NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4563202/US-military-develops-anti-aircraft-laser.html

I am guessing limitations right now can only target light aircraft,(UAV's) and i guess limited range and tracking (still effective against UAV's)

Assuming this technology goes farther is this going to be a revolution in military hardware? or will this be its peak use with it likely replaced later?


we should have some of the stimulus package build these just so the technology advances of course.

Where's my dual blade lightsaber?!

Where's my dual blade lightsaber?!

Join the special forces for that I am sure.

http://hurtlockerinc.com/images/SPARTAN%20LASER.jpg


Just a matter of time......

At least it's not more area-of-effect, high-collateral-damage weaponry.

Someday I hope to get a more area-of-effect, high-collateral-damage weaponry.

There we go, lol(jk:p)

At least it's not more area-of-effect, high-collateral-damage weaponry.It's almost surgical in nature. Point-fire-kill-end, no big explosion, no large trail of smoke to give away your position.

I like the idea of it.

Someday I hope to get a more area-of-effect, high-collateral-damage weaponry.
I am disgusted that you would say something like this Trostia.

At least it's not more area-of-effect, high-collateral-damage weaponry.

Something like this?

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/DeathStar3.jpg

It's almost surgical in nature. Point-fire-kill-end.

I like the idea of it.

Of course you do. PEW PEW!

It'll be interesting to see how this changes military tactics eventually, if it does. It seems to give a big boost to ground forces in that they can fire on aircraft without giving away their position, and because it seems like they'll be able to shoot down missiles and rockets launched from aircraft (or elsewhere).

Then of course, there's the Boeing ATL gunship:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/11/boeing_atl_advanced_tactical_laser_fitted/

I am disgusted that you would say something like this Trostia.

Quit using my jokes for Ebil http://secretgeek.net/image/dr_evil.jpg

I am disgusted that you would say something like this Trostia....That wasn't even funny. At all. I didn't even grin. :(

One step closer to battlemechs! Excellent.

One step closer to battlemechs! Excellent.

Pfft. Tracks good, legs bad.

That's never going to change.

How friggin' big must those batteries be?

And I thought humpin' around the spares for the SINCGARS was bad...

In all honesty, this is the kind of technology that will be replaced before it becomes a major part of combat operations, especially given that it is increasingly unlikely the wars we will be fighting will be against states with UAV technology.

In all honesty, this is the kind of technology that will be replaced before it becomes a major part of combat operations, especially given that it is increasingly unlikely the wars we will be fighting will be against states with UAV technology.

Idk, Russia and China do keep lookin at us funny >.>

...And dont even get me started on those Euro people, :mad:...

i cant wait until laser tanks and orbital bombardment satellites are able to take out a city.

In all honesty, this is the kind of technology that will be replaced before it becomes a major part of combat operations, especially given that it is increasingly unlikely the wars we will be fighting will be against states with UAV technology.

this is a broad definition of UAV technology. a radio controlled plane strapped with a bomb is what this is targeted at.

this is a broad definition of UAV technology. a radio controlled plane strapped with a bomb is what this is targeted at.

Local area mid-power jamming. RC plane defeated. Military UAVs tend to have harder to jam frequencies.

Local area mid-power jamming. RC plane defeated. Military UAVs tend to have harder to jam frequencies.

But, how does that give us a breakthrough in Laser-Weapon technology?

Local area mid-power jamming. RC plane defeated. Military UAVs tend to have harder to jam frequencies.

can also screw up our allies radio coms if not our own. Not to mention broad spectrum jammer location can be triangulated easily. the issue was to avoid revealing your location for secondary attacks (ie mortar).

At least it's not more area-of-effect, high-collateral-damage weaponry.

You do realize how to win a war right? You kill the enemy. And the more you kill with fewer munitions, the faster you win.

You do realize how to win a war right?

Why, yes.

You kill the enemy.

No. You remove the enemy's will and capability to wage war. Your simplistic summation is just silly.

And the more you kill with fewer munitions, the faster you win.

Gee, now why isn't anyone using nukes nowadays?

meh. wake me when they get handheld ones.


I remember my Science teacher way back in 6th grade eavesdropping on our conversation about laser weapons and definitely declaring that we will never get them. Lasers are incapable of acting like that, he told us, and so we will never see a laser cannon. He was more than a tad patronising I recall.
He's dead now, which is a shame as I'd love to email him the OP article (not that he'd ever remember above conversation if he were still alive, but don't matter. It's the principle).

Also how many shots does it get? Maybe 4 or 5 before you are drained? Watershed moment.

meh. wake me when they get handheld ones.


I remember my Science teacher way back in 6th grade eavesdropping on our conversation about laser weapons and definitely declaring that we will never get them. Lasers are incapable of acting like that, he told us, and so we will never see a laser cannon.
Depends on your definition and example of "Laser Cannon" if you mean like Star Wars versions, its impossible, because youd never get a Visible Bolt to shoot with a laser....but, the Spartan Laser, or the Imperial Guard Lasguns are a little more possible, albeit not necessarily with the visible "beam" they use...

Also how many shots does it get? Maybe 4 or 5 before you are drained?

Compared to the normal Avenger which has 8 missiles it can fire before needing reload. Clearly we need to ditch BOTH systems and go back to swords and spears, because the ability to reload is just too much to ask.

can also screw up our allies radio coms if not our own. Not to mention broad spectrum jammer location can be triangulated easily. the issue was to avoid revealing your location for secondary attacks (ie mortar).

Directional jamming is an option IIRC.

Couldn't you also just put a really reflective surface on your missile or aircraft? Also targeting you would think would be extremely difficult. You have to be way more accurate than with a missile

How friggin' big must those batteries be?

And I thought humpin' around the spares for the SINCGARS was bad...

