Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Report: Raytheon 'heat beam' weapon ready for Iraq
Boston Business Journal ^ | 12/01/04

Posted on 12/05/2004 1:23:24 PM PST by blink182prj

Government defense giant Raytheon Co. has developed the first nonlethal weapon that fires a heat beam to repel enemies and reduces the chance of innocent civilians being shot, a Pentagon official said.

Raytheon, the world's largest missile maker, delivered a prototype to the U.S. military last month. The product is expected to be evaluated from February through June to determine whether to equip U.S. forces with it, Colonel David Karcher, director of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, told Bloomberg Business News.

With U.S. casualties in Iraq rising, expectations are growing that Raytheon's weapon, called the Active Denial System, could be sent to Iraq in the next year, according to Charles "Sid'' Heal, commander of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. A former Marine, Heal headed nonlethal-weapons training for the U.S. military in Somalia in 1995 and advised Raytheon on the beam's development.

"It's there, it's ready,'' said Heal, who has felt the weapon's beam and compares it to having a hot iron placed on the skin. "It will likely be in Iraq in the next 12 months. They are very, very close.''

The weapon, mounted on a Humvee vehicle, projects a "focused, speed-of-light millimeter wave energy beam to induce an intolerable heating sensation,'' according to a U.S. Air Force fact sheet. The energy penetrates less than 1/64 of an inch into the skin and the sensation ceases when the target moves out of the beam.

The weapon could be used for crowd control and is effective beyond the range of bullets fired by small arms, Karcher said. The effective range of an AK-47 assault rifle is as far as 273 yards, while an M16A2 rifle has a range of 400 meters.

The primary benefit would be protecting U.S. troops, Heal said. The weapon would also limit deaths of noncombatants, he said.

"This forces your adversary to declare intentions,'' Heal said. "U.S. forces get killed because they are reluctant to shoot. It happens in Iraq every day."

"This is where the future is going,'' Raytheon Chief Executive William Swanson, 55, said at a conference in Tucson, Ariz., where he introduced the weapon to investors Wednesday. "This is the ability to protect our troops, and we're talking about the speed of light.''

Raytheon is two years into a four-year, $40 million development contract, Karcher said. How soon the weapon is deployed will depend on the military's interest, and while the technology may be ready, troops must also be trained on it and engagement rules must be decided by a four-star general, he said.

Heal said the military version would cost about $1 million, and the U.S. military could require many.

Karcher said the first prototype cost about $10 million.

Heal told Bloomberg Business News that Raytheon could expand the market by selling a smaller version to law-enforcement agencies. The company is working on a smaller, tripod-mounted version for police forces, and the price would have to come down to a few hundred thousand dollars each to be affordable, he said.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: miltech; nonlethal; raytheon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

1 posted on 12/05/2004 1:23:25 PM PST by blink182prj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blink182prj
If you're a Democrat, this is your require response:


THIS MUST BE STOPPED!!! NOW!!! WE CANNOT ALLOW OUR MILITARY TO DEVELOP WEAPONS THAT ACTUALLY LET THEM WIN BATTLES!!!

Pretty sick ideology, if you ask me.
2 posted on 12/05/2004 1:31:46 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj
It will likely be in Iraq in the next 12 months.

A crowd control weapon? Are we going to be controlling crowds in Iraq? Or using non lethal weapons against terrorist?

3 posted on 12/05/2004 1:32:38 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Joe Hadenuf
Are we going to be controlling crowds in Iraq? Or using non lethal weapons against terrorist?

Well, I suppose a weapon like this will keep an angry mob from turning into an angry mob of terrorists.

5 posted on 12/05/2004 1:36:35 PM PST by Mudcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj
'Turbaned Tater Tots!

hehehe Yeah, I know I'm a sick puppy!
6 posted on 12/05/2004 1:39:01 PM PST by 45semi (Man has only those rights he can defend...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj

Smokin'!


7 posted on 12/05/2004 1:41:22 PM PST by toddlintown (Pull another beer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: blink182prj
They should develop something like this to aim at the ground in front of their Humvee to detonate these damned roadside bombs before they get there.
10 posted on 12/05/2004 1:48:00 PM PST by ThirstyMan (Why is it, All the dead seem to vote for Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mudcat
Well, I suppose a weapon like this will keep an angry mob from turning into an angry mob of terrorists.

So you are implying this will be used in Iraq against Iraqi citiens in an effort to keep them from becoming terrorist?

OOOK.

11 posted on 12/05/2004 1:48:12 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dcuddeback
I know that I am jumping ahead of this weapon's intentions and possible spin-offs, all miraculous I'm sure, but I'm left with the question: when did it become unthinkable to kill our enemies? This is probably the surest route to victory. We've gotten to the point that we are sacrificing our soldiers in an effort to save enemy combatants. That our young men would fight under these conditions is indicative of, well, good soldering, I suppose....
12 posted on 12/05/2004 1:48:53 PM PST by ashtanga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf

Er, citizens too.....


13 posted on 12/05/2004 1:48:57 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj

I can't help thinking that a .50 cal M2HB would be a more effective source of "heat".


14 posted on 12/05/2004 1:49:29 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj

They should develop something like this to aim at the ground in front of their Humvees to detonate these damned roadside bombs before they get there.


15 posted on 12/05/2004 1:50:29 PM PST by ThirstyMan (Why is it, All the dead seem to vote for Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcuddeback
I wonder if such weapons could be configured to sweep ahead of convoys and cook-off IEDs.

Hey! (see my post 15) you thought of it first! But it is a great idea.

16 posted on 12/05/2004 1:54:33 PM PST by ThirstyMan (Why is it, All the dead seem to vote for Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj

Maybe if you tape bags of popcorn on your chest, it'll be like reactive armor.


17 posted on 12/05/2004 1:54:51 PM PST by Sender (Team Infidel USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj
The product is expected to be evaluated from February through June to determine whether to equip U.S. forces with it, Colonel David Karcher, director of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, told Bloomberg Business News.

Can they evaluate it by using it on the left side of Congress, or would that be inappropriate?

18 posted on 12/05/2004 1:55:12 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf

Mylar space blanket? A use for tinfoil underware? Anything that would reflect or deflect a significant portion of the radiant energy oughta do it. Been wondering about using a "space blanket" to sheild from being seen on thermal imagers.


19 posted on 12/05/2004 1:57:13 PM PST by Dead Corpse (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj
who has felt the weapon's beam and compares it to having a hot iron placed on the skin

Sure this is non-lethal, but what are you going to do with this kind of heat on you? I think this is pretty cool.

20 posted on 12/05/2004 1:59:06 PM PST by kizzdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj
FWIW This idea has been around since Viet Nam. I am close friends with an engineer who worked on the project. It used high energy microwaves to deliver about 1 megawatt of RF out of a 6 foot water cooled focused dish. Problem is that it was not mobile and in field testing it exploded anything with water in it out about 500 yards.

This guy swears it was field tested in Nam and since humans were exploding like cats in a microwave the brass didn't think the American public would got for it so the program was shutdown. Also, I believe making it mobile with that power consumption, at that time, would have been impossible. Could of been great for fixed installations though.

21 posted on 12/05/2004 2:04:36 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ ("Sure is a nice day for making things right." Boss Spearman. NSDQ, De Opresso Libre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45semi
Turbaned Tater Tots! Yeah, I know I'm a sick puppy!

LOL! Join the litter.

22 posted on 12/05/2004 2:09:10 PM PST by radiohead (Will work for post-election tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf

if you havent noticed, when we actually kill terrorists the whole world is up in arms, including many people on this forum.


23 posted on 12/05/2004 2:10:03 PM PST by chudogg (www.chudogg.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chudogg
Oh, I see, so now the strategy is to not kill terrorist, to please the world.

Thanks for clearing that up.
24 posted on 12/05/2004 2:21:53 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf

" A crowd control weapon? Are we going to be controlling crowds in Iraq? Or using non lethal weapons against terrorist?"

Same question. Personally I think this is a joke. Where does one aim the weapon at? An exposed hand, face, head, perhaps a foot that is in an open sandal. How does one focus on an exposed part within a crowd of "hopped up wildmen". Are they going to stand still, so that you can warm their big toe? If so, what do you do when they quickly step aside from the beams mommentary heating action, pull an AK47 from their overdress and nail you?

This is a joke at best. And on the serious side, good Lord be with our guys as they have to use the weapon instead of having their standard combat rifle in hand.

If the DOD buys into this one, then I am really going to start wondering. Perhaps Raytheon's CEO should be amoung the first group to stand in Sadr city and quality test his companies heat gun on an angry crowd of hop heads. Then lets see if he feels his company spent R&D monies wisely on this product. OK for police control in America perhaps. But the police in downtown LA are not going to typically be carrying military weapons as is required in Iraq.

What the hell is going on with the DOD?


Then this article quote: "This is where the future is going,'' Raytheon Chief Executive William Swanson, 55, said at a conference in Tucson, Ariz., where he introduced the weapon to investors Wednesday. "This is the ability to protect our troops, and we're talking about the speed of light."

What is wrong with people are they that frigen STUPID!
I can't take this shit much longer! Really.
THINK what is being said.
A heat beam which must be well aimed at an explosed part and held for a given duration shoots out a beam of energy. The beam must be held at the point of exposer or the pain goes away almost immediately. So in effect unless a soldier will be able to continue to hold the beam on target, the person will of course just stand still and let their toe stay hot,
this weapon will nothing to break up a wild group of rag heads. It will take them perhaps two or three minutes to realize it is a joke, it stings a bit, so I move my foot then charge the soldier with a knife or pull out a nine millimeter pistol and shoot him in the face. What is the American soldier going to do......duck as I shoot at him with my pistol...........hee hee he only has this useless
heat gun to fire back at me.
I don't know folks......................things are getting very very weird.

As for the future yea..........just like when in the sixties we stopped equiping our main line jets fighters with gun plateforms............remember folks........the defense contractors and idiots like McNamara said the future is in AA missile plateforms the days of dogfigting is over, you stand back and fire a radar guided missile at your enemy. Then NAM came along. MiGs 17,19,21 keep shooting down our F4's, A4's, F105 etc.. Then the Navy almost to late woke up and started Top Gun. The next generation fleet air superiority fleet aircraft contained once again a gun plateform.

It is a never ending battle between idiots gaining control of commen sense issues that so dearly effect how safe and well equiped military personel are. Glad I don't have to be one of those poor soldiers or Marines that will have to replace their M4 with this stupid heat gun! Well maybe it will replace the need for a Zipo lighter to light their cigars and cigs with.


25 posted on 12/05/2004 2:26:50 PM PST by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj

Phrases such as ""focused, speed-of-light millimeter wave energy beam to induce an intolerable heating sensation,'' according to a U.S. Air Force fact sheet." kinda scare me.

I mean honestly, thats from a "fact sheet".

I think its safe to say that the beam is "focused", "speed of light (in a vacuum), and "energy beam". Its pretty damn redundant to say it that way.

The proper phrase is . . . its a "*microwave* beam that burns people" (or whatever type of electromagnetic radiation it consists of.


26 posted on 12/05/2004 2:28:01 PM PST by ruiner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf

Aim these suckers all along our borders - immediate ilegal alien control.


27 posted on 12/05/2004 2:30:04 PM PST by Endeavor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj

Wonder if this will be used in the next Bond film...
sort of like the laser beam in "Goldfinger"...


