Slashdot Mirror
Contractor Proposes Laser Rifles for US Military
The Fryar writes "Well, folks, it looks like the future really is now! It seems the Defense Review has uncovered a submission by Stavatti, a sort of "free market" defense contractor, to the military for a laser rifle. The submission comes in response to the Army's LFLAN requirement - the quest to provide "Light Fighter Lethality After Next" technology, or lasers/phasers/sabers/advanced weapons for use some 20 years down the road. Needless to say, I also considered the category "Star Wars Prequels" for this article."
Call me a peace loving hippy but I don't think the prospeect of a weapon thats designed to kill and injure should be put under a category that is about fun and enterntainment (toys).
Nah! That shit's boring! Lets focus our resources on developing more efficient ways of killing people!
Someone really needs to start an extra-American hyper technology-driven society with some priorities besides war-war-war. Brotherhood. Unity. Peace. Peace through power! One vision one purpose!
Such a system will probably be initially implemented for long-range sniper teams. Such a team using this particular weapon could move into an abandoned house nearly 3 times as far away as current sniper rifle's maximum range, could fire more quietly, and hopefully would have the distance and confusion to get away. In addition, this weapon prototype is tuned to replace the m-16 as a rapid-fire battlefield meat and potatoes weapon... lazers are more likely to begin its life as a stationary or semi-stationary weapon like machine guns in WW1 or grenade launchers. As an assassination tool, tuned to fire once but be hidden in a pair of guitar cases, it could be quite effective and available quite soon.
Replacing the M-16 seems like the wrong way to begin down the technology curve... More specialized applications like a cartridge-based sniper rifle, truck-mounted anti-aircraft lazers, or bridge / encampment defense lazer positions seem like a more useful... use. Their strength lies in distance, not power, and that is what they should be used for.
The ______ Agenda
Let not ignore the fact that one of these rifles would take approximately a million times as much Po-210 as has been produced in the entire history of the earth.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
The vast majority of bullets used in infantry combat are used to keep the enemy's heads down until someone can get close enough to kill them. This means you need loud bangs and puffs of dust, so the enemy knows it's dangerous. The only soldier's who rely on sharp-shooting to kill are snipers. On the other hand, I look forward to seeing parading in their mirror suits - it'll be oh so pretty. What baffles me is why they're proposing this as an infantry weapon, and not a large scale version for fighter aircraft and the like, which have they're own power source and integrated targetting systems. This would be lethal in dogfights.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
I don't think you need a visible frequency to blind someone - I'm sure you could do it with an intense pulse of ultraviolet. You just need something which will be absorbed by the retina (rather than passing straight through it, eg radio or x-rays.)
A few salient details should convince you this is as close to an April Fools joke as it's possible to get on April 2. If it hadn't been posted on DefenseReview I'd have completely ignored this.
..." like this one. Yep, that makes it likely this could ever work.
t ml
The polonium source is always hot, whether or not it is being used. The article states that "while the weapon is in a storage mode, in essence the system produces 104KW of heat energy." Imagine a bin of these replacement cartridges - it could run a small town. And when in use, each burst (of which you can fire 170 per minute) has an internal energy dissipation of 16.4KW. No kidding. You'd need several inches of shuttle thermal tile just to hold this thing.
The article states "Currently Polonium-210 is only produced in microgram quantities for research purposes at facilities such as Oak Ridge National Laboratory." Yep, THAT'S likely to change soon.
It specs a recoil force of 90 (yep, NINETY) pounds in the forward direction - enough to rip it out of the hands of a soldier. And it claims to be able to sustain 170 bursts per minute, at 0.35s per burst. That's about 59.5 seconds per minute, yanking at 90 lb on a soldier. No human could handle this thing for long.
The article states "Stavatti has not previously, nor is currently involved in an effort to develop a qualified small arm weapon system
Finally, the article is full of spelling and grammar errors.