10s of kilowatts the article says, though I imagine it's only for a couple of seconds at most. Assuming it is 60 kilowatts, there are 3600 seconds in an hour, and 60000 (Watts rather than kilowatts, being the SI unit)/3600x2 = 33.33 W/h. That's the energy consumption of a laptop. The HUMVEEs alternator could easily keep up with this, however without an intermeditary battery you'd need a charge up time if you wanted to use it consecutively.

Anyone feel free to correct my maths if you see something wrong, as it's a weak point of mine.

Mirror, mirror, on the plane?
Which designer has the biggest brain?

It'll suck if those lasers get reflected into a city area >_>

Northrop Grumman has one too. Boeing got one out first. Time to buy stocks again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRESTRIKE

The FIRESTRIKE laser[1], introduced by Northrop Grumman on November 13, 2008, is purportedly the first, combat ready, solid state laser weapon. FIRESTRIKE is a 15KW modular laser "building block" which can be combined with other systems for specific missions, or 7 more FIRESTRIKEs for a single 100KW laser.[2] Bundled with Northrop Grumman's own LCSA power supply, the FIRESTRIKE can fire continuously as long as power and cooling are maintained.

Couldn't you also just put a really reflective surface on your missile or aircraft?

You could, but it wouldn't do jack shit. Except make the target really visible and therefore easier to hit. The way lenses focus the energy into a really high intensity, high power density is what makes weaponized lasers effective. Think of a magnifying glass being used to kill ants.

Also targeting you would think would be extremely difficult. You have to be way more accurate than with a missile

Nah. A laser beam travels as the speed of light. Until someone comes up with a weaponized tachyon, you can't beat that. (Kinda a reason why there are laser sights on weapons...)

Why, yes.



No. You remove the enemy's will and capability to wage war. Your simplistic summation is just silly.



Gee, now why isn't anyone using nukes nowadays?

And what pray tell is the most efficent way to remove an enemy combatant's will and capability to wage war?

To kill said combatant.

I should have said, the more of the enemy you kill with fewer munitions and at the smallest possible cost to your own nation.

And what pray tell is the most efficent way to remove an enemy combatant's will and capability to wage war?

To kill said combatant.


Yeah. The combatants. Not the 200 children in the nearby school.

I should have said, the more of the enemy you kill with fewer munitions and at the smallest possible cost to your own nation.

Yeah you'd still be wrong. "Kill people" is not how to win a war.

I should have said, the more of the enemy you kill with fewer munitions and at the smallest possible cost to your own nation.

And what more effecient way to do so than with pin-point one hit kill accuracy, and with a Laser that you dont have to make munitions for?

Couldn't you also just put a really reflective surface on your missile or aircraft? Also targeting you would think would be extremely difficult. You have to be way more accurate than with a missile

Wrong on both counts. Discounting diffusion, any laser of sufficient power would be able to quickly burn up any imperfection (even micron level) on the mirrored surface, melting it and causing the imperfections to spread as the material slags.

Accuracy is a non-factor either. Lasers have negligible travel time for a weapon, and existing radar guidance systems are easily capable of directing a weapons system directly at a target with little problem. If you can park a missile on a target, you can use the same system with lasers to produce 100% accurate weapons at the effective range.

Directional jamming is an option IIRC.

even those spread out in a wide arc. have the two people with radios far enough back and you can still triangulate them.

Wrong on both counts. Discounting diffusion, any laser of sufficient power would be able to quickly burn up any imperfection (even micron level) on the mirrored surface, melting it and causing the imperfections to spread as the material slags.

Accuracy is a non-factor either. Lasers have negligible travel time for a weapon, and existing radar guidance systems are easily capable of directing a weapons system directly at a target with little problem. If you can park a missile on a target, you can use the same system with lasers to produce 100% accurate weapons at the effective range.

That's the issue. Current missile tech couldn't target something as small as UAVs, especially since the lack of metal compared to piloted plane just accentuated the issue.

Wrong on both counts. Discounting diffusion, any laser of sufficient power would be able to quickly burn up any imperfection (even micron level) on the mirrored surface, melting it and causing the imperfections to spread as the material slags.

Accuracy is a non-factor either. Lasers have negligible travel time for a weapon, and existing radar guidance systems are easily capable of directing a weapons system directly at a target with little problem. If you can park a missile on a target, you can use the same system with lasers to produce 100% accurate weapons at the effective range.

Very cool stuff!

And what pray tell is the most efficent way to remove an enemy combatant's will and capability to wage war?

To kill said combatant.


Bollocks. There's plenty of ways to do that. Going to war is the least efficient way.

One of the best ways demonstrated can be found in Sun-Tzu's art of war, where one of the feudal kings of ancient China plied his much more powerful sworn enemy with luxuries of no practical use, got practical goods in the exchange, and had him convinced that he was no threat. At the end of the day, that guy beat a state three times the size of his with only marginal losses and put his enemy's head on a pike.

It took 20 years of slow rebuilding a conquered province and humiliation under his enemy's boot, but he had the last laugh.

That's the issue. Current missile tech couldn't target something as small as UAVs, especially since the lack of metal compared to piloted plane just accentuated the issue.

You're confusing missile guidance with target acquisition from search platforms. Missile guidance is necessarily less comprehensive than from a dedicated search platform due to size and time to impact limitations.

Oh yeah, I forgot my personal opinion. This thing is totally cool. It's even cooler if it reduces civilian casualties in war.

Yeah. The combatants. Not the 200 children in the nearby school.



Yeah you'd still be wrong. "Kill people" is not how to win a war.

People die in war. That's been true since the first humans emerged.

And Killing more people than your enemy is how you win a war.

And that's called pre-emptive combat.

People die in war. That's been true since the first humans emerged.

And Killing more people than your enemy is how you win a war.

Are you not even reading what I or Non Aligned States said?

Are you not even reading what I or Non Aligned States said?

Yes I am. I simply reject your skewed views of reality and replace it with my own correctly skewed views.

Bollocks. There's plenty of ways to do that. Going to war is the least efficient way.

