possibly igniting the fuel and ammo in the process.

No it won't. Any weapon that could heat the air in it's vincinity to that kind of temperature would vapourise itself the moment it fired. Also, in order for it to transfer that kind of heat to the interior of the tank it would have to be kept on long after it had burned through the armour and out the other side of the tank. You're talking stupid-long duration or stupid levels of power, neither of which would apply to a near-modern laser weapon.

Lasers aren't magical heat death rays.

Particle weapons may be possible. For instance, my take on them:

Ion Cannon (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130388&highlight=)

Or, for lasers:
Bomb Pumped Nuclear Lasers (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=119064&highlight=)

However, neither of these are cheap or conventional, and would cause a LOT of problems when used. They're also orbital weapons, which is frowned upon by many. Also, while offensive lasers may seem to be a ways off, defensive are not. Consider the MTHELS, which can shoot down incoming missiles, rockets, and even artillery.

And, remember the difference between chemical and electrical lasers. There are already plans for an AC-130 type aircraft firing a rotating COIL instead of the Howitzer it normally carries. It is designed to perform thermal kills on targets with a high powered chemical laser. It can incinerate infantry, and vaporize vehicles in short order, and is easier on the targetting systems because no ballistic calculation is required. However, the COIL is bulky and holds little fuel.

(Electrical lasers, though more ideal, waste over 90% of their energy as heat. They require too much power and cooling to be of practical use as of yet.)

Heh.. all in all nothing like the good 'ole gunpowder 'n lead..

In SciFi and movies it works just fine, maybe some day we will invent a powerfull enough powercell, portable too, to make laser weapons feasible.. but i still see conventional weaponry waaaay into the future.. why? cheap, and easily mass produced.. and can get you just as dead as a powerful laser,
besides the obvious advantages, put a silencer on a rifle or gun and no-one is going to know from where the shot came from.. with a laser, well, bright light shining..

Well... an enemy would find it difficult to simply "move" out of the way of a beam travelling 186,000 miles per second. In effect, your enemy would need be 186,000 miles away from you to have one second of getaway time.

A laser is not terribly bad, even in modern tech. Look at the airborne laser.

Anyways, you may consider simple particle beams as well. The US has done research on those, but for the most part, only lasers have ever been implemented.

Can anyone think of a way to get an energy weapon to work with modern or near-future technology?
UV lasers. And on the defensive side, Electric Armor.

Maybe something that changes the air around where it hits into something deadly. I'm no Ph.D. so I'll leave "something deadly" to "someone else."See the UV laser. You need two of them to do anything really cool, though.
Idea 1: get two nitrogen lasers that are just under the power level required to convert air into plasma. Align them so that the beams cross just in front of your target. When you fire, that spot will suddenly become home to a small ball of greenish flame via the Inverse Brahmstrellung Effect, which can do some damage all on its own, but most of the damage will come from the resulting shockwave. Be sure to turn the device off very quickly, though, or you risk plasma travelling up the beams and back to you. Which is bad.
Idea 2 [this one actually requires very little power; you could fit it all into a backpack or less]: align your two nitrogen lasers parallel. Place electrodes in the paths of the beams. After you turn on the lasers, discharge a capacitor across the electrodes. Current will follow a path through the collumns of ionized air created by the lasers, and pass through your target along the way. Essentially a long-distance taser. Perfect for inducing cardiac arrest from 50 meters with no incriminating evidence on the body. No bullet hole, no burn marks.

I've heard somewhere that laserfire instantly cauterizes a wound it inflicts, and although I'm not sure, something like that deprives lasers of their usefulness.If you fire a continuous beam, it will vaporize the moisture on top of your target's skin, and the resulting vapor will reduce the effectiveness of the beam until it clears. As you will be generating more vapor as the beam slowly burns its way through, the result won't be very spectacular, and it will self-cauterize.
If, however, you pulse the beam (and I'm assuming here that total energy output is equal, meaning each pulse carries more energy than a section of continuous beam of the same duration), the first pulse will eliminate surface moisture, which then has time to diffuse away before the next pulse hits. Once you get past the epidermis and start hitting capillaries, you can be pretty sure that the explosive vaporization of blood plasma etc. will rip a pretty nasty hole.
Of course, that's assuming that your laser is tuned to the right frequency for maximum absorbtion.... You need different lasers to combat different materials.

As for electric armor, 'tis very simple: replace your current armor with an inner layer of insulating material [kevlar would do good], and a sandwich of conducting layers with a second insulating layer in between. Hook up the conducting layers to a very large capacitor bank. When something tries to get through, it will penetrate the outer laser, penetrate the insulator, and then recieve a high-volatge, high current shock. With any luck, enough to vaporize it and prevent it from getting inside, through the inner kevlar / other insulator layer.

besides the obvious advantages, put a silencer on a rifle or gun and no-one is going to know from where the shot came from.. with a laser, well, bright light shining..Not 'till they're already hit, no matter how far away they are. Iff you are worried about someone seeing a beam of light flashing through the air... ain't gonna happen. Not unless you have a very powerful laser, or one that has been tuned to just the right frequency to ionize the air and make it glow. Even then, it most likely wouldn't be left on long enough for anyone to get a good look. And if you're worried about a dot on the wall... well, the vast majority of practical weapons lasers would be outside of visual range anyway. Not to mention the "not on long enough" bit that applies here as well, and the fact that a single point of light won't do you any more good than a single bullet hole in the wall as far as figuring out point of origin is concerned.

EDIT: It seems that Idea 2 or similar is already in development: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996014

Why not make a rail gun that superheats the ammunition?

Hey, Eniqcir, I didn't know that was real (the long range electric pulse). I made up a concept like that in Chemistry one day (bored), and wrote it into a story. Got it here on NS, too, in a modded form. Wow... it's real!

Infantry lasers, pffft. I like my Radgun better. While I've never really figured out how it works, it somehow uses slugs of plutonium (or the imaginary Spootonium) to shoot a "bullet" of radiation measured around 200 rads at a target. Its primarily gamma, with some beta particles, thus rendering it rather effective against infantry and unarmored targets. But since most particles are stopped by dense substances (beta don't even go through skin), its relatively useless against, say, a tank.

On the question of lasers, I have heard about something called a "Chemical Laser". I believe it projects super-heated gas as a beam, with a temperature equal to that of the sun's surface. The system is very bulky though, so the military is looking at sticking them on 747s to intercept missiles. Just for your consideration...

If a modern or near postmodern military built a laser that powerful there's no way it'd be useful against infantry, sheer size of the weapon and it's powersource would see to that.

And i note that i did not say anything about how large it would be, merely that a laser of sufficient power could do this. Altough, modern MBT's use ceramic materials in their armor so scratch the vaporization.

No it won't. Any weapon that could heat the air in it's vincinity to that kind of temperature would vapourise itself the moment it fired. Also, in order for it to transfer that kind of heat to the interior of the tank it would have to be kept on long after it had burned through the armour and out the other side of the tank. You're talking stupid-long duration or stupid levels of power, neither of which would apply to a near-modern laser weapon.

Lasers aren't magical heat death rays.

You do know that a Laser that could burn thru MBT armor relatively quickly would also heat up the air thru which it moves right? This would be because the beam would bleed off much of its energy in the form of thermal radiation to the air it goes thru. And vaporize itself the moment it fired? You do understand that it takes a bit more energy to increase the temperature of air by couple of hundred degrees than it takes to vaporize stuff like steel? Naturally, a military grade laser would have to have stuff like heat sinks in the form of liquid hydrogen propably and the actual emitter area built out of materials that have high thermal resistance.
Also, why would the laser have to be kept on for long to heat up the air inside the tank? If the beam would be of sufficient power to punch thru MBT armor in a second or less, it would be heating the air inside the tank pretty quickly. Ofcourse, it all depends on the power of the laser in question.

Whether or not Lasers are magical death rays or not depends on their power level.

A far more practical weapon is the simple railgun. Accurate, fast firing and surprisingly destructive. Check out the "Upper Virginian" threads for an example of a railgun's firing sequence. Or, ask, and I'll describe one. It really is pretty interesting.

The MTHEL and other such 'energy weapon' systems are not only possible using modern or very-near-modern technology, they are in existence already. The MTHEL 'Nautilus' prototype has proven itself in now-extensive testings in the US and, soon if not already, in Israel. The microwave energy 'active denial' system has been in the operative prototype stage for at least 2 years or so and other energy systems (such as point-specific subsonic/shock wave systems and HERF (EMI) guns) have already been tested or proven in proof-of-concept testing.

The main issue is that laser weapons seem best, at current, as either a sort of 'offensive defense' or 'special purpose offensive' weapon. The relatively large footprint of the MTHEL and similar systems limits transportable versions to major Naval Fleet vessels, specially-adopted C-130 aircraft, 747 'jumbo jets', and the M270 MLRS chassis (or larger ground vehicles). None of these platforms has what could be called a 'low maintenance profile' nor is any easily supported on extended term/isolated missions. But the future may allow limited capacity MTHEL-like systems on HMMWV trucks and diode-pumped lasers on aircraft as small as the JSF (as a defensive weapon vs. missiles and perhaps other aircraft chasing the jet).

At current, the main use of such systems seems to be either crowd control (the "Active Denial" system and shockwave-generating 'sound guns') or in limited-range missile defense systems (the MTHEL, COIL, and other laser systems).

As was mentioned, lasers are less-than-perfect in combating general field troops for a number of reasons. The first of such reasons is that nothing causes quite so much biological damage as a bullet or explosion. While hollow-point and blended metal munitions are severely limited (with explosive small-caliber rounds being actually illegal), they are potentially the best small-arms rounds in existence, if only because they magnify the primary destructive components of the rounds.

A very good (military) study of the effects of various rounds can be found here: http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/ch02/02Projectiles.html (the small jumbles of dots below each description are enlargible visualizations).

Components of bullet destructiveness (a very short primer):
1) The Actual Impact
This is where the first kinetic energy release is concentrated...at the point where the bullet strikes the person's clothing (passing through any BDU or light/ineffective body armor). Old flak vests (c. Vietnam) do a little work in slowing projectiles although they can seriously reduce the injury incurred internally (although not eliminate it) and can often stop fragments from farther-off explosions. The modern "bullet proof" vest consists of two parts: The (usually) Kevlar vest itself and the "Trauma Plate."

The Kevlar again slows the bullet but cannot really hope to stop it. Modern advanced fibers and so-called "spider silk armor" are woven with the kevlar to increase the effectiveness in this role. Kevlar also serve in the same role as the older flak vests in stopping ricochets and fragments. Trauma plates of modern vests are Kevlar or metal plates that actually seek to stop the bullet, although only the most recent models can even try to stop more than one round effectively. Although the standard most people have today is the idea that all soldiers should have the best ballistic protection, most non-first world armies have little or no ballistic protection beyond the level of a flak jacket (if even that). The IDF (Israel's army) has only recently begun to issue modern kevlar+trauma plate vests to their soldiers manning checkpoints and in other operations, but many of their special forces and general infantrymen go without this protection, preferring maneuverability over protection.

The nice thing about lasers is that they would burn right through this layer (these vests tend to have problems if exposed to excessive heat or moisture) but even a normal bullet strike will still make a ballistic vested soldier 'go down'...and those vests don't tend to cover limbs or heads, which are crippling areas. The vest basically serves to spread what would otherwise be the penetrating force of the bullet across the soldier's chest, thus saving his life although possibly leaving him with bruised or broken ribs, clavicles, and internal bleeding.

2) The Penetration and Shockwave
As the bullet enters the body, it not only rips the tissue in front of it violently apart (although the edges of the path tend to be quickly cauterized in the process) but it also tends to have a secondary effect as some of the kinetic energy is transferred to the body in the form of a shockwave. It is that shockwave that can rip open small arteries and veins, send one's organs into shock (if it has passed close to it or even through it), and causes the majority of the initial 'blow'.

3) Fragments and Paths
As I mentioned earlier, fragmenting or 'spreading' rounds such as hollow points and the new blended-metal munitions achieve their spectacular effects by spreading fragments or increasing the diameter of the path and thereby the area affected by the passing of the round. Bullets are notoriously tricky, with cases occuring of patients being hit in the buttocks only to have the round appear (without any significant damage along the way) in their chest cavity right near the heart and lungs. As an EMT in training, I was warned that smaller caliber (below .45) bullets that hit major arteries or veins may be redirected along those routes and so can end up in the person's heart, where the round causes a heart attack. The tricky ballistics of bullets within bodies mean that what might otherwise be a harmless shot to the arm has an equal chance of hitting the humerous (upper arm bone, a VERY painful injury), just passing through the arm and out into the open air (causing some muscle and tissue damage), or entering the thoracic cavity where it hits the heart, lungs, or spinal column causing serious injury and/or death.

Fragmentation also increases the area of direct tissue injury, increases the chance of a vital organ being hit, increases the difficulty of tissue repair and projectile extrication. The Blended Metal ammunition has had spectacular field reports (from private contractors not bound by the army's current ban on such munitions) where chance-shots that would be painful but not deadly have become instantly incapacitating thanks to the fact that their unique composition makes the round effectively explode within the person, creating shotgun-like injuries from significant distances.

In the second two categories, bullets have an immesurable advantage in the quality and type of injuries caused. While the laser might penetrate more, the kinetic component of the bullet's energy makes it an effecient killing mechanism. Lasers may burn through flak vests and personnel, but they may also burn through the next building, hit a gas pipe and kill the 300 nuns and priests living in that building...and something capable of burning through a man is definitely capable of passing through other materials (or if it misses the man, it won't just stop when it hits a wall). These dangers are the same reason that rounds larger than .50 cal (and even usually .50 cal rounds) are often considered to be 'inhumane' weapons to use against personnel.

Lasers may be good for striking and incapacitating vehicles, damaging enemy electronics facilities, or for other uses but they are really currently only cost-effective for the destruction of aircraft, ballistic missiles, or other projectiles...mainly due to the fact that such vehicles are very delicate mechanisms that are easily mission-killed by a small burn almost anywhere on the system. A .50 cal round may not kill a $4 million tank, but it could definitely bring down a $12 million attack helicopter or a $60 million jet. Aircraft and missiles have to overcome gravity as ships and land vehicles usually don't have to deal with and so are easier to interfere with by subtle means.

Go ahead and use lasers on your ships and on large craft for special missions, but don't bother arming your foot soldiers with expensive guns...a bullet can be made to fire using a pair of pliers and a hammer, a laser requires something more in the tech department...and that requires batteries and support that neither your soldiers nor your taxpayers will appreciate. Any such man-portable destructive (rather than, say range-finding and targeting) lasers are well outside of the current capacity of technology...you may get something that looks like (and weighs as much as or more than) a TOW missile launcher, but calling such a weapon 'man portable' is a joke...and would probably not fire more than one or two shots before exhausting its battery or overheating...requiring a complete, expensive, and heavy replacement unit.

Also, vehicle-based lasers would probably be too expensive (at up to $100,000s/shot) to use against single soldiers...sorta like using an ATGM to pick off an individual soldier standing on a hillside...it can be done, but that's one expensive kill.


Clairmont, I don't think that liquid hydrogen is quite within the budget range...or necessity range...of even current lasers (one proposal considers placing a MTHEL-like laser in a C-130 for use against armored vehicles) that burn through armor quickly. And ceramics can still burn and be burnt through. But in support of your argument, the estimated need for laser-on-target time is about 2-3 seconds to burn through an armored vehicle...and the units /did not/ indeed burn up. The current diode-pumped lasers have such issues after about 2-3 shots, but chemical lasers can fire several dozen or hundred shots before they need a 'refill' (although it is a very toxic chemical refill). The current ranges I've seen are about 2-4miles (direct line) for MTHEL-type units.

A far more practical weapon is the simple railgun. Accurate, fast firing and surprisingly destructive. Check out the "Upper Virginian" threads for an example of a railgun's firing sequence. Or, ask, and I'll describe one. It really is pretty interesting.

Clairmont, I don't think that liquid hydrogen is quite within the budget range...or necessity range...of even current lasers (one proposal considers placing a MTHEL-like laser in a C-130 for use against armored vehicles) that burn through armor quickly. And ceramics can still burn and be burnt through. But in support of your argument, the estimated need for laser-on-target time is about 2-3 seconds to burn through an armored vehicle...and the units /did not/ indeed burn up. The current diode-pumped lasers have such issues after about 2-3 shots, but chemical lasers can fire several dozen or hundred shots before they need a 'refill' (although it is a very toxic chemical refill). The current ranges I've seen are about 2-4miles (direct line) for MTHEL-type units.

I doubt ,that liquid hydrogen would be needed, as well but i dont know too much about the mechanics of an actual laser assembly so im not sure about how much thermal resistance the assembly would need to have.

Yeah, ceramics can be burnt thru but ceramics have very high thermal resistance because they contain stuff like silicon which has a very high energy requirement for vaporization.

There is also that COIL laser i read about from Popular Science. They are planning on putting that to a C-130 and it supposedly would burn thru MBT armor in less than a second and it could be fired repeatedly for a while without problems.

I doubt ,that liquid hydrogen would be needed, as well but i dont know too much about the mechanics of an actual laser assembly so im not sure about how much thermal resistance the assembly would need to have.

Liquid nitrogen cools most things that need a great deal of heat reduction rather well.

Yeah, ceramics can be burnt thru but ceramics have very high thermal resistance because they contain stuff like silicon which has a very high energy requirement for vaporization.

There is also that COIL laser i read about from Popular Science. They are planning on putting that to a C-130 and it supposedly would burn thru MBT armor in less than a second and it could be fired repeatedly for a while without problems.

The COIL they spoke about in PopSci is at least 5-15 years off by the estimate of most of those personnel developing the technology...and even then the range they talked about is somewhat extreme. Most give it 15-20 years until such technology is even basically fielded. That is a desired capability rather than a proven one. I've read and re-read that article (it's actually on my desk right now) and I've also read several other articles on the technology. The current testbed is somewhat stronger than a normal lab laser (but not stronger than industrial cutting lasers) and fills the space of a small car. It's range is measured more in inches than in miles and it overheats rapidly...but that doesn't mean that it can't be, and isn't being, improved.

The article only really addressed "vehicles," you should note, which goes up to APCs, perhaps, but does not promise anything about MBTs.

Laser looks goon on sci-fi, but it's not really useful for now, as we lack orbital bombardment capabilities. (Ion Cannon from C&C series) I'd be more interested in the development of exo-skeleton suits and drone soldiers(Terminator).
The problem with exo-skeleton suit is that it would require a portable power source with enough power to supply a household, while being light enough to be carried by such a suit. Also, drone soldiers would require sophisticated targetting system for IFF recognition and threat indicators.

I am, however, against all forms of biological weapons. I'd hate to see some super virus or bacteria wiping out the entire planet because it can evolve. Unless there is 100% fail-safe way of making the biological weapons to die out, I don't want those things at all.

Hmm, when people talk about lasers, they generally think of optical light. While visible light does have its advantages, I'd prefer to use something in, say, the gamma ray spectrum. Much higher powered, and able to pass through most normal armour to get straight at the people within. The only problem is that to get such energy, one would probably need a nuclear reactor.

You could have a chemical laser fired off of a truck. That would provide you with enough power yoou need to harm people and vechiles. You can also make the laser broad beam where instead of being able to target 1 object it projects thge laser an angle and hits anything within its cone.
Another good use would be to use a lesser powered laser that isnt effective at burning but specialized in blinding infantry so point it towards the enemy infantry and just rob them of there sight.

also can someone explain the basic principles behind a gauss gun, im reading some things and it just seems like a railgun.

You could have a chemical laser fired off of a truck. That would provide you with enough power yoou need to harm people and vechiles. You can also make the laser broad beam where instead of being able to target 1 object it projects thge laser an angle and hits anything within its cone.
Another good use would be to use a lesser powered laser that isnt effective at burning but specialized in blinding infantry so point it towards the enemy infantry and just rob them of there sight.

That's actually what a MTHEL is, only it's mostly focused against missiles and other projectiles...but you could definitely turn it on other vehicles, people, buildings...or ships. A focusing mechanism might be useful for crowd control, but risks serious injury due to burns. A microwave system called the Active Denial System uses microwave energy to heat the topmost layers of a person's skin to painful levels without causing permanent damage...it's currently in a final prototype stage.

The blinding laser is already real and its development is very controversial since it's supposed to only be temporary (for the sake of the Geneva Accords) but may have lasting effects. Look for info on the 'dazzler'.

As far as your Gauss gun question goes, while the rail gun uses the passage of current between parallel bars (through the projectile or some sabot for the projectile) to generate an electromagnetic force, the gauss gun creates a magnetic field that drives the metallic object out without passing any current through it (which better allows for explosive charges). Think instead of a pair of parallel bars of a tube wrapped in a metal coil. The good thing about a gauss gun is it doesn't need to have metal-to-metal contact and lubricants can be used around the round, which reduces wear on the barrel interior (while rail guns currently have major rail wear issues.

of course you can probably modify those non lethal measures all up to lethal measures if you wanted to :)

-------

Ah so basically the gauss gun has the benefits of a railgun and is also more flexible then a rail gun since it can use explosive charges.

Supposedly railguns achieve higher velocities, though.

As for lasers, only use them against airborne targets, where gravity and range mean ballistics won't work, and fire them from something with a big power supply.

However, I've found a DARPA page detailing the project to put a 150+ KW laser on a fighter aircraft like the JSF or F-22... It's called HELLADS. Anyone know how effective a 150 KW is compared to the MTHEL, THEL, and ABL?

Hmm, when people talk about lasers, they generally think of optical light. While visible light does have its advantages, I'd prefer to use something in, say, the gamma ray spectrum. Much higher powered, and able to pass through most normal armour to get straight at the people within. The only problem is that to get such energy, one would probably need a nuclear reactor.Unfortunately, that requires magitech. The best you can get without resorting to one-time-use bomb-pumped lasers is low-end hard X-ray, and then only if you can succesfully employ frequency doubling techniques on a soft X-ray FEL.You can also make the laser broad beam where instead of being able to target 1 object it projects thge laser an angle and hits anything within its cone.That's rather pointless. The energy requirements would be vastly above those for an ordinary laser, and it would be much less efficient.

A extremely scary weapon, that could circumvent heat and ammunition requirements, would be a weapon, probably vehicle mounted, that would fire self-replicating nano-bots, programmed to eat through organic and metal material. the problem is how to shut them off when they are finished. This also provides the problem of a "gray goo" disaster (self replicating nano-bots eat world.)

EMP > nanobots

The best resource for simple understandings seems to be here:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html
It says (in a recently added section that has appeared since I last checked that site) that a 100kW laser beam (from 1mW of power) is needed to engage rocket systems at a range of 5mi, while the current HMMWV-based pumped-diode system is about 10kW.

NE, could you share the link to that DARPA page?

http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/hellads.html

Just cryptic stuff, not a lot of detail. However, someone want to explain the liquid laser concept? I've heard a ton about COILs, is this the same stuff that the THEL and the ABL use?

http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/hellads.html

Just cryptic stuff, not a lot of detail. However, someone want to explain the liquid laser concept? I've heard a ton about COILs, is this the same stuff that the THEL and the ABL use?
Firstly, about that site...somebody figured out a trick that's still basically classified...because UAVs and tactical aircraft are magnitudes too small for existing/known liquid laser systems. Sounds like someone's figured out how to make it all work, though.

Second, your question...Okay, this gets down to the two basic types of high energy (weapons-grade) lasers and their associated pros and cons.

Liquid Lasers
Currently the most powerful things around. These are the basis for the MTHEL/Nautilus, ABL, and several related laser systems (including the Advanced Tactical Laser concept mentioned in the June 2004 issue of Popular Science...the thing in the C130). The advantage is a relatively long lifespan of the laser production components (laser production is only limited by the availability of the chemical fuel components) and that the components don't overheat as much as COILs. The disadvantage is that liquids are, by nature, heavy and difficult to control and maintain...these chemicals also happen to have noxious exhaust fumes and are, I believe, themselves pretty nasty things to get on organic matter. But, they're cheap, they're here, and they're already being scaled down to the level where the main-size MTHEL units can about fit on one tractor-trailer and a scaled-down unit fits on a HMMWV truck.

Solid-State, or Diode-pumped Lasers
This includes the COIL system. This is a potentially very amazing and useful weapons-grade laser production method. There are no 'wet' components and the primary waste is heat...the problem is that current systems have a 10% or lower efficiency, so it takes 100kW of input to get 10kW of laser power (which degrades over distance, moreso at lower altitudes where the atmosphere is more dense and where there is more particulate matter in the way)...and the rest is converted into heat. The problem is that this heat wears at the components and after a few shots the gun's components way very well begin to melt away...and those components are often very difficult to replace in the field (unlike even toxic liquids, which can be tanker-trucked in). These lasers, however, are being improved upon and may well be the next revolution in dogfighting and air-to-air combat and Air Defense systems. What happens to the use of AAMs if the plane being attacked can shoot the missile and blow it up? Or if one plane's guns have been replaced with lasers that can strike the enemy jet before it can launch short-range AAMs? What happens to the effeciency of mortars and (rocket and shell) artillery if a pair of HMMWVs accompanying a tank column or an infantry company destroy most of or all of the shells before they can hit those troops? Or what happens if one of those HMMWVs hits a passing attack helicopter at the limit of that helicopter's missile and gun system ranges? What happens when a 4million dollar tank is (literally) blinded by one of these HMMWVs or even a semi-portable unit about the size of a TOW missile launcher? The truth is that while chemical lasers are limited by the capacity of the fuel drums, such new weapons would only be limited by the energy source...and the need for these lasers to be more like 40-60% effectient to be really used.

Verdict? Liquid is here and now, but solid-state is coming and winning. I recently made an announcement that all WA MTHEL sytems might be replaced by an equivalent solid-state laser system...since WA has had MTHEL systems since almost its inception, I figured enough time had passed for COIL-like systems to be developed enough for mainstream use.

Hmm, interesting stuff. 2 questions for WA and anyone else, since I'm an absolute novince when it comes to "futuristic" weapon systems:

1) Since there seems to be a lot of advantages for the COIL type of laser over liquid kinds, what are its disadvantages, aside from overheating? However, I think two ways dealing with the overheating could be using heat-resistant metal alloys (maybe which are at lest "reasonable-priced" and easy to replace on the field) nand the use of a cooling system perhaps (water cooling systems maybe)? Hmm...
For a compacted system of such kinds on aircraft and such (where the environment it ifghts doesn't simply allow such malfunctions and such), I would think that aside from the parts and a relatively simple cooling system (I wouldn't think that water or some other form of cooling system would be quite hard), maybe less power on such system oculd produce less heat?

2) I've heard claims that industrial lasers are used in Iraq by the US to be used agianst IEDs (off the topic however, I also heard that they are using old Vietnam-era M79s to do the same job), and although I don't quite believe this without any further backups, my question is that are industrial lasers, chemical lasers? Since such type of laser could cut through metals perhaps, could it be improved as a weapon to counter light-skinned vehicles and aircraft? Or maybe it could be used as an anti-personnel weapon to maim or even kill (although I don't see much use of it in the anti-personnel role... but neither does the F-16 has a thin skin).

Nice stuff... hopefully I'll have my military look into it after they've been stuck with older MTHELs and cancelled laser-based weapon projects.

Hmm, interesting stuff. 2 questions for WA and anyone else, since I'm an absolute novince when it comes to "futuristic" weapon systems:

1) Since there seems to be a lot of advantages for the COIL type of laser over liquid kinds, what are its disadvantages, aside from overheating? However, I think two ways dealing with the overheating could be using heat-resistant metal alloys (maybe which are at lest "reasonable-priced" and easy to replace on the field) nand the use of a cooling system perhaps (water cooling systems maybe)? Hmm...
For a compacted system of such kinds on aircraft and such (where the environment it ifghts doesn't simply allow such malfunctions and such), I would think that aside from the parts and a relatively simple cooling system (I wouldn't think that water or some other form of cooling system would be quite hard), maybe less power on such system oculd produce less heat?

Well, overheating and the need for an independant power source are about it...but those are bigger than you seem to imagine. The point is that the diodes themselves become overheated and, if they get overheated then the entire thing is down...it can't be 'pushed' like a worn artillery barrel or an old tank, it is gone. ALSO, you should remember that liquid cooling systems are very complicated...and are already factored into most COIL-style designs. In terms of lasers, Power output equals range and strength (at range)...the biggest thing is improving the efficiency so a lower amount of energy needs to be applied to produce the same strength or stronger lasers with less waste energy...not only do you save energy input requirements, but you also extend the life of components and reduce the risk of an "overheat." This is really down to the selection of the materials used in the diodes and in the design of the system itself...stuff which is currently way beyond what my knowledge of physics and chemistry will allow me to compute. As a note, pure water tends to not work well as a coolant in such systems, especially in systems which may be exposed to freezing temperatures as the coolant does no good if it has frozen the pipes apart. Perhaps with antifreeze additive or with a specialized coolant the system would work (or rather, I should say, it already does work)...but pure water's a dead no.

2) I've heard claims that industrial lasers are used in Iraq by the US to be used agianst IEDs (off the topic however, I also heard that they are using old Vietnam-era M79s to do the same job), and although I don't quite believe this without any further backups, my question is that are industrial lasers, chemical lasers? Since such type of laser could cut through metals perhaps, could it be improved as a weapon to counter light-skinned vehicles and aircraft? Or maybe it could be used as an anti-personnel weapon to maim or even kill (although I don't see much use of it in the anti-personnel role... but neither does the F-16 has a thin skin).

You should read about 1/2 to 3/4 of the way down on the link I provided to see a record of one such demonstration. The thing about industrial lasers is they tend to be set in the heart of a multi-tonned processing and control machine where the laser only cuts metal that is a few inches to centimeters away from the source...these are perfectly fine for industrial cutting purposes, but the point of military-grade lasers is an ability to project that power over greater distances with a great deal of accuracy. Modern "dogfights" usually take place over tens of miles...sometimes without the jets even seeing one another visually. With shrapnel-filled warheads, AAMs and SAMs don't need to have a direct hit to kill a jet...in fact, lasers are so ideal for jets because even a small hole almost anywhere on the fuselage will have some effect on the maneuvering, control, speed, or abilities of the jet...and lots of times only a small strike can bring down a jet or a missile by hitting one of the vulnerable fuel tanks. The lasers needed for these purposes are necessarily long-ranged. You want to be able to burn through the missile that may be going at mach 4 before it gets close enough to shower your jet with shrapnel...or to hit the enemy jet before their guns or missiles can return the favor.

I do not know if 'industrial' lasers are necessarily chemical lasers, but I'd guess that most are chemical with a few solid-state lasers (such as are found in the common pen laser and in surgical equipment) thrown in to match the needs and resources of the environment of employment.

As the Popular Science article I mentioned above describes, the Advanced Tactical Laser would be mounted underneath/within a C130 to serve a role similar to that of the AC130...an on-high platform that can deliver deadly and overwhelming firepower to almost any location on the battlefield. The purpose of that system would be to target sensitive vehicles and equipment to be disabled in support of special operations forces. Lasers are inherently poor AP weapons for a couple of reasons. The first of which is what was mentioned above about the damaging effects of lasers vs. bullets (although a 4cm diameter laser cut through any part of your body is sure to cause serious injury if not death...aside from any other issues). The second is that the laser is an inherently specialized and expensive system...the Pentagon /hopes/ to be able to reduce the cost of a shot to about 8,000USD...cheaper than a normal missile (although not necessarily than an ATGM or ATR) but more expensive than a bullet...and 8000 is a LOT to spend on one enemy soldier, not that it would never be used in that capacity. Thirdly is that people don't exactly sit still when their skin starts to peel off of their muscle...they generally tend to want to avoid that in the first place and so will move to avoid it...it may take a second or less to burn somebody, but the laser would have a hard time burning through somebody thanks to the high water content of, well, human flesh. A bullet has the advantages of sending the person into shock through a number of forces while the laser only causes nasty, unhealing scars...ummm...both 'suck' for the victim, but one's $8,000 and the other is about $1 to $20.

EMP > nanobotsEh, probably not, unless they're in a large mass. Being "nano"-sized, nanobots don't/wouldn't have significant lengths of conductive material to induce a current in.

It was in Afghanistan.

http://strategypage.com/gallery/articles/zeus.asp

http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/ZEUS.pdf

Solid state laser with a 300m range.

As was stated before, a laser could not superheat the air inside a tank, so merely hiting it with the C130 based weapon won't neccesarily kill it. You'd need to hit ammunition or fuel, though diesal has been used for decades in tanks for a reason-it won't explode if it's hit by a round.

It was in Afghanistan.

http://strategypage.com/gallery/articles/zeus.asp

http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/ZEUS.pdf

Solid state laser with a 300m range.

One word: sweet.

I'm glad it's getting deployed, although not really with much future yet.

As was stated before, a laser could not superheat the air inside a tank, so merely hiting it with the C130 based weapon won't neccesarily kill it. You'd need to hit ammunition or fuel, though diesal has been used for decades in tanks for a reason-it won't explode if it's hit by a round.

Taking out an engine block, igniting ammunition, frying electrical systems, destroying optics....all are good.

UV lasers. And on the defensive side, Electric Armor.

See the UV laser. You need two of them to do anything really cool, though.
Idea 1: get two nitrogen lasers that are just under the power level required to convert air into plasma. Align them so that the beams cross just in front of your target. When you fire, that spot will suddenly become home to a small ball of greenish flame via the Inverse Brahmstrellung Effect, which can do some damage all on its own, but most of the damage will come from the resulting shockwave. Be sure to turn the device off very quickly, though, or you risk plasma travelling up the beams and back to you. Which is bad.

I've read about this.

The US were planning to use the lasers to create a ball of plasma with a soundwave and were investigating methods to make it "talk" and tell Iraqi troops in the 1st Gulf War to "bow to Allah's will". Sounds good, but several beams would have been required and the power requirements were much too high.