Laser weapons...
-
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 -
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 | doxygenYes, but when are we going to get sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads? cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Yes, but when are we going to get sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads? cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Yes, but when are we going to get sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads? Maybe *that's* what you need to keep the servers under control. You could put the servers right next to the shark tank. ;P Chris Richardson
-
First, your using of "plain" vs. "plane" threw me at first; I was thinking, "Why base lasers in Kansas?" One idea behind this is to have the airplane in a pattern near a battlefield or danger zone and then to use it primarily to shoot down enemy missiles during boost phase (one advantage is that the results of the destruction don't come raining down on you, causing incidental damage.) Tracking systems have gotten quite sophisticated, so I don't think this is that big of a problem. (The laser sight system on the Abrams tank is amazing.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke -- modifed at 12:08 Thursday 25th August, 2005
The law of pedantic reverberation strikes again! (I believe you mean "laser sight"?) :) '--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
-
AND if they make the missles out of mirrors, then the lasers all but useless ... :rolleyes:
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's siteSo, the next big thing in warfare is to see a discoballhead misile. Groovy!
-
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 HelpersThey say the main reason for it being so big is the cooling system. By puting it on a plane that moves with the speed of sound in high cool air, how hard could it be to open a hole from front to back, full with hit sinks on the side? And the best part: you don't need a noisy fan!
-
They say the main reason for it being so big is the cooling system. By puting it on a plane that moves with the speed of sound in high cool air, how hard could it be to open a hole from front to back, full with hit sinks on the side? And the best part: you don't need a noisy fan!
Kastellanos Nikos wrote: how hard could it be to open a hole from front to back, full with hit sinks on the side? Uh, because air at high speed causes a lot of friction which causes a lot of heat. Ever heard about how the skin of the Concorde stretches several inches from the heat produced by the friction? Kastellanos Nikos wrote: you don't need a noisy fan! Any disturbance to the air flow at high speeds causes a heck of a lot more noise than a fan. Sonic booms, anyone? Marc My website
Latest Articles: Object Comparer String Helpers -
The law of pedantic reverberation strikes again! (I believe you mean "laser sight"?) :) '--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
Yes, site, sight. I suppose I could have meant the location of the site itself. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
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!
Trunion tilt (tanker term: tip angle of chassis to horizon, causing shot to go left or right of target). Rarely are planes absolutely level. However, we're talking about a country that decided to test-fire a Howitzer from a C130.:wtf: No see-you, no heal-you. Ptthh.;P - Der Dokter