UK military to build prototype 'laser weapon'
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
I'm sure this is just a budget weapon made up of all the confiscated laser pointers being collected from in and around Heathrow. Just point it an an approaching MiL Hind and the Russkie pilot will yell "Arghh - my eyes" (in Russian, of course) and then crash obligingly.
Very true; as Plod likes to tell us in Headmasterly We Know Best fashion, a £1 laser pointer can bring down an Apache. Twits.
FurtiveFreddy said:
That's going to be a money pit judging by the squillions spent by the U.S. and Israel on this sort of weapon up to now.
Nope, it says "prototype" so as Eric suggested, will just be a laser pointer with a broom handle duct taped on, more than enough to down airliners allegedly ;-)Anyone else thinking the SDI "star wars" programme of the 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_In...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_In...
Given that military's have a habit of inventing weapons for the fight they've just had, then taking 30yrs to get it right and by the time its perfect no-one need it... is a Laser weapon what we'll need in 2040?
Right now we need swarms of long endurance, small profile, sniper drones to patrol the skies taking out lone wolfs and ISIS (we don't have this) but we send multi-billion dollar carriers from full of Cold war strike aircraft to throw million dollar missiles at Hilux's from beyond visual range... economical is Not the word that comes to mind.
Arguably the military we had in 1945 could do the job ours is currently doing almost as well (albeit more costly in manpower and death toll) the WWII allied forces under a blanket of Lancasters and Stratofortresses backed up by the largest navies the world ever saw would probably be enough even now to take all but the three largest militaries in the world with ease, sheer numbers has merit (as the Germans found against Russia in the 40's)
I assume someone somewhere is saying- what do we actually need? but perhaps they are not the same person who ordered all the F35's...
Right now we need swarms of long endurance, small profile, sniper drones to patrol the skies taking out lone wolfs and ISIS (we don't have this) but we send multi-billion dollar carriers from full of Cold war strike aircraft to throw million dollar missiles at Hilux's from beyond visual range... economical is Not the word that comes to mind.
Arguably the military we had in 1945 could do the job ours is currently doing almost as well (albeit more costly in manpower and death toll) the WWII allied forces under a blanket of Lancasters and Stratofortresses backed up by the largest navies the world ever saw would probably be enough even now to take all but the three largest militaries in the world with ease, sheer numbers has merit (as the Germans found against Russia in the 40's)
I assume someone somewhere is saying- what do we actually need? but perhaps they are not the same person who ordered all the F35's...
Morningside said:
Anyone else thinking the SDI "star wars" programme of the 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_In...
There has indeed been a concerted effort to develop this stuff since the 80s. So far it has delivered bugger all of practical use.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_In...
Lasers are exceedingly useful as target designators, range finders and for disrupting or knackering other people's optical sensors (e.g. their range finders, their eyeballs, their laser-guided munitions).
But directed energy weapons are a completely different problem, and have some huge, obvious hurdles to overcome.
Ideally you need to inflict damage in a short period of time so that your target can't simply turn away from the beam. Warming your target gently all over is not the objective. But the more powerful your beam, the more it heats the air it passes through. If the air just gets hot, it acts like a lens and causes your beam to diverge, massively reducing the power density on the target. Worse case, you ionise the air scattering the beam in all directions.
Lasers are not perfect, parallel sided beams of light. The beams always diverge, so the power density drops off as the square of the distance to the target. They are always going to be much more effective at short ranges than at long. But we're not exactly lacking direct fire conventional weapons for use at short range.
And it is also fairly easy to protect yourself from a laser. You can make your surface reflective. You can employ sacrificial materials. You can use sensors to detect a laser threat so that you can manoeuvre to stop the laser playing on one part of your exterior for any length of time. Unless you're stone age, you can use the incoming beam to post a guided munition back to the sender.
In some very narrow areas I can see how they just might work better than the alternatives, e.g. if you've got a dumb munition in free fall coming towards you on a predictable path like a shell, or mortar. You might just have long enough to melt one of those, and the alternative ways of intercepting them are virtually non existent. Beyond that, though, it's not obvious they are going to outperform more conventional weapons.
Eric Mc said:
I'm sure this is just a budget weapon made up of all the confiscated laser pointers being collected from in and around Heathrow. Just point it an an approaching MiL Hind and the Russkie pilot will yell "Arghh - my eyes" (in Russian, of course) and then crash obligingly.
Ah, the only expense then will be the rubber bands to hold them all together. But they will be £40,000 each........Just buy this one:
http://defense-update.com/20111128_rheinmetall-hig...
Will be far cheaper than UK DiY
http://defense-update.com/20111128_rheinmetall-hig...
Will be far cheaper than UK DiY
ATG said:
In some very narrow areas I can see how they just might work better than the alternatives, e.g. if you've got a dumb munition in free fall coming towards you on a predictable path like a shell, or mortar. You might just have long enough to melt one of those, and the alternative ways of intercepting them are virtually non existent. Beyond that, though, it's not obvious they are going to outperform more conventional weapons.
For point defence it will be very good - unlimited ammunition and the ability to very quickly acquire new targets are very handy.For the drone scenario, imagine a weapon mounted on the drone that can target the fuel tank of a pickup truck from five miles away and burn a hole in it without anyone in the truck noticing.
davepoth said:
For point defence it will be very good - unlimited ammunition and the ability to very quickly acquire new targets are very handy.
For the drone scenario, imagine a weapon mounted on the drone that can target the fuel tank of a pickup truck from five miles away and burn a hole in it without anyone in the truck noticing.
"Unlimited ammunition" doesn't necessarily apply as it has to be powered by something, whether it's electricity or chemicals, and such a weapon would use quite a bit of either.For the drone scenario, imagine a weapon mounted on the drone that can target the fuel tank of a pickup truck from five miles away and burn a hole in it without anyone in the truck noticing.
Looking at it the other way, a beam weapon of some sort could be very effective against enemy drones, as they are slow flying and not particularly well protected. It would be more cost-effective than launching a missile or sending up an aircraft to engage.
jmorgan said:
Cover your missiles with mirrors. Job jobed......
Edit. Or polish to sa shiny shine......
Exactly. You might even paint the underside of your done with some sacrificial paint so it looks sky/cloud couloured from underneath until you apply the laser that burns off the paint to reveal shiny shine underneath. Not exactly stealthy any more, but not on fire either.Edit. Or polish to sa shiny shine......
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff