Laser Cannons Coming to an F-16 Near You 757
dxprog writes "Reuters is reporting that the US Pentagon is designing a laser cannon that's small enough to fit onto a fighter jet yet powerful enough to knock out a missile. "The High Energy Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS), being designed by the Pentagon's central research and development agency, will weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures the size of a large fridge." Now all we need to do is make fighter jets space worthy for that true Star Wars feel."
4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... (Score:5, Insightful)
Power Source? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Forbidden? (Score:5, Insightful)
Compact? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... (Score:3, Insightful)
Today's Humvee armor problem stems from the parameters for the Humvee project, which were laid down fifteen or more years ago.
Since then, the nature of battle has changed dramatically, and the kinds of missions the military now faces aren't really ideally suited to the Humvee project the military had already committed to.
So in another ten years, you'll be able to recycle the same old schtick: "4 out of 5 swinging dicks say more lasers for the jets, and less armor for the groundpounders".
Of course, ten years from now that schtick won't be any more relevant or insightful or instructive than it is today, but hey, don't be discouraged: Not everybody can change the way they think and act over time the way the military can. Follow your heart, and I'm sure you will achieve your dream!
Re:Forbidden? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Compact? (Score:4, Insightful)
It'd be smaller than a 370 gallon external fuel pod.
No one said it was gonna be shaped like a cement block.
Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Forbidden? (Score:3, Insightful)
That Star Wars Feel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Forbidden? (Score:3, Insightful)
what if it misses its target? (Score:3, Insightful)
i mean, the laser has to be powerful enough to work at a distance of several km, and a plane is only several km off the ground. normally if a missile does not hit its target it detonates in midair (raining debris on the ground), but this seems a bit more problematic.
Re:Forbidden? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Forbidden? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe something else, though-- An Immune system. Our own immune system will attack anything that's not us. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to think that an aliens 'white-blood-cells' or equivalent would also do so...even if you toss a mouthfull of the little troopers at something else-- and we're back to 'eeeewwwww.....'
Re:Forbidden? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what if it does? (Score:4, Insightful)
nature of battle (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Forbidden? (Score:2, Insightful)
And the 5.56mm round wasn't put into service because it "maims" better than a 7.62mm NATO round, its because for the equivalent weight a soldier can carry more 5.56mm ammo.
Re:I hope not. Here is why. (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer to this paradox, IMO, is that war is simply incompatible with civil society.
Re:what if it misses its target? (Score:3, Insightful)
At high angles the moving beam at the actual impact point (a miss) may be well ABOVE mach 2. At anyrate once you start talking miles a single degree of divergence is going to move the end of the beam a fair distance. IE firing plane is one mile away at 10,000 ft altitude firing at a target one mile away at 5000 ft altitude. Now as they approach or manouver the beam will be continually redirected to intersect the target. But the potential zone for the beam to fall on the ground will continually vary, potentially by a great deal as at high intercepts rates of closeure you can easily have 1mile a second rates with mach 2 capable fighters. but even at lower speeds its doubtfull you will have any specific foucus on a given point other than around the intended target. At low oblique angles to the ground it wouldn't hit for a significant distance anyway and if you are engaging at a relative max of the lethal range (adviseable... ie shoot them as soon as you can) then there will be a minimal distance for the beam to travel that it could do damage even if it were focused, much less if it is wondering all over the place.
Anyway I am sure if you really wanted to you could work a few geometry examples with planes various distances apart where the firing aircraft has various altitude advantages over the target (otherwise its angled into space if it misses) using a suitable kill radius. As it it expands the time on target will need to be greater to account for atmospheric absorbtion. Anyway take that 150kw number and length of a single fireing sequence. Then come up with a time to kill/maim a human then account for percentage of beam that would impact the target, beam divergence etc... over distance and figure out what the time on target would be in your various engagement scenarios and time on target in event of a miss. Think your going to find its simply not much of an issue relative to already problematic targeting mishaps.
Re:I hope not. Here is why. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... (Score:5, Insightful)
Action leads to reaction, and no matter HOW much armor you put on something, you can always penetrate it - just takes a bigger bang. The say that some of the bigger IEDs actually pick something like a APC and throw them a couple of hundred yards, and up-armored HUMVEES just get blown to bits
Did Chris Knight invent this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will they make noise in space? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would take a ludicrous amount of fuel to make a spacecraft fly like a jet fighter.
It would also prevent the pilot from doing many maneuvers that can only be performed in space.
Of course, by the time we have genuine spacefighters, piloted fightercraft will be a thing of the distant past. Remote-piloted and autonomous vehicles can perform many feats that would kill a pilot.
Movies that have piloted spacefighters are like the old sci-fi books where computers still use vacuum tubes. It's storytelling based on what we're familiar with, and because piloted fighters give us a sense of chivalry and danger.
Maybe in the FAR distant future, if the human race survives and advances enough, it might be technically possible to have piloted craft like in Greg Bear's Anvil of Stars, where they're protected from G-forces by advanced physics, and their mental functions are sped up by other systems that create "virtual neurons" closer together than the real ones. But it will still be more practical to use AI systems designed for that task.
Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
"See, the thing about soldiers is, they need to kill people"
You don't know many soldiers do you? Yours is a fuzzy sentence but it's hard to read it in any other way than that you're saying they have some basic need to kill out of their own volition. Some people do have such a need but those aren't fit for anything really, least of all things military duty (yes they get screened out and denied). Does killing and war break some people? Of course, but extremely few have a "need" to kill, quite the opposite.
If you have a society that makes every soldier into a "must-kill" caricature of the human beings they are well then the military is truly the least of your problems. The only society I know of where this could be even remotely close to being the case is North Korea (and even there it's unlikely that even if they try to do it they actually succeed).
Soldiers are human and it doesn't make sense to take the "human" out of them - it is counterproductive and realized to be so by just about everyone associated with any modern military force (which excludes people who think children suicide bombers is a good idea or communism and facism which instigated programs like Hitlerjugend and Red Pioneers).
"The answer to this paradox, IMO, war is simply incompatible with civil society"
You're beating Jacques Chirac, the master of the art of speaking without saying anything, at his own game here - are you a politician?
FYI I'm a former military officer in a european country and I can assure you that my opinon on this is not in the minority.
Re:let's just get this out of the way: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyways, since you can't make anything perfectly reflective, it will burn through if it's powerful enough or stays on the same part for a long time.
Re:I hope not. Here is why. (Score:4, Insightful)
You give people alot of credit where none is due. People do not have to dehumanize anyone to kill them. Case in point? Most murders (76%) are comitted by people that know the victim. 22% of the murders in 2002 were comitted by family members.
Logically it would semm to be much more difficult to "dehumanize" (whatever the $%^@ that referrs to in a psychological sense) someone that you know personally than a total stranger. Seems to me like it takes knowing someone to be able to to kill them, not the other way around.
Re:I hope not. Here is why. (Score:2, Insightful)
Torture and violations of human rights didn't happen simply because we taught a our guys to kill. They happened because the institutional protections broke down. When Gonzales wrote his memo stating that the Geneva Convention was quaint, the President and the rest of the civilians in charge of the military showed where priorities lay. By not showing the required leadership, they failed to fulfill their duties and minimize the risks of such self-defeating actions taking place.
Had their been leadership shown or at least a sense of accountability within the institution, as there has been in the past, we would not have seen this much abuse, nor would it have weakened our global standing as much. The spin of a few bad apples is fooling no one outside of the US, which makes one wonder why half the population of the US and it's executive institution believe they can bullshit their way through the problem of global terrorism and radical fundamentalists.
Re:I hope not. Here is why. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. It happened because some people are assholes, and some of them got jobs with the National Guard, just like some got jobs with the Post Office, and some work the cubicle down the hall from you. Further, some are in the chain of command supervising (or not, in this case) the people pulling guard duty at a prison. If your theory is correct, and this is policy all way from the top, there would be many, many more instances of what we saw in that particularly disfunctional unit. We're talking about a force of a couple hundred thousand people. What's your ratio of losers per thousand people you know? How about of losers per thousand bosses?
No accountability within the organization? Do you even personally know any people in the armed forces?
Re:I hope not. Here is why. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes I think it's just people that are incompatible with civil society.
OT: Re:OTOH (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything the US did in Europe in the last century was seen as in the best interests of the US. Many Europeans found that that suited them just fine and have been forever grateful. But to suggest that 'Europe' has any obligation to the US is stupid. There were no US towns firebombed. It wasn't US citizens of being herded into camps outside Tulsa. Tanks didn't obliterate an entire county in Virginia.
Fact is, 'Europe' knows what all that shit is about. And too many in the US don't have a fucking clue. Tie a yellow ribbon, man.
As to your question, a powerfull laser could also make air warfare obsolete.
You do realize that the same was said for gunpowder. And the Gatling gun. And the battleship, aeroplane, tank, gas, a-bomb...
Re:I hope not. Here is why. (Score:3, Insightful)
Some would say that civil societies won't exist if they're not willing to make war.
Re:Forbidden? (Score:1, Insightful)
Because hollow-points, frangibles and the like have been banned by various international treaties.
.
Re:I hope not. Here is why. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I hope not. Here is why. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps war is the inevitable result of the existence of politics. Politics is necessarily competitive and adversarial. The rewards are immense and the most desireable seats are naturally limited (the smallest bodies governing the largest areas have the most concentrated power and the highest prestige).
Politicians need to be seen to be "doing something". Successfully governing a quiet Utopia will be boring and look easy. Rivals can offer 'more' or 'less' or 'cheaper', and some number of people will fall in line. Good, stable governance is not safe from agitation.
And when things are going really bady: throw a war. Everybody will show up for the first year or two, and by the time they have realize how much you have screwed things up, you can say things like "stay the course", "don't change horses in mid-stream", and "we would dishonor the memories of those who have already died if we didn't kill a bunch more."