Iron Beam Concept
At a South Korean defense technology expo earlier this week, Israel's
defense manufacturer Rafael showed off its Iron Beam anti-drone laser system.
While not yet deployed, the system is likely to become a standard feature of
defenses in years to come, as technologically advanced militaries look for
cheap ways to destroy drones and incoming rockets. If Iron Beam becomes widely
adopted, it'll be a sign that lasers are the best defense against drones.
There are
four basic ways to stop a hostile drone. The first is destroying it with
missiles or bullets. The second is simply catching them with
nets, perhaps even nets carried by other drones (as in this South Korean example) . A third option is jamming the drones' communication signals, and
relying on its programming to send it straight to the ground. Finally, there are lasers.
Laser
weapons work by burning a hole through a drone, either disabling its computery
guts or making it crash because there's a hole in its wing and it can't keep
flying. Lasers are tricky because they take a lot of power, and the beam has to
stay focused on the drone long enough to burn through, so they also require sophisticated targeting cameras and software.
That's a lot of hurdles to overcome, but the end result is a weapon that's fast
and very, very cheap on a per-shot basis.
Rafael's Iron Beam comes in two variants. One is designed
to destroy rockets and mortar shells, stopping the small and cheap explosives
before they land and cause damage. Another is designed to take out drones. The
company says it's been very successful in tests, but hasn't revealed more
information that that.
The range on these systems is just over 1 and a
quarter miles, and they use radar to track targets first before switching to
thermal cameras. The Iron Beam system fits in a shipping crate and can be used
in place or mounted on the back of a truck. Because it's a laser weapon, it can
keep shooting for as long as it has electrical power. That makes it an ideal
defense against low-tech attacks, because while the system itself is expensive,
per use it's likely cheaper than the weapons it is destroying.
Kelsey D.
Atherton Popular
Science
No comments:
Post a Comment