User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 7:30:48 PM EDT
[#1]
Directed energy, baby! Zero-time-of-flight weaponry!
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 7:34:19 PM EDT
[#2]
What makes you say zero time of flight? The propagation of light through any medium is not instantaneous. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 7:36:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Its not like you could have a smoke waiting for the impact. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 7:41:54 PM EDT
[#4]
Hahahaha! This is some cool shit! Lasers, man.. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 7:48:08 PM EDT
[#5]
Dude...I'm fully aware that light has a finite, though extremely high, speed...but the target will travel only a fraction of an inch during the time it takes the laser beam to cover the distance from the firing point to the target. The time of flight is essentially zero, because you do not have to "lead" the target. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 7:50:32 PM EDT
[#6]
Just correcting an erroneous statement.
 You should have said near zero flight time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 7:51:34 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 7:56:05 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 7:57:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Pedants are such a drag. Speed of Light - some 300,000,000 meters per second. Engagement distance - ~withing 10mi / 16km. 'Time of Flight' - 53 MILLIONTHS of a Second. Save your pedantry for things like Global jihad or WW4 or the RKBA fight. You are wasting it quibbling about something like this. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 7:59:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Actually, in the 90's a laser was developed for EOD and it was mounted on a M113. It never got past the testing phase. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:02:01 PM EDT
[#11]
Yeah, its really our Military that has more demandng requirments. Even at this size, it will fit on most USN ships in place of Phalanx for example. And we could install a couple around the Green Zone, Baghdad airport and at the various airfields in Afganistan. Patriot batteries have other equipment nearly this big, so adding a MTHEL truck to each battery to protect it from defense suppression attacks would work. Again though if all you want to do is kill Rockets/bombs/shells THEL is way more power than you need. If you can cut the power you can cut the size of the generator and cooling system. The FCS they are using is even MORE amazing than the laser itself IMHO. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:04:48 PM EDT
[#12]
isnt anyone allowed to be a smartass in this world anymore? jeeze |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:10:45 PM EDT
[#13]
If they could just figure out how to carry a laser of this power with these www.de.afrl.af.mil/News/1998/98-8.html. With Fiber Optic "plumbing" you could have a central generator with many emitters giveing instantanious 360deg coverage.
Imagine a M1 with 4 or so emitters covering each quarter of the turret to shoot down ATMs and RPGs- ACTIVE armor not REACTIVE! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:12:13 PM EDT
[#14]
That would be pretty wicked. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:13:20 PM EDT
[#15]
Is MTHEL a chemical laser?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:14:41 PM EDT
[#16]
I don't think so. I think it is diode, all electric. Nope I'm wrong its chemical www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm So the basic technology is the same as AL-1 Airborne Laser but with different packaging. ZEUS is solid state, and so is the laser they are working on for the F-35. The F-35s solid state laser would be THE choice to combine with this FCS, then it would fit in a Hummvee. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:18:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Sure....you've got 53 MILLIONTHS of a Second on the clock....now GO! |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:19:12 PM EDT
[#18]
Its a chemical laser.
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:20:13 PM EDT
[#19]
I thought I read a while back that they were going to use chemical lasers for this project cuz of the energy inefficiency of diode lasers? Whats the reason for the change? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:21:14 PM EDT
[#20]
Perhaps the fly-wheel concept for the M1 Abrams mounting a gauss cannon. Anyone hear of this? Of course, you may as well just use the system to power a DEW. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:24:53 PM EDT
[#21]
I think we would have to build a new tank really, the M1A2 is increasingly short of internal volume to put stuff like this. A Gauss Gun and a laser are really two different things for two different missions. You could shoot THEL at the frontal armor of a M1 untill it overheated or ran out of fuel and never burn through. But you could build a gauss gun that could punch right through with one shot. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:25:54 PM EDT
[#22]
The AIRBORNE LASER is a chemical laser... The ground based ones are all electrical... reason: generating equipment to power such a device is too heavy for pracitcal airborne use... However, on a 'floating generator' (USN ship), or as part of a ground based ADA battery it would not have weight isssues... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:29:25 PM EDT
[#23]
No look up a couple posts, THEL is a chemical laser. I THOUGHT it was electrical too, since it didn't have space limitations, but it turns out its chemical. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:31:50 PM EDT
[#24]
This won't be cool until they figure out how to attach them to a sharks head.
[Dr Evil voice] Throw me a freaking bone here [/Dr Evil voice] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:31:53 PM EDT
[#25]
As long as we're being smartasses, in a way it is zero flight time. Because the energy travels at the fastest possible speed, there is no way for the target to know that it is being fired upon before it is actually hit. No time for chaff, flares, or evasive maneuvering.
All smartassedness aside, this is a pretty incredible development. It has the potential to change the face of warfare. What if all explosive weapons became essentially useless - any anti-tank, anti-ship, or anti-aircraft missiles could be shot down, plus artillery rockets, artillery shells, and mortars, and maybe even fighters and bombers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:33:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Yah. I want to put one on a sattelite and shoot stuff from orbit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:43:08 PM EDT
[#27]
It probably cannot defeat a solid shot from a gauss gun. First, flying at 3km to as high as 10km per sec the FCS might not be able to handle them, or if it did the laser couldnt recycle in time for the second shot. And made from solid tungstin which is both dense AND a high temperature resistant refractory metal a cannon caliber slug probably could not be melted down in time even if it could engage. Actually all that would change is the ranges, your artillery instead of being 10km behind you would be 300km ABOVE you, but the rules would be the same. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 9:02:36 PM EDT
[#28]
*yawn*
I will make a prediction now... Directed energy will have its uses but will never replace projectiles in all roles. We'll be using bullets until the last man falls to the earth. Directed energy will never replace smallarms, a weapon that cautaurizes its own wound channel is counter productive. Anything that would project a large enough beam to be comparable to kinetic damage would be too large to carry or wield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 9:07:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Wrong... Remember NEAR ZERO TIME OF FLIGHT? ABSOLUTE FLAT TRAJECTORY? A laser weapon won't have to make a big wound channel if you just point at the head & press the fire button.... What you'd see in the scope is what you'd hit, every time... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 9:08:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Laser weapons rely on heating the target to a point where it blows itself up... It wouldn't even touch an APFDS (Uranium Sabot) round.... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 9:10:48 PM EDT
[#31]
There is one limitation: Directed energy is line-of-sight only.... Missiles have a bit of advantage here, as they are not... And remember, if you have LOS to fire directed energy at a target, they have LOS to fire it at you... These things also have big power/IR signatures, and they still have to have RADAR to track airborne targets so they won't be 'stealth' entirely... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 9:20:30 PM EDT
[#32]
People have survived having up to an inch of brain tissue being cleanly seperated from thier body.
In the absence of trauma, losing grey matter is a moot point. In reality an infantry laser would be about a millimiter, Hell there are very very few millimiters on your head with brain behind them that you need. Indeed, a direct hit to the brain stem would have a very small chance of incapacitation, given that the structures controlling breathing and heartbeat are small in thier own right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 9:38:15 PM EDT
[#33]
For practical purposes yeah, but there are limitations, think what would happen to a DU long rod penetrator if its nose burned off or its tail fins melted off? It would tumble and hit sideways- this is what the Russians are trying to acheve with ERA. We would probably have to use larger darts than we do now, or throw them much faster, both of which are more achieveable with a gauss gun than with a conventional cannon. Lasers and Gauss Guns are complimentary. Lasers burn slowly through both solid shot and the armor compunds used in MBT frontal armor. Lasers also dont burn well through Earth. Solid shot from a Gauss Gun punches through armor and plows up earth and concrete with such force you almost dont need explosives to augment the effect; and if the projectile is big enough-and tank cannon size is big enough- the laser cannot vaporise it, though you may need to find a different shape than the current dart shape to preclude other forms of disruption. Lasers can burn up anything made of light metal, wood or flesh thats out in the open-stuff that Gauss Guns would either go right through without much damage. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 10:01:53 PM EDT
[#34]
BUY STOCK NOW!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 11:04:49 PM EDT
[#35]
He is right, anything involving lasers and Carbon Nanotubes, those are the two technologies that are emerging right now |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:03:41 AM EDT
[#36]
Does anyone have any idea what the wounding effects on a person of a laser of this power would be?
