I will believe it when I see it. Focusing that much light on a small moving object, through layered and moving air, with an intensity to burn through metal would be an achievement. Burning through enough of that metal to degrade a falling rocket (as opposed to during boost phase of flight) is even harder. For all the talk about cost reduction, have a look at what realworld laser armor costs. Painting the nosecone of a rocket white, or coating it with reflective foil costs next to nothing but is remarkably effective.
Better question: What would this do to a manned aircraft? There is a reason there are treaties against blinding weapons.
...and then what. What will they do when the rockets get faster, shinier, more erratic in flight...or any of the other things mentioned on this thread? I'm not going to pretend I have the solutions to the Arab Isreali conflict, but this is at best temporary. My best guess is the long term solution (if there is ever one attempted) will be more related to why people are motivated to launch rockets at their neighbours.
>" My best guess is the long term solution (if there is ever one attempted) will be more related to why people are motivated to launch rockets at their neighbours."
The problem is that the Palestinians are a heterogeneous group. Even if the Palestinian government makes a 'peace' deal with the Israelis, other Palestinians opposed to the deal can 'break' it by shooting off a few cheap rockets. Further complicating the issue, there are outside parties (such as the Iranians) who have a vested interest in preventing a lasting peace (in order to preserve their influence both in Palestine and in Lebanon).
These "advanced" rockets will be more costly, which means your more limited on how many you can afford to fire. Thus Israel can intercept these "advanced" rockets with other solutions: Iron Dome, Arrow 2, Arrow 3, and David's Sling.
The Iron Beam is the low cost per intercept solution, meant to intercept cheap unguided ballistic rockets.
IIRC (based on hard SF laser defece discussions) there is no perfect mirror, so pump enough MW/GW into it, even just for a short burst and the thing will start to melt or outright vaporize from the bit that it will always absorb.
Then it won't be so shiny anymore, absorbing even more energy and so on, until it stops being a solid object.
As for erratic flight paths - a physical object can't aim to match the beam steering capabilities of a group based stationary laser, given any realistic currently available propulsion or steering technology. It would need to do crazy high g & high energy manufacturing yet from the PoV of the laser its moving just a couple degrees if at all. As unlike a physical interceptor the laser beam moves at the speed of light and thud the point of aim can more more or less instantaneously.
An arms race generally benefits the side with more money.
> My best guess is the long term solution (if there is ever one attempted) will be more related to why people are motivated to launch rockets at their neighbours.
There's been plenty of attempts to have peace conferences and what not. There's a wide gap between attempting and actually getting something to stick.
Which shows you're missing the fundamental problem. There can be no peace with the Palestinians because it's not the Palestinians that Israel is actually at war with in the first place. Rather, they are pawns of their backers--if you somehow make peace with a pawn another simply steps up. Any peace agreement that actually worked would have to be with those backers--and they have never even been at the negotiating table.
Look at the conflicts of the world. Pawns don't get defeated. Most of the time the other side decides the situation isn't worth it and leaves, but in this case that's not an option because the other side has no possible retreat.
Note that a pawn can lose it's backing which in effects promotes it to being a king--and kings can be defeated.
Almost all rocket attacks come from Gaza. The remaining ones are from Syria (actually Iranian Al Quds units stationed there) and Lebanon (the Palestinian Iranian-funded Hizbollah).
The option is there to conquer and reoccupy Gaza. It would be terribly expensive in terms of human lives and the occupation will be very difficult to keep, but it would solve the problem of the rockets.
Ditto for Lebanon and Syria. From the 2006 war, often considered a failure for Israel, there were nonetheless very very few rocket attacks from Lebanon.
So defensive weapons could also be a perverse incentive, since they discourage military action that is more direct and more effective for the long term.
It's a very difficult problem. People are motivated to launch rockets because of grievances and because they see an advantage to do so. Israel has rewarded these kinds of attacks more then one time (e.g. loosening the blockade on Gaza) and the world has become quite convinced with the Palestinian narrative.
Israel's options are limited to defensive weapons (with a lot of problems long-term) and offensive ones (very expensive in terms of lives, government popularity, PR, etc..)
There’s hardly an Israeli Arab conflict any more. Peace was achieved in large through force projection and mutual interests; these technologies are an important part of both.
The best initial solution I believe is for the world to protect Palestine from the rockets fired from the Israel side - that way any retaliations to the small group of people firing rockets at Israel don't kill civilians or damage their infrastructure; e.g. put an Iron Dome or better system on the Palestinian side.
This harms the credibility of Amnesty International. There are many criticisms you can lay against Israel regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but "apartheid" doesn't pass the laugh test.
I saw this post was marked dead/flagged. I "vouched" for it. Something i haven't done in so long I can only remember commenting about it. I hope it worked. I do agree with the other comments that a bit more writing on your end could have helped. However if we are having a good faith discussion, coupled with your reply to yuvalr, I do not see how your comment can be seen as bad faith.
> "If we can intercept a missile or rocket with an electrical pulse that costs a few dollars, we will essentially neutralize the ring of fire that Iran has set up ... This new generation of air defence can also serve our friends in the region, who are also exposed to grave threats from Iran and its proxies.
This is admirable. Instead of playing the typical offense-first arms race, they are in a defense-first technology race. Its non-violent and the technology and skills will benefit the entire country. I hope they eventually win the war just by building a far better country that people want to immigrate into instead of attack.
>This new generation of air defence can also serve our friends in the region, who are also exposed to grave threats from Iran and its proxies.
Interestingly enough this system will be available to all those neighborly enough to join Israel against all the Iranian-backed adversaries. It sounds like sales of technology from the NSO group was a real foot-in-the-door for Israel for forging of new, previously unlikely alliances.
Once you get all these rich petro-states hooked on the products that you can peddle then maybe the overall security situation in that region changes dramatically. For one, it becomes more likely that one of these operators could act unilaterally and thus could kick off a war that no one else wanted when other options were still on the table.
>"It sounds like sales of technology from the NSO group was a real foot-in-the-door for Israel for forging of new, previously unlikely alliances."
Israel has had 'secret' alliances with some supposedly 'antagonistic' states for a long time. These are all just extensions of those previously hidden relationships.
I'm curious where the tipping point is, where the military response exceeds the financial cost of a political response. It's one thing to have tensions simmering on both sides of a border, it's another that one side feels wronged and is lobbing bombs over the fence.
The fact that they're having to develop a laser defense system to defend against lobbed bombs seems like it's time to reevaluate political solutions.
There are really only three solutions. One, Israel annexes Palestine in its current form, and ceases to be a Jewish state. Two, Israel annexes Palestine after removing its current inhabitants. Three, Israel stays in a state of low-grade warfare while carving out the most desireable bits of Palestine for its settlers as its population grows.
One is untenable for obvious reasons. Two is untenable until memories of the holocaust cease being a formative experience for Israel, so essentially untenable for the rest of our natural lives. Three is not only the only option available, it's actually not that bad a situation while Israel can maintain its military dominance.
I think a big mistake we in the west make when thinking about 'solutions' to the conflict is assuming both sides want peace. That's not been my impression on hearing anyone from either side talk, peace activists from the region but unconnected to the ruling structure notwithstanding.
The last time I saw Israel doing something like this it was an infrared laser, each laser used a massive "chemical reaction battery" to power the laser. But each burst of shots used a big sea container looking battery that churned out some truly hideous chemical waste.
I wonder how they plan on powering this new system.
you are probably talking about THEL from 20 years ago. those "batteries" were reason that it never became operational: too risky to be around them in case they blow up.
new one are fiber optic lasers i think
"If we can intercept a missile or rocket with an electrical pulse that costs a few dollars, we will essentially neutralize the ring of fire that Iran has set up"
This sets up a steampunk scenario where the missile must be controlled by a mechanical gyroscopic guidance system, immune from electrical pulses.
"Electrical pulse" as in using some electricity rather than using a missile. Iron Dome missiles are cheap as SAMs go--they're short range and don't have to cope with countermeasures, but electricity is far cheaper. Iron Beam costs will basically be manning and wear rather than expended ammo.
With rockets I'm guessing that thermal signatures are used to home in on the projectile being destroyed. But I'm wondering what's being used here to keep the laser locked onto the target projectile. It's definitely an impressive technological feat.
Typically you'd use radar to detect incoming projectiles, using multiple detections over time to determine the trajectory of an incoming missile (they are usually unguided and will thus follow a predictable ballistic trajectory).
The arrow missile system uses the Israeli green pine radar for acquisition and tracking while the arrow interceptor has both passive ir and active radar tracking.
The issue is global conflicts have a lot of missiles. Your 98% success rate probably still means most Americans are dead. IIRC Russia's ICBMs are measured in tens of thousands, and each one could take out a major US city (until we ran out)
Industrial lasers use water cooled copper mirrors to avoid overheating and destroying the mirror. Keeping them clean is a big issue. Seems it would be quite hard to make a missile sufficiently reflective that a mirror coating wouldn’t quickly degrade.
This tech will be the end of MAD and the start of WW3. The only thing holding back current super powers from direct confrontation are ICBMs and MAD. Once they can be reliably shot down via lasers, then full scale war is much more likely. I understand the current tech is for much slower, much lower rockets and cruise missiles. But the tech will evolve and get better. Israel is the current test bed for high tech defense, so expect further improvements over the next decade. We have seen a century of relative peace, enjoy it while it lasts.
[+] [-] sandworm101|4 years ago|reply
Better question: What would this do to a manned aircraft? There is a reason there are treaties against blinding weapons.
[+] [-] jimnotgym|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickff|4 years ago|reply
The problem is that the Palestinians are a heterogeneous group. Even if the Palestinian government makes a 'peace' deal with the Israelis, other Palestinians opposed to the deal can 'break' it by shooting off a few cheap rockets. Further complicating the issue, there are outside parties (such as the Iranians) who have a vested interest in preventing a lasting peace (in order to preserve their influence both in Palestine and in Lebanon).
[+] [-] RegnisGnaw|4 years ago|reply
The Iron Beam is the low cost per intercept solution, meant to intercept cheap unguided ballistic rockets.
[+] [-] m4rtink|4 years ago|reply
Then it won't be so shiny anymore, absorbing even more energy and so on, until it stops being a solid object.
As for erratic flight paths - a physical object can't aim to match the beam steering capabilities of a group based stationary laser, given any realistic currently available propulsion or steering technology. It would need to do crazy high g & high energy manufacturing yet from the PoV of the laser its moving just a couple degrees if at all. As unlike a physical interceptor the laser beam moves at the speed of light and thud the point of aim can more more or less instantaneously.
[+] [-] bawolff|4 years ago|reply
> My best guess is the long term solution (if there is ever one attempted) will be more related to why people are motivated to launch rockets at their neighbours.
There's been plenty of attempts to have peace conferences and what not. There's a wide gap between attempting and actually getting something to stick.
[+] [-] LorenPechtel|4 years ago|reply
Look at the conflicts of the world. Pawns don't get defeated. Most of the time the other side decides the situation isn't worth it and leaves, but in this case that's not an option because the other side has no possible retreat.
Note that a pawn can lose it's backing which in effects promotes it to being a king--and kings can be defeated.
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sharikous|4 years ago|reply
The option is there to conquer and reoccupy Gaza. It would be terribly expensive in terms of human lives and the occupation will be very difficult to keep, but it would solve the problem of the rockets.
Ditto for Lebanon and Syria. From the 2006 war, often considered a failure for Israel, there were nonetheless very very few rocket attacks from Lebanon.
So defensive weapons could also be a perverse incentive, since they discourage military action that is more direct and more effective for the long term.
It's a very difficult problem. People are motivated to launch rockets because of grievances and because they see an advantage to do so. Israel has rewarded these kinds of attacks more then one time (e.g. loosening the blockade on Gaza) and the world has become quite convinced with the Palestinian narrative.
Israel's options are limited to defensive weapons (with a lot of problems long-term) and offensive ones (very expensive in terms of lives, government popularity, PR, etc..)
[+] [-] RobRivera|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weatherlite|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flyinglizard|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] namlem|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chakhs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loceng|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guerrilla|4 years ago|reply
1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...
[+] [-] yuvalr1|4 years ago|reply
By the way, you could have shown Israel's response to this report as well:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-attacks-delusional-amnes...
[+] [-] nsxwolf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skinnymuch|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flyinglizard|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] towe12301923|4 years ago|reply
This is admirable. Instead of playing the typical offense-first arms race, they are in a defense-first technology race. Its non-violent and the technology and skills will benefit the entire country. I hope they eventually win the war just by building a far better country that people want to immigrate into instead of attack.
[+] [-] doodlebugging|4 years ago|reply
Interestingly enough this system will be available to all those neighborly enough to join Israel against all the Iranian-backed adversaries. It sounds like sales of technology from the NSO group was a real foot-in-the-door for Israel for forging of new, previously unlikely alliances.
Once you get all these rich petro-states hooked on the products that you can peddle then maybe the overall security situation in that region changes dramatically. For one, it becomes more likely that one of these operators could act unilaterally and thus could kick off a war that no one else wanted when other options were still on the table.
Interesting development overall.
[+] [-] nickff|4 years ago|reply
Israel has had 'secret' alliances with some supposedly 'antagonistic' states for a long time. These are all just extensions of those previously hidden relationships.
[+] [-] hadlock|4 years ago|reply
The fact that they're having to develop a laser defense system to defend against lobbed bombs seems like it's time to reevaluate political solutions.
[+] [-] SuoDuanDao|4 years ago|reply
One is untenable for obvious reasons. Two is untenable until memories of the holocaust cease being a formative experience for Israel, so essentially untenable for the rest of our natural lives. Three is not only the only option available, it's actually not that bad a situation while Israel can maintain its military dominance.
I think a big mistake we in the west make when thinking about 'solutions' to the conflict is assuming both sides want peace. That's not been my impression on hearing anyone from either side talk, peace activists from the region but unconnected to the ruling structure notwithstanding.
[+] [-] jlawson|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Footkerchief|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snidane|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] senectus1|4 years ago|reply
I wonder how they plan on powering this new system.
[+] [-] tguvot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hirundo|4 years ago|reply
This sets up a steampunk scenario where the missile must be controlled by a mechanical gyroscopic guidance system, immune from electrical pulses.
[+] [-] fuzzy2|4 years ago|reply
I think the rockets it has to defend against are already as low-tech as possible, too.
[+] [-] LorenPechtel|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alfalfasprout|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WJW|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] datameta|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LegitShady|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RivieraKid|4 years ago|reply
Basically, if the US invested 1% of the GDP into developing a missile shield, could it achieve let's say a 98% success rate against incoming missiles?
[+] [-] HWR_14|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Havoc|4 years ago|reply
From what I can tell all the existing tech is still reasonably niche and expensive.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 323|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mr_toad|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] james-redwood|4 years ago|reply
(in reference to the Republican congresswoman who blamed the California wildfires on Jewish space lasers: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-gree...)
[+] [-] dexwiz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] potiuper|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] copperwater69|4 years ago|reply
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apart...
[+] [-] hunterb123|4 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30170308