Laser weapons...
-
Laser targeting via a moving platform is old technology. The fact that you're reading about it now means that the military considers it old technology. An example: laser targeted smart bombs during Desert Storm. Googling for video from aircraft doing the 'painting' should be fairly simple. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
this article doesn't talk about laser targetting. Rather it is talking about laser WEAPONS, aka a RAY GUN!! :-)
-
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
Ray Cassick wrote: …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. You didn't even mention the potential for brush fires if the beam gets out of hand... ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
this article doesn't talk about laser targetting. Rather it is talking about laser WEAPONS, aka a RAY GUN!! :-)
It's all about the targeting. Whether the laser is millijoule or mega(giga)joule is beside the point. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Ray Cassick wrote: …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. You didn't even mention the potential for brush fires if the beam gets out of hand... ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Brush fires! Bah! What about the stray laser beam hitting the giant jiffy pop container in the living room? -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Ray Cassick wrote: …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. You didn't even mention the potential for brush fires if the beam gets out of hand... ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: You didn't even mention the potential for brush fires if the beam gets out of hand... you make sure they are REALLY BIG plains, then you have more time to react. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
:doh: Dan ... that was a joke ... Everyone knows that if you even attempted to create a missle out of mirrors that they would shatter in-flight thereby subjecting the country that launched the missle to 7 years bad luck. Yes Dan, that was another joke. ;P Yes, it was bad, that's never stopped me from using them ... :rolleyes:
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's site -
It's all about the targeting. Whether the laser is millijoule or mega(giga)joule is beside the point. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
Sean Cundiff wrote: Whether the laser is millijoule or mega(giga)joule is beside the point well, that's true.
-
Brush fires! Bah! What about the stray laser beam hitting the giant jiffy pop container in the living room? -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
Sean Cundiff wrote: giant jiffy pop container in the living room? you're such a Real Genius! :-):laugh::laugh::laugh:;P;P;P
-
Ray Cassick wrote: Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. I still find a straight line way easier to calculate than a balistic curve including horizontal and vertical attrition, wind, temperature differences, initial speed, gravity, weight, density and so many other variables. I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
Daniel Turini wrote: I still find a straight line way easier to calculate than a balistic curve including horizontal and vertical attrition, wind, temperature differences, initial speed, gravity, weight, density and so many other variables. yeah, but bullets (and missiles) eventually stop if they miss, a laser will not. Also you have to consider reflected energy from the laser as well so as to not hit any nearby friendlies. ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
start -
Brush fires! Bah! What about the stray laser beam hitting the giant jiffy pop container in the living room? -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
We had, what, no one at the mutant hamster races. We had one entry for the Madam Curie look-alike contest, and he was disqualified later. Why do I bother? _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
PLANE!!!
sorry. On topic: I wonder how much reach they'd have, and how fast they can track.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygenSORRY! Sheesh... at least I did not spell laser with a 'Z'... Geeez.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
I suspect they use low intensity lasers for targetting together with iamge stabalisation so you just put the red dot where you want it. Ever seen a 56 ton Challenger II hit a target 2 miles away in mid air as it flies over a dune? OK, this was on telly but the fire control system can do it. Thats what the little bump at the end of the barrel is for. The tigress is here :-D
-
Daniel Turini wrote: I still find a straight line way easier to calculate than a balistic curve including horizontal and vertical attrition, wind, temperature differences, initial speed, gravity, weight, density and so many other variables. yeah, but bullets (and missiles) eventually stop if they miss, a laser will not. Also you have to consider reflected energy from the laser as well so as to not hit any nearby friendlies. ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
startNitron wrote: bullets (and missiles) eventually stop while laser beams may not stop, they do disperse to the point of ineffectiveness, especially in the atmosphere.
-
Sean Cundiff wrote: giant jiffy pop container in the living room? you're such a Real Genius! :-):laugh::laugh::laugh:;P;P;P
-
SORRY! Sheesh... at least I did not spell laser with a 'Z'... Geeez.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
Ray Cassick wrote: at least I did not spell laser with a 'Z'... thanks :) I don't know, it threw me off everytime.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
High energy lasers have been talked about for years in the military, and I have yet to hear of one that actually works. Maybe it's all hush-hush top secret stuff, but frankly, I doubt it. A lot of talk, a lot of wasted money. As to sighting, a laser is a heck of a lot easier to sight because the "impact" is instantaneous. So what if you miss? Your response time should be a LOT better than determining whether a ballistic shot hit the target. The other comments about gravity, etc., are right on. However, on the downside, keep in mind that light is 1) easily reflected and 2) subject to atmospheric disturbances. As to "very small movements", well that's what a gyroscope is for--to keep the laser platform rock stable. At least that's a technology that exists today. Marc My website
Latest Articles: Object Comparer String Helpers -
High energy lasers have been talked about for years in the military, and I have yet to hear of one that actually works. Maybe it's all hush-hush top secret stuff, but frankly, I doubt it. A lot of talk, a lot of wasted money. As to sighting, a laser is a heck of a lot easier to sight because the "impact" is instantaneous. So what if you miss? Your response time should be a LOT better than determining whether a ballistic shot hit the target. The other comments about gravity, etc., are right on. However, on the downside, keep in mind that light is 1) easily reflected and 2) subject to atmospheric disturbances. As to "very small movements", well that's what a gyroscope is for--to keep the laser platform rock stable. At least that's a technology that exists today. Marc My website
Latest Articles: Object Comparer String HelpersMarc Clifton wrote: High energy lasers have been talked about for years in the military, and I have yet to hear of one that actually works. Maybe it's all hush-hush top secret stuff, but frankly, I doubt it. A lot of talk, a lot of wasted money. Hmmmm.... There's a reason I joke about driving near HEL every day.... High energy laser systems are easy, not necessarily practical, but easy. This project[^] is closed, and "most" of the information is declassified. Tested, proven in single and salvo shots to higher accuracy than any other missile defense system I ever worked on. It's just too bulky to be practical. edit:
To date, THEL has destroyed 28 Katyusha test rockets and five test artillery shells. On May 4, 2004, THEL’s new transportable version, known as the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL), tracked and destroyed a large-caliber test rocket at the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The rocket flew faster and higher than the Katyushas, and carried a live warhead. The U.S. and Israel expect MTHEL to be operational and ready for deployment by 2007._________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) -
Marc Clifton wrote: High energy lasers have been talked about for years in the military, and I have yet to hear of one that actually works. Maybe it's all hush-hush top secret stuff, but frankly, I doubt it. A lot of talk, a lot of wasted money. Hmmmm.... There's a reason I joke about driving near HEL every day.... High energy laser systems are easy, not necessarily practical, but easy. This project[^] is closed, and "most" of the information is declassified. Tested, proven in single and salvo shots to higher accuracy than any other missile defense system I ever worked on. It's just too bulky to be practical. edit:
To date, THEL has destroyed 28 Katyusha test rockets and five test artillery shells. On May 4, 2004, THEL’s new transportable version, known as the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL), tracked and destroyed a large-caliber test rocket at the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The rocket flew faster and higher than the Katyushas, and carried a live warhead. The U.S. and Israel expect MTHEL to be operational and ready for deployment by 2007._________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)I didn't mean to imply they didn't work. I did mean to imply exactly what you said: Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: It's just too bulky to be practical. Marc My website
Latest Articles: Object Comparer String Helpers -
I didn't mean to imply they didn't work. I did mean to imply exactly what you said: Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: It's just too bulky to be practical. Marc My website
Latest Articles: Object Comparer String HelpersMarc Clifton wrote: I didn't mean to imply they didn't work. I did mean to imply exactly what you said: Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: It's just too bulky to be practical. True, but so was the first VCR. The first low-powered lasers were the size of a full-sized tower PC, now the same thing can be found in the size of a pen. All technology grows and changes. MTHEL is a half the size and more powerful than THEL. The 2nd generation of MTHEL will be half again the size, and more powerful still. etc. etc. Until it is practical. Other off-shoot technologies also come from the same, improved electronics, more efficient cooling, targetting systems, radar systems, open-air laser communications, laser corrected imaging systems. All offshoots of the same impractical technology, that produces practical side-technologies while approaching its goals. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Marc Clifton wrote: I didn't mean to imply they didn't work. I did mean to imply exactly what you said: Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: It's just too bulky to be practical. True, but so was the first VCR. The first low-powered lasers were the size of a full-sized tower PC, now the same thing can be found in the size of a pen. All technology grows and changes. MTHEL is a half the size and more powerful than THEL. The 2nd generation of MTHEL will be half again the size, and more powerful still. etc. etc. Until it is practical. Other off-shoot technologies also come from the same, improved electronics, more efficient cooling, targetting systems, radar systems, open-air laser communications, laser corrected imaging systems. All offshoots of the same impractical technology, that produces practical side-technologies while approaching its goals. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: All offshoots of the same impractical technology, that produces practical side-technologies while approaching its goals. Good point. :) Marc My website
Latest Articles: Object Comparer String Helpers