What's new

US lasers? PLA preparing to raise its deflector shields

cirr

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
17,049
Reaction score
18
Country
China
Location
China
US lasers? PLA preparing to raise its deflector shields

Chinese scientists say they have developed protective coatings that would render weapons like the US' ship-mounted laser useless in battle

Stephen Chen
binglin.chen@scmp.com

UPDATED : Monday, 10 March, 2014, 4:37am


The US Navy plans to deploy its experimental laser weapon system - shown here in 2012 - on the USS Ponce later this year. Photo: AP

Laser weapons like those developed by the United States pose little threat to the PLA - smog or no smog - because mainland researchers have pioneered coatings that can deflect beams and render them harmless, mainland scientists say.

PLA Navy Rear Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong(to be fair,the RADM did utter those words in a tone of ridicule:azn:) drew widespread ridicule last month when the National Defence University researcher suggested that China's thick smog provided the country's best defence against military lasers, like the gun the US Navy plans to deploy aboard a vessel in the Middle East this summer.

But scientists said such weapons represent a small advantage - even on clear, cloudless days - as coatings have been developed to turn away lasers or even reflect them back to their source.

The government has sponsored numerous research projects over the past two decades to develop such coatings, some of which may have already been applied in the field, according to public documents.

Thus, Chinese military researchers tend to regard the "game-changing" laser that the Pentagon plans to deploy on the USS Ponce as a paper tiger - more of a vanity project than a real concern.

Professor Huang Chenguang, a specialist in high-energy laser beams at the Chinese Academy of Sciences who is involved in military research, said any laser, no matter how powerful or destructive, was still composed of light that could be deflected by various materials.

After extensive research, Chinese scientists can now manipulate the physical and chemical properties of anti-laser materials and precisely control the amount of reflection, or absorption, of lasers, Huang said.

Lasers, including laser weapons, concentrate high amounts of energy at sensitive spots on a target, such as missile's guidance system or an aircraft's engine. If most of that energy is reflected, the most powerful laser weapons could be as harmless as a torch.

But, Huang cautioned, there were still a number of uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of the Chinese-developed anti-laser technology.

Any artificial coating can only deal with certain kinds of lasers. If there is a significant mismatch, the beam could still burn through the coating and damage or destroy the target.

"Fortunately, we can usually make a good guess on the type of laser used by any system," Huang added. "Openly available information such as the system's size, power consumption, major components and laser generation methods can determine the nature of laser beams.

"Then, you just select the appropriate coating to fortify sensitive areas with an anti-laser shield."

While the US military and defence industry have promoted laser weapons for decades and recently had conducted visually impressive tests, China has quietly developed its own cutting edge protective coatings. The theory is that - in laser warfare, at least - "a shield" was much less expensive to develop than "a spear", Huang said.

Research papers published in mainland academic journals show that government scientists have employed various materials to make anti-laser coatings.

Low-cost metals, rare earths, carbon fibre, silver and even diamonds had been processed to fine sheens and tested against various types of destructive lasers.

Researchers in many of the papers say they have closely monitored laser developments in the West, especially in the US, and their coating technology has been tailored to counter specific weapon systems.

Many of the nation's top research institutes and universities have been involved in anti-laser research, including Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Xian Jiaotong University, the Chinese Academy of Engineering Physics, the Harbin Institute of Technology and the Naval Aeronautical Engineering Institute of the People's Liberation Army.

Although most research teams declined to be interviewed due to the sensitivity of the subject, one scientist said China still lagged behind the US in laser weaponry due to technological bottlenecks such as energy generation and storage.

Firing a deadly laser beam from a warship, for instance, required a powerful generator and a battery or capacitor capable of storing and discharging such high energy rapidly, the researcher said.

"We can build a laser cannon but it will be of no use without enough 'ammunition'," he said. "The Chinese military is very pragmatic. They won't invest heavily in weapons that can't be deployed in a decade or two."

US lasers? PLA preparing to raise its deflector shields | South China Morning Post
 
This is from the military that predicted high casualties for US in Desert Storm.
 
pardon me if I am wrong

But isn't ionized laser cannot be deflected?? The only way I know of to deflect an ionized laser meaning to calibrate the object with the same high intensity ionized charge thus repel the laser. But by doing so, it's not much of a different to get hit by that laser as sudden ionization would require a focus bit of energy more or less the same as the incoming laser strike.

US wasn't using light spectrum laser on the ship that can deflect visually..... they are using Ionized laser....
 
The government has sponsored numerous research projects over the past two decades to develop such coatings,

......

The Chinese military is very pragmatic. They won't invest heavily in weapons that can't be deployed in a decade or two."

Umm...defense stuff ok...but offense stuff waste of time?
How long was the aircraft carrier stuff in R&D?
 
Last edited:
pardon me if I am wrong

But isn't ionized laser cannot be deflected?? The only way I know of to deflect an ionized laser meaning to calibrate the object with the same high intensity ionized charge thus repel the laser. But by doing so, it's not much of a different to get hit by that laser as sudden ionization would require a focus bit of energy more or less the same as the incoming laser strike.

US wasn't using light spectrum laser on the ship that can deflect visually..... they are using Ionized laser....

Ionization probably refers to the method of producing the laser.

A laser, by definition, is a collection of photons which have been "shepherded" to have certain attributes (e.g. phase) in sync. Photons have no charge, let alone electrons, so they can't be ionized.
 
This is from the military that predicted high casualties for US in Desert Storm.

The better question is what did the US gain from over 20 years of involvement in Iraq and the Middle East since Operation Desert Storm? Iraq and the rest of the region have been completely destabilized. Iran's nuclear program continues unabated. Syria crossed your red line with no consequences. But the frosting on the cake? China is currently the largest importer of Iraqi oil. :lol:
 
The better question is what did the US gain from over 20 years of involvement in Iraq and the Middle East since Operation Desert Storm? Iraq and the rest of the region have been completely destabilized. Iran's nuclear program continues unabated. Syria crossed your red line with no consequences. But the frosting on the cake? China is currently the largest importer of Iraqi oil. :lol:
You mean the misleading question you posed. :rolleyes:

What you said have NOTHING to do with the spectacular fail the PLA leadership presented to the Politburo about Desert Storm. Operation Desert Storm is not the occupation of Iraq in particular or America's involvement in the ME in general.

Operation Desert Storm is a unique military event, that just like all other unique military events such as Operation Overlord (D Day) or Operation Barbarossa, that is a one-time event and can never happen again. This fact is not lost upon the PLA leadership, but apparently is lost on you and your fellow Chinese on this forum. Unique military events have short duration and must be studied on their own, independent of consequences, be those consequences military and/or political, which are long term.

Given the spectacular fail of the PLA regarding Desert Storm, the rest of the military world stopped taking the PLA's analyses of the US military seriously. At least for the forseeable future, anyway. At best, the rest of the world's militaries analyze the PLA's reactions to the US military to study the PLA itself, not because the PLA have some unique capabilities that exist nowhere else.

Thus, Chinese military researchers tend to regard the "game-changing" laser that the Pentagon plans to deploy on the USS Ponce as a paper tiger - more of a vanity project than a real concern.

Then why is the PLA reforming itself to the mold of the US military, everything from dress to unit operation ?
 
Given the spectacular fail of the PLA regarding Desert Storm, the rest of the military world stopped taking the PLA's analyses of the US military seriously. At least for the forseeable future, anyway. At best, the rest of the world's militaries analyze the PLA's reactions to the US military to study the PLA itself, not because the PLA have some unique capabilities that exist nowhere else.

A failed analysis of a war v/s 2 failed decade-long wars. Hmmm....
 
You mean the misleading question you posed. :rolleyes:

What you said have NOTHING to do with the spectacular fail the PLA leadership presented to the Politburo about Desert Storm. Operation Desert Storm is not the occupation of Iraq in particular or America's involvement in the ME in general.

Operation Desert Storm is a unique military event, that just like all other unique military events such as Operation Overlord (D Day) or Operation Barbarossa, that is a one-time event and can never happen again. This fact is not lost upon the PLA leadership, but apparently is lost on you and your fellow Chinese on this forum. Unique military events have short duration and must be studied on their own, independent of consequences, be those consequences military and/or political, which are long term.

Given the spectacular fail of the PLA regarding Desert Storm, the rest of the military world stopped taking the PLA's analyses of the US military seriously. At least for the forseeable future, anyway. At best, the rest of the world's militaries analyze the PLA's reactions to the US military to study the PLA itself, not because the PLA have some unique capabilities that exist nowhere else.



Then why is the PLA reforming itself to the mold of the US military, everything from dress to unit operation ?

Operation Desert storm showed that the times had indeed changed, with it opened a new chapter in information warfare. Back then we don't even have any fourth gen fighters, or anything meaningful or an economy or the educated military and working force that we have now.

Can you really fault us for getting it wrong? This is like making fun of a four year old cause he made a mistake.

Since then our military has more or less matured, and our working class and military have went the route of domestic higher education to go with foreign training programs. You will find most of our high ranking naval officers speak, English, French, and so on.


Today the PLA with its educated staff and advanced capabilities have developed our own doctrine and is advancing at our own pace. You would be foolish to equate us today with us yesterday, as we were by equating US in Vietnam to US in the Gulf.

China may not match the US yet, but the fact remains we obviously know that, if we want to be delusional, we could have just bought some second hand carrier much earlier and call our selves a naval power instead of buying one and then rebuilding it ourselves much later and learning the ins and outs of carrier operation.

PLA's weakness is its strength, with our economy we can obviously be like the Saudis and just buy whatever we want, perhaps not from Western countries, but from Russia we can still buy a ton. It's obvious our guys knows what's required, and we are working hard on it.

It's easy to wear a muscle suit than to have a real set of muscle.
 
You mean the misleading question you posed. :rolleyes:

What you said have NOTHING to do with the spectacular fail the PLA leadership presented to the Politburo about Desert Storm. Operation Desert Storm is not the occupation of Iraq in particular or America's involvement in the ME in general.
Source?

Operation Desert Storm is a unique military event, that just like all other unique military events such as Operation Overlord (D Day) or Operation Barbarossa, that is a one-time event and can never happen again. This fact is not lost upon the PLA leadership, but apparently is lost on you and your fellow Chinese on this forum. Unique military events have short duration and must be studied on their own, independent of consequences, be those consequences military and/or political, which are long term.

Given the spectacular fail of the PLA regarding Desert Storm, the rest of the military world stopped taking the PLA's analyses of the US military seriously. At least for the forseeable future, anyway. At best, the rest of the world's militaries analyze the PLA's reactions to the US military to study the PLA itself, not because the PLA have some unique capabilities that exist nowhere else.

Then why is the PLA reforming itself to the mold of the US military, everything from dress to unit operation ?

How many sizeable military operations have the us army won since WW2?
 
Operation Desert storm showed that the times had indeed changed, with it opened a new chapter in information warfare. Back then we don't even have any fourth gen fighters, or anything meaningful or an economy or the educated military and working force that we have now.

Can you really fault us for getting it wrong? This is like making fun of a four year old cause he made a mistake.
Yes. To be fair, China was not the only one to have it wrong. The outcome was not in doubt. No one, not even China and Russia, doubt that Iraq would be defeated. But what most people, including some of our allies, got it wrong was the degree of severity of our casualties, and no surprise that American casualties would be the figure of joy for our hostile critics, which includes China and Russia. In the end, we had more to fear of fratricide and workplace accidents than from the Iraqi military.

Why you, meaning China, should be faulted for being so egregiously wrong is because of your arrogance, your refusal to be introspective of what you know and what you think you know in terms of military doctrines and operations, and naturally from those came your underestimation of US. It was not a mistake and calling it a mistake is an attempt to dodge personal responsibility. It was a gross error in judgement, of yourself and of US.

Since then our military has more or less matured, and our working class and military have went the route of domestic higher education to go with foreign training programs. You will find most of our high ranking naval officers speak, English, French, and so on.
Ain't that nice ? For US, despite the military being hierarchical and emphasis on discipline and obedience, we also value independent thinking and after the Vietnam War, the willingness to be self critical. Your PLA leadership have yet to learn that bit of humility, as demonstrated by your admiral in this article.

Today the PLA with its educated staff and advanced capabilities have developed our own doctrine and is advancing at our own pace. You would be foolish to equate us today with us yesterday, as we were by equating US in Vietnam to US in the Gulf.
And China would be the greater fool to think that the US today is the same as the one of Desert Storm. We have not been idle. Your friends here often jump for joy at every bit of bad news for the US military, especially when it comes to budget cuts, etc. Your shortsightedness in this forum is no different than the arrogance you displayed back in 1991.

China may not match the US yet, but the fact remains we obviously know that, if we want to be delusional, we could have just bought some second hand carrier much earlier and call our selves a naval power instead of buying one and then rebuilding it ourselves much later and learning the ins and outs of carrier operation.

PLA's weakness is its strength, with our economy we can obviously be like the Saudis and just buy whatever we want, perhaps not from Western countries, but from Russia we can still buy a ton. It's obvious our guys knows what's required, and we are working hard on it.

It's easy to wear a muscle suit than to have a real set of muscle.
Right now...Wearing that suit is China.

How many sizeable military operations have the us army won since WW2?
None...We are no match for the PLA.
 
@gambit :None...We are no match for the PLA.

So what are the usa 'advanced' weaponry for that has been sending horrors all over the world after WW2?
and where is the source of your above claim? (my post #12)
 
Yes. To be fair, China was not the only one to have it wrong. The outcome was not in doubt. No one, not even China and Russia, doubt that Iraq would be defeated. But what most people, including some of our allies, got it wrong was the degree of severity of our casualties, and no surprise that American casualties would be the figure of joy for our hostile critics, which includes China and Russia. In the end, we had more to fear of fratricide and workplace accidents than from the Iraqi military.

Why you, meaning China, should be faulted for being so egregiously wrong is because of your arrogance, your refusal to be introspective of what you know and what you think you know in terms of military doctrines and operations, and naturally from those came your underestimation of US. It was not a mistake and calling it a mistake is an attempt to dodge personal responsibility. It was a gross error in judgement, of yourself and of US.

It was an error in judgement and clearly China has learn from it. Massive cuts in military personnel, massive military spending increases, emphasis on weapons development, officer education and training, joint military exercises, and more were introduced after this.

Early retirements for the generals who had little military education, and non relevant to today's standards were replaced by generals who had seen the West and had visions for how to reach it. New generals are all very well educated, the military academy is headed by a LT. General, the highest ranking officer in China.

Nobody is trying to down play the error that was made, only you seem to think that China had not learn from it, when every indication is that we have. Americans were also blind sighted in WW1 with large human waves that effectively made Americans human targets. Not because American incompetence, but because you were not familiar with that style of war. But you soon learned, and in WW2, that was not a problem anymore.


Ain't that nice ? For US, despite the military being hierarchical and emphasis on discipline and obedience, we also value independent thinking and after the Vietnam War, the willingness to be self critical. Your PLA leadership have yet to learn that bit of humility, as demonstrated by your admiral in this article.

Chinese military recently released movies all point to innovative thinking, I can point to these movies if you wish.

I clearly remembered talking about Zhang ZhaoZhong with you before. He's a humorous man who appears on TV a lot, in fact he's on one of my favorite shows right now. He makes jokes, which from the other thread we can see those fly pass your head as planes do.

He made explanations to this and he was misquoted, you know how that works right, taking only part of what he says. While not including the context.

So many of our generals openly critical of the PLA and it can be found on the net. When Zhang talks Chinese military he always mentions it is not as good as Americans, and whenever he talks faults of American weapons, he always maintains that while it has faults it is still very good and very advanced, while all these would be eventually solved.

How can you judge one man based on one out of context quote, and also our entire PLA.

Is this a mistake or error? lol Is this our Desert Storm? This is a joke btw, in case you miss that too.


And China would be the greater fool to think that the US today is the same as the one of Desert Storm. We have not been idle. Your friends here often jump for joy at every bit of bad news for the US military, especially when it comes to budget cuts, etc. Your shortsightedness in this forum is no different than the arrogance you displayed back in 1991.

We don't think you are the same as desert storm, but we are also not the same as 1991, which you seem to think we are. American budget cuts doesn't really affect American ability in a short war, and anyone who doubts it is wrong. Chinese commanding generals have never went on to say that Americans are out of this race because of a few cuts.

But your people have said Chinese military are so poor that we can't afford cars and helicopters for the second artillery, or how Chinese soldiers are cowards. They forget American soldiers were once called cowards and playboys, but as soon as the nation is threatened, well you know the rest. Then there is you, claiming things in which you know nothing about, just some antiquated stereotypes of Chinese.


Right now...Wearing that suit is China.

Really? Us getting a carrier we have call it a training vessel, early nuclear submarines, training subs, and many other equipments are in transition and we openly admit it. That comment was not directed at America btw, it was in response
to you saying PLA sucks.

I'm simply making the case, that we suck now because we want to not suck, if we wanted to, we can just buy 500 Su-35, and tanks and ships from the Russians, instead of testing and developing based on our own needs and experience.
 
Back
Top Bottom