Agents of SHiELD - US Military successfully tests laser defense system

[rcmaehl]

Sources:
The Verge
US Air Force
 

Summary:
The US Air Force has successfully tested the Self-Protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD) system against air launched missles

 

Media:

 

Quotes/Excerpts:

Quote

The US Air Force announced that it has successfully used...laser weapons...to shoot down multiple missiles. The system is designed to eventually be mounted on aircraft. [The USAF] conducted the test at the US Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The system, called the Self-Protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD), was used from the ground, and was used to shoot down “multiple air launched missiles in flight.” Major General William Cooley says that the test is a “big step ahead for directed energy systems and protection against adversarial threats.” The advantages that such a system could bring to the table:...highly accurate and instantaneously hit targets, wouldn’t have a limited magazine, re-aim to hit additional targets quickly, not be susceptible to traditional counter-measures, like flares. The system likely won’t be fool-proof: weather could potentially interfere with its effectiveness. The project began in 2016, and the service issued a contract to Lockheed Martin in 2017 (via The Drive) to design the system, with the goal of testing it on an aircraft in 2021. It’s unclear exactly where this particular test falls in the larger roadmap for the technology, although earlier documents indicate a multi-phase testing regimen, starting with ground and flight tests. The Air Force Research Laboratory will have to miniaturize the technology so that it can be effectively used on airplanes.

 

My Thoughts:
"Mr. Powers, you'll notice that all the sharks have laser beams attached to their heads". Regardless, laser technology is progressing at a notable rate. I think the main issue with this will end up being power storage. Perhaps we'll see some massive improvements to battery life once the US government throws it's massively military budget at it trying to make portable lasers.

[Firewrath9]

military spends too much money.

a single fighter jet is 100 million dollars.

the whole program for the F35 is almost 1.5 trillion

[rcmaehl]

2 minutes ago, Firewrath9 said:

military spends too much money.

a single fighter jet is 100 million dollars.

the whole program for the F35 is almost 1.5 trillion

Don't think anyone disagrees with this graph but I'd rather not talk politics

[bcredeur97]

3 minutes ago, Firewrath9 said:

military spends too much money.

a single fighter jet is 100 million dollars.

the whole program for the F35 is almost 1.5 trillion

business in general is weirdly expensive. I know for example a simple computer (like think basic corei3/4gb ram pretty standard machine) for whatever device for some special oil field use will cost $30k just because "thats what we can charge for it and they will pay for it because they need it for business" (a friend of mine who works in the oil field was telling me this exact thing a couple weeks ago)

I bet same thing happens in military.

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

for whatever device for some special oil field use will cost $30k just because "thats what we can charge for it and they will pay for it because they need it for business"

That’s also money laundering and fraud. 

[ARikozuM]

5 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

business in general is weirdly expensive. I know for example a simple computer (like think basic corei3/4gb ram pretty standard machine) for whatever device for some special oil field use will cost $30k just because "thats what we can charge for it and they will pay for it because they need it for business" (a friend of mine who works in the oil field was telling me this exact thing a couple weeks ago)

I bet same thing happens in military.

The gov't rarely does any bidding on projects. 

 

Also, this thing looks like my security cameras without the cover. 

Spoiler

Minus the laser. Though I can fix that... 

 

[PlayStation 2]

17 minutes ago, Firewrath9 said:

military spends too much money.

a single fighter jet is 100 million dollars.

the whole program for the F35 is almost 1.5 trillion

I'd argue that the military does blow a shit ton of money. That being said, it doesn't help that companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc. can charge an absolute metric ton of money and get contracts with the government even if those programs aren't worth that kind of money in an objective sense.

[Firewrath9]

2 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I'd argue that the military does blow a shit ton of money. That being said, it doesn't help that companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc. can charge an absolute metric ton of money and get contracts with the government even if those programs aren't worth that kind of money in an objective sense.

yeah, the gov. should encourage more competitition, and lower prices.

[DildorTheDecent]

Looks like a space/observatory telescope

 

10/10 camouflage.

[rawrdaysgoby]

if we cut away the military budget by like 75% this country's debt problem would go away pretty fast

[TVwazhere]

1 hour ago, rcmaehl said:

The system likely won’t be fool-proof: weather could potentially interfere with its effectiveness. 

[cj09beira]

23 minutes ago, rawrdaysgoby said:

if we cut away the military budget by like 75% this country's debt problem would go away pretty fast

better money management in general would be the best way to get out of debt for most countries, mine included (too much people employed in the public sector doing nothing and a bunch of retards on parliament getting payed way to well), though i would not advise to simply cut indiscriminately, there is a LOT of things we have today that came because the Us spends so much in the military, 

[straight_stewie]

1 hour ago, Firewrath9 said:

a single fighter jet is 100 million dollars.

the whole program for the F35 is almost 1.5 trillion

The F-35 is not the indicator of the effectiveness of government spending. Many analysts consider it a failed program. It is more than a trillion dollars over budget and over a decade late at this point.

On a more related note, this LASER is just for aircraft. Two of our Navy ships are already retrofitted retrofitted with the AN/SEQ-3 LAWS system. There are plans to start mass retrofits with this system.

[peanuts104]

20 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Many analysts consider it a failed program.

And the ones that don't directly benefited from the program.

[normpearii]

2 hours ago, rawrdaysgoby said:

if we cut away the military budget by like 75% this country's debt problem would go away pretty fast

75% of the current defense spending (~$635 billion) is ~$476.25 Billion.

The current deficit is ~$952 Billion.

So no, that doesn't even cover the deficit, let alone the debt. Besides, in 2008 defense spending was $630 Billion. The other large items (SS, Medicare, Fed Pension, Debt Interest etc.) have basically doubled in the last 10 years. Defense spending has actually managed to "barely" increase in 10 years.

*Using numbers from usdebtclock.org






I'd be a little concerned about this being interfered with the weather. This will just have to be a layer of defense and we'll still need missiles and other methods of shooting down missiles to be kept in service anyway.
 

[BuckGup]

This thread is asking to be locked lol

[Shreyas1]

Not too informed on this matter, but why don't we just use the same tech Israel does with its iron dome to take out missiles instead of making up our own stuff?

[Misanthrope]

"Defense"

[Taf the Ghost]

21 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

"Defense"

In this instance, actually yes. Lasers aren't a great offensive weapon and there's the whole Geneva Convention bit. However, there's new classes of high-speed weaponry on the horizon, so local, high-speed interdiction methods are necessary.

 

The long term issue with Lasers has been energy storage, but Super Capacitors are something that's gotten a lot of active development over the years.

[williamcll]

I thought they stopped the system ever since the laser 747.

[kaiju_wars]

11 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

Don't think anyone disagrees with this graph but I'd rather not talk politics

I don't think anyone disagrees either.  But these kind of graphs, IMO, are not a good indication that the US spends too much on defense.  Again, IMO, it puts more into perspective just how much money the US brings in every year by itself.
 

To put it in bigger perspective, in 2015, the federal budget as a whole was 3.8 trillion  Still a sizable percentage, but it puts into perspective how much money the US has. (Even with our debt)

[ScratchCat]

7 hours ago, williamcll said:

I thought they stopped the system ever since the laser 747.

They have multiple projects for different situations. The YAL failed as to engage it's target, enemy ballistic missiles during the boost phase, it would have to be inside enemy territory. For small bombers or fighters this might not have been an issue to avoid interception but for a huge maneuverable 747 (the laser mass alone was above 3000kg) it would be game over.

 

9 hours ago, Shreyas1 said:

Not too informed on this matter, but why don't we just use the same tech Israel does with its iron dome to take out missiles instead of making up our own stuff?

Some installations currently do. However the interceptors are expensive at $40,000 per unit while each shot of a laser is negligible compared to virtually anything else in the military. Lower power lasers such as the LaWS only cost around a dollar per shot.

 

The lasers can also be used with surgical precision to take out low end targets such as small water craft or UAVs without harming the occupants of the former. With a naval shell you can at best hope the wreckage is still in the shape of a boat.

 

16 hours ago, DildorTheDecent said:

Looks like a space/observatory telescope

 

10/10 camouflage.

When not being used as a laser it actually can be used to search for objects at "tactically significant ranges".

[Doobeedoo]

Oooh laser beam cannons. 

[dalekphalm]

Very cool that they've managed to miniaturize the technology enough to be fitted to aircraft - although I assume we're talking about larger aircraft, like AWACS or C-130 style jets.

 

Lasers are probably the future of ICBM defense technologies.

[dalekphalm]

21 hours ago, Shreyas1 said:

Not too informed on this matter, but why don't we just use the same tech Israel does with its iron dome to take out missiles instead of making up our own stuff?

Iron Dome has a very short range - it's designed mostly against unguided ballistic rockets. It has a maximum range of around 70 km.

 

That's great if I'm shooting short range rockets, or artillery shells at you.

 

That's not great if I'm shooting an ICBM at you, since Iron Dome will have less than 2 minutes to shoot down the ICBM, which (with most ICBM's) will have detached into multiple warheads (usually about a dozen), so now you've gotta shoot them all down, or guess which ones are duds (assuming there are duds, since technically all warheads could be real ones).

 

And that doesn't account for newer hypersonic tech.

 

Don't get me wrong, Iron Dome is one of - if not, the best anti-missile system in service right now. Especially in terms of real world effectiveness, based on real results. But it's simply not a long range system. Plus, aircraft mounted systems can be deployed anywhere.

 

Imagine being able to shoot down ICBM's as they launch (much slower speeds, and more predictable trajectories), instead of trying to intercept them in the terminal phase.