28 posted on 12/05/2004 2:32:19 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj

Phasers on incinerate....
29 posted on 12/05/2004 2:32:48 PM PST by RandallFlagg (FReepers, Do NOT let the voter fraud stories die!!!! (Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
"They should develop something like this to aim at the ground in front of their Humvee to detonate these damned roadside bombs before they get there."

Based on this description:

"focused, speed-of-light millimeter wave energy beam to induce an intolerable heating sensation,''

I get the feeling that this is similar to a low grade microwave beam, just like a dehumidifier is basically a low efficiency air conditioner.

If this suspicion is correct, it will be looking for some kind of reaction of moisture molecules in the target for it to have the effect.
30 posted on 12/05/2004 2:34:51 PM PST by Dalite (If PRO is the opposite of CON, What is the opposite of PROgress? Go Figure....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dalite

So much for the taser -- this will replace it.


31 posted on 12/05/2004 2:37:55 PM PST by oneoftheothers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: BobL
Here's my idea for a heat weapon!


33 posted on 12/05/2004 2:47:23 PM PST by vger (freeping since '96!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Endeavor

Hehe.....


34 posted on 12/05/2004 2:50:24 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
humans were exploding like cats in a microwave

Shorten the wavelength even more and you may get a little less damage.

35 posted on 12/05/2004 2:55:51 PM PST by Tom Bombadil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
I don't think that is what it is intended for, a replacement for lethal force. This isn't a weapon used in combat, in this configuration. It is a weapon for crowd control. As such I think it would be a valuable addition.
For example, on the news you see the mullah whipping up a crowd. This unarmed crowd then stomps around with the portrait of whoever or the signs with Yankee go home. To disperse this crowd a conventional soldier has...what? Al Jazeera/CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN all have cameras waiting to show us for the jackboots we are. They live for that Michael Moore- Kent State moment.
War is fought with more than weapons. It is also fought with politics. We militarily won the Vietnam war and lost it at the same time to the leftist press. We beat ourselves. If we have another tool to enforce the peace, great. I am all for it. You don't use this thing in Fallujah, you use it at the street protest in Baghdad. Or the world trade summit in Seattle. The basic rules of engagement are always engage lethal force with lethal force of a greater degree. I don't see anything in this argument to counter that principal. What I see is a better way to control a non lethal force encounter.
36 posted on 12/05/2004 2:58:03 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dcuddeback

"It was originally designed to be deployed on low-flying aircraft, eg AC130."

Thanks for the technical oriented comments. So it was originally designed for military use as apposed to civilian crowd control. OK. So based on your description of how it works, that is, some narrow band of microwave, most probably, is aimed at a surface. Fine. If, the beam can penetrate "dry clothing", not lose sufficient amounts of joles, due to energy absorption by the clothing, and still have adequate "beam power", to sufficiently heat up water molecules within the beams cone as it projects unto the person's skin, and make them say ouch! Fine. I have no problem with that. But are they going to just stand still? And what if they are armed with fire arms?
Are, lets say fifty angry people going to just stand still as a few soldiers scan the beam back and forth across their mass of bodies? What happens when they start to disperse?
How many have guns? What about controlling a few thousand, and perhaps twenty in the middle of the pack suddenly run forward and open up on our guys with fire arms.
It would appear that our guys will have to have teams of standard infantry men with M4's etc., and other teams that carry the heat guns.
Perhaps I am being to negative about the heat guns potential in such scenarios. Guess we will find out how well it works in due time. I hope I don't read about our soldiers and Marines getting KIAed for lack of proper protection during crowd control.


37 posted on 12/05/2004 3:02:56 PM PST by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
"Can they evaluate it by using it on the left side of Congress, or would that be inappropriate?"

Note the name, "Raytheon's weapon, called the Active Denial System". I believe the demrats already have one in place. If the name is changed to 'anti-active denial system', it might be effective in the instance you mention.

