Talk:Tactical High Energy Laser

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Middle East / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Teledyne Brown Engineering

No references to their work on the project (which was significant).

NPOV

The "oh this might not work" section seem to be much smaller than the "oh, it's great" section. Especially in light of the SCADS of evidence that this (and similar systems) won't work due to the desires of politicians being second to the simple facts of physics. I know, my POV is showing. I'll back it up with some citations soon. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Especially in light of the SCADS of evidence that this (and similar systems) won't work due to the desires of politicians being second to the simple facts of physics." Actually, I'm at a loss about what you're even talking about. There has been quite a bit of skepticism towards the idea of using missile-based interceptors against ballistic missiles. Though a laser-based system seems to be less complicated from a technical standpoint. My guess is that you taking your skepticism towards a *missile-based* means of *ballistic missile* interception and turning that into a much more generalized skepticism against all forms of interceptor technology (laser-based and otherwise) against a wide variety of targets (mortars, missiles, artillery, aircraft, etc). - BC, November 12, 2005

The tone and writing style of this article leads me to think that it (bar the final lines casting some doubt on the claims of accuracy) was taken from an official press release. I have no proof of this, but the article does appear word for word elsewhere on the internet.

This article reads very strangely. Whatever the reason, I feel it's in dire need of a major re-write. Shockeroo (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: it reads like a product brochure or press release. --geoff_o (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Purpose of Article is Convey Descriptive Information About Stated Topic

...just like any other encyclopedia, not to be a political platform for debate about the topic. The article as written largely accomplishes that purpose. It does need some factual updates, as the MTHEL system has been recently delayed due to reduced Israeli financial participation.

Here are a few more links: Joema 20:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After further review I agree there was some non-encyclopedic stuff of a press release nature. Removed or rephrased that to make it more factual. The purpose of an encyclopedia is NOT to present pro/con options about items, but convey factual descriptions. Joema 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radar

[1] - it is written here, that the "Red Color" (formerly, Red Dawn (alert)) alert makes use of the programm's radar, located near Nahal Oz, though the laser itself isn't there... Flayer 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

The first line of this article reads "The cooperative Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) Demonstrator ACTD was designed and built by the United States and Israeli governments on July 18, 1996." Unless the two governments actually designed and built the whole thing in a single day, I'm not sure what this refers to. Is it the start of the contract? The first test firing? The original expected delivery date? The day the initial proposal was submitted? 134.117.219.243 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. The wording was caused by a botched edit by an anon contributor, which was never corrected. I looked up and restored the original wording. Joema 04:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refractive vs. Reflective

I've believe ablative refractive (ceramic) coatings are the sort of thing any feasible upgraded Qassam would have; instead of a mirrored finished. Where as ablatives force the laser to have a increased dwell-on-target time, mirrors are useless unless they can reflect a substantial portion of the incoming energy (which in this case is infrared vs visible light). Under the manufacturing conditions the rockets are made under, it would be easier and probably more effective to procure and transport, say Titanium Dioxide vs polishing the rocket casing. ~~No Account Yet (sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.199.248 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any calculatuions?

Assuming that we coat rocket head with quartz glass(which is transparent to all possible laser radiation) or other high temperature and low light absorption ceramic, it is quite possible that it will require unrealistic amount of energy to heat that rocket shield enough to melt . Only thing what laser can be used is to blind rocket heat seeking device. Even moderately primitive rocket can be made invulnerable to such weapon or it can even use its radiation as guide.

Furthermore it is theoretically possible(and partially tested) to use laser energy as additional energy source to drive rocket. so this laser system can be used to power and steer own rockets which will severely reduce amount of required fuel increase distance or payload or reduce rocket cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.118.69.71 (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rotation

"# In a similar vein to the above, a rotating missile will halve the effective area over which the radiation is incident, yet another countermeasure technique or method. This occurs as it is assumed that there would only be one direction from which the THEL radiation would be incident – but this technique has a countermeasure effect even when there are multiple THEL laser radiation sources pointed at the same projectile (assuming that there is some outer boundary area of the missile upon which no laser radiation is incident)."

That is the silliest thing I've ever read on lasers. Artillery shells spin due to rifling of the barrel, many rockets spin due to poor construction or stability. The laser arrives at a billionth of a second, a dancer at pirouette in front of a gun but it won't do any good. This argument is a decades old one against SDI, wong then and wrong now.Lyta79 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyta, you're thinking of pulse lasers, this one's a "constant burn" one. Pulse lasers deliver all their energy in one "burst" that makes spinning useless as you mentioned, but constant burn ones take a while to "cook" the rocket's fuel to combustion, so spreading out the energy actually works. For a while at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.5.68 (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why discontinued?

It seems to say "this laser is cheap, almost 100% accurate, mobile, and just what is needed to defend against the rockets etc coming from (for example) Gaza, but it has been discontinued in favour of nothing". Why was it stopped, and what are current plans for the future? Also, the second paragraph of 'demonstrator' is talking in future tense about 1998! Sparrer (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a political play in an anti-government newspaper, Haartz or something like that. The system is NOT cheap, what they say is cheap is "cost per shot" i.e it only takes X dollars to generate the power to fire the laser vs Y dollars to launch an anti-missile. It's going to be "replaced" by the "Iron Dome" anti-missile system. "Replaced" as in it was never in any position to take on the job anyhow as it is still way too experimental. Another advantage to a missile based anti-missile is the ability to "mass fire" all your counter-missiles, while a laser can only hit targets one at a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.5.68 (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20040404083748/http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/thel.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle reference?

The "Heat Resistant Coating Layers" section discussing "fall away layers" is entirely inaccurate when referencing the Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle thermal protection system is not designed to fall off the Shuttle. There were early problems with the adhesive holding the tiles to the aluminum structure of the Orbiter, but they were NEVER designed to do so, and in fact the loss of ceramic thermal tiles at critical locations is a potential source of catastrophic loss of the vehicle. This entire idea should be removed from the article. Source: http://academicearth.org/lectures/orbiter-structure-plus-thermal-protection-system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.244.188.144 (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC) 64.244.188.114 is correct, the shuttle reference is complete fabrication. The rest of the countermeasures section is also suspect. Beware of arguments against missile defense systems that use terms like "simply" and "quite simply" in terms of countermeasures. This is often a sign of trumped up charges from an ideological opposition rather than a technical one. If we are to evaluate the claims of missile defense advocates critically, we must do so also to persons ideologically opposed to it, Union of Concerned Scientists for example. Let both view points stand up to detailed scrutiny. -Correcto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.18 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP not howto?

I'm not sure about this, but the policy of wikipedia is not to describe at length how to do something. Basically, this is usually intended to stop people writing tutorials. But I think it may be relevant in this case, as there is an extensive write up of how to make counter-measures for this weapons system. I'm sure someone found a great source listing potential arguments for counter measures, but describing them in such detail, especially in comparison to the minimal detail on the actual laser system seems unbalanced at best, and a breach of not-how-to at worst. However maybe thats just my interpretation.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countermeasures

Over 72% of the entire article consisted of unverified claims just having to do with countermeasure proposals. The section was tagged well over a year ago for OR with nothing done and someone actually thought fit to expand upon it with a new sub-section with more unsourced content. Unbalanced, unsourced, and unencylopedic. Readers gain no deeper understanding about THEL by reading theoretical, poorly written proposals on how to counter it. Removed/Rewrote unnecessary elaborations, subsection, and section on problems with countermeasures. If someone would like to source 'em and expand from there knock yourself out. Just try to keep it balanced with the rest of the article. $\sim$ ℗ papajohnin ^(talk)^(?) —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I removed both the countermeasures and "problems with countermeasures" sections. Long enough to wait for sources. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

Removed these from the external links section, possible sources to add to article. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]