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."

Comments

4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

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

Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend...

[susano_otter]

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!

Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend...

[CrowScape]

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.

Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend...

[CrowScape]

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.

Re:4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend...

[CharlieG]

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

Re:Forbidden?

[tjw]

Weren't they forbidden by the Geneva convention?

They're probably only for firing at "unlawful combatants", so it's OK.

Re:Forbidden?

[forkazoo]

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.

Re:Compact?

[Elminst]

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.

So what if it does?

[NotQuiteReal]

Where do you think non-laser anti-missle ordinance ends up if it misses?

Re:I hope not. Here is why.

[jericho4.0]

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.

Re:I hope not. Here is why.

[Liam Slider]

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.

Re:I hope not. Here is why.

[Dread_ed]

"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.