One of the best ways demonstrated can be found in Sun-Tzu's art of war, where one of the feudal kings of ancient China plied his much more powerful sworn enemy with luxuries of no practical use, got practical goods in the exchange, and had him convinced that he was no threat. At the end of the day, that guy beat a state three times the size of his with only marginal losses and put his enemy's head on a pike.

It took 20 years of slow rebuilding a conquered province and humiliation under his enemy's boot, but he had the last laugh.


When you are far away make your enemy thing you are near, when you are near make him think you are far away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4563202/US-military-develops-anti-aircraft-laser.html

I am guessing limitations right now can only target light aircraft,(UAV's) and i guess limited range and tracking (still effective against UAV's)

Assuming this technology goes farther is this going to be a revolution in military hardware? or will this be its peak use with it likely replaced later?


we should have some of the stimulus package build these just so the technology advances of course.

ROFL. Are AE games and the US military in cahoots?! :):eek::p

http://www.cncgeneralsworld.com/generals/zerohour/factions/usa/images/avenger_cameo.jpg Compare it to the laser avenger from C&C generals. And lets not forget the microwave weapon (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1418928.htm) the US tested that also bears resemblance to this (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/cnc/images/thumb/5/50/Generals_Microwave_Tank.jpg/200px-Generals_Microwave_Tank.jpg)

Yes I am. I simply reject your skewed views of reality and replace it with my own correctly skewed views.

No, you just repeat your discredited, false claims over and over. You're ignoring the entire concepts of maneuver warfare, politics, diplomacy

- and let's face it buddy. The subject at hand is a modified Avenger air defense system. The purpose of an air defense system is to defend against aircraft, not "kill people and win the war."

You're wrong, and that's that.

No, you just repeat your discredited, false claims over and over. You're ignoring the entire concepts of maneuver warfare, politics, diplomacy

- and let's face it buddy. The subject at hand is a modified Avenger air defense system. The purpose of an air defense system is to defend against aircraft, not "kill people and win the war."

You're wrong, and that's that.

No, your wrong and I'm slightly less wrong and this is this.

ROFL. Are AE games and the US military in cahoots?! :):eek::p

http://www.cncgeneralsworld.com/generals/zerohour/factions/usa/images/avenger_cameo.jpg Compare it to the laser avenger from C&C generals. And lets not forget the microwave weapon (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1418928.htm) the US tested that also bears resemblance to this (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/cnc/images/thumb/5/50/Generals_Microwave_Tank.jpg/200px-Generals_Microwave_Tank.jpg)

they also had F-22 raptors before they were in production. But the ideas have all existed for years. Generals jsut simply added likely future US weapons.

Yes I am. I simply reject historical facts and replace it with my own delusions.

Fixed.

People die in war. That's been true since the first humans emerged.

True, but how does this make killing Civilians and Children tactically sound? Especially in an Era where Public Relations on both sides are so crucial to who is perceived, (and by perceived I mean, actually, lol) as winning the war?


And Killing more people than your enemy is how you win a
war.

World War I, for example, begs to differ,
The Entente Powers (also known as the Allies) lost 5.7 million soldiers and the Central Powers about 4 million.

A good 1.7 Million soldiers more killed on the Winning side than the Losing side...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties


And that's called pre-emptive combat.
Um, lolwut?...
Preemptive war (or a preemptive strike) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war)

What could that possibly have to do with how many Civilians you kill in War?

No, your wrong and I'm slightly less wrong and this is this.

Obvious troll is obvious.

they also had F-22 raptors before they were in production. But the ideas have all existed for years. Generals jsut simply added likely future US weapons.

It's cool how many of those are becoming real. If you think this is awesome just wait until all the goodies inspired by other sci fi like Iron Man,Starship troopers and StarCraft start coming out.

It's cool how many of those are becoming real. If you think this is awesome just wait until all the goodies inspired by other sci fi like Iron Man,Starship troopers and StarCraft start coming out.

I want to be an Archon.

Obvious troll is obvious.

bad jokes is obvious.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Yeah, just wish he'dve posted that before I went through the trouble of finding all those facts, lol...

It's cool how many of those are becoming real. If you think this is awesome just wait until all the goodies inspired by other sci fi like Iron Man,Starship troopers and StarCraft start coming out.

no this was art imitating life. the microwave weapons and the laser AD weapons were in the works before the game. Its just you can program a game faster then invent a laser weapon from a concept.

Yeah, just wish he'dve posted that before I went through the trouble of finding all those facts, lol...

Last time I checked that was the point.

It's cool how many of those are becoming real. If you think this is awesome just wait until all the goodies inspired by other sci fi like Iron Man,Starship troopers and StarCraft start coming out.

Seriously, what army paints in bright red and gold color schemes?

bad jokes is obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb_conjugation

Read this please.

Seriously, what army paints in bright red and gold color schemes?

The Rule of Cool army.

Seriously, what army paints in bright red and gold color schemes?

Ask and ye shall receive...

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/img_400/Redcoats.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb_conjugation

Read this please.

Yes, I realize I made a grammatical error. I should have said


"Bad joke is obvious"

or

"Bad jokes are obvious"

Yes, I realize I made a grammatical error. I should have said


"Bad joke is obvious"

or

"Bad jokes are obvious"

Thank you.

Seriously, what army paints in bright red and gold color schemes?

The Soviet one and the Terran Dominion for two. ;)

Besides the US military would only use the tech, they'd either leave it as it or paint a cammo scheme on it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0X1vyWU6bw)

Ask and ye shall receive...

Paints. Dyed cloth is different. Besides, the redcoats are obsolete.

The Soviet one and the Terran Dominion for two. ;)

One's fictional, the other one tended to only use bright red and gold for their insignias while coloring the rest in drab brown and green.

Thank you.

Just because I troll when I get bored doesn't mean I'm grammatically incompetent.

No, your wrong and I'm slightly less wrong and this is this.

Go away.

Go away.

You're not very fun, are you?

