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."
Sounds like they put a fire-finder radar tracking station onto a laser. They've had the ability to plot trajectory and such of incoming shells for quite a while, but now they'll be able to do something about it other than leave.
Unfortunately, I have suspicions if this will ever make it to deployment. The U.S. also has an anti-satellite laser weapon that has been tested and confirmed to work by overloading the circuits -- and it was nixed because of the poltical tension it would create.
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.
Re:Not too hard.
by
Knobby
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Am i forgetting something here?
Yep.. You're missing density variations and laser induced heating of the local atmosphere. Both of which will degrade the power of your beam, and complicate aiming the device. The Air Forces Airborne laser program attempted to solve these using a pair of low power lasers to sample the atmosphere and track the object. Given the information from the low power lasers, the optics for the primary laser could be corrected to hit the target. I'm not sure they ever got the system to work, but I seem to recall the power of the beam to be roughly equivilent to 30 ocyacetylin (sp?) torches focused on a single point.. There was a lot of speculation in the articles I read, suggesting that the laser power would be attenuated by some staggering amount by the atmosphere, and the chances for success were considered minimal by some of the scientists working on the project..
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.
are artillery shells that delicate?
by
rebelcool
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I know the airborne laser (uses the same chemical type laser) was capable of shooting down rockets by weakening the metal skins, which the forces of flight would thus rupture and cause the thing to fly apart, but are artillery shells really that delicate?
--
-
Re:are artillery shells that delicate?
by
pryan
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
For artillery shells without an explosive payload, I would imagine if you could melt the tip, it would throw off the aerodynamics to throw the shell off course. That is assuming, of course, that you didn't vaporize it.
And for ones with an explosive payload, the obvious would happen in flight.:)
Or, just use pen lasers
by
chancycat
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Think about it:
Eash of our troups has a pen laser and two house cats.
1) Release cats between you and the enemy.
2) Direct cats toward enemy trenches with pen light. Watch enemy freak out.
-- Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
Re:Or, just use pen lasers
by
broody
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Also under development:
by
Nindalf
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Revolutionary new developments in extremely shiny rockets, artillery shells, and even mortars.
Re:Also under development:
by
Nindalf
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Mirror coating, etc. doesn't make a difference.
To be blunt, this is wrong. I do agree, however, that just polishing up a stainless steel shell until you can shave in front of it probably won't make enough difference. Most mirrors don't reflect nearly enough light.
On the other hand, such powerful lasers are hard to make and very expensive. It would be tempting to make them just barely strong enough to work against existing designs which have no defense against such countermeasures. If a spinning (or randomly tumbling), mirrored shell, can cut down the rate of heating by something like 30%, and there's some extra heat-shielding inside, it might be enough to survive.
All kidding aside, you also can't rule out, as I said, revolutionary new developments in mirrored armor. I mean, if there was no way to deflect the beam, there would be no way to generate or aim it!
BTW, Tom Clancy is a novelist, not a physicist. His entire livelihood is sounding plausible about things he doesn't really understand.
Besides, in the battle between bigger armor and bigger guns, the guns always win eventually.
Ah, but which is which? This is an odd historical precedent to apply in favor of a defense mechanism.
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.
You'd have to have a pretty big laser to shoot down a B52.
-- "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Is it really so difficult?
by
djrogers
·
· Score: 5, Funny
All I asked for were some frickin' laser beams!
-- Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Here's a related piece
by
hether
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Military Lasers High and Low
Battle lasers are rapidly moving from the realm of theory into operational reality
The Airforce Association
http://www.afa.org/magazine/0999lasers.html
--
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
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.
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.
For a more technical overview...
by
mbessey
·
· Score: 4, Informative
...of specifically the solid-state high-power laser, take a look at Lawrence Livermore's page on the project:
This raises some frightening questions
by
joshjs
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What's to stop them from using these things on people? They have amazingly accurate targeting systems and they're cheap to fire (article says 25 cents (maybe dollars, I forget...) per shot.
So what's to keep the defense dept. from using these things for assassinations, or ground warfare?
Would that be cruel and unusual?
Here's a question: is there a "right of the people" to keep and bear these? The idea doesn't sound assuring, I must say: what kind of signature would it leave. Bullets can be tracked, but this -- would there even be a body left?
I'm not trying to complain or predict horrors, because I'm all about the advance of tech. I just want to know a little more about this kind of thing.
Also: it's eerie that the article only mentions uses of these for defense, and not for attack, covert (which I think is a promising potential use for this technology) or otherwise. Just considering it's a time of "war" and all.
Re:This raises some frightening questions
by
Anonymous+DWord
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There's an international treaty that the US has actually signed (wonder of wonders!) against using lasers on people. I tend to doubt it'll be followed in practice though, when "our" forces are involved.
-- "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Re:This raises some frightening questions
by
Anonymous+DWord
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Here's a six year old report on blinding weapons of the US military.
-- "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Re:This raises some frightening questions
by
Razzak
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There's a lot of treaties like this to minimize the "horrors" of war. For example, it's a war crime to use an anti-tank rocket or a.50 cal machine gun on infantry.
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.
Re:This raises some frightening questions
by
Fesh
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Hmm. Then the.50cal sniper rifles that the SEALS and other forces use are anti-equipment weapons? Pardon my cognitive dissonance here...
I thought the rule was anything larger than.50cal. 'Course, I'm sure that being strafed by 20mm is no picnic... (Hell, being attacked with anything would put a crimp in my day...)
-- --Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
More handy links
by
mbessey
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Most of these haven't been updated in a while, though...
The granddaddy of all the laser weapons is the Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser, known as MIRACL, which fills a large building and its surroundings at the test site.
Nice acronym. Now every time I see a picture of someone standing in a beam of divine light from the sky I'm going to get a mental picture of him bursting into flames and melting.
They were only on 24/7 in the days following 9/11 reporting on every detail as it came out. Making assumptions is something I EXPECT the media to do, what the hell do you think reporters do all day? "Hm, let's gather some facts, but never actually suggest any possible conclusion, yes, this is news-worthy, HONEST."
Besides, I'd be willing to bet they were only reporting what government officials were telling them in private (the bin Laden connection). I think most people are used to seeing un-substantiated news on the TV, and most folk are smart enough to make their own decisions (what's the Fox News slogan-- "We report, you decide."-- this was more than true after 9/11; they presented a number of possibilities right after the attacks happened, and left it to you, THE VIEWER, to decide).
Personally, I think you're just some CNN-zealot who doesn't like Bill O'Reilly.
-- All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
the goddamn hippies
by
HongPong
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Next thing you know the goddamn hippies are going to demand we only set them on 'stun.' Bastards!
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.
More bias/social engineering from the hawks at FOX
by
Sleepy
·
· Score: 4, Troll
This wasn't news, it was a *commercial*.
It's pretty simple:
1) a chunk of your tax dollars goes to pork-barrel arms projects (that don't work).
2) Said arms dealer profits.
3) Arms dealer "lobbies" for more congressional pork.
In the "old days" of the early 90's, #3 meant simply bribing the congressmen via his campaign "war chest". While that made effective lobbying, today we have Rupert Murdoch's lobbying group, "Fox" television. It's sad to have seen the name of a once-great US media company bought out by a "naturalized" foreigner whose intentions are simply to influence American politics.
In other words, this is a LOBBYING EFFORT to raise taxes for yet another military boondoggle. It's just pretend news.
Congress is already leery of "star wars" (the SDI kind), seeing how there is so much pressure to deploy the damn thing, when star wars misses 3 out of 6 targets in *lab* conditions.
Now they want the same unproven technology on the ground. Fox runs nothing but editorials against "government pork" and "big government" EXCEPT when it serves the war hawks or their stock portfolio.
Remember, these are the same maggots who ran "investigative reporting" how the USA supposedly never landed on the moon. Note this story ran JUST BEFORE renewed calls in Congress to both cut NASA funding (to make them less effective), AND to privatize NASA altogether.
George Orwell was wrong. In the future we will be controlled by mindless, hypnosis-inducing corporate-sponsored "information", news, etc.
Throw ball bearings very, very fast
by
leonbrooks
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A standard truck-mounted generator with a couple of little railguns on the roof would do the same job (by flinging a bucketful of ballbearings at the target in a second or so) for a lot less $$$ and would also make a really neat ripping noise when it fired.
Not as easy to steer as a laser but extremely difficult to defend against. Good for anti-aircraft as well, since colanders have poor aerodynamics. Anything not detonated by ball bearings doing many kilometers a second would be thrown well off course. Not that this is not necessarily an advantage, since certain nations are reknowned for just carpeting the target area with ordinance and knocking something off course might make it more accurate.
Don't forget, the owner of Fox News is Rupert Murdoch... You know, the guy who owns The National Enquirer, and numerous other tabloids... Hardly worth calling a reputable source (ironically his tabloids are the sort that would have paid well for pictures taken of Princess Di by the freelance French papparazi that chased her to her death, and even more ironic, that shortly thereafter her brother gave them an interview on teevee)...
Mind you, this was common knowlege over 10 years ago when Murdoch took over Fox, the NY Post, et al...
-- Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right.
Shoes for industry!
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?
Is anyone else wondering.....?
by
moonboy
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Is anyone else wondering why we are spending so much money on the missile defense system? This seems to have solved the problem of missile defense much more elegantly (and more cost effectively?) Maybe I'm missing something.
Weapons treaties are there to be ignored by a the parties signing them.
THink of it, you sign a treat to (say) not research biological weapons for offensive purposes, say, like Russia did. Then, you secretly violate the treaty, and now you have weapon the other side doesn't have. Its happened in the past, it'll happen in the future.
Weapons treaties only penalize the honest countries. Dishonest countries won't care. At least we actually do (for the most part) obey our treaties.
There's LOTS of stuff you can burn...
by
Ungrounded+Lightning
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"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?
Yes. But it doesn't tell the whole story.
The lasers they're talking about are spinoffs of the Star Wars missile defense system. They had to get a LOT of energy into a beam quickly, to shoot down missiles while still in space, or to bounce off a mirror in space to get them on their way up. One shot, one dead nuke, so cost wasn't much of an object.
Neither was portability: You had either a fortified underground bunker as big as you wanted, or a satellite in zero-G.
So they did something very strong, effective, big, and expensive.
But lasers are EASY. Excluding superradiants (which are easier, if you've got the materials) all you need is a couple of well-alligned mirrors, one of 'em slightly leaky, with an "inverted population amplification light amplification medium" between them.
For "inverted population light amplification medium" read "smoke from a fire".
The medium must have the following characteristics:
It has a state transistion (an "excited state", a "ground state" or less-excited state, and an allowed transition between them) with an energy difference corresponding to a usefully energetic photon.
It must have significantly more of its atoms or molecules in the more-excited state than in the less-excited state. (This is the "inverted population" part.)
It must have ENOUGH of a surplus of more-excited particles to produce a usable amount of power if you extracted the energy difference by de-exciting enough that you're down to 50/50 (or de-exciting them all if there's a further transition that drains the less-excited state).
It must be transparent and reasonably uniform (i.e. non-distorting) at the light frequency corresponding to the state transition.
When you burn darn near ANYTHING the resulting molecules start out excited. If they meet the other criteria you've got a suitable medium for a chemically-pumped laser.
Burn a suitable fuel in a long, thin, rocket flame and run the exhaust at right angles between the pair of mirrors. You'll have a laser beam coming out as long as the flame lasts. Chose the right material and a large fraction of what would have been the heat of combustion ends up in the laser beam.
Now there are some fancy and deadly fuels (fluorine comes to mind) that make an exhaust where the bulk of the energy can be extracted by a single transition. This is nice and efficient. And you don't want to be ANYWHERE NEAR them when in use, due to the toxic nature of the exhaust. So if you're going to be shooting down a nuke from a fort in the desert they're fine.
But there are LOTS of others that are simpler, and might be more suitable for a battlefield.
I expect that eventually we'll see a chemically-pumped laser rifle or pistol, about the same size as a normal rifle or pistol, with an optical cavity where the barrel would be, powered by cartridges of solid fuel that are fed by a mechanism similar to the one that feeds cartridges consisting of case/primer/powder/bullet.
-- Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.'
Coil Guns don't
by
dmaxwell
·
· Score: 3, Informative
A rail gun vaporizes a thin conductive coating on the back of a shell and electrostatic repulsion of the vaporized coating thrusts the shell forward. This vapor is very hot so it wears away a good bit of the rails on it's way out.
A coil gun is a different sort of electropropellent. The "barrel" of the gun is a multitude of coils laid in a row. The coils are driven by banks of capacitors in rapid sequence. They work just like a solenoid except that a sequence of coils is employed for greater acceleration. A working coil gun can be fired many times as no hot plasma is involved in accelerating the shell.
The problem is that it is much harder to build an effective coil gun than it is a rail gun. The timing of the coil firings must be timed precisely. Fire a coil too soon and the shell is braked rather than accelerated. Fire it too late and little to no accelleration is imparted at all. Secondly, it takes a number of coils to do this. One big coil won't do much since it is pointless to increase power once the (ferrous) shell has been magnetically saturated. So multiple coils have to kick the shell up to speed. A lot of coils isn't the problem in and of itself. Each coil will need a large bank of capacitors to itself, this will serve to make the weapon very bulky. The capacitor banks also have to be recharged between firings. It will also take some doing to cool the system. Ever play with a home made electromagnet? It's going to get HOT.
So to recap, the device will have sophisticated sensing and timing requrements for the coils; the generator and capacitor banks will be bulky; getting a high rate of fire is problimatical and it will require a large cooling system as well. I haven't mentioned any sort of targeting system or the engineering requirements that will be imposed on the shells either.
Basically, a battlefield practical electromagnetic mass driver is at least as hard as this laser system.
X-rays are refracted.
by
Futurepower(tm)
·
· Score: 3, Informative
X-rays are refracted and dispersed by the water vapor in clouds. Very short wavelengths might work, but I don't think they are feasible.
-- Bush's education improvements were
"FoxNews, The Most Biased Name in News" - FAIR.org
by
Kraft
·
· Score: 4, Troll
Thank you thank you thank you for pointing that out.
I have a grudge with Fox, and this article didn't help either. I totally avoid it for any "War on Terror" news.
Recently Fair And Accuracy in Reporting wrote a special report titled: The Most Biased Name in News: Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt (note that's it's written before sep.11).
Now that I am at it, CNN is no saint either, that's for sure. I feel like screaming BIASED! at the TV when I see Lou Dobbs et.al. wearing Stars and Stripes on their suit. All reporting is "WE need to fight this enemy...", "Protect OUR country...". So much for International.
Re:They already had a design like this
by
markmoss
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It was an automated system that aimed for the eyes, but got cancelled due to bad press. Oh my. That would certainly upset those people that imagine war can be made more humane... But the reality is, to fight a war you either kill people or wound them. Wounding is more effective, because then their buddies have to stop fighting and take care of them. A laser in the eyes would be very, very effective in this way. I think, unlike most non-fatal gunfire wounds, laser blindness would be quite permanent. If we deployed this system, the next country to get crossways of us would wind up with their streets full of blind beggars afterwards -- a hell of a drag on a third world economy, and assurance that what happens when you p*ss off America would be remembered for a century, at least. Is that good or bad???
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like they put a fire-finder radar tracking station onto a laser. They've had the ability to plot trajectory and such of incoming shells for quite a while, but now they'll be able to do something about it other than leave.
Unfortunately, I have suspicions if this will ever make it to deployment. The U.S. also has an anti-satellite laser weapon that has been tested and confirmed to work by overloading the circuits -- and it was nixed because of the poltical tension it would create.
The hard part will be making the lasers make a cool zapping noise like on Star Wars.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
I know the airborne laser (uses the same chemical type laser) was capable of shooting down rockets by weakening the metal skins, which the forces of flight would thus rupture and cause the thing to fly apart, but are artillery shells really that delicate?
-
Eash of our troups has a pen laser and two house cats.
1) Release cats between you and the enemy.
2) Direct cats toward enemy trenches with pen light. Watch enemy freak out.
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
Revolutionary new developments in extremely shiny rockets, artillery shells, and even mortars.
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.
You'd have to have a pretty big laser to shoot down a B52.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
All I asked for were some frickin' laser beams!
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Military Lasers High and Low
Battle lasers are rapidly moving from the realm of theory into operational reality
The Airforce Association
http://www.afa.org/magazine/0999lasers.html
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
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.
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.
http://lasers.llnl.gov/lst/helstf.html
if they did come with the different tips it sure would make it easier for cowfolks to brand their cattle.
THERE IS NO DATA. THERE IS O
What's to stop them from using these things on people? They have amazingly accurate targeting systems and they're cheap to fire (article says 25 cents (maybe dollars, I forget...) per shot.
So what's to keep the defense dept. from using these things for assassinations, or ground warfare?
Would that be cruel and unusual?
Here's a question: is there a "right of the people" to keep and bear these? The idea doesn't sound assuring, I must say: what kind of signature would it leave. Bullets can be tracked, but this -- would there even be a body left?
I'm not trying to complain or predict horrors, because I'm all about the advance of tech. I just want to know a little more about this kind of thing.
Also: it's eerie that the article only mentions uses of these for defense, and not for attack, covert (which I think is a promising potential use for this technology) or otherwise. Just considering it's a time of "war" and all.
The US Army's HEL sites:
http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/THEL.html
http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/HELSTF.html
TRW's contribution:
http://www.trw.com/thel
-Mark
Nice acronym. Now every time I see a picture of someone standing in a beam of divine light from the sky I'm going to get a mental picture of him bursting into flames and melting.
Uh, sure, whatever.
They were only on 24/7 in the days following 9/11 reporting on every detail as it came out. Making assumptions is something I EXPECT the media to do, what the hell do you think reporters do all day? "Hm, let's gather some facts, but never actually suggest any possible conclusion, yes, this is news-worthy, HONEST."
Besides, I'd be willing to bet they were only reporting what government officials were telling them in private (the bin Laden connection). I think most people are used to seeing un-substantiated news on the TV, and most folk are smart enough to make their own decisions (what's the Fox News slogan-- "We report, you decide."-- this was more than true after 9/11; they presented a number of possibilities right after the attacks happened, and left it to you, THE VIEWER, to decide).
Personally, I think you're just some CNN-zealot who doesn't like Bill O'Reilly.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
Next thing you know the goddamn hippies are going to demand we only set them on 'stun.' Bastards!
--hongpong.com
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
This wasn't news, it was a *commercial*.
It's pretty simple:
1) a chunk of your tax dollars goes to pork-barrel arms projects (that don't work).
2) Said arms dealer profits.
3) Arms dealer "lobbies" for more congressional pork.
In the "old days" of the early 90's, #3 meant simply bribing the congressmen via his campaign "war chest". While that made effective lobbying, today we have Rupert Murdoch's lobbying group, "Fox" television. It's sad to have seen the name of a once-great US media company bought out by a "naturalized" foreigner whose intentions are simply to influence American politics.
