Posted by
michael
on from the also-useful-for-making-popcorn dept.
KeyShark writes: "An article on FoxNews describes how front-line troops soon will be protected by battlefield lasers designed to shoot down rockets, artillery shells and even mortars."
Re:a flame but...
by
man_ls
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This has really been how it is in any war. In Vietnam, Napalm would hit allies on the ground as well as the enemies. In World War II, bombs would fall astray and kill civilians and soldiers for the same side. If there's a situation involving dangerous equipment, and humans are involved, there *will* be human error. In this case, it's lives lost - but it was going to happen anyway.
Govexec.com says
by
hether
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0401/042301nj.htm
that "These lasers also have a drawback--their energy comes from large tanks of industrial chemicals, which have to be mixed until they glow, like an outsize high-school science project. And they are so bulky that one weapon fills a large aircraft, or a small building. "
Does this jive with the fox news article?
--
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Just what we need on the battlefield
by
Teleporting+Wombat
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
>>The laser weapons vaporize metal.
OK, I fire it at your depleted uranium artillery shell. Vaporized uranium on the battlefield. Voila! How's that for environmental cleanup?
The end of air combat
by
biotechnician
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Since like all technology this will disseminate to the other countries in the globe, this also means a major change in air power. Manuverablility means practically nill at the speed of light. Large aircraft equiped with lasers would in addition to destroying missles would also be able to destroy all aircraft, even if the enemy aircraft are super manuverable, stealthy, super expensive F-22 jets. In fact the developement of powerful lasers will strongly reduce the importance aircraft, all you need to do is see the aircraft and you can kill it.
Re:Not too hard.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Actually, it's an amazingly difficult control systems problem, especially if you have no advanced warning, as in these cases. The rockets that they downed were Katyushas, which are really simple, THICK metal tubes full of explosives. I saw the video of the tests back in July--the thing is really impressive. The laser itself in invisible and the source looks like one of those World War II signaling lamps on ships. If you look at the video of the Katyushas, you just see it flying along, it gets red, then poof!
As far as deployment goes, Israel has been pressuring the US for the last several months to at least put up a few stations in northern Israel--it's that effective. The main problem right now is that it's just not mobile, and it's not battle hardened. In other words, taking it out would be easy. But, eventually given enough money and time, they'll get this on the back of a truck, and then you're in business.
$3000 is only half of a toliet seat at government prices!!! I think they're using chemical lasers and they are real big and complex, so $3000 for anything the government gets involved in is a pretty good price and if you can use it to save a HUMMV or M1A1 tank the saving would be great, even if you save only a single soldier per $3000 you're way ahead of the game, helps moral, keeps soldiers out of hospitals, saves having to train new soldiers, saves having to knock on parents door to tell them that Johnie isn't comming home. $3000 seems like the deal of the centrury, getting it to work is the only problem I see.
10 and 11, Clouds and commercial aircraft
by
Futurepower(tm)
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Thanks for bringing a little sanity to this subject.
And dont forget:
10) Clouds. Laser light does NOT penetrate clouds. The water vapor
easily absorbs all the energy.
Also don't forget:
11) Friendly aircraft. On July 4, 1988, the U.S. Navy cruiser
Vincennes, in the Persian Gulf, shot
down an Iran Air A300 Airbus, killing 290 persons, after mistaking it for
an attacking jet fighter. "The U.S. government deeply regrets this
incident," Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.
The cruiser was "equipped with the most sophisticated radar and electronic
battle gear in the Navy's surface arsenal."
Organizations that sell weapons are often not honest about the shortcomings.
What about good old reflection?
by
Remote
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Ok, the system was reported to be able to melt down Katyushas. My bet would be that those were painted gray or olive green. What if one chrome-plates the damn thing? Would that make the rocket (or a shell, or a racing pigeon!) laser-proof? Would someone in the know tell me why this wouldnt be a protection?
Re:Also under development:
by
dumpster_d
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"All kidding aside, you also can't rule out, as I said, revolutionary new developments in mirrored armour. I mean, if there was no way to deflect the beam, there would be no way to generate or aim it! "
Exactly. You don't polish steel, you give is a coating which does not absorb the wavelengths the other guys are using [make it the colour of the beam].
Or you make it so extreme heat doesn't generally cause a catastrophic failure [HE is already like this].
Or you start applying stealth technology to the projectiles so they can't be tracked.
Or you give your troops Rosco Model 4500 Foggers to disperse the defensive beams [plus, it'll make the war-time photography look so cool!]
Hey, any laser powerful enough to damage or divert artillery shells is going to make *thunder* when it fires. It's the same effect as lightning -- superheated air shocks away from the beam, then slams back in when the beam cuts off. That's way more impressive than zzzzt-whoosh-bleem, far as I'm concerned.
-- When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Re:Bad timing
by
child_of_mercy
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I believe in the Gulf War the British point blank refused to be the opposing arm of a US pincer movement, fearing that coming from the other direction in "funny looking tanks" they'd be blown to pieces by their allies.
Of course going back further my father was on board HMAS Hobart, in the US gunline off vietnam, when an american F4 mistook them for a helicopter(?) and put a missile into them, killing good men.
And not to get too bitter about it a large chunk of the RAN was sunk at guadalcanal by their american allies (funny looking british built ships).
These things happen but they seem to happen more when americans have their fingers on the trigger.
-- 'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Re:This raises some frightening questions
by
Ian+Bicking
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
An excellent point to bring up.
Considering these offensive possibilities is the only way I've found to make any sense of missile defense: why some people are trying so hard to make it, why others are so opposed to it.
In its proposed use, it's obviously stupid: it does a very poor job of defending against a very unlikely attack. Maybe its supporters are just trying to make more money for weapons producers -- actually, I'm sure they are -- but maybe there's more to it.
But then why do all these other countries get so bothered about it? If it's doomed to fail -- there seems to be concensus on that from all nonpartial observers -- then why not just let the US fail at it?
So here's where this theory comes in: missile defense provides a reason to do research and implementation of military systems in space, with high accuracy lasers and all that. It doesn't have to work, because it will never be tested in a realistic way, and the staged tests will just be faked (like all the tests so far).
Once you have high-precision and powerful lasers in space, you have a hell of a lot of power. Spy satellites already have impressive accuracy. It's entirely possible to create an offensive weapon that could kill anyone that's out in the open (given a certain amount of intelligence -- supposing biometrics don't get too good, so they could identify us from space).
Of course this would scare the hell out of all the other countries -- enemies and allies alike. It's no secret that the US is a fickle lover. One day you're our best friend -- Noriega, for example -- the next you're in jail. Or just dead.
So far the only new technology we seem to need in the 'war on terror' is some kind of method to discover the location and identity of those in caves, some tunneling bombs to hit the deeper caves the 'bunker busters' cannot reach, and a box cutter defense system. We're hardly fighting a high technology enemy.
Useful against low-tech foo as well. A mortar round filled with sarin is pretty low-tech, and you *really* would like to intercept it before it gets anywhere near. Sometimes you *need* high-tech to counter low-tech. For instance, you can "counter" a nuclear missile via MAD, but that won't *stop* a nuclear missile if the other guy simply doesn't care (either believing that he won't be identified, or won't be hit for other reasons, or doesn't mind being vaporized in the name of a greater cause). Stopping an attack tends to be a far harder problem than replying with a symmetric attack.
'sides, think ahead. We'd be monumentally stupid to ignore the potential for enemies more powerful than the Taliban. For instance, there is a fair probability that there'll need to be a Desert Storm II eventually; and if Pres. Hussein believes that the next time, we *won't* stop before deposing him, he may decide that with nothing left to lose he might as well pull out all the stops. Or what if North Korea implodes due to famine, and perhaps the tensest DMZ on Earth explodes? Or...
Slashdot Mirror
This has really been how it is in any war. In Vietnam, Napalm would hit allies on the ground as well as the enemies. In World War II, bombs would fall astray and kill civilians and soldiers for the same side. If there's a situation involving dangerous equipment, and humans are involved, there *will* be human error. In this case, it's lives lost - but it was going to happen anyway.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0401/042301nj.htm
that "These lasers also have a drawback--their energy comes from large tanks of industrial chemicals, which have to be mixed until they glow, like an outsize high-school science project. And they are so bulky that one weapon fills a large aircraft, or a small building. "
Does this jive with the fox news article?
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
>>The laser weapons vaporize metal.
OK, I fire it at your depleted uranium artillery shell. Vaporized uranium on the battlefield. Voila! How's that for environmental cleanup?
Since like all technology this will disseminate to the other countries in the globe, this also means a major change in air power. Manuverablility means practically nill at the speed of light. Large aircraft equiped with lasers would in addition to destroying missles would also be able to destroy all aircraft, even if the enemy aircraft are super manuverable, stealthy, super expensive F-22 jets. In fact the developement of powerful lasers will strongly reduce the importance aircraft, all you need to do is see the aircraft and you can kill it.
