Has any thought been given to a polywell powered BOLO?

[WizWom]

THEL - hmm, last I heard it was stuck in funding issues.

It also has an issue with "portability". Three large semi-trailers if I recall right.

Do you have a current news article stating the deployment?

Forgive, I have not checked the youtube link yet if it is so...

THEL is in trials in Afghanistan; it's currently at ~100 shots/day.

[zapkitty]

(the zapkitty wonders if he's somehow been warped back to the '80's... )

... errrrr... a ~70 ton Abrams gets around nicely with a little over a megawatt of power... a 150 ton FAFV with 3 megawatts to spare for locomotion is going to outrun the Abrams... big time if the FAFV is implemented as a hovercraft...

Assuming the power plant is the -oft-described first-gen DPF box at ~5MW and 2m x 2m x 3m then that will leave room to spare for sufficient numbers of solid-state lasers to redistribute the remaining 2MW amongst the FAFV's targets...

... assuming this first-gen FAFV is facing current threats and the software is properly coded to use the lasers efficiently with both combined and separate targeting as appropriate then anything airborne within, say, 10 miles is going to burn... light vehicles and their anti-tank missiles, infantry and their next-gen rpgs... all the same...

The FAFV can be killed, of course... especially if you can prepare in advance for it... but the rules will change...

... again...

[ladajo]

THEL - hmm, last I heard it was stuck in funding issues.

It also has an issue with "portability". Three large semi-trailers if I recall right.

Do you have a current news article stating the deployment?

Forgive, I have not checked the youtube link yet if it is so...

THEL is in trials in Afghanistan; it's currently at ~100 shots/day.

OK, where did you get that from? Curious for public release cite source.
THEL works, I never said it didn't. But last I saw officially, there was some money trouble for the joint US/Isreali program some due to politics, some due to no good reason.
The other problem that I understood folks had with the "tactical" version was the size of the ground footprint. compact it was not. The chemical energy source took up some real estate.
I may be mixing systems, but there was also a chemical sourced system that was using a canister per shot. The canisters were cheaper per shot than a launched interceptor as I recall.
I will have to go back and look at all this again, it has been a while since I did. There were/are several terminal point and limited area defence concepts being worked, but I am not sure right now which still have heartbeats. I take it on faith that some flavor of THEL is in the field for operational tests, but would like something more concrete you are referencing.
The navy has also looked at point defence lasers thorugh the years, and in fact at one time had the lead on targeting and tracking. The grandson of the navy system is now on the AF Airborne package if I am not mistaken. The big issue for lasers at sea level is LOTS of atmospheric attenuation. And that is not good when you are trying to hit a Mach 3 1/4m^2 inbound or crossing. There is just a lot of crap in the air at sea level, and that means less energy on target, and more time for a burn to kill, which in turn means weapon gets closer to impact.
Simple math: a Mach 1 weapon gives you about 60 seconds from horizon to impact, Mach 2, 30 seconds, and Mach 3, 15 seconds. So the DTE cycle must occur for a modern threat weapon in say 30 seconds or less. For a laser, that means it must be able to engage a stream raid of 2 to 4 inbounds in that timeframe. You quickly run out of burn time, or must add additional mounts on sector to make the fight viable. Kinetic weapons can use one mount to engage multiple targets using time of flight for the outbound to ripple incoming with the same targeting system. A laser must stay on target until kill then go to the next.

[zapkitty]

hmm...

Simple math: a Mach 1 weapon gives you about 60 seconds from horizon to impact, Mach 2, 30 seconds, and Mach 3, 15 seconds. So the DTE cycle must occur for a modern threat weapon in say 30 seconds or less. For a laser, that means it must be able to engage a stream raid of 2 to 4 inbounds in that timeframe. You quickly run out of burn time, or must add additional mounts on sector to make the fight viable. Kinetic weapons can use one mount to engage multiple targets using time of flight for the outbound to ripple incoming with the same targeting system. A laser must stay on target until kill then go to the next.

... uh... can we assume you're thinking of a spread of something like shipkiller missiles coming in at Mach 3?

So... solid-state lasers powered by fusion change the scenario you outline above rather dramatically.

As outre as it may seem the FAFV I described above will deliver more laser power on its targets than two 747-sized ABLs combined... just not with the range that the fancy optics of the ABL gives their beams... at least not yet

Still, if the single-DPF FAFV I described above puts from .5 to 2 MW worth of beams on a target then that target is not going to last but for a very few seconds... it would be approx 5 times to 20 times more effective than the THEL system.

I'm assuming here that the beams are being channeled through THEL-style turret mounts the way that the Grumman and Textron 100KW solid-state beams are going to be mounted.

Given a big ABL-style mirror array or 2 in addition to these smaller mounts then even a rain of those Mach 3 nightmares will have trouble getting through... sorta like selecting a choke for a shotgun...

... and don't even mention that 200 ton, 100MW polywell-powered monster sneaking up behind you

[WizWom]

THEL is in trials in Afghanistan; it's currently at ~100 shots/day.

OK, where did you get that from? Curious for public release cite source.

I hate it when I find a cool link and then can't find it again.
I remember clearly a shot of the THEL vehicle on a dusty road, with an IED in the background, the explanation of shots/day, and some talk about the firing rate.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... mless.aspx
was the best I could come up with which at least shows the intent and proof of concept; I think the THEL was better engineered as a dedicated vehicle.

Also found possible evidence that THEL is solid state laser arrays, but it was from a few years back.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cVO6fHnvGs - at the very end, the camera pulls back, and it seems there is a THEL on the right.

[zapkitty]

...

Ah, you gotten the chemically-powered ~100kW THEL system mixed up with the solid-state 10kW ZEUS-HLONS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZEUS-HLONS ... on_System)

... one fits on a Humvee and takes out IEDs and leftover ordnance. The other fits in three semi-trailers and takes out incoming artillery barrages.

Slight difference there...

[GIThruster]

Does anyone else think mounting multi-million dollar lasers on a Humvee to shoot land mines and IED's is pretty dopey? Can't just use a Barrett for that?

Chem lasers, yeah. They were first put on Spectres almost a decade ago.

I am impressed how the solid state lasers have changed over the last couple years. . .but still a little ways to go.

[ladajo]

Had me nervous for a minute. I did not think THEL had fielded.
I think the Israeli's are currenlty considering to go it alone, but are having a big internal fight over need/effectiveness/cost. Not exactly sure.

ZEUS however, as noted is in the field. They like it for the standoff aspect and speed of neutralization over a bot or kinetic. It still has issues as I understand for cooling. Not sure again.

Barrets can work, but do not guarantee a cook off or single round neutralization. It is the same issue as using M2's against floating mines or land charges. Even using APIT does not cinch the effectiveness of the hit.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Does anyone else think mounting multi-million dollar lasers on a Humvee to shoot land mines and IED's is pretty dopey? Can't just use a Barrett for that?

1. Field testing in a combat theatre.

2. Logistics. The wiki article claims it can be used up to 2000 times a day. IF it's used that often, that's tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition from a heavy caliber machine gun. Don't know how much logistics the laser needs, at this stage of the game probably a fair bit of spare parts and CO2 canisters, but probably less than the same weight of bullets.

Of course, if it gets blown up with the Humvee it's a much bigger loss than the bullets would have been. However, getting to refine a new weapon through operational use/testing while saving bullets probably makes it a win, at least in the long term.

[mrflora]

Ah, the eternal fascination of war.

"I do not know with what weapons the next war will be fought, but the one after that will be fought with sticks and stones." -- A. Einstein

Regards,
M.R.F.

[MSimon]

Ah, the eternal fascination of war.

"I do not know with what weapons the next war will be fought, but the one after that will be fought with sticks and stones." -- A. Einstein

Regards,
M.R.F.

War is how cultures settle their differences. Until you figure a better way - war it is.

It is always hubris though. "I know how you should live," is the beginning of all wars. Second is: "I I want Power and Control" over you." i.e. give us a yearly fee to protect you from the other guy who wants your stuff.

And then there is always the problem of asymmetry. "I don't want to fight - but he does." If you let "him" get a head start you get big troubles.

The only way you get peace is through superior firepower. Or: "If you want peace prepare for war." Because if the other guy prepares first or gets too much of a head start.....