In other words, this is a LOBBYING EFFORT to raise taxes for yet another military boondoggle. It's just pretend news.
Congress is already leery of "star wars" (the SDI kind), seeing how there is so much pressure to deploy the damn thing, when star wars misses 3 out of 6 targets in *lab* conditions.
Now they want the same unproven technology on the ground. Fox runs nothing but editorials against "government pork" and "big government" EXCEPT when it serves the war hawks or their stock portfolio.
Remember, these are the same maggots who ran "investigative reporting" how the USA supposedly never landed on the moon. Note this story ran JUST BEFORE renewed calls in Congress to both cut NASA funding (to make them less effective), AND to privatize NASA altogether.
George Orwell was wrong. In the future we will be controlled by mindless, hypnosis-inducing corporate-sponsored "information", news, etc.
Not as easy to steer as a laser but extremely difficult to defend against. Good for anti-aircraft as well, since colanders have poor aerodynamics. Anything not detonated by ball bearings doing many kilometers a second would be thrown well off course. Not that this is not necessarily an advantage, since certain nations are reknowned for just carpeting the target area with ordinance and knocking something off course might make it more accurate.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Don't forget, the owner of Fox News is Rupert Murdoch... You know, the guy who owns The National Enquirer, and numerous other tabloids... Hardly worth calling a reputable source (ironically his tabloids are the sort that would have paid well for pictures taken of Princess Di by the freelance French papparazi that chased her to her death, and even more ironic, that shortly thereafter her brother gave them an interview on teevee)...
Mind you, this was common knowlege over 10 years ago when Murdoch took over Fox, the NY Post, et al...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
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?
Is anyone else wondering why we are spending so much money on the missile defense system? This seems to have solved the problem of missile defense much more elegantly (and more cost effectively?) Maybe I'm missing something.
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Weapons treaties are there to be ignored by a the parties signing them.
THink of it, you sign a treat to (say) not research biological weapons for offensive purposes, say, like Russia did. Then, you secretly violate the treaty, and now you have weapon the other side doesn't have. Its happened in the past, it'll happen in the future.
Weapons treaties only penalize the honest countries. Dishonest countries won't care. At least we actually do (for the most part) obey our treaties.
Does this jive with the fox news article?
Yes. But it doesn't tell the whole story.
The lasers they're talking about are spinoffs of the Star Wars missile defense system. They had to get a LOT of energy into a beam quickly, to shoot down missiles while still in space, or to bounce off a mirror in space to get them on their way up. One shot, one dead nuke, so cost wasn't much of an object.
Neither was portability: You had either a fortified underground bunker as big as you wanted, or a satellite in zero-G.
So they did something very strong, effective, big, and expensive.
But lasers are EASY. Excluding superradiants (which are easier, if you've got the materials) all you need is a couple of well-alligned mirrors, one of 'em slightly leaky, with an "inverted population amplification light amplification medium" between them.
For "inverted population light amplification medium" read "smoke from a fire".
The medium must have the following characteristics:
It has a state transistion (an "excited state", a "ground state" or less-excited state, and an allowed transition between them) with an energy difference corresponding to a usefully energetic photon.
It must have significantly more of its atoms or molecules in the more-excited state than in the less-excited state. (This is the "inverted population" part.)
It must have ENOUGH of a surplus of more-excited particles to produce a usable amount of power if you extracted the energy difference by de-exciting enough that you're down to 50/50 (or de-exciting them all if there's a further transition that drains the less-excited state).
It must be transparent and reasonably uniform (i.e. non-distorting) at the light frequency corresponding to the state transition.
When you burn darn near ANYTHING the resulting molecules start out excited. If they meet the other criteria you've got a suitable medium for a chemically-pumped laser.
Burn a suitable fuel in a long, thin, rocket flame and run the exhaust at right angles between the pair of mirrors. You'll have a laser beam coming out as long as the flame lasts. Chose the right material and a large fraction of what would have been the heat of combustion ends up in the laser beam.
Now there are some fancy and deadly fuels (fluorine comes to mind) that make an exhaust where the bulk of the energy can be extracted by a single transition. This is nice and efficient. And you don't want to be ANYWHERE NEAR them when in use, due to the toxic nature of the exhaust. So if you're going to be shooting down a nuke from a fort in the desert they're fine.
But there are LOTS of others that are simpler, and might be more suitable for a battlefield.
I expect that eventually we'll see a chemically-pumped laser rifle or pistol, about the same size as a normal rifle or pistol, with an optical cavity where the barrel would be, powered by cartridges of solid fuel that are fed by a mechanism similar to the one that feeds cartridges consisting of case/primer/powder/bullet.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.'
A rail gun vaporizes a thin conductive coating on the back of a shell and electrostatic repulsion of the vaporized coating thrusts the shell forward. This vapor is very hot so it wears away a good bit of the rails on it's way out.
A coil gun is a different sort of electropropellent. The "barrel" of the gun is a multitude of coils laid in a row. The coils are driven by banks of capacitors in rapid sequence. They work just like a solenoid except that a sequence of coils is employed for greater acceleration. A working coil gun can be fired many times as no hot plasma is involved in accelerating the shell.
The problem is that it is much harder to build an effective coil gun than it is a rail gun. The timing of the coil firings must be timed precisely. Fire a coil too soon and the shell is braked rather than accelerated. Fire it too late and little to no accelleration is imparted at all. Secondly, it takes a number of coils to do this. One big coil won't do much since it is pointless to increase power once the (ferrous) shell has been magnetically saturated. So multiple coils have to kick the shell up to speed. A lot of coils isn't the problem in and of itself. Each coil will need a large bank of capacitors to itself, this will serve to make the weapon very bulky. The capacitor banks also have to be recharged between firings. It will also take some doing to cool the system. Ever play with a home made electromagnet? It's going to get HOT.
So to recap, the device will have sophisticated sensing and timing requrements for the coils; the generator and capacitor banks will be bulky; getting a high rate of fire is problimatical and it will require a large cooling system as well. I haven't mentioned any sort of targeting system or the engineering requirements that will be imposed on the shells either.
Basically, a battlefield practical electromagnetic mass driver is at least as hard as this laser system.
X-rays are refracted and dispersed by the water vapor in clouds. Very short wavelengths might work, but I don't think they are feasible.
Bush's education improvements were
Thank you thank you thank you for pointing that out.
I have a grudge with Fox, and this article didn't help either. I totally avoid it for any "War on Terror" news.
Recently Fair And Accuracy in Reporting wrote a special report titled:
The Most Biased Name in News: Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt (note that's it's written before sep.11).
Now that I am at it, CNN is no saint either, that's for sure. I feel like screaming BIASED! at the TV when I see Lou Dobbs et.al. wearing Stars and Stripes on their suit. All reporting is "WE need to fight this enemy...", "Protect OUR country...". So much for International.
No thank you, I will stick with:
- guerrillanews
- mediachannel
- and for TV, EuroNews or even BBC
-Kraft
Live and let live
It was an automated system that aimed for the eyes, but got cancelled due to bad press. Oh my. That would certainly upset those people that imagine war can be made more humane... But the reality is, to fight a war you either kill people or wound them. Wounding is more effective, because then their buddies have to stop fighting and take care of them. A laser in the eyes would be very, very effective in this way. I think, unlike most non-fatal gunfire wounds, laser blindness would be quite permanent. If we deployed this system, the next country to get crossways of us would wind up with their streets full of blind beggars afterwards -- a hell of a drag on a third world economy, and assurance that what happens when you p*ss off America would be remembered for a century, at least. Is that good or bad???