Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by enqyoob »

About 2 years ago I started a Beam Weapons thread, which had the secondary effect of shooting down various overweight Booster Mijjiles on BRF. Also, remember the pleasantries related to the New Clear Deal, where I argued that the ICBM route is a baaaad choice if the intent is FUTURE deterrence.

There was a nice article in "Aerospace America" about the Airborne Laser early this year. Now this report from Aerospace Testing International says that the program is right on track. There are various implications of this program far beyond just its present (much-dissed and unwieldy) embodiment, that should give people reason to think a bit about the future of deterrence.
The US Missile Defense Agency’sAirborne LaserYAL -1A prototype aircraft has successfully acquired, tracked, provided atmospheric compensation and simulated the directed energy kill sequence against an instrumented boosting missile target using three onboard low-power lasers.

“This mission was the culmination of many years of preparation and build-up testing and was a huge success not only for the ABL CTF and 417th Flight Test Squadron but all of Team Edwards,” said Lt Col Mike ‘Zulu’ Contratto, 417th Flight Test Squadron commander. “Personnel from the 412th Range Squadron, 412th Operations Support Squadron, the missile launch crew on San Nicholas Island, and numerous others worked tirelessly for several weeks to finally successfully accomplish this first-ever test mission. The entire team is extremely proud to have achieved another major system knowledge point and excited to be one step closer to our historic system demonstration test later this year.”

The target missile was launched from San Nicolas Island, located in the Naval Air Warfare Center-Weapons Division Sea Range, off the central California coast.

This marks the third successful ABL missile engagement in just over two months. The ABL previously engaged two sounding rockets with the low-power lasers - this latest test was the first time laser performance data was collected at the target missile.

The Missile Alternative Range Target Instrument is similar in size and geometry to a ballistic missile, but with a section of sensors to record and measure the laser performance.
mohan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 15 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Beam Weapons

Post by mohan »

FWIW - Though I am sure most of the oldies know about this:

http://www.barc.ernet.in/webpages/organ ... i_5000.htm

KALI: Kilo amplified Linear Injector


Mohan
pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 524
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Beam Weapons

Post by pralay »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KALI_(Laser)
Overview

The KALI is not a laser weapon as commonly believed. It emits powerful pulses of electrons (Relativistic Electron Beams- REB). Other components in the machine down the line convert the electron energy into EM Radiation, which can be adjusted to x-ray (as Flash X-Rays) or microwave (High Power Microwave) frequencies.

This has fueled hopes that the KALI could, one day be used in a High-Power Microwave gun, which could destroy incoming missiles and aircraft through soft-kill (destroying the electronic circuitry on the missile). However, weaponising such a system has many obstacles to overcome.

History

The KALI project was first mooted in 1985 by the then Director of the BARC, Dr. R. Chidambaram. Work on the Project began in 1989, being developed by the Accelerators & Pulse Power Division of the BARC. (Dr. Chidambaram was also the Scientific advisor the Prime Minister, and the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission). DRDO is also involved with this project. It was initially developed for industrial applications, although defence applications became clearer later[1].

The first accelerators had a power of ~0.4GW, which increased as later versions were developed. These were the KALI 80, KALI 200, KALI 1000, KALI 5000 and KALI 10000.

The KALI-5000 was commissioned for use in late 2004.[2]

Design

The KALI series (KALI 80, KALI 200, KALI 1000, KALI 5000 and KALI 10000) of accelerators are described as "Single Shot Pulsed Gigawatt Electron Accelerators"[3]. They are single shot devices, using water filled capacitors to build the charge energy. The discharge is in the range of 1GW. Initially starting with 0.4GW power, present accelerators are able to reach 40GW. Pulse time is about 60 ns.

The Microwave radiations emitted by the KALI-5000 are in the 3-5 GHz Range

The KALI-5000 is a pulsed accelerator of 1 MeV electron energy, 50-100 ns pulse time, 40kA Current and 40 GW Power level. The system is quite bulky as well, with the KALI-5000 weighing 10 tons, and the KALI-10000, weighing 26 tons. They are also very power hungry, and require a cooling tank of 12,000 liters of oil. Recharging time is also too long to make it a viable weapon in its present form.

Applications

The KALI has been put to various uses by the DRDO. The DRDO was involved in configuring the KALI for their use.

The X-rays emitted are being used in Ballistics research as an illuminator for ultrahigh speed photography by the Defence Ballistics Research Institute (DBRL) in Chandigarh. The Microwave emissions are used for EM Research.

The microwave-producing version of Kali has also been used by the DRDO scientists for testing the vulnerability of the electronic systems of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which was then under development.

It has also helped in designing electrostatic shields to "harden" the LCA and missiles from microwave attack by the enemy as well as protecting satellites against deadly Electromagnetic Impulses (EMI) generated by nuclear weapons and other cosmic disturbances, which "fry" and destroy electronic circuits. Electronic components currently used in missiles can withstand fields of approx. 300 V/cm, while the fields in case of EMI attack reach thousands of V/cm.

As a Weapon

The KALI's potential for a military role as a beam weapon has made it, in the eyes of the people, "India's Star Wars". However, weaponisation of the KALI will take some time. The system is still under development, and efforts are being made to make it more compact, as well as improve its recharge time, which, at the present, makes it only a single use system.

There are also issues of creating a complete system, which would require development of many more components. There have also been reports of placing the weaponized KALI in an Il-76 aircraft as an airborne defence system. There is also speculation of using the KALI as an Anti-satellite weapon and as a space-based weapon system, although it is unlikely that they would be implemented, given India's stance on those issues.

