# Laser Missile Defense System, From: Future uses of the Leopard:  APC, AD, FIBUA tanks, etc  (Idea Feasibility?)



## ronnychoi (5 Mar 2007)

Missile Defense System MTHEL

The Tactical High-Energy Laser, or THEL, is a laser developed for military use, also known as the Nautilus laser system. The mobile version is the Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser, or MTHEL.

The cooperative Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) Demonstrator ACTD was designed and built by the Israeli government on July 18, 1996.The project was later funded by the United States. The THEL is a high-energy laser weapon system that uses proven laser beam generation technologies, proven beam-pointing technologies, and existing sensors and communication networks to provide a new active defense capability in counter air missions. The goal of THEL is to provide a different solution than other systems or technologies for the acquisition and close-in engagement problems associated with short- to medium-range threats, thereby significantly enhancing coverage of combat forces and theater-level assets. The THEL low cost-per-kill (about $3,000 per kill) could also provide a cost-effective defense against low-cost air threats. It features up to 60 shots without reloading and if it meets design goals, a probability of kill of nearly 100% at a range of 5 km.

The mobile version is the Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser, which can be used against opponents to burn up somewhat quietly as well as disabling certain incoming rounds towards bases. Could be attached to Leopards if the system was up armored. If it can actually hit missiles, it can hit guys faster than any bullet. Good for FIBUA and AD. Israel should give Canada one. Or is it against the Geneva convention to melt people?


----------



## 28402 engineers (5 Mar 2007)

ronnychoi said:
			
		

> Missile Defense System MTHEL
> 
> Or is it against the Geneva convention to melt people?



I'm going to hazard a guess that yeah, Geneva might frown on that. Let's change the subject.


----------



## Franko (5 Mar 2007)

Probably not.

GC doesn't cover that, not yet at least.

Besides, we'll have armies of land sharks with fricken laser beam devices attached to their heads by then.

Regards


----------



## aesop081 (5 Mar 2007)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Probably not.
> 
> GC doesn't cover that, not yet at least.
> 
> ...



regardless of the fact that "melting someone" is not specificaly coverd by the GCs.....weapons causing unnecessary suffering are covered in general terms by the various provisions of the conventions.


----------



## Franko (5 Mar 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> regardless of the fact that "melting someone" is not specificaly coverd by the GCs.....weapons causing unnecessary suffering are covered in general terms by the various provisions of the conventions.



So where does that leave nukes? 

The majority of the pers killed in the 2 blasts in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were killed in the months and years after the blasts.

Thoughts?


----------



## aesop081 (5 Mar 2007)

Like any other form of law , LOAC is open to varying interpretation.


----------



## ronnychoi (5 Mar 2007)

I guess it all depends on how you view life. Direct energy weapons mounted on tanks would be extrodinarily effective at raising troop moral. If you had 5 or say 20 DEW's mounted on M-113 vehicle's or on C2's you can eat, sleep and exercise on a base knowing that those 107mm rockets, mortars aren't going to be landing on your best buddy, or Tim Hortons.

As for use on personnel, you can have pin point accuracy with virtually no suffering at all. Very humane. Target aquisition is extremly rapid with those ADATS platforms. Only take off those old missles and get some SFLBH's. LAV3 would become obsolete overnight. 

Just convince Hillier.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Mar 2007)

ronnychoi said:
			
		

> I guess it all depends on how you view life.



Pardon me, i'm doing my best to restrain myself........

WTF does raising moral have to do with anything ?  Please tell me that you dont mean that in reference to the GCs 

 :


----------



## orange.paint (5 Mar 2007)

Laser M113's.

Theres a thought.Vern we got a trade qualification badge for that?

In all seriousness I remember hearing something about this YEARS ago.
Just found the link:

http://www.yojoe.com/archive/ads/lazer.shtml


----------



## ronnychoi (5 Mar 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Pardon me, i'm doing my best to restrain myself........
> 
> WTF does raising moral have to do with anything ?  Please tell me that you dont mean that in reference to the GCs
> 
> :



Oh, i'm really confused. Nods head. I didn't mean moral. I meant killing incoming rockets.
What are GC's?