Would the target be just set on fire, or would it burst like a hotdog in a microwave? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:22:08 AM EDT
[#37]
So educate me on chemical lasers, do they need to be recharged with new chemicals between every shot?
If so, how long does it take? In the meantime, are we gonna hit the first round of every volley and be recharging while the rest come in? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:22:54 AM EDT
[#38]
+1 What Will it do to HAJI? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:31:04 AM EDT
[#39]
A hit to the heart would be interesting, enough diameter and there'd be bad internal bleeding every time the heart beats. Lung hits might collapse the lung.
Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:41:11 AM EDT
[#40]
This is not some little surgical laser, it burns 2" holes in sheet steel and even bigger holes in Aluminum. There is going to be a sizeable hole, but its going to cauterize itself. It will probably set its targets clothes on fire. But how much will the heat generated in the wound area travel through the rest of the body and how fast? Will there be a larger diameter cooked area around the wound? If it hit someone in the head, would it cause the fluid in the brain to boil or vaporize and explode larger than the burn hole? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:48:45 AM EDT
[#41]
Years ago, we were testing a chemical laser in the desert for possible application as a shipboard AAW weapon. It worked fine out at White Sands. One of the reasons for success was the homogenuity of the near earth atmosphere. Conditions at sea make for quite different conditions often including a strong surface evaporative duct that can have effects on radar sensors. This effects tracking and without accurate tracking, the laser "gun" is worthless.
One of the biggest problems was what to do with the chemical residue after each shot. The chemicals were stored in large pressure vessels. The used chemicals were bled off after each shot and their toxicity precluded us using them on ships. The system was called the MIRACLE laser. There are now lasers in test for ship weapons that use stored electrical energy instead of chemical-electrical. Each weapon will have huge banks of super-capacitors that charge up and discharge quickly with each shot. As soon as the shot is fired, the capacitor banks recharge. Of course, this assumes that the ship has a HUGE prime power system...sufficient to power the weapon, provide hotel services AND provide propulsion power. The new DD(X) destroyers will have such a power system. I am not aware of the duty cycle...but I'm sure it will be adequate to hangle an incoming salvo of multiple anti-ship cruise missiles. Lasers, kenitic energy hypersonic rail guns...particle beam weapons...all cool tools. We need them all to defend our forces. They'll be here sooner than some think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:56:24 AM EDT
[#42]
Another factor is that the FCS uses radar. When artillery starts using stealth coatings, they will be harder to hit. What they can't track they can't destroy. Its just a new dimension to the arms race.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 10:00:13 AM EDT
[#43]
That wont work, there is no magic paint that makes things invisable to radar. And a shell cant be shaped like a B2 or F117 to reflect away. And Radar Absorbant Material is usually measuered in inches to FEET of thickness. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 10:07:30 AM EDT
[#44]
You guys didn't have millimetric radar to play with back then? It is much less affected by near surface distortions, and is what they are using for the FCR with THEL in these low altitude shots. Is anyone still working on partical beam guns for weaponry? I thought they had given up over the beams super sensitivity to magnetic field distortion |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 10:50:34 AM EDT
[#45]
I won't be excited about it until they strap them to sharks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 10:57:59 AM EDT
[#46]
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 11:06:02 AM EDT
[#47]
I've seen a picture of this laser. It is portable--but just barely.
357mag |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 11:13:13 AM EDT
[#48]
can you imagine warfare in 50 years?
we could- if we wanted- own this rock |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 2:57:45 PM EDT
[#49]
Good news. Gotta keep our superiority. Lasers on satellites will change warfare, and politics. What we need is a satellite with a laser, and titanium/tungston "rods from God" (for overcast skies) Any leader or troublemaker in the world who does not comply gets zapped. Regime change at the smallest level.
Get the leaders, and the average Joe (even mohammed joe) will meekly follow. ..................going to get my anti laser reflective coated tinfoil hat now................................... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 3:12:59 PM EDT
[#50]
This can't be right. You better check your facts. Both Ted Kennedy and John Kerry said that these sort of weapons would never work.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
