Laser Weapon Shoots Down Airplanes In Test 627
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the phasers-on-stun-good-luck-kirk-out dept.
from the phasers-on-stun-good-luck-kirk-out dept.
airshowfan writes "Boeing's directed-energy weapons (a.k.a. frickin' laser beams) have been getting some attention lately. The Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) is a C-130 that famously burned a hole through a car's hood, and the YAL-1 AirBorne Laser is a 747 that shoots a laser from its nose that is powerful enough to bring down an ICBM. But even cooler is the Mobile Active Targeting Resource for Integrated eXperiments (MATRIX), a laser that is mounted on a truck (which probably costs less than a 747, but who knows) and that can shoot down small aircraft, as shown in the picture on this article. (The Laser Avenger supposedly also has this capability). We live in the future!"
That's great (Score:4, Insightful)
So when do our soldiers get to stop dying because of homemade street bombs?
Re:Shiny things? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but if you make your plane shiny and reflective, you make it a lot easier to target with other weapons, like missiles.
That's easy (Score:5, Insightful)
So when do our soldiers get to stop dying because of homemade street bombs?
When we stop invading other countries?
*yawn* (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Score one for The Gipper - yet again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shiny things? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't making your plane or missile shiny / reflective defeat these things pretty easily?
The answer is no, because no shiny surface has 100% reflectivity (your bathroom mirror probably tops out at around 85%): some of the light will always penetrate to the base layer, and if the surface is being hit by a megawatt weaponized laser, it'll just burn straight through.
Re:Shiny things? (Score:3, Insightful)
A laser that powerful would convey enough impulse to make a hole without needing to heat the target.
What mechanism would cause that type of effect?
So Now I Own My First 1950's SiFi Laser (Score:4, Insightful)
How to pull this off (Score:3, Insightful)
It's quite easy. Make sure that you have a defense contractor in every congressional district. Then you get to play the "jobs" card when someone tries to stop an idiotic waste of resources such as this.
Dwight Eisenhower must be turning in his grave now that the Military Industrial Complex that he warned of has come to pass.
Re:747 vs. a truck (Score:5, Insightful)
The goal for the 747-mounted laser is to shoot down missiles on the way up (when they are over bad guys) versus on the way down (like the Patriot missile). That's why it's on a plane, not a truck.
Well, the fact that they are over the people who just launched the missle is a side benefit, and doesn't really factor into why they are shooting it at that stage.
In the primary phase, the missile is pretty limited in what it can do. It has to gain altitude and speed, and really isn't/can't be built to perform evasion at that point. Combined with the fact that the earlier you hit it, the more combustible it actually is.
On the way down, what you are faced with is a VERY fast moving object (assuming you don't target the countermeasures) that has already demonstrated that it can resist the high temperatures of re-entry and consists of very little in the way of combustible materials. It can also employ a variety of measures to alter its trajectory (more than on the way up).
Re:stupid waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Czarangelus...
I always wondered where you would pop up after you were banned on Fark. (A pretty impressive feat in its own right). Needless to say, you certainly haven't stopped with the flamebait.
Re:Thoughtful pause ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once everybody dies, there will be no more evil. Problem solved.
Re:Shiny things? (Score:2, Insightful)
The heat which boils away the paint surely also destroys the reflective properties of the material beyond.
or we start treating it like a war (Score:3, Insightful)
instead of a police action where every activity is on film or subject to investigation.
I doubt we could have won WW2 under the rules we use now, people no longer have the stomach to do what needs to be done.
I know that your point is true, but we also lose soldiers to bombs elsewhere. We also manage to lose many times more to drunk driving yet we turn a blind eye to that.
Re:How to pull this off (Score:2, Insightful)
Should we build a million of these things? Probably not, but having them available just in case is just plain prudent.
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? We couldn't have won WW2 under the rules we use now? What new rules are those, exactly? Because, you know, the phrase "people no longer have the stomach to do what needs to be done" is pretty scary sounding. What exactly did we have the stomach for then that we don't now? Nuclear bombs?
Quick question (Score:5, Insightful)
Will will stop invading when they promise to stop trying things like hijacking planes and flying them into really tall buildings to kill a few thousand civilians.
What country were those hijackers from, again?
Re:Shiny things? (Score:2, Insightful)
$1M missile vs firing a laser. I do not know how much it costs to fire a chemical laser but I bet it is a lot cheaper than firing a missile.
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:3, Insightful)
Carpet bombing industrial (ie, population) centers. The fact that we don't anymore has more to do with the availability of precision bombs than development of new ethics.
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be a lot easier to treat what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan like a war instead of a police action if they were actions conducted between states with distinct geographic bases rather than an efforts to suppress the elements of populations which are dissatisfied to the point of violence with the regimes established over the regions in which those populations exists.
Yes, its generally difficult to win an interstate war if you treat it as a counterinsurgency action. Of course, the reverse is also true. Applying the methods used to win WW2 to the operations in Afghanistan or Iraq wouldn't end the insurgency in either place.
Re:Shiny things? (Score:3, Insightful)
"You can actually accomplish that with plated layers of reflective material and dialectric material. However, all I then have to do is count on the explosion of the topmost dialectric layer to destroy the reflective layers beneath it.
Fixed.
Re:*yawn* (Score:4, Insightful)
err, i am not sure they can even do that effectively...
Re:Shiny things? (Score:4, Insightful)
Moderators: Parent may not understand the answer to his/her question, but that doesn't make parent a troll. WTF?
Parent: The mirror won't reflect 90% for very long. Not long enough for it to matter where the reflected energy goes, I expect. Perhaps collateral damage to other mirrors in the area; or, more seriously, I suppose it could damage the vision of anyone who was looking at the target from the wrong angle.
Re:So, which future is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest you read George Orwell's 1984, to find the answer to that question.
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:5, Insightful)
instead of a police action where every activity is on film or subject to investigation.
Well, the obvious difference is that the Nazis, Italians, and Japanese were the national leaders of their countries. Now we are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, we are working with the Iraqi and Anghani governments against irregulars within their borders. You fight these battles two very different ways.
What do you suggest we do differently?
Destruction is easy (Score:1, Insightful)
Destruction is easy. I'm not impressed. We pissed away our wealth in two wars. Destruction is easy. A bunch of brainwashed flunkies brought down 220 stories of creation. Creation is hard. Destruction is easy. Every day there are people wasting the precious gift of life, drinking, shooting up, shooting. Easy. Destruction. I'm not impressed.
Re:Shiny things? (Score:3, Insightful)
The laser *ITSELF* has two mirrors.
Why doesn't it burn?
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:5, Insightful)
Carpet bombing industrial (ie, population) centers. The fact that we don't anymore has more to do with the availability of precision bombs than development of new ethics.
What industrial centers? Afghanistan is probably the poorest country on Earth. If it's not #1 then it's certainly in the top ten. I don't think mass bombardment of "industrial centers" is going to have much effect on an enemy whose primary weapons are AK-47s and homemade bombs.
Re:Shiny things? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you want to make a radar resitant stealth supersonic high heat coating that burns away cleanly.
Yes I said that right. Supersonic speeds produce friction which make heat. So by design you have a stealth coating that ablates when ever you travel fast.
Something tells me you haven't seen all the angles yet.
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:5, Insightful)
Applying the methods used to win WW2 to the operations in Afghanistan or Iraq wouldn't end the insurgency in either place.
It wouldn't hurt. In WW2 we subjected enemies who declined to follow the laws of war to summary execution on the battlefield. Read what happened to the German soldiers who fought behind the line under a false flag during the Battle of the Bulge. It was even worse in the Pacific theater -- the Japanese committed so many war crimes under the cover of white flags (perfidy) that our troops stopped attempting to take prisoners and just shot "surrendering" Japanese troops on the spot.
The tactics of WW2 (mass bombardment, armored warfare, submarine warfare, etc) aren't very relevant here but we could certainly learn a thing or two from the way the Greatest Generation behaved on the battlefield. Tying one hand behind our backs and following the rules when our enemies refuse to do the same is extremely foolhardy. You don't fight fair -- you fight to win. We used to understand that. Our enemies still do.
Re:parent != troll (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Insightful)
All over? Really? Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Since you've developed a curious aversion to naming countries, let's make it crystal clear: Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats a bit like a Cleveland Borwns fan saying "Our record wouldnt suck so much if we played by NBA rules".
Until the terrorists start fielding standing armies and holding ground, I will continue to ignore anyone who compares todays conflicts to World War 2. Eexcept to make snyde comments, of course.
Re:That's easy (Score:3, Insightful)
If a country is attacked, they should fight back. I believe in Ghandi's principle of Ahimsa, or 'least violence.' Sometimes, the least violent solution is to kill your attacker as quickly as possible. I mean, if it's kill or be killed, it's a toss up whether letting yourself be killed is more violent than killing the other guy, but if you don't have a record of killing others and he does, it's simple. Killing him is likely to reduce violence.
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Insightful)
What country sheltered those hijackers and allowed them to train on it's soil, again?
Fixed that for you.
Are you talking about Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan? Because we both know you aren't talking about Iraq.
Re:Simple countermeasure: Fly low (Score:5, Insightful)
With the world economy in the toilet, all-time record in unemployment, massive desertification, energy shortage, more than 1 billion starving, epidemics of malaria, AIDS and tuberculosis, global warming, what we really really need is the ultimate super cool weapon.
Not that I believe your premise, but what better time to have a superweapon than when other countries start getting desperate enough to attack?
Fish in a barrel (Score:3, Insightful)
You can shoot down UAVs with this thing? WOOOOOW. Current UAVs are the short fat pimply kids of military aviation: they're slow and stupid, and you can shoot them down with conventional missiles, antiaircraft artillery, or a well-aimed fart.
This is why we only use them in asymmetric warfare situations, where the bad guys are armed with nothing but Ak-47s. They wouldn't last 30 seconds in the airspace of any competent superpower.
Designing a zillion dollar laser system to shoot them down is a pointless waste of money.
Re:747 vs. a truck (Score:2, Insightful)
On the way down, what you are faced with is a VERY fast moving object (assuming you don't target the countermeasures) that has already demonstrated that it can resist the high temperatures of re-entry and consists of very little in the way of combustible materials. It can also employ a variety of measures to alter its trajectory (more than on the way up).
A few minor points:
1. It can resist predictable high temperatures, for a limited amount of time, if I heat up part of the RV that isn't designed to get quite as hot, I can cause the whole thing to tumble and fail.
2. It doesn't have to explode, I just have to make it slightly less aerodynamic, and let friction do the rest.
3. So called "Maneuvering RVs" don't change trajectory all that much. Mostly they make very fine adjustments so they hit their target, not to avoid things coming at them.
Scaling and progress (Score:4, Insightful)
It goes like this: No concievable missile shield could shoot down any significant number of incoming missiles. The Russians would always be able to overwhelm the defenses with shear numbers, making the system worthless.
Totally true, if you only have a few lasers. And that's all we have now at the moment. It's worth mentioning though that originally back in the 50's we only had a few transistors and they were the size of dixie cups.
Now I'm not saying that laser equipment will scale like that, but I am saying that it will scale to some degree. Maybe there is a Mitch Taylor-esque lab coat out there somewhere who is going to figure out something better. In fact I'm sure there is.
We're just now getting to the point where lasers are becoming battlefield possibilities. These are essentially laser flint lock rifles. But - enough R&D and eventually we'll move up to six shooters, gatling guns, full auto machine guns, Phalanx anti missile gun points... All it takes is successive small improvements, and you can't get those without the original flint lock gun. As they say, the rest is details.
Put a few hundred planes in the air that have increased effectiveness laser systems with millisecond reload and a few hundred shot capability and suddenly you might have that workable shield.
As it is today, maybe the scenario plays out the way you suggest. But that's only if the tech stands still and never improves. And it's a sure bet that it won't.
Re:Quick question (Score:3, Insightful)
Good question. Was it Iraq? No, it wasn't. Oops, our bad, sorry about your country there...
Sounds like a great weapon (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't hurt.
Yes, yes it would. It would hurt tremendously. It has hurt tremendously to the extent that we've used them.
The tactics of WW2 (mass bombardment, armored warfare, submarine warfare, etc) aren't very relevant here but we could certainly learn a thing or two from the way the Greatest Generation behaved on the battlefield. Tying one hand behind our backs and following the rules when our enemies refuse to do the same is extremely foolhardy. You don't fight fair -- you fight to win. We used to understand that. Our enemies still do.
What you need to understand is that "win" means different things in different conflicts, and the "win" in state-vs-state warfare like WWII is monumentally different than "win" in a counter-insurgency nation-building conflict like we are now engaged in. Our enemies understand this, but many still don't understand that even though it already bit us in the ass in Vietnam, then again in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because they refuse to see that these wars are not just different from WWII tactically, but in their fundamental objectives.
To fight an insurgency you need intelligence from the locals. To get intelligence from the locals, they need to be on your side. For them to be on your side, you do need to fight "fair". Refusing to take prisoners, shooting anyone who looks like they might be an insurgent, "rigorously interrogating" suspected insurgents, being cavalier about "collateral damage" -- all these things lose the support of the locals, and thus cause us to lose the war.
Fighting to win? You're talking about fighting to lose. The rules of engagement that our soldiers abide by are critical to ensuring that we can succeed. Does "tying one hand behind our backs" make it hard to succeed? Absolutely, but without that it would be impossible to succeed. Don't like fighting wars where you must tie one hand behind your back to have a hope of winning? Well maybe you shouldn't get into that kind of war. There's another lesson you should learn.
Re:Shiny things? (Score:3, Insightful)
...if you dump enough energy into the air near an infinitely-shiny object to explosively transform the nearby air into a plasma, the shiny object still probably gets a big dent in it. Probably even more so if the shiny object is supersonic.
I remember reading a SciFi book once about war in 2020 where the new apache like helicopter had smoke chaff of dust born particles to scatter the laser light of attacking craft trying to melt them.
I think that would be the only reasonable defense.
Of course you really wouldn't be able to see anything yourself and if it was really windy or you were moving really fast it wouldn't work.
Nor would it really be feasible with the whole turbulence from the chopper itself... Well it was an ok book.
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:2, Insightful)
"The Greatest Generation"? What a fucking disgusting propaganda term. You think killing people who've surrendered, firebombing, and nuking civilians makes a generation "great"?
I could go on and on about the atrocities of that "great" generation. But suffice to say that there was enough disgrace to go around during WW2. We don't need revisionists painting that horrific time in rosy colors to justify similar atrocities today.
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that WE ASKED THE FRENCH. Who in Afghanistan asked you for help in getting freedom? If they didn't ask, you aren't 'helping' them.
Funny, if those reasons were why we went into Iraq, why weren't we told? Why were we sold a completely different bill of goods? And why haven't we gone into other countries that have done at least as much wrong?
Re:Quick question (Score:3, Insightful)
The Northern Alliance asked for our help in Afghanistan.
Iraq was under a cease fire agreement that they routinely broke, including trying to shoot down our planes over an agreed upon no-fly zone and also trying to assassinate an ex-President. Iraq also provided safe harbor to known terrorists and was a chief financier of terrorism through out the middle east.
It wouldn't bother me if the motto of the United States was changed to 'Sic Semper Tyrannis'.
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Insightful)
Also the appreciation you felt isn't universal. That big symbol of victory and regime change, toppling saddam's statue, staged (dozens of iraqis at best not 1000s took part): http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/185455 [thenation.com]
For a few years they just left a lump of cement with some rebar sticking up in place of Saddam. Eventually they replaced it with a crappy statue which was quickly graffittied (All done, now go home). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI4gM_jg5vQ [youtube.com]
The vast majority of the Iraqi populace wants the US gone within 1 year (as of 2006). There are lots of other statistics (much more valuable than your experience) that show Iraqis don't want you there and never fucking did. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf [worldpublicopinion.org]
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:1, Insightful)
Setting aside the absurd ad-hominem, in what way would the GP's tendencies (or lack thereof) toward such behaviour make them any less disgraceful or horrific?
Someone might do an awful thing that possibly saves the lives of those around them, but that doesn't make it great.
Re:Shiny things? (Score:4, Insightful)
www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
You can disprove his assertions, or you can just be a dick.