----------



## aesop081 (5 Mar 2007)

Dont worry about it.......carry on


----------



## orange.paint (5 Mar 2007)

ronnychoi said:
			
		

> What are GC's?



Genetic conbobulators.Developed in France in the late 60's the GC did not reach production due to the high price and the invasion of the Turkish empire.Weighing over 5000 quips  (A quip is a french unit of measurement 1 quip is 2.3Lbs)it was impractical for vehicle mounting.Later in 1986 a team of researchers stumbled upon the blueprints and began to divulge the plans to the Swiss,thus creating an arms race between the Swiss Reich and England.

England came out the leader in CG technology by 2001,producing it's first vehicle the CVR(t) Gentech.Weighing only a mere 16 pounds it was far more functional than it's Swiss competitors.The Swiss program shut down in early 2001,after 3 deaths due to unintentional discharge of the CG.A problem plaguing the program from the start.

The US marine corp,along with the 14 North west pony regiment (royal)of England has just finished field trail this past spring.Fielding CG's are expected in early 2009,and in Afghanistan by late that fall.


----------



## ronnychoi (6 Mar 2007)

Danger Area Template is designed to protect mechanized infantry in part from the conventional incoming missile destruction system. On such designs as the T-80's, the charges these tanks are shooting off are dangerous and irresponsible to surrounding people and landmarks. Be it friendly soldiers, civilians, hospitals and or homes. DEW works on the same principal minus spalling and random frags. NOT 100% safe but SAFER. Either way we have to get rid of that PG-7VL shape tandem charge before it gets you. Let the PG-7VL hurt someone while FIBUA's, it always will. Just revise the DAT theory to accompany the DEW as you revise the new tanks.

I beg to differ when its said you can't "turn off" lasers. I'm sure there are certain systems out there well within that option. It is true that bullets have little regard for their "original intended trajectory", let alone some of the despot regimes and governments that employ these abundant resources. This will never change anytime soon.

Incoming rounds and missiles could be identified by their dimensions and trajectories. Outgoing mortars will be going out at _ _ degrees. Incoming will be coming in at _ _ degrees. I believe current Artillery hardware can identify origins of incoming fire. Using instant computerized laser feedback rangefinders, all foreign dimensioned mortars would be identified and zapped. As for personell in the DEW's sector, make a buffer to allow for 30-45 degree fire angles. 

I know my idea goes back to "wanderwaffen", I think these types of systems would only fill a certain niche too though. Albeit an effective niche.


----------



## ronnychoi (6 Mar 2007)

As long as it works.


----------



## Yrys (6 Mar 2007)

ronnychoi said:
			
		

> As long as it works.



I doubt it's work, as I doubt it's existence...
You're seem to want people to believe that you know arms and your answer is THAT ?!?

Even as a civy, I sense a good prank in the reply of EX_RCAC_011 ...

_Genetic conbobulators _: common!
_invasion of the Turkish empire_ : in the '60, but of what century? 
_quips _: by the definition of it, it's a look alike of kilogram, which weight 2,2 lbs  ;D
_team of researchers stumbled upon the blueprints_ : did you ever wanted to write Indiana Jones movie ?
_Swiss Reich_ : ... or maybe science fiction   ?
_first vehicle tweighing only a mere 16 pounds_ : W   W !
_the 14 North west pony regiment (royal)of England_ : no, I've got it, yuo want to write western !

Édith : spelling


----------



## ronnychoi (6 Mar 2007)

deconflict airspace - would this weapon retain enough punch to damage a high-flying B2, B-52 or a low-orbit satellite?



Missed this comment. One would hope the DEW tanks communications integrated into allied Air Force flight plans. As well as satellite positions. American satellites track others satellites and could report in.

I have no idea the of the effective range DEW's possess. I'm sure there are ,many operational limitations.
THEL systems aged like my Glenfiddich could ignite an arms race. Star Wars from Reagan is a good example. Well this is Star Wars but on a smaller localized scale. Probably not deadly a scale as the proliferation of the AK-47 and varients. 