Just in case you missed the pun, it's a carbon dioxide / nitrogen gas laser - hence the term "vaporware"...
BTW, their web page about this thing is here:
http://www.stavatti.com/armament_systems.h
I think Defense Review got hoaxed.
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
Like caseless ammunition for infantry weapons -- loads of resources and weight are lost to shell casings. If the shell casing represents 15% of the shell mass, then eliminating it should allow for 15% more ammunition to be carried. More ammunition means less resources devoted to supply lines and more resources devoted to fighting power.
.223 rifle rounds would pack a better punch against hardened targets (buildings, bunkers, vehicles, helicopters).
Better targeting systems. One thing that gave us huge advantages over Afghani forces was our guys actually can aim their rifles -- lots of irregular forces just kind of spray and run, which wastes ammo. An infantry targeting system that could combine small, instantaneous adjustments to windage and elevation to compensate for motion, wind or other ballistic effects on aiming would go a long way towards improving the hit ratio. More hits, less ammo, less supplies.
It'd be great, too, to shrink the kinds of ammo available for the 25mm Bushmaster to be usable in rifles as well. High explosive, incindiery or other types of ammo while larger than standard
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The term "free market" here is misleading. Free market economics (i.e. capitalism) is the philosophy of voluntary association: Nobody forces anyone to sell anything (or not sell anything), and nobody forces anyone to buy anything (or not buy anything) -- it is the complete absence of force in the market. Under a free market system, every transaction is done on a voluntary basis. Government contracts, on the other hand, represent the exact opposite of free market economics. Government contracting does not represent voluntary association but coercion: The consumer (you and I) do not choose for ourselves whether or not to patronize these businesses. We choose between paying our taxes, leaving the country, or going to jail. This is not market decision but a threat, and hence, the defense contractor does is not a true competitor in the free market. Their market share is not acquired through persuasion, voluntary association, and fair competition. Their market share is aquired through force. Therefore, to label a government contractor "free market" is completely wrong and backwards, and serves only to blur the distinction between free market economics and socialism.
lemme see what I can think of right away:
* silent
* no recoil
* less resupply problems (lay a power cable to the forward camp instead of moving trucks full of ammo)
* if constructed right, can be enclosed completely = less susceptable to dirt, dust and water
* if using invisible light (IR/UV) doesn't give away your position through muzzle flashes
* more accuracy due to a reduce "time to impact" (from pulling the trigger to impact, it's half a second at 500 yards)
Let's not forget the perfectly flat trajectory as well. Instead of having to compensate for distance and wind, just point and click just like your favourite FPS -- your sights will always be perfectly zeroed. Aiming at and hitting an enemy 1000 yards away will not be appreciably different than hitting one 50 yards away.
Of course, there would still be environmental factors to worry about such as smoke or thick fog that could refract the beam or reduce its effectiveness.
And then there's the factor of them not having much in the way of moving parts, and no chemical propellants, and thus not having to be cleaned very often in comparison to your average rifle.
Mechanik
Little side benefit of this: unless you have the infrastructure for reloading/developing Polonium power cells, your stolen/black market rifle becomes a Very Expensive Paperweight.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Besides the basic durability issue, I would think these weapons would also be vulnerable to an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) device, which as I understand it, could basically knock out all such weapons within the range of effect...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Also isn't it strange that the Geneva convention would band weapons that cause permanent blindness yet allow ones that kill people?
"He's dead Jim, but look on the bright side he didn't lose his sight"
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
....that I see with this weapon is better shooting. With a ballistic rifle (aka: the M-16) you have to account for the arch of the round you are firing. The soldier firing would still have to rely on firing basics, breathing and trigger squeeze for instance, but not having to account for a bullets arch would be helpful.
One disadvantage to a system like this would be laying down cover fire. The adoption of the M-16, by the Army, made it easier for a soldier to lay down cover fire so that fellow troops could move into a better position to engage the target. This weapon system, IMO, wouldn't make a visible or audible cover fire that would force enemy troops to seek cover. That can be a good or a bad thing depending on the tactical situation.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
And if this actually did happen, what other conclusion could one come to but that less government is exactly what the people want? (I'm dead serious. What other conclusion could one come to when people are free to choose for themselves what's best for themselves? To deny it would be to say that the people *don't* know what's best for themselves.) If the people actually could choose where their tax money goes, and how much of it goes where, I guarantee we'd see a drastic reduction in the scope and power of government.
The more the U.S. kills people around the world the more enemies it makes. It needs to kill those new enemies. Better make better guns so you can kill more of those enemies...creating more enemies.
The recoil may be due to the movement of the CO2N2He gas during the lasing reaction - mean velocity of 1998 m/s. If this is moving backwards, ther will be a recoil forwards (by Newton's 3rd law).
Reflective clothing will not help significantly against lasers; the material wouldn't be able to reflect the majority of the energy. Mirrors are only about 90% reflective, and the remainder will blast through the material in no time.
Dust clouds would be a problem, but this is an infantry weapon; you have to be able to see your enemies anyway.
- Chris
ok, speaking as an actual active duty infantry soldier and not some armchair general, the molle's actually pretty good. it's just not that much better than the gear we've got now to make changing over worth it.
the molle has a book and a video to put it together and wear it, but you're an idiot if you can't figure it out by yourself. it's really pretty easy to put together and configure.
as far as new weapons, I'm all for having a weapon that I don't have to carry a shitload of ammunition for. if all it needs is a radioactive power cell and it's good to go for longer than I'll be in contact with the enemy, fucking awesome.
the first gripe of any soldier about new equipment is weight. no ammo means less weight. a lot of soldiers will be happy with that shit. the M-16 has its weaknesses and I wasn't sorry to say goodbye to it and get my hands on my first M4.
the reason the military has a large budget is so we can continue to improve things by testing new ideas. we've made big jumps with gear. if this laser rifle isn't a good idea, we'll figure it out. we don't need someone that hasn't crawled in the mud and put bullets downrange second guessing new technology or telling us that the M-16 is fine as it is.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
Inaccuracy due to low muzzle velocity comes from multiple factors such as gravity-induced drop, wind-induced deviations, and difficulty leading a target.
If your target is a BMP 1km away moving laterally with respect to shooter-target axis you WILL need to adjust for this when firing with an ordinary projectile weapon. You can't count on your targets standing still for you, on calm days.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I half expected to see airborne lasers used for boost-phase antimissile defense in the current war. I guess it's still too experimental. Then again, maybe they were trying to use it as the primary defense and didn't tell us. It seems like a smart approach to combine this with something like the Patriot missile. If the laser fails, then try the missile.
Also, it's probably not a visible laser, but if you really want to burst your enemy's bubble, there'd be nothing like having him launch his most sophisticated missile, and then seeing a friggin laser come out of the sky and shoot it down.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
So what do you suggest? Uninventing it? Destroying anything that could lead to its re-discovery? Kill anyone smart enough to think of something similar? Your working the wrong angle. Weapons aren't the problem. People wanting to kill people is.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
How can somebody rate something intresting that's so full of shit? First, we are NOT the only ones to use landmines. Second, we are NOT the only ones to use cluster munitions and third, how is the use of uranium delpleted shells, mostly used in anti-tank applications, any more "inhumane" than a rocket or lazer guided bomb!?
That's right, keep modding up the troll....
You need a FREE iPod Nano
First of all, "they" do not exist at this time. There is no existing free market system in the world as far as I know. Here in the US, for example, the average citizen loses over 40% of their yearly earnings to taxes (between federal, state, and local governments combined). This is hardly representative of free market economics, which requires that each individual citizen have the ability to make their own choices on where and when to spend thier money (or not spend the money). When nearly 1 out of every 2 dollars you earn is taken by government, you're giving up nearly half your spending power -- and hence, nearly half your influence on the market.
In this case, the customer is the government. That's why they are called government contractors, and not citizen contractors. And, yes the government contracting market (by law) is pretty damned free. Anyone is free to bid on upcoming contracts. If you have a small company, there are a number of SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) contracts available every year, from every department related to the government. The linked SBIR page is about NASA's SBIRs, but there are literally a total of thousands available from DoT, DoD, NIH, NIST, NIMA, etc. If you're a big company, then you go through a similar, yet more formal process to bid on contracts. As is the case with most government-related things, there's more paperwork to complete, and in some cases due to the sensitive nature of the contract, you might be required to have some level of security clearance before you can bid, but other than that it is really wide open. I happen to know of a few recent large contracts that have been competitively bid on by very small companies, so small businesses are not just limited to SBIRs (which are capped at $1M, I believe).
In relation to your statement:
You clearly don't remember history class in high school, or maybe you didn't take it yet. We live in a republic. We elect representatives to make key decisions for us...that's the whole point of a republic. If you don't like the decisions being made, well, that's the citizen's fault for electing a bad decision maker. You are perfectly free to vote, write letters to your representatives, write articles in the newspaper, put up a blog, participate in protests and rallies, and bitch and moan on /. to express your opinion. But please don't complain that you are being coerced and that you have no choice, because you do.
Eh? Both Iraq and the US sent troops into another country and killed civilians ... that's an invasion, right? Or does the intent of an army have to be taken into account too?
I guess you`re one of those people who only use the word 'brave' to describe people who perform actions you approve of. IE US bomber pilots dropping bombs on Iraq from 30000 feet are brave, but the 7/11 terrorists were cowards?
Human Evolution consists of at least 5 million years (from the moment there were appe like creatures that started to try to walk upright).
One of the most common traits during the history of humanity is cooperation. Cooperation between human groups is what gave us huge advantages: the young taking care of the old, and that way preserving knowledge for longer, the childless protecting the childs of others increasing the chances of the species as a whole, you name it, you are human so you can find more examples like this.
It is only when we compete for scarce resources that we turn against each other. The problem is that we are being so succesful that the groups tha lose a showdown can't just move to a different lace and prosper there.
We exhibit the same kind of violent behaviour as those rats that were allowed to overpopulate in a controlled experiment. All went pearshape: violence, carelessness for the young, killings and in general mayhem.
Evolution guided us trhough a bening path, it is only our own success and the finite amount of resources in this planet that has determined that we kill each other, but that is not pre-ordainde, if we were wiser we may decide to let the steam off by means of using our brain to go back to our communitary roots as a species.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
They estimate that each shot would result in a 90-lb recoil kick due to the movement of gasses within the gun during the lasing process, so I'd bet there's going to be some sound too.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
It's a little late for first-person "experience" of World War II. (Closest you can get is something like "The War 1939-1945," edited by Desmond Flower. Amazing book, mainly because it's almost all first-person accounts and it includes any perspective you can imagine.)
If WWII is your model, doing a Google by "D Day" and "invasion of France" has just got me around 5,000 hits.
For a party that makes a big deal out of not being "politically correct," our R'pubs do seem to have a problem saying this word all of a sudden. Iraq's another sovereign state. We may have all sorts of legitimate reasons for doing it, or not, but sending troops into another state to depose that state's government is being called an "invasion" by sympathetic sources like The Japan Times and unsymathetic ones like This Singapore newspaper.
Lord, how Orwellian we're becoming. "Liberate" is okay, but "invasion" isn't? Can I say "war" or do I need to say "police action" -- because we're supposedly enforcing the resolutions of the body that was so divided over whether we should do this? C'mon, give me some guidance here -- I'm not sure how to adhere to the party line. Re-educate us, comrade.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Actually I would suggest putting the billions of dollars that go into these extravagant military projects that find new, easier, faster ways to kill people into educating people so they don't want to kill people. And while were at it, how about some state funded medical insurance that doesn't suck.