# Particle beam weapons SCI FI or reality in the coming decades?



## MAJOR_Baker (14 Feb 2005)

Just a hypothetical question, do you think there is a possibility of particle beam weapons being used in the next 10-20 yrs?

It seems to me that the new FA-22 Raptor and the JSF are being readied for such a development.  I am not sure about hand heald weapons, the energy required to fire such a weapon seems to be pretty high and an infantryman couldn't carry enough power on their back.  Any thoughts?


----------



## Freddy Chef (14 Feb 2005)

â Å“Particle Beamâ ? sounds like a remnant of the Strategic Defence Initiative, counter ballistic missile satellite, from the Regan era.

Sounds like a powerful/power consuming, line of sight/direct fire weapon. 

If it's bigger and heavier than the M61A1, I don't know if fast air, such as the F/A-22 or F/A-35 would be a stable/adequate platform for such a weapon. [Perhaps on an AC-130, or an AH-64.] 

Sounds like it can be used as Anti-Aircraft Artillery, or as the main armament of an MBT. Certainly need a vehicle to hump both the weapon and it's power supply/ammunition.


----------



## condor888000 (15 Feb 2005)

Isn't the US military buying a few 747's with a chemical lasers in them to destroy ICBM's??


----------



## big_johnson1 (15 Feb 2005)

It's one thing to power a laser and another for that laser to have enough energy to be able to damage a target. I think the biggest problem would be keeping the laser on target long enough to do damage. I think a particle beam weapon (ionized particles) would be more effective because it would disrupt electronics by overloading circuits and computers. The right charge might even be able to set off explosives carried by the target (missiles/bombs). Although, again, the power requirements would probably be pretty heavy. God knows there are smarter people than us sitting around in labs right now trying to figure this stuff out.

As for the US having their 747s with lasers, I thought they've had those for years? I seem to remember hearing about some tests a few years ago where they shot some balloons down or something.


----------



## JBP (15 Feb 2005)

Actually, a true "Particle beam" weapon potentially COULD be a hand held weapon due to the fact that it's dispersing a directy type of energy like a lazer and "ionized particles" as someone mentioned. There'd be almost NO kickback if I'm thinking correctly. Heat would be a problem though, like with the lazer.

That was the original problem with the first type of "military" lazers, they heated up too much and weren't really practicle.

FA-22 is also suppose to be eventually upgraded to Fiber-optic flight control systems, in otherwords = REAL time control of the pilots commands to the aircraft. No lag in movement response. Quick to say the least. Also heard about a futuristic European fighter with a mounted turret to shoot down enemy missles/projectiles. Sort of a self defense/point defense weapon like a Phalanx on a Cruiser etc...

Very interesting things about!


----------



## big_johnson1 (15 Feb 2005)

They actually shot down arty shells? As in airborne ones? That would be cool.. I wonder what the power requirements are.. Something like that might put the arty boys out of business pretty soon.. And imagine if they can hit that, how much longer until they start wiring it into a millimeter wave radar system and picking actual bullets out of the sky. As for defending against it, anything with a high heat dissipation ability (ceramics?) or reflective ability should be able to stop it... We might start seeing everything painted white instead of OD green


----------



## Freddy Chef (15 Feb 2005)

Feral said:
			
		

> ...I think the biggest problem would be keeping the laser on target long enough to do damage.



This system might provide stability for a laser/particle beam weapon:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm

The M61A1 and a particle beam are both direct fire weapons. The Phalanx CIWS Mk15 type system would provide both stability and control for a direct fire, particle beam weapon (just as it does for the M61A1).

Agreed, even with today's laser/particle beam technology such a weapon would only be effective against soft skin targets, munitions, or targets with fragile electronic kit. ie Anti-Aircraft, Anti-Munitions, or Anti-Ballistic Missile [same role as the Phalanx or Patriot Missile].



			
				S_Baker said:
			
		

> ...A laser on a HMMWV destroyed multiple 2S1 152 mm arty rounds...



Apparently the system for the Anti-Munitions role is small enough to fit into a HMMWV.

Pending the range of a laser/particle beam weapon it could serve the Wild Weasel role (Counter Surface to Air Missile), if a stable platform such as an AH-1, AH-64, or AC-130 is fast enough.



			
				S_Baker said:
			
		

> ...  Would there be ways to counter act such a weapon?...



Depends on what the weapon's intended targets; your aircraft, munitions, and missiles. Figure out a way to protect said targets. [Laser reflective material may not be tactical.]

Since a stable platform is required (slow attack aircraft, Anti-Aircraft positions, etc) the vulnerabilities of said platforms could be exploited.


----------



## big_johnson1 (16 Feb 2005)

Considering the date of the article it begs the question as to whether there is an operational system out there right now. I'm really curious as to power requirements though, and as Pte Joe mentioned, heat would presumably be a problem for any system like that.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (16 Feb 2005)

My guess is that "direct energy weapons" will eventually come into more general service although they may be blocked by cost/benefit problems.  In my layman's view, the advantage of lasers over conventional guns is the accuracy and speed of engagement (practically zero "time of flight").  Effect on the target still seems to favour guns with projectiles.  While I guess that a hand-held laser is possible in the future, would it offer any real advantages over bullets?  The same could hold true for "tanks" and other fighting systems.  Would a big anti-tank laser offer any real advantages over conventional cannons and ammunition given the power supply problems?  

I do think that the anti-aircraft and anti-missile, rocket and shell field shows some promise.  The laser's speed combined with advanced tracking and targeting may make the sky a bad place to be.  Given that these lasers would be going after less protected targets that guns have a hard time hitting, this use of "lasers" (putting on my best Dr Evil) should eventually bear fruit.

Cheers,

2B

Now, if we could only mount these lasers on sharks...


----------



## GENOMS Soilder (16 Feb 2005)

Aren't lasers already in use with metal work shops for cutting and whatnot?
Also, what about railguns or linear weapons?
Some trains use the basic idea of railguns, the use of positive and negative charged objects to propel the train.
And I think that the energy for it would be lower than lasers.
My thoughts.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Feb 2005)

There is a lot of research going on with all the various types of weapons being described. 

The first and most fundamental problem with high energy lasers, particle beams or electromagnetic accelerators ("Rail guns") is the power supply. Factory sized laser cutters are wired into the city power grid; an AC-130 is not.

The second problem is power control. When you press the trigger, you are closing a circuit which has megawatts of energy behind it. The sudden surge of energy through the system can blow a lot of circuitry, imagine lining up for a shot and hearing the equivalent of circuit breakers popping (or being electrocuted!)

The third problem is heat dissipation, as has been mentioned. A typical laser only converts a small percentage (3-10%, depending on the type) of the energy to laser light, and other systems are not any better. If you have a 3 Megawatt shot, you have *hundreds* of Megawatts of energy surging through the system as waste heat.

After that, pointing and tracking are almost trivial  

Possible countermeasures might include covering the target with a foamed material that "burns away" when struck by a laser or particle beam, having the target rotate to prevent the beam from staying on one spot on the target (missiles or projectiles only), emitting opaque clouds of smoke to absorb the laser beam, powerful magnetic fields to deflect the particle beams, and elaborate arrays of active and passive armour to deflect/absorb a rail gun projectile.

Just hit them with a beam of anti-matter I say! ;D


----------



## Korus (17 Feb 2005)

As an aspring Electrical Engineer (70 days left until I'm done exams! yeah!) This topic has peaked my interest, so I did some research, and found a couple links I thought I'd pass on.

US Army's Tactical High Energy Laser Shoots Down Mortar Rounds
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04r.html
I think this refers to the test at White Sands you mentioned, *S_Baker*.

Tactical High Energy Laser
http://www.st.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/Content.cfm?ContentID=147
Just an interesting page from Northrop Grumman...


----------



## JBP (17 Feb 2005)

> Aren't lasers already in use with metal work shops for cutting and whatnot?
> Also, what about railguns or linear weapons?
> Some trains use the basic idea of railguns, the use of positive and negative charged objects to propel the train.
> And I think that the energy for it would be lower than lasers.
> My thoughts.



Well, a true RAILGUN like in sci-fi movies and/or video games is not the same thing as what trains use.

Trains use the same "idea" as a rail gun where particles or "projectiles" (bullets/trains in this case) are accelerated to almost the speed of light through magnetic forces.... We'll never be using those!!!! The trains you speak of work exactly the same, except they don't go the speed of light or anywhere near it. Railgun is suppose to be that you shoot=target hit almost/if not immediatly. It would be as effective in aim+range comparable to a "lazer" type weapon but still with projectiles. 

Probably VERY destructive. Here is a link to a really good explanation of how a particle beam weapon would work/effects of such use!

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/jul-aug/roberds.html

Very interesting+scary really...



> Just hit them with a beam of anti-matter I say!



That would be killer except we'd all be dead! The US gov't back in the original conception of the true "Star Wars" program thought of an anti-matter launcher to be placed in orbit. The idea was shot down for a couple reasons, anti-matter is still mostly a theory really. Also, if all the factories in the world were to produce it, we could only produce enough for about 1 shot every 10 years. Soooo.... Nope. 

I can't claim how accurate that info is though because that was from a special on the Discovery channel I watched a couple years back.

Cheers,
Joe


----------



## T.S.Rea (18 Mar 2005)

Seems to me it is far cheaper to shoot down tactical missiles and munitions with conventional kinetic energy weapons (ie solid bullets/projectiles), especially if the weapons and bullets are made cheap and efficient with compact timed/pelletized solid propellant rifles.  A day or so ago I was reading about supposedly successful tests of a rifle calibre weapon allied with IR and a millimeter wave radar shooting down an rpg type weapon (GD?...?).  If a rifle could shoot down a $50,000 missile for $5, there does not appear to be much point to spending several million dollars to do it with a gigantic 'frikin laser beam'.

Nothing like high speed metal to settle an argument.

Besides, such a massive jolt of energy from a directed energy weapon would cause such atmospheric blast overpressure as to kill any living creature in its vicinity.  Just like lightning.

Lasers have some specialty roles cutting metal, but waterjets and wire EDM are often more economical and effective.  Militarily, directed energy weapons are not likely to ever be practical outside the vacuum of space.


----------



## Duke (18 Mar 2005)

TS Rea,

IR for the kill or sighting? Millmeter wave radar or a maser? Would you mind sharing the source of the article? A 'big frickin' maser would do some of what you are describing, but I wasn't aware they were 'rifle sized'.

Duke


----------



## big_johnson1 (19 Mar 2005)

T.S.Rea said:
			
		

> Besides, such a massive jolt of energy from a directed energy weapon would cause such atmospheric blast overpressure as to kill any living creature in its vicinity.   Just like lightning.



Again, source? Where is your data?


----------



## T.S.Rea (20 Mar 2005)

Duke,

I read about this test a few days ago somewhere on the internet, but I don't recall where.  The fire control system was a combination of IR imaging and high-frequency radar, the defensive weapon being some arrangement of several single shot small arms firing at an rpg with an inert warhead.  I think it had something to do with General Dynamics somewhere, although I honestly can't be certain of this.

Given that the Phalanx system has had the capacity to shoot down large artillery shells for over twenty years, the report seems very plausible.  However, I always read such material with a grain of salt, since the test may have been conducted under a favourable set of circumstances, the exercise possibly meant merely to prove the basic concept as a project milestone test.  Certainly an item of interest to anyone who might find themselves where the threat of rpgs is present, but its probably premature to make assumptions beyond basic ones.

The reference to $5 shoot downs is an extension to a theoretical construct of a better form of small arms weaponry, fibre optic sensors being used outside the barrel of a gun to measure the position and velocity of the projectile relative to timed charges of solid propellant pellets in order to maintain a high powder pressure inside the bore, the result being short barrels, high rates of fire and long range, and greatly reduced ammunition weight and cost.  It would take many years to perfect such small arms, given the need for high reliability, consistency, effective safety features, extreme EM pulse resistance, etc.  Arms manufacturers tend to develop weapons to maximize revenue at the lowest up-front expense for obvious reasons, so its not likely such small arms will appear any time soon or ever.  However, even a hundred dollars or so of rifle ammunition is far less than an rpg costing at least a few hundred dollars or missiles costing in the tens of thousands.

Although the fire control system would probably cost a million as a very general estimate, the cost of not having to repair damaged people and equipment along with the obvious intangible value in lives might drive the move to such systems in the not too distant future.  I foresaw this possibility twenty years or so ago, probably a lot of other people did too, although its first time I have heard of it specifically being tested.


----------



## Duke (20 Mar 2005)

TS Rea, 

Thanks for the information. I guess my confusion had to do with the means, if you will, of destroying the inbound ordnance. I certainly agree that a better way to defeat RPG type weapons is currently an interesting and dynamic field (I.e. EMA), and tend to agree that using an ~ $1M 'hammer' to squash an ~$100 RPG is perhaps misguided.

That being said, the idea of an electro-optical means to knock out theatre/tactical or even long range ballistic/guided missiles is something that definitely needs the attention of those armed forces with $$$ to burn.  I only hope GD's skunkworks is working on the problem.

Duke


----------



## Freddy Chef (20 Mar 2005)

T.S.Rea said:
			
		

> ...Given that the Phalanx system has had the capacity to shoot down large artillery shells for over twenty years, the report seems very plausible...



The MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) can only engage targets as small as aircraft and cruise-missiles:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm


----------



## Duke (20 Mar 2005)

Phalanx is a CIWS for sure, and trying to shoot down an ICBM or even a SLBM with Phalanx would be 'interesting'. I got up close to a Phalanx system during a guided tour of the USS Kitty Hawk while at a conference in San Diego. Very nice piece of kit!

What about hybrids, then? Kinetic energy and EMP submunitions? Smart flak? Air mines?

In practical terms, these weapons will likely show up before a practical particle beam weapon does. Damn Newton and his laws!

Duke


----------



## T.S.Rea (20 Mar 2005)

Engaging thin walled rockets, mortars, and tactical missiles at short range travelling at a few hundred metres per second at low angle-off aspects with small calibre projectiles is many orders of magnitude simpler and cheaper than many of the long-range hard target kills described in this post.  Lasing old slow thin-walled projectiles without any form of thermal protection over periods of several seconds in open air in order to cook them off is a much different proposition than quarter second tactical engagements at point blank range with personnel within metres of the engagement and downrange collateral effects to be concerned with. The fire control systems required could incorporate short-range defensive features as a subset of the main weapon fire control, which if produced in quantity becomes a practical cost-effective proposition, although probably not for another ten years or so.

It is a widely reported fact that Phalanx shot down 155mm shells in tests, and that was years ago.  Not surprising since they are a predictable non-maneouvering subsonic targets of a hundred pounds that need only be damaged to bring down.  Large Mach 3 damage tolerant and maneouvering missiles and an 8mil80 defensive weapon firing quarter pound shells is a much different proposition, hence the general move to RAM and 30mm weapons.


----------

