Slashdot Mirror


Northrop Grumman Markets Weaponized Laser System

stephencrane writes "Northrop Grumman is making available for sale the FIRESTRIKE weaponized laser system. The solid-state laser unit weighs over 400lbs, sends/receives instructions and data via an RJ-45 jack and can be synchronized with additional units to emit a 100 kW beam. It looks like some piece of stereophonic amplification equipment out of the '50s. Or Fallout 3. The press release suggests that FIRESTRIKE 'will form the backbone of future laser weapon systems.'"

246 comments

  1. In other news by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Northrop is also working on a weaponized shark system.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:In other news by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wonder if this laser can pop popcorn? From long distances? In someone's house?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:In other news by Adriax · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can guess how that board meeting went:
      Engineer: *holds a model shark in one hand, a model of their laser system in another* "Behold!" *mashes two models together*
      Cue large round of applause and back patting from board members.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    3. Re:In other news by incognito84 · · Score: 1

      FRICKIN'STRIKE.

    4. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I wonder if this laser can pop popcorn? From long distances? In someone's house?

      Yes. First use the laser to set the house on fire. Next use it to blow up firetrucks trying to put out the fire. The popcorn will then pop as desired.

    5. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell can the first post be redundant? Overrated maybe, but not redundant. I thought it was funny personally. I hope the meta-moderators hit them over the head with a clue stuck.

    6. Re:In other news by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      It will take a lot of miniaturization. The one they have now is way too big and heavy for a shark's head.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    7. Re:In other news by magarity · · Score: 2, Informative

      way too big and heavy for a shark's head
       
      You need to do more shark research. At a mere 400 pounds, it wouldn't bother this shark at all to carry several around.

    8. Re:In other news by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      well, the "sharks with friggin-lasers on their heads" joke is already mentioned in the article (at the very end). so repeating a joke that's in the article can be considered redundant to some people. besides, it's a pretty old/tired joke that gets mentioned pretty much every day here.

    9. Re:In other news by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      Things weigh a lot less in water. I weigh about 150, and my kids could carry me at age 5 when I'm in the pool (which they found highly amusing). They'd have to reduce the drag coefficient, though. Maybe they should collaborate with Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

    10. Re:In other news by ikono · · Score: 1

      Have you forgotten where you are? (In after redundant..)

      --
      Karma is for whores
    11. Re:In other news by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Funny
      The only thing more impressive I could think of, would be driving a six inch railroad spike through a board.....

      Now...what would I use to do that with.....?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:In other news by AnarkiNet · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't weigh any less in water, but someone "picking you up" or "carrying" you while in water is aided by the fact that people are buoyant. I can guarantee that a 400lb metal box is not buoyant in the slightest.

    13. Re:In other news by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's only been mentioned when either sharks or lasers are used as weapons, or when some really stupid, overly complicated and utterly useless weapon is being demonstrated.

      Or in this case, when two of those come into play.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The value of "some people" here is "people who aren't violently stupid".

    15. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It depends on your standards.

    16. Re:In other news by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      now sharks can have better table manners and cut their food into polite pieces. I always snip at my kids for not cutting their meat during dinner.

      Of course even if they do achieve this will we know... after all, in the movies the sharks with frickin lasers (SWFL) always eat the engineers and scientists first.

    17. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's a shark supposed to breath in a pool of mercury?

    18. Re:In other news by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    19. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      SCUBA gear. Duh.

    20. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Northrop is also working on a weaponized shark system.

      It turns out they couldn't work it out with the sharks... but, they've got some mutant, ill-tempered sea bass.

    21. Re:In other news by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1

      ...to be followed up by one hell of a Pink Floyd laser light show.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    22. Re:In other news by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      You don't weigh any less in water, but someone "picking you up" or "carrying" you while in water is aided by the fact that people are buoyant. I can guarantee that a 400lb metal box is not buoyant in the slightest.

      The buoyant force comes from the displacement of water. So depending on its size, it could in fact float. I suggest you examine some of todays ships, which are metal boxes, and weigh significantly more than a measly 400 lbs.

      Now, this box probably isn't large enough to float, but it will exhibit some degree of buoyancy.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    23. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say what? Size helps only if the contents of the box are lighter than water, ships float because they're full of air. Stick a ship-shaped lump of solid metal in the sea and it sure as hell won't float no matter how big you make it.

      Bathtubs float. So do pots and pans, and so do beer bottle caps. Friggin' tiny metal boxes float, this can obviously float, if what's in is is very light, which it probably isn't, so it won't, but it doesn't have anything to do with it being too small.

    24. Re:In other news by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Hi Kent. Have you been touching yourself?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    25. Re:In other news by Illudium+Q-36 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but can this "laser" punch a hole in the ozone?

  2. Wayne Newton being held by the miliary by 2.7182 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apparently, he is the only one who could defeat this system, due to his rhinestone covered suit.

    1. Re:Wayne Newton being held by the miliary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude I think you misheard. They are holding Tom Jones.

  3. Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prefab lasers.

    Evil Geniuses rejoice everywhere.

    1. Re:Great... by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      I'll rejoice when their stock price goes back up.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    2. Re:Great... by hajihill · · Score: 1

      No seriously, though.

      The United States Military isn't, in my opinion (get out your tin-foil hats), in the habit of developing a brand-new and potentially game-winning technology, and promptly running to the phone to make a press release. Between this and several other more benign, as several medical advances reported on recently, I can't help but wonder what has happened in the international community that would prompt this type of activity. What type of non-public intel would instigate a response of this kind from the U.S. Military, an organization that has previously only let the world know they had radar evading aircraft some twenty years (or some such) after they had been in operation? Could it be that some other potentially less-than-friendly has developed some other or similar "Star Wars" type tech? And, I mean other than those we currently suspect of trying to develop nukes.

      And please, don't hesitate to tell me I can go back to my conspiracy theorist secret bunker, as I've got plenty of canned food to last.

      --
      Of blankness, I know nothing.
  4. That's no home stereo... by Redfeather · · Score: 1

    It's a solid state laser weapon.

    --
    Those things you're doing with that stuff you just bought? That's not what it's for! -
    1. Re:That's no home stereo... by narcberry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      sends/receives instructions and data via an RJ-45 jack

      Don't worry guys, the TSA is working hard on updating their "do not mix with aircraft" list to accommodate this.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
  5. Yes but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    We are gonna need a bigger shark.

    1. Re:Yes but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      In other news, Northrop Grumman announces they have contracted InGen to clone C. Megaladon.

    2. Re:Yes but by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I better go tell Sam Neil he'll be needed in a few weeks.

      --
      I hate printers.
  6. Laser sharks Post no 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yahoo, laser sharks.

    (And a whale to carry the power pack)

  7. More details? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This pic from TFA shows a "heating/cooling" interface which shows that the units are going to need a coolant circulation system which would makes the whole system more cumbersome than it appears at first glance. With each LRU at 400 pounds + the cooling system I doubt these would be mounted on a hummer.

    Another bullet point is that TFA states that "The firm has said that at least eight of these can be linked up to get a proper 100 kilowatt beam" but how exactly would that be done? this provides an idea, anybody "in the know" wanna chime in?

    1. Re:More details? by d3ac0n · · Score: 3, Informative

      from here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m998.htm

      The High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) is the replacement vehicle for the M151 series jeeps. The HMMWV's mission is to provide a light tactical vehicle for command and control, special purpose shelter carriers, and special purpose weapons platforms throughout all areas of the modern battlefield. It is supported using the current logistics and maintenance structure established for Army wheeled vehicles. The HMMWV is equipped with a high performance diesel engine, automatic transmission and four wheel drive that is air transportable and droppable from a variety of aircraft. The HMMWV can be equipped with a self-recovery winch capable of up to 6000 pound 1:1 ratio line pull capacity and can support payloads from 2,500 - 4,400 pounds depending on the model. The HMMWV is produced in several configurations to support weapons systems; command and control systems; field ambulances; and ammunition, troop and general cargo transport.

      Sounds like the Hummer can carry quite a FEW 400 pound laser packs. In fact, a light and fast platform like the HMMWV is IDEAL for a weapons system like this. I expect we'll see this deployed within 10 years.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    2. Re:More details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not "in the know" but I have a feeling someone I know is... I'll ask. ;)

    3. Re:More details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would fit well as a larger laser destroyer. Get four or five of these fully linked 8-generator combo guns up and cooled, everything powered from a light nuclear reactor below should work very well and still be fairly light.

    4. Re:More details? by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Also, the HMMWV will now be called the "Shark."

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    5. Re:More details? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1
    6. Re:More details? by couchslug · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The HMMWV is not ideal for mobility. It is a cheap light tactical truck.

      Where a laser would be a good fit is in upcoming hybrid-drive FCS-type tracked vehicles. Tracks give far superior mobility, more usable interior space, and can carry more armor. The hybrid electric system offers plenty of electrical power.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:More details? by jank1887 · · Score: 3, Informative

      it's not a weight issue. it's a power issue. the Humvee can't just run one of these off it's alternator like it can with the air conditioning. It's a high power laser system, which needs a lot of back end support (cooling, etc). Probably not made for a HMMWV. Maybe one of the larger vehicles. Notice from the release that operation is "Continuous, as long as power and coolant are provided". So power's not internal, it has to be hooked to some sort of converter. That will likely be another box almost as big as the laser itself. Cooling will be a third box (that must be powered too) also about the same size. These are big.

    8. Re:More details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another bullet point

      Can a laser have bullet points?

    9. Re:More details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This pic from TFA shows a "heating/cooling" interface which shows that the units are going to need a coolant circulation system which would makes the whole system more cumbersome than it appears at first glance. With each LRU at 400 pounds + the cooling system I doubt these would be mounted on a hummer.

      Another bullet point is that TFA states that "The firm has said that at least eight of these can be linked up to get a proper 100 kilowatt beam" but how exactly would that be done? this provides an idea, anybody "in the know" wanna chime in?

    10. Re:More details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FAIL.

    11. Re:More details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Exactly. The article states that the laser is only 20% efficient, thus the 100kw beam requires a 500kw power source. It would take one heck of a diesel engine to run a 500kw generator.

      However...

      An M1 Abrams tank has a 1500 horsepower turbine engine which would be more than enough, and is easily capable of carrying the 1.5 tons of laser modules and probably 0.5 - 1 tons of cooling equipment. You could theoretically replace the main gun with one of these, though I have no idea if it would make tactical sense to do so.

    12. Re:More details? by actionbastard · · Score: 1

      "...anybody "in the know" wanna chime in?"

      Each 'weapon' emits 15kw in one 'spot'. Put eight 'spots' on target and you get "a proper 100Kw". The 'synchronization' comes from being able to 'steer and fire' the weapons simultaneously. Oh, and don't forget the weight -1.5 tonnes ('nes' indicates metric)- and the efficiency -~20%- and total power requirements -~500Kw input power for ~100Kw out- means that this thing won't be mounted on a Humvee any time soon.

      --
      Sig this!
    13. Re:More details? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The hybrid drive train FCS family of tracked vehicles would have the ability to power and haul such gear, and this has been envisioned for many years.

      https://www.fcs.army.mil/

      HMMWVs are merely light utility trucks.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    14. Re:More details? by hax0r_this · · Score: 1

      How about in an airplane? You have plenty of power and weight/space don't need to be an issue. I would think something like this could provide a higher precision alternative to the projectile weapons mounted in an AC130. The main issues that come to mind are stability (how long would you need to hold this steady on a target) and range.

      Actually, a quick bit of googling reveals that is in the works,

    15. Re:More details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      power can be provided by a high density capacitor bank, as long as you don't need a continuous beam. recharge time could be problematic, but a supplemental power source could be fitted.

      there's already talk of going all electric and using a turbine for a generator, allowing the vehicle to generate a lot of energy quickly.

      i doubt we'll see them replace the 50 cal machine guns with these anytime soon, but who knows?

    16. Re:More details? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but "steer and fire" means that you're going to rotate the entire array until its facing the target, and then you're going to depend on the proximity of the target to cause damage because the beams are apparently fixed.

      I doubt they'll have some ultra-advanced ranging system combined with self-steerable beams to focus all of the beams onto a single point from variable distances.

      More likely they made crude calculations based on the destructive power of the collective beams with respect to distance and designed the size of the units so that they could be stacked to maximize damage within an ultimately narrow range.

      These things are designed for ruggedness, but all "current" military technology is really 10-20 years behind "cutting edge".

    17. Re:More details? by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Humvees drive the A/C from the alternator? Most cars do this with a dedicated belt with no conversion of mechanical energy to electricity as it's more efficient.

    18. Re:More details? by Opr33Opr33 · · Score: 0

      This pic from TFA shows a "heating/cooling" interface which shows that the units are going to need a coolant circulation system which would makes the whole system more cumbersome than it appears at first glance. With each LRU at 400 pounds + the cooling system I doubt these would be mounted on a hummer.

      My "vehicle" choice currently uses water cooling with the ocean acting a large heat sink so no additional cooling should be necessary. As a bonus, the buoyancy provided by the salt water will render the 400 pounds (that's weight for those of you across the big pond) much easier to deal with.

    19. Re:More details? by m50d · · Score: 2, Funny

      HMMWV? Did they steal the name from Command & Conquer?

      --
      I am trolling
    20. Re:More details? by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      It's also a cooling issue. 500 kW of input power gets turned into 400 kW of heat and some light, so you need a cooling system that can dissipate 400 kW in all conditions (including equatorial desert). If you want to run the laser continuously, you need a cooling system of the size used for 50-ton lorries. Bigger, in fact, since you need to dissipate 400 kW at standstill instead of being able to count on 50 mph winds, i.e. pretty big to fit on a HMMWV.

    21. Re:More details? by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      The HMMWV predates C&C by a decade or two.
      The military loves acronyms. I did some work for a defence contractor once, and they needed a 120-page dictionary to list all the acronyms they used.

    22. Re:More details? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      1500 hp is only 1119 kw and that power is needed because the tank is very heavy. if you add a strong enough cooler to dissipate 400kw continuously the tank couldn't move and fire at the same time, thus giving up its single most important difference to ww2 tanks.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    23. Re:More details? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      the cooling system I doubt these would be mounted on a hummer

      On a hummer? Don't even joke about it.

      If they want the thing to be mobile why put 2008 technology on a bad copy of a substandard 1940s British truck? Copying something from the 1950s or perhaps buying something made in the 1980s in Eastern Europe will give you far superior vehicle technology and reliability even if it was made on Friday afternoon by drunks.

    24. Re:More details? by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      The air conditioner is an add-on in the back of the truck, it's not a standard piece of equipment under the hood.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    25. Re:More details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anybody "in the know" wanna chime in?

      Lets Chat

    26. Re:More details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clearly you can't run it off the alternator. Lasers like this are pulsed, so you can use the alternator to charge a capacitor to deliver a high energy pulse. It's just that the thing won't be able to fire continuously, and will have to recharge between shots.

    27. Re:More details? by Beefpatrol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cooling system was the first thing I thought about. I used to work for a company that built prototype lasers for defense and medical applications. We were working on something that could have been an eventual competitor to a laser like the one in TFA. There are lots of commercially available lasers in the 100W-1kW category that are probably similarly designed. Many of the ones that I have seen have a laser "head" which contains all the optics, the pump source, and the laser rod. I've seen ones roughly the size of a toaster. The cooling unit, (which can't be avoided for any laser that I have ever discussed with any of my colleagues, regardless of how much money you have at your disposal to commission a cooling-free one,) is typically the size of a small refrigerator. The problem with solid-state lasers is that the laser rod itself is typically about 3-5mm in diameter and maybe 10-15mm long. The quantum efficiency of the photon conversion process is not 100%. In fact, it isn't even particularly close to 100%. (The quantum efficiency is a function of the laser system in question. For example, any Nd:YAG laser with the same doping concentrations will have the same theoretical maximum quantum efficiency. Nd:YVO4 (wouldn't surprise me if Nd:YVO4 is in the laser in TFA), has a different one, etc.) Whatever light from the pump source isn't converted to photons in the output beam usually ends up being deposited as heat somewhere else in the system. With solid-state lasers, a large amount of this heat gets deposited in this rather small crystal rod. That ends up being the power-limiting factor most of the time. Whatever Northrup Grumman is doing to make a solid-state laser function at 15kW must involve *lots* of cooling. Either the cooling solution has to be really cold, (unlikely -- too much thermal deviation causes materials to change in size too much causing optical misalignment which causes all sorts of nasty things to happen), or the flow volume must be very large, and they must have developed some way to make an unusually good thermal interface between the laser rod and the cooling solution. Another possibility is that they have multiple gain stages, or that they actually have multiple solid state lasers in that box whose beams are already combined. If they do have multiple lasers in that box, then an M^2 of "nominally 1.5" is almost unbelievably excellent. (Unless that figure came from a "hero" experiment wherein they got an M^2 of 1.5 for 3us before it all went south.) (For those of you who want to know more about laser beam quality and what "nominally 1.5x diffraction limited" really means, here is a rather lackluster summary that includes most of the relevant information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_parameter_product The "times diffraction limited" value in TFA is the "M-squared" number talked about in the summary.) Even with the multiple gain stage option, (which has problems as well), they still need to get a lot of heat out of that box, and they need to be able to control the temperature of the laser rod and most of the stuff that is close to it, which means they can't just connect up some large heat sink (like the body of the vehicle, for instance), and go to town. The temperature needs to be stable. Since they probably aren't running the laser all the time, (presumably they don't want to spend the power having it running and then just open a shutter when they want to melt something -- this would require dissipating all the heat the shutter would be absorbing too,) the cooling system needs to be able to provide relatively little cooling at times, and then lots when they turn the thing on. In fact, it probably needs to be able to heat too, since it would need to be usable in cold weather in a military application.

      A lot of research has been done on fiber lasers for this type of application because the heat generated in the gain medium is spread out over the length of a fiber instead of concentrated in a sm

    28. Re:More details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't be a case of replacing the gun with the laser and expecting the tank to fulfill exactly the same role. I assume it would function a lot more like artillery, or at best a close fire support vehicle. And since it wouldn't be a frontline combatant you could strip off most of the armour, and since the "gun" is much lighter, has no recoil and doesn't need ammunition, the turret mechanism would be lighter.

      You could probably move and fire at the same time, and faster than vanilla M1s. Especially if you converted it to use wheels instead of tracks.

    29. Re:More details? by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

      Air conditioning? You're one of those Air Farce pukes, aren't you. HMMMWs with air conditioning... sheesh.

      --
      Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    30. Re:More details? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      artillery? i'd yet to see indirect firing lasers.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    31. Re:More details? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that very high power lasers, like the one in TFA, were generally chemical lasers powered by a chemical reaction and not an external source of power. If the laser can be powered by a cartridge of chemical reactants then the HMMWV probably could carry enough cartridges for a reasonable number of shots provided that the laser weapon itself can hold up under the strain (lighter vehicle mounted laser probably means less durable or only good for a very limited number of shots before it needs to be replaced) and doesn't weight too much more than the 40mm grenade launcher or the .50 machine gun.

    32. Re:More details? by bentcd · · Score: 1

      I doubt they'll have some ultra-advanced ranging system combined with self-steerable beams to focus all of the beams onto a single point from variable distances.

      No, that would require an expensive laser rangefinder or something and that would just . . . oh, wait . . . :-)

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
  8. BattleTech. by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    "Northrop Grumman is making available for sale the FIRESTRIKE weaponized laser system. The solid-state laser unit weighs over 400lbs, sends/receives instructions and data via an RJ-45 jack and can be synchronized with additional units to emit a 100 kW beam."

    Now you can see why DARPA's working on exoskeletons.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:BattleTech. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It is also available in units that weigh more then 300 pounds~

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

    I should've ordered UPS 2-Day Air shipping on this thing, not ground. I won't get to play with it until late next week. :-(

    1. Re:Dammit by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      UPS won't ship more than 150 pounds. You should have hired a courier (and told them "no signature required," so they can leave it on your doorstep).

  10. Blind soldiers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So what do we do with all the blind civilians and soldiers then? I assume soon blindness will be fully curable but I also assume there will be shortages so that only people in the military will have vision during wartime?

    1. Re:Blind soldiers by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You haven't seen how the US handles casualties of war, have you?

      Eye patches and canes, maybe a dog for officers. You can't make an omelet without breaking legs.

      As for civilians, well. . .

      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

    2. Re:Blind soldiers by citizenr · · Score: 1

      he meant exoskeletons for carrying those lasers on the battlefield, spend soldiers can go homeless like they always did, nobody cares about them

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    3. Re:Blind soldiers by level4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're being shot in the face with a 15KW laser, I think blindness is the least of your worries. A direct shot from something like this will lead to blindness in the same way a bullet in your eye leads to blindness. The unit is a weapon and will be treated like one, I doubt they'll be waving it around as a joke any more than they shoot people with real bullets for a joke.

      More interesting is the question of backscatter - lasers can be reflected. In fact, it would see the primary means of protection against laser fire would be a mirrored surface. On any kind of complex surface that will indeed produce a lot of scattered rays of lesser, but still blinding, power.

      I would assume that the primary envisaged use case of this thing, right now at least, is anti-missile, especially at sea. Anti-ship missiles typically have a curved, if not spherical, tip, which in future will presumably be covered by a mirrored coating as a counter to the existence of laser defense systems. At least some of the laser light, then, will likely reflect back at the ship, with unpredictable intensity.

      The advent of this kind of thing may indeed precipitate an interesting change in how military personnel dress and expose themselves in combat situations. Mirrored helmets for everyone who could possibly be in range would seem a likely first step ...

      Disclaimer: I know nothing about laser warfare that I didn't learn from Culture novels!

      --
      Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
    4. Re:Blind soldiers by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a material out there, google for it, that can go from a transparent material to a mirrored material in around 11 seconds when current is applied to it. I could see that being used as a windshield for whatever vehicle carries these devices, and activated before firing the weapon.

    5. Re:Blind soldiers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: I know nothing about laser warfare that I didn't learn from Culture novels!

      Unfortunately, the Culture novels usually include various forms of imaginary "Field" tech that drastically even the odds for both human-scale and starsship laser battles, typically "mirror" field configurations that act as nonmaterial perfect deflectors of laser beams*. Some of the field tech is actually technically possible, sortof (extrapolate from e.g. recent "invisibility cloaks"), but we're a long, long way from making them work the way the ones in culture novels work. They basically might as well be magic. And that's not even getting into the fictional-as-far-as-anyone-knows hyperspace mechanics that totally change the nature of the space battles from the realistic - "electromagnetic effectors" are used across relativistically absurd distances given the 3-space speed of light, but banks is careful to point out that hyperspatial quantum-equivalents are employed. Banks writes to be carefully internally consistent with his imaginary physics, and the Culture novels DO rock, but I'm afraid they don't perfectly correspond to currently known physical theory. Banks' non-Culture book "The Algebraist" is IMO excellent, and is "harder" science fiction and has more realistic space battles, but still features only-slightly-more-plausible wormholes as a core element.

      *Note "beam weapons" in the culture novels are often tunable gamma-ray lasers by human standards, or streams of more exotic particles. The abbreviation CREWS (Coherent Radiation Emission Weapon System) is used to get across they aren't "just" terran-scale laser weapons systems.

    6. Re:Blind soldiers by couchslug · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The advent of this kind of thing may indeed precipitate an interesting change in how military personnel dress and expose themselves in combat situations. Mirrored helmets for everyone who could possibly be in range would seem a likely first step ..."

      Mirrored helmets are sniper bait, but a full-face combat helmet system with auto-darkening lenses would reduce eye damage from reflections. Auto-darkening welding lenses are cheap to produce.

      http://www.millerwelds.com/products/weldinghelmets/

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Blind soldiers by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Same thing they do with all the dead ones?

    8. Re:Blind soldiers by level4 · · Score: 1

      Ah, another fan : )

      Well, I agree with everything you say, and am not really qualified to add anything to your analysis. However, bear in mind that yesterday's magic is today's research project and tomorrow's $100 gadget.

      I am an utter layman, and do not pretend otherwise - everyone has to specialise in something, and no-one can know everything. But I learn what I can in the time that I have, and one of the things I am most interested in is Quantum Field Theory. I suggest looking into it if you want some (very early) guidance into what might be actually possible in terms of matter/energy even in this dimension. The implications are as staggering as the science is baffling - very. And QFT is hardly alone, also check out M-theory, Quantum Foam, and String theory. None of these are crackpot niche theories, by the way.

      Just to give you a taste, here's a question for you: What's the energy density of vacuum?

      General relativity tells you it's, uh, not very much. About 10 to the -9 joules per cubic meter, to be exact.

      According to QFT, the answer can vary between 0 and infinity, depending what you feed in, and still be "right" (since QFT presently ignores gravity) - the correct answer is probably "undetermined at this time".

      What's the point of this? Well, that two major branches of physics disagree on the energy of a vacuum is a pretty big deal to me. What if it's huge, a (seemingly) very real possibility? What could we do with that?

      Allow me to radically and destructively oversimplify. Some theories suggest that matter as we know it is basically standing waves of energy, which manifests itself in "our" dimensions, like a standing wave in a one-dimensional string turns it, for all intents and purposes, into a two-dimensional object. Any space without that which we understand as physical substance (no matter, ie. a vacuum) has merely not been excited into the correct wave to appear in our dimensions. But what could the right kind of manipulation, applied correctly, do in this kind of "sea of latent matter" environment? Could it be possible to temporarily create those standing waves of matter-like behaviour? Or find something to push against, to move yourself through the vacuum like oars on the sea? There's your Culture fields, and there's your hyperspace grid. Or not : )

      Well, like I said, I'm nothing but a layman, and any actual quantum physicists reading this will no doubt find themselves involuntarily clenching their fists in rage at my ignorance. But I'm pretty sure that nothing I said is actually ruled out even by current theory.

      All I can say is, I look forward to the next century very much, as I'm sure some big surprises are in store as we begin to figure it all out for real... and maybe after another 100 years of study, I will actually know the first thing I am talking about .. : )

      --
      Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
    9. Re:Blind soldiers by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      A problem with using cloaking systems on lasers is that you cannot allow any inefficiency or the laser will destroy your system pretty quickly and of course you have to make the system work at the exact frequency the laser uses which is not going to be visible light most of the time and might vary from attacker to attacker, one inefficiency in one spectrum and it's barbecue time. Of course lasers in space combat are probably less of a concern since the waste heat would be very difficult for the attacker to get rid of, he'd risk cooking himself by using the laser too often.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    10. Re:Blind soldiers by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      General relativity tells you it's, uh, not very much. About 10 to the -9 joules per cubic meter, to be exact.

      According to QFT, the answer can vary between 0 and infinity, depending what you feed in, and still be "right" (since QFT presently ignores gravity) - the correct answer is probably "undetermined at this time".

      I don't think you can pick a value with absolute certainity so you'd need a probability function. The probability for anything that differs drastically from that 10e-9 is probably diminishingly small and can be ignored for practical purposes.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    11. Re:Blind soldiers by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      The military would never go for that. They'd use shutters like these:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Army_mlrs_1982_02.jpg

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    12. Re:Blind soldiers by level4 · · Score: 1

      The probability for anything that differs drastically from that 10e-9 is probably diminishingly small and can be ignored for practical purposes.

      Wow, I see you've solved the cosmological constant problem, then? Just like that!

      Ok, Quantum field theorists all over the world .. pens down! Job's done, problem solved. I know you've all been wondering why the hell the universe is expanding exponentially when it shouldn't be, and it sure looked like the energy of vacuum had a lot to do with it .. but, nope, sorry! You can just ignore it, straight from the horses's mouth, you heard it here first.

      Hey, could I ask a teensy small favour? I know I didn't do any of the key work on your breakthrough, other than perhaps inspire the wheels of genius to spin into action .. but I sure would appreciate a litte "thanks for the assist" in your Nobel Prize acceptance speech next year for casually solving - in a slashdot comment no less! - one of the greatest outstanding problems in physics today.

      --
      Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
    13. Re:Blind soldiers by John_Yossarian · · Score: 1

      Actually, military lasers are almost always infrared CO2 lasers. There aren't a lot of materials that can significantly reflect high powered IR lasers. Even those materials (usually copper) require coatings to boost their reflectivity. CO2 lasers in industry are a lot less powerful and are typically used to cut steel. So I wouldn't be too worried about some guy with a hand mirror if I was holding one of these things.

    14. Re:Blind soldiers by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Auto-darkening welding lenses are cheap to produce."

      And might not be effective. To protect against significant laser exposure you might have to wear something that would make you effectively blind in daylight. Or at least some have speculated. I have no clue if they are correct.

      In any case, welding lenses would not be ideal on a battlefield. Especially if someone is trying to kill you....

    15. Re:Blind soldiers by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "In any case, welding lenses would not be ideal on a battlefield. Especially if someone is trying to kill you...."

      Not in their current "industrial" form factor, which defaults to a lower green shade when the system isn't energized. The same principle but with a clear lens could be helpful, and protective goggles are now common wear for soldiers.

      http://www.armor4troops.org/images2/Wiley%20X-on%20face.jpg

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    16. Re:Blind soldiers by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      In something not unrelated... I heard once that it was possible for non-dualistic matter to exist, possibly as dark matter. THat means that it does not have the characteristics of a paticle at any level. Its a pure matter wave, even in the macroscopic world, even at room temp. HTH

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    17. Re:Blind soldiers by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1
      c-o-a-t-e-d c-o-p-p-e-r

      *shuts notebook* thanks.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    18. Re:Blind soldiers by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      Would mirrors have to be exposed to the open air to work? Can't they just cover the mirrored helmet with some cloth and keep them looking the same as they do now? If the laser hits it'll just fry through the cloth immediately, but then meet the mirrored surface.

      I don't know much about military equipment, but I believe even today's vests have the armor plates on the inside of the vest ratehr than the outside. They could just set the mirrors where the armor plates are. The outward appearance wouldn't have to change, though they may have to take care to ensure that the fabric just chars instead of catching fire or melting/dripping.

  11. defense by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So what exactly happens when they point the laser at a tank with a bunch of large corner cube reflectors mounted on it? I mean, if even a fraction of the laser energy comes back I could see this being a real problem.

    1. Re:defense by maxume · · Score: 1

      Just hit the tank with a conventional missile first.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:defense by Kandenshi · · Score: 1

      Lasers, reflectors?

      God damnit, now I want to go grab a few of my old friends and play a RIFTS® campaign. Never got around to playing a Glitter Boy.

    3. Re:defense by tenco · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that tanks with corner cube reflectors will be easily detected and fall prey to conventional weapons...

    4. Re:defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh you send in the A-10 Warthog to bust that shit open with depleted uranium rounds. Lets see your mirrors reflect that.

      This is a anti-missle/jet weapon mainly.

    5. Re:defense by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      Well first off it would be hard to hit the tank with a laser unless it was very close, or you were on a hill, since lasers are line of sight. These would probably be for anti air, most likely anti-missile, since lasers travel a *lot* faster than other rounds targeting is simpler. I wonder, are there any designs for stealth cruise missiles?

    6. Re:defense by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Just hit the tank with a conventional missile first."

      After which it won't need lasing. The reflectors would make a nice sparkly target. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:defense by Kawahee · · Score: 1

      I'm not a physicist, but as I understand it...

      The large corner cube reflectors would be destroyed. Reflection involves absorption and then re-emission. With normal light it's not a problem, but with powerful laser beams the energy will heat up the reflection surface and then destroy it.

      As long as it's aimed so it doesn't reflect straight back there shouldn't be much of a problem.

      --
      I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
    8. Re:defense by GleeBot · · Score: 1

      As long as it's aimed so it doesn't reflect straight back there shouldn't be much of a problem.

      Well, the thing about retroreflectors is that they always reflect straight back...

      The target would still be dead, but I think the whole 'what if some of it bounces back' dilemma might have some merit. I imagine a few calculations would show the return bounce would be minimal, though.

    9. Re:defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I played as a glitter boy! It was the first RPG I ever played, so I just went for the one with the biggest gun.

    10. Re:defense by John_Yossarian · · Score: 1

      The "bounce back" dilemma does not exist. Military lasers do not use visible light. They use IR. IANAP (I am not a physicist), but I work for a company that produces industrial lasers. So trust me, the laser is not going to be reflected back at its source.

    11. Re:defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I wasn't aware that mirrors didn't work on infrared light. Thanks for the tip.

  12. so what next ? by Atreide · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ok for christmas I get my brand new 15kw or later my 100kw laser gun.

    but what can i do with that ?
    explode a potato in a 10 minutes static shot ? or melt aircraft wing in 1 second ?

    also laser is light, therefore someone just needs to diffract or reflect the stream to be protected ? is that right ?

    --
    The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then :-(
    1. Re:so what next ? by stdarg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The explanation I've heard is that even though you see the light being diffracted or reflected, it's still being absorbed and re-emitted at the photon level. The material has to be able to stand up to the energy of the beam. Most mirror surfaces would quickly decompose.

    2. Re:so what next ? by bziman · · Score: 3, Informative

      also laser is light, therefore someone just needs to diffract or reflect the stream to be protected ? is that right ?

