Slashdot Mirror


Truck-Mounted Laser Guns

bl8n8r writes "Boeing has announced a contract with the US Army to develop laser cannons that are to be mounted atop 20-ton trucks for the purpose of shooting down incoming artillery, rockets, mortars, or bombs. The High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator project actually shoots stuff instead of just painting a mark on a target for other armament to hit."

38 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. I'm so proud by UncleWilly · · Score: 4, Funny

    to be an American

    Next put them in C-130s, or Jeeps, like Rat Patrol.

    1. Re:I'm so proud by Eternauta3k · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most materials aren't reflective enough, the people who make laser etching machines can tell you how even the best mirrors (gold, polished to under a 1/4 wavelength) are only 80% reflective. That means 20% is being absorbed as heat. With enough power, you could burn through anything.

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  2. They're getting smaller every day. by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yesterday: 747-mounted laser.
    Today: Truck-mounted laser.
    Tomorrow: Shark-mounted laser.

    --
    sudo eat my shorts
    1. Re:They're getting smaller every day. by zamboni1138 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They're still working on the 747-mounted laser.

    2. Re:They're getting smaller every day. by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yesterday: 747-mounted laser.
      Today: Truck-mounted laser.
      Tomorrow: Shark-mounted laser.

      Tomorrow afternoon: Large tank of water in the back of a truck to carry shark-mounted lasers.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:They're getting smaller every day. by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm guess you're being sarcastic, but taking out incoming mortar, artillery, and rockets really would be a boon in most forseeable conflicts including Iraq. For instance: "BAGHDAD, July 10 -- More than two dozen mortar shells pounded the Green Zone on Tuesday, killing three people, including a U.S. military member, and injuring 18, among them five Americans, U.S. officials said."

    4. Re:They're getting smaller every day. by afidel · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, the intermediate step would be lasers mounted on trained spy squirrels.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  3. That's great, but... by AdmiralAudio · · Score: 5, Funny

    How soon will we see these being mounted on the heads of ill-tempered seabass?

    1. Re:That's great, but... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      How the hell can the parent be offtopic?

      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.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  4. Damnit! by simp · · Score: 5, Funny

    This government is so incompetent!! Bush screwed up. Again...

    Sharks, I wanted sharks. Is that so difficult?

  5. The adult in me says by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Funny

    Guns of destruction are bad.

    But the kid in me says...

    SA-WEEET!!!!!!

    1. Re:The adult in me says by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      The kid in me is disappointed that the truck doesn't transform into a humanoid robot with the laser held in its hand like a gun.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  6. Might work in pure mountain air by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    surrounding Seattle, but I think you're right. I would not want to fire one of these in the dust and smoke of a typical battlefield. That energy will just get dissipated locally which can't be a GoodThing.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  7. No, not really by everphilski · · Score: 5, Informative

    The range to shoot down a RAM (rocket-artillery-mortar) threat is on the range of a few kilometers. Laser attenuation ovr that short a distance is pretty minimal. My master's thesis was on this concept, but swapping out the laser for a gun-launched projectile... you actually don't need that much focused energy to destroy a RAM threat mid-flight.

    1. Re:No, not really by everphilski · · Score: 3, Informative

      The event horizon for a RAM threat is incredibly short. Seconds. Depending on the scenario, if you do not get your shot off within a few seconds of detection, you are dead in the water. Secondly, the amount of energy necessary to take out a RAM is pretty low... on the order of tens of kilojoules. These facts I know from my research.

      (Up until a few months ago, I worked 2 rooms over from some of the guys doing the modeling and simulation for this particular system ... this is a test bed, not the finished product)

  8. Sure... by chaidawg · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but can it drive a 6 inch spike through a board with its penis?

    1. Re:Sure... by trybywrench · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...but can it drive a 6 inch spike through a board with its penis?
      a girl's got to have her standards

      --
      I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
  9. Oblig. CNC by andrewd18 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck
    Also known as the predecessor to the Mammoth Tank.
  10. power reqs. by trybywrench · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder how much power it takes to run and if it can target multiple incoming threats at once. It would be awesome if it could take on say 5 or 8 incoming mortars at the same time. Even better would be knocking out a barrage of RPG's. I guess the final implementation would be zapping bullets out of thin air which at that point you'd have a "shield" like in sci-fi. Military tech amazes me.
     

    --
    I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
  11. So will this be the demise of their ... by PalmKiller · · Score: 4, Funny

    rail gun projects? Nooooo...I think rail guns are way cooler, especially when they malfunction.

    1. Re:So will this be the demise of their ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Rail guns are what the navy is going to use to replace cruise missiles (which replaced heavy ship artillery). Lots of advantages there -- about the same range and precision and destructive power as a cruise missile, but at a fraction of the cost. Plus has a huge advantage over both cruise missiles and conventional artillery shells in that the ammunition won't explode if the ship gets hit -- though I imagine the gigantic capacitors needed to fire the gun may blow up if charged up and hit, though that'd only be one shot's worth of energy rather than the ships whole payload. Rail guns have a bright future, as long as they can figure out how to keep the gun from destroying itself every shot.

      Lasers so far are mostly being considered for defensive roles to shoot missiles and artillery down. This is a good role for lasers, since first hitting the target at the speed of light is good when you're trying to hit a small fast moving target, and second because the energy needed to destroy a warhead isn't that large.

      Two awesome future technologies, two roles. It's a good time to be a geek. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  12. Dude... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    After the war, torture, Gitmo, NSA's unwarranted wiretapping and all the other crap that has made me ashamed to be an American, I'm glad that we can even for one brief moment have something cool like this.

    Yeah, sure, we'll probably sad when they end up used to blind baby seals or to violate the Geneva convention (again), but quit ruining the moment, dammit. You made me misread "cherry truck" as "Cheney truck" and I was afraid I'd get zapped in the face by it.

    1. Re:Dude... by VagaStorm · · Score: 4, Informative
      Because the Geneva Convention states that any country who has signed it is bound by it even if fighting others that have not:
      From http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/365?OpenDocument

      "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations."
    2. Re:Dude... by Da+Fokka · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How can you violate the Geneva Convention in a war against a country that hasn't signed the Geneva Convention?

      By being a country that has signed the Geneva convention, like the US, Afghanistand and Iraq.

    3. Re:Dude... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As I recall the Geneva Convention is a promise that your country will not engage in certain things, period, and isn't conditional on whether the other side also does. Am I wrong?

      You're wrong. From Article 2, Chapter 1, of the 1st Geneva Convention of 1949:

      Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

      Note that you're bound to respect the Convention if your opponent is a signatory, OR if your opponent is not a signatory, but chooses to follow the Convention anyway.

      Note further that most, if not all, of the instances of the USA violating the Geneva Convention in the current troubles are violations of the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Additional Protocols of the Convention, none of which the USA are signatory to (which means they're not bound by them).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  13. MTHEL? by Lazarian · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why don't they just work with the already tested MTHEL system?

  14. No, that's the adolescent in you. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The adult in me says ... Guns of destruction are bad.

    No, that's the adolescent in you that says that. It wants to stop killing, hurting, and threatening, and goes after a tool that is capable of such things.

    But once you've had enough time and thought to understand the unintended consequences of the simple "solution" - disarming the law-abiding - you'll reach the adult understanding that self-defense requires force, and that a credible threat of retaliatory force produces a net reduction in killing, hurting, and threatening.

    "Mutual Assured Destruction" works at both the wholesale level (having prevented an all-out nuclear war for over half a century now) and the retail level (convincing crooks they want to leave you alone and either go after an easier victim or find a new line of work.)

    Second-order effects often swamp first-order effects, producing (initially) counter-intuitive results. Part of growing up is learning which situations are like that, and what the useful counter-intuitive solutions are. (To people with less experience this is often mistaken for wisdom, cynicism, or evil.)

    Unfortunately there is a significant fraction of the population that either never DOES grow up or never learns some important lessons about rare, but deadly, situations.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  15. Dual use? by Lurker2288 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have any trials been done on using the laser to fill a snide professor's house with popcorn? There could be a big market for this among the college crowd.

  16. Re:How do clouds of popcorn change this? by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Funny

    You make an excellent point. All the enemy needs to do is first fire a barrage of Jiffy Pop popcorn. when the laser hits it, the corn pops and rains down on the target. This should be sufficient in preventing the laser from knocking out the REAL rounds, which are fired second.

    Hey, it works when fired from a satellite!

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  17. MTHEL already tested against multiple mortars by vg30e · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Laser in the article is a development of the MTHEL project. The purpose of MTHEL is to defend positions against incoming rockets and mortars. One of the test videos actually shows the MTHEL hitting 3 different mortar rounds launched from 3 different positions all traveling through the air at the same time.

  18. Re:How do clouds of popcorn change this? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

    All the enemy needs to do is first fire a barrage of Jiffy Pop popcorn. when the laser hits it, the corn pops and rains down on the target. This should be sufficient in preventing the laser from knocking out the REAL rounds, which are fired second.

    So would this be called Jiffy Chaff?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  19. Quake 3? by Reddragon220 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the Navy has railguns and the Army now has lasers - the Air force better get quad-damage or else they're going to get pwned.

  20. Fess up by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator project actually shoots stuff

    Who wrote that summary, George Bush?

  21. Re:Very useful (defensive) weapon by mi · · Score: 3, Funny

    I get upset when they start making congress pass bad laws.

    Boeing are a member of neither RIAA nor MPAA. What's the problem?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  22. Re:Very useful (defensive) weapon by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some of us choose not to rejoice in war at all. Some of us are looking for a better way.

    False dichotomy. You can rejoice at some aspect of a war (such as fewer deaths), while still looking for "a better way".

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  23. Slashup Mashup by alta · · Score: 3, Funny

    NEWSFLASH:

    Boeing has developed a new squirrel mounted laser. Lasers have been mounted to squirrels and released on the Iranian border. Unfortunatly the squirrels were all captured by iranian police, but not after they fried their eyes out.

    Cost? $50 million nuts.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  24. Who are you to talk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > If your ashamed to be an American, then America is ashamed to have shed blood for your freedom...nuff said.

    Well, I personally don't think Americans fought and died so that we could torture people, or that you speak for the whole country. But that's just me.

    And don't give me any flag waving to say that these kinds of gross national failures happen elsewhere or are somehow acceptable. I flew what was probably the biggest damn flag in the state for a good long time.

    I don't feel like flying it any more because of all the "patriots" who think that saying "This is the best damn country in the world!" is something you use to excuse problems instead of a reason to acknowledge, fix and rise above them! Dammit, you don't fix things by stuffing your head up your ass! The only way you can NOT feel shame is if you have no damn pride in your country to begin with!

  25. Re:You are no longer of any use to me by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's do the math, just coz I'm bored.

    The specific heat capacity of stainless steel is 500j/Kg and from this site I'm going to assume the specific heat capacity of the explosive is the same as "sandy clay" (poor assumption, but this is /. and I can't be bothered doing more research) which is 1381j/Kg.

    Lets assume a 5Kg mortar is 40% propellant, 30% explosive and 30% shell, and that you don't have to heat the propellant. The specific heat capacity of a 2.5Kg object with a 50/50 mix of steel and clay by weight is given by:

    (2.5 / 2) * 0.5(500 + 1381) = 2351.25 Kj/K/Kg

    Lets also say we want to heat the thing from ambient (35 degrees Celcius, coz remember we're in the desers of Iraq) to 100 degrees (I have no idea about explosives, despite the fact that I am a Muslim) in order to detonate it.

    100 - 35 = 65 degree delta

    Assuming that all energy is absorbed evenly, the formula for energy required is:

    e = 65K(delta) * 4.7025 Kj/K/Kg
    = 152.83125 Kj

    Given that watts are a measure of joules per second, assuming you have a quarter of a second "paint time" of the laser on the round, your lazer will need to emit:

    (1/0.25) * 152.83125 Kj
    = 611.325 W

    (Please note: My assumptions are completely bullshit and this figure is probably way off, but it was fun doing them anyway.)

    To put this into perspective, a 20g chocolate biscuit yeilds about 2,200 Kj. So really, forget the billion dollar laser program, just start lobbing chocolate biscuits at your enemy.

    If this post wasn't bizarre enough, if you lob that chocolate biscuit fast enough at your enemny for e = mc^2 to come into play, then that same chocolate biscuit will yield:

    e = 0.02 * (3*10^8)^2
    = 1,800,000,000,000 Kj

    Just sayin'.

    --
    I hate printers.