Slashdot Mirror


Laser Cannons Coming to an F-16 Near You

dxprog writes "Reuters is reporting that the US Pentagon is designing a laser cannon that's small enough to fit onto a fighter jet yet powerful enough to knock out a missile. "The High Energy Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS), being designed by the Pentagon's central research and development agency, will weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures the size of a large fridge." Now all we need to do is make fighter jets space worthy for that true Star Wars feel."

757 comments

  1. let's just get this out of the way: by WellAren'tYouJustThe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will there be friggin sharks on them too?

    1. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Funny

      Will there be friggin sharks on them too?

      Who needs a shark when you've got a veritech?

      Kids today...

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by HTL2001 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...will weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures the size of a large fridge."

      thats a bit to heavy

      then again... suppose 2 sharks carry it together... (to lazy to check monty python quote)

      --
      By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
    3. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Jambon · · Score: 2, Funny
      Will there be friggin sharks on them too?

      Yes, the fighters are expected to carry laser guided mutated sharks to attack ships, submarines, and naval bases.

      The technology is based on the theory that large predators are attracted to shiny objects. By shining the laser at the indended target, naval researchers believe that the sharks will simply follow the shiny light until it slams into the intended target, upon which the explosive chum fed to the shark will explode. Also, to aid in the transportation of the shark, the sharks will be put in a state of temporary hibernation. Once dropped, a chip in their brain will awaken them, giving them enough time to contemplate their existence before they hit the water and follow the shiny light....

    4. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by rockola · · Score: 1

      They seem to be doing just fine even without lasers:

      http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16378021-2,00 .html

      --
      Those who don't know Lisp are doomed to reimplement it.
    5. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And if they actually MISS the target?
      Doesn't the laser energy keep going?
      Even with diffusion, this would put some serious heat on someones backyard barbeque yes?

    6. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by salvorHardin · · Score: 1

      They could grip it by the husk!

    7. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by fyngyrz · · Score: 1, Funny
      Umph. Laser cannons to shoot down missles, ait-to-air, eh?.

      Harry, bring out the reflective surface treatment gear, would ya? Yeah, we're gonna want a nice mirror finish, but let a fraction of a percent through the nose, a laser spot'll make a great tracking datum.

      Or maybe we can reflect and redirect it well enough to drill a hole in the jet that's generating it...

      Oh, wait a minute, jets with reflective surfaces.

      Crap.

      Another billion down the drain. And I needed a new yacht, too!

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    8. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Daetrin · · Score: 2, Funny

      We have both this and the shape changing planes posted on the same day and the first thing you think of is if they have sharks on them? Now if you'd asked if they Transformed into sharks...

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    9. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, newly registered defense contractor Maaco, known for body shops offering cheap paint jobs fame, has been granted a $489 million dollar defense contract to perfect their wildly popular 'pearl essence' paint jobs for military use.

    10. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by idonthack · · Score: 2, Insightful
      jets with reflective surfaces.
      Great idea. Especially the part where we can see the sun glint off of them from 90 freaking miles away, and then we know where to shoot our missiles that have no problem with reflective surfaces.

      Anyways, since you can't make anything perfectly reflective, it will burn through if it's powerful enough or stays on the same part for a long time.
      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    11. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by BJZQ8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All this has been thought through in the 80's, when SDI was being developed. The amount of energy directed onto one spot is so intense it will burn through anything less than a polished mirror. Some people used to think that making ICBM's reflective, or twirl in flight, would solve things...but it's kind of like pirouetting in front of a 50 caliber rifle. These lasers are nothing to mess around with, they're thousands of watts projected onto a very small spot. The thermal shock alone is mind-numbing.

    12. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by dolphin558 · · Score: 1

      Granted, it's better to be invisible to radar and visual ID but with todays anti-air weapons and countermeasures visual sight of a target has little to do with whether you'll be able to shoot it down, especially with our Fighter and Attack aircraft. An F-22 can be lit up like a Christmas tree but you'll still have a hard time knocking it down.

    13. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Francis85 · · Score: 1

      Nope, they were put on the endangered species list... we have sea bass now :D

    14. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Guspaz · · Score: 0

      You know what else works? Bullets. But it seems that frickin' laser beams are preferrable. Oh well.

    15. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You know, I've always wondered about that. SDI, that is.
      I say develop that system, put it under UN controll (or preferably under a UN2.0, without the current corruptive veto system) and sy 'fuck it, there will be NO ICBM launches by ANYONE on this earth [unless the trajectory indicates that the thing is just putting stuff into orbit or launching it into space]'.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    16. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well another school of thought is that we don't even have to burn a hole in the missle-aircraft.

      It apears that we can cause the propelent to expload before we actualy cause damage inside the shell of the aircraft. This was the basis of the ground based lasers and the ones mounted in the jumbo jets. I guess the trick would be doing this before the warhead is armed and mounting a laser capable of this task on a jet fighter might give the extra advantage.

      At less then 1700lbs, this setup well within weapons payload of the new F22 or more notably the even newer FB22 bomber as well as the existing F15 and F18 if it can be mounted. This will give a greater change of intercepting missles in areas without human population or the ability to take them out before the warhead is armed. I'm guessing the range on a laser this powerfull might be close to line of sight wich might make interception even better. I think this is great news for all.

    17. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by pedroloco · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some people used to think that making ICBM's reflective, or twirl in flight, would solve things...but it's kind of like pirouetting in front of a 50 caliber rifle.

      Did you lift that analogy from Tom Clancy's book Cardinal of the Kremlin? Or did he lift it from the same source you did?

    18. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i just hope noone being launched into space has to do a 'return to landing site' or "splash down in some ocean" abort...

      *That'll* fix those launch failures

      what about space ship 1's ballistic travel profile...

    19. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by 6th+time+lucky · · Score: 1

      or a sudden lack of MTV...

      What was that movie anyway???

    20. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 2, Funny

      General: How'd the flight test go, Colonel?
      Colonel: Well, we got some good news and some bad news, sir.
      General: OK, what are the bad news?
      Colonel: Due to some unexpected turbulence, we missed the target and had a friendly fire incident.
      General: *Curse*
      General: And the good news?
      Colonel: The good news are that your car rental's been upgraded to a convertible without touching the budget.

    21. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if they actually MISS the target?
      Doesn't the laser energy keep going?
      Even with diffusion, this would put some serious heat on someones backyard barbeque yes?


      For air-to-air missiles, which are generally at about the same altitude, if you miss, the beam goes off into space becasue of the curvature of the Earth.
      For ground-to-air missiles, which are generally fired at you over enemy territory, if you miss, the beam hits somewhere in enemy territory, and if it hits civilians, well, hey, that's acceptable "collateral damage" among today's military mindset.

    22. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by saider · · Score: 1


      What was that movie anyway???

      Spies Like Us.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    23. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by TheRaven64 · · Score: 0

      Of course, there is a very simple solution to this. You make them highly reflective, and then paint them black. The LASER hits, burns the plastic away and then bounces. And since the LASER is designed as a missile countermeasure system, you only need to do this with missiles, and you only need to make them able to survive for a few seconds until they hit their target. I would probably also add thermal tiles under the reflective surface as well. If they manage to bur through the paint and the mirror, then they hit something which can absorb a lot of heat, which should buy enough time to get within range of the target (assuming we are actually talking about missiles. Most to-air systems use hitiles these days - things that have to collide, rather than get within a certain range of range of a target before they will explode - since the average speed of a fighter aircraft exceeds the explosive speed of most warheads).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're shooting at something that is traveling several hundred miles per hour, bullets start to feel a little slow and hard to aim, and light-speed weapons become more valuable.

    25. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Elaarni · · Score: 1

      Your Idea wont work, the speed things heat up in a laser hit is just about instantaneous, and putting any kind of impurity on a highly reflective surface will cause the imputity itself to do the damage as it is now a HUGE heat source as it becomes high energy plasma and burns through the mirror. This is in fact why only very highly reflective surfaces work to reflect Lasers at all, impurities vaporize and cause severe damage to the reflective surface. Adding heat tiles _MAY_ do something, but since Im certain these lasers are generating heat in excess of the 1400 c that the shuttle experiences in re-entry they may be of little to no protective value, to say nothing of adding that weight to your missle, or costs associated with completely re-designing a new missle to have such protections.

    26. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Seraph · · Score: 1

      And if they actually MISS the target?

      Then Kent ends up in a flood of popcorn in Professor Hathaway's house.

    27. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Bohiti · · Score: 1
      The thermal shock alone is mind-numbing.
      I thought icecream caused mind-numbing. This would cause a mildly-uncomfortable sensation on the other end of the spectrum.. I'll call it "spontaneous brain combustion".
    28. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by ajnsue · · Score: 2, Funny

      Klatu nik baratu? What they hell you talking about boy fire them missles!

    29. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Fishstick · · Score: 1
      ...and stop touching yourself!


      It is God!

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    30. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by databeast · · Score: 1

      Damn

      I wish I had mod points free, and there was the option:

      +3 appreciates the coolest geek movie ever.

    31. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the F-22 Raptor already has a laser system that's been designed for it and [I think it] fits in place of bombbay doors.

      The laser is ultraviolet, thus it would allow an F22 to loiter in an area and attack ground targetes (Geneva conventions state that we can't attack people with lasers) However, we can cut the truck they're driving in half and thus detonating the fuel tank...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    32. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by lotus_out_law · · Score: 1

      Hope they get the s/w right for this one..

      F16 Pilot - Hey, one MIG on the radar, fix him proper
      **presses phoenix missile button**
                      Aowwwww .. it got burnt right through... aarghhhhhhhh

      Other guy shoots him down with cannon ...

      kR/\/

    33. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by operagost · · Score: 1

      I liked the popcorn explosion in "Real Genius" myself.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    34. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by chainsaw1 · · Score: 1

      If the outside layer is thin enough and flashes at a suitably low temperature, the airflow from the moving missle may absorb most of the heat before the mirror is badly damaged (nanotubes?). However, Once you add the tiles, the weight of the missle will moslty be protection and you'll have:

      -a smaller payload with which to do damage.
      -a much larger missle to house the bigger engine (and thus becomes an easier target.
      -a missle with less range, which won't be as useful
      -a slower missle, which will also be an easier target.

      --
      - Sig
    35. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Slow and hard to aim? That is what computers are for. The system knows where the the missile is, it knows it's trajectory, it knows it's own position and speed, it can probably know the wind speed and direction, why can't IT target by itself?

    36. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by DimJim · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually F16 fighter planes do not carry phoenix missiles. F14 is the only type that does.

      --
      Draconian 'd'RM: Achtung! You vill sit in ze CHAIR ven you read my book, NOT ON ZE COUCH!!! -AC-
    37. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Retric · · Score: 1

      Adding reflective coatings are vary effective. 1/2 inch multi layered reflective coatings will stop a high-powered laser. Granted at some point you can build a 'super high powered" laser that will earth though this but...

      But, what happens when a particle of dust lands on the outside of your "supper high powered laser?"

      PS: Energy levels / frequency / duration where left out of this discussion, but the same principals always apply. Basically you can build a system that would stop most modern munitions but it's a lot cheaper to defend agenst that system than it is to deploy that system.

    38. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by MojoMonkey · · Score: 1

      Effective range of modern cannons (Vulcan) is somewhere around 2000 feet. Getting within 2000 feet of a ICBM would not be an easy task.

      --

      ----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
    39. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      Actually he said pirouetting in front of a shotgun, but I think the 50 caliber rifle would be a better analogy...but yes, that's where I got the analogy. That book was a pretty interesting (if sometimes fanciful) read on the whole SDI subject...

    40. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Yup...the world had no /idea/ that Rutan was launching that day...

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    41. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      (Geneva conventions state that we can't attack people with lasers)

      No, it says you can't blind people with lasers, on purpose. (It's ok if you blind them accidentally)
      --
      Why not fork?
    42. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Laser Cannons Coming to an F-20 Near You ;-)

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    43. Re:let's just get this out of the way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the big deal with "sharks with mounted lasers"? Can anyone tell me?

  2. Forbidden? by Saiyine · · Score: 1, Funny


    Weren't they forbidden by the Geneva convention?

    --
    Dreamhost superb hosting.
    Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers.

    --
    Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
    1. Re:Forbidden? by PoitNarf · · Score: 5, Informative

      I just did some quick searching and found only this on laser weaponry in the Geneva Convention:

      "Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to the naked eye (or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices). Countries that are party to the Convention and Protocols will not transfer such weapons to any country or other entity."

      So I guess to conform to the Geneva Convention, the lasers will just require the same stickers that they put on childrens water guns: "Point Away From Face"

      --

      "0101100101? It's just jibberish. *looks in mirror, gasps* 1010011010@!? AHHHHHH!!"
    2. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Lasers that blind you were banned under International Treaty in 1995. I somehow think that pointing a 1, 15 or 150KW laser at your head is going to give you a lot more to worry about...

    3. Re:Forbidden? by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think the Geneva convention includes energy weapons, it dates back to pre-world war 2 I believe.

      You may be thinking about weapons in space, if I remember correctly the USA and Russia agreed not to militarise space, which essentially meant no orbitting satellites with either lasers on them or nuclear missiles. (it may have taken kinetic weapons into account too, i'm not sure on that)

    4. Re:Forbidden? by tjw · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Weren't they forbidden by the Geneva convention?
      They're probably only for firing at "unlawful combatants", so it's OK.
      --

      XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
    5. Re:Forbidden? by DoubleD · · Score: 5, Informative
      No.

      Article 1 of the Geneva Convention's Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons has laudable aims. It states, "It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision."

      But Article 3 opens the door to lasers that blind so long as that was not their aim. It states: "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol".


      source http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2585
      --
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
    6. Re:Forbidden? by aonaran · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I was just going to say the same thing.

      Laser weapons are a really bad idea.
      All you need to do to defend against them is make your stuff out of something that reflects the laser's wavelength.

      Are we going to see a new era of laser weapons, mirror shields and dead civilians caught by reflections?

    7. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Geneva convention expressly forbids the use of lasers with the intent of blinding people.

      This doesn't stop you from using a laser designed to burn someone alive. It also doesn't prevent lasers that, as a side effect, happen to blind people.

      Ah, war crimes. Good times.. Good times.

    8. Re:Forbidden? by forkazoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, to conform to the geneva convention, it just has to be powerful enough to kill you outright. The issue is blinding lasers. They would be classified as maiming weapons, and thus not really cricket. If it blows your head clear off, then it's all fine and dandy.

    9. Re:Forbidden? by Chrontius · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, we're going to see lots of brighly colored targets for optically-guided cruise missiles.

    10. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because kenetic energy weapons are completely harmless once they miss...

    11. Re:Forbidden? by seven+of+five · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nothing is perfectly reflective, and if you cover yourself with a 99% reflective surface you're still going to couple with a LOT of energy. Maybe you won't be vaporized a la War of the Worlds, but you'll be burned pretty bad.

    12. Re:Forbidden? by aonaran · · Score: 1

      With a laser guidance system you still get some data if your light is reflected away vs reflected back at you (something is there to reflect it) if the laser is the weapon and it's reflected off at some arbitary angle rather than being absorbed so it can do it's damage it simply goes until it hits something else that will absorb the energy.

      Hence it becomes a battle of "he who has the shiniest armour wins".

    13. Re:Forbidden? by Sta7ic · · Score: 1

      There shouldn't be too many problems with stray fire(s), lasers happily diffract through any medium, such as the atmosphere. Mind give you a strange sunburn by the time it hits the ground.

      There's also the whole issu of wattage. If the beam reflects and traces itself over a sufficiently large area because the beam or reflective sources are moving fast, the area will see a rather low average energy input that does little.

    14. Re:Forbidden? by aonaran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The lasers use mirrors. The mirrors in the laser have to be able to withstand the energy of the laser. Therefore there IS a mirror that can reflect the laser without absorbing enough of it to do damage.

    15. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just shoot two lasers with different wavelengths!

      Or use that reflective surface for a conventional weapon that now can target much more accurately on the bright ass bomb.

    16. Re:Forbidden? by aonaran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By the same token the other big SciFi myth of the 80's ...the acid spitting alien that creates an acid that can burn through anything in seconds doesn't work either... how does the alien survive if it's acid burns trough anything (including aliens of the same species)?

    17. Re:Forbidden? by Sebastopol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To quote a friend from the Israeli army that is sort-of relevant:

      "M16's are not designed to kill, they are designed to maim, because a wounder soldier is more of a liability to the enemy than a dead one."

      But we still use M16s... odd... (well, WE use M2's or something like that)

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    18. Re:Forbidden? by tekiegreg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well yeah, but one can reason that If your head is blown off, than by law of unintended consequences you'll be rendered blind? Can you be dead and blind at the same time? Granted the inability to see properly (aka blindness) is inherent in most dead people. Or must one be living in order to be blind?

      --
      ...in bed
    19. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The relevant section of the geneva convention bans weapons designed to injure but not kill; the intent is to stop the tactic of "injure everyone in the enemy army so that we will ruin their economy by forcing them to take care of a million blind people for the next 50 years."

      Thus, the use of low-energy lasers to blind someone is banned, as are bullets specially designed to injure but not kill. If it's intended for anti-missile work, that's clearly legal regardless of power level (blinding the sensors on a missile is just fine); and if it's powerful enough to slice a person in half, that's clearly legal as well.

    20. Re:Forbidden? by QuantaStarFire · · Score: 1

      Considering that it would probably have to be lethal in order to pierce the missile's chasis, I'd imagine that if a human were to be shot by it, being blinded would be the least of your concerns.

      For example, you may not be able to see because you were blinded by the laser's light, but you may be more concerned as to the fate of your lower torso when that laser cut you in half.

    21. Re:Forbidden? by Dorsai42 · · Score: 1

      That's what the Fi in SciFi refers to: Fiction.

      --
      If you forget about the future, the future will forget about you.
    22. Re:Forbidden? by Zzootnik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The same way we can Mix together steel-strength epoxy. In 2 parts. If the alien had 2 separate glands that each spat out the components of a super-acid, then he'd just have to worry about rotten teeth! (eeeeewwwwww.....)
      Maybe something else, though-- An Immune system. Our own immune system will attack anything that's not us. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to think that an aliens 'white-blood-cells' or equivalent would also do so...even if you toss a mouthfull of the little troopers at something else-- and we're back to 'eeeewwwww.....'

      --
      Sig currently under construction. Mind the gap....
    23. Re:Forbidden? by Stonehand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's easier to keep the mirror clean and highly reflective inside the laser, than outside and on a battlefield.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    24. Re:Forbidden? by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      Maybe mucus? It works for humans.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    25. Re:Forbidden? by MrVelvet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes one must be fucking living to be blind. Just like telling no tales, the dead don't see shit..

    26. Re:Forbidden? by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For all of the people who criticize your "mirrors" proposal: ablatives.

      You can even combine defensive concepts. Missiles being relatively small, relatively mass produced items, processes that normally cost a lot can be proportionally cheap compared to the cost of the guidance systems, propulsion system, and handling costs. So, for a multipart defensive system:

        * A "shiny" ablative system on the nosecap and leading edge fins - perhaps something as simple as silicon-impregnated cork mixed with aluminum, silver, or gold (better at IR) powder.

        * The nosecap and leading-edge fins made of silvered (again, with a good visible/IR reflecting material) RCC (again, since they're small and the process to make them can be automated, the costs shouldn't unreasonable). RCC can take extreme temperatures without becoming ductile.

        * Other parts of the body made out of unpainted, shiny aluminum or a silvered surface.

      It's less extreme than other defensive mechanisms used for various kinds missiles - MIRVed warheads, anti-ship missiles that hug the water and then take a sharp climb and descent, etc. And it's certainly simpler than many of the counter-countermeasure methods used by modern missiles.

      --
      Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
    27. Re:Forbidden? by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      Lasers which blow your head off are also known to in the long term reduce your sperm count ,cause severe respiratory failure , Deafness and long term memory loss .
      however there are some advantages , having your head blown off most defiantly gives you total immunity from fatal diseases , Cancer after the event is never fatal ,it stops ageing in its tracks and cures all mental illness .
      So all in all its a bit of a mixed bag really

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    28. Re:Forbidden? by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Umm... any chemistry lab has bottles that can hold concentrated acid without burning through. Glass or plastic will do.

    29. Re:Forbidden? by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Yes, we have rules of morality for war. You can only blind someone if you must do so in order to destroy their brain by making a hole in their face.

      Only a barbarian would try to blind them on purpose.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    30. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Geneva Conventions are the international law that invented unlawful combatants in the first place, after all. It wasn't the Bush administration. The Conventions include requirements to be part of an armed "state" military to fall under their umbrella.

    31. Re:Forbidden? by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded funny? It is true.

      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
    32. Re:Forbidden? by badasscat · · Score: 1

      The lasers use mirrors. The mirrors in the laser have to be able to withstand the energy of the laser. Therefore there IS a mirror that can reflect the laser without absorbing enough of it to do damage.

      Well, no, because the biggest problem with every laser is heat. In fact, the reason lasers powerful enough to do any amount of destruction couldn't be this small before is because of the cooling systems required.

      This new system combines various new technologies and then uses a pulse beam (yes, like Star Wars!) to keep it from overheating. This is one of those things that makes it more like what you see in sci-fi that nobody ever thought was realistic, but it turns out it was perfectly realistic for reasons nobody considered before. (I should qualify that by saying it still won't look like Star Wars because the laser is still travelling at the speed of light, but it is a pulse beam weapon.)

      But any laser powerful enough to kill will blow itself apart if not shut off after a certain amount of time. Even this one, even with its pulse beam. And that's using components and mirrors specifically tuned to the laser's wavelength.

    33. Re:Forbidden? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you are thinking of the M-4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Carbine

      And the 5.56mm round wasn't put into service because it "maims" better than a 7.62mm NATO round, its because for the equivalent weight a soldier can carry more 5.56mm ammo.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    34. Re:Forbidden? by aaronl · · Score: 4, Informative

      The modern M16 fires a 5.56x45mm NATO round, while the previous generation (original AR15 platform) used a .223 caliber Remington round. The NATO round is a very standard round used in quite a few weapons. The newest weapon in wide use is actually the M4, which is also based on the AR15 platform.

      The M2 is a retired weapon, and pretty much has been since the 60s. The AR15/M16 was adopted to replace it then. It wasn't really accepted until the 80s, however.

      The 5.56mm NATO round is also used by the Steyr AUG, FN FNC, British L85, FAMAS F1, HK23/53, the Israeli SAW and TAR21, several Berettas, and the standard police rifle (Remington 7615). There are quite a few more than those, though, these are just popular.

      The older 7.62mm NATO round was used in a lot of weapons, including the M14, M60, Kar-98k, and the Winchester model 70. It was very popular, as well.

      The M16 isn't designed to maim, but they are easy to do this with. They are rather accurate, have a good range, and don't do full auto. One of the major design goals of the platform was penetration of combat helmets at range. It was designed to kill, like most other modern firearms. The general exception to that rule is for things like PDWs, where the goal is defense of wielder. They will still kill very effectively, but you're aiming a lot less.

    35. Re:Forbidden? by JulesLt · · Score: 1

      Or, just forget the missile and take the plane out with a laser up it's black heat-absorbing non-reflective stealth coated fuel-tank.

      --
      'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh ... you have' (League Against Tedium)
    36. Re:Forbidden? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      It's an urban legend that the M16 is designed to wound and not kill. Wounded soldiers are cared for only if the resources are available; battles are not lost trying to do so. And if they do survive, wounded soldiers can live to fight another day. Dead ones are gone forever.

      Now, the 5.56 NATO round is a bit less lethal than the .308 Win and .30-06 Sprng that it replaced, but that sacrifice was made for reduced recoil, weight of ammunition, and magazine capacity (ever notice how much smaller a 5.56 round is?).

      And BTW, the US Army is having some thoughts as to the round not being lethal enough, hence the recent work on the 6.8mm Remington SPC.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    37. Re:Forbidden? by Kainaw · · Score: 1

      So I guess to conform to the Geneva Convention, the lasers will just require the same stickers that they put on childrens water guns: "Point Away From Face"

      To put the Geneva Convention rules on weaponry in context, this is what I was told when I went to classes to use a 40mm fully-automatic grenade launcher: By the Geneva convention, the 40mm grenade is not to be used to attack military personel. It is only to be used to attack military equipment. Valid equipment includes: belt buckles, boot laces, eye glasses, etc...

      --
      The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
    38. Re:Forbidden? by jcwren · · Score: 1

      Do not look into LASER with remaining eye.

    39. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not M16s, it's the 5.56mm ammunition they use.

      And it's not designed to "maim", it's designed to injure as opposed to kill. Maiming turns you into a cripple; injuring sends you to the hospital while you recover from the bulletwound. Being injured and in the hospital takes up resources whereas death means you can be thrown into a pit.

    40. Re:Forbidden? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "And if they do survive, wounded soldiers can live to fight another day."

      blow a guys arm off, and it will take two people to get him off the field, and he will never come back.
      Kill a guy, and there are two more people looking to kill you.
      Of course, if your goal is to drive out invader, then have grisly war maimins on the news will effect the moral of the citizens. Which influences politics.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    41. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO!! To satisfy international law, the laser can not be designed to be used as a maming weapon. Therefore, the weapon must be designed for a specific non-maming purpose. In order to ensure this criterion is met... weapon class lasers always try to produce beams with a wavelength of 1.5 micro meters or longer. 1.5um and longer is considered the "eye safe region" hence the weapon is clearly not designemd to be a maming weapon. By the way, What does eye-safe mean? Wavelengths shorter than 1.5um can pass through the cornia and are subsequently focused onto the retna. This focusing of the light creats a very high power density which resluts in a significuntly lower power level required to damage the retna. Conversly, wavelengths longer than 1.5um are absorbed by the cornia which requires a significantly higher power density to damage because the light isn't focused.

    42. Re:Forbidden? by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not the Geneva convention, it's the Hague convention, and the relevant part is "In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden - ... To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04 .htm#art23. Maybe you're thinking of the Geneva Protocol to the Hague Convention which outlaws biological and chemical warfare? The Geneva convention mostly outlines basic minimum treatment of enemy POWs.

    43. Re:Forbidden? by BigDukeSix · · Score: 1

      Actually, M-16s are designed to shoot whatever ammunition you load into them. "Dum-dum" (fragmenting) bullets are designed to maim, and are outlawed. Full metal jacket bullets create an incapacitating wound which may kill you, but (with modern medical care) is unlikely to result in loss of a limb.

      Most amputations in the current conflict are the result of blast injury.

    44. Re:Forbidden? by modecx · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the .223 Remington (which is really a .222, IIRC) have the exact same dimensions of the 5.56x45 NATO round? If I'm not mistaken, the only difference is that the NATO round has a grain or two more charge. That would have an impact on the rifling twist that the round could be capable of... It would have to be a bit "slower" of a twist to accomidate a faster round. Aside from that I'd guess that most .223 Remington civilian guns could fire the NATO rounds just fine.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    45. Re:Forbidden? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      The M60 has a rate of fire of 600 spm. The M60C and M60D are aircraft versions of the basic M60 machine gun. The M60 series is being replaced by the M240B 7.62mm medium machine gun. The Mod 70 when used by the US Military (as a sniper rifle) is called the M40A1. The civilian version is .308 (same as 7.62)and many other calibers. I believe the Marines have since gone to the M40A3 as the sniper rifle which is the same caliber but a slighter heavier rifle. Little know fact is EACH rifle is built by hand and sighted in at 1000 yards. That's right at 1 km or .6 mile! The old rifles are being torn down and discarded. I can think of a dozen deer hunters who would give thier right testicle for a rifle accurate at 1000 yards!

    46. Re:Forbidden? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      You missed a VERY important concept, ablatives imply friction, friction gives off heat, warm them up with a laser and finish with a heat seeking missile :) For air-to-air, the laser can be steered with radar onto the target. You don't always have to kill the missilem if it is a IR seeker missile you are just as well off to "blind" it by overloaded the seeker head optics. If it is radar quided you want to overheat the electronics so the guidance signal is degraded. The whole problem is keeping the laser on target long enough to damage something as well as getting it close enough. The laser energy disspates as the square of the distance in Air, in Space it doesn't.

    47. Re:Forbidden? by GeneralAntilles · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sorry, the Mauser Kar98 actually fires 8mm Mauser rounds or 7.92x57mm. Which is essentially ballistically identical to 7.68mm NATO or .30-06 Springfield, though the .30-06 has a little bit better range.

    48. Re:Forbidden? by idonthack · · Score: 1
      The older 7.62mm NATO round was used in a lot of weapons, including the [...] Kar-98k
      The KAR-98K may have used a 7.62mm round, but I doubt that it was built for the NATO standard, being developed by Nazi Germany before WWII and all.
      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    49. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking first hand, I can tell you we don't aim to maim. In Tal Afar and other unmentionable locations, those knuckleheads jumped out from around corners and empty AK towards us (every round is a miss though some were close) and they drop like a piece of shit when we shot back. Yeah, one round would likey maim, but they usually get peppered because we all shot back at the same time. Now our snipers go for cranial shots which do not maim. Then again, they are firing 7.62.

      End result, one less bomber, attacker, builder, teacher, organizer, or whatever, to carry out future attacks. Works in my book!

      2nd ID Strykers!

    50. Re:Forbidden? by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem at that range usually isn't the accuracy of the weapon, but the accuracy of the shooter.

      At that kind of range, the only way to hit a small, say 6-12 inch target, is to be in the prone position, with proper hand position, proper eye relief to the scope/sight, and shooting between breaths AND heartbeats.

      I was a Marine designated marksman and even after sniper school the biggest factor was still the shooter and not the accuracy of the weapon. There are VERY few people who possess the skill to shoot to the accuracy of a good "civilian" rifle.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    51. Re:Forbidden? by babyblink · · Score: 1

      Using laser based guns is a great solution to save good guys' life, well.. just like in starwars, only bad guys may got struck by them.

      --
      [self dealloc];
    52. Re:Forbidden? by dheltzel · · Score: 1

      So, if they fire this at an oncoming missile and it blinds the guys that are hanging onto the missile, would that be a violation?

      If an enemy figures this out, they will just strap a PTDLA (Person They Don't Like Anyway) to each missile and the laser defense will be rendered inoperable.

      OTOH, if someone is strapped to a missile enroute to it's target, perhaps we really should consider that person an "enemy combatant" and therefore it would be OK to blind them with the laser. It might actually he the humane thing to do in that case, the view for the rest of the ride ain't gonna be that pretty anyway.

    53. Re:Forbidden? by evanism · · Score: 0

      since when has the US worried about the Geneva convention?

      It cant even follow its own rules let alone those internationally agreed upon.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    54. Re:Forbidden? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      WWII german rifles used a 7.92mm calibre round.

    55. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to correct a minor point, anti-ship missiles don't use pop-up anymore. It just made them easier to shoot down with modern CIWS. Now, they just try to go really fast and barrel into the side of the ship.

    56. Re:Forbidden? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Informative

      I won't disagree! But a LOT of people THINK they are. Most deer rifles in these parts (TX) are zeroed at 300 yards but most shots are not taken at that distance and if they are most are misses. I wonder how many hunters know the charts showing the drop of thier shot at each distance with a given bullet and powder weight. I'd be lucky to consistently hit a 6" bullseye at 100 yards unless I was shooting from a bench or maybe the prone position. I'm just not that solid standing.