Actually, it's an amazingly difficult control systems problem, especially if you have no advanced warning, as in these cases. The rockets that they downed were Katyushas, which are really simple, THICK metal tubes full of explosives. I saw the video of the tests back in July--the thing is really impressive. The laser itself in invisible and the source looks like one of those World War II signaling lamps on ships. If you look at the video of the Katyushas, you just see it flying along, it gets red, then poof!
As far as deployment goes, Israel has been pressuring the US for the last several months to at least put up a few stations in northern Israel--it's that effective. The main problem right now is that it's just not mobile, and it's not battle hardened. In other words, taking it out would be easy. But, eventually given enough money and time, they'll get this on the back of a truck, and then you're in business.
$3000 is only half of a toliet seat at government prices!!! I think they're using chemical lasers and they are real big and complex, so $3000 for anything the government gets involved in is a pretty good price and if you can use it to save a HUMMV or M1A1 tank the saving would be great, even if you save only a single soldier per $3000 you're way ahead of the game, helps moral, keeps soldiers out of hospitals, saves having to train new soldiers, saves having to knock on parents door to tell them that Johnie isn't comming home. $3000 seems like the deal of the centrury, getting it to work is the only problem I see.
Thanks for bringing a little sanity to this subject.
And dont forget:
10) Clouds. Laser light does NOT penetrate clouds. The water vapor easily absorbs all the energy.
Also don't forget:
11) Friendly aircraft. On July 4, 1988, the U.S. Navy cruiser Vincennes, in the Persian Gulf, shot down an Iran Air A300 Airbus, killing 290 persons, after mistaking it for an attacking jet fighter. "The U.S. government deeply regrets this incident," Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.
The cruiser was "equipped with the most sophisticated radar and electronic battle gear in the Navy's surface arsenal."
Organizations that sell weapons are often not honest about the shortcomings.
--
Links to respected news sources show how U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Ok, the system was reported to be able to melt down Katyushas. My bet would be that those were painted gray or olive green. What if one chrome-plates the damn thing? Would that make the rocket (or a shell, or a racing pigeon!) laser-proof? Would someone in the know tell me why this wouldnt be a protection?
Exactly. You don't polish steel, you give is a coating which does not absorb the wavelengths the other guys are using [make it the colour of the beam].
Hey, any laser powerful enough to damage or divert artillery shells is going to make *thunder* when it fires. It's the same effect as lightning -- superheated air shocks away from the beam, then slams back in when the beam cuts off. That's way more impressive than zzzzt-whoosh-bleem, far as I'm concerned.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
I believe in the Gulf War the British point blank refused to be the opposing arm of a US pincer movement, fearing that coming from the other direction in "funny looking tanks" they'd be blown to pieces by their allies.
Of course going back further my father was on board HMAS Hobart, in the US gunline off vietnam, when an american F4 mistook them for a helicopter(?) and put a missile into them, killing good men.
And not to get too bitter about it a large chunk of the RAN was sunk at guadalcanal by their american allies (funny looking british built ships).
These things happen but they seem to happen more when americans have their fingers on the trigger.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Considering these offensive possibilities is the only way I've found to make any sense of missile defense: why some people are trying so hard to make it, why others are so opposed to it.
In its proposed use, it's obviously stupid: it does a very poor job of defending against a very unlikely attack. Maybe its supporters are just trying to make more money for weapons producers -- actually, I'm sure they are -- but maybe there's more to it.
But then why do all these other countries get so bothered about it? If it's doomed to fail -- there seems to be concensus on that from all nonpartial observers -- then why not just let the US fail at it?
So here's where this theory comes in: missile defense provides a reason to do research and implementation of military systems in space, with high accuracy lasers and all that. It doesn't have to work, because it will never be tested in a realistic way, and the staged tests will just be faked (like all the tests so far).
Once you have high-precision and powerful lasers in space, you have a hell of a lot of power. Spy satellites already have impressive accuracy. It's entirely possible to create an offensive weapon that could kill anyone that's out in the open (given a certain amount of intelligence -- supposing biometrics don't get too good, so they could identify us from space).
Of course this would scare the hell out of all the other countries -- enemies and allies alike. It's no secret that the US is a fickle lover. One day you're our best friend -- Noriega, for example -- the next you're in jail. Or just dead.
So far the only new technology we seem to need in the 'war on terror' is some kind of method to discover the location and identity of those in caves, some tunneling bombs to hit the deeper caves the 'bunker busters' cannot reach, and a box cutter defense system. We're hardly fighting a high technology enemy.
~~ What's stopping you?