Laser Weapon system
Discussion
I see the US navy have published video of them shooting down a drone with a laser
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/09/us-navy...
Looks interesting if it works well, but aren't dazzle lasers banned?
Looks like it takes a fair while to cause serious damage to the aircraft, will be intereting to see how well it performs against low altitude missiles
I did have to snigger slightly when I discovered they have a ship called USS Ponce though
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/09/us-navy...
Looks interesting if it works well, but aren't dazzle lasers banned?
Looks like it takes a fair while to cause serious damage to the aircraft, will be intereting to see how well it performs against low altitude missiles
I did have to snigger slightly when I discovered they have a ship called USS Ponce though
Never saw the point of these - it's a line of sight, visual range weapon which requires huge amounts of energy to generate any destructive power. Modern missiles/guns seem to have the advantage IMHO.
Seems like a good part of US defence research is an attempt to recreate what small boys saw on Star Trek.
Seems like a good part of US defence research is an attempt to recreate what small boys saw on Star Trek.
The idea is that it's ideal for ballistic missile defence, as I understand it, although they have the capability for ABM with some of their systems, actually getting an upward flying weapon to get to within kill range of a target travelling at ballistic speeds is difficult. Doing it with a laser if they can pack enough punch is far easier from a guidance point of view.
PS I have a good mate that lives in a place called "Ponce Inlet", which sounds even more wrong!
PS I have a good mate that lives in a place called "Ponce Inlet", which sounds even more wrong!
AshVX220 said:
The idea is that it's ideal for ballistic missile defence, as I understand it, although they have the capability for ABM with some of their systems, actually getting an upward flying weapon to get to within kill range of a target travelling at ballistic speeds is difficult. Doing it with a laser if they can pack enough punch is far easier from a guidance point of view.
Yep, as I understand it, current missile defence systems rely on many thousands of bullets per minute for the exact reason that a moving missile is very hard to hit with any degree of accuracy using normal ballistic ammunition so they essentially try to fling up a curtain of bullets in front of the missile and hope it hits one of them as it flies through. A light based laser weapon can almost instantaneously hit a target (well at the speed of light anyway) which makes aiming at and hitting a moving missile a lot easier. The problem now just seems to be delivering a powerful enough blast in a sufficiently short amount of time.
Bluebarge said:
Never saw the point of these - it's a line of sight, visual range weapon which requires huge amounts of energy to generate any destructive power. Modern missiles/guns seem to have the advantage IMHO.
Seems like a good part of US defence research is an attempt to recreate what small boys saw on Star Trek.
The main point is logistics - it gives you the potential to replace several types of munition by just delivering more fuel.Seems like a good part of US defence research is an attempt to recreate what small boys saw on Star Trek.
Cost is also a factor, ammo for a CIWS like Phalanx is about $4 per round, a SAM will be $1m+. The fuel to fire your laser? About $1 per shot.
This is also the reason the US Navy is working so hard on rail guns - to replace that expensive anti ship missile with a couple of kilos of steel and some fuel.
Max_Torque said:
I wondered about the issue of reflectivity too? I guess you can modulate the output wavelength to make the choice of reflection material more difficult etc?
No mirror is 100% efficent, so they just burn through it in a fraction of a second. You'd stand more chance with an ablative coating designed to be burned off and manuouving the missle to try and stop the laser from holding onto the same spotPRTVR said:
What has surprised me over the years is that stealth missiles have not appeared, if you can't track it you cannot shoot it down... :
Missiles, when aimed at you, are inherently stealthy against most radars. The cone section of a nose cone presents minimal radar cross section. "Stealth" technology is not like a Klingon cloaking device. 
MartG said:
Aren't they just talking about dazzling the sensors on UAVs though, not dazzling/blinding human pilots ( which is banned )
When has anything been banned in war? (As far as US is concerned)Sure you'll get a ticking off for trying to dazzle an airline pilot with a presentation pointer but not sure those rules cover MegaWatt lazers thats burn holes through ICBM's :-)
I always liked this idea- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_laser
You're allowed to kill people but you mustn't blind them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_...
scubadude said:
When has anything been banned in war? (As far as US is concerned)
Sure you'll get a ticking off for trying to dazzle an airline pilot with a presentation pointer but not sure those rules cover MegaWatt lazers thats burn holes through ICBM's :-)
I always liked this idea- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_laser
Now retired and enjoying the desert sun.Sure you'll get a ticking off for trying to dazzle an airline pilot with a presentation pointer but not sure those rules cover MegaWatt lazers thats burn holes through ICBM's :-)
I always liked this idea- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_laser
RizzoTheRat said:
You're allowed to kill people but you mustn't blind them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_...
Surely death is permanent, irreversible blinding by default? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff