Laser Weapon Shoots Down Airplanes In Test 627
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!"
Shiny things? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wouldn't making your plane or missile shiny / reflective defeat these things pretty easily?
Re:Shiny things? (Score:5, Informative)
Ignoring the fact that you can't make an object shiny enough, because there'll always be a thin layer of dust, crud, or even oxides on the surface...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 woul
Re:Shiny things? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well it really depends on the the power density in the beam. If a target is 90% reflective to the the wavelength used by the laser, then the laser would have to be 10 times more powerful to achieve the same heating in the target. My guess is that polished aluminum might maintain 90% reflectivity, but who knows. Of course, a speck of highly absorbing dust will burn very quickly, subsequently, the burned area around the dust will also begin absorbing so a hole may grow very quickly. The question is then: how long can the laser remain focused on the burning patch? If it wanders due to atmospheric disturbance the spot may not cause a failure of the target.
Here's the real problem. If you make the laser so powerful that a bit of dust will cause a significant burn to start, a speck of dust on your targeting optics will obliterate the laser platform itself. You could manage this by using a very large targeting mirror and focusing onto the target (possibly what the system does but I couldn't be bothered to look it up) but then you need accurate range-finding as well as directing and you need to keep the beam targeted precisely enough to hit a small focal point for an extended (probably still less than a second) period of time .
At the end of the day the whole system is damn hard to get working. Targeting an enemy missile rather than a slow-moving drone may still be an unsurmountable challenge. I suspect that the whole system is a giant waste of money made even more expensive by the possibility of shiny targets.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe... though I bet optically shiny is probably not as big a deal as radio shiny... at least today.
Also, maybe you can coat your shiny thing with something dark that is burned off?
I'm sure people have worked through the options, just throwing it out there :)
Re:Shiny things? (Score:5, Informative)
Optical vs. radio is just a choice of wavelengths. Whatever wavelength you pick to be shiny, can be used to detect you. Whatever wavelength you choose to be "not shiny", can be used to destroy you.
I wish GP hadn't bothered to mention the problem of stealth, because it's diverting attention from the point that matters - no material of any sort can be kept sufficiently reflective under combat conditions that the laser wouldn't destroy it. So really, even whatever wavelength you pick to be shiny, can still be used to destroy you.
Re:Shiny things? (Score:4, Informative)
no material of any sort can be kept sufficiently reflective under combat conditions that the laser wouldn't destroy it.
Indeed. A more fruitful approach would probably be more similar to reactive armour; a material that produces large amounts of refractive or absorbing smoke particles to dissipate the beam and rapidly transport the energy away; a cursory reading about directed energy weapons indicate that even the ordinary vaporization of the target can cause shading problems.
Various kinds of vapour countermeasures might also have the advantage of providing beam tracing possibilities for a retaliatory strike.
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:Shiny things? (Score:4, Informative)
No, I wouldn't happen to work for Boeing. I would happen to have taken basic physics, though.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to pretend that your idea of shedding a stealth layer would work, because it's moot. You can call my statements "mighty assumptions" all you want, but I'll stand by them. If I'm wrong, we'll surely see the headline that proves it soon enough.
As for this: "A laser weapon designed to fry a plane that absorbs 70% or more of it should be less than effective if the said plane absorbs only 5%."
Wrong. The 5% is only the initial amount of energy that gets through. That's enough to destroy the mirror so fast that you'll never notice any of the laser reflecting away. From that point forward, the target receives close to 100% of the laser's energy and is destroyed quite effectively.
And, that 5% is a very optimistic figure. Again, that's for a clean, flawless, perfectly maintained mirror made for lab use and kept under lab conditions.
I know it's much easier to bitch about lack of citations then to do, say, a google or wikipedia search on reflectiveness of mirrors, but I'm just gonna leave that as your problem.
Re:Shiny things? (Score:4, Informative)
A couple comments here are focusing on stealth, that's not the big question.
There is not a single US Gen 2+ stealth aircraft engaged in Iraq/Afghanistan. F-117s have been retired, B-2 are not needed. The aircraft over there are relying on a variety of other IR countermeasures (tactics/flares/directed IR) to defeat threats.
TFA is talking about shooting down UAVs, which pose a unique problem because they are very small and can be made out of low-tech composite stealth materials like frickin balsa wood. That, combined with a naturally low IR signature because of their low performance envelope, make it hard to target then with traditional guided weapons (IR and Radar guided).
The key question, which TFA avoided giving details about, is what range they are talking about. If the range is = a 25mm chain gun, this system has little value yet, as if you can find it and track it, a turreted chain gun is already very deadly, the ballistics models aren't that hard to compute. But those weapons are also very easy to fly above.
If this laser has a range of, say, 8 miles (40,000-ish feet), then things could get interesting. Data that would also be important is how long the laser needs to stay on target, and how small the beam is. If the beam is 1" wide, and must stay on the same spot for 1/2 a second, it could be defeated by old-fashioned 'jinking' which would move the beam around and diffuse the heat. But if it's 1/100 second, then again, it's really deadly.
Finally (and then I'm done), this laser is really cool, but must be guided by something... at 40,000 feet (or at night), you'll need something better than a Mk 1 eyeball to find and track the target accurately enough, just like you do today, and that's where countermeasures could be applied.
But a really good EO/IR guidance system that can find/track targets up to 40,000 feet on a clear day at night and a laser that can kill in 1/100" second (or close), and you've got a game-changing technology, forcing aircraft to hope for cloudy days.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The heat which boils away the paint surely also destroys the reflective properties of the material beyond.
Re:Shiny things? (Score:4, Informative)
That won't work. The problem starts at step 2. If the top layer isn't reflective, then as it "boils away" it will convert incoming energy from the laser into heat efficiently enough to destroy any reflective layer that might be under it.
Even if that weren't the case, you'd still have a problem at step 3, because your reflective surface will still absorb too much energy. An expensive mirror that's new, clean, and in perfect condition would still absorb 5% of the energy hitting it in lab conditions. In the air, in combat conditions, coated with goo from the stealth paint that just got burned off of it, the reflective layer wouldn't last even a measurable fraction of a second.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, we are talking about the properties of mirrors being exposed to high energy lasers. What research are you referring to by the way? Any links?
Re:Shiny things? (Score:4, Insightful)
www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
You can disprove his assertions, or you can just be a dick.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If a cannon (of any technology) dumps it's energy near you, you die. It doesn' much matter whether the laser cannon heats the skin of the missile, or the air next to it, to plasma temperatures, it's enough to destroy the missile. These weapons are not intended to be energy efficient, they're intended to reach a fast-moving target quickly. For example, an ICBM boosting to orbit is a clear and obvious target, but you can't catch it with a missile - it's already the fastest missile there is. But you can ea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Current chemical lasers suck for firing at low-value targets. The fuel is massive and incredibly toxic. It's worth using 300 pounds of fuel to take a shot at a boosting ICBM, but not so much at a UAV. However, that's just a fuel source, and not the core part of the weapon technology. An electrical laser would be dandy for defending equipent that naturally generates power from UAVs. And shooting down boosting ICBMs is becoming more valuable as more countries gain access to those.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but that would also make them far easier to detect and hit with conventional anti-aircraft guns and missiles.
-Peter
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:5, Funny)
well, that's easy... just attach 30 bathroom mirrors IN SERIES. that would reduce it it 1% of the original.
Re:Shiny things? (Score:5, Funny)
So, a Beowulf cluster of bathroom mirrors, then?
Re: (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: (Score:2, Troll)
Assuming they make the missile 90% reflective so only 10% of the power burns a hole, where does the remaining 90% reflect to?
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The laser *ITSELF* has two mirrors.
Why doesn't it burn?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A mirror on an ICBM needs to last maybe one blast, so it does need replacement nor cooling.
95% reflectivity seems to achievable relatively easily. A megawatt * 5% = less than it has to endure when going down, I'd assume.
Re: (Score:2)
What wavelengths would you make it reflect? Not all lasers are in the visible spectrum.
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Radiation pressure?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Homework assignment! To rip apart sheet metal, you'll need a pressure in the ballpark of 100 PSI.
Calculate the laser power needed to create this much radiation pressure with a 10-cm diameter beam.
Answer:
100 PSI = 69 N/cm^2
A = pi r^2 = 78 cm^2
F = P * A = 5400 N
F = dp/dt = 2 I/c
I = F c / 2 = 5400 * 3e8 / 2 = 800 GW
This amounts to 1/4 of total U.S. electricity consumption. Utterly impractical.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The topic of discussion was the radiation pressure of the laser. ByteSlicer was hypothesizing that a laser this powerful would have enough momentum to destroy things just with that, but they are quite wrong.
The actual energy of the laser ("mega-watt class" according to tfa) is of course sufficient to cause significant damage; the whole point of this demonstration. But it's not doing it's damage by the photons imparting their momentum to the target. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Each photon in the beam transfers its momentum to the target. For total reflection it transfers twice its momentum. This will result in radiation pressure exerting a very localized force (so high pressure)
Hm... I can't find anything specific about the power, just "mega-watt class". So let's call it a megawatt and we can multiply the result as necessary. I'm also going to guess it's a 1.315um COIL laser. Momentum per photon is h/lambda = 5.039e-28 kg*m/s, energy is hf = 1.511e-19 J. The megawatt laser
That's great (Score:4, Insightful)
So when do our soldiers get to stop dying because of homemade street bombs?
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?
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: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?
Re: (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: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:or we start treating it like a war (Score:4, Informative)
The carpet bombing and artillery shelling of WWII had two effects. First it did reduce the ability to wage war through the destruction of industrial facilities. Also, since we were bombing the living crap (killing) civilians in their homes, it broke the will to fight of the civilian population. We tend not to do that anymore, so we are ignoring a major component of how wars are won due to us wishing it wasn't true.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What exactly did we have the stomach for then that we don't now? Nuclear bombs?
That and the whole idea of carpet bombing populated areas. While "WE" don't have the stomach for it, I hope our enemies are at least as civilized. I have little hope for our current crop of enemies, however.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As another poster mentioned, we have not suddenly developed better ethics, we've developed better bombs. Carpet bombing is unnecessary now. We only ever carpet bombed cities with heavy war industries. Certainly, the effect on morale was part of the decision to target cities, but we did not use carpet bombing primarily as a terror tactic.
Re:or we start treating it like a war (Score:5, Informative)
You might want to talk to the residents of Dresden circa 1945. While the war in Europe was not yet over, it wasn't far from completion, and most of the reasoning for bombing it look to have been retrospective and stretched. Even Churchill, rarely one to shy away from attacking the enemy to advance even small objectives, distanced himself from it after he realized what the effects were.
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: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: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:or we start treating it like a war (Score:5, Informative)
Just a word about Afghanistan...
The Soviets tried invading it like WWII and still lost.
They had no qualms about carpet bombing villages or shelling it ground level. They would even storm them with full tank brigades.
They would execute suspected guerrillas on the spot without question.
They still lost that war.
What are we even fighting for? (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't fight fair -- you fight to win. We used to understand that. Our enemies still do.
And what exactly is a "win" in the context of afghanistan? We need to make sure that whatever we do to "win," whatever that even is in this context, doesn't create more enemies.
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?
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.
That's not true at all (Score:5, Funny)
I assure you - the Cleveland Browns would still suck if they played by NBA rules. They could fuck up a game of Calvinball.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree war will never be eliminated entirely, but I bet that if you made a rule that war could only be declared by people with children actively serving in the military, it would probably become a lot less 'necessary'.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I totally agree. We should transfer the decision making process to people who have deep-seated emotional interest in the situation. That will ensure the best possible response in any given situation.
Re: (Score:2)
but as it stand there are plenty of dumb asses volunteering to get blown up.
What about those whose tours of duty are up, but who are still forced to be there?
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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good question. Was it Iraq? No, it wasn't. Oops, our bad, sorry about your country there...
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Interesting)
To top it off, our invasion of Iraq totally screwed our operations in Afghanistan. So we did the absolute most ass backwards, ineffective thing we could have done, and now we are paying for it. Well, our young men and women are. Okay, not the sons and daughters of the people who sent us into Iraq, obviously, but, you know, our disposable young men and women are paying for it.
Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
As a former soldier who went to the Middle East, I can tell you that I knew very well what our mission was and fully supported it. If I didn't, I would not have gone. I would have made a pass at the Platoon SGT or something to get my ass thrown out of the Army. When I was over there, I met the people I was there defending and understood why I was there. I was given freedom from my forefathers with help from the French. I didn't earn it. What makes me so damn special that I get freedom from tyranny and these people don't? I've earned it now. Sure, I didn't fight for my own freedom, but I gave the gift to someone else and would have been willing to die for it. I made that decision before I ever signed.
And yes! It makes me VERY proud to be an American, thank you.
We invaded Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11
Right. They violated 17 UN resolutions, tried to assassinate a former US president, fired at our soldiers who were there enforcing an UN mandate, and do I need to bring up the mass graves filled with men and women still clutching their toddler children?
Afghanistan may have been their home base, but if we invade countries because they house terrorists, who should we have invaded because of Tim McVeigh?
Housing terrorists is one thing. Terrorists live everywhere. It's when the government knows they are there and do nothing about it. The Taliban didn't just "house" Al Qaeda , they harbored them. They actively assisted them and refused our offer to take care of them ourselves. What would you have Bush do? "Hello, Mr. Taliban guy, Dubya here. Listen, the guys that planned the attack that killed 3000 of our citizens are in your country. Do you mind if we come get them? I'm sorry, what was that? No way in Hell? What about my mother? Well, OK then. Thank you for your time. (hangs up phone). Sorry, Dick, they said no."
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: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: (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: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: (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.
Now... (Score:3, Funny)
Develop me a functioning Magnetic shield mechanism, so that I can mount both on a 1-man-space-capable-fighter, and get me a date with Natalie Portman, and my fantasy is complete.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
She's too young. Give me a two person space-capable-fighter. And her mom.
And a pony.
invest in mirrors... (Score:2)
*yawn* (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:*yawn* (Score:4, Insightful)
err, i am not sure they can even do that effectively...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are also quite good at locking people up. If you want anything else done right you will have to do it yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, no one has ever attacked a *nice* country.
Slashdotted? (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently they capture the heat generated by the server as it gets slashdotted to recharge the laser. Keep clicking the links lads, it's your patriotic duty.
747 vs. a truck (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Plus, the 747 can carry a larger tank for the sharks
Bond: "Do you expect me to talk . . . ?" (Score:2)
Goldfinger: "No, I expect you to die, Mr. Bond . . . "
Sharks aside, lasers only get really scary when someone has one aimed at your crotch.
Apocalypse Now Guy: "Circumcise . . . circumcise, with extreme prejudice."
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.
Costs (Score:2)
...that is mounted on a truck (which probably costs less than a 747, but who knows)...
Uh, yeah. But you probably need a plane to airlift the truck where it needs to go and, once you know where it is on the ground, it's a lot easier to avoid, thereby rendering the fancy laser kinda pointless. Or, instead, you can just build the laser into a plane which is far more mobile, able to get where it's needed and always ensure it has LOS on the target. But, yeah, the truck is cheaper.
This is not new (Score:3, Funny)
Endangered species act (Score:2)
Now we know why sharks are getting on this list.
Warning Label Near the Trigger: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Deja vu (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a bit like gunpowder weapons in the 14th century. They appeared in Europe early in that century, were pretty pointless at first, then useful in special cases, then, after about 100 years, more-generally useful. Professional soldiers at that time must have been pretty skeptical. "Interesting, but I'll keep the trebuchet for now, thanks." Up to, say, 1350, it would have been difficult to predict whether gunpowder would ever become a practical weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
I measure the average person's respect for the next person by the metric of cigarette butts per square metre in the local parks.
It's not looking good.
Re: (Score:2)
I measure the average person's respect for the next person by the metric of cigarette butts per square metre in the local parks.
By that measure you will be happy to know that I just peed in your gas tank.
Re:Thoughtful pause ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once everybody dies, there will be no more evil. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What or who is the gipper?
Re: (Score:2)
Ronald Ray-gun.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ronald Regan, he played the role of George "The Gipper" Gipp in the film "Knute Rockne, All American;" from it, he acquired the lifelong nickname "the Gipper."
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These lasers almost certainly work with pulses. A continuous beam is both wasteful and very difficult to maintain. That said, a megawatt laser pulse is enough to annihilate many types of targets.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A favorite technique these days is to use multiple diode lasers to pump a glass slab. It's the same thing in principle to green laser pointers which have a single laser diode pumping a ND:YAG crystal. (The green light comes from a frequency doubling crystal) In a weapon laser, you'd have hundreds of multi-watt infrared diodes pumping multiple doped glass slabs all bathed in a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Simple countermeasure: Fly low (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all combat is urban.
Even in urban combat, you can't fly low enough that a ground-based laser that misses your aircraft would hit most buildings. This is actually a pretty good weapon for that scenario, because unlike a projectile it won't fall to Earth if it does miss.
And, I'm betting the chance of a miss is relatively low.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an honest question, why is a laser better than a high caliber bullet?
Keep in mind that lasers in reality aren't like lasers in movies. In the real world, you don't see it coming, and even after it hits, you don't know where it came from.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest you read George Orwell's 1984, to find the answer to that question.