Psh, laser are old news. Now if they somehow manage to make light sabers.... :D

We need to bring back the ultimate weapon in our arsenal...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/tomasutpen/album6/sistersofdivineprovidence57.jpg

Psh, laser are old news. Now if they somehow manage to make light sabers.... :D

Personally, I'd rather not carry something on my belt that if I sit wrong, could melt a hole in my ass.

Personally, I'd rather not carry something on my belt that if I sit wrong, could melt a hole in my ass.

There already is a hole in your ass. :D

Psh, laser are old news. Now if they somehow manage to make light sabers.... :D

Ah but those are a much too Elegant Weapon for our so Uncivilized Age....:(

We need to bring back the ultimate weapon in our arsenal...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/tomasutpen/album6/sistersofdivineprovidence57.jpg

Those look like BB guns.

Those look like BB guns.

I think they're actually .22 caliber rifles.

There already is a hole in your ass. :D

I meant one that isn't being burned in with searing hot psuedo-science.

You're not very fun, are you?

I.... I'm fun.

:(

Ah but those are a much too Elegant Weapon for our so Uncivilized Age....:(

Does that mean I need to destroy my dual blade silver crystaled one... again? :(

I.... I'm fun.

:(

Lighten up man. Of course your fun.

You played along for a while.

I.... I'm fun.

:(

You didnt try to kill me...(well, to my knowledge anyway)...for feeding VirginiaCooper...Fun enough in my book, lol...

I think they're actually .22 caliber rifles.

Those are either small guns, or big nuns.

Those are either small guns, or big nuns.

You made a rhyme just in the nick of time.

Those are either small guns, or big nuns.

Or big nuns with small guns.

I'd say .22 cal, maybe a youth model.

Lighten up man. Of course your fun.

You played along for a while.

W-w-welll I know but you hurt my feelings. :( I'm fun, I know how to rock out, I've smiled before! I demand an apology or else I am invading your NS with my ginormous steel penis.

You made a rhyme just in the nick of time.

Behold my mad rhyming skills, It ain't much but it pays the bills.

Had to be done. :D

Or big nuns with small guns.

I'd say .22 cal, maybe a youth model.

Those nuns need to shoot a 12 gauge shotgun, then I'll be impressed.

Where's my dual blade lightsaber?!

Well, the quickest way to get one is to make sure that you head to Dantooine after leaving Telos. Go to the Jedi Enclave and fake the will from the dead salvager to get the claim from the militia office. You will get a free lightsaber, although it may not be dual bladed...depends on what type you picked when you filled in your own backstory...

...oh wait, you meant, when are they going to make them.





Never mind. :p

Behold my mad rhyming skills, It ain't much but it pays the bills.

Your skill at rhymes notwithstanding, I find myself forever drinking. I'm drunk. Forgive me.

W-w-welll I know but you hurt my feelings. :( I'm fun, I know how to rock out, I've smiled before! I demand an apology or else I am invading your NS with my ginormous steel penis.

My nation is ginormous steel penis proof.

I meant one that isn't being burned in with searing hot psuedo-science.

lol

ROFL. Are AE games and the US military in cahoots?! :):eek::p

http://www.cncgeneralsworld.com/generals/zerohour/factions/usa/images/avenger_cameo.jpg Compare it to the laser avenger from C&C generals. And lets not forget the microwave weapon (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1418928.htm) the US tested that also bears resemblance to this (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/cnc/images/thumb/5/50/Generals_Microwave_Tank.jpg/200px-Generals_Microwave_Tank.jpg)

I was totally gonna point that out.

I want that Particle Cannon

http://www.webwombat.com.au/games/images/generals5.jpg

And what pray tell is the most efficent way to remove an enemy combatant's will and capability to wage war?

To kill said combatant.

I should have said, the more of the enemy you kill with fewer munitions and at the smallest possible cost to your own nation.

Massive and indiscriminant killing is the easiest way to wear down your own public's taste for conflict

Massive and indiscriminant killing is the easiest way to wear down your own public's taste for conflict

maybe we need to nationalize the media before the next war.

"Laser Avenger, unlike a conventional weapon, can fire its laser beam without creating missile exhaust or gun flashes that would reveal its position.

"As a result, Laser Avenger can neutralize these UAV threats while keeping our troops safe."
This is where I tuned out completely. Because this laser is being fired in an atmosphere anyone with an IR scope or goggles will see a column of light shooting at their plane and because pretty much every military in the world (certainly every military with planes) can field at least semi-obsolete IR equipment it will give away positions when the enemy notices their planes going down.

All lasers sufficiently strong to take down a plane are also going to suck down the juice faster than Ted Kennedy at an open bar so you'll need a kick-ass generator that guzzles fuel and gives off a killer heat sig, a giant battery, or a small nuclear reactor/RTG or it will just be a one-shot weapon except not as cheap or easy to use as the panzerfaust.

Laser weapons are just a bad idea outside of big ships and large planes where they can actually get the power and room they need to function.

This is where I tuned out completely. Because this laser is being fired in an atmosphere anyone with an IR scope or goggles will see a column of light shooting at their plane and because pretty much every military in the world (certainly every military with planes) can field at least semi-obsolete IR equipment it will give away positions when the enemy notices their planes going down.

Depends on the wavelength of the laser. An ultraviolet range laser won't show up on IR goggles. Or at least as well as an infrared range laser. You want thermal vision instead.

O o
/¯/___________________________ __________
|IM'MA FIRIN'MAH LAZAR BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
\_\¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

It is hoped that the Laser Avenger will be used to help US forces tackle small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which often carry explosives or surveillance equipment.

In b4 the US shoots down their own UAVs before realising that the terrorists don't have any.

O o
/¯/___________________________ __________
|IM'MA FIRIN'MAH LAZAR BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
\_\¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

You, sir, are made of win

Like my sig says, they make everything better!

In b4 the US shoots down their own UAVs before realising that the terrorists don't have any.

Sure they do. They're called rocks.

It's almost surgical in nature. Point-fire-kill-end, no big explosion, no large trail of smoke to give away your position.

I like the idea of it.

High powered laser is more likely to leave a large trail of bloom in the atmosphere.

This is where I tuned out completely. Because this laser is being fired in an atmosphere anyone with an IR scope or goggles will see a column of light shooting at their plane and because pretty much every military in the world (certainly every military with planes) can field at least semi-obsolete IR equipment it will give away positions when the enemy notices their planes going down.

All lasers sufficiently strong to take down a plane are also going to suck down the juice faster than Ted Kennedy at an open bar so you'll need a kick-ass generator that guzzles fuel and gives off a killer heat sig, a giant battery, or a small nuclear reactor/RTG or it will just be a one-shot weapon except not as cheap or easy to use as the panzerfaust.

Laser weapons are just a bad idea outside of big ships and large planes where they can actually get the power and room they need to function.

Actually lasers aren't really viable as weapons on ships either, that whole thing about not respecting the curvature of the earth and all. Why fire a laser when you can shoot a missile 10x further?

Actually lasers aren't really viable as weapons on ships either, that whole thing about not respecting the curvature of the earth and all. Why fire a laser when you can shoot a missile 10x further?

They'd be excellent point defense weapons.

They'd be excellent point defense weapons.

THAT I hadn't considered, thanks.

THAT I hadn't considered, thanks.

Way better than the spray and pray vulcan cannon. 6000 rounds per minute is impressive, but wasteful as hell. Assuming a laser could hit the incoming missile's warhead and detonate it fast enough it'd be a major improvement.

Though that would make missiles pretty damned useless against ships.

Way better than the spray and pray vulcan cannon. 6000 rounds per minute is impressive, but wasteful as hell. Assuming a laser could hit the incoming missile's warhead and detonate it fast enough it'd be a major improvement.

Though that would make missiles pretty damned useless against ships.

And suddenly a Navy became worth having again :)

Way better than the spray and pray vulcan cannon. 6000 rounds per minute is impressive, but wasteful as hell. Assuming a laser could hit the incoming missile's warhead and detonate it fast enough it'd be a major improvement.

Though that would make missiles pretty damned useless against ships.

That's why we are developing Coil and Rail Guns.

And suddenly a Navy became worth having again :)

You mean its not now?

That's why we are developing Coil and Rail Guns.

Eh, pretty limited use in my opinion, you still need ammo, and rail guns tend to need serviced constantly. Coil guns are neat, but pretty damned limited currently, you can only get the projectile moving so fast due to the limits of magnetic saturation. Lasers move at the speed of light, and their only problem is atmospheric bloom and power consumption. Power shouldn't be an issue on a large ship like an aircraft carrier.

Eh, pretty limited use in my opinion, you still need ammo, and rail guns tend to need serviced constantly. Coil guns are neat, but pretty damned limited currently, you can only get the projectile moving so fast due to the limits of magnetic saturation. Lasers move at the speed of light, and their only problem is atmospheric bloom and power consumption. Power shouldn't be an issue on a large ship like an aircraft carrier.

We already have ones (rail guns) that can fire at targets 200 miles away that are the right size to put on a cruiser or aircraft carrier; maintenance is a problem yes, but that is an issue with almost every piece of equipment we use. A helicopter needs an average of 1 hour of maintenance for every 30 minutes in flight during combat conditions, jets are either the same or worse. The M-16 requires about 10-20 minutes of maintenance a day to stay in prime fighting condition. Lots of maintenance is not so much a big deal to the military.

We already have ones (rail guns) that can fire at targets 200 miles away that are the right size to put on a cruiser or aircraft carrier; maintenance is a problem yes, but that is an issue with almost every piece of equipment we use. A helicopter needs an average of 1 hour of maintenance for every 30 minutes in flight during combat conditions, jets are either the same or worse. The M-16 requires about 10-20 minutes of maintenance a day to stay in prime fighting condition. Lots of maintenance is not so much a big deal to the military.

Except you have to replace the rails on a railgun after almost every shot. That puts a serious maintenance crimp on any kind of combat spec railgun until you develop frictionless materials.

Except you have to replace the rails on a railgun after almost every shot. That puts a serious maintenance crimp on any kind of combat spec railgun until you develop frictionless materials.

Its the thought that counts :p.

If I can't have battlemechs I want railguns!

Depends on the wavelength of the laser. An ultraviolet range laser won't show up on IR goggles. Or at least as well as an infrared range laser. You want thermal vision instead.

Guess how thermal vision works... looks at the IR spectrum. At typical heats we're likely to be dealing with, it will be either IR or visible light coming from the atmosphere, which is what you would be able to observe from some other location.

Just for interest, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Starfield_Optical_Range_-_sodium_laser.jpg) is what a 50W laser looks like.

meh. wake me when they get handheld ones.


I remember my Science teacher way back in 6th grade eavesdropping on our conversation about laser weapons and definitely declaring that we will never get them. Lasers are incapable of acting like that, he told us, and so we will never see a laser cannon. He was more than a tad patronising I recall.
He's dead now, which is a shame as I'd love to email him the OP article (not that he'd ever remember above conversation if he were still alive, but don't matter. It's the principle).

He was right - laser weapons of the sort you were almost certainly discussing are scientifically impossible. The one we have here is simply scaling up things already designed, really, but it's fundamentally a very big laser pointer. You just put enough power into the target over a long enough time*. Completely different to a sci-fi laser pistol, which you just point and zap with.

*Or rapidly pulse it, using the shockwaves this generates in the target surface to cause damage. Again, this takes a fair bit of time.

10s of kilowatts the article says, though I imagine it's only for a couple of seconds at most. Assuming it is 60 kilowatts, there are 3600 seconds in an hour, and 60000 (Watts rather than kilowatts, being the SI unit)/3600x2 = 33.33 W/h. That's the energy consumption of a laptop. The HUMVEEs alternator could easily keep up with this, however without an intermeditary battery you'd need a charge up time if you wanted to use it consecutively.

Anyone feel free to correct my maths if you see something wrong, as it's a weak point of mine.

Assumes perfect efficiency, which is not the case. While I can't find a value quickly, I would be surprised if even 1% of the power ends up in the laser beam, and you then need to account for atmospheric losses before you hit the target. It's a lot harder than that.

Also, you're drawing very high power over very short time periods - your power source has to be able to cope with that. If you tried to run this off a laptop battery, the laptop battery would explode, even if the average draw were the same.

*fap*

We already have ones (rail guns) that can fire at targets 200 miles away that are the right size to put on a cruiser or aircraft carrier; maintenance is a problem yes, but that is an issue with almost every piece of equipment we use. A helicopter needs an average of 1 hour of maintenance for every 30 minutes in flight during combat conditions, jets are either the same or worse. The M-16 requires about 10-20 minutes of maintenance a day to stay in prime fighting condition. Lots of maintenance is not so much a big deal to the military.

got to admit the military always has a lot of people with nothing to do all day but Preventive maintenance checks and services.

So an anti UAV weapon, Iran has developed multiple types of milatary UAV personally I'm concerned by the possibilty of the weapon being turned on people either accidentally or intentionally, historically AAA has been used against ground targets as a secondary role. I don't know what tens of kilowatts of laser light can do to a person but it's use in such a way could violate the ban on blinding laser weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons (article IV) also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons.

ABL and ATL are chemical lasers that whilst not requiring massive electrical power inputs do need large fuel tanks containing as the aticle on page 1 states some petty nasty stuff.

So an anti UAV weapon, Iran has developed multiple types of milatary UAV personally I'm concerned by the possibilty of the weapon being turned on people either accidentally or intentionally, historically AAA has been used against ground targets as a secondary role. I don't know what tens of kilowatts of laser light can do to a person but it's use in such a way could violate the ban on blinding laser weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons (article IV).

ABL and ATL are chemical lasers that whilst not requireing massive electrical power inputs do need large fuel tanks containing as the aticle on page 1 states some petty nasty stuff.

Tens of kilowatts of laser light could probably kill, although effectiveness may be reduced on skin.

However, there's not much point. One of the big reasons AA has traditionally been reused against light ground targets is that most AA systems work by hurling an immense amount of fire at the target and hoping some of it hits. This is very effective on infantry brigades, light vehicles, and similar targets. This system, by contrast, is extremely precise, and tracks and deals with one target accurately at once. Not so useful for shredding things on the ground, especially when you add in the targeting problems and various other issues.

Depends on the wavelength of the laser. An ultraviolet range laser won't show up on IR goggles. Or at least as well as an infrared range laser. You want thermal vision instead.
A UV laser won't have the range or effectiveness of an IR laser in an atmosphere as thick as ours. That's why cellphones can't cause cancer, they can't operate with ionizing radiation or they'd have no fucking range.

Also, lasers can be defeated pretty easily by spinning the missile so that the laser can't keep hitting the same surface. Since it's working by blowing up fuel tanks it'll also be pretty useless against shells and heavily sheilded missiles. This is just a bad idea and damn wasteful when we already have radar-guided rotary cannons. It's like "why build a Maus when you already have bunkers and guns emplacements?"

A UV laser won't have the range or effectiveness of an IR laser in an atmosphere as thick as ours. That's why cellphones can't cause cancer, they can't operate with ionizing radiation or they'd have no fucking range.

Also, lasers can be defeated pretty easily by spinning the missile so that the laser can't keep hitting the same surface. Since it's working by blowing up fuel tanks it'll also be pretty useless against shells and heavily sheilded missiles. This is just a bad idea and damn wasteful when we already have radar-guided rotary cannons. It's like "why build a Maus when you already have bunkers and guns emplacements?"
What about in an ABM capacity?

Also, lasers can be defeated pretty easily by spinning the missile so that the laser can't keep hitting the same surface. Since it's working by blowing up fuel tanks it'll also be pretty useless against shells and heavily sheilded missiles. This is just a bad idea and damn wasteful when we already have radar-guided rotary cannons. It's like "why build a Maus when you already have bunkers and guns emplacements?"

Radar-guided rotary cannons are damn near useless against current generation anti-shipping missiles. The range is too short and the probability of hit low, especially when you consider that the Moskvit class of missiles were built to have violent terminal range maneuvers meant to beat just exactly that sort of defense. It's why CIWs systems are being changed out with missiles rather than guns now. Longer range, and better hit probabilities.

Also, the UV laser was an example. I figure a combat laser would likely be a free electron variant, maybe in the x-ray range, though I don't know how effective that would be.

Invented by Boeing, the laser is fitted to a Humvee off-road vehicle, allowing it to be moved into the most remote locations to shoot down enemy planes.

(assuming you have enough gasoline to reach the most remote locations with one of the worst gas guzzlers ever!)


It is hoped that the Laser Avenger will be used to help US forces tackle small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which often carry explosives or surveillance equipment.


Basically they use a multibillion-dollar-worth device to down unexpensive aircrafts, little more than toys. Pure genius: this is what you need in times of financial crisis!

I guess that Iran is buying a couple of model aircraft companies... enough to make the US economy collapse definitely under the weight of the defence budget.

It's why CIWs systems are being changed out with missiles rather than guns now. Longer range, and better hit probabilities.


Actually the russians mount combined gun-missile CIWs turrets on their ships (see Kashtan).

A UV laser won't have the range or effectiveness of an IR laser in an atmosphere as thick as ours. That's why cellphones can't cause cancer, they can't operate with ionizing radiation or they'd have no fucking range.


Ehm, ionising radiation isn't exactly the only kind of cancerogenic em radiation.

Actually the russians mount combined gun-missile CIWs turrets on their ships (see Kashtan).

I know the Russian Chestnut. The gun-missile configuration is interesting, but it's similar to the Tunguska model which was designed to use the guns generally for mid to short range knockdown of helicopters using pop and shoot tactics due to the slightly longer engagement time for missiles at those ranges.

On a ship, it's doubtful that the guns would be used for anti-shipping missile knockdown. Even if you destroy them before impact, they might be close enough for the payload (several hundred kg of explosives) to cause significant damage to today's thin hull designs. The further away you knock down a missile with that kind of payload, the better.

On a ship, it's doubtful that the guns would be used for anti-shipping missile knockdown. Even if you destroy them before impact, they might be close enough for the payload (several hundred kg of explosives) to cause significant damage to today's thin hull designs. The further away you knock down a missile with that kind of payload, the better.

Meh. I've seen a couple of video on youtube with the Kashtan firing its guns at missiles. Btw, missiles also have thin hulls and fins, so minor damages can effectively distrupt their trajectories - it's not about supersonic 3-tons steel-and-lead cannon projectiles!

Also, most NATO antiship missiles are subsonic, iirc; intercepting them with gunfire is easier.

I await the day we turn these weapons on the actual terrorists. Especially since it would probably look like the guy spontaneously combusted.

I await the day we turn these weapons on the actual terrorists. Especially since it would probably look like the guy spontaneously combusted.

Except for the massive beam of light connecting the Humvee to the target, that's possibly true. And the sheer number of problems involved in doing ground to ground targeting of lasers.

Except for the massive beam of light connecting the Humvee to the target, that's possibly true. And the sheer number of problems involved in doing ground to ground targeting of lasers.

"He's hiding indoors Sarge"
"Who's stupid idea was it to replace our mortars with lasers again?:mad:"

Except for the massive beam of light connecting the Humvee to the target, that's possibly true. And the sheer number of problems involved in doing ground to ground targeting of lasers.

1) Visible lasers aren't visible from the side.
2) A weaponised laser is unlikely to be in the visible spectrum anyway.

1) Visible lasers aren't visible from the side.
2) A weaponised laser is unlikely to be in the visible spectrum anyway.

My point exactly. And unlike guns, a laser would be silent. Invisible silent death.

Throw in an ambush to hide the source, and the terrorists will start freaking out big time after their buddies start spontaneously combusting.

1) Visible lasers aren't visible from the side.
2) A weaponised laser is unlikely to be in the visible spectrum anyway.

All of the weaponized lasers to date are in the near-infrared. Invisible to the naked eye.

1) Visible lasers aren't visible from the side.

In vacuum. In the atmosphere, the dust disperses the light.


2) A weaponised laser is unlikely to be in the visible spectrum anyway.
I'd thought that as anti-personnel weapon a maser would be a lot more useful, expecially a maser working on water's frequencies.

"He's hiding indoors Sarge"
"Who's stupid idea was it to replace our mortars with lasers again?:mad:"

"Look out sarge! He's got a mirror! AYEEEEE"

"Look out sarge! He's got a mirror! AYEEEEE"

A mirror isn't as useful as you might think.

Inside a laser weapon, the beam is a certain diameter - wide enough to be reflected back and forth inside the weapon cavity in order to exploit gain without melting the internal mirrors or components.

Upon exit, it passes through a final aiming mirror or lens, which focuses the beam down to a specific spot diameter at the target.

This final focused spot is too small and too intense (in terms of watts per steradian) for any mirror to withstand the beam for even a few microseconds. The mirror will be destroyed almost as quickly as if it was non-reflective.

Additionally, weapon lasers are all operating in the near infrared. You'll need a perfect mirror meant for that exact wavelength for the mirrors inside the weapon itself - mirrors that cost a lot of money. Outside of the weapon, your hand held defensive mirror won't be of any use to you...

1) Visible lasers aren't visible from the side.
2) A weaponised laser is unlikely to be in the visible spectrum anyway.

They are in atmosphere - scattering from air particles. In ground to ground contexts, this is even more pronounced due to dust, smoke, clouds and mist, and so on. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Starfield_Optical_Range_-_sodium_laser.jpg), for reference, is a photograph of a 50W laser in atmosphere. And bear in mind that is at an observatory, which means the location was picked for very low levels of atmospheric pollution.

Possibly. Even if it is, a laser sufficiently powerful to be used as a weapon could quite possibly heat the air it's passing through sufficient to cause light emission.

My point exactly. And unlike guns, a laser would be silent. Invisible silent death.

Throw in an ambush to hide the source, and the terrorists will start freaking out big time after their buddies start spontaneously combusting.

Ditto on the silence - if you have something that can destroy missiles, you'll quite possibly get a thunderclap effect from its firing, for a start.

All of the weaponized lasers to date are in the near-infrared. Invisible to the naked eye.

Well, even if this is the case, I am fairly certain that you will get sound (superheated air cooling, just like a thunderbolt), and possibly light for the same reason. Face it, lasers are not some perfect stealth weapon.

I'd thought that as anti-personnel weapon a maser would be a lot more useful, expecially a maser working on water's frequencies.

I like this idea.

I like this idea.

Main problem is that the air has a lot of water in it. Energy would be dumped into this, and so the beam would lose power and coherence very fast.

I thought about laser weapons for a bit a couple years ago, and decided they're more trouble than they're worth (militarily) anything apart from anti-aircraft and potential space-based use --- atmospheres just bring up too many problems, and the curvature of the Earth adds another range issue.

Meh. I've seen a couple of video on youtube with the Kashtan firing its guns at missiles. Btw, missiles also have thin hulls and fins, so minor damages can effectively distrupt their trajectories - it's not about supersonic 3-tons steel-and-lead cannon projectiles!


Inertia. 4.5 tons of projectile at Mach 2.5 is not going to fly off course in the last few hundred meters just because of shredded wings or a few piddly 20mm/30mm rounds.

Especially since it would probably look like the guy spontaneously combusted.

Hardly. Ever seen an industrial cutting laser? Even wood doesn't combust except at the edge being cut. All it does is leave a neat hole in the object.

A human target would suffer a hole in his body equal to the diameter of the laser, and the heat of the beam would flash cauterize the wound at the same time, unlike bullets which would let you bleed to death.

You've played too much C&C.

Hardly. Ever seen an industrial cutting laser? Even wood doesn't combust except at the edge being cut. All it does is leave a neat hole in the object.

A human target would suffer a hole in his body equal to the diameter of the laser, and the heat of the beam would flash cauterize the wound at the same time, unlike bullets which would let you bleed to death.

You've played too much C&C.

Forgot about the size of the beam.

A mirror isn't as useful as you might think.
...

I know, I got 30/30 in electrooptics and 27/30 in quantum optics... I was just having some fun.

Still, I think that the cost/effectiveness ratio of such a laser is quite inferior to, let's say, an AA complex like the Tunguska or the good-ol'Duster as anti-aircraft weapon.

Inertia. 4.5 tons of projectile at Mach 2.5 is not going to fly off course in the last few hundred meters just because of shredded wings or a few piddly 20mm/30mm rounds.

Shredded wings => aerodynamical instability => going off-course or yawing too much and getting destroyed by attrition with air.

Anyway, if a sea-skimming missile is heading on your ship at mach 2.5 (that is about 800 m/s), there's no way to hit it. Not with a gun, not with a missile, not with a laser. There's simply NO time to intercept it. Same goes with monsters like the Kickback (diving at Mach 5 from 40000 m ceiling iirc).

Maybe the only thing that COULD work a bit would be a tank-like configuration: reactive armour, layers of spaced chobham and DU ceramics for more than 2 m steel-equivalent, and an Arena-style system. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Shredded wings => aerodynamical instability => going off-course or yawing too much and getting destroyed by attrition with air.


This might work with fragile, large wing objects like fixed wing aircraft which primarily depend on a lot of wing area for lift. Anti-shipping missiles don't. CIWS aren't designed to kill a missile by destroying its ability to fly. They kill them by blowing up the warhead.


Anyway, if a sea-skimming missile is heading on your ship at mach 2.5 (that is about 800 m/s), there's no way to hit it. Not with a gun, not with a missile, not with a laser. There's simply NO time to intercept it. Same goes with monsters like the Kickback (diving at Mach 5 from 40000 m ceiling iirc).


Absolutely false. The faster the missile, the lower your response time, but it does not mean you cannot intercept it. Radar ranges are well into the hundreds of km, and that gives a lot of advance warning, even for sea-skimmers and the resulting lowered detection range.

Missile CIWS give a much higher engagement range, thereby time, as well as kill probability, compared to guns for three reasons.

1: Bigger warhead.
2: Self guiding.
3: Multi-targeting capable.

The RIM-116 for example, fires Mach 2.0 capable missiles with a range of 7.5km, more than half again the range of guns. In missile defense, every second, every extra 100 meters of range counts.


Maybe the only thing that COULD work a bit would be a tank-like configuration: reactive armour, layers of spaced chobham and DU ceramics for more than 2 m steel-equivalent, and an Arena-style system. But I wouldn't bet on it.

A 120mm anti-tank HEAT round weighs 19kg. A run of the mill anti-shipping missile carries several hundred kilos in just payload alone, and moves faster than a 120mm round. Tank armor wouldn't work. You'd need magic armor if you wanted to make a warship that's more than a floating brick and still light enough to mount weapons.

This might work with fragile, large wing objects like fixed wing aircraft which primarily depend on a lot of wing area for lift. Anti-shipping missiles don't. CIWS aren't designed to kill a missile by destroying its ability to fly. They kill them by blowing up the warhead.

I see.


Absolutely false. The faster the missile, the lower your response time, but it does not mean you cannot intercept it. Radar ranges are well into the hundreds of km, and that gives a lot of advance warning, even for sea-skimmers and the resulting lowered detection range.
Yep, but a thing is scanning, another is tracking and still another is locking.


Missile CIWS give a much higher engagement range, thereby time, as well as kill probability, compared to guns for three reasons.
1: Bigger warhead.
2: Self guiding.
3: Multi-targeting capable.
...


Meh. I doubt about the real chances of BVR interception of sea-skimmers.


A 120mm anti-tank HEAT round weighs 19kg. A run of the mill anti-shipping missile carries several hundred kilos in just payload alone, and moves faster than a 120mm round.

the bolded part I doubt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125mm_Smoothbore_Rounds
HEATs listed at around 905 m/s muzzle velocity, and APFSDS listed at around 1800 m/s muzzle velocity.

The Raduga Kh-31 (As-17 Krypton), a sea-skimmer with top speed of Mach 3.5, has a HE warhead of less than 100 kg.
The AGM-65 Maverick, used as anti-ship also, has a warhead of about 120 kg but cannot reach Mach 1.

Yep, but a thing is scanning, another is tracking and still another is locking.

Meh. I doubt about the real chances of BVR interception of sea-skimmers.

If you can build a fast missile to kill ships, you can build an equally fast, preferably more agile, missile to kill the anti-shipping missiles.


the bolded part I doubt.


The weight? Because you didn't bold any part.

Also, I didn't refer to APFSDS rounds because they use a completely different mechanic (solid penetrator versus explosive payload) to cause damage, of which no missile I know of uses as its primary payload.


The Raduga Kh-31 (As-17 Krypton), a sea-skimmer with top speed of Mach 3.5, has a HE warhead of less than 100 kg.
The AGM-65 Maverick, used as anti-ship also, has a warhead of about 120 kg but cannot reach Mach 1.

As of post 1960s, there have been 13 types of anti-shipping missiles with payloads exceeding 200kg, not counting those with thermonuclear warheads, and 20 with payloads exceeding 100kg. Of those 20, 13 of them have speeds in excess of 1,000km/h up to 5,4000km/h.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-shipping_missile