38 posted on 12/05/2004 3:13:10 PM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj

Great idea! Test it out at the Palace in Auburn Hills...


39 posted on 12/05/2004 3:16:42 PM PST by exDem from Miami
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: blink182prj

Will this melt the gold off the dome of a mosque?
Will it melt minerets like a candle?
Will it make the inside of a house like a convection oven?


41 posted on 12/05/2004 3:26:29 PM PST by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sender
Maybe if you tape bags of popcorn on your chest, it'll be like reactive armor.

"...Habib, What's that 'Popping Sound' and why, do you smell like butter...and not goat/sheep dung?"

42 posted on 12/05/2004 3:29:10 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dcuddeback
If it was me, I'd prefer to clear the crowd with anti-personnel munitions. This is a war, anyway, not a college footbal game.

Ah, a MOAB proponent! : )

43 posted on 12/05/2004 3:31:13 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ashtanga
I think this device would be very useful in separating the "faking dead" form the "really dead".
44 posted on 12/05/2004 3:37:48 PM PST by SC Swamp Fox (Aim small, miss small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: blink182prj
Heal said the military version would cost about $1 million, and the U.S. military could require many

Ah, how many M16s can you get for $1 million?

45 posted on 12/05/2004 3:39:53 PM PST by det dweller too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcuddeback
Depends on how complex the IED is. If it is using a cellular telephone or a portion of a garage door opener, you probably could burn them out using some sort of focused high energy RF signal IF the electrical components were exposed enough to be attacked. I understand some units are presently using frequency jammers set on cell phone and garage door opener frequencies as a countermeasure.

However, if the IED is command detonated using an electric blasting cap, field wire and a battery, that's a pretty simple circuit. It has no ICs or other complex components to fry (or jam). Hitting it with the theoretical focused beam may or may not affect it, since the blasting cap will be inside the explosive device (assuming an artillery shell here) and surrounded by metal that will absorb and shunt the projected energy away from the blasting cap. What criteria would you use to decide how long to keep the beam focused on a suspected item to see if it would go off? Going to fry a lot of garbage along the way.

From what I have read, the problem with IEDs is that Iraqi roads are pretty trashy. The task is to figure out what is just routine trash and what is a camouflaged IED waiting to be set off when the MNF comes by. Since there are always people around (mostly innocent, some not), you can't just indiscriminently fire up everything that looks suspicious as a policy (although I suspect more than a few soldiers and Marines would like to do just that). Instead, they either drive fast, jam the frequencies and pray they are lucky or they deliberately search for the devices using combined forces foot patrols. Dangerous business either way.
46 posted on 12/05/2004 3:50:35 PM PST by Captain Rhino ("If you will just abandon logic, these things will make a lot more sense to you!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

No, these are beebers and they are set on stune


47 posted on 12/05/2004 3:51:27 PM PST by eclectic (Liberalism is a mental disorder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The flip side of your issue is, "How well does it penetrate mud bricks?" If the signal is not appreciably absorbed/scattered/attenuated by building materials used in Iraq, it could be used to force terrorists out into the open where they could then be shot.

"Come out. Come out, wherever you are..." ZZZzzzaaaaaaaap!

48 posted on 12/05/2004 4:03:19 PM PST by TXnMA (Back home in God's Country -- and that's where I plan to stay until they "plant" my carcass here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: det dweller too
Ah, how many M16s can you get for $1 million?

My guess would be between 1,000 and 3,000 M16s. The low number assumes M16 goes for 1K a pop; the high number assumes $333 a weapon. The latter number is probably what the civilian market would bear; the former assumes the usual price gouging for Govt contracts.

49 posted on 12/05/2004 4:27:02 PM PST by IonImplantGuru (PhD, School of Hard Knocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: vger

lol


50 posted on 12/05/2004 4:27:10 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ ("Sure is a nice day for making things right." Boss Spearman. NSDQ, De Opresso Libre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson