Northrop to Sell Laser Shield Bubble for Airports

NeoPrime writes "CNN Money web site has a story about Northrop Grumman forecasting development of a laser shield 'bubble' for airports and other installations in the United States within 18 months. The system will be called Skyguard — a joint venture with Israel and the U.S. Army. It will have the capability to generate a shield five kilometers in radius."

A license to print money...

[Anonymous Coward]

Number of US airports (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fiel ds/2053.html): 14,893
Major US airports (http://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/usmap.jsp): Approx. 40
US airports with international flights (http://aerospace.web.mtsu.edu/usinternational.htm ): At least 72

Minimum likely cost using low-ball $25 million per airport figure and only major airports: US$1 billion
Mid-range likely cost using higher $30 million per airport figure, and all international airports in the US: US$2.16 billion
Realistic projection, expecting a 50% cost overrun, and ~100 airports: US$4.5 billion
Potential maximum even if cost per airport is reduced to 1/10th the lowest projection, and only 1 in 4 US airports is protected: US$9.3 billion.

All this just to stop something that's never happened on US soil, and AFAIK never successfully happened elsewhere (terrorists using a missile to shoot down a commercial passenger aircraft). Who said terrorism was bad? It sure as heck is good business if you're Northrop...

Re:Who needs this

[Oldav]

Of course they have crazy thieves next door insted who kill 3 times as many palestinians than the Palestinians kill them, then plead terrorism is only from the palestinian side. What a load of crap

Re:Protect the Airports?

[dilbert researcher]

The main reason behind deploying the shields at airports is, to prevent terrorists from using hand-held rocket launchers. These rocket launchers can be used to destroy planes that are at a low altitude. Low altitude planes are easily sighted around airports when they are about to land or take-off. Hence domestic airports are a big market for these systems.

Re:Can I safely assume this is for military applic

[thrillseeker]

They don't need to see the Stinger prior to launch. The system has sufficient time to detect a high speed object on a vector towards an aircraft, or towards the facility, and to then target the system while in flight.

Re:Pointless.

[YrWrstNtmr]

Given what we have seen of insurgent guerilla tactics in Iraq, popping RPGs at departing flights would bring do wn a plane. Perhaps not everyone on board will get killed because of the low altitude, but terrorism is all about terrorizing a population. That laser shield isn't going to do much, is it?

It's not a 'shield' (dome) over the airport.
"Northrop described Skyguard as capable of destroying rockets, mortars, artillery shells, unmanned aerial vehicles, short-range ballistic missiles, as well as cruise missiles. Against shoulder-fired missiles, which are relatively easy to heat with a laser and destroy, the protective shield would extend to a 20-kilometer radius"

Or they would just go to Japan and knock down a plane bound for the United States.

""If it goes that path, it's a very large market," he said, citing potential demand from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and what he called virtually any country facing a threat from a neighbor."

Re:What kind of fallacy is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_c ausation [wikipedia.org]

Re:So,

[Martin Blank]

Actually, THEL has been rather quietly developed by the US and Israel since it's a tactical system more than a strategic one. The Wikipedia article is horribly out of date, but its success ratio was very good, in that it was able to shoot down rockets, artillery shells, and mortar shells. One of the challenges has been to get the system shrunk down to a reasonable size. At some point, there was hope of getting it to a size suitable for mounting on a Bradley APC or perhaps even a Humvee, in hopes that it would provide small units protection against certain airborne threats. Whether they've managed to do that, I'm not sure.

If this is feasible, I wouldn't be surprised to see it mounted in places where mortars, Katyusha-style rockets, and RPGs are common -- places like the areas surrounding Israel, and in the cities of Iraq. Removing the major ability of insurgents to use such mobile weapons may reduce overall casualties and introduce a frustration factor strong enough to either get them to do something easier to do but less likely to succeed (roadside or suicide bombs), or even get some to give up altogether. (Yes, it's optimistic, but still possible.)

Re:Remember it does not have to work to fit the bi

[Anonymous Coward]

First thing - this technology has never actually worked in a carefully controlled test, but it will be on sale!

We need better science education to stop the people who control the public purse getting sucked in by confidence tricks.

We need better science education to stop the people who post silly little political rants without understanding the topic under discussion.

If you had done even 2 seconds of research before posting, you would have found that this is the successor to the successful THEL system that the US has been working with the Israelis with over the last decade, and is capable of knocking even artillary shells out of the sky.

The US has plenty of pork military projects, but the Israelis don't screw with hardware that doesn't work.

Re:Are these better than Patriot missiles?

[Pitr]

I feel the need to remind everyone that "laser" doesn't mean "better". Yes, it's faster than a missle, but 1) you need to keep it on your target for more than an instant, which requires good tracking, 2) it's a point defense system, which again, means you need good tracking.

The patriot system didn't "intercept" scud missles, it detonated about half a kilometer in front of them, which is a very short distance at missle speeds. The detonation spread debris in front of the missle, which the missle hit at great speed, and BOOM, no more missle (more or less).

My point being, try using a 9mm, or even a .45 cal handgun to kill a fly, and you'll see the fly swatter works better, even though it's lower tech, and generally less cool.

Then there's always the question of where those rogue lasers that miss their target will go. After all, if they can blow up a rocket at up to 20 kilometers (for the "little" ones), they can kill or at least burn/blind someone further away in an instant. There are lots of hotels near airports, which would be in the line of fire.

Incidentally, regarding the patriot missle system, it's really quite good, but it's performance was vastly inferior than what it should have been. The hardware itself was built with electronics with wider than normal tolerances(I don't know why, money, time, whatever, it happened), and this led to a cumulative timing error, which would throw the systems aim off, causing it to miss it's targets. Anyone who was properly trained on the system would know that every 24 hours, the system needed to be rebooted, and it would recalibrate properly. This didn't happen. Many scud missles were missed because of improper operation and maintenance.

This is straight out of Star Trek & NOT fictio

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a 'shield' per se, It is a real laser with a radar tracking device. Its operating is as a burning laser beam just like the 'phasers' from star trek. It is not science fiction any more. It is real. It has shot artillery shells out of the air and destroyed SCUD missiles. And now this 21st century technology is deployable as a fielded weapon system. Real shields come later. This is a 'radar tracked phaser'.

Re:Not for ballistic missiles

[sumdumass]

Shrapnel falling will reach a terminal velocity based on gravity. Friction will play a much stronger role in it's speed and energy. A projectile such as a artilery shell or RPG would have some limitations too but it's bigger mass would means an increased amount of energy on impact as well as probably exploding near ot at impact giving more nergy to the projectile.

I'm guessing that a falling RPG after it has been detonated(mid air) might have enough energy to harm a person/place/or thing, but the overal effectivness would be comparible to throwing a rock rather then a high speed explosive device. I guess it is a trade off. A trade off worth having though. It is as if I can limit the possible damage you can do with your inexpensive devices and force you to use more costly measure to impose the same amount of damage then I have limited your ability to harm me. Eventualy I can cause you to either go bankrupt in your attempts to harm me or disrupt stratigic advantages you now have. Also, I might be able to monitor the access to the more damaging arsenals you will need to inflict the same amount of damage so i can (maybe) stop the ability to use them.

It might be more comparible to ME saying an action is going to happen and then choosing what and were instead of those responcible for causing that action. Imagine i'm going to cut off a body part and instead of me choosing wich part, you develope some stratigy were you now get to choose. I still go and cut something off but instead of it being your heard or arm, you have managed to make it your fingernails, hair or something else that is less severe or cripling to you then what I initialy intended. Damage will still be done though.

Re:What kind of fallacy is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also call it the "I was doodling in my notebook while I should have been paying attention during Boolean Logic 101"-fallacy, since A And Not(B) = Not(Not(A) Or B) = Not(A Implies B), i.e., it's not the case that the presence of a rock implies the presence of tigers. How a remark about a rock and a tiger results in replies about fallacies and symbolic logic; only on Slashdot...

Re:Yeah, good idea...

[Eagle7]

Other than the fact that it is a weapon system that shoots at flying stuff, AEGIS is nothing like this. Perhaps most obviously, AEGIS (much like PATRIOT) is designed to shoot down aircraft with missiles, not heat up missiles (NOT aircraft) with lasers, as the system in the article does.

Re:Interesting, but... missing something

[kasgoku]

The defense system also tracks the shape of travel path of the object. My friend has worked on a similar thing. They specially work on differentiating between other flying object and missiles. This prevents them from shooting down a bird. This is a kool Star Wars thing and pretty useful... unless you put explosives inside a bird...

Re:Failure modes

[Orange Crush]

That's fine until they're all repainted with reflective paint.

That shouldn't be a problem. The mirror would have to be virtually flawless. The slightest scratch or bit of dust and the first few pulses burn any reflectivity right off. From the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

"Some believe that mirrors or other countermeasures can reduce the effectiveness of high energy lasers. This has not been demonstrated. Small defects in mirrors absorb energy, and the defects rapidly expand across the surface. Protective mirroring on the outside of a target could easily be made less effective by incidental damage and by dust and dirt on its surface."

Re:useless against low-tech threats

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm
      My 220 Swift, loaded HOT, will penetrate 4 -> 5 inches of old pine
at 300 yards. At 100 yards it will blow a big hole in the pine. At 600
yards it is VERY hard to hit the pine because of the ballistic drop. The
bullet lacks the mass for middle range shooting. Long range shooting is
reserved for bigger bullets.
      For those unfamilar with firearms this means the 5.56 NATO rounds, which are about the
same size and shape but slower, are next to useless for downing flying aircraft.
dkr

Re:Who needs this

[zacronos]

Well, yes and no. If I'm attacking your civilians while you try to attack only me, that is definitely asymmetric. I guess you're saying you'd rather not dignify the killing of civilians by calling it warfare. I can respect that, but it doesn't mean the term is in no way applicable. You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that two groups of people perpetrating violence against each other isn't warfare.

Although (tongue-in-cheek), if you really want to end the asymmetric warfare/terrorism in the Palestine-Israel conflict, it's not that hard. Just take all that military aid the US currently gives Israel, and give it to the Palestinian Authority instead. I think you'll find that they would stop suicide bombing small groups of civilians pretty quickly, and would start bombing Israeli government buildings. Kinda like how Israel bombed the Palestinian Foreign Ministry [euronews.net] recently.

That's only a joke because the last thing we want to do is put more weapons into that situation. It's serious in the sense that the only reason the Palestinians use suicide bombs against civilians is that when faced with such incredible opposing military strength, there's not much else you can do except roll over and take it. That's why it's called "asymmetric warfare" -- it's caused by an incredible asymmetry in the strength of the opposing forces.

New Scientist says lasers can be reflected

[giafly]

Of course it's no Wikipedia, but even so: "The reflected energy typically will cover large amounts of real estate and space, since the energy is spread in many directions," Hengst said. And if the target was moving, hazardous reflections could sweep the surrounding area ... The US is working on special protective goggles for its soldiers.
- New Scientist [newscientist.com].