I remember watching the SCUDS fall on Tel Aviv and Americans/Coalition troops in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War when I was little. Definatley need THEL.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Mar 2007)

ronnychoi said:
			
		

> Incoming rounds and missiles could be identified by their dimensions and trajectories. Outgoing mortars will be going out at _ _ degrees. Incoming will be coming in at _ _ degrees. I believe current Artillery hardware can identify origins of incoming fire. Using instant computerized laser feedback rangefinders, all foreign dimensioned mortars would be identified and zapped. As for personell in the DEW's sector, make a buffer to allow for 30-45 degree fire angles.




Exactly what kind of resolution will you need to differentiate between a westerm army 81 mm mortar and a Warsaw Pact produced 82 mm mortar?  Don't forget different tolerances by ammunition manufacturers.

And unless you can produce a definitive paper on differing angles of approach for "outgoing" and "incoming" rounds, you might want to shelve that little theory.  In practice, the significant differentiating characteristic is direction of flight.

While I applaud your enthusiasm, perhaps you should just read along with the technical weapon threads for a while.


----------



## ronnychoi (8 Mar 2007)

Now that I thought about it more, you don't even have to worry about incoming or outgoing degrees. One would just have to put a special reflective coating for the THEL detection system sensors to pick up on. Coat every 81mm round in the inventory with that certain element. I bet miniscule (harmless) amounts of radiation would work.

I'm not going to write a paper on this topic because I'm just speculating. If I had highly detailed plans to the THEL system and NASA's detection systems, I could write a big paper. But I don't so I'm finished. 


Choi


----------



## Douke (9 Mar 2007)

I am not going to comment on the feasibility of such an idea since laser beam equipped beasts, be they sharks or tanks are out of my lane, but isn't adding depleted uranium to tank shells largely responsible for the Gulf War Syndrome because of the "small radiations" it was producing ? Either way, I know I would rather not sweep a zone blasted by irradiated mortar rounds...


----------



## Gunnerlove (9 Mar 2007)

The CIWS system does not seem to engage outbound ordinance. My guess is that somewhere along the line the prob was solved.


----------



## ronnychoi (11 Mar 2007)

First and foremost, I need some definitions on 105's recent post.

IFCS?
RMA?
IFF?
RFID?
Blue SA?


Although, I will comment on the SCUD storm in the 90's. The Scuds great effect was not to kill thousands with nerve agent or hit key targets, but to instill fear, insecurity, and paranoia. It obviously worked since the Israeli Cabinet accelerated their Iraqi war plans. 

There were US and Saudi armed forces personnel on a base in Saudi Arabia I believe. It hit their barracks by fluke or just because the SCUD was an accurate variant. Regardless, it was said the Patriot Missile played a part in thwarting these SCUDs. I believe AD missiles are somewhat effective, but could never ever reach the full potential of THEL systems.

Oh and has anyone ever seen SCUDs launched in Afghanistan, I read the Taliban have or had a hefty supply of them in their vast arsenal?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (11 Mar 2007)

Ron,

I get the feeling that you are quoting directly from a company's website.  Just remember that they are trying to sell something.

Defence against missiles and projectiles is a good thing, I suppose, but active defence comes with a host of problems.  These systems are very complicated and in an army setting would have to operate in a very cluttered environment, with much of that clutter being people.  I believe that some "missile defence" systems are intended to make populations feel better about what their government is doing to protect them.

There are other ways to deal with rockets being fired at your base.  Its a stretch for an anology, but the V1 and V2 threats to London ended when the lauching sites were overun and Hitler's Germany crushed.


----------



## ronnychoi (16 Mar 2007)

Before I steep myself into this information website you referred me to about 4GW, how credible is it? I seems to make sense..
I'm not sure I should start to even scatch it unless you guys and girls read it too? 
What do you think Common Sense Act 105?


----------



## ronnychoi (16 Mar 2007)

So much information, this should hold me over for a while. This is somewhat, a new concept for me. Is 4GW thrown around RMC at all, or is it just a buzzword there too.


----------