If weaponized, it is quite likely that KALI would be integrated into India's fledgling Ballistic Missile Defense program.
Never heard anything after that, may be a secret program!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Beam Weapons

Post by ramana »

I think the thread title should be Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence. While it is techincal the main focus should be strategic.

Beam Weapons provide another barrier to strategic deterrence just as Anti Ballistic Missiles do.

What ABL does currently is, nullify theater ballistic missile threats and as such is a tactical weapon. It has along way to go for it to nullify strategic deterrence.

It provides increased margin for forces to operate witho less fear of being attacked with theater Ballistic Missiles or IRBMs with less than 4km/sec final velocity. It requires air dominance of the theater to be able to operate these aircraft with the ABL. And if you have air dominance what is the need for this?
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by enqyoob »

ramana, thx. The things that made one think were in the comments of Gen. McMurray who runs the ABL program. Sorry I don't have an e-link to the Aerospace America article (don't think AIAA has come into the 21st century unlike IEEE), but he seemed to be volunteering several comments that would make one go :eek: :shock: .

He was arguing for deploying a fleet of these large aircraft, envisaged to operate with fighter escort. But that is the outer cover of this program. The rest of it was a long-term picture of several offshoots of this into ground-based and ground/sea vehicle based systems.

I can easily imagine putting these things on large ships to provide a much more effective layer of protection against anti-ship missiles and aircraft. Also, there may be some interesting ways to turn it into strategic deterrence over much greater distances than this thing is presently advertised to do.

So it is the multitude of technologies demonstrated here that merits careful thinking. For the first time (AFAIK), Gen. McMurray also talked about these things as being defences against cruise missiles. Now that is the only way that I can imagine being able to counter the threat from hypersonic missiles, because of the speed-of-light reach. The developers must be getting more confident of the acquisition, discrimination, pointing speed and accuracy to talk of these things.

There is nothing to say that the wavelength of the beams should be limited to whatever is used in this particular solution, and then the devices may be amenable to miniaturization.

The point about air superiority in the strategic deterrence scenario is interesting. I don't see an immediate answer to that, except that in that case, the real objective of the program is something else entirely.

What is the reason for the 4km/s velocity limit? Time on target? Can't that be changed by using shorter, more intense pulses?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by ramana »

No-No. 4km/sec is for theater BMs. More than that will be strategic.

Is this the one in July 2009 issue?

Airborne Laser aims at final tests

If so some of Gerard's skills are rubbing off on me!
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by negi »

ICBM route is a baaaad choice if the intent is FUTURE deterrence.
Well if Unkil unlike past does make sensible moves as far as geo politics is concerned and does not proliferate the ip/technology involved in beam weapons to munna states like UK ,Japan & Co we are talking about only US monopoly in this area for quite some time in the future .In such a scenario the ICBMs or even IRBMs will have a pivotal role to play in the sub continent for at least next decade or two.

Also there is very little(infact zero credible info) available on the web on beam weapons which have been tested to a level of maturity akin to the ABL by EU and Russia (ah..yes there are zillions of pseudo phyziks websites claiming RU having capability to field scalar electromagnetic weapons ) . Heads would start turning once Unkil manages to miniaturize this baby and mate it with satellites . :shock:

Btw the father of modern Co2 laser (iirc used by ABl too for ranging) is C. Kumar N. Patel.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by enqyoob »

That's the article, ramana. Good to see that AIAA actually knows about the existence of the internet. Analyze the General's statements and you'll see much that is interesting.

Negi, a lot of the gas dynamic / chemical laser stuff came out of the FSU. Book by Losev, for instance, is probably the best text on lasers. Written with the clarity that can only come from having got systems to work. But if you see the AIAA article, the big change that is coming is that the beam weapon may be morphing/has morphed from a massive chemical plant pumping out massive flow rates, to maybe a large array of solid-state type thingies, pumped by some form of sudden discharge. Also, efficiencies of high-power lasers in these sorts of wavelengths has increased by a huge amount, in some cases by astonishing amounts, like from sub 1% to > 35%! This is in the public-domain literature, one can only imagine why these are not Classified, i.e., what is in the Classified domain.

I don't think that things need 2 b in laser wavelengths either - like KALI is microwave, there may be things that are 300 GHz and above, but below laser frequencies.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by NRao »

Perhaps not in the same class, but, AESA is also a "beam" and can do "soft kill" dance.

I am just saying.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by pankajs »

Boeing Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) Successfully Engages Ground Target in Flight Test
18:08 GMT, September 1, 2009 ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. | The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] and the U.S. Air Force on Aug. 30 defeated a ground target from the air with the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) aircraft, demonstrating ATL's first air-to-ground, high-power laser engagement of a tactically representative target.

During the test, the C-130H aircraft took off from Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., and fired its high-power chemical laser through its beam control system while flying over White Sands Missile Range, N.M. The beam control system acquired the ground target -- an unoccupied stationary vehicle -- and guided the laser beam to the target, as directed by ATL's battle management system. The laser beam's energy defeated the vehicle.
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1083
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Kailash »

What would be cost of deploying such laser/electromagnetism based systems, Vs developing counter measures for it?

Any EM based weapon can be countered with the proper materials. Implementing some kind of reflection/absorption/dissipation of EM energy can be done at a much cheaper cost. Only recently have lasers become strong to destroy missiles and portable enough to be mounted on an aircraft. IMHO, by the time a system is perfected (tracking, targeting and killing) , enough counter measures can be put in place.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by enqyoob »

So now the "ABL" has been downsized to fit in a C-130, from the former B747.
Big change.

Yes, reflective coatings etc. can provide some solutions, but once the basics are mastered, shifting to different frequencies may take much shorter development time, than putting on coatings that reflect everything. The shiny coatings will then just be a great help in detecting/locating/targeting.
abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by abhiti »

Kailash wrote:What would be cost of deploying such laser/electromagnetism based systems, Vs developing counter measures for it?

Any EM based weapon can be countered with the proper materials. Implementing some kind of reflection/absorption/dissipation of EM energy can be done at a much cheaper cost. Only recently have lasers become strong to destroy missiles and portable enough to be mounted on an aircraft. IMHO, by the time a system is perfected (tracking, targeting and killing) , enough counter measures can be put in place.
America is already flight testing the system. The current system can hit anything at 60KM range and it takes milli-sec (not seconds or minutes) to destroy the target. Think about use of the sysem in Ballistic Missile Defence.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Sanjay M »

Actually, with things like femtosecond-pulse lasers, they will easily destroy any reflective coating instantly, due to the power spike destroying the reflective surface. With the reflectivity destroyed, the rest of the laser energy can then destroy the target.
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1083
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Kailash »

Some Countermeasures

Current tactics are driven by technology. But it may be some we get some meta material which bends light around missiles. Till then Lasers will rule!
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by enqyoob »

Here's my point about the huge revolution in laser efficiency: So I wasn't dreaming.
Targeting Laser Efficiency
Improvements Spark Notions of New Sensor, Defense Applications

By William Matthews | DefenseNews.com
Published: 13 September 2009

When they launched a program to dramatically boost the efficiency of tiny infrared lasers in 2006, Mark Rosker and Henryk Temkin of the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) weren't focused on a particular practical application for the U.S. military.

Three years later, with lasers that are as much as 10 times more efficient than his originals, Rosker says he still has no specific applications in mind. But other laser scientists do. They're eager to begin building a new generation of military sensors and longer-range missile defense systems for aircraft.

Rosker, who heads DARPA's Efficient Mid-wave Infrared Lasers (EMIL) program, intends to stay focused on increasing efficiency.

When the program began, "we said we wanted 50 percent efficiency" with a laser that could operate continuously at room temperature, Rosker said. "People told us we were insane."

At the time, midwave infrared lasers had efficiency ratings of about 2 percent or 3 percent, meaning that very little of the electricity put into them was being turned into laser light. Quantum cascade lasers improved under the EMIL program have achieved efficiencies higher than 20 percent.

"We're interested in pushing the technology forward. Sometimes we have a reasonable idea of where it's going; sometimes we don't," Rosker said. "In this case, we're trying to push the envelope - forget about specific applications - and see what [more efficient lasers] can do.

"I cannot tell you what the applications will be, but it will be astounding to me if it doesn't introduce a whole bunch of unexpected applications," he said.

Kumar Patel - founder and president of Pranalytica, a California-based technology firm that builds laser-based sensors able to detect the presence of chemicals - knows what he wants to do with the lasers.

As a researcher at Bell Laboratories in 1964, Patel invented the carbon dioxide laser, used today for tasks ranging from industrial welding to laser surgery.

Sensor Possibilities
Later, as an entrepreneur, Patel saw promise in his laser as an extremely sensitive chemical sensor. In 2003, he started building sensors that doctors could use to detect trace amounts of ammonia in human breath - an indicator of kidney disease and other ailments.

But Patel discovered that "physicians did not want to pay for the sensor; they wanted to lease it." For a startup company, he said, "that would be the kiss of death."

So instead, he built ammonia detectors to sample the air in clean rooms used for semiconductor fabrication. Ammonia can be fatal to semiconductors, Patel said. That proved to be "a huge business" until the global recession in 2007 cut semiconductor production by a third.

In the meantime, DARPA contacted Pranalytica to ask whether its ammonia sensors might also be useful for detecting tiny amounts of explosives or chemical warfare agents.

"We had not even thought of that," Patel said. "We found out, yes, they can."

The sensors, which used carbon dioxide lasers, could detect as little as one part per billion with virtually no likelihood of a false alarm, Patel said.

But carbon dioxide lasers must be cooled to operate, and with their cooling systems, the sensors weighed about 150 pounds each, Patel said. That's fine for sampling the air in a semiconductor factory, but the military would need sensors small enough and tough enough to be carried by soldiers and used on a battlefield. The goal is a 15-pound sensor.

The Quantum Difference
That led Patel to quantum cascade lasers. They're tiny. The lasers themselves are much smaller than a coin. They don't need to be cooled, as carbon dioxide lasers do. And because of the way quantum cascade lasers produce laser light, they are powerful for their size.

Most lasers produce light by inducing electrons in semiconductor material to jump from one energy level to another - an actual quantum leap. When it jumps, the electron emits a single photon and its job is done.

In a quantum cascade laser, electrons perform a series of quantum leaps, perhaps as many as 75, emitting a photon each time. The midinfrared light these lasers produce - between 3.8 and 4.8 microns - is ideal for chemical detection.

Chemical compounds have unique "fingerprints" that can be detected at those wavelengths. Quantum cascade lasers can be tuned across a range of midinfrared wavelengths to match the known fingerprints of various chemicals.

Essentially, Patel said, "we shine a laser at it and monitor what happens to the thing that's illuminated."

One thing that can happen is heat. "If material we are illuminating absorbs the radiation, it will change temperature," Patel said, and an infrared camera can easily detect that change. The material can be identified by noting which wavelength caused the temperature increase.
Using that method, explosives can be identified from 150 meters, Patel said.

The same technology should make it possible to detect from a distance chemical weapons, pollutants from smokestacks and toxic industrial gases. And with modifications, the technology could be used to build better bomb screeners for airports and mass transit systems, he said.

Quantum cascade lasers are also expected to lead to a new generation of infrared countermeasures for military and civilian aircraft. At 4.6 microns, the lasers' wavelength would match the frequency of the infrared seekers on shoulder-fired missiles. Thus, the lasers could be used to blind the seekers as they try to lock in on the hot exhaust of jet engines.

But for Rosker and DARPA, the objective for now remains improving laser efficiency. "We're interested in trying to reduce the size and the weight, increase the power and improve the performance," Rosker said. "The whole point of the program is to get to 50 percent efficiency."

So the work continues. This summer, Pranalytica received a $3.3 million contract to keep trying to boost laser efficiency. Princeton University received a $2.5 million contract for such research, and Northwestern University received a $2 million contract.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by John Snow »

So its "material science stupid!"
Yehi tho maar kagaya hindustan.

While unkil does song and dance singing " I am a material girl...."

Indians shun material world even for Midhani it is immaterial


www-ferp.ucsd.edu/HAPL/INFO/00aug16developHAPL.doc
P V Zarubin1
1 State Unitary Enterprise, V.K. Orlov Granat Design Bureau, Moscow Russian Federation
Abstract. A review of the extensive programme of pioneering research and development of high-power lasers and laser radar undertaken in the USSR during the years 1964 — 1978 under the scientific supervision of N.G. Basov is presented. In the course of this program, many high-energy lasers with unique properties were created, new big research and design teams were formed, and the laser production and testing facilities were extended and developed. The programme was fulfilled at many leading research institutions and design bureaus of the USSR Academy of Sciences and defence industry.
http://www.rp-photonics.com/high_power_lasers.html
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Beam Weapons

Post by shiv »

sameer_shelavale wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KALI_(Laser)

The KALI has been put to various uses by the DRDO. The DRDO was involved in configuring the KALI for their use.

The X-rays emitted are being used in Ballistics research as an illuminator for ultrahigh speed photography by the Defence Ballistics Research Institute (DBRL) in Chandigarh. The Microwave emissions are used for EM Research.

The microwave-producing version of Kali has also been used by the DRDO scientists for testing the vulnerability of the electronic systems of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which was then under development.

It has also helped in designing electrostatic shields to "harden" the LCA and missiles from microwave attack by the enemy as well as protecting satellites against deadly Electromagnetic Impulses (EMI) generated by nuclear weapons and other cosmic disturbances, which "fry" and destroy electronic circuits. Electronic components currently used in missiles can withstand fields of approx. 300 V/cm, while the fields in case of EMI attack reach thousands of V/cm.
I have been reading and re reading too much about nuclear weapons. I am guessing that there are some "unmentionable" uses (Pakdef uses?) for something that can generate X rays like this and my suspicious mind draws the link.

Th quest to make fusion more efficient in a thermonuclear bum requires the design of a chamber that conducts and focuses X rays on a target. Naturally if you can test this without needing a fission bomb to generate those X rays it would add to design info.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by samuel »

Lasers have indeed taken a remarkable leap. About 10 years ago, when we needed to do LIF & PIV type experiments, by god what a chore the whole thing was. Today, I get multiwatt lasers from laser glow dot com with amazing pattern generators on top of that. Before it was pulsed this and that, now I just go get a 1W continuous wave laser for about five grand in price! Imagine a cop carrying a 100W hand-held solid-state laser, or an airship carrying a 10KW solid-state weapon. Who knows, might happen if not already!

What would be even more interesting is if we can make use of some nonlinear optics like "four wave mixing" to act as counter measures to an incoming beam! But that is still a dream :mrgreen:

for now.....frrrrrrrrr.........wipe a whole field of mijjiles clean.

S
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Johann »

N,

Direct energy weapons are the future - but are they weapons of deterrence? Perhaps the title needs to be changed.

I know we've talked about hitting leadership, but that's first and foremost an intelligence problem.

The energy weapons that might qualify as deterrents through mutual infliction of unacceptable damage between states with something to lose are probably EMP bombs - that is a future we are creeping up to.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by enqyoob »

Johann: The deterrence is in simply saying:
If you try to nuke us, the probable result is that none of your missiles will get through, and we will be completely unscathed. But we will view attempted genocide as equivalent to genocide in deciding the punishment, and there is not a thing you can do about that.
I think the weapon-destroying beam is viable. Advantage is on the side of the defender, by a large margin. The city-destroying beam is not, because if that is put up (in space), it will have to be shot down in short order. Which is easy to do - a few "smart pebbles" can do it. So there the advantage is again on the side of the defender.

For the near future, the beam weapon may be only one arm of the defense, mostly applicable to the boost phase and maybe in space. So there still have to be interceptors. But I have argued before that with any warning at all, (like rising tensions that justify a constant aerial patrol by a few large aircraft) the interceptors have the overwhelming advantage. Thus deterrence is still ensured, because no one with less than, say, 100,000 nuclear missiles to fire, can hope to achieve a surprise wipeout.

So nations will quickly realize that investing in ICBMs is a total waste of effort - the impressive mijjile shell is the most useful part of an ICBM because it can be used in Republic Day parades or painted green and put up at street corners like the Ghauri.

Why do you think US will have unlimited advantage in this area? Once it is shown to be doable, many others will rush to do it. ONPT = Optical Non Proliferation Treaty. :roll:
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Johann »

For the near future, the beam weapon may be only one arm of the defense, mostly applicable to the boost phase and maybe in space.
Hi N,

- As you've pointed out, earth-based boost phase weapons are the closest to realisation - which means that you need to be within line of sight of the missile launch for maximum PK.

That suggests the ICBMs of countries that are far away and have a large interior will be very difficult to intercept for quite some time to come. Even long-ranged SLBMs will have a real advantage.

This also excludes the challenge of cruise missiles, especially stealthy or supersonic cruise missiles.

- Deterrence against democracies, or any economically rational state is based on unacceptable damage. No system that can promise anything less than 100% success against every warhead, every time will change the political nature of deterrence. Even a couple of warheads leaking through will be unacceptable.

- It seems likely that in the medium term future the real value of beam weapons will be in the enormous range of tactical weapons which are used every day; air defence against aircraft, helicopters and missiles, shooting down artillery shells, rockets and mortar rounds, as crowd control in low power settings, as anti-sensor weapons, and anti-personnel weapons on aircraft, ground vehicles and ships.

This would have a *huge* impact on the conventional battlefield, especially in terms of its impact on indirect fire, one of the mainstays of firepower since the invention of the howitzer and the man portable mortar in the 19th century. The same goes for manned airpower and naval warfare.

- in terms of strategic weapons, consider the enormous damage EMP weapons are likely to do to power distribution, communication, and our information based economies. Think just how attractive that will be to jihadis who really want to cripple major cities and inflict massive economic losses *without* necessarily attracting nuclear annhihilation on their havens and/or sponsors.
Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Ravi Karumanchiri »

Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) comprise a number of different technologies, each with specific applications and limitations, and there is some confusion about them and what they may or may not be well suited for. You may find that I am confused also, so this is not to suggest that I am an expert. The following only reflects my current understanding. Please forgive me for jumping from topic to topic so clumsily, but my knowledge is spotty and my aim was not to write a proper essay; only to share what little I (think I) know.

In broad terms, EMP weapons are used to target areas (such as cities, military bases or naval flotillas). This is because EMP devices are not beam weapons, as the energy propagates in a waveform. Accordingly, they must be considered offensive weapons even though they are nonlethal to humans. Most or all of the EMP systems that are deployed or under development are of the single-shot variety.

True beam weapons such as lasers and x-ray devices, etc., are more suited to targeting specific objects, like missiles, aircraft, warheads or satellites. Man-portable lasers such as the ZM-87 are used to blind troops and disable optic systems.

Sonic weapons send out beams of infrasound, and these can be used for crowd control or special applications such as deterring pirates at sea without wanting to kill or capture them. I know there is a cruise ship with just such a device, and it was used to ward-off pirates pursuing them off the Somali coast.

There is a microwave beam weapon that is being tested by the Americans for what they call ‘area denial’. It works by superficially heating the skin of angry protesters, for example, causing them enough pain so they disperse. Presumably, such a device could also work on the command wires used to trigger IEDs, to detonate hidden roadside bombs from a safe distance, either by heating up the command wires or causing an electrical discharge sufficient to set-off the detonator.

The basic problem with lasers is that they must work in the atmosphere, where their effectiveness is diminished by the fact that lasers don’t necessarily travel in straight lines when shining through air masses of differing densities, and/or because the energy in lasers may be scattered by dust or even water vapour, such as clouds. It is little wonder that the American ‘success’ with ABL requires a high-flying platform to work. I doubt very much that a ground-based laser system could ever work the way it does in the movies. Having to be airborne also presents limitations such as how much energy can be carried along for the ride, and also makes the system vulnerable to all the threats facing larger, slower aircraft.

Weapons that use beams of electrons would naturally be subject to misdirection on account of the earth’s magnetic field.

IMHO, it is the microwave weapons that offer the greatest promise for the purposes of strategic deterrence, which is to say, shooting down incoming nuclear missiles or warheads. To do so, they would not target the missile directly, so the idea of achieving a ‘soft kill’ or of protective coatings on the missiles as a countermeasure, are not at issue. Instead, microwave beams will heat-up the air immediately in front of the incoming warhead or missile, and disrupt the airflow to such a degree that it causes the incoming object to tumble and break-up from the enormous stresses this would cause. A full-scale microwave weapon system would likely not involve a single emitter, but rather large arrays of antennae, perhaps spaced hundreds of kilometres apart, that would cause the interference pattern necessary to heat the air in the missile’s path. Unlike lasers, coherent microwave beams would not dissipate much in the atmosphere, nor would they be bent by air mass density differentials or the earth’s magnetic field. Because they are inherently suited to targetting incoming threats, microwave weapons should properly be considered as defensive weapons, particularly if they are ground-based.

If anything I’ve written is wrong please let me know so that I can learn from you. Thanks!
Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Ravi Karumanchiri »

Woops! :-?

I just figured-out that I may have written far too much in my previous post. I am very, very sorry! :cry: I wouldn’t have written what I did, if I knew at the time what I (think I) know now. :oops:

I would just like to add, for the record, that I am not a spy and that there is no one feeding me privileged information. I just have a certain knack as an analyst, and every so often, this causes me to reach for things that should be well beyond my grasp. When I wrote what I did, it was purely for academic reasons, and I was not trying to speculate. I hope everyone reading this can accept my explanation and my sincere apologies.

Because it would be pointless for me to take the offending post down, I will leave it up. But, if a moderator wants to take it down, I will not take offense.

I am sorry. :((
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Johann »

Ravi, I think you can probably relax :) I'm not admin, but I've been here a while, and I don't think you're going to get in to trouble with anyone!

In fact, when N3 returns to the thread he's probably going to ask you to write a paper for the Strategic Research Review blog/journal rather than shut you down!
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by enqyoob »

Now would I do a thing like that, Johann? 8)
Ravi, you have written only a small post, as a matter of fact, by BRF postor standards. We'll try to believe that you are not a "spy" :mrgreen: and that you are not revealing any privileged information. Only ppl in the "POK-2 Tests Fizzled :(( :(( " thread have REALLY "Privy" info that they tried very hard to sell us.


But like Johann says, if you are /want to be an Analyst, the way ahead is to write a paper detailing your analysis and send it to SRR. "We" will comment.
Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Ravi Karumanchiri »

Gentlemen, I think you misunderstand me. I am not worried about getting in trouble with BRF admins, nor am I worried about being “shut down” on here. This present post is my fifth, so it’s not like I’ve invested heavily in BRF. Moreover, I fully understand that this is a forum for open information sharing and democratically-inspired debate. I am not worried about upsetting any of that.

I am indeed an analyst – usually of business organizations, their internal operations and extended supply chains, and most recently, of their greenhouse gas emissions. My work as an analyst is what makes me a good consultant. In my work, I rely on my ability to bring together lots of different bits of information, to make clear sense of what seems opaque or confusing to my clients.

In light of my earlier post; if I may say so – and this is not to brag, by any means – I am sometimes too good at connecting those certain dots that actually don’t concern me or my clients; and in the past, this has garnered me unwanted attention, when I aired the wrong set of dirty laundry, so to speak. As you may be able to imagine, this has come with a certain degree of stress, and occasionally a sense of mortification, because I pride myself on being discreet. Indeed, I am sustained by my discretion.

So, when I find that I’ve said too much, my first instinct is to apologize and my second instinct is to shut-up, particularly if there’s someone else’s laundry hanging from my clothesline, especially if I like that other person.

Regarding the specific particulars that now have me tip-toeing around the issue I almost raised inadvertently, all I can say is “no comment”.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Johann »

Ravi,

We're (on the whole, eventually) grown up adults here.

I cant see anything in your post that isn't already in the public domain. If however you think you're jeopardising yourself somehow, you can always quietly use the edit button, which is what most people do when they realise they said something a bit silly.

Otherwise the self-mortification and its justification comes off as a peculiar sort of self-aggrandisement and turns discussions in to one about personalities instead of issues, which is usually a waste of time and forum space.

BRF has active participants who have served in all sorts of capacities, as well as people who love to argue, so really all that matters is your ability to coherently present facts and arguments. People wont take much else seriously. So, welcome to the discussion!
Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Ravi Karumanchiri »

Johann et al. – Please forgive me but I must disappoint you. If you absolutely insist on knowing what I (think I) know, you can re-read my comments within the broader context in which they were written, being sure to include the news of the day.

Suffice to say: all is not what it seems – in strategic affaires it never is.

To back that up in this specific instance, would demand that I speculate publically on issues clearly preferred by others to remain private, which I will not do.

Moving forward, I respectfully suggest you simply take my first post in this forum at face value, trying to understand that my subsequent posts had a sincere purpose other than self aggrandizement – much more like deference to another’s judgement, and more than a shade of self preservation.

I hope this satisfies.

Respectfully,
RK
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by enqyoob »

Ah!
One of those "If I tell ya Ah's gonnal hafta killya - Oops! I may already have spilled more than I intended to, sorry, too late now, I guess!" posts, huh?

I am awed by R.K.'s "talent for analysis". How DO you do it?
raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 95
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by raghava »

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Johann et al. – Please forgive me but I must disappoint you. If you absolutely insist on knowing what I (think I) know, you can re-read my comments within the broader context in which they were written, being sure to include the news of the day.

Suffice to say: all is not what it seems – in strategic affaires it never is.

...

RK
What you are suggesting (that is, if I am reading it correctly) is a bit beyond our capabilities at present IMVHO.

Of course, if true, good for all of us; but the events of that day might turn out to have a simpler explanation after all...!
Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Ravi Karumanchiri »

Required reading for anyone interested in this topic......

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2545&catid=329

IMVHO, only after following this link, can one consider if the title of this forum might incorrectly presuppose the current situation.

PS: Kudos to raghava - you do indeed read me correctly.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by SaiK »

Sanjay M wrote:Actually, with things like femtosecond-pulse lasers, they will easily destroy any reflective coating instantly, due to the power spike destroying the reflective surface. With the reflectivity destroyed, the rest of the laser energy can then destroy the target.
any idea at what range?
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by enqyoob »

A missile warhead is designed for hypersonic flight down to fairly low altitudes. In normal flight, the bow shock layer is strong enough to include ionization anyway, so encountering a "plasma" is nothing new.

A normal shock, at the hypersonic limit of Mach number independence (extremely high Mach number or shock strength) has a density ratio of 7.

When the same device has descended to lower altitudes, it can survive much higher pressures and densities.

So a shock wave created by energy release at high altitude, where the density is pretty low, can do no more than "deflect" the vehicle. Its control system will simply correct its attitude and get it back onto the needed trajectory. This is a complete waste of energy as far as trying to destroy warheads.

Modern warheads have some measure of aerodynamic control in order to maneuver.

The other way of looking at it is using Blast Wave theory. This theory is based on the fact that a hypersonic vehicle nose has the same effect on the air, as a detonation, as far as creating a strong shock. The energy delivery to the air is similar.

IOW, one would have to deliver an amount of energy equivalent to the drag of a warhead, to create a shock of equivalent strength. To the air in front of the vehicle. Without getting any of it absorbed in the atmosphere along the beam, though it is at the same frequency as the beam at the focal plane.

If you can deliver that much energy, why not do it right into the body of the vehicle and vaporize it? It is quite true that Masers may have been more efficient than Lasers in the past, but not if laser efficiency exceeds 30%

So why does this "plasma shock" stuff make any sense, any more than the "Red Mercury" claims that surfaced on some Russian sites a while back? .
Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Ravi Karumanchiri »

Further suggested reading (not from some arcane Russian website, but the FAS itself)……………

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program ... ia_org.htm

Excerpted third-to-last paragraph……..

“Joint testing of plasma weapons may become the first practical co-operation effort. As discussed during the last summit, Russia and America may fulfil a joint project "Trust", which envisages destruction of ballistic missiles with the help of Russian-built microwave and optic plasma generators and systems.”

enqyoob -- I would welcome your assessment of the torsional forces exerted by asymmetric shock waves and their potential to cause a high-velocity object to tumble and break-up from over stresses, as mentioned in my original post. I would also like to hear your assessment of the comparative complexity of ‘missile science’ versus the applied science required to direct energy beams at fast-moving targets. Which do you think is more complex, and in what way?

Thank you in advance,
RK
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by enqyoob »

The plasma shock weapon seems to depend on creating a fast-moving "brick wall" in the path of the oncoming vehicle. This would destroy any aircraft that depends on wings etc, no doubt. But what I wonder about is, what will it do to a vehicle that is already built to go through exactly those magnitudes of pressure/temperature waves.

Yes, shocks coming from odd directions could seriously affect the trajectory. Most warhead gizmos that I have seen (only in pictures) are essentially hemisphere-nose followed by a conical afterbody, ending in a blunt base. I don't know which way they re-enter: if it was a space capsule for soft touchdown they would want to decelerate quickly, so the base faces the wind and generates a big shock. But a warhead should come down ASAP, so probably the nose faces forward, and must be built for extreme dynamic pressures and heating. I don't know about the rest of the body, but the weight penalty for building all of it for high shock stresses should be small compared to the payload mass, I would think.

If shocks are likely to come from odd directions during final descent, I would redesign the warhead/descent vehicle to be essentially spherical, with maybe some jets that can be operated for last-minute trajectory corrections. That would be end of that technique, except that the ball can be deflected a bit and hence it would wipe out, say, Nagpur instead of Mumbai. Not very comforting.

So I don't yet see why this would be an effective weapon. On the other hand, an explosion from using explosive on a missile, is also mostly a detonation wave, so one could ask why that would destroy the vehicle if it is immune to hypersonic blast waves. The answer has to be that the thermal effects are even worse in this case. Or maybe it is the sheer suddenness of the shock that sets up fatal vibrations in the warhead's structure and breaks it apart.

Direct impact of a solid piece from an explosion, of course, is another matter, but requires getting a missile into the exact path of the oncoming warhead at a high altitude, in time.

As for the beam generation etc., once the right frequency is found to cause the interesting effects on air, I would say that computation speed is the only real barrier. You can get speed-of-light return of information along the entire projected beam path, so the information is there, to reconform the transmitting antenna (an electronic phase-shifting process, not mechanical deflection) so that the desired end result is achieved despite atmospheric turbulence, vehicle maneuvering etc.

The major advantage of the beam weapon is that it can swing around through huge distances, and stop on a dime, without being constrained by the acceleration and force required. But heating the air should take some substantial time (so does an explosion, so it's not a relative disadvantage, necessarily).

You have to do the image/signal processing at truly incredible speeds, though. This is the real limitation. But that has already been solved in the airplane-based boost-phase intercept business.

For the air heating weapon to work, there is another condition: It must be a nonlinear effect. In other words, absorption of that frequency must be very very low, as long as the beam intensity is below some threshold. But at the focus, in a very small region, the intensity goes above this threshold and causes breakdown of the air into plasma (electrons get stripped off). Once this starts happening, it must happen at an incredibly high rate, and ALL the energy is absorbed into this region.

This is plausible. It is the concept behind lightning in some ways - why lightning bolts occur through extremely thin tubes where electrical conductivity becomes very high (some similarity also to tubelights, where most of the energy is efficiently delivered into the electronic excitation modes). The secondary benefit (or maybe primary benefit) may be that it causes such a high electrical disturbance that it finishes off any guidance circuitry inside the warhead. The critical beam intensity level for microwave / millimeter wave beams to break down air, has been reported in 1980s papers in the public domain as being around 1GW energy input (which requires a massive power source on the ground for each beam). Maybe they have found some wavelengths where much more interesting things happen.

Anyway, interesting stuff for ppl studying nonlinear effects on air. Call them "GigaTubelights" :mrgreen:
Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Ravi Karumanchiri »

Dear enqyoob, Thank you very much for your last post in this forum. You seem to have given it some thought. I must however, respectfully differ with your assessment. For starters, it doesn’t seem to me that this kind of a system would “depend on creating a fast-moving ‘brick wall’ in the path of the oncoming vehicle”, as you stated. Your analogy of ‘brick wall’ would seem to suggest the exact opposite of the desired effect, which is not to create a super-dense boundary to keep the target out, but rather an ultra-sparse pocket – a very low pressure area – which would effectively suck-in the target as it accelerates into the pocket of plasma, thus diverting it. This pocket of plasma would conceivably be at near absolute vacuum pressures. Within the pocket of plasma, control surfaces would not work at all, and the target’s attitude would likely become chaotic. Furthermore, I doubt any puny thrust vectoring jets could overcome the boundary layer between the plasma pocket and the atmosphere beyond it, particularly if the plasma pocket is moving appropriately.

Consider also that the shock layer of a descending RV grows in magnitude over a relatively smooth curve, as speed and air density increase, and that it effectively acts to protect the RV during its flight through the atmosphere. But, when it flies into an area devoid of normal atmosphere, such as a plasma-induced vacuum, the shock layer should disappear altogether, meaning that if the beam is turned off and the plasma pocket collapses, you would now have the target warhead colliding into still air without any shock layer to protect it. I doubt any RV could be built to survive this stress, even if it happens just once along its flight path; which of course raises the prospect of it happening multiple times, perhaps multiple times per second. I would be very interested to see a convincing calculation of these stresses.

Also, why would heating the air with the use of beams take some substantial time? The electrical discharges of lightning seem to do the same in very short order.

Please also consider that the drawing on the Russian website I noted above (which you can click on to see a larger view of); clearly shows multiple beams intersecting at the desired point. It is not hard to imagine that multiple microwave beams intersecting would create an interference pattern that could rapidly generate the desired effects when proper harmonics are achieved. Indeed, achieving wavelength harmonics would seem to me to be one of the key aspects of making this work. Furthermore, consider the language used by the Russians, which clearly indicates they are using two different kinds of beams – microwaves and lasers – which the drawing shows being used in tandem.

The other potential problem you indicated – the need for a massive power source – can be addressed with very large capacitors, or fast-start engines, perhaps jet engines, or even by drawing on grid power, which is in excess during the evening and night hours.

Lastly, just let me say that I would welcome any post that corrects my understanding where it would seem to be wrong, because this is the only way I can learn here. Not being an expert in these matters myself; please understand that every argument I have offered, I have offered purely for the purpose of information exchange, with a desire to learn.

Thanks for reading,
RK
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by enqyoob »

For starters, it doesn’t seem to me that this kind of a system would “depend on creating a fast-moving ‘brick wall’ in the path of the oncoming vehicle”, as you stated. Your analogy of ‘brick wall’ would seem to suggest the exact opposite of the desired effect, which is not to create a super-dense boundary to keep the target out, but rather an ultra-sparse pocket – a very low pressure area – which would effectively suck-in the target as it accelerates into the pocket of plasma, thus diverting it. This pocket of plasma would conceivably be at near absolute vacuum pressures. Within the pocket of plasma, control surfaces would not work at all, and the target’s attitude would likely become chaotic.
Ah! I bow to your obvious expertise on supersonic flight and ballistic trajectories at high altitude.
Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence

Post by Ravi Karumanchiri »

Dear enqyoob – There can be no doubt that you have grossly over-estimated my “obvious expertise on supersonic flight and ballistic trajectories at high altitude”. I honestly don’t know if I should be flattered and laugh out loud, or if I should let my suspicious mind wonder how firmly your tongue is planted in your cheek……

Another thing my suspicious mind is wondering about, is the speed with which that Russian website I linked to above on 25 Nov 2009 11:06 pm was taken down. I am quite sure that particular webpage has been up for at least a couple of years, and then a dozen hours or so after I linked to it here, it went dead. Hmmmmmmm (’nuff said).

I just checked, and if anyone is interested in reading it, most of it still exists in the Google Cache Memory (for the time being). To find it, simply type the following into Google and it results in a “Google-Whack” (meaning only one result – click on the little ‘Cached’ link to read what Google holds in its memory). Type exactly the following (using the syntax for a site-specific search)………………….

plasmoid site:warfare.ru

While you’re at it, also worth doing is the same kind of site-specific search, but on the FAS website. Type exactly…………

plasmoid site:fas.org

This FAS search returns 16 pages, pretty much all worth reading, if you are interested in the topic.

Very interesting technical information can be found at http://www.fas.org/news/russia/1995/druma192_s95028.htm where the Russians describe power requirements for such a DEW and the likely effects, which produce an operational result by decreasing air pressure in the target plasmoid region to about 30% of normal, which seems to be enough to destroy winged aircraft and divert RVs.

Be sure also to read the statement by Lieutenant General Robert L. Schweitzer, which can be found at http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_hr/j970617s.htm although this deals more with EMPs than with DEW. That brings me to another related topic…………

FOR THOSE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, I noticed that tonight’s ‘Coast-to-Coast-AM’ radio show is being hosted by Art Bell, and his guest is Professor William Forstchen who will discuss his work on the threat of Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) weapons. Professor Forstchen’s website is http://www.onesecondafter.com

In case you don’t know, the ‘Coast-to-Coast-AM’ radio show is the world’s most widely listened to night-time radio broadcast, and radio stations across the United States and Canada broadcast the show, which runs from 1AM-5AM Eastern Standard Time. There are frequently very interesting programs on this show, on a wide variety of topics, ocassionally including 'Future Weapons'.

If you are not in North America and can’t otherwise listen-in via your radio, I suggest you visit the show’s website at www.coasttocoastam.com and click on the link for ‘Radio Affiliates’ (right under the picture of the show’s regular host, George Noory), and do some digging to find a radio station that also simulcasts over the internet (there are many – usually looking for a ‘Listen Live’ or ‘On Air’ link will bring you to some kind of audio player you can use to listen-in live). Be sure to pay attention to time zones, when making such plans.
Post Reply