    57. Re:Forbidden? by 32771 · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering about this, first of all it depends on the range of the missile radar and firing range, lets have an example: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-9.h tm

      It says:
      Speed: Supersonic Mach 2.5
      Range: 10 to 18 miles depending on altitude
      Length: 9 feet, 5 inches (2.87 meters)
      Diameter: 5 inches (0.13 meters)

      They also have a picture with a hot girl handling one of those.

      That gives v=850.72500m/s s=16093.44m t=18s

      I should give you some credit in that short an amount of time gut feel says that you won't get through the hull. The sensor is also actively cooled this makes heating up the electronics harder. But I have no clue about this, so my gut is not properly tuned to the problem.

      They are talking about a 150kW laser so it could be assumed that it is a continuous laser (this may not be the case though). Even if you would get reflectivity of 90 percent you have to deal with 15kW for a couple of seconds. If you heat 1 kg of Aluminum for 18s with that, your temperature change would be 300K (dead electronics). Of course there is conduction too so you will get less, but don't forget you may have to deal with more heat if reflectivity goes down i.e. 50% -> 1500K (Al melted ~900K ago). (simple math: P*t=c*m*dT)

      I think they have a good chance to shoot down your missile with the 150KW laser, with the 15KW prototype laser they may have trouble.

      Notice that the ablative system may add weight and decrease range. BTW, the whole laser system decreases missile range, and moves the enemy closer in, or gets the pilot a bit more peace of mind.

      There is no good information out there on what kind of laser they are thinking of, any ideas?

      I think they spend our money on something interesting. If it fails it will still be a great remote popcorn toasting machine, or an awsome cooling system for that Longhorn running processor could come out of it.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    58. Re:Forbidden? by aaronl · · Score: 1

      They started off trying to chamber a .222 cartridge, but decided on a .223 in the final product. The dimensions are the same, but the bullet and the powder are different. This meant they needed to remill the barrel to have a different rifling to have optimum accuracy and distance.

      They had problems in the initial use of the .223 with different powder. It had a higher rate of fire and tended to cause faster wear and a buildup that resulted in jamming. They resolved it with the different rifling and a switch to another powder composition. That round was later classified as the standard 5.56x45 NATO round.

    59. Re:Forbidden? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "If the alien had 2 separate glands that each spat out the components of a super-acid"

      Yep, the use of two glands is how the bombardier beetle sprays 100degC acid (and other nasty stuff) out of their arse.

      Offtopic - Search google for "bombardier beetle" and 3 out of the first 4 hits declare it to be "proof" that evolution is wrong. Have these people never heard of the babelfish?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    60. Re:Forbidden? by anethema · · Score: 1

      If they arent designed to maim rather than kill why dont they use a mushrooming or fragmenting bullet head which just about guarantees death regardlesss of where you are shot?

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    61. Re:Forbidden? by aaronl · · Score: 1

      The original German design used a 7.92mm round, but it was converted to use 7.62 NATO by the Israelis. Most of them still in use today are of the later Israeli design.

    62. Re:Forbidden? by tonyc2a · · Score: 1

      Actually it has nothing to do with the rifle. The 5.56 NATO round has a fully metaled jacket which means it doesn't mushroom out upon impact. Instead the bullet travels straight through the body causing less damage, effectively taking the troop out of combat without killing him. This was the purpose of fully-metaled jackets in the Geneva Conventions. And the purpose of this laser is to destroy ICBM's in flight so that the PRC can't kill us. In case you were wondering they have over a million infantry troops. US has around 30,000. If they are ever able to bring those troops to land, we're fucked...in a word. They biggest sticks they have are thier NBC weapons mounted on ICBM's. We have to have a defense against them. This is what the freakin' laser beam is for.

    63. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a 5.56x45 has the exact same dimensions, but it is not safe to fire a .223 Rem inside a 5.56x45 chamber.

    64. Re:Forbidden? by Mumia · · Score: 1

      We call our M16s M4s now.

    65. Re:Forbidden? by Enoch+Zembecowicz · · Score: 1

      Postwar Spain produced several 7.62 NATO Mausers for the Guardia Civil. It is my understanding that they have a tendency to explode too.

      --
      "Who's going to believe a talking head?" - Herbert West
    66. Re:Forbidden? by BigWhiteGuy_27 · · Score: 0

      God, +5 informative for this crap?

      Crap item 1:
      The modern M16 fires a 5.56x45mm NATO round, while the previous generation (original AR15 platform) used a .223 caliber Remington round. The NATO round is a very standard round used in quite a few weapons. The newest weapon in wide use is actually the M4, which is also based on the AR15 platform.
      A simple Google of "5.56mm" returns the 5.56mm FAQ as the third hit. This gives some detailed history on the evolution of the 5.56mm round, and shows that the above quote is not accurate.
      I also found an interesting advisory on using 5.56mm ammunition in a rifle chambered for .223 Remington.

      Crap item 2:
      The older 7.62mm NATO round was used in a lot of weapons, including the M14, M60, Kar-98k, and the Winchester model 70. It was very popular, as well.
      If by "Kar-98k" you mean the Mauser 98K, its actually chambered for the 8mm Mauser round, which is *not* 7.62mm.

      Crap item 3:
      The M16 isn't designed to maim, but they are easy to do this with. They are rather accurate, have a good range, and don't do full auto.
      The last statement is accurate only for the M16A1E1, M16A2 and M16A4. The M16, M16A1, and M16A3 all have fully automatic capability. See this for more detail.

      Yeah, my karma is bad, so its unlikely this post will get modded up, but at least I'm not providing ass-data.

    67. Re:Forbidden? by BigWhiteGuy_27 · · Score: 0

      We call our M16s M4s now.

      Ass-data, pure and simple. The M4 is derived from, but is not, an M16:
      The M4/M4A1 5.56mm Carbine is a lightweight, gas operated, air cooled, magazine fed, selective rate, shoulder fired weapon with a collapsible stock. A shortened variant of the M16A2 rifle, the M4 provides the individual soldier operating in close quarters the capability to engage targets at extended range with accurate, lethal fire. The M4 Carbine achieves over 80% commonality with the M16A2 Rifle and will replace all M3 .45 caliber submachine guns and selected M9 pistols and M16 rifle series.

    68. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      why dont they use a mushrooming or fragmenting bullet head

      Because hollow-points, frangibles and the like have been banned by various international treaties.

      .

    69. Re:Forbidden? by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      I believe the geneve convention was about a weapon which was designed to render enemies blind. It was a laserweapon and was quite effective, yet it was found to be "too inhumane" hence it being banned globally.

      Blinding laser weapons Or from icrc

      Blinding lasers would not actually save lives as they are intended to be used in addition to other weapons. They might even have the effect of increasing mortality rates as blinded opponents would not be able to defend themselves and thus be easily targeted by other weapons. As it is unlikely that an attacker would be able to assess at a distance whether an opponent has been rendered out of action by blinding, he would also use his other weapons. The result would therefore be just as many deaths and many more blind, thus increasing the suffering which results from battle.

      Unlike other injuries, blinding results in very severe disability and near total dependence on others. Because sight provides us with some 80-90% of our sensory stimulation, blinding renders a person virtually unable to work or to function independently. This usually leads to a dramatic loss of self-esteem and severe psychological depression. Blinding is much more debilitating than most battlefield injuries.

      Even if soldiers are not hit by lasers, the silent and invisible threat created by the presence or suspected presence of blinding lasers in an opponent's arsenal would increase the occurrence among soldiers of combat stress disorder and, later, of post-traumatic stress disorder.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    70. Re:Forbidden? by forkazoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And yet, for some reason, I am modded higher than you... Mods must be on crack when my random incorrect talking-out-my-ass gets higher mods than your correction which is supported with external information.

      Oh well, I'm sorry.

    71. Re:Forbidden? by hennypenny · · Score: 1

      Regarding item 1 above: The early AR15s that Gene Stoner was demonstrating did in fact fire the 223 round. After the Army's preliminary tests there were contracts let to beef up the weapon's reliability, durability and suitability for non-temperate climes, etc. By the time the revised model was named the M16, its round was the 5.56.

    72. Re:Forbidden? by tsotha · · Score: 3, Informative
      Good post. One other thing you might consider too:

      When "Star Wars" was heavily funded in the '80s, the Russians did a little bit of investigation into what it would take to thwart both kinetic vehicles and energy weapons. The actually deployed the Topol-M, which has a lower arc and "jinks" in-flight, makeing it almost impossible to hit with another missile. It takes so long for your interceptor to get to the intercept point that a really tiny course deflection on the part of the target means you'll miss by a hundred miles.

      On the energy side they came up with ablatives (which could be refitted to existing missiles) with, literally, a twist.

      Since you have to hold the laser on a specific spot for some length of time (governed by the power of the laser, atmospherics, etc), you could significantly enhance the survivability of the missile by having it slowly rotate during the launch phase. We're talkin' about a reasonably simple software change that makes it 10x harder to shoot down with a laser.

    73. Re:Forbidden? by modecx · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I read in a magazine somewhere a while ago that the .223 Rem is actually .222, but since there's like 5 different .222 (Specials, Magnums, Winchester, etc) cartriges by various makers Remington decided to call it a .223 just so there would be no confusion, or something like that. It's been a long time ago, but I do recall it. Of course, that dosen't mean that the writer wasn't full of shit, and therefore so I am by associative property :O

      I think part of the different bullet weight and power charges was that the military wanted a higer down range velocity than the standard .223, in addition to what you said about buildup. I don't see powder having a signifigant impact on rate of fire, because as I understand it (at least on gas operated guns), that's determined mostly by the length and location of the gas tube.

      I'm almost entirely certian that I've fired NATO rounds through my AR-15 with no event, though I have a 1:9 barrel and typically shoot 60 grain loads, it would be a very similar round to what I'm used to. Hrm, anyway. This is very interesting, but Gawd, all this gun talk makes me want to run to the range. It's been entirely too long!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    74. Re:Forbidden? by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're wrong on all counts. Well, except for the advisory popping up, probably.

      Point 1: What point are you calling crap, anyway? Even according to your link, the AR-15 fired the .223 Remington and the modern M-16 fires the 5.56mm NATO, which is the same as .223 Remington except for the bullet composition and powder chemistry. That's sort of exactly what I was saying. That page doesn't even mention the M-4 except as chambering the same rounds, but the M-16 and the M-4 are extremely compatible for a reason.

      As far as the M-4 based on the M-16/AR-15 platform, in the other post *you* made on the topic, you even state the M-4 is derived from the M-16.

      Point 2: As pointed out in posts that were submitted before yours, the Mauser Karabiner 98k does, in fact, fire the 5.56mm NATO round, as requested by the Israeli Defense Forces who continued production of the rifle. That was in the 1950s. The original, and no longer really used, Kar98k was the 7.92mm round. Really, only collectors want the older weapon, considering the newer one uses a very standard and easily obtained round (read: cheap). From Winchester: 8x57 = 23.42$/box of 20, .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) = 13.38$/box of 20. Looks like using the older chambering is a *lot* more expensive, and also happens to be less accurate.

      Point 3: The three shot burst is the most commonly used variant of the M-16. The original AR-15, and a few variants, did do full auto; that was decided against to preserve ammunition, help accuracy, and because it just doesn't work well on the platform. A quick check would've also shown you that the newer M-4 rifle also uses Safe/Semi/3 shot, and that the full auto version of both platforms is only used by special forces groups.

      Who gives a damn about karma; you might do better if you didn't mention it in most posts that you make. Besides, you're critisizing someone for leaving out low production modifications of platforms, or versions that haven't been used for 40+ years, or for having more accurate data than you.

    75. Re:Forbidden? by stor · · Score: 1

      Aren't landmines maiming weapons?

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    76. Re:Forbidden? by aaronl · · Score: 1

      The .223 is really a .222 round, and called what it is for the reason that you remember. The 1:9 barrel twist was a compromise milling. The original design for the AR-15 used 1:12, and the NATO cartridge design uses 1:7. You should be able to fire either the .223 or the 5.56 NATO without much trouble, except having the clean it more often if you're using the .223 rounds.

    77. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We explored projects for the Army temporarily blinding people - which is a technically viable and legal solution.

      The theory behind this Geneva Convention is similar to gas weapons from WW1 causing reduced lung capacity and long term health problems to unseen enemies.

      It's extremely easy to indiscriminately and permanently blind mass numbers of people (hopefully enemies) with lasers, while protecting your own men with filtered lenses. There have been examples of this succeeding in confrontations.

      However, it's too expensive for society to support many otherwise able bodied blinded people long after the war is over.

    78. Re:Forbidden? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, to conform to the geneva convention, it just has to be powerful enough to kill you outright.

      That's not entirely accurate. A dum dum bullet to my heart would kill me as easily as a FMJ bullet. It just so happens that unless you kill, you're likely to leave a maimed person. Same with lasers, it doesn't matter if the laser is strong enough to kill, if it means someone who managed to duck for cover, or everyone that was around and looked at its reflection go blind. While obviously an ideal that can never be met, the general idea is that weapons do one of two:

      a) Kill, and you are dead
      b) Injure, and you can be healed
      not
      c) Injure, and you are horribly maimed for life

      Maiming weapons are those that do a lot of c), regardless of their purpose or capabilities otherwise. Dumdums are designed to kill, but maim horribly and are thus a maiming weapon. Something designed to fry electronics systems, but collaterally maim people (e.g. give them cancer or something of no military value in combat) is a maiming weapon.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    79. Re:Forbidden? by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      What about spirits? Aren't ghosts and saints omniscient?

                -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    80. Re:Forbidden? by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      "Duh, What is this Juhneevuh you speak of?"

                - GWB

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    81. Re:Forbidden? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Not really. Paint the defensive mirror, or coat it in a layer of plastic. When the laser hits, it will vaporise the paint (which will have the added bonus that the particulate matter in the air will diffuse the light for a very short while), and underneath you've got a mirror that's as shiny as the day it left the factory.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    82. Re:Forbidden? by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, I can fully support a policy of "If you're going to kill someone, stop jacking around and kill them". The whole "incapacitate people so that they wander off to die of starvation and a twisted ankle in a ditch" thing just seems rather sloppy.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    83. Re:Forbidden? by Sylven_1969 · · Score: 1

      "In case you were wondering they have over a million infantry troops. US has around 30,000. If they are ever able to bring those troops to land, we're fucked...in a word."

      You're forgetting one thing, the US also has state militias plus well more than a million armed civilians, I believe that is the primary reason we won't be invaded by infantry and if they ever decide too they'll find out what it's like to grab a wildcat by the balls. *cackles*

      --
      Jay Dale "If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!"
    84. Re:Forbidden? by indifferent+children · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not by design. As with Assualt Rifles, it sometimes happens that landmines maim rather than kill, but (unlike blinding weapons) landmines were not designed to be non-lethal (hence the high-explosive and shrapnel).

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    85. Re:Forbidden? by QMO · · Score: 1

      I would expect that vaporizing the outer covering would
      (1) mean a lot of heat right next to the mirror, perhaps making the mirror less reflective before the laser gets through the covering
      (2) leave particles on the mirror making the mirror less effective than not having the covering in the first place

      I wonder what the the experiments that I'm sure that the military has done have shown.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    86. Re:Forbidden? by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --The modern M16 fires a 5.56x45mm NATO round, while the previous generation (original AR15 platform) used a .223 caliber Remington round.--

      The 5.56x45mm IS the same dimensions as the .223 caliber Reminington round although the militaty round might be loaded a little hotter and have a heavier bullet now.

      http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/223.html

    87. Re:Forbidden? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Point 3: The three shot burst is the most commonly used variant of the M-16. The original AR-15, and a few variants, did do full auto; that was decided against to preserve ammunition, help accuracy, and because it just doesn't work well on the platform. A quick check would've also shown you that the newer M-4 rifle also uses Safe/Semi/3 shot, and that the full auto version of both platforms is only used by special forces groups.

      While in the Air Force ('79), in order to "qualify" (a requirement for heading overseas) with the M-16, I was sent to the range on Offutt AFB, Neb. The instructor allowed me to fire the entire clip on full auto, from the hip. No, I wasn't accurate, and yes, it was fun.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    88. Re:Forbidden? by Bohiti · · Score: 1

      Or, considering the speed of lasers (lets see, the speed of sound or something, right?).. You're not going to have much time to worry.

    89. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where there are regulations, there are loopholes. Shooting personel with a 50 cal machine gun is in violation of the Geneva convention. The Geneva accords state that type of weapon can only be fired at equipment. The US military teaches infantry soldiers that enemy forces that wear vest, helmets, or any other protective devices are "equipment" and perfectly legal to shoot at. So shoot at the soldiers equipment...not at the soldier. They'll find a way to make it legal.

    90. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If they arent designed to maim rather than kill why dont they use a mushrooming or fragmenting bullet head which just about guarantees death regardlesss of where you are shot?

      "Mushrooming" (otherwise known as expanding) bullets do not "just about guarantee" death. They are more effective, but not tremendously more so. They are banned for wartime use (and have been for quite a long time) by international treaty. I suppose the reason was that they were "more inhumane" or some such drivel...interestingly police use this type of round routinely.

      I saw an interesting demonstration once, where a water jug (one gallon plastic milk bottle) was shot by a full metal jacket (FMJ) 7.62 mm. NATO round (same as .308 Winchester). The bottle exploded quite convincingly, showing that plenty of energy transfer still occurs with a FMJ bullet. Try to avoid being shot by one... ;-)

    91. Re:Forbidden? by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

      Dude, come to Virginia. To Williamsburg or Yorktown or Gloucester. You could kill a deer here with a handgun at 10 yards or less. The stupid things just stand around until you walk right up to them. Who needs a 1000 yard rifle for that?

    92. Re:Forbidden? by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      They also added a forward assist lever to the mechanism of the rifle, so you could force the action closed and continue firing, even if it was jammed full of gunk.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    93. Re:Forbidden? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      I hear you, when I lived in West Va they were pests. I recall a 1 deer a day (does preferred) hunting season one year. They also cause a lot of auto accidents. But of course we can't be out killing "Bambi" now can we ? ;)

    94. Re:Forbidden? by TheWizardOfCheese · · Score: 2, Informative

      The M2 is a retired weapon, and pretty much has been since the 60s.

      I don't know why the M2 is coming up in this thread about rifles, since it is a .50 cal machine gun. Although initially adapted for infantry use in 1921 (from an earlier aircraft weapon), derivatives of ma deuce are still in service today.

      See http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg04-e.htm for details.

      --

      "The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
    95. Re:Forbidden? by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      "Mushrooming" (otherwise known as expanding) bullets do not "just about guarantee" death. They are more effective, but not tremendously more so. They are banned for wartime use (and have been for quite a long time) by international treaty. I suppose the reason was that they were "more inhumane" or some such drivel...interestingly police use this type of round routinely.

      I believe the reason why police still use hollow points is that their agenda when it comes to gun usage is a whole lot different than the soldier's agenda.

      I think in the military they shoot to wound, therefore causing the soldier who is shot to require the attention two additional soldiers. Thus, one soldier shot basically means three soldiers out of action.

      With the police, the only time they use their weapons is in life or death situations where the choice to fire is based on stopping the perp. The only way to guarantee that the perp stops is to kill. Also, in an urban environment, hollow points are less likely to go through walls and kill innocent bystanders than full metal jacket bullets.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    96. Re:Forbidden? by zentinal · · Score: 1

      Are we (the U.S.A.) still bound by the Geneva Conventions? Is that one of the treaties we've recently abrogated?

    97. Re:Forbidden? by modecx · · Score: 1

      Woohoo. I'm glad I haven't entirely lost it :D And yeah, I take time to clean after I shoot, so that's not a big concern to me--it's not like I have to do it in the field or anything. Very interesting stuff, as always.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    98. Re:Forbidden? by jafac · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the 5.56x54mm NATO round was designed specifically to fly stable in air, and to destabilize and tumble in more dense substances, like flesh, or ballistic gelatin. A supersonic tumbling bullet does more damage to flesh (in terms of tearing, rupturing arteries and connective tissues, etc) than a stable, straight shot that would merely put a 5.56mm hole straight through.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    99. Re:Forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the reason why police can use hollow-point bullets is that the conventions only specify that a country can't shoot another country's citizens with such a weapon. You can use whatever you want on your own citizens, though.

    100. Re:Forbidden? by aaronl · · Score: 1

      What is this 30,000 number? Is that your total for just Army infantry divisions? Just the 1st, 2nd and 25th IDs together are over 46,000 soldiers. That leaves out a whole lot of other infrantry groups, like the nearly the entire Army National Guard.

      The current troop numbers are 1,415,600 active soldiers across all branches, 456,800 in Guard forces, 404,100 in Reserve, for a total of 2,276,500 soldiers. The US Army alone includes 1,067,400 soldiers! (These numbers are for FY2005 - referenced from globalsecurity.org)

    101. Re:Forbidden? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The problem with deer is that they're supposed to live in a natural ecosystem where there are predators which keep them from overpopulating. The problem is that we stupid humans have killed off or driven out all their predators: wolves and mountain lions. Every time a mountain lion attacks a person, it's big news, and people are calling for them to be hunted down and killed. What we need to do is bring back the mountain lions through breeding programs and such, and also have harsh laws against killing them.

      As for the "what about the children?" people, there's a lot more people than there are lions. It's no big deal if we lose a few to them, and a smart person would either stay away from their habitats, or learn how to avoid them and also how to fight them if necessary. (Hiking in groups usually works because they only attack individuals.) As a nation, we lose nearly 50,000 people every year in car accidents, and no one blinks; why it's such a big deal when one person is killed by a natural predator is beyond me.

    102. Re:Forbidden? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that the enemy actually cares about saving their wounded. Not all cultures are like Western ones where saving the wounded is viewed as a worthy activity.

    103. Re:Forbidden? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I thought frangible ammunition was designed so that it only hurt humans, and when it hit harder objects, it wouldn't cause them much damage (such as aircraft bodies, important buildings, etc.). I knew a policeman in Colonial Williamsburg, and he told me they used frangible bullets because they didn't want any of the historic buildings getting damaged.

      Also, I thought the idea behind FMJ was that it was better for penetrating armor. If you want to really knock someone down, you'd want a hollow-point because it causes a lot more damage due to mushrooming. But hollowpoints are easily stopped by armor.

    104. Re:Forbidden? by tonyc2a · · Score: 1

      An Infantry soldier is a solider with an MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) beginning with the number 11, such as 11B or 11M. There are 10 different divisions in the US Army as of right now. 8 are Infantry or "ID". The other two are Armor Divisions "AD". For every infantry soldier there are *at least* 3 non-combat support troops within the division. This does not include all the support soldiers not assigned to a line unit. Plus you have Armor soldiers, Cavalry soldiers, Artillery soldiers, and Aviation pilots that all fall under the combat arms label. However, in the entire US Army there are only aprox 30,000 infantry soldiers. I promise...b/c I was one. Not every soldier is an infantryman. But you are correct; this number does not include state militias. Also, note, there are almost no infantry soldiers in the federal reserves. I believe there are only two battalions in the federal reserves.

    105. Re:Forbidden? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      No argument here you are dead on target. Bullseye!

    106. Re:Forbidden? by tonyc2a · · Score: 1

      BTW, the active divisions are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 10th, 25th, 82nd, 101st ID's and the Armor divs I think are the 1st and 2nd right now. Not sure on the AD's.

    107. Re:Forbidden? by aaronl · · Score: 1

      The numbers that I had came from:
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army /index.html

      and from:
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end- strength.htm

      They could definitely be misleading in that they do include *all* associated personnel, and not just designated combat infantry. I tried to find better numbers directly from DoD or the US Army, but Global Security was the best I found.

      30,000 still sounds low to me, but, then again, there have been a lot of cuts in allowed personnel. Do you know of a better source that I could look at? I like to have the best info I can get my hands on!

    108. Re:Forbidden? by tonyc2a · · Score: 1

      You know, those numbers might not actually be published to the public. If that's the case then I might have broken a law or two. But I doubt that. But, sorry, I can't offer any official source simply b/c I don't know any. Figure 35 men per platoon, 4 platoons per company, 4 companies per battalion, 3-4 battalions per brigade, 3 brigades per division and you get somewhere around 50,000. Then take that and consider almost every unit is understrengthed...30,000 might be a little low but it is no more than 60,000 at full strength. But then again you still got all the armor and cav guys who go out and mix it up, plus artillery sitting in the rear. All those guys are still killing folks. So it's not like only infantry are the ones doing the deed. And with everybody being stop-loss'ed we're probably not losing too many folks to civilian life which might be keeping force strengths relatively high. The more I think about it, 50,000 infantry seems more likely *right now*. Though, in reality if the communists cam over the berm tomorrow, every able bodied male would be an infantryman on the spot. This is where our ghettos come to help us - as disturbed as that is to say. The rest of the Army is all support - medical, transpo, intel, MP, chem, signal, etc. If you're not familiar with the Army branches look at that first and you will see all the combat arms versus combat support and service support. In summary, the original point of my post was to show how under-strengthed we really are. The US's civilian leadership took us into a situation that we had not the resources for. 50,000 is a low number and that is the whole point. Most reporters and civilians think that we have 500,000 troops and we do, but less than a fifth are combat killers. That was the whole issue back during the cold war. Russia and China both out number us by huge odds, but back then neither of them had a way of delivering their troops to us so we were safe. There used to be an old axiom that the US doesn't pick a fight unless we out number them 3 to 1. Well old George W threw that out the window. Now we're in a fight with the rest of the world and what happens when we don't have the men to fight it out on the ground...we resort to more efficient means, i.e. NBC. But when we launch our first strike they come back with theirs. Hence the need for missile defense. Hence the importance of the laser in the original article. And everybody who's a player in the game already knows this. Hell, I'm a nobody and it seems pretty obvious to me. Of course I could be talking out my ass. So take it for what you want. I would just rather have more people understand what's really going on right now (in my opinion) b/c we're playing with fire right now while we're sitting on a powder keg, you know what I mean? Sorry I can't provide accurate numbers. I just don't know of published sources. I would try to check out any publications from Ft Benning Infantry School. All infantry are trained at Benning from buck privates to colonels. Perhaps you can dig up some numbers from them.

    109. Re:Forbidden? by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      He who has the shiniest armor will be hit by shiney-seeking missiles.

    110. Re:Forbidden? by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      It's no big deal if we lose a few to them, and a smart person would either stay away from their habitats, or learn how to avoid them and also how to fight them if necessary.

      I'll let you lead the "How to Fight a Mountain Lion" class's sparring session ;-).

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  3. Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A laser killed my first born child you insensitive cloud!

    1. Re:Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this opposed to sensitive "clouds" ?

    2. Re:Lasers by bahamat · · Score: 1

      you insensitive cloud!

      Your insult would have much more sting if you could provide some examples of sensitive clouds (maybe they're the ones raining?)

  4. Great... by Seoulstriker · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now they just need to be mounted on those damn sharks.

    --
    I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
    1. Re:Great... by Tribbin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?

      Number Two: Sea Bass.

      Dr. Evil: [pause] Right.

      Number Two: They're mutated sea bass.

      Dr. Evil: Are they ill tempered?

      Number Two: Absolutely.

      Dr. Evil: Oh well, that's a start.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    2. Re:Great... by ultracool · · Score: 1

      Presumably this is going to be a pulse laser. I don't see how they are going to get such huge power with a continuous wave laser.

    3. Re:Great... by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      You also only get one shot per kinetic kill vehicle; plus, they're considerably slower. The latter might be a problem if the targeted projectile's trajectory has been planned to make it harder to shoot down.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    4. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the US has already tested the THEL laser system against mortar rounds and artillery shells, destroying them while they're in flight.

    5. Re:Great... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      The time you need to stay on target is actually pretty small. I don't know the specifics for HELLADS, but it would be comparable to the amount of time a fighter system would need to "lock on" to its target with a conventional missile.

    6. Re:Great... by CharlieG · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to someone I know who worked on the orignal "Star Wars" research, he says the big mistake everyone makes is that they thing that the high power lasers melt things - he said "Nope, they are actually kinetic weapons - says you put enough energy in a laser beam (think high power pulsed) the slug of energy acts like a kinetic impact"

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    7. Re:Great... by jfw25 · · Score: 1, Informative
      According to someone I know who worked on the orignal "Star Wars" research, ... they are actually kinetic weapons

      Right. Photons have momentum, specifically E/c (the energy of the photon divided by c, everyone's favorite constant). I'm too lazy to calculate how much momentum would be carried by a 150KW pulse, but it should be a pretty hefty kick in the teeth.

      Amusingly enough, the people arguing for highly-polished mirrored surfaces on the incoming missiles are actually making it worse for the missile: reflecting the incoming pulse can up to double the shock, because the missile has to supply the momentum of the outgoing photons.

  5. Top Gun by thrillbert · · Score: 1, Funny

    Tom Cruise will have to go in a re-dub the Top Gun Movie to say:

    I'm too close for Missles Goose, I'm switching to Lasers!

    ---
    Food for thought is no substitute for the real thing.

    1. Re:Top Gun by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      With the advent of missles, real guns were removed from fighters because "the Dogfight is now History" said the received wisdom of the day. Pilots soon corrected that brainless move. I would no be suprised to see a new fighter with lasers, and no missles.....and of course...no guns. After all, "the older tech is now history"...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    2. Re:Top Gun by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Funny
      I'm too close for Missles Goose, I'm switching to Lasers!

      I'm too close for lasers, switching to Scientology.

      Hello Mr. Enemy Pilot, may I Audit you?

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    3. Re:Top Gun by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Funny
      > I'm too close for Missles Goose, I'm switching to Lasers!
      > I'm too close for lasers, switching to Scientology.
      > Hello Mr. Enemy Pilot, may I Audit you?

      Maveric: You don't know the history of frickin' lasers on sharks' heads. I do!
      Goose: We regret to inform you that your son is broke because he is stupid.

    4. Re:Top Gun by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure use of scientology is strictly forbidden in the Geneva convention .
      Project IT'S SHIT (Inter tactical Scientology short hit intercept tactics ) was canned due to public outcry urging them to resume biological weapon research due to it being far less boring

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    5. Re:Top Gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, I'm detecting high engram levels!

    6. Re:Top Gun by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I believe in Intelligent Design. It was all done by Benevolent Space Aliens. How else can you explain Tom Cruise?"

      You call that benevolent?

    7. Re:Top Gun by babyblink · · Score: 1

      In other news, Missiles Now Can Knock Out an F-16 with Built-In Laser Cannons!!

      --
      [self dealloc];
    8. Re:Top Gun by dolphin558 · · Score: 1

      Good point. This brings back the dogfight in a sense. Modern air-to-air warfare (if it ever happens) doctrine, I would imagine, focuses on the missile as opposed to the Gatling guns. With today's superfast fighters Within Visual Range warfare would be very difficult. However, since lasers travel at the speed of light I can foresee future 'dogfights' where our fighters use the modern day Gatling gun, a laser. Let's hope the lasers stay on our side and aren't exported to China and Russia somehow

    9. Re:Top Gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well sure they are benevolent. Otherwise if they were wicked, they would do something horrible like put a 2'nd bush in the White house. To be really nasty, they would keep him their twice. Oh, wait.......

    10. Re:Top Gun by metricmusic · · Score: 1

      Tom Cruise: you fired a missile at me. you know what.. you're... you're a jerk!

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
    11. Re:Top Gun by fire-eyes · · Score: 1

      Hello Mr. Enemy Pilot, may I Audit you?

      Enemy Pilot: Only if I get to go into Sea Org!

      --
      -- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
  6. Will they make noise in space? by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Once we get them into space, will they make roaring, whooshing noises and manuever just like they did in atmosphere? 'Cause otherwise, forget about it.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Will they make noise in space? by Malc · · Score: 1

      Of course they will! This is a "fighter jet", and that's it will sound like when its engine are running without oxygen.

    2. Re:Will they make noise in space? by dxprog · · Score: 1

      I guess real physics would kind of kill the experience, wouldn't it? :-P

      --
      DxBlog - It's where you want to be
    3. Re:Will they make noise in space? by zxnos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      true on the roaring and whooshing... ...but doesnt it make sense to have them manuever in space the same as in the atmosphere? that way a pilot doesnt have to think about what medium he is in. i think it would be easier for the pilot if both are the same.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    4. Re:Will they make noise in space? by blincoln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but doesnt it make sense to have them manuever in space the same as in the atmosphere? that way a pilot doesnt have to think about what medium he is in. i think it would be easier for the pilot if both are the same.

      It would take a ludicrous amount of fuel to make a spacecraft fly like a jet fighter.

      It would also prevent the pilot from doing many maneuvers that can only be performed in space.

      Of course, by the time we have genuine spacefighters, piloted fightercraft will be a thing of the distant past. Remote-piloted and autonomous vehicles can perform many feats that would kill a pilot.

      Movies that have piloted spacefighters are like the old sci-fi books where computers still use vacuum tubes. It's storytelling based on what we're familiar with, and because piloted fighters give us a sense of chivalry and danger.

      Maybe in the FAR distant future, if the human race survives and advances enough, it might be technically possible to have piloted craft like in Greg Bear's Anvil of Stars, where they're protected from G-forces by advanced physics, and their mental functions are sped up by other systems that create "virtual neurons" closer together than the real ones. But it will still be more practical to use AI systems designed for that task.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    5. Re:Will they make noise in space? by zxnos · · Score: 1
      well taken. how boring for the population at large would it be to watch a silent space fight void of any recognizable manuevers, sounds and explosions?

      i once read a story in high school literature class where two planets were at war. both had fully automated attack/defense systems. as a result (not sure why anymore) neither could get through the others defenses. until the military learned about a guy who could pilot a fighter without computer aid and could also could do math in his head - apparantly a lost skill. others were trained by him. his squadron then broke through the enemy defenses and were able to turn the war to their planets favor. moral of the story: we need to remember how to do things the low-tech way as well.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    6. Re:Will they make noise in space? by smithmc · · Score: 1

        Once we get them into space, will they make roaring, whooshing noises and manuever just like they did in atmosphere? 'Cause otherwise, forget about it.

      Well, isn't the F-16 also known as the Viper? And the Viper (at least in the new series) doesn't go roaring and whooshing. (Then again, the F-16 can't do 3D maneuvering the way the new Colonial Viper can...)

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    7. Re:Will they make noise in space? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      No, the F-15 is the Fighting Falcon.

    8. Re:Will they make noise in space? by dzfoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      >> Once we get them into space, will they make roaring, whooshing noises

      No, its more like "BWEEOOP!".

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    9. Re:Will they make noise in space? by jadel · · Score: 1
      Sounds like The feeling of power" by Isaac Asimov
      The general was saying, "Our goal is a simple one, gentlemen: the replacement of the computer. A ship that can navigate space without a computer on board can be constructed in one-fifth the time and at one-tenth the expense of a computer-laden ship. We could build fleets five time, ten times, as great as Deneb could if we could but eliminate the computer."
      "And I see something even beyond this. It may be fantastic now, a mere dream, but in the future I see the manned missile!"
      There was an instant murmur from the audience.
      The general drove on. "At the present time, our chief bottleneck is the fact that missiles are limited in intelligence. The computer controlling them can only be so large, and for that reason they can meet the changing nature of antimissile defenses in a unsatisfactory way. Few missiles, if any, accomplish their goal, and missile warfare is coming to a dead end; for the enemy , fortunately as well as for ourselves.
      "On the other hand, a missile with a man or two within, controlling flight by graphitics, would be lighter, more mobile, more intelligent. It would give us a lead that might well mean the margin of victory. Besides which, gentlemen, the exigencies of war compel us to remember one thing. A man is much more dispensable than a computer. Manned missiles could be launched in numbers and under circumstances that no good general would care to undertake as far as computer-directed missiles are concerned-"
      He said much more but Technician Aub did not wait.
      Of course this was written back in 1957 when computer equipment was far bulkier than it is now.
    10. Re:Will they make noise in space? by smithmc · · Score: 1

        No, the F-15 is the Fighting Falcon.

      Well, actually, the F-15 is the Eagle. I know the F-16 is officially called the Fighting Falcon, but it is also often referred to as the Viper.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    11. Re:Will they make noise in space? by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      moral of the story: we need to remember how to do things the low-tech way as well.

      Isn't the war against terrorism a live example of this? Fighting the guerilla warfare in an urban environment doesn't really allow the modern military forces to fully utilize their advance technology such as cruise missiles, tanks, artillery and such thereby relegating them to old WWII style house to house urban combat.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    12. Re:Will they make noise in space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong

    13. Re:Will they make noise in space? by smithmc · · Score: 1

        wrong

      How eloquent. Who is wrong, and about what?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  7. The question is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anti-missle laser?

    Will it be able to knock out a missle coming from behind? Or above? or below?

    Will it be able to knock out an ICBM? How about 100 of them?

    Ah shucks, *goes off to read the article*.

    1. Re:The question is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, the anti-lazer missle. What innovation! I should work for the government.

  8. Increase the forward batteries! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And a bunch of them on the ground as a point defense wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

  9. To paraphrase President-"Vice" R. B. Cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Fuck the military-industrial complex

    Regardsz,
    Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

  10. HELLADS? by Anakron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The High Energy Laser Area Defense System
    So what's the other L for?
    I swear, the military just loves acronyms, whether they make sense or not! And what's an area defense system?

    --
    There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
    1. Re:HELLADS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad they didnt name it the "High Energy Lightwieght Laser Array".. that woulda been HELLA sweet!

    2. Re:HELLADS? by Mozk · · Score: 1

      ACHOO
      I'm really starting to hate acronyms.

      --
      No existe.
    3. Re:HELLADS? by Stonehand · · Score: 2, Informative

      Area defense = defense of a whole area. It doesn't mean that it's firing massively wide beams designed to fry whole areas (well, volumes) of space.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    4. Re:HELLADS? by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Informative
      So what's the other L for?

      "Liquid". HELLADS actually stands for "High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System", despite what Yahoo! would have you believe. Maybe Yahoo! are employing ex-Slashdot editors now; they do seem to copy everything else Google does... ;)

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    5. Re:HELLADS? by s20451 · · Score: 1

      And what's an area defense system?

      It's to protect objects spread over a wide area, as opposed to a point defence system, designed to protect one particular object -- such as Phalanx, which is supposed to destroy missiles that are about to hit your ship.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    6. Re:HELLADS? by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      It's even more fun when you remember that LASER is an acronym.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    7. Re:HELLADS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other L comes from the way they speak in Pentagon about the, uh..

      High Energy Laser, Like, Area Defense System,

      or whatever...

    8. Re:HELLADS? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      he High Energy Laser Area Defense System
      So what's the other L for?


      Huh? I thought we had covered HELLADS in slashdot before - oh, wait...

    9. Re:HELLADS? by Brandon+K · · Score: 1

      But nobody thinks of it like that anymore, it has transformed itself into a normal word in the English language. Check your friendly neighborhood dictionary.

    10. Re:HELLADS? by LarsG · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought too - 'huh, F16s armed with brimstone popups, popunders and flash?'

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    11. Re:HELLADS? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      I know it was a quick jab, but it was really Reuters who reported it incorrectly. One of their editors must have thought that "liquid" was unimportant, as the layman doesn't know the difference between a solid-state laser or a liquid laser. You could also say that LASER is an acronym, but editors also see the word used so ubiquitously, that it doesn't need the captials.

      But eh.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    12. Re:HELLADS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds "hella powerful" to me

    13. Re:HELLADS? by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Informative

      FYI this is NOT a liquid laser. The term "liquid laser" is barely ever used in laser research and when it is, its used to referr to DYE lasers which are absolutely not what is being discussed here. It could concievably be used to describe a chemical laser where the chemicals are liquid before being reacted to lase but this would be incorrect because lasers are typically classified based on the phase of the medium which undergoes lasing. In the case of the chemical laser the lasing medium is a plasma formed in a reaction chamber by the mixed, previously liquid, chemicals. It's a gas laser. From what I can tell here though, neither of these things is what is being proposed for the HELLADS system. It looks like what they're trying to do is match the index of refraction of a cooling liquid to the index of refraction of the slabs of lasing material in a SOLID STATE laser such as Nd:glass. Thereby allowing the efficient removal of heat from the laser material while it is firing and while also preserving the quality of the beam. I would be willing to bet they are looking at using ytterbium-doped strontium fluoroapatite (Yb:S-FAP) slabs immersed in a very dense transparent flowing liquid (perhaps even a molten salt like NaNO3) which is optically pumped by specifically tuned solid state diode lasers.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    14. Re:HELLADS? by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      I personally like Dan Simmons' use of the term "Hellwhip" in the Hyperion series for any high-energy laser weapon. One could probably even come up with a DOD-approved acronym for that word.

    15. Re:HELLADS? by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

      You just made that sh*t up, didn't you?

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    16. Re:HELLADS? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1
      And what's an area defense system?
      Not as funny a term as theatre defense systems. I mean, sure, the Boston Ballet's rendition of Swan Lake was rather poor, but it wasn't that bad.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    17. Re:HELLADS? by 32771 · · Score: 1

      This is nice, an article with references, graphs, and formulae. Now this is news for nerds.

      Too sad that I'm not too deeply into this. I wonder about their laser performance. The max performance they seemed to get was 8% between diode laser input and output power. Even if they can make improvements I wonder whether this is the right way to get to the 5Kg/KW.

      Certainly it would be cool to combine Laserdiodes, which nowadays can get around 50% efficiency and are lightweight, with a secondary laser to get better beamcharacteristics and whatnot. But at 8% that doesn't look good.

      Here is a quote out of an interesting document I found with google:

      " Passive beam combining/mode control is strongly preferred over active beam combining; passive methods may include, but are not be limited to, spatial filters, grating couplers, phase conjugators, liquid crystals, wavelength couplers, and other transform systems. Materials/coatings development for beam-combining optical components may be proposed if necessary. Performance optimization via modeling is encouraged. The combined beam format should be approximately circular; hexagons and squares are acceptable approximations to a circle; a 1x2 rectangle is not. Diodes yielding a combined diode array bandwidth of £ 50 nm centered at 865 nm or 1040 nm (i.e. atmospheric propagation windows near 1 micron) are required. The defining exit aperture diameter for a 100 kW system should not exceed twelve centimeters. "

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=htt p%3A//www.fedgrants.gov/EPSData/DOD/Synopses/2181/ BAA05-09/BAA%26%2523032%253B05-09_Sec%26%2523032%2 53B1.doc&ei=2kENQ9WeLaL0-AGP0KHKCQ

      Now I wonder why they don't want active combining.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    18. Re:HELLADS? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Not as funny a term as theatre defense systems. I mean, sure, the Boston Ballet's rendition of Swan Lake was rather poor, but it wasn't that bad.

      I've seen ballet performances that made me wish for a THAAD launcher.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    19. Re:HELLADS? by frozen_kangaroo · · Score: 1
      "We've combined the high energy density of the solid state laser with the thermal management of the liquid laser," New Scientist quoted project manager Don Woodbury as saying.

      Call me a cynic, but it sounds like they just water cooled it!

    20. Re:HELLADS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NaNOOO NaNOOO fap fap fap

  11. I thought I would never see this day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow!

    OK, only 150kW planned, should be ready by 2007, but can shoot down missiles. There was a time I thought the Homeworld defense fighter was the most unrealistic thing devised. Maybe not.

    1. Re:I thought I would never see this day by ackthpt · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      OK, only 150kW planned, should be ready by 2007, but can shoot down missiles. There was a time I thought the Homeworld defense fighter was the most unrealistic thing devised. Maybe not.

      So did I.

      The way things are going, despite assurances from the Whitehouse that they don't agree with him one bit, it'll be piloted by Pat Robertson.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  12. 4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend more steel plates for their humvees, not another toy for the flyboys.

    1. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by susano_otter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look at it this way: The military is a massive institution, that takes decades to complete any major change in its thinking and acting (this is as it should be, I think).

      Today's Humvee armor problem stems from the parameters for the Humvee project, which were laid down fifteen or more years ago.

      Since then, the nature of battle has changed dramatically, and the kinds of missions the military now faces aren't really ideally suited to the Humvee project the military had already committed to.

      So in another ten years, you'll be able to recycle the same old schtick: "4 out of 5 swinging dicks say more lasers for the jets, and less armor for the groundpounders".

      Of course, ten years from now that schtick won't be any more relevant or insightful or instructive than it is today, but hey, don't be discouraged: Not everybody can change the way they think and act over time the way the military can. Follow your heart, and I'm sure you will achieve your dream!

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    2. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Today's Humvee armor problem stems from the parameters for the Humvee project, which were laid down fifteen or more years ago.

      We had Humvees and we had a way to armor the Humvees. The only reason that the Humvees ended up in Iraq without armor is because we went to war with the army we had instead of the army that should have taken the time to equip properly. You can blame it on something 15 years ago or you can blame it on the fact that we rushed into an elective war without preparation and paid the price.

    3. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by birge · · Score: 1
      4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend more steel plates for their humvees, not another toy for the flyboys.

      You're assuming that the government considers money to be a finite conserved quantity. That is not in evidence. Unlike the real world, the Pentagon does not need to subtract money from one project to get more money for another. All it needs to do is talk to some key commitee members in congress and mention a few key phrases, like: "blah blah blah laser blah blah built in your state blah blah" or "blah blah parents of troops from your state" or maybe even "blah blah blah satellite photos of your mistress in cancun."

    4. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by badmammajamma · · Score: 1

      4 out of 5 swinging dicks need to learn that adding lasers to fighters has absolutely no impact or relevance to steel plated humvees.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    5. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1
      "The military is a massive institution, that takes decades to complete any major change in its thinking and acting (this is as it should be, I think)."

      If you're not a troll, you're an idiot and the U.S. military is doomed whenever someone bigger than Iraq decides to tangle with us.

      We had to adapt to win the Revolutionary War. (Hmmm...maybe we shouldn't go toe-to-toe with Redcoats.) We had to adapt to win the Civil War. (Hmmm...maybe we should get serious about attacking supply lines.) We had to adapt to win World War II. (Hmmm...maybe planes aren't just toys.)

      If we had someone in charge smart enough in charge to admit they fucked up once in while and adapt to the enemy, like all great commanders in the past have done, maybe we wouldn't be losing our latest war.

    6. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by CrowScape · · Score: 4, Insightful

      High energy lasers have very promising defensive purposes, such as being able to shoot down/burn up mortar and artilery fire as well as RPGs. You know, many of the things that the underdogs like to use in asymetric warfare? Being able to mount these things onto a fighter is a good step towards getting these things on the ground and in the field.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    7. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0, Troll
      "High energy lasers have very promising defensive purposes, such as being able to shoot down/burn up mortar and artilery fire as well as RPGs. You know, many of the things that the underdogs like to use in asymetric warfare? Being able to mount these things onto a fighter is a good step towards getting these things on the ground and in the field. "

      While you're at it, Mr. Peabody, would you please invent something to detect IEDs on the road. What? You're a little busy dicking with lasers? Sorry if I bothered you...

    8. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      If the Pentagon gets whatever it wants, why can't it get proper plating for ground troops? It has be either because 1) their resources are finite or 2) they (like the fucker who modded my original post a "TROLL") just don't give a shit.

    9. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Oh, please.

      I generously respond to your original post, and I serve you up the perfect opportunity to trot out your cute little anti-Bush rantlet, and you call me a troll and an idiot?

      That's gratitude for you.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    10. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by CrowScape · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, if you can't develop a system that solves all your problems, it's useless? Man, you must curl up in a little ball in the morning, unable to function because you can't find that one tool that will brush your teeth and wipe your ass.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    11. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by birge · · Score: 1

      First, I'm sorry about the guy who modded you. I think they should do away with negative mods sometimes, because they are almost always ideologically based. Second, I would guess the reason for the plating wasn't financial but (1) the designers were too incompetent to put it in in the first place, (2) the DOD was too inefficient to start the process earlier when they realized they needed it and (3) once they made the decision to do so, it just fricking takes time to do shit like have plating built for hundreds of vehicles. My understanding is that right now the holdup is entirely in manufacturing.

      I'm almost certain money had nothing to do with the delay in getting proper plating for the troops.

    12. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems he's trying to say the under-armored Humvees in Iraq are a more pressing concern than expensive lasers are, to troops actually in battle right now - remember Rumsfeld saying something to the effect of 'you don't go into war with what you need, you go into war with what you have,' after being asked why our questionably-assigned troops were driving around in under-armored Humvees.

      I support the troops but not this war, if I'm not making it clear.

      Rumsfeld - that guy really makes sense if you like war as much as The Bush administration does...

    13. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1
      "I generously respond to your original post, and I serve you up the perfect opportunity to trot out your cute little anti-Bush rantlet"

      Your response was that of a boy who's spent too much time in his mommy's basement and has never ventured near the man's world of government and war.

      I didn't name Bush, but if want to chat about our current C-in-C, can you tell me something he has done to keep the men under his command from becoming sitting ducks?

    14. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Your response was that of a boy who's spent too much time in his mommy's basement and has never ventured near the man's world of government and war.

      I see. According to you "served in the Armed Forces" doesn't count as "ventured near the man's world of government and war".

      So what are your qualifications, anyway? Can you describe any one of the many policies and procedures the military regularly rehearses and employs every day, to keep from becoming sitting ducks? Have you, in fact, been any closer to war and government than your favorite media outlet?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    15. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      There is countless debates on the plating issue.

      The most interesting political theory I have ever come upon is that the Bush administration wants to encourage spending. For example, plates will cost you $1. A blown up vehicle will cost you $10.

      The goal is to encourage manufacturing of new vehicles and push the economy forward as much as possible. Before you bite my head off, there is at least a dozen other spins just as strange.

    16. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      losing? what war are you talking about? seems to me everything is way ahead of every best case pre-war senerio i've seen. now if your buying into the monday morning quarter back, post invasion, post capture of saddam the sky is falling, quagmire guagmire rhetoric... well then yes the war is lost and we will all be dead soon. you do realize that the military was planing and purchasing 10's of thousands of body bags for US troops before we invaded don't you? i'd say that they are doing a great job because here we are 2+ years later and we've not even used 2000 of those body bags. compare that to one day of island hoping war fare in WWII.

      "If you're not a troll, you're an idiot"

      i think you're the one trolling or posing as an idiot.

    17. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by shmlco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We had to adapt to win the Korean War, and the War In Vietnam, and... ah.... wait.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    18. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The designers were providing a replacement for the original Jeep, not an armored combat vehicle. They needed something lightweight and fast, able to deflect the odd rifle round. They weren't intended to deal with anti-armor rounds (that was the role of the M2/M3 APC) or heavy explosives.

      However, APCs and tanks are impractical in cities because they're heavy and damage the roads, because they're easier to hit, because they're hard to get out of, and because they require special training to be able to properly drive them. Hummvees, OTOH, can be driven by just about anyone, they're mobile and agile (compared to APCs), and easy to get out of to deal with a situation.

      The rest of your points are fairly valid, though. The nature of warfare was changing by the time of the Gulf War, and we saw it urbanize during the 1990s. However, generals almost always fight the last war, which in our case was Vietnam. Retrofitting the vehicles is possible, but this creates tremendous wear and tear on them because the frames are not designed to handle the additional weight. It also tremendously reduces the total payload, and accelerates engine wear, making it very costly. New vehicles do not have this problem, but the Pentagon largely did not realize the need for them, and so did not start serious production on them until 2003/2004.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    19. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

      To be fair those were for the war in North Korea, the president didnt expect many casulties in this war.

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    20. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace 'US troops' with 'Soviet troops' and Iraq with Afghanistan. They were "winning" too.

    21. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by nmtservice · · Score: 0

      Clearly, you didn't lose any relative, son or friend in any war.
      Lucky you.

    22. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he can't manage to perfect it anyway...

    23. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Uh, a steering wheel is great for avoiding an RPG, except the problem is locating them, not destroying them.

    24. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by CharlieG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, at this point, almost all the Humvees are "Up armored", the problem is, as usual, this has lead to a response - less ak47 type ambushes, more IEDs. And as other, even heavier armored vehicles have shown up, the IEDs have gotten bigger - They refer to them as N-bangers where N = 1 or more - 1-banger is one shell/mine etc, 2 is 2 etc. The reports that I'm hearing say they have mostly given up on 1 bangers, and 2,3,4s are the most common

      Action leads to reaction, and no matter HOW much armor you put on something, you can always penetrate it - just takes a bigger bang. The say that some of the bigger IEDs actually pick something like a APC and throw them a couple of hundred yards, and up-armored HUMVEES just get blown to bits

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    25. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by birge · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that theory is wrong, but if it's true, I'm moving to Switzerland.

    26. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      We have radar sets that already track incoming fire. Right now this information is used for determining where the fire came from and then directing conterfire on that position. With a laser you could use this system to shoot down incoming fire instead of just figuring out where it came from. Having a compter swing a laser around is a lot faster than notifying a driver that he needs to take evasive action and then having him figure out which ditch to turn into (not to mention starting the vehicle if needed).

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    27. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by froschmann · · Score: 1

      Uh. Iraq has no superpower arming it like the Afgans had the USA arming them. Same with 'nam and Korea to a degree. With the Soviets providing arms and the Chinese troops, the war was a lot harder to win.

    28. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by tarogue · · Score: 1

      Um ... which war are you watching?

        The war was suppposed to cost us less than 2 billon dollars (1.7 IIRC), the rest would be paid for by Iraqi oil.
        We were supposed to be greeted as liberators, with barely a shot fired. There are now 2067 Coalition troops dead (not counting Iraqis) and 6,770 US soldiers wounded and sent home, but we never hear about them.
        Vice President Cheney (March 16, 2003) said, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators... I think it will go relatively quickly... in weeks rather than months."
        Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on Feb. 7, 2003 said, "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
        Former Budget director Mitch Daniels (March 28, 2003) stated, "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    29. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by idonthack · · Score: 1
      So, if you can't develop a system that solves all your problems, it's useless?
      Yes, it is. Especially if it doesn't solve any of your problems. What could lasers do on our planes right now?
      1. Burn stuff up
      2. Maybe deflect guided missiles, if they weren't designed well
      We could do this already.
      1. Missiles and smartbombs are currently more effective at getting rid of things
      2. Flares/Radar Jamming/Chaff do this fine, but our current enemies don't even have guided missiles or even radar
      So, this means that our government has just spent millions of dollars on "freaking lasers" for our airplanes (which are already far ahead of anyone else's airplanes) instead of developing a way to detect IEDs, which would actually be useful and save lives. Lasers are a nice idea right now, but that's all they are. We have no use for them. It should be filed in the "nice ideas for later" box.
      Man, you must curl up in a little ball in the morning, unable to function because you can't find that one tool that will brush your teeth and wipe your ass.
      It's more efficient to do these two unrelated things separately, unless you brush your teeth each time you finish taking a shit. Stupid argument.
      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    30. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      And which war are you watching?

      In case you haven't been paying attention to the news, a significant portion of the insurgents aren't even Iraqis (and have killed more Iraqi civillians than they have coalition soldiers). This is the same war in which coalition forces were greeted as liberators in Baghdad weeks after it began. The Iraqi military under Hussein became non-existant in well under 6 months. Now there's that pesky problem of all those assholes out there with RPG's who have grown up believing the US is evil and will happily kill anyone they even see loitering around a police recruiting station. Yes, Iraq is still mired in conflict, but Hussein had his smelly dictatorship crammed down his throat in a spider hole and that part of it is over.

    31. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about lasers on a plane. In the future, try reading the thread before responding to it.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    32. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Thnikkaman · · Score: 1

      I don't like Bush, but I have to agree that you're the one who looks like an idiot. The responses to your posts have been thought out and well written and you respond with "Your response was that of a boy who's spent too much time in his mommy's basement..."? Sorry, but you lose.

    33. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by evanism · · Score: 0

      What about a laser on your car! cool, you could vaporise people in traffic if you're in a rush ;)

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    34. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by quanticle · · Score: 1

      The problem, as GP has stated, lies with detection, rather than with countermeasures. Detecting artillery shells coming from miles away is different from detecting an RPG round fired from meters away. Even with fast computers you would be hard pressed to detect something as small as an RPG round, and calculate its trajectory before it hits you, especially considering the fact that the launchers are easily moved and hidden (i.e. no fixed launch locations to narrow down trajectory calculations). The fact that you're fighting in an urban combat zone only makes it worse, seeing as you're going to have to account for launch positions above you (buildings), as well as for launches from ground level.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    35. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by subtropolis · · Score: 1

      The US isn't fighting "Iraq" any longer. It hasn't been for quite some time now. The US is sitting in the middle of a low-grade civil war. And yes, there are quite a few weapons changing hands. In any case, this has never been something for the US to "win."

      --
      "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    36. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Except that there are already plans for systems that will do precisely that. Granted, this is stuff that is not going to be available tomorrow, but this is a future capability that is in the process of being developed. You aren't going to get to this state by saying that since the system is too limited now that it's a waste of resources to pursue it. Part of that pursuit is applying and battle testing the intermediate stages of the component systems.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    37. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by zardo · · Score: 1
      I think those exploding bullets the heli's shoot are much more effective.

      Iraqi soldiers killed from helicopter

    38. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I see. According to you "served in the Armed Forces" doesn't count as "ventured near the man's world of government and war". So what are your qualifications, anyway? Can you describe any one of the many policies and procedures the military regularly rehearses and employs every day, to keep from becoming sitting ducks? Have you, in fact, been any closer to war and government than your favorite media outlet?

      Funny how trolls like him never seem to have an adequate answer to this line of questioning. Know-it-alls who watch a little "Roll Call" with R Lee Ermey and play a couple games of paintball and think they're Patton, von Steuben, and Otto Skorzeny all rolled into one. Monday morning quarterbacking the nightmares of military logistics with convenient 20:20 hindsight. Personally, I'm impressed with how quickly the military has adjusted, what with the tremendous amount of cold war inertia up till 1990. Dimwits like him don't realize that you can't build weapons systems that are all things in all situations. The HMMWV was designed for WW3 in europe, when the red hordes were to come pouring out of east germany through the fulda gap. My god, the amount of time I spent in training looking at maps of the fulda gap. Memorizing warsaw pact TO&E. Learning Russian, for god's sake! It's amazing we've been able to change as much as we have. 15 years later and we're still using olive drab and woodland camouflage as the default color for personal equipment!

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    39. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And which war are you watching?"

      The question isn't which war everyone was watching. The question is where they were watching it. In your case, that source is likely to be Fox news.

      "In case you haven't been paying attention to the news, a significant portion of the insurgents aren't even Iraqis"

      There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest this.

      "(and have killed more Iraqi civillians than they have coalition soldiers)"

      This is false. Check the recent report on 25,000+ civilian casualties that confirms that coalition forces have killed far, far more civilians than any "insurgents".

      "This is the same war in which coalition forces were greeted as liberators in Baghdad weeks after it began."

      AHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA!!!! (refer to fox news comment).

    40. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep, the fact that the 14 Ohio marines that were killed earlier this month were in an Armored Amphibious Vehicle should show you that a Humvee, no matter how uparmored, stands no chance against the bombs being employed.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    41. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      It's too bad that often the steel plates don't help that much. The flat bottom of the Humvee isn't designed to deflect blasts and putting too much armor on it will increase wear on the suspension and make it of little use for going off road. Those are some of the reasons why the DoD is looking to replace Humvees.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    42. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      15 years later and we're still using olive drab and woodland camouflage as the default color for personal equipment!

      They are changing to a new style BDU, but not changing the camo for anything else?
      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    43. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zero evidence? Wake up dude. There are plenty of non-Iraqi's that have been fighting coalition units. The evidence is their bodies. Also, you need to take a reading comprehension course. He was referring to the fact that the "insurgents" have killed more Iraqis than they have killed coalition forces. The people usually getting killed or maimed in these car bombs and other suicide bomber attacks are Iraqis.

    44. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by SB5 · · Score: 1

      50 years from now, the war makers will be arguing over more sticks? or more stones?

      --
      If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
      it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
    45. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by khallow · · Score: 1
      This is false. Check the recent report on 25,000+ civilian casualties that confirms that coalition forces have killed far, far more civilians than any "insurgents".

      Could you provide a reference please? This is the first I've heard of this report.

    46. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by shani · · Score: 1

      Presumably the hope with armoring vehicles is that you will make it harder for insurgents to get the weapons they need to attack you, and thereby reducing the number of attacks. (I have heard that in Iraq every home is legally allowed one automatic weapon.)

      Ultimately the goal I suppose is to make attacks so expensive that they resort to participating in the existing government. The chances of that seem pretty limited without understanding and resolving their grievances (by which I do not mean negotiating with terrorists, but rather understanding the reasons that they have such a willing pool of recruits).

    47. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by the+shoez · · Score: 1

      Except it's not really about defence at all, it's all about being able to make the first strike with impunity. That is the whole point of the missile defense programme also.

      --
      &lawyers($instruction);
    48. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by TomSawyer · · Score: 2, Funny
      So what are your qualifications, anyway?

      Dude, he's totally got xxx in front of his name and after. He's a total bad ass and you sir are out matched.

      --
      If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
    49. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      Yes, you have to understand where they are coming from. Unfortunately, I believe the current problem stems from two major historical factors, plus 3 or 4 tactical mistakes

      Historical factors
      1)Post WWI, the Ottoman Empire broke up - to look at the Ottoman Empire in "Other terms" think of it as the Caliphate - aka the area under control of the Sultan. They basically ruled central/south eastern Europe, and most of the Middle East. They have NOT forgotten that. They do NOT forgive us "upstarts" from taking that away. You have a bunch of religious radicals who want to see the Caliphate restored, and are promising that to the masses
      2)Oil. Or more generally, wealth earned because of resources developed by outsiders without the corresponing increase in local infrastructure/knowledge/"civilization" (can't think of a better word right now - sorry, it's early) - look historically - Gold, Phosphates, Oil, whatever. An outside group comes in, appoints a leader, takes the resource, and pays the leader. Unless the leader is VERY smart, what you end up with is people with wealth/technology that they can NOT deal with because of the lack of support structure (NOT lack of intelligence or drive). It leads two one of 2 things - a "Playboy" culture of wealth that was not really worked for, OR (when the money goes away) a cargo cult. In the playboy mode, eventually, a percentage of people come to realize "is that all there is" and that there is some gap in their life, and they turn towards religion - often towards fundimentalism (of which ever flavor - Islam, Christian, etc) - and this case, leaving them open to the same people in item 1, only they have the money to finance things

      The tactical mistakes
      I'll only talk recent - we could go through a bunch of them, back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and we really should

      The BIGGEST mistake was made by President Carter - he basically did NOTHING with the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and when we had the dramatic failure in the rescue mission, we backed off, and whimpered about it - the signal "The Americans won't do anything if attacked, they are weak" -
      It was NOT only Carter however - there was a LOT of backing off - the Pubelo Incident, Ditto the Liberty Incident, The Beruit bombing, the USS Cole, The Blackhawk down incident - the list goes on. We basically became a country known for talking the talk, but NOT backing it up, and if our nose got bloodied at all, we would back off. Items that in earlier times that would have been called an act of war, and were ("Remember the Maine"), we ignored. We taught people the lesson - Punch the US in the nose, and they will negotiate with you, and you'll get at least some of what you want. It's like children - if they do something wrong, and you then bribe them to behave, they learn that misbehavior gets them what they want - aka you are giving positive reinforcement for misbehavior

      So, how do you deal with these issues?

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    50. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "In case you haven't been paying attention to the news, a significant portion of the insurgents aren't even Iraqis"

      There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest this.
      Wow. Where have you been? This isn't even a controversial statement. Even the rabidly irrational portion of the anti-war crowd acknowledges that a huge proportion of insurgents are foreigners. (In fact, some cite this fact as ammo in their arguments, that the US has attracted terrorists and jihadists to Iraq when they weren't there before.)

      Speaking of someone who's been there, and is going back for another tour (packing the quadcons next week!), I can say that the majority of the insurgents I've seen were not Iraqis. Most of the actual Iraqis are terrified of these guys.

      And whatever Syria says, it's clear they are making essentially no effort and/or have no ability to control their border. It may even be worse than the Afghani/Pakistani border (I haven't been to Afghanistan in a couple years so I'm not sure how things have changed there).


      Hey, be concerned, get involved, protest if that's what you believe in ... but have the integrity and decency to at least be well-informed.
    51. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by tom75646437 · · Score: 1

      >"Except it's not really about defence at all, it's all about being able to make the first strike with impunity. That is the whole point of the missile defense programme also." Wrong missle defense tech skippy. That doctrine applies to ICBMs not AA missles.

    52. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by tom75646437 · · Score: 1
      High energy lasers have very promising defensive purposes, such as being able to shoot down/burn up mortar and artilery fire as well as RPGs. You know, many of the things that the underdogs like to use in asymetric warfare? Being able to mount these things onto a fighter is a good step towards getting these things on the ground and in the field.
      Good point about the anti-RPG/mortar thing. I wonder why they aren't mounting them on something that can loiter over the battlefield. Something slow like an A10 or a big radio/intelligence/whatever plane that can actually defend our groundtroops for an hour would be more useful than an F-16 zipping overhead at Mach 0.8.

      Hrm, might be a range issue. If it can't cover much area, it would only be able to shoot down things that are Trying to get close.

    53. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      15 years later and we're still using olive drab and woodland camouflage as the default color for personal equipment!

      They are changing to a new style BDU, but not changing the camo for anything else?

      They're cranking out the new ACU at full bore, but yeah, the load bearing equipment is still OD. Part of the problem is that it doesn't wear out very fast and they've got so much stockpiled already. Surely a color modification is planned, but it may take a few years to get into the pipeline.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    54. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get over it. Hummers were replacements for jeeps. They aren't APC's nor were they ever meant to be.

      If its a true issue then the brass will eventually phase them out in favor of APC's for everyone. But the bottom line is that basic infantry are expected to take bullets. I know that in a country with most people getting degrees in Business that sort of risk exposure is unacceptable, but thats the cost of war.

      Maybe if they cost a bit more in life and less in currency we'd be less inclined to enter them and flip-flop while they are in progress.

    55. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the real swinging dicks say if you need armor, don't tool around in a wimpy passenger vehicle, drive a tank

    56. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by RealErmine · · Score: 1

      Man, you must curl up in a little ball in the morning, unable to function because you can't find that one tool that will brush your teeth and wipe your ass.

      No, he curls up in a ball because he *found* that tool.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    57. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      no matter HOW much armor you put on something, you can always penetrate it

      As of last month when I researched it, no one has ever been able to penetrate the armor of the M1A1 Abrams tank. Unfortunately for the 5 solidiers that have been killed in M1A1s, there are IEDs big enough to kill the occupants through acceleration. i.e. If you whack the side of any vehicle hard enough, you can mess up the riders, whether you penetrate or not.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    58. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      You can ALWAYS penetrate it - the question is, do you have what it takes - Drop a 2k bomb on the roof of the M1A? (1 or 2) it'll go through - if not, hey, I put a 50 Mt on the roof, it'll go

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    59. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by robertjw · · Score: 1

      So in another ten years, you'll be able to recycle the same old schtick: "4 out of 5 swinging dicks say more lasers for the jets, and less armor for the groundpounders".

      And in ten years the military will do the same thing. Spend money on both.

    60. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by badmammajamma · · Score: 1

      I know. I understand that. My point is that the fact that the Air Force is working on lasers for fighter planes, in no way impacts our ability to provide armored humvees.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    61. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Rumsfeld - that guy really makes sense if you like war as much as The Bush administration does...

      Or if you read "the Art of War", like Rumsfeld has. That statement you quoted is a paraphase of the book. Of course most people haven't read the book, and have no clue what it says. (amazing how many of the best generals for the last several thousand years have read it and recommend it)

    62. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      If this was powerful enough to take out
      a) other planes
      b) ground targets
      it might just be worth it.

    63. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      What if what I'm reading doesn't sound funny, or sarcastic?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    64. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Which is as it should be.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    65. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Threni · · Score: 1

      What good are better ground vehicles if the US government is too scared of photographs of dead US troops to allow anyone on foot anywhere near the enemy before they've been hit with air vehicles?

    66. Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend... by Blastercorps · · Score: 1

      Just a point: do you think that The US will never face anyone except for small scale militants ever again? And even if that fortunate future came to pass, that no non-military field could ever make use of powerfull lasers smaller than a house?

  13. That's nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's nice and everything, but when can I get them for my car?

  14. Nice, by seaniqua · · Score: 4, Funny

    But will it cook a Jiffy Pop container 20' in diameter?

    --
    That's right, I read at +2 and post at +1. Not even I care what I have to say.
    1. Re:Nice, by jdray · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is what happens when the laser misses its target? A 150 kW laser can probably do some damage to something way downrange on a miss.

      I'm certain that someone here can calculate beam spread and power delivery per square centimeter out to whatever distance you want to go. How far does it have to be from my house before it WONT set my cedar siding on fire?

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    2. Re:Nice, by Catamaran · · Score: 1

      It's not a big deal. If the laser misses its target, then ground control will simply issue a recall order.

      --
      Test 1 2 3 4
    3. Re:Nice, by Anakron · · Score: 1

      As a corrollary, what happens when conventional air missiles miss their target? Do they just blow something else up?

      --
      There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
    4. Re:Nice, by shmlco · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only if you can also come up with a spinning phase-conjugate mirror AND manage to switch the targeting computer's rom.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    5. Re:Nice, by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Informative

      The system will probably work like the ABL. A low-power targeting laser makes the first contact with the target. This allows for target correction and ionization of a channel for the main beam to use. Once the target is confirmed (probably a fraction of a second), the main laser fires, with virtually no chance for the target to deviate.

      Depending on its uses and where it's aimed, there's a good chance that the beam will simply fire off hamrlessly into space, presuming that enough of it makes it through the atmosphere to be able to do damage. If it misses and hits the ground or sea... Well, that could be problematic, depending on what it hits. Flash fires, steam explosions, and serious sunburns are just a few things that I can think of.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:Nice, by shut_up_man · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is, from the Yahoo article:

      "But the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency reckons it has solved the problem by merging liquid and solid state lasers to cut the size and weight by "an order of magnitude," according to its Web site."

      Didn't they use some kind of merged hybrid solid state / chemical laser in Real Genius, too?

    7. Re:Nice, by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      The Val Kilmer character used a slice of ice, which I guess is solid state.

    8. Re:Nice, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Susan: Can you hammer a six-inch spike through a board with your penis?
      Chris: Not right now.
      Susan: A girl's gotta have her standards.

    9. Re:Nice, by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Thats what I always thought too, but in actuality he was just inspired by the stick of liquid nitrogen they used to make slugs for the coffee machine. Instead, he used the inspiration to make some kind of gas/solid/liquid blend that improved things an order of magnitude (which is funny because the article also used that. :))

    10. Re:Nice, by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      That was liquid nitrogen? Wouldn't a slug of that be worth more than a quarter? Oh well.

      I thought it was a soft-drink machine.

    11. Re:Nice, by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      LN is quite cheap ($1/L ish). Plus, somebody else paid for the LN.

    12. Re:Nice, by iamlucky13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep. I think they call it "salvage fused." It always kills me when I see a movie where the missile flies circles after an airplane. If it doesn't hit on the first pass, it'll never have enough energy for a second chance, so rather than risk it coming down on friendly or civillian heads, modern missiles self-destruct. I think the term actually comes from the idea that you don't want the enemy to be able to salvage the weapon for their own use or study.

      Incidentally, the ancient Romans did the same thing. The heads of their pilae were made of soft iron so they would bend when the hit anything hard. That way the enemy couldn't pick them up and throw them back if they missed.

    13. Re:Nice, by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      Back in the 80s when I was an undergrad physics major, the price was about $0.05/liter. Maybe you're thinking of LOX?

    14. Re:Nice, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but is it truly possible to synthesize excited bromide in an argon matrix?

  15. Borealis? by Stanistani · · Score: 1

    Anyone ever come up with what the Aurora was powered by?

    I'd love to see a pulsed-fusion plane...

    ...mit laser cannons!

    1. Re:Borealis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anyone ever come up with what the Aurora was powered by?
      Yes, it was the General Electric jet engines used in the YF-22 which subsequently weren't used in the production version of the F-22.
    2. Re:Borealis? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I'd heard something about methane, but I'm not sure I buy into that.

      I saw something recently, possibly a Jane's analysis, that suggested that the SR-71 was retired when Aurora was scheduled to take over, but then that Aurora didn't work out which was why the Blackbird was brought back in, then retired a few years later when a new replacement was available. It's possible, I suppose, that the Aurora was grounded for some universal reason such as an unexpected mandatory engine replacement that took some time to work out.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  16. That's about blinding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It sounds like this laser isn't for blinding but for anti-missile defense. It isn't covered by the Geneva convention.

  17. What about the Navy? by jkitchel · · Score: 0, Redundant


    Does this mean they will get sharks with fricken lasers on their heads?

  18. Trust Dubya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If everything goes according to plan"

    Since when does the government has a plan?

  19. Laser cannon my eye by jlowery · · Score: 1, Funny

    NO, NO! NOT MY EYES! AAAAAaaaarrrrrghhhh.

    Okay, now I have to enter this stuff to avoid the caps filter. Talk about spoiling a joke....

    --
    If you post it, they will read.
    1. Re:Laser cannon my eye by furrywithwings · · Score: 1

      Go for the eyes, Boo!

    2. Re:Laser cannon my eye by wahgnube · · Score: 1

      Cyclops, is that you?

    3. Re:Laser cannon my eye by sbillard · · Score: 1

      WARNING!

      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

    4. Re:Laser cannon my eye by BFlatSeven · · Score: 1

      My eyes! The goggles do nothing! --Rainier Wolfcastle

      --
      If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes ...
  20. Power Source? by CorporalKlinger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They can put these things up there, but how will they really be powered? 15kW of energy is a lot to expect from any sort of battery system, unless the weapon can only be used once... Next they'll want to strap a nuclear reactor on the fighter planes to power the next version of the laser (150kW). And if they do have a way to power this for multiple shots, why isn't that same energy storage technology being used in my damn car so I don't have to pay $3 a gallon to fill up the tank?

    1. Re:Power Source? by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Do you know how much power you can tap from a gas turbine the size of Rhode Island, the kind that an F16 mounts?

      Neither do I, but it's a whole hell of a lot.

    2. Re:Power Source? by oringo · · Score: 1

      KW is a unit for power, i.e. energy/time. So a 15kW lazer doesn't necessarily mean you have to put a nuke plant on a F-16. As long as the battery/capacitor can withstand extremely high current, 15 or even 150kW is doable. You just need to recharge between shots.

    3. Re:Power Source? by MadMorf · · Score: 1

      They can put these things up there, but how will they really be powered? 15kW of energy is a lot to expect from any sort of battery system, unless the weapon can only be used once.

      I can't find an exact figure anywhere, but those F-100 and F-110 engines generate several kW of energy already...

    4. Re:Power Source? by Hack+Jandy · · Score: 1

      Chemical lasers?

      HJ

    5. Re:Power Source? by Malc · · Score: 1

      It's got jet engine(s) - will they produce enough power? According to this converstion table, 15 KW = 20 HP. My car has considerably more than that, and it doesn't generate anywhere near as much power as a jet engine.

    6. Re:Power Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not the power, it's the energy. In 240 micro seconds, 15KW consumes the same energy as a 3V LED does in 60 seconds (assuming 20mA). What isn't stated is how long the laser will run.

    7. Re:Power Source? by Manchot · · Score: 1

      Next they'll want to strap a nuclear reactor on the fighter planes to power the next version of the laser (150kW).
       
      They could just strap on a Mr. Fusion, couldn't they? After all, we're only 10 years away from 2015, so it should be here in a few years.

    8. Re:Power Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, during the cold war, the Russians tricked us into believing that they had developed a nuclear airplane. We spent years and mucho money attempting to get one ourselves. They engine can be seen at EBR-1 in Idaho. It's HUGE.

    9. Re:Power Source? by ShadyG · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's just a wild guess, but maybe you can have one if you also have security clearance, $47 million, and room for a refrigerator in your car.

    10. Re:Power Source? by TopSpin · · Score: 1

      why isn't that same energy storage technology being used in my damn car so I don't have to pay $3 a gallon to fill up the tank?

      Your car uses the same energy storage technology. Hydrocarbons are good for a lot of things. You can use a spinning turbine (aircraft typically use an APU.) to convert the energy stored in jet fuel into electricity!

      As for 15kW; that's not really a lot of power. That is equivalent to the continuous load of about 8 contemporary suburban homes. If you charge an array of capacitors for a bit and discharge it all in a couple microseconds you get a very powerful weapon, no fission required.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    11. Re:Power Source? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      15kW doesn't need a nuclear power plant anyway. When I was growing up, we had a 7kW diesel generator in our garage because the city power was unreliable. We started it with a hand crank. It was pretty cool. Though the engine was much too hard to turn over normally, due to the high diesel compression ratio, it was easy with the compression release valve open. When the engine was spinning fast enough, one just closed the valve and it started right up.

    12. Re:Power Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15 or 150 - its been done before

      The MIG-25's radar put out 500kW of radiation, so i figure that powering the laser won't be too hard.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-25

    13. Re:Power Source? by syukton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      150 kilowatts is 201 horsepower. (conversion link; 1 horsepower = approximately 745.7 watts)

      F-16 Aircraft use a powerplant ranging from 15,000 to 19,000 (28,000 to 32,000 with afterburner) pounds force of thrust.

      To convert between thrust and horsepower, use this formula: [(Thrust in lbs x Speed in mph) / 550] x 1.47 = horsepower (formula link)

      So let's assume an airspeed of 400 miles per hour.
      Without afterburners:
      Low: ((15,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 16,036.3636
      High: ((19,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 20,312.7273
      And with afterburners:
      Low: ((28,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 29,934.5455
      High: ((32,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 34,210.9091

      So let's say about 18,000 horsepower on average regularly and 32,000 horsepower on average with afterburners.

      A 150 kilowatt laser requires 1.1% of the total engine power produced (on average) by an F-16 turbofan engine, and 0.6% of the engine's power with afterburners engaged.

      In other words, I think they've got all the power they need.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    14. Re:Power Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about solid Bromine in an Argon matrix?

    15. Re:Power Source? by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Well, lets see. The Prius has a 44 HP electric engine. That is about 32 kW... and it can run for quite a while with no gas (though they strongly discourage it). I mean if it already has room for a refrigerator sized laser, why not a CPU sized battery?

    16. Re:Power Source? by topside420 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Keep in mind, the engine power % you mention is to keep the laser ON -indefinitly-. The laser will only need that 1.1% of engine power for less than a second to power one pulse from the laser. So, as you can imagine, this laser could be kept on indefinitly with no considerable loss of engine power for flight.

    17. Re:Power Source? by t35t0r · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are uninformed. 150W is the output power. In order to get the lasing medium to actually *LASE* requires lots more input power than 150W. In addition to hit a target miles away and put 150W of power on it for any period of time requires even more input power. Depending on the lasing medium and what sort of laser it actually is (pumped, double pumped, etc) they will require considerably much more power than 150W.

    18. Re:Power Source? by zoltamatron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Okay......your math here sounds good, but I think that you overlook a few points.

      Your formula uses an arbitrary value of 400mph to get the horsepower from. The top speed of an F-16 is mach 2, or about 1524mph at sea level. Less at high altitudes. Using this speed we would get almost four times the power output.

      However, given the nature of a jet engine, its thrust will decrease as airspeed increases, since it's thrust is based on throwing air out a nozzle. So we can assume that the engine will not be putting out maximum thrust at maximum speed.

      From the Pratt and Whitney site, the thrust range of an F100-PW-220 engine is 23,770 - 29,160 lbs of force. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that at top speed the engine is putting out minimum thrust, then solving the equation we get:

      (23,770 x 1524)/550 x 1.47 = 96,821

      So we get 96,821 HP at top speed. I do find it hard to believe that this much power is needed to overcome drag on an f-16 at mach 2, but who knows.....

      -z
      --
      Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
    19. Re:Power Source? by syukton · · Score: 1

      If you'll notice (speaking of being uninformed) I was talking about power generation in terms of kilowatts. You know, thousand-watt units. So even if 150W is the output power of this laser as you suppose, if it took 150,000 watts to generate that pulse, these engines are still up to the challenge.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    20. Re:Power Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article, where you seem to have gotten the 150,000 watt figure, talks about lasers with a 150,000 watt *beam* being ready for 2007. That's output power, not the power used in creating the beam so his argument still stands. Even highly efficient technologies like fluorescent lights are only 10% efficient, and I'm sure this laser would be even less.

    21. Re:Power Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In other words, I think they've got all the power they need.
      Hah, it's not like the afterburner gets funneled through the laser. I don't think you can just convert the roaring flame of 32,000 jet engine horses into a bunch of green photons, but IANAphysicist.
  21. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets see what the Linux fuckwits will have to say about this one

    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They say "put Gates's poll back in your mouth and shut the fuck up!"

  22. Not to be too pointed but... by sterno · · Score: 1

    Will these new laser cannons be able to shoot box cutters as well?

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Not to be too pointed but... by torpor · · Score: 1

      .. or, even better, can we use these lasers to detect rampant agitprop? that'd be cool. the world could use less of that.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  23. Missile defense by robogun · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can see the headline now: Air Force "reflects" on decision to purchase sexy new laser, after a test backfires when attempting to shoot down a mirrored missile...

    & yes, defending against laser is that simple.

    1. Re:Missile defense by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      No it isn't that simple. A powerful enough laser will still be able to damage missiles due to imperfect reflective surfaces. Also, there's always the engine of the missile to aim for if you happen to behind it.

    2. Re:Missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, defending against a laser isn't that simple.

      You ever felt how hot a mirror gets in sunlight? Well, a lot of the light that hits it is converted to heat. Even a highly mirrored surface would get incredibly hot under a 150Kw laser beam. A missle is essentially a flying tube under a lot of stress, so a small non-uniform structural weakness would have the capability to tear it apart if it was travelling at high speed....

    3. Re:Missile defense by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      Seems that most missiles have some type of forward-looking sensor for tracking their target. I'd imagine ramming a high-powered laser beam down its throat could cause problems. You can't mirror the whole missile because it needs to see.

    4. Re:Missile defense by Spudley · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can see the headline now: Air Force "reflects" on decision to purchase sexy new laser, after a test backfires when attempting to shoot down a mirrored missile...

      & yes, defending against laser is that simple.


      So how come Queen Amidala's ship had such difficulty getting past the blockade?

      --
      (Spudley Strikes Again!)
    5. Re:Missile defense by Sta7ic · · Score: 1

      So what happens if they use a one-way mirror for the sensor housings?

    6. Re:Missile defense by Muerte23 · · Score: 1

      While what you say may be true regarding radar guided missiles, where the nose may be covered with a reflective material of thickness small than the skin depth of the radar waves, it will be *highly* effective against infrared homing missiles whose sensors typically require optical access to the target. Oh, and other planes.

      And I don't think it's quite as simple as painting the missile silver - cracks, joints, dirt or otherwise will absorb the laser light and catch fire / break / whatever.

      m

    7. Re:Missile defense by user317 · · Score: 0

      thats what i thought when i read the story as well. maybe they are using some sort of a spectrum for which there is no reflective material. there may be no such thing as a perfect mirror, so some of the energy must be translated into heat, but i would image it would be a lot easier to make a mirror 10 times more pure then to increase the laser 10 times in power.

      --
      me fail english? thats unpossible
    8. Re:Missile defense by tbfromny · · Score: 1

      I think probably the system is designed to work against heat-seeking missiles. Here the objective isn't to blow up the missile (a la GI Joe), but to just screw up the heat-seeking head. (One would think that putting a mirror on the outside of the heat-seeking sensor of a missile would not only render the missile immune from laser attack, but also immune from doing any actual, you know, heat-seeking).

    9. Re:Missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now your missile is a brilliant beacon giving hit-to-kill anti-missile missiles a best case scinerio for blowing it up. The wonderful thing about this laser countermeasure (assuming it would even work) is that it makes life so much easier on the other things that want to destroy what you're protecting.

    10. Re:Missile defense by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a "one way mirror".
      If the sensor can "see" the outside, it means photons (and thus lasers) can come int....

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    11. Re:Missile defense by merreborn · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a "one way mirror". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror#One-way_mirror Wikipedia has a definition, therefore it must exist! ...In all seriousness, the article seems to indicate partially reflective mirrors would reflect some of a laser, and let the rest pass through. "One way mirror" is indeed a misnomer.

    12. Re:Missile defense by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1
      So what happens if they use a one-way mirror for the sensor housings?

      Then the laser can't shine out, but can shine in, killing the sensors. Or did you want to turn the mirror the other way, making the sensors blind to the outside world?

    13. Re:Missile defense by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Informative
      & yes, defending against laser is that simple.

      Do you actually have some evidence to back that claim up? I thought not. The people who come up with ideas like military lasers are actually smart enough to have thought of things like mirrored surfaces on enemy missiles. They wouldn't have put all that time, effort, and money into the project if it could be stopped by such a simple countermeasure.

      Common mirrors are not 100% efficient; they absorb some fraction of the light rather than reflecting it. The actual reflecting layer is also quite thin. The small amount of absorbance is enough that a high energy laser will destroy an ordinary mirror very quickly, at which point the remaining energy is absorbed efficiently. The kind of extremely efficient mirrors needed for ultra-high power lasers are fantastically expensive and fragile enough that it's hopelessly impractical to try putting one on military gear.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    14. Re:Missile defense by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 4, Informative
      No, you cannot defend a high-power laser by making a shiny missile. The whole point of using lasers of sufficient power is that even if you had a missile that was 90% reflective in infrared (which is at the upper end of what one could reasonably do for a missile), the power level is high enough that the last 10% of absorption is enough to ablate that lovely mirror finish and eat the missile. Note also, that most missiles guidance systems operate in the same part of the spectrum as the laser, which would make the pointy end have a very low reflectance by definition.

      The reason for using very high-power lasers is the same they prefer to use hyper-kinetic missiles: at some energy density, no plausible molecular material has sufficient bond strength to withstand it, effectively obsoleting armor.

    15. Re:Missile defense by nmtservice · · Score: 0

      I think the main reason for making those sexy laser system is to blind enemies and innocents civilian too.
      That high energy plane carried laser are very, very expensive and (from the other side) contermeasures are so cheap.........
      If the missile is covered whith a depleting layer (as nasa SSI do) and rotate very fast they need a lot of shot to turn it down.
      And imagine if there is a multiple warhead missile system.....
      Anyway the real treath for USNavy (or another navy in the world) is the new generation of multimach missiles (small missiles fliyng at 15+ machs) those small dangerous things cannot give enough time to prepare a effective defense. Neither to aim a lasser to it.

    16. Re:Missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as a reflective surface where photons "bounce off".

      There are lots of materials that will absorb a photon, and then re-emit a photon. The key point here is that the mirror had to absorb all the photons in the first place. That's usually enough to spoil it right there.

      There's also the point that it's very hard to make a perfect mirror, and absorbing even 1% of the energy can be a bad thing. Even a little bit of heat or warpage can spoil your mirror. In real life, you have to throw in problems like keeping your perfect mirror material in perfect shape (no dirt or scratches allowed under military conditions in the field), aligned perfectly with the incoming attack.

      Then, too, your perfect mirror material also needs suitable mechanical, manufactuing, and cost properties to be part of your mass-produced missile.

      No, it's not "just that easy".

    17. Re:Missile defense by robogun · · Score: 1

      What I'm saying is that 90 percent of the laser energy being reflected BACK AT YOU might cause some damage. If your laser can deliver 150kw, well, you do the math. The whole idea of IR lasers as weaponry strikes me as stupid. Yet anytime I try to bring common sense to a bunch of Star Wars freaks on Slashdot, I get modded down.

      Laser offensive weaponry is JUST PLAIN DUMB. How far does that beam go in less than perfect atmospherics? How do you prevent beam divergence at ranges of tens of miles? How do you hold your millimeter-wide beam on target long enough to accomplish burn-through, when you consider all that filtration? And then it has to defeat the anti-laser finish on the target.

      No, IR laser is not going to work in any place except the movies. Maybe it would in atmosphere at short ranges, if it operated in the x-ray spectrum, but then the operator faces another set of hazards.

    18. Re:Missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. So unless your laser is perpendicular to the missle, which it almost certainly won't be, the laser won't be reflecting anywhere near you.

    19. Re:Missile defense by wildsurf · · Score: 1

      The small amount of absorbance is enough that a high energy laser will destroy an ordinary mirror very quickly, at which point the remaining energy is absorbed efficiently.

      What about a mirrored, quickly spinning missile?

      --
      Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
    20. Re:Missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of the lasers are for long range attack either, they all target relatively weak targets like missiles or shells, that have plenty of incendiary material on them. And ofcourse usually are coming closer real quick, all in all in such tasks none of your arguments really apply, not even the reflective one, because the laser can easily be defended in a similar manner, reflected energy would simply disipate between the two, with the receiving target get the worst brunt of it by far.

    21. Re:Missile defense by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Anyway, now the guy is modded funny so the problem has been solved :)

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    22. Re:Missile defense by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      The air surrounding the laser becomes so hot that the laser doesn't even need to be touching the missile and it will still melt through it. The second the missile starts getting heated up, it deforms, the mirror becomes less effective. The mirror is eventually destroyed and the missile follows quickly after. The whole process can happen in well under a second with high enough powered lasers like they are speaking about.
      Regards,
      Steve

    23. Re:Missile defense by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If you take a second and think it through, you'll understand how dumb that idea is.

      Get a pencil. Go ahead, I'll wait...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    24. Re:Missile defense by rmsimpso · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ.

      IR laser weapons do work.

    25. Re:Missile defense by syousef · · Score: 0

      The people who come up with ideas like military lasers are actually smart enough to have thought of things like mirrored surfaces on enemy missiles. They wouldn't have put all that time, effort, and money into the project if it could be stopped by such a simple countermeasure.

      Kinda like NASA people are smart and put lots of money into a ballpoint space pen that can write while upsidedown or in zero-g? The Russians used pencils, and saved a mint.

      Smart people can still overlook things. In fact smart people can do downright dumb things. Nobody's perfect.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    26. Re:Missile defense by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      It's a nice story, but it isn't actually true. Both the USA and USSR initially used pencils in their space programs. The company that developed the space pen did so on their own hook without any funding from NASA, and the pen they developed worked well enough that both the USA and USSR programs eventually used it. For more details see the writeup at Snopes.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    27. Re:Missile defense by athmanb · · Score: 1

      Mirroring isn't that ineffective.
      Lasers that aren't bolted down in a factory already suffer from a lot of problems:
      - Weak power supply which greatly shortens the possible pulse durations. People like to throw out huge kilo/mega-watt numbers, but the point is that peak power can only be mantained for micro- or even nanoseconds.
      - Divergence over long distances. Since you can't use huge optics on a plane, you will not get divergence below 1/10000 even with perfect technics due to physical limitations. So after a 10 kilometers, your beam will already be a meter wide.
      - Targeting. Pointing something at a target with accuracies of milliradians is hard, even if you do it on solid ground or in space. Aiming at a mach 5 fast missile from a vibrating plane can't be easy.

      When all these factors are considered, your laser isn't the instant death machine anymore they often get painted as in movies (or what they actually can be in a more controlled settings), but you'll be just able to deliver enough energy to the target to destroy it under ideal circumstances.
      If the builder of the target missile was then smart enough to raise the reflectivity of his missile from the expected 50% to 90%, you're suddenly missing 4/5 of your laser power.

    28. Re:Missile defense by Laserfuzz · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that the mirror used to reflect the laser must be clean! Any little speck will act like a heatsink. How often do you hit a bug while driving? Now imagine driving at 1000 MPH ! You will collect dust, soot, smoke, whatever your flying through. So even if you did mirror it. It would not help.

    29. Re:Missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The whole idea of IR lasers as weaponry strikes me as stupid

      Yeah, because your brilliance far outshines the feeble bunch of engineers and scientists on the project... ...NOT.

    30. Re:Missile defense by Omega+Blue · · Score: 1

      The people who come up with ideas like military lasers are actually smart enough to have thought of things like mirrored surfaces on enemy missiles. They wouldn't have put all that time, effort, and money into the project if it could be stopped by such a simple countermeasure.

      Who are you kidding? After seeing how the whole "Missile Shield" works - remember that thing is deployed - this sort of confidence comes across as totally unfounded.

      On another front, there were lots of talks about deploying lasers mounted on planes and even vehicles several years back, and nothing ever came out of all that hot air. So I will believe it when I see it works

    31. Re:Missile defense by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1

      I know nothing about lasers, but I was wondering how effective they can be at any decent range in atmosphere? What kind of effective ranges can we get high energy lasers to be effective at, condidering all the diffraction and absorbtion that can be expected in the atmosphere? And besides reflective surfaces, if the projectiles are coated with defocusing ablative materials, how much can the lasers do? Just looking to find some answers from people who have some solid knowledge about those things. Also, what kind of wavelength would be the most effective as a weapon in an atomospheric context. The fact that money is being spent by the military is not much of an indication of anyting in my opinion. As long as it keeps the big guy in the military supply industry well loaded with taxpayer's money, the military will happily spend away money in fairytales. That's why I'd like to hear from people with solid knowledge in laser technology about how useful lasers can be in the real world as opposed to sci-fi flicks.

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    32. Re:Missile defense by anethema · · Score: 1

      Obviously never seen a reflective strip structure before. They make it so the light is always reflected back at the source. They look like little pyramids.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    33. Re:Missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the real strategy is simply having one more trick than the enemy can defend against. Any ONE trick can be defended against. Add another. Now another. Now another. ... At some point their defense against one trick destroys their defense for a different trick.

    34. Re:Missile defense by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      What about a mirrored, quickly spinning missile?

      Then you have an awesome laser light show! Hey look! it's a mach 20 disco ball! Just don't stare at the lasers!

    35. Re:Missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And missiles are not shaped like, or covered in, little pyramids. Aerodynamics, you know.

    36. Re:Missile defense by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      You can, however, defend against a high-powered laser by blowing reflective chaff into the region and confusing the targetting system... just like any other countermeasure. Better targetting system? Make cleverer decoys.

      But yeah, once we get past that wee problem, a laser's nice to have with the whole 'hits the target at the speed of light, negating the need for extensive and faulty ballistics calculations' thing.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    37. Re:Missile defense by Elaarni · · Score: 1

      Um, You DO know that the "space pen" is a myth right? http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp So please, stop quoting every peice of spam that floats into your mailbox. Unless you really did know this and are really bad at math, I mean 400 pens at $2.95 each certainly isnt "Millions"

    38. Re:Missile defense by Elaarni · · Score: 1

      Yes, and a missile with little pyramids all over the outside of it is very aerodynamic and highly stable in flight too...... Part of the research to see if this is a viable technology and worth developing is to brainstorm any kinds of countermeasure that can be used against it, "Will it work? Is it even partly effective? How can we get around it?"

    39. Re:Missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      IR laser weapons do work.
      I sure hope Northrop Grumman's lasers work better than their web servers. :-)

      Error Executing Database Query etc etc etc.
    40. Re:Missile defense by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Sorry, defending against a laser isn't that simple.

      Actually, it would be. Of course it's not too environmentally friendly. Remember Renaissance PT2 from the Animatrix (that is if you watched it) where they blotted out the sun with smoke like material? Basically anti-laser defense systems would have to pump out large quanities of smoke... And I mean lots... Think like putting out a valcano's worth of smoke. Say like a burning several hundred oil fieldsw worth or something like that to defract the lasers energy in the smoke particles.

      Simple, but rather impraticle and would maybe hurt the defenders more than the attackers (then again if you had a super smog you could avoid conventional bombing and sattellite tracking as well... so it might be a benefit) Now ICMB defense against lasers is a bit more tricky. You'd have to have a great deal of missles go in before the target and spray some type of atmospheric smoke at the same time the ground based lasers would be zapping those the real warhead could come through unharmed or less damaged.

      This would require a great deal of effort and resources on the attackers part and have maybe 25-100 missles fired for every real warhead.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    41. Re:Missile defense by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      What if you covered the missile in those reflective bike strips? But super high-quality? Don't those reflect light right back at the source?

    42. Re:Missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have an independent source, or only this one that *happens* to be from the same defense contractor that stands to gain $billions... from this lunacy.

      Reminds me of that movie where the guy says: I had a guaranteed military sale with ED209! Renovation program! Spare parts for 25 years! Who cares if it worked or not!

  24. also can be used *against* f16, or any other plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    how long until russia or china figures this out? you want to fly into airspace that can be dissected fifty times in ten seconds? no jet can outrun light.

  25. Link to DARPA by Stanistani · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:Link to DARPA by Stanistani · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google is your friend...

      From a DARPA PDF:
      "To help arm tactical platforms, the High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS)
      program is developing a new high energy laser (HEL) tactical weapon system whose unique
      cooling system might allow the system to be 10 times lighter, significantly smaller, and
      approximately half the cost of current developmental HEL systems.
      The HELLADS design goal of less than 5 kilograms per kilowatt would enable, for the first time,
      high energy lasers that could be integrated into several air and ground tactical platforms,
      including unmanned combat armed rotorcraft (UCAR), UCAV, Predator B, the F/A-18, and
      future ground combat systems. HELLADS could protect fixed installations or population centers
      from attack, patrol a border, or patrol a demilitarized zone with the capability to react to hostile
      actions and engage tactical missiles, rockets, or artillery at the speed of light."

      This is from 2003, so this has been steeping for a while... is it soup yet?

  26. SO will they go by fromtheblueline · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pew pew or Brzzap?

    1. Re:SO will they go by stienman · · Score: 1

      The laser cannons won't go anything. The item they hit may go Pew or Brzzap or any number of strange, yet subtly exciting, sounds.

      -Adam

    2. Re:SO will they go by moviepig.com · · Score: 1
      ... Pew pew or Brzzap?

      Neither. But when the missile is done for (in about a minute-and-half at high setting), they'll emit a 2-second beep.

      --
      Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
    3. Re:SO will they go by VvScythevV · · Score: 1

      zOMG LAZERS PEW PEW

      --
      -- Reality is for people who lack imagination.
    4. Re:SO will they go by brogdon · · Score: 1

      I think the actual soundtrack would go something like this:

      "Mmm, I do love a fine day here in Southern Afghanistan. Hmm, need to shave the camel again, gotta remember that. The poppy crop is blooming nicely, that's nice. Hmm, sounds like a plane is going overhead and-- Aaaah! AIIIGH! My head's on fire, my head's on fire! Man that smarts!" [sound of guy sticking his head up a camel's butt to extinguish his flaming hair]

      And yes, I realize this is just an air-to-air point defense mechanism we're talking about, but hey, any excuse to describe people giving burning, first-person rectal exams to camels.

      --


      This tagline is umop apisdn.
    5. Re:SO will they go by TheJorge · · Score: 1
      [sound of guy sticking his head up a camel's butt to extinguish his flaming hair]

      so will that go Pew pew or Brzzap?

    6. Re:SO will they go by stor · · Score: 1

      Ahh thank you.

      "This is gonna be great! We'll be all like pew pew, and they'll be all boom boom, AAARGHH!! And then we'll have pancakes to celebrate and I'll be like, *mmmnmnmnm**mmnmnmnmnm*" -- Fry, Futurama

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    7. Re:SO will they go by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1


      The military has stated that they still do not have a machine that goes "Ping", so it seems logical that this is the sound they would aim for.

  27. Just what the troops need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well ... 1700 lbs seems a little tanky .. but now we know how the military is going to justify the expense of those strength-enhancing bionic suits.

  28. Compact? by Dan+Morenus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I dunno, something the size of "a large fridge" seems pretty bulky to strap to a fighter. Seems more suitable for a bomber somehow.

    --
    -- Conserve binary trees; recycle your email. --
    1. Re:Compact? by Elminst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not really.

      It'd be smaller than a 370 gallon external fuel pod.

      No one said it was gonna be shaped like a cement block.

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    2. Re:Compact? by E8086 · · Score: 1

      The 30mm cannon on an A-10 is a little larger than a refrigerator and most combat jets carry ordinance in excess of 2000lbs, this will be no problem. For the stealth effect the F-22 has an internal ordinance bay, it should be easy enough to modify the bay to carry the laser. I wouldn't be surprised if it was designed to be carried by the F-22. I wonder what one of those will do to a T-72.

      I'd like to see a similar system on a ground vehicle, something like the Avenger in C&C Generals. Put one in a convoy for defence against RPG rounds and mortars. Don't like the looks of that van speding towards your checkpoint? An easy way of taking shooting out the tires, should be able to adjust the power enough so it will melt the rubber but not burn human skin that much or if you think they want to detonate their van near you, increase the power and melt the engine block.

      --
      F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
    3. Re:Compact? by keithcstone · · Score: 1

      True, but a fighter with what looks like two refrigerators strapped under the wings will be mistaken for some guys making a beer run, so it will be steathly. I'm sure the first phrase after they switch it on will be "I said BUD LITE you ^%$hole, not a bright light!".

  29. Great... by Zordak · · Score: 1

    Now all we need is a targeting system that can get close enough, hit a missile with its laser toy, and hold the beam steady on the target long enough to actually destroy it -- all before the missile is able to do its own damage. I'm betting they'd have better luck with kinetic interceptors that at least only have to hit once.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  30. Found the Secret to Liquid Lasers Thermal Dynamics by pvxhound · · Score: 1

    You mean there really was a purpose for all those round rings on the barrels of the sci fi lasers? Guess you just have to be going mach 1 plus to work.

  31. but... by floron · · Score: 0

    the terrorists are ray-shielded, so you'll have to use proton torpedoes

  32. Back to good ol' bullets? by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    Well, we haven't had very good luck shooting down missiles when the platform is stationary. Why they think it'll be easier when firing at a moving target from a moving platform, I have no idea.

    That's not to say that I don't think it makes sense. Air combat these days is all about moving your missiles close, firing them away, and high-tailing it out of there. It'll be interesting to see what happens if missiles suddenly become useless and people have to close to visual range and dogfight away.

    1. Re:Back to good ol' bullets? by Vengeance · · Score: 1

      Now, now. Bear in mind that two trajectories have to be matched in order to intercept a missile with a missile. It's much easier with a hitscan weapon like a laser beam (or railgun). Bots are QUITE good with these kinds of weapons. ;-)

      --
      It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    2. Re:Back to good ol' bullets? by slazzy · · Score: 1

      I think it's more likely they will fire many missles instead of 1, from different directions at the same time. Have fun shooting them down.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    3. Re:Back to good ol' bullets? by Werkhaus · · Score: 1

      I think it's more likely they will fire many missles instead of 1, from different directions at the same time. Have fun shooting them down.

      Finally! A use for my l33t 5k1llz!

      http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=&game_i d=8715

    4. Re:Back to good ol' bullets? by PerlPunk · · Score: 1
      It'll be interesting to see what happens if missiles suddenly become useless and people have to close to visual range and dogfight away.

      If missles become useless because of a laser defense system, to use the laser defense system as an offensive weapon would require a small adjustment. From that point on what will happen are initiatives to armor an aircraft against a directed energy weapon, when someone figures out how to pack a laser on a MIG.

    5. Re:Back to good ol' bullets? by Antony.S · · Score: 1

      You know someone is a gamer when they use the term hitscan when describing a weapon...

    6. Re:Back to good ol' bullets? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Who is "they" in this case? It seems to me this is being developed for use in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where the biggest threat to aircraft is shoulder launched SAMs. One notable thing about these is that they're hard to coordinate, especially if you're spread out and trying to remain hidden. Plus, the news says "cheap" but that's a comparitive thing, especially in places like Afghanistan.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    7. Re:Back to good ol' bullets? by wuffalicious · · Score: 1

      A missile, I'd imagine, is a lot harder to shoot out of the air than a jet. The missile is smaller, faster, and has a very limited timespan in which you have to destroy it. If we wind up with lasers that can wipe out inbound missiles, it seems logical that there wouldn't be much of a dogfight. Whoever fired first would win the day.

    8. Re:Back to good ol' bullets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the DARPA page, it would seem this system might be most useful for something larger and slower than an air-air missle.

      Something like a Scud, perhaps... or whatever our pilots near Seoul might see being launched.

      IIRC, earlier tests showed that you don't have to obliterate a medium-long range missle to render it useless.

  33. A fridge is still a Fridge by JamJam · · Score: 2, Funny

    From TFA:
    The High Energy Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS)...will weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures the size of a large fridge... But the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency reckons it has solved the problem by merging liquid and solid state lasers to cut the size and weight by "an order of magnitude,"
    Great, does that mean it'll eventually get to the size of mini-bar fridge?

    1. Re:A fridge is still a Fridge by raider_red · · Score: 1

      Is there room on a fighter plane to put a large fridge?

      Are you sure they're not referring to the football player?

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    2. Re:A fridge is still a Fridge by hazee · · Score: 1

      Of course you could always just strap an actual fridge to the underside of your F16, and batter the incoming missile with that.

      I daresay that a fridge with a closing velocity of over mach 2 is not something to be trifled with. Particularly if it had been well stocked beforehand with say, cans of beer or something.

    3. Re:A fridge is still a Fridge by cosinezero · · Score: 1

      Missles are heat-seeking, and likely would not hit the fridge. However, you could use the fridge to cool the ...

  34. Hellads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HELLADS

    Advertising from hell? Or is this what the next generation of adware will be called? Oh wait, laser you say...

  35. ouch by pin_gween · · Score: 2, Interesting

    a 150-kW beam and capable of knocking down a missile will be ready by 2007

    Hmmm, I'm torn.

    On one hand, IF it hits its intended target, that is one less "consumable" missile defense that has to be manufactured and paid for--> not a "one and done" defense.

    On the other, it's one thing when stray bullets strafe a school like in New Jersey, but oh my, imagine the holes this could leave.

    --
    Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life

    Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
    1. Re:ouch by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      The nice thing about light is that it falls off pretty good with distance. So, you may be able to get your laser to cook something at a mile or so, but then extend that out to 2 or 3 miles and the light has diffused in the atmosphere and lost the energy it once had. Also, the light continues in the path it was shot along. Bullets on the other hand keep going until they hit the ground and could travel for many, many miles depending on the angle you shoot them at. I have no problem standing under a laser that is pointed upwards and fired. But i don't like the idea of standing underneath a gun as a bullet is fired straight up....because it will be coming back down.

    2. Re:ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when the bullet comes down it will do so at the speed of a rain drop. Not exactly dangerous since bullets aren't too heavy. You might get a bruise or something. Boo hoo.

    3. Re:ouch by pin_gween · · Score: 1

      But when the bullet comes down it will do so at the speed of a rain drop. Not exactly dangerous since bullets aren't too heavy

      Really? You obviously never heard about the dumbass klansmen?

      --
      Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life

      Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
    4. Re:ouch by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      But when the bullet comes down it will do so at the speed of a rain drop. Not exactly dangerous since bullets aren't too heavy. You might get a bruise or something. Boo hoo.

      Moron. A bullet fired straight up will come down and almost the same speed it was launched. Terminal velocity of a raindrop != terminal velocity of a bullet. Bullets shot into the air on July 4 and Jan 1 kill people with irritating frequency because of idiots like you with guns.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  36. Battery system? by Vengeance · · Score: 2, Informative

    How about a honkin' big jet turbine engine?

    Actually, I seem to recall reading (albeit in a 'Popular Mechanics' or some such light fare) about the larger all-liquid versions. These things apparently derived their power from a chemical reaction, the reactants being stored in big tanks. I believe that was a big reason for needing a 747-sized platform.

    --
    It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    1. Re:Battery system? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Sure. Whack a coil around the largest turbine and magnetize some rotating part. Voila', instant armature. Or MHD process from the plasma exiting the burn chamber at high speed? Shouldn't be hard to bulk transfer electrons from that sort of rotational kinetic. 20 plus tonnes of thrust - your generator is already there, you just have to wire it up.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  37. Re:MOD PARENT +5 INFORMATIVE by Zarel · · Score: 1

    Well, considering four out of the first eight top-level posts are shark references, I doubt it's all that obscure.

    --
    Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
  38. MOD PARENT +5 INSIGHTFUL!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sharks with lasers? Haven't heard that one before!

  39. Remember command and conquer generals zero hour by absolutkfx · · Score: 1

    This reminds me alot about general granger who only used planes and almost all of them had a laser defense system. In all seriousness through if this thing could be used repeatedly i think they are better off in helicopters not on jets.

    1. Re:Remember command and conquer generals zero hour by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

      True
      An investment like this can save the lives of thousands of soldiers from random rpg or missle fire.
      Stopping bullets from hitting the copter is another story.

      --
      ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
  40. Pfft! by doormat · · Score: 1

    Forget laser cannons, I want my plasma cannons and fusion ball launchers.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    1. Re:Pfft! by Mukaikubo · · Score: 1

      But laser cannons are absolute cash cows, get you more profit than any other manufacture. So the military can, if they mass produce this, afford to nuke Mars.

    2. Re:Pfft! by doormat · · Score: 1

      Yea, but fusion ball launchers are slightly more profitable, and I always had tons of Alien Alloys left over from missions.

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  41. will weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures the by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    will weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures the size of a large fridge.

    Just perfect for my UAHTV (Urban Assault High-Technical Vehicle).

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  42. Oooo Shiney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ::Puts on my highly-polished tin foil hat::

  43. "They won't know what hit them" by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

    Wow. If anyone has ever played the EA produced game Command & Conquer: Generals, it seems that EA is right on target.

    I will be expecting anti-missle/anti-aircraft tanks(Avengers[C&C:G]), and anti-missle weaponry on military and commercial planes.
    ---
    Posting in an unimportant Slashdot Article Thread.

    --
    ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
    1. Re:"They won't know what hit them" by SoulMaster · · Score: 1

      OR...
      If they had played "Star Control II" about 5 years before C&C, they could have looked at the Earth Ship and realized that Accolade had it right, and even put it on the Earth ship!

      StarCon II, Best Game Ever.

    2. Re:"They won't know what hit them" by cens0r · · Score: 1

      I agree. I play Ur-Quan masters all the time even today.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
  44. Wonderful! by revscat · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that will help tremendously when it comes to protecting soldiers and civilians from getting blown to smithereens by roadside bombs and/or suicide bombers.

    1. Re:Wonderful! by jonniesmokes · · Score: 1

      Maybe it'll act as a box cutter shield too?

      When will we learn that fancy weapons don't protect us from 1920's era opponents.

      But then again, a lot of the hawks still think we're at war with the communists.

    2. Re:Wonderful! by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hmmm...how many minutes until this comment gets marked as a troll? Mine did... http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159996 &cid=13393029

    3. Re:Wonderful! by maetenloch · · Score: 1

      Maybe it'll act as a box cutter shield too? When will we learn that fancy weapons don't protect us from 1920's era opponents. But then again, a lot of the hawks still think we're at war with the communists.

      The best box cutter shield is the 100+ enraged passengers who know they have nothing to lose by attacking a suicidal hijacker. Oh that and the armored cockpit doors. No lasers needed.

    4. Re:Wonderful! by E8086 · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure that will help tremendously when it comes to protecting soldiers and civilians from getting blown to smithereens by roadside bombs and/or suicide bombers."

      You're right, it won't stop anything stationary like roadside IEDs or very hard to detect suicide bombers, but may be able to protect soldiers and ships from RPGs and rockets, like the ones fired at Navy ships in Jordan last week, I don't think firing a Phalanx in a crowded harbor whould be a good idea. If it's a moving car bomb it may be able to melt through the engine and/or detonate the explovsives.

      --
      F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
    5. Re:Wonderful! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      or an armed air marshal.

      and no, a few rounds in the side of a plane will not cause explosive decompression. The hole is to small for much air to leave. You would need to make a hole about 1 foot by 1 foot for something like that..and then iit would on happen until the first body got stuck.

      "Oh that and the armored cockpit doors. "

      that also requires people on the other side with the ability to ignore the screams of the passangers as they are tortured.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  45. measure your fridge from the air? by phil4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    and measures the size of a large fridge. Cool! Lasers have been used for measurement before, but I bet this is the first time the military has been able to measure your fridge in your kitchen from 20,000 feet. The small hole in the kitchen ceiling is a small price to pay for this protection from oversize fridges.

    1. Re:measure your fridge from the air? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      That would be The High Energy Laser Near A Refridgerator Defense System (HELNARDS)

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    2. Re:measure your fridge from the air? by hamsterspeed · · Score: 2, Funny

      As has been observed elsewhere, while measuring your fridge the device can simultaneously heat a very large, specially designed jiffy pop enclosure. Versatile!

      --
      pants
  46. Lasers by mboverload · · Score: 1

    Now we just need to slow light down to 100 miles an hour and we can do r33l star warz.

  47. JSF by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some versions of the JSF will have a laser system installed in the empty cavity used for the second engine in the VSTOL variant. The last thing I read on this suggested that the firing rate would be once every 30 seconds due to cooling requirements. I doubt any F-16 based system mounted on external hard points would be any better.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:JSF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is only one engine in the JSF. That empty cavity is for the lift fan which is driven by the main engine.

  48. Even Better: Laser and F-2 (Japanese Jet Fighter) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Read about the F-2, which now serves as the front-line fighter for Japan. Note the similarity between the F-16 and the F-2.

    That the Pentagon initially designed this laser weapon for an F-16, not the F-117, is due to the fact that the Department of Defense expects the Japanese government to install the same bloody laser cannon on its squadron of F-2's. Due to the structural similarities between the F-2 and the F-16, the cannon will not need any modification.

    With a squadron of F-2's with fully operational lasers, the rather small Japanese air force should be able to deal effectively with the huge squadron of Su-27's and the anti-aircraft missiles used by the Chinese. The liberation of Tibet is at hand.

    The flag of that liberation will have a "Rising Sun" on it.

  49. Look at the bright side ... by DrJimbo · · Score: 1
    There will be no need for warnings such as:
    Do not look into Laser Cannon with remaining eye!

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:Look at the bright side ... by 50m31sl4sh. · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure 150 kW of power would not only leave you without eye, but burn a hole all the way through your head.

      --
      Rediculous is ridiculous!
    2. Re:Look at the bright side ... by DrJimbo · · Score: 1
      That is why I said there would be no need for such a warning. There wouldn't be anything left to warn. I thought it was funny, I still do, but maybe I just have a very sick sense of humor.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
  50. Anti-satellite? by Johnboi+Waltune · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Can it knock out a satellite?

    F-16 operating ceiling = 15.240 kilometers

    Minimum LEO satellite altitude = about 150 kilometers

    I couldn't find any information about the range of the HELLADS system; that information is probably classified. However, TFA claims there will be a 150 kilowatt version of the laser by 2007. Any laser experts know if that power of laser can take out a target 135 kilometers away? Is the idea even feasible?

    --
    "The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
    1. Re:Anti-satellite? by TrevorB · · Score: 1

      Why bother with getting the laser up 15km then?

      Just fire it from the surface.

      Sure there'd be some problems with the atmosphere, but a ground based laser could be hundreds of times more powerful *and* accurate.

    2. Re:Anti-satellite? by imsabbel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Very doubtful.
      The f 16 will be above of >90% of the athmosphere at the ceiling hight, so absorbtion in the atmosphere isnt that big of a problem. But divergence is.
      No matter what movies will make you believe, lasers arent perfectly parallel beams of light.
      Not to go too much into the details, a laser needs to have a large diameter to have a low divergence (hence the used large telecopes for the moon reflection experiments: a 5m laser diameter here will be a few km on the moon, wile a few mm here will be 100s of km there ...)

      I cant see how a jet-fighter mounted version would fullfill the requirements. The lens crossection has to be small enough not to fuck up the aerodynamics of the supersonic plane, and you cant just put a streamlines glasshood in front of hit because of the high pulse energies...

      So you could get some light onto a satellite, but not enough to knock it out...
      Otoh, I think it could be strong enough to permanently blind the CCDs of enemy spy-sats...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:Anti-satellite? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      The problem with lasers in the atmosphere is that they tend to diffuse when projected over long distances which significantly limit their intensity the further the beam travels from the source. It should be possible to calculate the output of the laser that would be required to hit a satellite from the operating ceiling of an F-16 fighter with enough force to damage or destroy the satellite. However, considering that previous air force experiments with lasers involved the 747 jumbo jet as the weapon platform, such a system would probably be too bulky to mount on the F-16 or even larger fighters such as the F-15 or F-14.

    4. Re:Anti-satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been many articles to date suggesting that destroying enemy satellites is a non-goal of the military for fear of setting retaliatory precedent. Not to mention, we're already tracking thousands of bits of space junk up there... blowing up something in space would be a nightmare for NASA.

      Solution? We're going to use space-paintball guns... no joke.. look it up. ;)

    5. Re:Anti-satellite? by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1
      I doubt it due to atmospheric diffusion. Now if you put a few variants of these up in a geostationary orbit they could 'pick off' LEO sattelites as the pass underneath. However the solar panels needed to power them would also make a fairly large target...

      Probably more usefull than laser mounted sharks though.

    6. Re:Anti-satellite? by packed+Lunch · · Score: 1

      Or shark mounted lasers even.

    7. Re:Anti-satellite? by chrisfez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work on a very similar program (Airborne Laser) which has a megawatt-class laser on a 747. I'm just an intern, so I don't know all the classified numbers, but I've been told the range is over 100 km, which could make it possible to reach that high/far. There are a lot of adaptive optics to deal with problems of beam divergence and allow it that range. Shooting upwards also alleviates the amount of absorption since there's less crap the higher you go up. And yes, the laser could theoretically aim upwards, it can rotate 360 degrees.

      Kinda funny actually, my manager and advisor have been gone all day since they're also working on HELLADS. Today was their big DARPA design review.

    8. Re:Anti-satellite? by malakai · · Score: 1
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?


      was that from Diamond Age? The book isn't in the same state as me so I can't check, but it's driving me mad.

    9. Re:Anti-satellite? by zardo · · Score: 1
      Why not just knock down satellites from a ground based laser? They already have them.

      Besides they probably have a missile pointed at every satellite in orbit. Be more concerned with the nuclear warheads coming from the satellites, which is what the OTHER Airborne Laser project is meant to take care of, the one in the 747.

    10. Re:Anti-satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe A Deepness in the Sky?

    11. Re:Anti-satellite? by db48x · · Score: 1

      Yea, A Deepness in the Sky.

      A good book, and a good sig.

    12. Re:Anti-satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I cant see how a jet-fighter mounted version would fullfill the requirements. The lens crossection has to be small enough not to fuck up the aerodynamics of the supersonic plane, and you cant just put a streamlines glasshood in front of hit because of the high pulse energies...

      You should take a look at the ABL 747. Subsonic, good sized beam diameter, around a megawatt beam power, and around 60,000 ft. up...I think it has a good chance of being an effective spy satellite killer.

  51. Power consumption and targeting by w.timmeh · · Score: 1

    It's not clear from TA whether this is a pulse or continuous beam laser. My guess is that it would be pulsed, in order to carry enough energy to actually destroy anything.
    But would the laser not need to be running to be warmed up so it can fire on demand? Would they just switch it on when they get near the combat area?

    Also, targeting may only be a problem as far as moving that fridge around is concerned (well, the objective lens anyway, for want of a better term). Remember that it's a laser - at the distances concerned, it's more or less going to hit it's target instantaneously, or at most a few microseconds after being fired.

  52. Shoot back by cluckshot · · Score: 1

    Corner Reflectors anyone?

    --
    Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
  53. 2nd engine? by wsanders · · Score: 1

    I thought that vertical thruster was just a big fan connected to the main engine by a shaft?

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    1. Re:2nd engine? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I thought that vertical thruster was just a big fan connected to the main engine by a shaft?

      It is. Big ol' ducted fan attached via a clutch mechanism to the engine. In the AF and Navy versions the space is filled by a fuel tank.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  54. That Star Wars Feel by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Now all we need to do is make fighter jets space worthy for that true Star Wars feel.
    In Star Wars, fighters turn and bank as if they had working airfoils, instead of being in a vacuum. So to get that "Star Wars Feel" you have to stay in atmosphere!
    1. Re:That Star Wars Feel by vigilology · · Score: 1

      Inertia?

    2. Re:That Star Wars Feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Playability. People are used to planes, hence the starfighters work like planes. Kinda funny actually.

    3. Re:That Star Wars Feel by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      It also helps to bank into turns so that you get pushed into the seat rather than into the side of the cockpit ... you're much less likely to break your innards that way.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    4. Re:That Star Wars Feel by fm6 · · Score: 1

      But how do you bank, when you have no air to bank with?

    5. Re:That Star Wars Feel by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      I presume that you would back in the same way that you yaw and pitch ... either some sort of small thruster in the manner of Battlestar Galactica, or an internal system of gyros (more likely).

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    6. Re:That Star Wars Feel by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Banking is easy, you just apply thrust to turn your fighter on the side a little.

      As for why: first, you can use big engines on the bottom to change direction, (along with the big engines on the back) and smaller fine maneuvering engines elsewhere to get the big engines pointed the right way. Second, you want thrust in directions that the human body is good at resisting forces. Down and Back are good vectors for high g thrusts, since you can survive thrust in those directions that would kill you in others.

      I have no clue if real space fighters would work that way, but it is a factor the designers will consider.

  55. Fox News Decries Insurgent Skywalker by nick_davison · · Score: 0

    Now all we need to do is make fighter jets space worthy for that true Star Wars feel.

    Why do I get the feeling Fox News won't exactly portray it as heroic when a member of the Iraqi rebellion clips the wing of Lord Bush's experimental craft, sending him spiralling off?

    Bush, like Vader, is [allegedly] afterall a hotshot pilot. Granted, Vader didn't request assignment to Tattoine so he could hide from the clone wars and then rarely even turn up. But he did do a totally sweet photo op on a carrier on the day the war in Iraq was won - all those years ago.

    1. Re:Fox News Decries Insurgent Skywalker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is your point?

  56. Watch where you point that thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that will put an eye out ...

  57. what if it misses its target? by Sebastopol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    will the pulses keep travelling in a straight line and vaporize whatever is in front of them on earth?

    i mean, the laser has to be powerful enough to work at a distance of several km, and a plane is only several km off the ground. normally if a missile does not hit its target it detonates in midair (raining debris on the ground), but this seems a bit more problematic.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:what if it misses its target? by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      That would depend on the angle at which the laser is fired. If it's really intended for anti-missile use, it's likely to be pointed upward, which means that a miss will tend to go away from the Earth, not toward it.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    2. Re:what if it misses its target? by helix400 · · Score: 1

      will the pulses keep travelling in a straight line and vaporize whatever is in front of them on earth?

      Because the jet will be moving and the airborne object to be destroyed will also be moving. If a miss occurred, the laser beam would probably move too fast along the ground to do any damage.

    3. Re:what if it misses its target? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      'will the pulses keep travelling in a straight line'

      Yes, but because the earth is circular all the plane has to do is aim up or even horizontally and the pulses will keep travelling in a straight line right off into space.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    4. Re:what if it misses its target? by Ed+Thomson · · Score: 1

      Doesn't light like travel really really fast?

    5. Re:what if it misses its target? by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      Because the jet will be moving and the airborne object to be destroyed will also be moving. If a miss occurred, the laser beam would probably move too fast along the ground to do any damage.

      A plasma torch moving at mach 2+ is still a plasma torch.

      I would suspect that if it actually intersected with the planet it would do some serious flash damage as it went past.

      Though obviously there is some question as to the thermal retention of the objects it passes through/over on the ground - if it's hot enough to damage a missile it will fry a person, set a house on fire, fill a house full of popcorn...

      Oops! "I think we used too much!" ;-)

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    6. Re:what if it misses its target? by Tlosk · · Score: 2, Informative

      "A plasma torch moving at mach 2+ is still a plasma torch."

      Nice armchair logic. So when is a plasma torch no longer a plasma torch? When it no longer has the characteristics of a plasma torch. If you divide the energy output by the distance it covers while going mach 2 you get a really small amount of energy per square inch that doesn't last hardly any time at all for any given patch. Could you construct something that would still cause damage? Sure, but that would be orders of magnitude greater than the jet mounted laser described here.

      This is the same reason you can whisk your fingers over an open flame and not feel anything but slight warmth. Hold it there for a second though and your skin will start to blister and burn.

      But of course your suggested speed of mach2 is only if it happens to be shooting straight down, any angle and the speed of the laser on whatever it hits will be much slower, although the increased distance mitigates the slower speed for the most part.

    7. Re:what if it misses its target? by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      Nice armchair logic. So when is a plasma torch no longer a plasma torch? When it no longer has the characteristics of a plasma torch. If you divide the energy output by the distance it covers while going mach 2 you get a really small amount of energy per square inch that doesn't last hardly any time at all for any given patch. Could you construct something that would still cause damage? Sure, but that would be orders of magnitude greater than the jet mounted laser described here.

      OK. I'll accept that answer. The problem I see with all this is that if this is designed to hit and destroy a target at range in the air while traveling at whatever high speed then it has to be able to stay coherent and focused at range and at speed which from my "armchair logic" book means that it has to be extremely powerful and is thus a threat to the ground just by virtue of what it's designed to do.

      Do you see where I'm going with this? If it's designed to destroy things at range and at speed then doesn't it's target capabilities and thus potential threat include ground targets as well?

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    8. Re:what if it misses its target? by karoberts · · Score: 1

      No, the pulses will not "vaporize whatever is in front of them on earth", targeting something several km away from you requires the beam to be very focused.

      Therefore, if the beam misses (which is unlikely since the beam would be turned off if the target lock is lost), behind the target the beam would unfocused and not much danger to anything.

    9. Re:what if it misses its target? by tmortn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes but that means a distinct focus on a point. If the firing vehicle were stationary then any miss would remain focused on a single point in front or behind the intended target. Other wise the distance and changing angles to intercept will dictate that a miss will wonder around with the intended focus point as the pivot, and in this case even the intended target is in motion so the pivot point changes as well.

        At high angles the moving beam at the actual impact point (a miss) may be well ABOVE mach 2. At anyrate once you start talking miles a single degree of divergence is going to move the end of the beam a fair distance. IE firing plane is one mile away at 10,000 ft altitude firing at a target one mile away at 5000 ft altitude. Now as they approach or manouver the beam will be continually redirected to intersect the target. But the potential zone for the beam to fall on the ground will continually vary, potentially by a great deal as at high intercepts rates of closeure you can easily have 1mile a second rates with mach 2 capable fighters. but even at lower speeds its doubtfull you will have any specific foucus on a given point other than around the intended target. At low oblique angles to the ground it wouldn't hit for a significant distance anyway and if you are engaging at a relative max of the lethal range (adviseable... ie shoot them as soon as you can) then there will be a minimal distance for the beam to travel that it could do damage even if it were focused, much less if it is wondering all over the place.

      Anyway I am sure if you really wanted to you could work a few geometry examples with planes various distances apart where the firing aircraft has various altitude advantages over the target (otherwise its angled into space if it misses) using a suitable kill radius. As it it expands the time on target will need to be greater to account for atmospheric absorbtion. Anyway take that 150kw number and length of a single fireing sequence. Then come up with a time to kill/maim a human then account for percentage of beam that would impact the target, beam divergence etc... over distance and figure out what the time on target would be in your various engagement scenarios and time on target in event of a miss. Think your going to find its simply not much of an issue relative to already problematic targeting mishaps.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    10. Re:what if it misses its target? by BBPursell · · Score: 1

      If movies have taught us anything, it will end up hitting the MTV satellite, causing it and millions of TVs across America to explode, where the stoned slackers watching those TVs will say, "Whoa! Sweet!" But you'd have to check with Dan Ackroyd and Chevy Chase to be certain.

  58. Countermeasure.... by GeneralEmergency · · Score: 0, Redundant


    ...reflective missiles.

    --
    "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
    GeneralEmergency
    1. Re:Countermeasure.... by fkicker · · Score: 1


      If you mirror the optics on a guided missile, it'd be blind!

      Maybe a reflective missile with some sort of a selective wavelength mirror. Maybe a dichroic mirror or holographic notch filter.

  59. And hopefully... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...someone will mirror the laser beam to blast his face off. We don't need to get ourselves into more trouble with any country, even if the suggestion comes from a private religious extremist.

    1. Re:And hopefully... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      ...someone will mirror the laser beam to blast his face off. We don't need to get ourselves into more trouble with any country, even if the suggestion comes from a private religious extremist.

      Remember Ralph Reed? He left the CC to work quiety around the backdoors of Washington. Consider that the original name for operation Iraqi Freedom was called (regretably) some sort of Crusade. Mistake? I wonder, really.

      These kinds of lasers would be so handy for picking off people like Bin Laden, all we need is line of sight. Sadly this could be used against anyone else "inconvenient."

      Wasn't there a movie about this, where is eventually was space baced and did a giant Jiffy Pop in someone's living room?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:And hopefully... by Centove · · Score: 1
    3. Re:And hopefully... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what happens when countries can afford there own ground based version. How exactly, would we get a plane past one?

      You could even create an unmanned High Altitude dirigable witha few mounted on it.
      Seem like a pretty good border defense system to me.
      So you could get a plane over the border to take out a single target.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  60. MOD PARENT OFF TOPIC by utnow · · Score: 0

    stop telling the mods what to do :D

  61. Why is it called a Defense system? by melted · · Score: 1

    Most, if not all of the US military engagements can be classified as offense, not defense. Why do they call it _Defense_ system, and themselves Department of Defense?

    It's a misnomer really. They should have called it THFS - TowelHead Frying System, because that's what it will really be used for.

    1. Re:Why is it called a Defense system? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      They should have called it THFS - TowelHead Frying System, because that's what it will really be used for.

      The enemy a weapon is used for is almost always different from the enemy or tactical/strategic situation the weapon was designed for.

      Only a fool - and we've got a bunch of those - fails to learn from history.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Why is it called a Defense system? by acaspis · · Score: 1
      Why do they call it _Defense_ system, and themselves Department of Defense?

      I won't care until they starting calling themselves "ministry of love" or something like that.

  62. Cool! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cool if it works. But how does the laser know there's a missle on the way? And how does it keep focused on it while the pilot is trying to pull a 9-G turn? It would take gonads of neutronium to maintain a straight course while the missle is heading your way.

    1. Re:Cool! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Cool if it works. But how does the laser know there's a missle on the way? And how does it keep focused on it while the pilot is trying to pull a 9-G turn? It would take gonads of neutronium to maintain a straight course while the missle is heading your way.

      Because, in Soviet America, all missiles fired at our Glorious Pilots are always detectable and never use counter-measures, all laser cannons always hit their enemy Terror Targets, all Glorious Pilots never suffer ill effects from High-G turns and dives, and our Glorious Leaders are never questioned.

      Now, once they affix the Laser Cannons to my mutated sharks, I'll demand [evil laugh]ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!!!![/evil laugh]

      .

      However, just because we can affix them to planes doesn't mean we should affix them to planes. More likely is we're affixing them to the secure area of the International Space Station as "Long-Range Communication Devices".

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Cool! by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      Slave the laser to the pilot's helmet (like the Russian AA-11 Archer), write some image recognition code to distinguish the missile from the sky and include an IR detector as well. In addition, tie the system to the AWACS, E-2C, Aegis, etc...data networks.

      Finally, give the pilot a switch or button to enable the laser.

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    3. Re:Cool! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      Most missles come from down and/or behind, exactly where the pilot can't see.

    4. Re:Cool! by phriedom · · Score: 1

      "But how does the laser know there's a missle on the way?"

      Getting hit with radar lock is a pretty good indicator. Or, if you're trying to shoot down SCUDs or Silkworms you might rely on an AWACS or something like it to spot for you.

      "And how does it keep focused on it while the pilot is trying to pull a 9-G turn? It would take gonads of neutronium to maintain a straight course while the missle is heading your way."

      How many milli-seconds do you suppose it takes a 150Kw laser to disable surface-to-air missle? Have you seen the "gun-camera" footage of a spotting-laser tracking on a target while the pilot circles it and the laser-guided bomb is in transit? That targeting tech is OLD. I'm pretty confident that the people who do this stuff can recongnize a hostile missle and auto-direct a lightspeed beam from a moving platform to a moving target. It is a lot easier than shooting a missle at a missle from a fixed location.

      --
      Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    5. Re:Cool! by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      Getting hit with radar lock is a pretty good indicator.

      What about infrared-guided missiles?

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    6. Re:Cool! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Getting hit with radar lock is a pretty good indicator.

      What about infrared-guided missiles?

      IR guidance only works at short ranges. If they're shooting IR-only missiles, either a) you're flying too low to the ground to use anything but fast visual arc transit, hope, and determination to avoid getting hit by SAMs, or b) you're being fired on by another plane at short range, in which case you or AWACS had him on radar several minutes ago anyway and know he's there.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    7. Re:Cool! by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      Almost all modern fighters have systems to detect incoming missiles. I'm sure it depends on the tech of the missile, but at the very least they could use radar. As for keeping focused, a system could be designed to keep the laser oriented in the same direction, indepenedent of the plane's path (put the laser on a swivel that gets data from the nav system). This has already been done on the F117A stealth fighters - their air-to-ground "smart bombs" worked by sensing a pulse-coded laser reflecting off the target. That laser originated from the underneath of the fighter, so as the fighter flew over the target, the laser's mount would compensate and keep the laser pointed on the same point on the ground. I'm definitely no expert, but I'd imagine this is how the system would be used.

    8. Re:Cool! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      Having a backward or downward pointing radar on all the time is a very poor idea. It undoes all the stealthyness that's been put into the airplane, and it takes about a $39 Fuzz-buster-like receiver on the bad-guys end to home in on the radar. Not a good thing. The swivel idea would work, but for the fact that if you look at your typical fighter plane, there's darn few or no places where you can mount anything that can see more than an eighth of the sky. Especially on fighters where all the internal space is already committed. And shooting a laser back through the very heated air your plane has left behind is extremely problematical. Your nice focused laser beam wil end up wiggling all over the place more than an itchy toddler in goin-to-church clothes.

  63. F16? by Mortal-God · · Score: 1

    My F's only go up to 12

    1. Re:F16? by jotux · · Score: 1

      you're forgetting the function(Fn) keys on laptops.

  64. Er??? by Whisperingwolf · · Score: 0

    Now let me get this right this thing will weight 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures the size of a large fridge. And they want to put it on a fighter jet? Something tells me this isn't going to work. I suppose if they wanted to put it on a bomber that would work. But then they wouldn't be able to put bombs on the bomber. I just can't see them putting it on a fighter jet. Without sacrificing something else...say fuel.

    --
    The whisper in your ghost.
    1. Re:Er??? by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      F-16's can carry large bombs and fuel tanks, I'm pretty sure it can handle something like this. The hard part is the bulk, the weight isn't too much of an issue.

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
  65. As Cartman would say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HELLADS is HELLA-cool!

  66. Great Scott! by Mike+Savior · · Score: 1

    1.21 GIGAWATTS!

    --
    space is pretty cool.
  67. Great Scott! Or Who's Paying The Power Bill ... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    1.21 GIGAWATTS!

    Now, the next question someone should be asking, is where the heck do you get that kind of power supply ... cause the extension cord off the back of the F-16 sure doesn't run that far ...

    Maybe we are seeing why in Evangelion they had power couplings they had to attack their Giant Robots (ok, beasts whatever) to, and they had massive power cables to power their laser rifles ...

    Methinks we'll be begging the French to let us hook up to their Commercial Size Fusion Reactor to power these ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Great Scott! Or Who's Paying The Power Bill ... by Mike+Savior · · Score: 1

      You've got it all wrong. Mr Fusion, anyone?

      --
      space is pretty cool.
  68. HELLADS, eh? by dariuscardren · · Score: 0

    Can we get a "HELL YEAH!"?

  69. Infra red by theolein · · Score: 1

    Infra-red lasers do not get reflected by shiny things. Most military class lasers operate in the IR spectrum.

    1. Re:Infra red by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Then I gues CDs don't really work.... bummer.

    2. Re:Infra red by Anakron · · Score: 1

      There are materials that are shiny to IR light, too..

      --
      There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
  70. So what if it does? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Where do you think non-laser anti-missle ordinance ends up if it misses?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:So what if it does? by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      Self-destructed?

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    2. Re:So what if it does? by JollyFinn · · Score: 1

      So where does large number relatively small high speed peaces of metal that comes from antimissile missiles after self-destruct go to?

      --
      Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
    3. Re:So what if it does? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      Well, here's a clue - it certainly doesn't simply attentuate after a few hundred metres, leaving nothing behind but a column of hot air... ;-)

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
  71. 747 ABL by LaTechTech · · Score: 2, Informative

    This story reminds me of the ABL...

    Latest article I could dig up:
    http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industrie s/aviation/12380334.htm

    Website about the ABL:
    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/

    --
    I want my! I want my! I want my Eee PC!
  72. Put some rein on those guys by no-body · · Score: 1
    This is not popular, but nevertheless:

    Those Pentagon folks need to get reined back significantly. Human mind dreams up endlessly more gadgets, and what is it for? Destruction!

    US war budget needs to be cut back by 90 %. Money needs to spent elsewhere: education, environment, infrastructure.

    If those stupid polititians cannot get along, they should get locked up in a room with water and bread until they sort out their issues and not suck everyone else. Smart people get along.

    1. Re:Put some rein on those guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sanity in military spending is not something you are going to find in North America ... period. It simply ranges from the ridiculous to the absurd.

      Come north of the border and you'll find a military were troops have recently had to enter a desert-mileu dressed like a forest, because they didn't have proper uniforms. Were we have choppers that can't go up lest they come unexpectly down. Subs (4 subs ... just 4 .. with most weapons removed or not functional) that can't go down with a sure expectation to come back up. A Navy where they still have to count ships armed with 40 mm bofors left over from WWII (and a single machine gun) as 'warships'. An army that is having *ALL* its tanks retired ... and let see .. an airforce about to have 1/3 of its 20 year old fighter jets sent to the boneyard because the government doesn't want to pay to 'modernize' them (whatever that means...). A country where soveignty is asserted for the majority of it's landmass by overflying said landmass in a prop-plane .... once a year.

    2. Re:Put some rein on those guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only the majority of people were "smart" as you say. Until that time that smartness somehow translates into peace loving people, then I will take the realistic approach that there are at any given time at least 20 nations that would try to attack the US if they thought that they could succeed.

    3. Re:Put some rein on those guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say hello when you come back to reality.

      The Pentagon is doing its job.

      And, my friend, I suggest you explore history. In all likely hood, if it were not for man seeking better ways to kill man, we would likley still be living in caves.

    4. Re:Put some rein on those guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I hope you werent trolling because that's actually an awesome idea -- its just not very common for an American to feel that way.)

      But you shouldn't cut their budget by 90% as there is a much more poetic measure you could take: Take the total spending on education in America (53 billion). Add it to NASA's budget (15.4 billion). Ready? Now swap that figure with the combined military spending in America (399 billion).



      If you're American, you may get a kick out of printing this out on A1 and putting it on your wall: Death And Taxes

  73. Star wars feel by lnxpilot · · Score: 1

    But you wouldn't see the beams. Especially in space...

  74. nature of battle by ucblockhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you're saying that in prior wars, the enemy didn't try to blow up vehicles with boobie traps?

    --
    The cake is a pie
    1. Re:nature of battle by susano_otter · · Score: 0

      Not at all. I'm saying that even an un-up-armored Humvee is a huge survivability leap forward from the Jeep, which was the whole point of the Humvee program. Previous wars had a place for the Jeep, and the Jeep performed quite well in its place.

      This particular conflict doesn't happen to be quite as Jeep-friendly as previous conflicts. The lessons the military is learning from this turn of events will be applied in the next conflict... At which point I'm sure some people will promptly complain that the lessons of the next conflict weren't learned in the previous conflict.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  75. It is all relative. by phriedom · · Score: 1

    Well, at least the stray light doesn't leave as much of a mess as spent uranium does. And it doesn't fall back to earth if you shoot it up in the sky.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  76. What they're not saying... by teufelhund · · Score: 1

    In addition to shooting missiles out of the sky, it would also be very effective at zapping people. It's much easier to shoot a beam of light at someone on the ground than it is to fire a hellfire, maverick or JDAM. It moves at the speed of light.

    1. Re:What they're not saying... by Centove · · Score: 1
  77. Quite clearly.... by Deviant+Q · · Score: 1

    With 10 of those 1kW power supplies :-P.

    --
    "May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
    1. Re:Quite clearly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but that is hilarious. Kudos to you! I'm ROFLing it to the point the r0flc0pt3r is about to land in my room.

  78. God damned militarization of everything by said_captain_said_wo · · Score: 0, Troll

    Lasers are for manufacturing, bouncing light off the moon, femtosecondizing some proteins folding, AND NOTHING ELSE.

    1. Re:God damned militarization of everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but its ALWAYS been the military which causes the technology to EXIST and then eventually it sees commerical use. i mean, seriously.. don't you know your history?

      lets just look at WWI/II why don't we?

      penicillin
      rockets (v2) --> the ENTIRE space race
      atomic bomb --> nuclear power
      computers (the polish and brits developing advanced computation machines to crack the enigma)
      submarines
      advanced aircraft technology
            superfortress
            jet engines
      nightvision

      the list goes on and on, war/military has ALWAYS spurred the technological growth. and while there is no major war between two equal (technologically speaking) sides, the (US) military still has perhaps the biggest budget on the planet and thus can afford to build massive lasers without having to establish a commercial benifit (which would come AFTER its been built)

      don't be so naive

  79. When the Good Guys have Laser Cannons by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    the Bad Guys will buy lots of Disco Balls.

    That and giant enormous mirrors and tin foil hats.

    Oh, come on, did you actually think noone would think of it?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:When the Good Guys have Laser Cannons by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the PowerPuff Girls know how to destroy Disco Balls.

  80. They deal with the heat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by transferring it to a liquid that has very high specific heat - this lets them run an array of solid state lasers for about 15-60 seconds, plenty of time to engage & kill an incoming. They then have to cool the liquid to recycle for another engagement. Since they have high velocity air, it doesn't take long to get the liquid temperature back to what's needed to fire the diode array.

    This would make a great airport area defense weapon against MANPADS. Except for the odd erroneous shot at the aircraft....

  81. No, I don't think so. by theolein · · Score: 0

    There are several things to be considered if portable laser weapons are available.

    1.The laser will obviously be tied into the plane's radar and computer, enabling it to track up to 20 targets at once, and fire at the most dangerous one.

    2.The laser will probably not be capable of firing numerous times second in the beginning. That will probably improve with time though.

    3.In the beginning, a saturation attack by many missiles would overwhelm the missile's cooling system, but since in air combat their are not that many missiles fired, it would certainly give the edge to the plane with one.

    4.Lasers are easily impeded by atmospheric disturbances, like smoke, clouds etc. A good way to shield targets would simply be to make a lot of smoke around them. Enemy planes could do this quite easily to defend themselves.

    5.The computers used these days would annull any dogfighting. The computer's ability to track and fire at targets is far far better than any human could be. The result would most probably be drone aircraft firing at one another with the winner being the one with the more powerful laser and better computer.

    6. In addition to the points in number 5, I'm sure this would make advances in radar and thermal stealth important in order to avoid the computer's radar and thermal sensors and allow one's craft to get closer to the enemy. I'm sure that ablative shielding on future drone craft will also eventually become important in order to absorb laser burns. Probably missiles would also be coated in these materials.

    7.Remember that this is all fine for conventional warfare but for guerilla warfare this will still be useless. A huge laser is no more effective against suicide bombers than a cannon or gun is.

    1. Re:No, I don't think so. by Blacken00100 · · Score: 1

      3.In the beginning, a saturation attack by many missiles would overwhelm the missile's cooling system, but since in air combat their are not that many missiles fired, it would certainly give the edge to the plane with one.

      Sidewinders and Silkworms, anyone?

  82. Ah yes, a new measurement unit by Deviant+Q · · Score: 1
    and measures the size of a large fridge

    In addition to our favorite Libraries of Congress, metric buttloads, and the like, we now have... large fridges.

    As in: your momma's so fat, her volume must be five large fridges!

    --
    "May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
  83. liquid vs. chemical vs. solid state. by phriedom · · Score: 1

    So is liquid another name for chemical?

    From what I understand, DARPA spent most of it's laser money in the 80's and early 90's on chemical lasers because they are capable of much higher energy. But the drawback is that they use up their fuel and require huge cooling systems. The truck-mounted lasers and the one in the 747 are chemical lasers.

    And obviously a solid-state laser just needs electricity so that is a lot easier to come by on a battlefield, but solid state lasers have been limited in their power, and have to be pulsed. If a 150Kw solid state laser could be fit to a small plane, you would have a very effective weapon (outside of smoke, clouds, rain) that would not need reloading and wouldn't miss very much.

    So is this new liquid laser a hybrid of the two, or is it a cousin to the solid state laser, or is it an entirely new beast that deserves it's own species? And does it need to be reloaded?

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    1. Re:liquid vs. chemical vs. solid state. by karoberts · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the biggest problem with chemical lasers is not heat, but the output of the chemical reaction. On THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser); while firing, a plume of NF3 would be emitted, which required all personnel to be at least 5 kilometers away.

      Solid state lasers are the one with heat problems. I.e. with supplied electricity at 10% efficiency, (like wall power), that's 90% heat that has to be put somewhere. So for a 150 kW laser, that amounts to 1350 kW of heat. That is a lot of heat to deal with on a fighter plane.

      I would also like to know what they mean by a "liquid" laser. I used to work in the laser weapon industry, and I have never heard of such a thing.

    2. Re:liquid vs. chemical vs. solid state. by phriedom · · Score: 1

      Today's solid-state lasers are 10% efficient? Is that a ballpark figure for pretty-much all solid-state lasers? Or was that just for example? I only have a passing familiarity with low-power laser diodes.

      --
      Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    3. Re:liquid vs. chemical vs. solid state. by karoberts · · Score: 1

      I must admit I am not an expert on solid state lasers either. I have worked only with chemical lasers.

      However, as far as I know, they always use wall outlet power as an example for powering solid state lasers. That is, you could just plug'em in, and they work. The 10% number is just an estimate for the efficiency of wall outlets.

      I would hope for a fighter jet they would use an electricity source that is more efficient.

  84. Just develop and deploy in Guantanamo Bay by weighn · · Score: 1

    If they upgrade the airstrip in Gitmo it wont matter.

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  85. Death Glider by kyoko21 · · Score: 1

    Is this the beginning of the Death Gliders from Stargate?

  86. I hope so by geekoid · · Score: 1

    humans respond very quickly to Audio signals.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  87. never happen by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Satalite detection system will feed aircraft location information to the fighter, thus allowing the to shoot laser at thing vrom a long away, and at the speed of light.

    Something like this could end military aircraft needs. Nothing can respond faster then the speed of light. After all, what is a jet beside a missle that returns to an airfield?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  88. correct me if I'm wrong... by graveyardduckx · · Score: 0

    but won't people just start putting mirrors or other highly reflective surfaces on their missiles?

  89. "M16s are not designed to kill"... by steve_ellis · · Score: 2, Informative
    I believe that this statement is normally attributed to the SS109 round, not M16s in general.

    The typical claim is that SS109 bullets are dynamically unstable in flesh, though they are stable in flight, so they begin to tumble upon entry, doing lots of damage along the way.

    Personally, I find this claim doubtful, though I have no hard evidence one way or the other.

    1. Re:"M16s are not designed to kill"... by garignak · · Score: 1

      Actually, it may be attributed more to the 55gr FMJ bullet in the US M193. It not only tumbles, it fragments, creating a devasting wound cavity. The SS109 also tumbles and fragments, but it doesn't do so as quickly or completely as the 55gr FMJ. For more information take a look at the AR15.com Ammo Oracle.

      --
      "Sometimes a man's gotta do what a woman wouldn't consider." - Red Green
    2. Re:"M16s are not designed to kill"... by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      This is using off-the-shelf ammo, but I've dug 5.56x45 rounds out of both dirt and wooden backstops and find them almost always bent (from tumbling?) and usually in sideways.

  90. Imortant note by geekoid · · Score: 1

    American military pilots have gonads of neutronium.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Imortant note by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Canadian military pilots fly with their gonads.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  91. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post just made me laugh because every one of the things you complain about have been done by a Republican administration in the Whitehouse. Spelling it out, that'd be presidents sending troops to "war" before Congressional authorization (Nixon, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.), presidents building large weapons programs (pretty much every Republican in recent memory), and presidents incurring large national deficits (pretty much the same).

    Yet your /. username is NRAdude. Makes me wonder which party you generally vote for.

  92. HELLADS by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 3, Funny

    High Energy Laser Area Defense System

    I think Gasseous Optical Nuetral Area Defense System would have been a better name. What do you suppose would instill more fear in the enemy?

    "Run for your life! The HELLADS are coming!" ...or

    "Run for your life! The GONADS are coming!"

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:HELLADS by dascandy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      HELL-ADS?

      I suppose Adblock will get an update sometime soon...

    2. Re:HELLADS by StuckInSyrup · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Kill the enemy pilots with hellish popup advertisment on their HUDs

      --
      Ni.
  93. OTOH by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If Europe would pay back the US for are protection, then we could diverta Lot of tax payer money into other things.

    Do you think the stability in Europe happened to coinicide with a large non-european force baby sitting everybody? europe used to be as bad as the middle east.

    As to your question, a powerfull laser could also make air warfare obsolete.
    A lot of money spent on 'destrustion' is actualy saving lives because it is incredibly more accurate then technology used 60 years ago.

    Think, then talk.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:OTOH by bibbib · · Score: 1

      If the US had to pay back all the money they earned due to industrial espionage they did "coincidentally" with these nice little 20m dishes - of course only used to save us from the evil russians - a lot of money would come back!

      Don't misunderstand me - in the last century the US did a great job in europe - but the US has a really strong tendency to forcefully bring every body in the world "democracy" (hey in this matter you also have to learn a great deal again!) and of course civilization. During doing this they tend to be ignorant for local customs and culture (yes - there are ways of living other than the US way), piss up locals and create terrorists (some of them call them-self freedom fighters)!

      - or is it not only about bringing civilization but also control some oil....

      I honor what has been done but I don't like the myth of selflessness!

      Europe/Germany

    2. Re:OTOH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O_o

    3. Re:OTOH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough of this payback mentality crap. Europe is very capable of defending itself, the US is not needed. The thing that is needed is for the West to stand on one page, as one, no more fratricide!
          The only reason the US is still there is because it enhances US power. It's not some fucking charity going on. Megalomania is not about charity silly rabbit its about control!
          And yes US citizens for the most don't know war they are clueless , sheltered, ignorant.
          And for air forces becoming obsolete,
      they use lasers is Star wars and they still have "air forces" duh god you really are a visionless twit aren't you. They would just fight at greater ranges twit bulb.
      And by the way are is not our, fuk nut.

    4. Re:OTOH by Mac+Degger · · Score: 2, Informative

      "If Europe would pay back the US for are protection, then we could diverta Lot of tax payer money into other things."

      Ah! Now I understand why the US is trying to force it's RI/MPAA and copyright/patent laws on Europe!

      "europe used to be as bad as the middle east."

      True...but that was in the 18th century...about when you had some unrest too.

      "a powerfull laser could also make air warfare obsolete."

      Yup...just like missiles made dogfighting obsolete.

      "[x] is actualy saving lives because it is incredibly more accurate then technology used 60 years ago."

      Hoo-boy, do you have an awfully simplistic and very much incorrect view of the world. History has taught us that technology makes for BLOODIER wars instead of les bloody wars. Look at what happened when the (cross)bow was introduced...or gunpowder, or cannon, or the machinegun. Bodycounts went up, as did civilian casualties.
      And since you mention the last sixty years (conveniently discounting Hiroshima et al), what happened in Korea? Or Vietnam? Or the Balkan? HUGE civilian losses. Now tell me that "A lot of money spent on 'destrustion' is actualy saving lives because it is incredibly more accurate then technology used 60 years ago.".

      That's just bullshit; have the balls to just tell it like it is: a lot of money spent on 'destruction' is actually spent on making technology more accurate so we can kill more people in a shorter span of time.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    5. Re:OTOH by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Well, in defense of the general idea, the point of killing more people in a shorter amount of time is generally to keep them from killing you first. In this context the lives which the war was intended to protect are protected more effectively by better technology.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    6. Re:OTOH by milimetric · · Score: 1

      Spellcheck, then post.

      "for are protection"
      "diverta Lot"
      "accurate then technology" (than)

  94. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

    I love your writing style - it reminds me of a Star Wars into crawl.

    Episode IV: A New Lack Of Hope

    It is a period of civil war. Rebel guerrillas, striking from hidden bases, have won their first victory against the PENTAGON. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to America's ultimate weapon, the MISSILE FRIGATE, an armored aircraft with enough power to destroy an entire peaceful wedding party.

    Pursued by the sinister agents of CONGRESS, Princess Raghad Hussein races home aboard her taxi, custodian to the stolen plans that can dominate her people and change type of tyrannical rule in force in the country.

    --
    Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
  95. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by jericho4.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    See, the thing about soldiers is; they need to kill people. As a society far removed from our warrior class, that still seems to need to fight wars, we are uncomfortable seeing this perceived callousness. We are collectively shocked when we see photos of US soldiers abusing prisoners, but then demand that those same soldiers find the aggression needed to hunt down humans and kill them. It is impossible for most psyches to kill a human they have not dehumanized.

    The answer to this paradox, IMO, is that war is simply incompatible with civil society.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  96. Incorrect statement by geekoid · · Score: 1

    the originals had a round so long it would tumble and seriously maim someone. So they where changed.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  97. If I told you, I'd have to kill you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are in _part_ correct about current _deployment_ of said laser technology. However, if you're under the mistaken notion that we don't have _older_ laser systems (much less current ones) to knock out satellites, you couldn't be more wrong than Panama Jack wearing argyle socks. We've been knocking out satellites (namely Russian ones) since the mid 80's...

    That is all.

  98. Insensitive Clouds by lullabud · · Score: 1

    I think most clouds are sensitive. That's just a guess by observing them though. I mean, look at Enya videos, they have fluffy dreamy clouds. Then there are the insensitive ones like that Lakitu guy, which I'd say was the target of the "insensitive cloud" statement in question.

  99. Will the first test target be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A house filled with popcorn?

  100. Forbidden and yet, outdated by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Who cares what the Geneva convention says about lasers. Everyone knows that the exhaust ports will be ray shielded, so they are already an irrelevant technology. The important thing is who is research on proton torpedos comming along?

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  101. Going out on a limb here by geekoid · · Score: 1

    but at the speeds the star wars fighters must be going, a 90 degree turn wouldn't be wise.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  102. F-16? by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    Hell, we need to put them one one of these:
    http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/f104.html

    HAHA it's a Starfighter! Get it? HAHAHAHAHAHA :-P

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  103. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by JLF65 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    We put those people into the military so they'd kill people in other countries rather than back home.

  104. Colored Lasers by El+Kevbo · · Score: 1

    Let's make sure we keep the blue lasers for the good guys and only sell/export red ones to the bad guys.

  105. So what is the range when pointed straight up. by mpn14tech · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a an anti-satellite platform to me.

  106. Where's Artoo? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    Without Artoo, it's NOT an X-wing!

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    1. Re:Where's Artoo? by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Or for that matter, seethreepeeoh.

      Dude, it's spelt R2.

    2. Re:Where's Artoo? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      And it's pronounced Artoo - and that's how a lot of people spell it, too.

      You obviously are not a Star Wars fan.

      Nobody ever spells C3PO that way, although they call him Threepio and sometimes spell it THAT way.

      Dude.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  107. These Aren't Laser Cannons by jonathanbearak · · Score: 5, Informative

    I went to U.S. Airforce Space Readiness Briefing while I was a Congressional intern this summer.

    Lasers were covered and I had a brief chat with the Air Force representative after the briefing.

    The USAF is sticking lasers in 747's and the army is testing ground-based systems.

    The aircraft-based lasers cannot inflict any physical damage. They are powerful enough to scramble electronics. The goal is to target a missile shortly after it is launched so that its guidance systems fail and the missile lands in the enemy's territory, never reaching its target (us). Their goal is to use this as a powerful deterrent by making it very risky to launch missiles.

    The ground-based systems can inflict physical damage, but are nowhere close to being airborne (they're much too massive). They are, as I was told in July, still "in the lab." (I later saw a full-page ad in "The Hill," a capitol hill newspaper, promoting Lockheed Martin's ground-based laser systems as though they were about ready. I'll trust the USAF officer's discussion more than the corporate advertisement.)

    A key misunderstanding of lasers is in the kind of damage they inflict. Lasers will poke holes through objects but do not cause a target's destruction or explosion -- however, shooting through or over-heating a target's fuel tank will cause an explosion. And of course, to re-emphasize my major point, we don't have airborne laser cannons --- their goal is basically to inflict a kind of EMP-like damage to missiles. I asked about getting these things into UAV's and was told they'd love to do it, but don't expect anything for another 50 years.

    1. Re:These Aren't Laser Cannons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you have to have clearence for that briefing?

    2. Re:These Aren't Laser Cannons by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, all the terrorists are on fark, photoshopping pictures of Bush.

    3. Re:These Aren't Laser Cannons by Anthony · · Score: 1

      Good question. Lucky he posted Anony ...Oh wait.

      --
      Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
    4. Re:These Aren't Laser Cannons by ksheff · · Score: 1

      looks like your source either didn't know about this development or pulling your leg on the timeline.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    5. Re:These Aren't Laser Cannons by khallow · · Score: 1
      I asked about getting these things into UAV's and was told they'd love to do it, but don't expect anything for another 50 years.

      Got to wonder about your sources, if they're telling you stuff like that.

    6. Re:These Aren't Laser Cannons by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Lasers will poke holes through objects but do not cause a target's destruction or explosion -- however, shooting through or over-heating a target's fuel tank will cause an explosion.



      Usually, poking holes into things is a quite practical approach to destroying them.

      And as far as missiles go, they do have lots of parts that don't take too well to having holes burned into them - rocket fuel, warheads, guidance electronics and the like

    7. Re:These Aren't Laser Cannons by cpghost · · Score: 1

      I asked about getting these things into UAV's and was told they'd love to do it, but don't expect anything for another 50 years.

      This is actually an energy density problem. You need to store a LOT of energy for a single blast; and the current generation of light UAVs would not be able to carry that much load.

      Of course, one could power such a laser with a small tactical nuke (of course just once!), but we're still talking subnuclear smart warfare here...

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    8. Re:These Aren't Laser Cannons by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      Um, 50 years? Did you ask if he was kidding you? Considering the current state of laser weapons in the lab, the ABL (air borne laser) program, other ground-based lasers, and laser communication systems in space, I would be willing to bet that we'll see something a LOT earlier than 50 years. Where were we in 1955? Where are we today? Where were we in 1985? Where are we today? Catch my drift? The rate of technological developments is exponential. Each subsequent development enables us to make new developments faster.

    9. Re:These Aren't Laser Cannons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the ferderally appoved FUD disclaimer

      "If they really knew the truth, why would they tell you?"

  108. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Liam+Slider · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The answer to this paradox, IMO, is that war is simply incompatible with civil society.
    Problem with this is...not all societies are civil. And if the civil ones give up the means with which to defend themselves, the uncivil ones will destroy them.
  109. So what happens if...? by vyruss000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So what happens if the (intended target) missile's surface is extremely reflective?

    (Honest question, I don't know...)

    1. Re:So what happens if...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not much.

      First, extremely reflective and cost-effective don't get along very well. Second, the laser light has momentum, and that gets transferred to the missle whether the light bounces off or is absorbed. Third, absorbtion is still going to be high enough that at these energy levels to get melt/burn and a further dropoff in reflection relatively quickly. Fourth, any guidance sensors are going to be vilnerable no matter how you make the rest reflective.

      So, with a highly-reflective coating, you have an expensive missile that gets knocked off course, partially melted, and stripped of any guidance.

  110. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by droopycom · · Score: 1

    In your case NRA would stands for "Not Reading All the way"....

    In his case... well If you cannot figure it out by now, its hopeless...

  111. Quick someone... by OfNoAccount · · Score: 1

    ...pass me a mirror, it's the darned USAF again!

  112. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    The answer to this paradox, IMO, is that war is simply incompatible with civil society.

    That's a bit overoptimistic and utopian. As long as somebody has what someone else wants, there will be conflict. And as long as there is conflict, there will be war.

    Just because we as humans are aware of it doesn't mean we can change it. From bacteria to humans, competition breeds conflict. That's not about to change.

  113. And don't you just know ..... by The+Mgt · · Score: 1

    ... that it'll cost a fortune and wont work worth a damn.

  114. Bessel Beams by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

    You can minimize diffraction over distance with a Bessel beam. Maybe someday we'll have Bessel beams with a Rayleigh (equivalent) range of 150 km--I don't follow the research closely enough to know for sure. Slashdot needs more OEs.

  115. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 4, Funny
    It's bad enough to militarily compete with China, a country where the people outweigh and outnumber Americans ten fold.
    Outnumber definitely. Outweigh never! Americans are the most substantial people on earth, and they've got the jelly rolls to prove it. China simply can't compete in the corpulence compartment, dude.

    By the way, you write like a schizophrenic dope head. Nothing personal. I'm just glad you're in the NRA.

  116. Yeah, but... by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    This mirror will have to have very aggressive cooling.

  117. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by stoanhart · · Score: 1

    "It is impossible for most psyches to kill a human they have not dehumanized." Not if you are the invading army, and there is a known resistance. If you know someone will kill you if you don't kill them first, you do not need to dehumanize them. You will find the ability to kill them becasue of your own instinct to survive.

  118. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just writing to say that that is one stupid post. I know several soldiers and the need to "kill people" is not something that is in their nature. If need be, they will kill and do so effectively. That is a big difference than making them out to be mindless robots intent on killing.

    What an ignorant post.

  119. heavy by binarybum · · Score: 1

    750kg sounded heavy for an F16 to me, but after looking at this, it actually seems pretty reasonable.
        ps. clicking this link will likely open up a permanent record for you with homeland security - gotta love the patriot act.

    --
    ôó
  120. Two sharks? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    I don't know about two sharks, but a large school of angry Sea Bass could do the job.

    Monty Python would use an unladen swallow.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Two sharks? by Flamsmark · · Score: 1

      It would clearly no longer be 'unladen' once it was carrying the 750kg fridge laser. But more to the point, would it be an african or european swallow?

      --
      copyright © 2005 Flamsmsmark the ravings of a melancholly i
    2. Re:Two sharks? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      African or European? - European, the Africans can't afford olympic strength steroids.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re: Two sharks? by gidds · · Score: 1
      But, of course, sea bass are non-migratory...

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    4. Re:Two sharks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they don't need them, what with their genetically superior muscle structure and all.

  121. Did Chris Knight invent this? by BBPursell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it just me or do you think that someone was just watching "Real Genius" and turned it into a news story? I mean, they're talking about a "chemical laser, but in solid, not liquid form." (that's a quote from the movie and almost identical to the press release). Also they talk about achieving an "order of magnitude." It's like they turned that one scene into an article. So, I guess after everyone goes out drinking to celebrate, Laslo will convince them to sabotage the whole project...

  122. How freakin' cool by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    Not only is 15kW enough to knock out a missile, it's enough to burn holes in things like fuel tanks, etc. of opposing aircraft.

    But finally we're stepping into weapons of the 21st century and beyond. All I want is my portable 1kW laser. Actually doesn't even need to be that powerful. The 150W CO2 lasers I once used could cut through metal. I imagine they'd cut through human tissues at much lower power levels. Hell, the 25W laser engravers could do metal too.

    Imagine the look on the face of a perp when you announce that you aren't just going to shoot him/her but vaporize them.

  123. Re:Power Source? A:You are bidding on a... by munchymuncher · · Score: 1

    Caterpillar 1750 kW Standby Diesel Generator and the starting bid is only $240,000.00. It looks a little bigger than an F16, but it will get you started fer sure. Ebay, baby!

  124. I'm glad that nature doesn't listen to you by crovira · · Score: 1

    Its the perception of nature as a 'killer' world, red in toooth and claw, with its roots in 18 century England, that's part of this problem.

    Symbiosis plays a much larger role, right down to our own cell structures, that competition. Things have a habit of trying to find 'unoccupied' niches rather that directly compete. That's a decidedly human trait.

    I'm not saying that there's no predation, there is and it tastes good, but there's far less competition than you think.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:I'm glad that nature doesn't listen to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell structures don't have ideology. When someone is blowing up himself and a bunch of infidels just so he gets 72 virgins, things are of a different story.

    2. Re:I'm glad that nature doesn't listen to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > It's the perception of nature as a 'killer' world, red in toooth and claw, with its roots in 18 century England, that's part of this problem.

      As for the current war, the last time I checked, fundamentalist Islam goes back further than Jolly Olde England in the 18th century. More like the 8th century.

      As for the notion of nature, red in tooth and claw, that goes back 4.5 billion years further than even the 8th Century AD, never mind the 18th.

      Speaking of which -- you, me, Osama, and Bush, are four of the baddest 6 billion motherfuckers to walk, crawl, swim, or fly around on this planet in over 4.5 billion years. With the caveat that our current bad-motherfuckerdom has very little bearing on whether or not our descendants (as opposed to, say, the descendants of today's cockroaches) get to contemplate the same thing from the first ships to reach the Galactic Core a billion years from now, we are here because we out-ate, out-fucked, and out-killed everything that came before us.

  125. No but the target will make a sizzling sound by crovira · · Score: 1

    and, if they used an X-Ray laser, you'll get Hell(ad) from a nurse for not wearing a lead apron.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  126. Hmmm... by bloggins02 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how well it will cook popcorn?

  127. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the most blatant karmawhore I've ever seen on Slashdot.

    "See, the thing about soldiers is, they need to kill people"

    You don't know many soldiers do you? Yours is a fuzzy sentence but it's hard to read it in any other way than that you're saying they have some basic need to kill out of their own volition. Some people do have such a need but those aren't fit for anything really, least of all things military duty (yes they get screened out and denied). Does killing and war break some people? Of course, but extremely few have a "need" to kill, quite the opposite.

    If you have a society that makes every soldier into a "must-kill" caricature of the human beings they are well then the military is truly the least of your problems. The only society I know of where this could be even remotely close to being the case is North Korea (and even there it's unlikely that even if they try to do it they actually succeed).

    Soldiers are human and it doesn't make sense to take the "human" out of them - it is counterproductive and realized to be so by just about everyone associated with any modern military force (which excludes people who think children suicide bombers is a good idea or communism and facism which instigated programs like Hitlerjugend and Red Pioneers).

    "The answer to this paradox, IMO, war is simply incompatible with civil society"

    You're beating Jacques Chirac, the master of the art of speaking without saying anything, at his own game here - are you a politician?

    FYI I'm a former military officer in a european country and I can assure you that my opinon on this is not in the minority.

    1. Re:Wow by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2
      How about "the thing about soldiers is, they are needed to kill people"?

      I didn't mean to suggest that they are themselves are less human or mindless, just that the fact remain that they must kill people, and that that can not be sanitized.

      Infantry use derogatory names for the enemy, they hoot and holler after a kill, and they do lots of other things that people don't like to think about. The OP thought that was inappropriate.

      Yeah, the last bit was pretty trite. How about "There will always be a disconnect between what we want our army to be, and what they have to be to get the job done."?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI I'm a former military officer in a european country and I can assure you that my opinon on this is not in the minority.


      Unless you're from the UK, the translation is: "I'm a combat ineffective feel-good pussy," and your opinion doesn't carry a hell of a lot of weight. When I served the rest of the European soldiers were inept, lazy, and lacked the warrior ethos. They were fine police officers for the most part though.
    3. Re:Wow by bigtangringo · · Score: 1

      yes they get screened out and denied

      Really now? I'm willing to wager you're dead wrong, particularly considering enlistment is rather, ah, low at the moment.

      You're also wrong in how you interpreted what was said. The OP wasn't stating soldiers are inherently homocidal maniacs. Rather, that unfortunately, their sole reason for their job is to facilitate the early termination of another human's life.

      --
      Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
  128. JSF by wired_parrot · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe the Joint Strike Fighter program was already considering the concept of a laser-mounted weapon. As I recall, the Marine version of the JSF has a large ducted fan in the center to provide VSTOL capability. Since the Air Force and Navy wouldn't be needing that ducted fan, that large space in the middle of the fuselage, with substantial power already provided in place by a driveshaft from the engine, would make a natural selection for implementing a high-energy laser weapon.

  129. The most impressive part. by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

    When we were kids, we were right!!!

    When fired, the cannon goes BEW! BEW!

  130. Oh, the hilarity! by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1
    Laser Cannons Coming to an F-16 Near You
    Did anyone else read that as, 'Laser Cannons Coming to a Shark Near You' ?

    Oh wait this is slashdot...

  131. Nope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now all we need to do is make fighter jets space worthy for that true Star Wars feel.

    No, now all we need to do is slow down the laser beam enough to see the pulse traveling through the air for that true Star Wars feel.

  132. And there weren't. by crovira · · Score: 1

    There were more traffic deaths in the 'States that there were casualties in the WAR in Iraq.

    But the toll of the PEACE is Iraq is just a tad more that the American population would like.

    Its a good thing that Bush is a lame duck. I don't think he could win reelection again the way things are there and here right now.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  133. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "From bacteria to humans, competition breeds conflict."

    Individual conflict is not war, war is a group behaviour that has only been observed in humans and (possibly) chimps. I agree that war is part of our basic nature, it is born from the failure of politics. This does not mean we have to encourage the failed "politicians" who resort to blowing up London busses or mud-hut villages. It simply means our natural tendency is to support our "leader's" blood-lust, if more people were aware that this tendency exists in ALL humans then humanity as a whole would be better equiped to reject a failed politician's call for war.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  134. I dunno. by foxtrot · · Score: 1

    If someone's got this thing mounted on his F16, a laser device that can shoot flying objects... I just can't see being his wingman.

    -JDF [Whose karma just got -1 Pun'd to death...]

  135. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by jericho4.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It was badly worded. I meant soldiers are needed to kill, not that they have a need to kill.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  136. Re:HELLADS? Hell Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is likely that they are using diode pumped fiber lasers - likely from IPG in Oxford MA. Fiber lasers are putting out near diffraction limited spot size at 20kW.... this is what they are putting out the fromt end commercially for materials processing... so lust imagine what they are doing for black mil type stuff.

    Also worth talking a look at the DARPA program called SHEDS - this is a drive to develop Super High Efficiency Diode Lasers.... they are shooting for 80% currently a company called Alfalight is in the 73? efficient range... meaning that 73% of electrical power going into the diode comed out as friggin laser beam!

    Anyhow these diodes are used to pump a doped fiber which put's out a highly convergent beam. to boot the wavelength at around 1000nm absorbtivity is high, and doesn't get a lot of atmospheric interference.

    back in 2000 the took John Dalton (Cinton's Sec of the Navy) as their president - this has to be helpful when trying to score mil contracts

    read something about these type lasers being used to kill mines form hummer mounted unit much lower power rating but gives some clue what is posible with higher efficiency lasing systems.... sweet application.

    weirder still IPG's lead sales guy is "Bill Shiner" ... Shiner. go figure

    -Swanson LPI

  137. need a little more than just lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Now all we need to do is make fighter jets space worthy for that true Star Wars feel."

    Need to develop a space program first!

  138. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Dread_ed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It is impossible for most psyches to kill a human they have not dehumanized

    You give people alot of credit where none is due. People do not have to dehumanize anyone to kill them. Case in point? Most murders (76%) are comitted by people that know the victim. 22% of the murders in 2002 were comitted by family members.

    Logically it would semm to be much more difficult to "dehumanize" (whatever the $%^@ that referrs to in a psychological sense) someone that you know personally than a total stranger. Seems to me like it takes knowing someone to be able to to kill them, not the other way around.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  139. Can I call, by NidStyles · · Score: 0

    BULLSHIT on that one? Seriously when will they start thinking a little more realistic in their approaches.

    --
    Yes, I said it.
  140. Correction, 5.56mm NATO is 5.56mm x 57mm by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

    You're thinking the Russian 5.45mm x 39mm round I think.

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    1. Re:Correction, 5.56mm NATO is 5.56mm x 57mm by aaronl · · Score: 1

      5.56x45 is designated as STANAG 4172. That is the current standard round for NATO forces. Many weapons have been moved to use it as their normal round after it was accepted in the 70s as the NATO standard rifle round.

  141. What about helicoptors? by socreets · · Score: 1

    The fighter jet may be sexier but it's already packed with as much stuff as possible in an aerodynamic shell, so fitting a refrigerator size laser into it would be a lot harder than just mounting it on one of those large transport helicoptors.

    Then all they would have to do is line them up in formation and shoot down all the missiles and artilery that is shot at the most important bases and troops.

  142. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by RicktheBrick · · Score: 0

    This weapon would be the greatest self defense weapon yet as it could easily be made transportable so it could fire and than seek out a place to escape any retaliation. Why would we need an air force as we could just line the border with these lasers. I would hope that they could cause a projectile fired from a 16 inch cannon to explode in mid air those freeing South Korea from the threat caused by the North Korean many large cannons placed along the border with the South Koreans. We should get rid of all of our surface fleet as we could place a laser on a submarine and it could surface long enough to fire on targets directed by satellites and than re-submerge. I would hope that we could give them to Taiwan, South Korea and than they could defend themselves without any help from our military. I would hope that this weapon could allow us to withdraw most of our troops stationed abroad.

  143. Yo Joe! by Yeechang+Lee · · Score: 1
    Reuters is reporting that the US Pentagon is designing a laser cannon that's small enough to fit onto a fighter jet yet powerful enough to knock out a missile.

    The Defense Department is wasting valuable taxpayers' money. Does no one at the Pentagon remember that GI Joe (the code name for America's highly-trained special-mission force) *and* Cobra (a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world) had fighter jets with lasers *twenty years ago*?!? Not to mention laser tanks and laser pistols. Heck, even Shipwreck's old fashioned-looking flintlock shot laser beams. There are even highly-detailed blueprints available on the Web!

    Now all we need to do is make fighter jets space worthy for that true Star Wars feel.

    Yet again, the government forgets that it had fighter jets (with lasers) in space twenty years ago! Sheesh!
  144. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Until all the world is a civil society, there will be the possibility of war and the need for civil society to defend itself. The solution to the dehumanization and aggression problems that you mention are solvable via the institutions which "manage" these functions in society.

    Torture and violations of human rights didn't happen simply because we taught a our guys to kill. They happened because the institutional protections broke down. When Gonzales wrote his memo stating that the Geneva Convention was quaint, the President and the rest of the civilians in charge of the military showed where priorities lay. By not showing the required leadership, they failed to fulfill their duties and minimize the risks of such self-defeating actions taking place.

    Had their been leadership shown or at least a sense of accountability within the institution, as there has been in the past, we would not have seen this much abuse, nor would it have weakened our global standing as much. The spin of a few bad apples is fooling no one outside of the US, which makes one wonder why half the population of the US and it's executive institution believe they can bullshit their way through the problem of global terrorism and radical fundamentalists.

    --
    Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
  145. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by wizarddc · · Score: 1

    That explains why people who are war supporters seem to be incompatible with civil society.

    --
    Th
  146. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Torture and violations of human rights didn't happen simply because we taught a our guys to kill

    Right. It happened because some people are assholes, and some of them got jobs with the National Guard, just like some got jobs with the Post Office, and some work the cubicle down the hall from you. Further, some are in the chain of command supervising (or not, in this case) the people pulling guard duty at a prison. If your theory is correct, and this is policy all way from the top, there would be many, many more instances of what we saw in that particularly disfunctional unit. We're talking about a force of a couple hundred thousand people. What's your ratio of losers per thousand people you know? How about of losers per thousand bosses?

    No accountability within the organization? Do you even personally know any people in the armed forces?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  147. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The answer to this paradox, IMO, is that war is simply incompatible with civil society.

    Sometimes I think it's just people that are incompatible with civil society.
  148. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
    "It is impossible for most psyches to kill a human they have not dehumanized You give people alot of credit where none is due. People do not have to dehumanize anyone to kill them. Case in point? Most murders (76%) are comitted by people that know the victim. 22% of the murders in 2002 were comitted by family members. Logically it would semm to be much more difficult to "dehumanize" (whatever the $%^@ that referrs to in a psychological sense) someone that you know personally than a total stranger. Seems to me like it takes knowing someone to be able to to kill them, not the other way around.

    Exactly. For the most part, only a family member or very close friend can push your buttons effectively enough to drive you to murder. Strangers? Bah! Gotta be crazy to want to murder someone you don't know.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  149. OT: Re:OTOH by subtropolis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everything the US did in Europe in the last century was seen as in the best interests of the US. Many Europeans found that that suited them just fine and have been forever grateful. But to suggest that 'Europe' has any obligation to the US is stupid. There were no US towns firebombed. It wasn't US citizens of being herded into camps outside Tulsa. Tanks didn't obliterate an entire county in Virginia.

    Fact is, 'Europe' knows what all that shit is about. And too many in the US don't have a fucking clue. Tie a yellow ribbon, man.

    As to your question, a powerfull laser could also make air warfare obsolete.

    You do realize that the same was said for gunpowder. And the Gatling gun. And the battleship, aeroplane, tank, gas, a-bomb...

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    1. Re:OT: Re:OTOH by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Right. When the gatling gun was invented, air warfare WAS obsolete. The combat uses of a tethered baloon run on hot air with a suspended wicker basket were and are rather limited.

      Or perhaps you should actually READ the statement you're quoting, eh?

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  150. WTF? by zardo · · Score: 1
    You would actually be better off with some sort of ceramic surface that can absorb all the heat and diffuse it in the air running past the missile than you would reflecting it. Nothing reflects light perfectly.

    They need a +1 Stupid funny, seriously. That's the kind of thing a little kid says when he's playing army with his friends. "Dude, I shot you!" "No you didn't, I used my turbo boosters, your bullets can't hit me!", "No dude, I shot you with my LASERS!", "Well I had a mirror and I shot it back at you!", "NO FAIR!"

  151. Gotta love the Yank's WOMD by vandan · · Score: 0, Troll

    The Yanks must be stopped. They are stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. But what's worse, they hate our 'way of life'. Also remember that they are ruled by an evil dictator who went against the people's will and stole the 2000 elections with the help of his cronies in the supreme court. The world would be a better place without him.

    Keep stockpiling, Yanks. God knows, that's what the world needs: more weapons of mass destruction. Oh yeah, they're only for defense . How could I be so anti-American to suggest that these will in fact be used as weapons of mass destruction. They are of course weapons of love and understanding, and will only be used to save the cute white bunnies and the church picnic from the evil Arab masses and their hate, and their WOMD, and their ... ...

    1. Re:Gotta love the Yank's WOMD by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      How stupid can you get. This is a laser with a beam diameter of certainly less than a couple feet which probably can't fire for more than a minute or two. To suggest that it could even possibly be used as a WMD is laughable idiocy.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Gotta love the Yank's WOMD by vandan · · Score: 1

      What will they use it for then? To pick roses?
      If it can destroy a missile, it can slice a person in 2, and they certainly won't stop there. There will be a more powerful one, and then a yet more powerful one.

      How stupid can you get indeed?

    3. Re:Gotta love the Yank's WOMD by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      you are an imbecile

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    4. Re:Gotta love the Yank's WOMD by ShoobieRat · · Score: 1

      I agree with deglr6328...Vandan's an idiot. Another one of those conspiracy-nut hippies.

    5. Re:Gotta love the Yank's WOMD by vandan · · Score: 1

      Nice response. Don't have an answer for my questions though, do you?

      Not to worry. What you lack in knowledge you make up for in partriotism. It's disgusting ...

    6. Re:Gotta love the Yank's WOMD by vandan · · Score: 1

      It certainly doesn't take a consipacy-but hippie to realise why the world hates the US - just a little knowledge mixed with a little thoughtful consideration. Oh yeah. You're missing both.

      And you, sir, are rather pathetic. A quick read of your posts and people's moderation of said posts confirms this overwhelmingly. You seem to be a 'me too' type of person ... another victim of US propoganda.

      Speaking of idiots, I believe you'd give George Dubya a run for his money on an IQ test. Maybe you'd make a better president :)

  152. But does it... by Ranger · · Score: 1

    ...make a keen sound?

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  153. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by nametaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

    war is simply incompatible with civil society

    Some would say that civil societies won't exist if they're not willing to make war.

  154. Vipers with lasers? by BigWhiteGuy_27 · · Score: 0

    That's already been done!

    For those of you who don't get it, one of the nicknames of the F-16 is "Viper".

    Yet another post that won't be seen and enjoyed because of my bad karma....

  155. I believe you misinterpreted his statement by xtal · · Score: 1

    "Soldiers need to kill people"

    I believe what the poster intended was: "Soldiers need the capacity to kill people" - not that there is a pathological MURDER DEATH KILL theme to the ranks. They need good tools.

    Soldiers kill people - that's why they're there, that's why they have those boom-sticks. Who they are told to kill and where is a matter for polticians, representing (hopefully) their country's and citizen's best interests. Armies impose the will of others onto people who do not agree via deadly force. They are the force arm of governments, who maintain a monopoly on violence. This is pretty basic stuff, but washed over in fuzzy recruitment campiegns and oft misunderstood here.

    Although your interpretation of his remarks does shed some light on your own concerns.

    Human conflict is as old as the ages but for the past few generations the reality of such has been removed from the experience of most people. In matters of war, I want my side to have the best, biggest, and most effective killing technology available. I also want my government to use said killing technology as an absolute last recourse.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:I believe you misinterpreted his statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MURDER DEATH KILL?!? That Simon Phoenix must be stopped, John Spartan.

  156. more pentagon BS by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
    Think of it, a highly maneuverable jet aircraft flying at or even well above the speed of sound with a 150 kW laser beam on it. How clever. How useful. In a previous /. article on this topic, much was said about the unintended reflections, and how they would cause significant heat damage at short range, and eye damage at longer range. Anyone who has played Sim City and fallen prey to the orbiting microwave power source would probably be loathe to deploy a weapon like this.

    This is yet another example of the many we've had over the past few years that Pentagon planners are not big on carefully thinking things through and making sure the solution fits the problem (let alone what the problem is, or if there is one to begin with). This laser weapon is the sort of thing a foolish and impulsive little boy would ask Santa Claus for, and throw a few tantrums to make sure he got it. After Christmas and after seeing what an idiotic toy it is, into the closet it goes, much to the chagrin of his parents who got conned into buying such an expensive and useless toy.

    How many poor bastards will be accidentally maimed by this thing before the Pentagon concludes it was a stupid idea and shelves it?

    1. Re:more pentagon BS by megrims · · Score: 1

      Yep. The electromagnetic spectrum was definitely modelled after Sim City. :)
      (Well, maybe not.)

  157. 5 million dollar system... by Blind_Io_42 · · Score: 1

    ... than can be defeated by a can of turtle wax and a little elbow grease. Polish those missiles! I want to see laser beams reflecting off of there by 1400!

    --
    No one of consequence
  158. Finally! Frickin' sharks w/ lasers! by Fastball · · Score: 1

    Frickin' sharks with lasers attached to their heads!

    1. Re:Finally! Frickin' sharks w/ lasers! by Fastball · · Score: 1

      Goddamned links with spaces...

      Here.

  159. HELL ADS by JollyFinn · · Score: 1

    Wellcome to the hell.
    The hell is a permanent place for you to stay, we have plenty of room for you and all your loved ones you can take with you. We will raise strong emotions in you.
    We offer you a nice range of leisure activities, like scourging, crucifixion and impalement.
    We won't leave you hanging too long, since we have lots of activies available for you to enjoy.
    And you will NEVER get enough of it. The flames will affect your comfortability all the time.
    Remember this: forget Jesus, forget God. Come here. and WE have a great time with you.

    --
    Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
  160. I wish I could fix these... by Perryman · · Score: 1

    I wish I would get the opportunity to fix those once they produce them and they go out of warranty :(

  161. Indeed. by Fastball · · Score: 1

    The friggin' sharks are ready. Just need some lasers.

  162. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people in the video you speak of weren't farmers. There's a shortened version of the video in which you don't see them handling a rocket launcher - and in any case, farmers are generally unlikely to meet after dark in the middle of a field.

  163. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    abusing prisoners? looked like a tame frat house initiation to me.

  164. Just in time for the Lex A380 by jeti · · Score: 1

    This is just in time for the so called Lex A380. The US house of representatives is working on a law that would make a missile defence system mandatory for passenger jets with a maximum of 800+ seats or 450+ tons of weight.
    The only airplane with such a capacity is the brand new Airbus A380. Boeing does not offer any passenger plane of that size...

  165. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by ksheff · · Score: 1

    10x the US population would be 2.9 billion Chinese. That's high by about 1.6 billion people.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  166. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Petersson · · Score: 1
    It is impossible for most psyches to kill a human they have not dehumanized.

    Good point. And easy way to dehumanize someone is call him a 'infidel'. Or 'antidemocractic forces', on the other hand.

    --
    I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
  167. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -The answer to this paradox, IMO, is that war is simply incompatible with civil society.

    well then the same goes for sex..

  168. simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the hell are they planning to position the plane to shoot down a missile? Do you know how quick those things move, not to mention their size?

  169. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 2, Insightful
    it's rubbish
    Right. That's why the Ancient Greeks managed to defeat the Romans, who in turn beat off the Visigoths. As for the Vikings, they never really got anywhere. Attila the who? Genghis what? Never heard of 'em. Must have been strictly small time bandits.
    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  170. HELL-ADS? by dzfoo · · Score: 1

    OH NOOOOOOOO!!!!!

    Its the future of invasive/disrruptive marketing, The Hell Ads are here! Gawd help us! AAAAAAARGH!!!

                -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  171. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by dzfoo · · Score: 1

    >>Sometimes I think it's just people that are incompatible with civil society.

    Maybe its just civil[ity] which is incompatible with society.

              -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  172. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow.

    Way to pick a topic and stick with it. Your post reminds me of many Simpsons episodes. For example, an episode starts with Bart finding a $1000 bill, and lurches around to Homer ending up in the Tower of London and meeting his half-sister at Heathrow. Similarly, your post starts with soldiers in Iraq shooting at unarmed civilians, takes a left turn to Chinese military spending, and ends up discussing American debt, all tenuously connected by the thinnest of threads. Your real name wouldn't be James Burke, would it?

  173. Photonic Band Gap as countermeasure by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

    Couldn't this system be defeated by using a Photonic Band Gap texture? That is, such a structure as found on the wings of the Morpho butterfly.

    --
    All rites reversed 2010
  174. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1, Informative
    The thing about soldiers that makes them different from murders is that it is usually required that they be re-integrated into society at a later date. The general population is uncomfortable with the idea that some civilians are psychologically capable of killing others. For this reason, it has been common for military conditioning systems throughout history[1] to place a high value on human life, and classify the enemy as non-human. This has the benefit that a military unit will not turn on its civilian support base, and will not waste the lives of its own members (soldiers are expensive to train, after all).

    Note that a similar level of dehumanisation was often applied to peasants (or other cheap, expendable, troops) by their officers' training for a similar reason - they needed to be able to sacrifice large numbers of soldiers to carry the day. This is far less common now, since soldiers are expensive, both economically (it costs a lot to train them) and politically (the civilians seeing the body bags coming home was a major factor in America losing Vietnam).

    [1] I don't know enough about modern methods to comment.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  175. New Scientist has more on the laser by oneill40 · · Score: 1
  176. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

    In all honesty, I think people not requiring thsi dehumanization nonsense is actually kind of a credit to the race in general. If someone can decide that killing someone is the right thing to do, and then do it, the killing is much more likely to be the correct action than if they are unsure and use a psychological trick to force themselves to kill someone.

    On the other hand, recall that murder requires a motive, which generally involves being at least partially familiar with the intended victim.

    --
    ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  177. Late News by hicksw · · Score: 1

    It may not be a dupe, but the references Google brings up are from May 2005.

    Move along, no new news to see here....

  178. This is why America is great by suman28 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This should be the sole reason to love America. The scientists and great minds come together and solve a problem. That is why America will always be ahead of other countries technologically.

  179. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

    I know that the Romans sank into depravity, but I have never read a credible account of the Romans beating off the Visigoths.

    --
    Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
  180. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by indifferent+children · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I agree that war is part of our basic nature, it is born from the failure of politics.

    Or perhaps war is the inevitable result of the existence of politics. Politics is necessarily competitive and adversarial. The rewards are immense and the most desireable seats are naturally limited (the smallest bodies governing the largest areas have the most concentrated power and the highest prestige).

    Politicians need to be seen to be "doing something". Successfully governing a quiet Utopia will be boring and look easy. Rivals can offer 'more' or 'less' or 'cheaper', and some number of people will fall in line. Good, stable governance is not safe from agitation.

    And when things are going really bady: throw a war. Everybody will show up for the first year or two, and by the time they have realize how much you have screwed things up, you can say things like "stay the course", "don't change horses in mid-stream", and "we would dishonor the memories of those who have already died if we didn't kill a bunch more."

    --
    Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
  181. Export Rules...? by telecsan · · Score: 1

    So the trusted nations will get the more powerful blue and green ray versions, but the evil nations will be stuck with the first generation red-laser versions?

    At least that way you'll be able to tell them apart during battle...

  182. What's all the fuss about? by korneel · · Score: 1

    hmm. HELLADS? Isn't that just that spam bot from hell?

    --
    I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.
  183. Yo Joe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, will the US be fighting with red or blue lasers?

  184. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by cosinezero · · Score: 1

    You're leaving out killing by soldiers in your numbers. No doubt '76%' becomes much smaller when you consider the killing done by our military. Likely, you'll find that there is truth in the very statement you have tried to disprove.

  185. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Good point, I think the whole thing links back to the idea of "family".

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  186. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by amightywind · · Score: 1

    It takes a lot of "balls" to try to compete with such a larger population technologically

    Not really. That is why we have cluster bombs.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  187. Iraq by QMO · · Score: 1

    So, China has "In case you were wondering they have over a million infantry troops."

    More than one source estimated the Iraqi army to be one million men or more (at least in 1991). That army didn't give much trouble to its attackers either time.

    --
    Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    1. Re:Iraq by mutterc · · Score: 1
      ... leading to a nice Gulf War (I) joke, from rec.humor.funny:

      Before Operation Desert Storm, the Iraqi Army was the fifth largest army in the world.

      Afterwards, it was the second largest army in Iraq.

  188. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by lga · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This weeks New Scientist has some interesting statistics that will be relevant here. (The article isn't online, unfortunately.)

    "researchers have documented how soldiers will often go to great lengths to avoid firing directly at enemy soldiers, especially if they can seem them - and the distress they suffer when they do kill.

    A famous example is the Battle of Gettysburg, where thousands of soldiers on both sides loaded their weapons over and over to avoid having to fire them. Similarly, during the second world war, S.L.A. Marshall, a US army historian, found that on average only 15 to 20 per cent of American infantry troops actually fired at the enemy when they had the oportunity to do so."

    The article goes on to talk about how the US army managed to increase the firing rate in later wars by de-humanising the enemy and training soldiers to shoot on impulse.

    The main articles are about the Post-Traumatic Stress suffered later by the soldiers as a result of this.

  189. HELLADS by lupinstel · · Score: 0

    "The High Energy Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS)" The extra "L" is for extra laser!!

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
  190. Finally, some good news by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050824/ts_usato day/efforttoreplacehumveespedup

    I think we'd both agree this is a good thing. I'll take back "the Pentagon doesn't care" comment and second the Lt. Col.'s comment below.

    By 2008, the military could start using a new vehicle that would have:

    More protection for troops. Congressional pressure forced the military to add armor to all older Humvees and buy more models with factory-installed armor. But even Humvees with the latest armor are still vulnerable to the powerful bombs insurgents use.

    A beefier suspension that can handle the weight of the armor. The extra armor has led to increased maintenance problems for the Humvee, which wasn't designed to handle so much weight. The extra weight also makes the vehicle more prone to rolling over and getting bogged down in sand. That has cost the Humvee much of its legendary off-road capability.

    Lower fuel consumption, to reduce the need for supply convoys that have been targets of insurgents.

    Improved onboard power generation to handle the expanding array of electronics that troops take into battle today compared with the simple radios of 30 years ago. Hybrid-electric drivetrains, which are gaining popularity in passenger vehicles and are already being tested in current Humvee prototypes, are being considered to save fuel and generate power.

    "We wish we had that vehicle out there today," says Lt. Col. Stuart Rogers, transportation division chief of the Army Combined Arms Support Command.

    1. Re:Finally, some good news by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder if the quality of the Humvee is due to the the fact that most contracts are won by low-bidding?

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    2. Re:Finally, some good news by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      You're right. This is good news. Thanks for bringing this up.

      I think the Army could certainly care more, in some cases. But stories like this tend to reinforce my general impression that the military does care, but also moves very slowly--especially when it comes to major new vehicle systems that the military must commit to for a twenty-year period.

      At the rate the world changes these days, no military vehicle program is going to be fully prepared for the battles it will end up facing.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  191. Yeah, that's the ticket by MikeyTheK · · Score: 1

    Oh, yeah. And a wounded soldier is much less effective than a dead one, too. I mean, sure if they're wounded they can still shoot back when you're trying to take their position, but if they're dead, their condemned souls can slither across the ground and take over cattle and slip into the nostrils of other SOULdiers and make them into immortal evil beings.
    Riiiiiiiiiiiiight

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
  192. Corner reflectors by ichthius · · Score: 1

    A better defence would be to coat the surface of the missile with a layer of microscopic cubic crystals.

    Each crystal will act as a corner reflector. This will direct a significant proportion of the laser energy back to the laser source.

    1. Re:Corner reflectors by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      Just a thought about the whole mirror defense vs. laser cannon argument. Mirrors have are an extremely mature technology and bar lowering production costs for high efficiency mirrors (enough to make sticking them on missiles cost effective), I don't see any major improvements on the horizon. On the other hand they already have a 1 kw laser, they want to build a new 15 kw and plan a 150 kw for 2007 If they can managed to achieve a 15000% increase in power over a 2 year period surely within 10 years the power outputs obtainable, 300 kw or whatever, would insure that no amount mirrors or fancy flying would protect a missile from getting fried.

  193. Sad... by pete_norm · · Score: 1

    More than 600 posts and not even one refence to pink bunny slippers...

  194. Bullshit alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent is ignorant.

    The AR15/M16 was adopted to replace it then. It wasn't really accepted until the 80s, however.

    I went through USAF basic training in 1971. The weapon used was an M16. We had two days training, one day "dry fire" and one day with live ammo.

    Army grunts I talksed to said the M16 made a great dope pipe.

    They are rather accurate, have a good range, and don't do full auto.

    They do SO do full auto. Yes, the ones a civillian can get at a gun show won't, but the millitary isue ones do.

    We weren't allowed to do full auto on the firing range in basic, but one guy "accidentally" flipped the little lever. He pulled the trigger and emptied the magazine into the roof. He was stomped on and had a bunch of 45s aimed at him when he was taken away. We never saw him again.

    However, they ARE lethal. In fact, it would be quite hard to injure someone with one without killing him. The erason is the incredible speed of the projectile, which is about the size of a .22 slug, while the shell casing looks like a 3030 or something. When that little slug hits a bone, the bone shatters and becomes human shrapnel. If you get shot in the arm, it's likely that your arm will be blown clean off, and if a bone shard doesn't pierce a lung or other organ, you'll bleed to death PDQ.

    Not something to use for squirrel hunting, at least if you want to eat the squirrel.

    1. Re:Bullshit alert! by makohund · · Score: 1

      They do SO do full auto. Yes, the ones a civillian can get at a gun show won't, but the millitary isue ones do.

      No they don't.

      Not for a long time, they haven't.

      You mention 1971... the rifle you were using was an M16A1. It underwent a pretty heavy redesign in 1981, and the M16A2 was first adopted by the USMC in 1983. The other services followed soon after.

      We weren't allowed to do full auto on the firing range in basic, but one guy "accidentally" flipped the little lever. He pulled the trigger and emptied the magazine into the roof. He was stomped on and had a bunch of 45s aimed at him when he was taken away. We never saw him again.

      That's one reason for the change. Waste of ammo, poor accuracy. Flip that lever on an M16A2 and you will get a 3 round burst. That is 3 rounds for every squeeze of the trigger. Much easier to put a lot of rounds downrange, while making recoil easier to manage. (Rocking back down into the original point of aim between bursts.)

  195. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Mantrid · · Score: 1

    How about ants, wasps, and hornets?

  196. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...since the average speed of a fighter aircraft exceeds the explosive speed of most warheads).

    Huh?

    Military explosives burn at 20k to 30k feet per second - ten to fifteen times the speed of an aircraft flying at Mach 2.

    That's why they call it an explosion ;-)

  197. Get me Tom Cruise's and Val Kilmer's agents! by bioshake · · Score: 1

    Highway to the dangerzone... Gonna take you right into.. the dangerzooone.
    Now's the time for a Top Gun sequel!
    Strike the anvil while she's hot!
    I can't believe the Pentagon is stealing technology developed by EAP. Command and Conquer: Zero Hour anyone? PDL? The Airforce gen would be miffed!

  198. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by operagost · · Score: 1

    Those kind of people are not welcome in the U.S. military because we want people who can follow orders, not psychopaths.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  199. What a joke by mx-clown · · Score: 1

    If you could fly an F-16 close enough and stable enough to aim a laser at it to burn it up or scramble its guidence systems why not just shoot at it. Launch one of those heat seeking boys at it.

    If the ones to be put on F-16's are really only strong enough to 'confuse' the missle and it needs to be lasered soon after leaving the launch site, than you would have to know where the launch site is and when the launch is, right? Why not fly by with a bigger plane and drop a few boomers on the pad seconds before the missles launch when the bays are open.

    Scrambling a missle so you dont know where it will blow up shouldnt affect the crazy dune monkeys shooting 'em. I saw pictures of one of Sadams atempts at a launch sight, it looked like a roller coaster that went up the side of a hill and cut off. Do you think he cares how well aimed his missles? Im sure he'll fire them with or without guidence as long as it goes BOOM!

    Someone said something about how lasers will be able to stop a mirrored missle using the 10% of energy that is absorbed to melt and destory the missle, what happens to that other 90% that is reflected? Isnt that a bit dangerous?

    The only thing lasers are good for is video games!

    1. Re:What a joke by ebrandsberg · · Score: 1

      sight != site. You DO realize this is probably as a missle defense system for the plane itself, i.e. to prevent the plane from being hit by the missle, NOT as a defense system to prevent say, an ICBM from hitting the US. Also, this is probably a means to destroy the sensors of those "heat seaking boys" you mention so they can't hit their target, not blow them up. And I also think that "dune monkey" isn't exactly a PC term... And attempt != atempt". If you can't take the time to even think about what is being attempted, please don't post on slashdot, as you are just making the signal to noise ratio worse than it already is.

  200. Been a few years since I was in the business but . by Fenster+Karton · · Score: 1

    the reflectance of the finished part is 97 percent at 700 nm and ~99.5 percent at 2 m m, where it remains flat to well beyond 10.6 m m. http://www.epner.com/press_article4.ssi That is for gold. Silver in many cases is better but has the problem of degradation during storage. I thik the best method would be a mirror underlaid with a substance that would produce a cloud opaque or diffusive at the wavelength of interest. This could raise required energies to the point of unfeasability with current technology. An example of this is a beam that can punch a hole in 1/4 steel only produces a burn on the skin of a mouse because the steam cloud reduces the effectivity of the laser.

  201. X-Wing? by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    Did they by any chance mention adding an extra wing in X shape to the F-16? God I'd love to see that.

  202. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by vertinox · · Score: 1

    People do not have to dehumanize anyone to kill them.

    Neither do robots and aliens. Frankly, it makes it easier for them to just leave the filthy humans classified as is and get extermination over with.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  203. Not the F-22, or the F-16 by TamMan2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually the F-22 Raptor already has a laser system that's been designed for it and [I think it] fits in place of bombbay doors.

    It is the F-35 or the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) that has a laser on the drawing boards.

    The thing about a laser system like this is that it need a lot of electricity to run, and the vast majority of fighter aircraft do not produce the kind of juice needed to run one of these. The thing that makes the JSF capable of handling a system like this, is the way the VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) version of the aircraft was designed. Unlike previous VTOL fighters (AV-8 - Harrier and the Boeing consept for JSF) which use a series of nozels to redirect thrust the engine was already making to get vertical thrust, the Lockheed JSF (the one that was selected) has a secondary fan, driven by a shaft from the main engine and door that open above and below the fan.

    Using the lift fan in the VTOL plane means that the engine in the CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) and CV (Carrier Varient) has the capacity built in to drive a shaft, and the aircraft themselves have a lot of room right in front of the engine/behind the cockpit. This shaft can then drive a large generator to fire the laser.

    I used to be an analyst at the company that builds the engines for the F-22 and the JSF. I worked on both programs.

    The laser is ultraviolet, thus it would allow an F22 to loiter in an area and attack ground targetes (Geneva conventions state that we can't attack people with lasers) However, we can cut the truck they're driving in half and thus detonating the fuel tank...

    Conventional fuels (gas/diesel) do not detonate unless they are vaporized, or atomised. They will burn pretty fast though.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    1. Re:Not the F-22, or the F-16 by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      I used to be an analyst at the company that builds the engines for the F-22 and the JSF. I worked on both programs.

      As a real engineer or as a Windows tech support person? It's getting harder and harder to tell these days.

    2. Re:Not the F-22, or the F-16 by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1
      I used to be an analyst at the company that builds the engines for the F-22 and the JSF. I worked on both programs.

      As a real engineer or as a Windows tech support person? It's getting harder and harder to tell these days.

      Real engineer. My first 2 years there I was a Computational Fluid Dynamics analyst, after that I was a turbine/afterburner aerodynamicist.
      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  204. Re:Penetration vs Stoppage power by vertinox · · Score: 1

    I think the one flaw most complained about the M16 (especially during the US Somali operations) was that it was designed to penetrate, but no stopage. Like where the bullet impacts and then spreads out and causes more damage.

    So basically, they were shooting people, but if they didn't hit a vital organ it would go cleanly through them. I don't know if that has been corrected in modern versions, but one of the plusses about the AK-47 round was that it spiraled very nastily causing a great deal of stoppage and damage to the target.

    Of course if it didn't kill you it would cause more painful wounds.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  205. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by bigtangringo · · Score: 1

    Do it for the kids.

    --
    Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
  206. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    There is humanized murder and dehmumanized murder:

    They are known as hot blooded and cold blooded murder, and are even treated differently in our legal system.

    Any murder where the person knows the victim is pretty much guaranteed to be an up close and violent form of killing both physically and emotionally.

    Cold blood murder is usually done at more of a distance both physically and emotionally.

  207. Probably going after unshielded guidence sensors by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

    The sensors which feed the most missile guidence systems cannot be shielded with mirrors because they operate at optical or thermal wave lengths. This makes them vulnerable to even a relatively weak laser. Perhaps radar guided missiles could shield their radar units but it wouldn't be that easy.

  208. Couldn't this also kill ground troops? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    If it is strong as advertised, it seems like you could sweep it over enemy lines and kill dozens at a time- perhaps disabling non-armored vehicles- maybe even armored vehicles.

    Also seems you need to be very careful about what you fire it at since a miss could kill something miles beyond your intended target.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  209. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by einstienbc · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have seen said video. I have also seen the "extended cut" in which one of the "farmers" carries an RPG into the field and deposits it. Do a little more that to go by the name of the file.

    --
    If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.

    --Kurt Vonnegut

  210. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by operagost · · Score: 3, Informative
    A famous example is the Battle of Gettysburg, where thousands of soldiers on both sides loaded their weapons over and over to avoid having to fire them.
    This argument is fallacious because it assumes the only possible cause for recovered rifles having multiple loads is intent by the bearer. The battlefield was noisy and frightening, so a perfectly valid premise held by many historians is that the soldiers failed to realize that their weapons did not fire. This happened on other battlefields- not just Gettysburg.
    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  211. Personal Laser Guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dread personal laser guns.

    Imagine terrorist sharpshooters able to assassinate people from tall buildings or mountains tens of miles away.

    Imagine Bush wearing a tinfoil hat :).

  212. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 1
    "there would be many, many more instances of what we saw in that particularly disfunctional unit."
    I didn't name a specific unit. Mainly because there were "many more instances", secondly, why didn't this happen during Gulf War I, where we took similarly large numbers of prisoners?

    Are you forgetting about Bagram, Afghanistan?

    From Wikipedia:

    In October 2004, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case. Seven soldiers have been charged so far.

    Do a few bad apples manage to hide prisoners from the Red Cross without help? Are the CIA operatives involved in "extraordinary rendition" a few bad apples too? How do a few bad apples get use of a private jet to deliver suspects to their torturers, violating both US law and international treaties?

    From Wikipedia:

    Taguba's 53-page report, classified "Secret" and dated April 4, 2004, concluded that U.S. soldiers had committed "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law" at Abu Ghraib.[4] Taguba found that between October and December 2003 there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" of prisoners. In violation of Army regulations, intelligence officers asked military police to "loosen up" inmates before questioning. The report estimates that 60% of the prisoners at the site were "not a threat to society" and that the screening process was so inadequate that innocent civilians were often detained indefinitely. Guards invented their own rules and supervisors approved of their actions. Personnel lost track of prisoners, did not count their prisoners, and kept no records regarding dozens of escapes. The facility held too many inmates and supplied too few guards. Training of those on guard was insufficient, and superiors neglected to visit the facilities in person. Top military personnel disagreed on whether military police or military intelligence should be in charge. Prisoner treatment varied between shifts and between compounds.

    Taguba cited numerous organizational and leadership failures at Abu Ghraib. Reservists tasked with guarding the prison population were inadequately trained, and Taguba faulted senior commanders for failing to address these deficiencies. Specifically, intelligence officers and members of one company, the 372nd Military Police Company, based in Cresaptown, Maryland, in charge of security, took part in the documented abuses.

    Taguba's report makes it clear that this was a systematic problem. There were a number of military lawyers who objected to these techniques and the careless orders that came down and loosened existing regulations or implied that a different interpretation would be used. These orders came from the civilian leadership. It was also the leadership's responsibility to make sure that these soldiers were not given conflicting orders and that they were given the proper tools to carry out their orders (proper facilities, not dog leashes and chains).

    Let's also look at when the abuses started at Abu Ghraib.

    On July 12, 2005 members of a military panel told the committee that they proposed disciplining prison commander Army Major General Geoffrey Miller over the interrogation of Mohamed al-Qahtani who was forced to wear a bra, dance with another man and threatened with dogs. The recommendation was overruled by General Bantz J. Craddock, commander of U.S. Southern Command, who refered the matter to the Army's inspector general.

    Geoffrey Miller then gets transferred to Abu Ghraib:

    In August 2003, Miller was sent to Iraq by the Department of Defense to help get more information out o

    --
    Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
  213. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    Individual conflict is not war, war is a group behaviour that has only been observed in humans and (possibly) chimps.

    Actually, warfare (conflict as a group behavior) has been observed in many social lifeforms, including ants, wasps, etc.

    The benefit of being social animals is that we can work together to accomplish things that we can't accomplish ourselves. The drawback is that we also use this team cooperation for battle, too.

    I think war is just a side-effect of being a social animal. Every animal fights, some species just fight in groups.

  214. all it takes... by halfelven · · Score: 1

    ...is a tiny amount of dust on the reflective surface (you know, the kind that gets picked up in flight), and your shiny mirror starts swallowing laser energy like there's no tomorrow. A few miliseconds later... BOOM! :-P

    1. Re:all it takes... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      So. Here we have a maneuvering jet. Or pair of them, one's the shooter, the other's the target. The jets are moving, the laser mount is moving, the skin of the target jet is vibrating.

      Let's say that the jets are moving at 300 mph relative to each other -- that's about 5 inches per millisecond. They could be moving a lot faster, especially if they're head to head, but let's just call it 300, as that is trivial for fighter aircraft, only requiring 300 and a stall, or 150 head to head.

      Now consider that for the highest energy density, the laser spot has to be as small as possible.

      Here's what it boils down to: How difficult will it be to keep that laser on the precise same location for the few milliseconds required to make that dust collect enough energy burn off the mirroring?

      The laser has to track at five inches per millisecond. In any direction. Specifically at 300 mph the targeting mechanism has to be able to traverse the spot 5.28 inches on the target in 1 millisecond to keep it precisely on the same location -- or else it'll distribute the energy over a much greater area and that will prevent it from heating the target. This problem is alleviated to the degree that the spot size overlaps the target area -- the larger the spot, the more movement it'll be able to tolerate, assuming they can keep the energy density even over the entire spot. For example, if the spot is five inches in diameter, then in one millisecond, it'll hit at least part of the same area on the target at 300 mph. On the other hand, if the spot is 5 inches in diameter, the energy density will be reduced significantly.

      You're also assuming that you can get dust to stick on a mirrored finish at 300 mph, which I'm a little dubious about. Most dust probably is picked up on landing when the aircraft skin is experiencing a lot less force orthogonal to the skin.

      I'm not saying it can't be done, but I am saying I don't think it is likely in the near future.

      The higher the energy density, the better it will work, of course. And if the target is oblivious and maintaining straight and level flight, that'll make it easier too. But if the target is oblivious, it's probably pretty far off in the distance, and that brings its own problems for lasers. :-)

      But it's worth bringing distance into this anyway. Having determined that the laser needs to track 5 inches in a millisecond, we have to look at what that means to the laser mechanism. The further away the target is, the more precise the targeting has to be. If you're 10 miles away, and trying to point the laser with a precision of perhaps 1/8th of an inch while tracking the target's movements well enough to keep that spot on target at 5 inches per milliseconds at 10 miles... I dunno, maybe I'm not giving enough credit to the engineers involved, but this problem isn't an easy one, to say the least.

      It's worse for a missiles. Missiles are fast. They have to be to catch fighters, obviously. They also can bleed some of that speed to continually maneuver at rates that put a jet to shame, because there's no pilot to worry about -- as long as the missile's control surfaces don't succumb to the g-forces and dynamic pressure, and given that it can keep up enough speed to gain on the target and hit it within the range of its fuel load, it can basically go nuts... If it turns out that lasers are a threat to missiles, you can bet the very next thing you'll see is prophylactic maneuvering on the part of an attacking missile.

      And of course, we can consider the problem when the jets are moving at 1000 mph each, or 2000 mph relative. Not unlikely, those are reasonable speeds for fighters (though missiles are faster.) Now you've got a much worse tracking problem -- the target area could be moving as fast as 35 inches in a millisecond. A laser spot of 35 inch diameter is going to have about as much effect as a suntan even when driven by 150 kw, so tracking at 35 inches/ms is the only option. How's your dust heating going to work now?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  215. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by WatertonMan · · Score: 1

    Um, that was the point of his comment wasn't it?

  216. Not Quite: Power != Electricity by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    The problem is not the amount of power the engine can produce, but rather the amount of electricital power it can produce.

    No current fighter has the electrical capacity to shoot this bad boy, but for reasons explained in this comment the non vertical take off versions of the F-35 are good canidates.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  217. Reactive armour by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    > The amount of energy directed onto one spot is so intense it will burn
    > through anything less than a polished mirror.

    A fact which I would expect countermeasures to take into account, and perhaps even exploit.

    Could the target be protected with a thin, easily-penetrated secondary hull and a layer of opaque-when-vapourized material in between? i.e., laser burns through the outer skin, hits the inner material, vapourizes it, and then wastes all its energy burning through the resulting rapidly-changing vapour/plasma cloud.

    (Exactly the same idea as reactive armour, basically - defeat a specific munition by disrupting it with an in-armour triggered-active countermeasure.)

  218. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was the whole fucking point. Sarcasm, look it up sometime.

  219. Not RPGs by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 1
    > able to shoot down/burn up mortar and artilery fire as well as RPGs

    Mortar and artillery shells, yes, but it's almost certainly false that lasers will provide any protection against RPGs any time soon. RPGs are, as I understand things, essentially big, explosive bullets that are in-flight with a fairly flat trajectory for less than a second before impact in typical usage scenarios. You'd be lucky to even find and isolate them in that time, much less bring a large laser system on-target or get a long enough burn time.

    Not that defensive lasers wouldn't be useful---they would---but they're essentially another conventional-war tool. They'd be useless against 90+% of the casualty-causing threats in Iraq, or in most instances of asymmetric warfare that are likely in the near future.

  220. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

    Actually, the point was innuendo based on the American (English too?) idiom: beating off.

    --
    Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
  221. Clouds or thick smoke? by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1


    Any thoughts on whether a thick smokescreen can protect against a laser?

  222. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Ok, those sort of creatures will defend a territory and I suppose that is a type of warfare.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  223. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Perhaps he's a Libertarian. They're both for gun rights and against the Iraq war.

    You do realize there's more than two possible political positions that a person can have, right? And that our country having a strict two-party is caused by a severe defect in our voting system?

  224. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    I wonder if anyone has done any studies comparing how social people are with how much they support wars. As a guess, I would imagine that highly social people (like the ones that hang out at sports bars watching games) would be much more in support of the Iraq war than less social people (such as ones who'd prefer to stay at home and hack on software).

  225. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Even if all the things you say were possible, this would be no reason to eliminate all the other weapons and troops we have now. The weapon you talk of could only be used for defensive operations, or for taking out a few select targets. If your objective is to invade another country, depose its government, and set up a new one in its place while dealing with insurgents, such a precision weapon simply won't do the job. In short, if you want your military to do more than just defend your country, but to also project your will by force onto other countries, you have to have a lot of troops.

  226. touché by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    i beg your pardon for my inexactness.

    Asshat.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
  227. Re:I hope not. Here is why. by Savantissimo · · Score: 1
    You are right about the torture being a systematic policy laid down from the top, but Karpinski was just a scapegoat. She couldn't get anything she needed to run things, had her authority taken away early on over the cellblocks where the abuses occured and could not inspect the prison at night when the abuses occured. Here is a fraction of a very informative recent interview with Karpinski:

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml
    By Marjorie Cohn Wednesday 24 August 2005
    Interview with former General Janis Karpinski

    Karpinski says she did not know about the torture occurring in Cellblocks 1-A and 1-B at Abu Ghraib because it took place at night. She didn't live at Abu Ghraib, and nobody was permitted to travel at night due to the dangerous road conditions. The first she heard about the torture was on January 12, 2004. She was never allowed to speak to the people who had worked on the night shift. She "was told by Colonel Warren, the JAG officer for General Sanchez, that they weren't assigned to me, that they were not under my control, and I really had no right to see them."

    When Karpinski inquired, "What's this about photographs?" the sergeant replied, "Ma'am, we've heard something about photographs, but I have no idea. Nobody has any details, and Ma'am, if anybody knows, nobody is talking." When Karpinski asked to see the log books, the sergeant told her that the Criminal Investigation Division had taken everything except for something on a pole outside the little office they were using.

    "It was a memorandum signed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, authorizing a short list, maybe 6 or 8 techniques: use of dogs; stress positions; loud music; deprivation of food; keeping the lights on, those kinds of things," Karpinski said. "And then a handwritten message over to the side that appeared to be the same handwriting as the signature, and that signature was Secretary Rumsfeld's. And it said, 'Make sure this happens' with two exclamation points. And that was the only thing they had. Everything else had been confiscated."

    Karpinski tried to get information, but "nobody knew anything, nobody - at least, that's what they were claiming. The Company Commander, Captain Reese, was tearful in my office and repeatedly told me he knew nothing about it, knew nothing about it," Karpinski said. But in a later plea bargain he entered into after the Taguba Report came out, "Captain Reese said that not only did he know about it, but he was told not to report it to his chain of command, and he was told that by Colonel Pappas. And he claimed that he saw General Sanchez out there on several occasions witnessing the torture of some of the security detainees."

    The first time Karpinski got any clarification about the photographs was January 23, 2004. The criminal investigator, Colonel Marcelo, came into Karpinski's office and showed her the pictures. "When I saw the pictures I was floored," Karpinski said. "Really, the world was spinning out of control when I saw those pictures, because it was so far beyond and outside of what I imagined. I thought that maybe some soldiers had taken some pictures of prisoners behind barbed wire or in their cell or something like that. I couldn't imagine anything like what I saw in those photographs." ....
    Karpinski said, however, "The truth has been uncovered, but it's been suffocated and it has not been released with the results of the investigation." She added, "McClellan and Rumsfeld can get up on their high horse and say that there've been no fewer than 15 investigations that were conducted. But every one of those investigations is under the control of the Secretary of Defense. And every one of those investigations is run and led by a person who can lose their job under Rumsfeld's fist."

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry