Some futuristic military stuff

[MCT]

http://www.livescience.com/technology/ap_050713_phasers.html

Military Mulls Use of 'Star Trek' Weapons
By Brian Bergstein
Associated Press
posted: 13 July 2005
05:43 pm ET

ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) -- For years, the U.S. military has explored a new kind of firepower that is instantaneous, precise and virtually inexhaustible: beams of electromagnetic energy. "Directed-energy'' pulses can be throttled up or down depending on the situation, much like the phasers on "Star Trek'' could be set to kill or merely stun.

Such weapons are now nearing fruition. But logistical issues have delayed their battlefield debut -- even as soldiers in Iraq encounter tense urban situations in which the nonlethal capabilities of directed energy could be put to the test.

"It's a great technology with enormous potential, but I think the environment's not strong for it,'' said James Jay Carafano, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who blames the military and Congress for not spending enough on getting directed energy to the front. "The tragedy is that I think it's exactly the right time for this.''

The hallmark of all directed-energy weapons is that the target -- whether a human or a mechanical object -- has no chance to avoid the shot because it moves at the speed of light. At some frequencies, it can penetrate walls.

Since the ammunition is merely light or radio waves, directed-energy weapons are limited only by the supply of electricity. And they don't involve chemicals or projectiles that can be inaccurate, accidentally cause injury or violate international treaties.

"When you're dealing with people whose full intent is to die, you can't give people a choice of whether to comply,'' said George Gibbs, a systems engineer for the Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad Program who oversees directed-energy projects. "What I'm looking for is a way to shoot everybody, and they're all OK.''

Almost as diverse as the electromagnetic spectrum itself, directed-energy weapons span a wide range of incarnations.

Among the simplest forms are inexpensive, handheld lasers that fill people's field of vision, inducing a temporary blindness to ensure they stop at a checkpoint, for example. Some of these already are used in Iraq.

Other radio-frequency weapons in development can sabotage the electronics of land mines, shoulder-fired missiles or automobiles -- a prospect that interests police departments in addition to the military.

A separate branch of directed-energy research involves bigger, badder beams: lasers that could obliterate targets tens of miles away from ships or planes. Such a strike would be so surgical that, as some designers put it at a recent conference here, the military could plausibly deny responsibility.

The flexibility of directed-energy weapons could be vital as wide-scale, force-on-force conflict becomes increasingly rare, many experts say. But the technology has been slowed by such practical concerns as how to shrink beam-firing antennas and power supplies.

Military officials also say more needs to be done to assure the international community that directed-energy weapons set to stun rather than kill will not harm noncombatants.

Such issues recently led the Pentagon to delay its Project Sheriff, a plan to outfit vehicles in Iraq with a combination of lethal and nonlethal weaponry -- including a highly touted microwave-energy blaster that makes targets feel as if their skin is on fire. Sheriff has been pushed at least to 2006.

"It was best to step back and make sure we understand where we can go with it,'' said David Law, science and technology chief for the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

The directed-energy component in the project is the Active Denial System, developed by Air Force researchers and built by Raytheon Co. It produces a millimeter-wavelength burst of energy that penetrates 1/64 of an inch into a person's skin, agitating water molecules to produce heat. The sensation is certain to get people to halt whatever they are doing.

Military investigators say decades of research have shown that the effect ends the moment a person is out of the beam, and no lasting damage is done as long as the stream does not exceed a certain duration. How long? That answer is classified, but it apparently is in the realm of seconds, not minutes. The range of the beam also is secret, though it is said to be further than small arms fire, so an attacker could be repelled before he could pull a trigger.

Although Active Denial works -- after a $51 million, 11-year investment -- it has proven to be a "model for how hard it is to field a directed-energy nonlethal weapon,'' Law said.

For example, the prototype system can be mounted on a Humvee but the vehicle has to stop in order to fire the beam. Using the vehicle's electrical power "is pushing its limits,'' he added.

Still, Raytheon is pressing ahead with smaller, portable, shorter-range spinoffs of Active Denial for embassies, ships or other sensitive spots.

One potential customer is the Department of Energy. Researchers at its Sandia National Laboratories are testing Active Denial as a way to repel intruders from nuclear facilities. But Sandia researchers say the beams won't be in place until 2008 at the earliest because so much testing remains.

In the meantime, Raytheon is trying to drum up business for an automated airport-defense project known as Vigilant Eagle that detects shoulder-fired missiles and fries their electronics with an electromagnetic wave. The system, which would cost $25 million per airport, has proven effective against a "real threat,'' said Michael Booen, a former Air Force colonel who heads Raytheon's directed-energy work. He refused to elaborate.

For Peter Bitar, the future of directed energy boils down to money.

Bitar heads Indiana-based Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems Ltd., which makes small blinding lasers used in Iraq. But his real project is a nonlethal energy device called the StunStrike.

Basically, it fires a bolt of lightning. It can be tuned to blow up explosives, possibly to stop vehicles and certainly to buzz people. The strike can be made to feel as gentle as "broom bristles'' or cranked up to deliver a paralyzing jolt that "takes a few minutes to wear off.''

Bitar, who is of Arab descent, believes StunStrike would be particularly intimidating in the Middle East because, he contends, people there are especially afraid of lightning.

At present, StunStrike is a 20-foot tower that can zap things up to 28 feet away. The next step is to shrink it so it could be wielded by troops and used in civilian locales like airplane cabins or building entrances.

Xtreme ADS also needs more tests to establish that StunStrike is safe to use on people.

But all that takes money -- more than the $700,000 Bitar got from the Pentagon from 2003 until the contract recently ended.

Bitar is optimistic StunStrike will be perfected, either with revenue from the laser pointers or a partnership with a bigger defense contractor. In the meantime, though, he wishes soldiers in Iraq already had his lightning device on difficult missions like door-to-door searches.

"It's very frustrating when you know you've got a solution that's being ignored,'' he said. "The technology is the easy part.''

[MCT]

Active Denial System

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-mads.htm

Vehicle-Mounted Active Denial System (V-MADS)

Active Denial Technology is a breakthrough non-lethal technology that uses millimeter-wave electromagnetic energy to stop, deter and turn back an advancing adversary from relatively long range. It is expected to save countless lives by providing a way to stop individuals without causing injury, before a deadly confrontation develops.

The technology was developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Department of Defense's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate. Approximately $40 million has been spent on this technology over the past ten years.

This non-lethal technology was developed in response to Department of Defense needs for field commanders to have options short of the use of deadly force. Non-lethal technologies can be used for protection of Defense resources, peacekeeping, humanitarian missions and other situations in which the use of lethal force is undesirable. The system is intended to protect military personnel against small-arms fire, which is generally taken to mean a range of 1,000 meters. The system is described as having a range of 700 yards.

Countermeasures against the weapon could be quite straightforward ? for example covering up the body with thick clothes or carrying a metallic sheet ? or even a trash can lid ? as a shield or reflector. Also unclear is how the active-denial technology would work in rainy, foggy or sea-spray conditions where the beam's energy could be absorbed by water in the atmosphere.

Active Denial Technology uses a transmitter to send a narrow beam of 95-GHz millimeter waves towards an identified subject. Traveling at the speed of light, the energy reaches the subject and penetrates less than 1/64 of an inch into the skin, quickly heating up the skin's surface. The 95-GHz energy penetrates 1/64 inch into the skin and produces an intense burning sensation that stops when the transmitter is switched off or when the individual moves out of the beam. Within seconds, an individual feels an intense heating sensation that stops when the transmitter is shut off or when the individual moves out of the beam. According to reports, a 2-second burst from the system can heat the skin to a temperature of 130? F. At 50 ?C, the pain reflex makes people pull away automatically in less than a second. Someone would have to stay in the beam for 250 seconds before it burnt the skin,

Despite the sensation, the technology does not cause injury because of the low energy levels used. It exploits a natural defense mechanism that helps to protect the human body from damage. The heat-induced sensation caused by this technology, is nearly identical to the sensation experienced by briefly touching an ordinary light bulb that has been left on for a while. Unlike a light bulb, however, active denial technology will not cause rapid burning, because of the shallow penetration of the beam and the low levels of energy used. The transmitter needs only to be on for a few seconds to cause the sensation.

Air Force scientists helped set the present skin safety threshold of 10 milliwatts per square centimetre in the early 1990s, when little data was available. That limit covers exposure to steady fields for several minutes to an hour - but heating a layer of skin 0.3 mm thick to 50 ?C in just one second requires much higher power and may pose risks to the cornea, which is more sensitive than skin. A study published last year in the journal Health Physics showed that exposure to 2 watts per square centimeter for three seconds could damage the corneas of rhesus monkeys.

Testing

Humans and animals are being used in the test program. All testing is being conducted with strict observance of the procedures, laws and regulations governing animal and human experimentation. The tests have been reviewed and approved by a formal Institutional Review Board with oversight from the Air Force Surgeon General's Office. The testing is being conducted by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Human Effectiveness Directorate.

Military and civilian employees have volunteered for these tests. Prior to participating in the program, all volunteers are fully informed of the purpose and nature of the tests and of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts expected from the research. Other than minor skin tenderness due to repeated exposure to the beam, there are no lasting effects. An institutional review board has determined that the risk level is minimal. No pay is received for participation, and volunteers may withdraw at any time with no negative personal or professional ramifications. Many of the project scientists are volunteers for the study. These tests, which are being conducted at Kirtland Air Force Base south of Albuquerque, New Mexico, employ more realistic military field conditions, following several years of successful and safe laboratory testing. These field tests are the first to expose an entire test subject to the energy beam.

These tests demonstrate the technology, gather additional data on effects in realistic conditions, and allow the military benefits to be assessed.

Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, a leading newsletter on non-ionizing radiation, calls VMADS a "significant development" in directed energy weapons. However, he says that possible injuries, particularly to the eye, could lead to stopping further development and actual deployment of the device-as the Pentagon did in the mid-1990s when it was trying to develop blinding lasers. "The real question is whether it will go the way of the lasers," Slesin says. Like laser, exposure to the microwave beam could cause eye damage. "People will get out of the beam, but [injury to the eyes] depends on how much exposure they get," Slesin says. Slesin also notes that "the only people who are doing health research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation are the people who are developing this weapon-the Air Force Lab. . . . They're the only people who have any money in the United States to do research on the health effects, and they're in firm control of the [safety] standard-setting process. . . . That's a clear conflict."

FY 2002 Implementation Document (ID) signed establishing management oversight and overall program structure to place ADS on one hybrid electric HMMWV. Concept of operation meeting conducted by Operational manager. Transition meeting conducted by transition manager to define requirements for full system development. ADS effects testing ongoing with frontal exposures of human subjects at full weapons parameters scheduled.
FY 2002 continued: ADS source optimization started and possible integration of high-temperature superconducting coils investigated.
FY 2003 - Concept of operation, transition strategy development, and effects testing continuing. System integration (battle management system, HMMWV, and beam director) started. Field demonstration in 4th quarter.
FY 2004 - Concept of operations finalized. Source optimization, effects testing, system integration continuing. Field Test in 3rd quarter. Military Utility Assessment (MUA) begun.
FY 2005 - Effects testing and MUA finalized. Final optimization of Battle Management System and HMMWV completed. Residual handed over to transition manager.
Operational System

Officials have begun examining appropriate platforms on which to deploy the technology. Currently, planning is underway for a vehicle-mounted version. Future versions might also be used onboard planes and ships. The vehicle-mounted version will be designed to be packaged on a vehicle such as a High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV, more commonly referred to as a Humvee). Power would be provided by a turbo-alternator and battery system. Researches say they have made technological break through on power supplies to run such weapons even when mounted on vehicles or aircraft.

This technology and its proposed use in an operational system have been given a preliminary weapons legal review as required by Department of Defense Directive 3000.3 "Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons," and the United States' treaty - obligations. This preliminary review found that further research, development, and testing of this technology is permissible. As required by law, a final, comprehensive legal review will be completed prior to entering the acquisition cycle.

[MCT]

(cont'd)



Organizations involved

Two primary organizations are executing this program: the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate at Quantico Marine Corps Base, Virginia, and the Air Force Research Laboratory, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. The Air Force Research Laboratory is developing the technology with funding from both the Air Force and the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

From the Air Force Research Laboratory, two directorates are involved: the Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, and the Human Effectiveness Directorate at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. The former works technology development and testing; the latter is in charge of biological effects research.

There are three primary contractors: Raytheon AET in Rancho Cucamonga, California, is the systems integrator, CPI (Communications and Power Industries) in Palo Alto, California, is the source developer, and Veridian Engineering in San Antonio, Texas, is performing biological effects research.

Other organizations and agencies that are involved in the this project include the Air Force Force Protection Battlelab at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; the Marine Warfighting Laboratory at Quantico, Virginia; the Air Force Special Operations Command at Hurlburt Field, Florida; and the U.S. Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

The Air Force's Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, will manage acquisition of the Vehicle-Mounted Active Denial System based on this technology.

Introducing the Particle-Beam Weapon

Dr. Richard M. Roberds

It is not that the generals and admirals are incompetent, but that the task has passed beyond their competence. Their limitations are due not to a congenital stupidity--as a disillusioned public is so apt to assume--but to the growth of science.

Captain B. H. Liddell Hart, speaking
on weapon-development decisions, 1935

CONSIDERABLE debate has been stirred Cby President Reagan's recent suggestion that the United States embark on a program that would use advanced-technology weaponry to produce an effective defense against Soviet ICBMS. On the one hand, critics argue that the idea of a defensive system that would neutralize the ICBM threat is naive and, at best, would require large expenditures in the development of a very "high-risk" technology. Furthermore, they suggest, even if such a system could be developed, it would be too costly and would also be vulnerable to simple and cheap countermeasures. On the other hand, others argue that we must continue to explore such high-technology options until they have been either proved scientifically unachievable or developed into effective systems. If it were possible to build and effectively deploy such weapons, the payoff in terms of national security would be tremendous. And certainly, if this weaponry is achievable, it must be the United States, not the Soviet Union, that first develops it.

The advanced technology that has raised the possibility of defeating an ICBM attack is referred to collectively as directed-energy weapons, which gain their unprecedented lethality from several fundamental characteristics. Among their more important features are their ability to fire their "bullets" at or near the speed of light (186,000 miles a second), which would effectively freeze even high-speed targets in their motion; their ability to redirect their fire toward multiple targets very rapidly; their very long range (thousands of kilometers in space); and their ability to transmit lethal doses of energy in seconds or even a fraction of a second. No conventional ammunition is required; only fuel for the power generator is needed.

There are three principal forms of directed-energy weapons: the directed microwave-energy weapon, the high-energy laser, and the particle-beam. Only the last two types have received substantial government support.

Much has been written on the high-energy laser (HEL), and this category of directed energy weapon appears to be well understood by members of the defense community. Laser weapons have been under active development for twenty years and easily constitute the most advanced of the directed-energy devices.

In contrast, the particle-beam weapon (PBW) has been the "sleeper" among directed-energy weapons until very recently. Enshrouded in secrecy, it began as a project sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (now called Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency better known as DARPA) as early as 1958, two years before the first scientific laser demonstration in 1960. Code-named Seesaw, the project was designed to study the possible use of particle beams for ballistic missile defense. Today while its development lags that of the high energy laser, the particle-beam weapon is viewed by some military technicians as the follow-on weapon to the laser, because of its higher potential lethality.

The successful development of a particle beam weapon would require significant technology gains across several difficult areas. But even though the technical understanding to support the full-scale development of a PBW will not be available for several years, the technology issues that pace its development are no difficult to understand. The purpose of this article is to provide a basis for understanding the fundamental technology connected with particle-beam weapon, with the hope of assisting DOD leaders and other members of the defense community in making sound decision about the development and possible deployment of PBWs in the days ahead.

What Is a Particle-Beam Weapon?
The characteristic that distinguishes the particle-beam weapon from other directed energy weapons is the form of energy it propagates. While there are several operating concepts for particle-beam weapons, all such devices generate their destructive power by accelerating sufficient quantities of subatomic particles or atoms to velocities near the speed of light and focusing these particles into a very high-energy beam. The total energy within the beam is the aggregate energy of the rapidly moving particles, each particle having kinetic energy due to its own mass and motion.

Currently, the particles being used to form the beam are electrons, protons, or hydrogen atoms. Each of these particles can be illustrated through a schematic of the hydrogen atom, the smallest and simplest of all atoms. (See Figure 1.) The nucleus of the hydrogen atom is a proton, which weighs some 2000 times as much as the electron that orbits the single-proton nucleus. Each proton has an electric charge of a positive one, while each electron carries a charge of a negative one. In the case of hydrogen, the single electron and proton combine to form a neutrally charged atom.


 

[MCT]

(cont'd)

The particle beam itself is analogous to a natural phenomenon with which we are all familiar--the lightning bolt. The analogy is so close that particle-beam pulses are referred to as "bolts." The particles in a lightning bolt are electrons (an electric current) flowing from a negatively charged cloud to a positively charged cloud or section of the earth. While the electric field in lightning that accelerates the electrons is typically 500,000 volts per meter, these electron velocities are still less than that desired in a particle-beam weapon. But the number of electrons (electric current) in the lightning bolt is nominally much greater. In any case, the phenomenon and its destructive results are very much the same.

Neither the proton nor the electron show any conclusive advantage over the other in their use as the appropriate "ammunition" of a PBW. The determining factor of whether to use electrons or protons so far has been simply the specific particle accelerator concept planned for use in a beam weapon. Some accelerating schemes call for the acceleration of electrons, while others use protons.

The use of a hydrogen-atom beam, however, is not based on the choice of a particular acceleration scheme. Because it is neutrally charged, the hydrogen atom has been selected specifically as the likely particle to be used in the initial space weapon. Neutral atoms would not be susceptible to bending by the earth's magnetic field as would a charged-particle beam. Neither would the beam tend to spread due to the mutually repulsive force between particles of like-charge in the beam. (In the atmosphere, a charged-particle beam will neutralize itself by colliding with air molecules, effectively creating enough ions of the opposite charge to neutralize the beam.)

The mechanism by which a particle beam destroys a target is a depositing of beam energy into the material of the target, which might be any material object. As the particles of the beam collide with the atoms, protons, and electrons of the material composing the target, the energy of the particles in the beam is passed on to the atoms of the target much like a cue ball breaks apart a racked group of billiard balls. The result is that the target is heated rapidly to very high temperatures--which is exactly the effect that one observes in an explosion. Thus, a particle beam of sufficient energy can destroy a target by exploding it (although that is not the only means of destruction).

In describing a particle beam, it is conventional to speak of the energy of the beam (in electron-volts), the beam current (in amperes), and the power of the beam (in watts). (See Figure 2.) The specific meaning of these terms as they pertain to a particle beam is derived from the close analogy between a particle beam and an electric current.



The electron-volt is a unit of measure for energy. It is the kinetic energy of an electron that has been accelerated by one volt of electric potential. Nominally, all the particles in a beam will have been accelerated to the same velocity, or energy, so it is possible to characterize the energy of a particle beam in terms of the energy of a typical particle of the beam, usually millions of electron-volts (MeV). Hence, a 20-MeV particle beam would be a beam of particles, each with a nominal energy of 20 million electron-volts.

A measure of the number of particles in the beam (beam intensity) may be made from the magnitude of the electric current (amperes) in the beam. To be able to assign a current to the beam, it is necessary to assume that each particle has an amount of electric charge equivalent to an electron (even if it is a neutral atom). This assumption enables an electric current to be ascribed to the particle beam, and an indication of the number of particles in the beam is inferred by the current magnitude expressed in amperes.

The power of a particle beam is the rate at which it transports its energy, which is also an indication of the rate at which it can deposit energy into a target. Again, the analogy with an electric circuit serves us well. The power developed in an electric circuit is the mathematical product of the voltage (E) and the current (I); its unit of measure is the watt. Since the unit of energy for a particle in a beam is the electron-volt (E), and the beam has an electric current(I)ascribed to it, the power of the particle beam in watts is simply the energy in electron-volts multiplied by the beam current in amperes.

Types of Particle-Beam Weapons
There are two broad types of particle-beam weapons: the charged-particle beam weapon and the neutral-particle beam weapon. The charged-particle variety would be developed for use within the atmosphere (endoatmospheric) and has a set of technological characteristics that are entirely different from the neutral particle beam weapon that would be used in space (exoatmospheric). Primarily, the extremely high power and precisely defined beam characteristics required for a particle beam to propagate through the atmosphere distinguish an endoatmospheric device from a beam weapon designed to operate in space. The development of a power supply and particle accelerator with sufficient power and appropriately shaped pulses for endoatmospheric weapons depends on very "high-risk" technology and is likely years away.1

The technological problems associated with exoatmospheric weapons are considerable also, but they are not as difficult as those associated with endoatmospheric weapons. Here, the greatest challenge is in the area of directing the beam: the weapon must be able to focus its energy to strike a target that may be thousands of kilometers away. There are two aspects to this challenge. First, the weapon must create a high-intensity, neutral beam with negligible divergence as it leaves the accelerator. Second, the weapon must have a system for aiming its beam at the target. This system must be able to detect pointing errors in a beam (which is itself very difficult to detect because of its lack of an electric charge) and, when necessary, redirect a missed "shot" toward the target.

Because of these two different sets of demands, the endo- and exoatmospheric devices represent two different types of weapon systems in appearance and operation. Nevertheless, there are certain fundamental areas of development that are common to both types of PBWS.

Development Areas for PBWs
The realization of an effective particle-beam weapon depends upon technology developments in five areas. Three of these concern hardware developments, while two others are related to advances in the understanding of beam weapon phenomena. (See Figure 3.)

[MCT]

(cont'd)

lethality

One of the phenomenological aspects under study is lethality. Lethality refers to the general effectiveness of a weapon in engaging and destroying a target. There is no doubt that a particle beam is capable of destroying a military target. However, a knowledge is needed of the precise effect that a particle beam would have when it impinges upon various-type targets composed of different materials and components. The problem is made more difficult from the fact that the particle beam can vary according to particle type, particle energy, and beam power. To gain such an understanding, beam/target interaction is the subject of continuing technological investigations and studies.

In assessing the unique value of a particle beam as a potential weapon system, it is important to consider six characteristics that would give the beam weapon a high degree of lethality.

Beam velocity. The particles "fired" by a PBW will travel at nearly the speed of light (186,000 miles per second). The advantage of such a high-velocity beam is that computing the aim point for a moving target is greatly simplified. The effect of this extremely high velocity is essentially to fix a target, even if the target attempts evasive action. For example, if the weapon were required to shoot at a reentry vehicle (RV) some 50 kilometers distant and traveling at the high speed of 20,000 feet per second, the RV would travel only about 5 feet from the time the weapon fired until it was struck by the beam. It is this aspect of PBWs that makes feasible the task of "shooting a bullet with a bullet," as the ABM targeting problem is sometimes characterized.

Beam dwell time. Beam dwell time refers to the time that a beam remains fixed on a target. In an endoatmospheric weapon, the power of the beam would be sufficient to destroy the target instantaneously (in millionths of a second) upon impact, and no beam dwell time would be required. In space, where the required power of the beam is considerably less, some very short beam dwell time may be necessary.2

Rapid-aim capability. The particle beam may be redirected very rapidly from one target to another by means of a magnetic field. This field would itself be generated by an electric current. Varying the current would change the magnetic field intensity, which would deflect the charged particles in the desired direction. Within certain limits, no physical motion of the weapon would be required as it engages enemy targets. This capability to very rapidly aim and redirect the beam would enhance significantly the weapon's capability to engage multiple targets.

Beam penetration. The subatomic particles that constitute a beam have great penetrating power. Thus, interaction with the target is not restricted to surface effects, as it is with a laser. When impinging upon a target, a laser creates a blow-off of target material that tends to enshroud the target and shield it from the laser beam. Such beam/target interaction problems would not exist for the particle beam with its penetrating nature. Particle beams would be quite effective in damaging internal components or might even explode a target by transferring a massive amount of energy into it (the catastrophic kill mechanism). Furthermore, there would be no realistic means of defending a target against the beam; target hardening through shielding or materials selection would be impractical or ineffective.

Ancillary kill mechanisms. In addition to the direct kill mechanism of the beam, ancillary kill mechanisms would be available. Within the atmosphere, a secondary cone of radiation symmetrical about the beam, would be created by the beam particles as they collide with the atoms of the air. This cone would be comprised of practically every type of ionizing radiation known (i.e., x-rays, neutrons, alpha and beta particles, and so on). A tertiary effect from the beam would be the generation of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) by the electric current pulse of the beam. This EMP would be very disruptive to any electronic components of a target. Thus, even if the main beam missed, the radiation cone and accompanying EMP could kill a target. While the EMP and the radiation cone would not be present in an exoatmospheric use of the weapon, there are other possible options in space that are not available in the atmosphere. Many intriguing possibilities come to mind. For example, using lower levels of beam power, the particle beam could expose photographic film in any satellite carrying photographic equipment, or it could damage sensitive electronic components in a satellite.

All-weather capability. Another advantage of a particle beam over the high-energy laser in an endoatmospheric application would be an all-weather capability. While a laser can be thwarted completely by such weather effects as clouds, fog, and rain, these atmospheric phenomena would have little effect on the penetrating power of a particle-beam weapon.

propagation of the beam

The successful development of a PBW depends on the ability of the beam to propagate directly and accurately to the target. As we ponder its similarity to lightning, we might consider the jagged, irregular path of a lightning bolt as it darts unpredictably through the sky. Such indeterminacy would never do for the particle beam of a weapon, which must have an extremely precise path of propagation as it traverses the kilometers to the enemy vehicle. This aspect, in fact, may be the Achilles' heel of the endoatmospheric weapon. However, the space weapon, which at this time is envisaged to be a neutral stream of hydrogen atoms, would not suffer from the beam instability problems that may possibly plague a beam of charged particles traveling through the air.

Another problem of propagation is possible beam spreading. An increase in beam diameter would result in a decrease of the energy density (intensity) of the beam as it travels toward the target. Over short ranges, a slight beam divergence can be tolerated, but the very long ranges that would be required of the space weapon place a tremendous restriction on the amount of beam divergence that is acceptable.

Use of a neutral beam in space would ensure that the beam would not spread due to mutual repulsion of the beam particles. Divergence would come strictly from that imparted by the accelerator. In the atmosphere, however, even if the beam particles were neutral, air molecules would strip the surrounding electrons quickly from the beam's neutral atoms, turning the beam into a charged-particle beam. The charged particles within the beam would then tend to repel one another, producing undesirable beam divergence. But as the beam propagates through the air, it would also strip electrons from the surrounding air molecules, creating a region of charged particles (ions) intermingling with the beam. The result of this phenomenon is to neutralize the overall charge of the beam, thereby reducing the undesired effect of mutual repulsion among the charged particles in the beam that is a cause of beam spreading. Another force that tends to prevent beam spreading is a surrounding magnetic field, created by the current of the charged particle beam. This field wraps itself around the beam and produces a conduit that inhibits beam divergence. (See Figure 4.)



The propagation of a charged-particle beam through the atmosphere is, in fact, the pacing issue for the endoatmospheric weapon. It has been theoretically calculated that specific threshold values of the beam parameters (beam current, particle energy, beam pulse length, etc.) are required for a beam to propagate through air with reliability. While the values of these parameters are classified, no particle-beam accelerator is currently capable of creating a beam with the required parameters.

Two crucially important experimental programs are exploring the phenomena of atmospheric beam propagation. The first program, underway at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, involves experiments with an accelerator called the Advanced Test Accelerator (ATA), the construction of which was completed in the fall of 1982. The second program, a joint Air Force/Sandia National Laboratories program, similarly is aimed at investigating beam propagation through the use of a radial-pulse-line accelerator (RADLAC). Continuation of the U.S. program to explore the development of an endoatmospheric weapon will depend on a positive prognosis from these two experimental studies of atmospheric beam propagation.

fire-control/pointing-and-tracking technology

The fire-control/pointing-and-tracking system of a PBW must acquire and track the target, point the weapon at the target, fire the beam at the proper time, and assess target damage. If the beam misses the target, the system must sense the error, repoint the weapon, and fire again. Much of the technology for this part of the weapon is not unique to a PBW, and its development has benefited considerably from the HEL weapon program, which has involved study of this problem for several years. Moreover, recent advances in radar technology and electro-optics, combined with projected developments in next-generation computers, portend a heretofore unimagined capability in this area of technology.

This is not to say that serious development problems do not remain in the area of the fire-control system. Many of the pointing and tracking problems will be entirely unique to a particle-beam weapon and cannot be solved by a transfer of technology from the laser program. Nevertheless, none of these problems are such that they will demand exploration of basic issues in physics and the advancement of the state of the art, as will some other aspects of the beam weapon's development.

[MCT]

(cont'd)

accelerator technology

The accelerator is the part of the weapon system that creates the high-energy particle beam. It is composed of a source of ions (electrons, protons, or charged atoms), a device for injecting the particles into the accelerating section, and the accelerating section itself. The accelerating section of all conventional linear accelerators is made up of a series of segments (modules) that sequentially apply an accelerating electric field to the charged particles. While the voltage in each segment may be relatively low, the repeated application of an accelerating voltage by the large number of modules ultimately produces very high particle energies.

The first subatomic particle accelerators were constructed in the 1930s for scientific investigations in the field of elementary-particle physics. The accelerators used for the first-generation PBW system will be embellished variations of the present-day, linear accelerators (linacs), such as the two-mile-long Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), which is a state-of-the-art device capable of producing electrons with an energy of 30 GeV (30 billion electron-volts).

The SLAC represents a class of accelerators known as radio frequency (rf) linear accelerators. The great majority of linacs in operation today are rf linacs. Although such devices can accelerate particles to energies high enough for use as a weapon, they are limited severely in their current-carrying capability and would not be candidates for the endoatmospheric weapon system, since beam power is a product of current and voltage.

The space weapon, however, does not call for the tremendously high beam power required for the endoatmospheric weapon. Its accelerator could be based on the design of a state-of the-art rf linac.3 The major demand for a space weapon is to create a high-intensity (high "brightness") beam of neutral atoms with very precise collimation as it exits the accelerator. It is in this area of divergence that the greatest technical problems exist. If the beam were to diverge from a pencil point to only the diameter of a penny after twelve miles of travel, this would represent a divergence of one part in a million (one meter for each 1000 kilometers traveled). A divergence much greater than this would not be acceptable for a space weapon that is to have a range of thousands of kilometers.

A second type of linear accelerator is called the induction linac. The world's first induction linac, the Astron I accelerator, was built at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in 1963. It was designed to produce high electron-beam currents that could be used in a magnetic-confinement scheme for controlled thermonuclear fusion. The Advanced Test Accelerator is art induction linac that grew out of this early accelerator technology. The ATA is designed to generate a 50-MeV beam with 10,000 amperes of current in pulses of 50 nanosecond (50 billionths of a second) duration.4

The fundamental principle of operation (applying successively high voltage across a series of accelerating segments) is the same for both the rf and induction linacs. However, the mechanism for generating the electric voltage within the segments of the two types of linacs is quite different. Compared to the rf linac, the induction linac does not impart as much instability to the beam when a modest current limit is exceeded. Therefore, of the two types of accelerators, the induction linac is the more likely candidate for an endoatmospheric beam weapon (which will require very high beam currents).

In examining the Air Force charged-particle-beam technology program, we find that its main thrust is the exploration of nonconventional acceleration techniques (neither rf nor induction linacs), with two main purposes in mind. The first is to develop a means of producing a particle beam with parameters closely resembling those that would be required for successful propagation through the atmosphere, so that beam propagation can be studied in depth and propagation theory refined. To date, a RADLAC I accelerator that has been developed has produced a 10-MeV beam of electrons with a 30,000-ampere current.5 A more powerful RADLAC II is under construction.

The second purpose is to develop an accelerator with higher accelerating fields that would permit the building of a shorter device. The nominal accelerating gradient in conventional accelerators is about 5 to 10 MeV per meter of accelerator length. Thus, to produce a 1-GeV beam, a linear accelerator would need to be 100 to 500 meters in length--far too long and cumbersome, particularly if the device were to be carried aboard an aircraft. The Air Force hopes to build a device eventually that will generate a very powerful particle beam with an accelerator of more reasonable length.

power supply technology

Possibly the most difficult technical problem in developing an atmospheric particle-beam weapon is the development of its electrical power supply. To operate an endoatmospheric PBW requires that a tremendous amount of electrical energy be supplied over very short periods of time. Since power is energy divided by time, large amounts of energy over short spans of time translate into extremely high power levels. Building a power supply to produce high power in short bursts involves a very advanced field of technology known as pulsed-power technology.

Basically, a pulsed-power device can be divided into three component areas: the primary power source that provides electrical energy over the full operating time of the weapon (prime power source), the intermediate storage of the electrical energy as it is generated (energy storage), and the "conditioning" of the electrical power bursts or pulses of suitable intensity and duration (pulse-forming network) to fire the weapon. Each of these three areas represents a technological challenge.

Any electricity-producing device, such as a battery or generator, is a primary power source. The requirement of the particle-beam weapon, however, is for a prime power source that can produce millions to billions of watts of electrical power, yet be as lightweight and compact as possible. A conventional power station could provide the needed power levels, but it would be neither small nor lightweight. There is also a need for mobility in many of the envisaged applications; a power station would not meet this requirement. Some typical prime-power candidates are advanced-technology batteries, turbine-powered generators, or an advanced magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generator using superconducting circuitry. Whatever the primary source might be, a sizable advance in the present power-generating state of the art will be required, particularly for the endoatmospheric weapon.

Once electrical energy is generated for the weapon, it will likely have to be stored in some fashion. A typical storage method involves charging a series of large capacitors (often called a capacitor bank). Other more exotic methods are possible, e.g., spinning a huge mechanical flywheel or simply storing the energy in the form of a high-energy explosive that is released in a contained explosion. Actually, there are numerous schemes for storing and releasing the required energy; their advantages and disadvantages depend on their particular application (i.e., the type of accelerator that is used and whether the weapon is endo- or exoatmospheric).

The pulse-forming network would be designed to release the stored energy in the desired form. In the atmospheric weapon, a single shot or "bolt" would most likely be comprised of a very short-duration pulse, repeated thousands of times per second. Hopefully, the prime power source would be able to generate energy at least at the same rate as energy was dispatched. If not, the weapon would be required to remain quiescent while its generator rebuilt a charge for another series of bolts.

[MCT]

(cont'd)

THE development of a particle-beam weapon by the United States is a logical follow-on to the current high-energy laser development program. The weapon's potential lethality against high-speed, multiple targets, coupled with its capacity for selective destruction, would make the PBW particularly suitable for the space defense role. While some of the technological and operational issues to be resolved appear formidable at this time, it is far too early to discount the eventual operational effectiveness of such a weapon. Several scientists have argued that the PBW cannot be built or effectively deployed, creating or exacerbating doubts in other individuals. Yet those so concerned might do well to recall that in 1949, Vannevar Bush--a highly respected national leader with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering who had served as head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II--argued that technical problems made the development of an effective ICBM virtually impossible without astronomical costs.6 Nine years later, in 1958, the United States had its first operational ICBM, the Atlas.

The PBW offers a possibility for defending effectively against a launched ICBM, and even a glimmer of hope toward this end is worthy of pursuit. Should the United States terminate its exploration of particle-beam technology, we would be opening the door for the Soviets to proceed at their own pace toward building such a weapon. We can ill afford technological surprise in an area as crucial as beam weapons.

The current pace of the U.S. program in PBW development is both logical and orderly. Funding levels remain relatively low, as DARPA and the three services continue to focus on the pacing technologies that must be understood if such a weapon is to be built. Since the potential payoff of such activity is tremendous, it seems imperative that the United States continue to pursue the development of PBWs at least at the present level of funding.

Department of Engineering Technology
Clemson University, South Carolina

Notes

1. The major technological problems of the endoatmospheric weapon are twofold: to understand and demonstrate the propagation of the particle beam through the air and to create an electrical pulsed-power source capable of generating billions of watts of power in extremely short, repetitive pulses.

2. For a different reason, all high-energy lasers (with the exception of the envisioned x-ray laser) require beam dwell time also. A laser needs such time to burn through the surface of the target.

3. The question of how a beam of neutral atoms might be accelerated in a conventional rf linac may arise in the mind of the perceptive reader. A present approach is to attach an extra electron to a hydrogen atom, accelerate the charged atom in conventional fashion, and then strip off the extra electron by passing the beam through a tenuous gas as it exits the accelerator. This stripping causes the beam to spread slightly and must be controlled if the divergence specifications of a space weapon are to be met.

4. B. M. Schwarzchild. "ATA: 10-kA Pulses of 50 MeV Electrons," Physics Today, February 1982, p. 20.

5. Private communication, Lieutenant Colonel James H. Head, High-Energy Physics Technology Program Manager, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, 6 February 1984.

6. Vannevar Bush, Modern Arms and Free Men: A Discussion of the Role of Science in Preserving Democracy (New York. 1949), pp. 84-87.

Contributor

Richard M. Roberds (B.A., M.S., University of Kansas; Ph.D., Air Force Institute of Technology) is Associate Professor and Head of the Engineering Technology Department at Clemson University. He is a retired Air Force colonel and was the first technical program manager of the Air Force particle-beam technology program, serving in that capacity from September 1975 until July 1977 at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. Colonel Roberds is a Distinguished Graduate of Air Command and Staff College and a graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)



http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/thel.html

The Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) is a joint project of the United States and Israel designed to destroy short-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, ground- and air-launched rockets, unmanned aerial vehicles, mortar shells, and artillery projectiles. It consists of an advanced radar that detects and tracks incoming rockets, and a high-energy laser beam that destroys them.

Since the early 1980s, Israel has faced a constant threat from Hezbollah guerillas along its northern border. During eighteen years of fighting, the guerrillas wreaked havoc by firing numerous small, unguided Katyusha rockets at Israeli towns. The rockets were fast and low-flying and caused considerable damage. Hezbollah?s attacks were so numerous that Israel could not use interceptor missiles. In addition, since the Katyushas flew on ballistic trajectories and landed on Israeli towns unless completely destroyed, Israel could not deploy advanced machine guns such as those used by U.S. Navy ships against low-flying cruise missiles.

In 1995, the U.S. and Israel decided to address the growing problem of low-flying missiles by developing a high energy laser. The idea was to build a weapons system that could detect and eliminate threats at the speed of light while maintaining a low per-kill cost. Since Hezbollah was launching thousands of rockets, the defense system had to be capable of handling a large volume of attacks. In February 1996, the prototype U.S. high energy laser, known as Nautilus, destroyed a short-range rocket at a test site in New Mexico. It was the first time that a laser had ever destroyed a ballistic missile.

In April 1996, Hezbollah guerrillas fired over two dozen Katyusha rockets at Israel within 17 days. After that, the U.S. and Israel accelerated the high energy laser project, then known as the Tactical High Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator, or THEL/ACTD. Although Israel has not been attacked since it withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, Israeli officials estimate that Hezbollah still has 11,000 Katyushas aimed at border towns.

Once operational, THEL will consist of four main components: a command center, a fire control radar, a pointer-tracker, and the high energy laser itself. The command center, known as Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I), will manage all aspects of the system, including detecting, tracking, and destroying incoming targets within THEL?s range. C3I will be operated by a two-man crew: a commander and a gunner.

Positioned near the hostile zone, the fire control radar will continuously scan the horizon for threats. Once an incoming rocket has been detected, the radar will calculate the target?s trajectory and enable the pointer-tracker to lock on to the target. THEL will be mounted on a large gimbaled assembly that will allow the pointer-tracker to swivel when tracking the rockets.

Once the target is within range, the pointer-tracker will focus THEL?s high-energy deuterium-fluoride (DF) laser beam on the incoming rocket. The DF laser beam is created by mixing fluorine atoms with helium and deuterium to generate DF in an excited state. A resonator extracts the DF and transforms it into a beam of coherent, monochromatic light.

The beam itself is only a few inches in diameter, but is powerful enough to heat steel at 200 yards or more. The pointer-tracker will keep the laser beam focused on the incoming rocket until the intense heat causes the warhead to explode. Debris from the blast will fall short of the rocket?s intended target, thus effectively neutralizing the threat. Once deployed, THEL will be capable of firing 60 shots before reloading. The system will operate at a per-kill cost of approximately $3,000, making it one of the most inexpensive anti-missile systems in existence.

In 2002, Northrop Grumman acquired TRW, the company that had been in charge of THEL up to that point. Northrop Grumman currently manages the system?s development and testing. Other U.S. contractors include Ball Aerospace and Brashear LP, while Israeli partners include Electro-Optic Industries, Israel Aircraft Industries, Yehud Industrial Zone, RAFAEL, and Tadiran.

To date, THEL has destroyed 28 Katyusha test rockets and five test artillery shells. On May 4, 2004, THEL?s new transportable version, known as the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL), tracked and destroyed a large-caliber test rocket at the U.S. Army?s White Sands Missile Ranch in New Mexico. The rocket flew faster and higher than the Katyushas, and carried a live warhead. The U.S. and Israel expect MTHEL to be operational and ready for deployment by 2007.

[Prometheus]

*cough* cough* bullshit



 

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

ahahahaha, sounds interesting anyway

[BigCombo]

Damn, I wanna work in R&D divison of the Pentagon

[Prometheus]

no shit.. lol

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Damn, I wanna work in R&D divison of the Pentagon

come and work at ubi soft, same thing but we dont kill people

i'm gonna send this article to the designers of ghost recon 3.

[Prometheus]

you work at UbiSoft ehhhh....... well do me a fovour walk over to the Dev team and hang a moon on them......or slap em or something..... i got a few beefs witht eh control interface that can be easily fixed.....

[MCT]

Coincidentally...

http://www.physorg.com/news5382.html

July 22, 2005

Precautions used to test U.S. military's microwave weapon ADS for crowd control have raised questions about its safety, says a report.

The New Scientist says volunteers used in the test of the Active Denial System were banned from wearing glasses or contact lenses due to safety fears.

These precautions raise concerns about the ADS in real crowd-control situations, the New Scientist reported Friday.

The ADS fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam, which is supposed to heat skin and to cause pain but no physical damage, the report said. Until now little information about its effects had been released.

However, details of the 2003 and 2004 tests have been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by a group that campaigns against the use of biological and non-lethal weapons, the report said. The tests were done at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque.

The experimenters banned glasses and contact lenses to prevent eye damage to the subjects and in the second and third tests removed any metallic objects such as coins and keys to stop hot spots being created on the skin, the report said.

[Surfrider]

Wonder who the test dummies were?

[MCT]

Do ya?