      Not quite... a reflecting surface has to absorb all the energy and then re-emit it when it is reflected. With a regular mirror, it's a piece of glass with a silvered back. This would rapidly heat up and destroy the glass, and the silvering. With a highly reflective metal surface, it would still heat it up and destroy its reflective properties with hasty abandon. Do a google search for anti-missile lasers to read how a laser weapon actually works.

    3. Re:so what next ? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ok for christmas I get my brand new 15kw or later my 100kw laser gun. ... but what can i do with that ?

      To provide a sense of scale, industrial laser cutters (CO2) tend to run from 100 W to 3000 W. The smaller of these lasers is five times more powerful. I imagine it could cut through an aircraft's wing in milliseconds at most; due to weight limits they aren't very thick. Of course, you'd need to do more than just bore a hole through the wing to bring down a plane.

      It's worth noting that a sufficiently powerful laser will actually vaporize the surface, rather than just melting it. It can essentially cause the surface to explode from the sudden influx of heat, resulting in far greater damage than a simple cut.

      also laser is light, therefore someone just needs to diffract or reflect the stream to be protected ? is that right ?

      At these power levels even an optics-quality mirror tends to absorb too much energy to remain effective. Even if it's just 0.1%, that's still 150 W to 1 kW being absorbed, which will quickly heat the mirror to the point where it becomes opaque.

      If you could make it work, though, a retroreflector would be even better than a mirror, since it would redirect the laser back at the source.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    4. Re:so what next ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also laser is light, therefore someone just needs to diffract or reflect the stream to be protected ? is that right ?

      In theory, yes. In reality? No. Basically, if you had a perfect mirror, you could deflect a laser beam. The reality is that all mirrors have imperfections. Even if you had an absolutely perfect mirror, the environment will contaminate it with dust and water vapor. Once you blast that mirror with your absurdly large laser, those imperfections, dust, and water all heat up and promptly destroy the mirror. A good mirror might give you a fraction of a second more time before you turn into a puddle of melted goo, but it isn't much in the way of armor.

      The best laser defense is probably a half-assed mirror followed by a layer of something that has a high melting point that can absorb a lot of heat before melting, followed by a layer of insulation. The idea is to first deflect as much energy as possible, absorb energy, and protect the target thermally for as long as you can. This might save you from a glancing blow or a brief hit. It would destroy the armor in the process, but it might protect the soft squishy bags of mostly water that are inside the target for a brief peroid of time. In the end, the best defense against a laser is to not get hit in the first place.

    5. Re:so what next ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aircraft? No, aircraft are moving. It's very difficult to maintain a tight focus on such an object, and it has plenty of air cooling. Blinding the pilot or their optical instruments? Now, that's handy. It's also handy for other tight, small targets that won't easily dissipate heat. Tires, human eyes, radar antennas, etc., all seem good targets. Blowing through tank armor? Not bloody likely, the mass of metal will help dissipate any but a seriously prolonged attack quite easily.

    6. Re:so what next ? by Echinos · · Score: 1

      Umm.. no. A mirror or diffracting material would only have so much capacity for reflecting or diffracting before it starts to heat up. 100KW would need to be spread out over a lot of material to not get freakin' hot PDQ.

    7. Re:so what next ? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      Not quite... a reflecting surface has to absorb all the energy and then re-emit it when it is reflected.

      How's that again?

      A mirror doesn't "absorb all the energy and then re-emit it", at least not in any meaningful sense. What it does do is reflect 90% or 97% or 99% of the incident light, and convert the rest to heat. 10% of 15KW is 1.5KW, which (when deposited in a thin optical coating) will heat things up pretty quickly. And god help you if your mirror has gotten dusty, or smeared, or fingerprinted. (Think about the dire warnings about fingerprints on a mere 300-watt halogen bulb.)

    8. Re:so what next ? by bziman · · Score: 3, Informative

      A mirror doesn't "absorb all the energy and then re-emit it", at least not in any meaningful sense.

      Check your quantum physics. In fact, there are only a couple of ways that photons interact with matter... if there's no interaction at all, the photons pass right through. That's "transparency". There's also the photoelectric effect, where photons interact with electrons, which rise to higher energy states, absorbing the photons. The new configurations aren't stable, so the electrons rapidly fall back to their original state, which emits a new photon. On a reflective surface, the atoms are aligned in such a way that the new photons are lined up very precisely, such that they match the photons that were absorbed. Otherwise, you might get a spectral reflection (i.e. shiny), but not coherent. In non-reflective surfaces, the photons are absorbed and the electrons either remain in their excited state, or photons are emitted that are different than the photons that were absorbed (for example, when you shine a black light on a white surface, the emitted photons are at a different wavelength than the absorbed photons). Either way, the entropy of the material is increased (i.e. it is heated), though the entropy is obviously greater when no new photon is re-emitted. There are other quantum interactions possible at higher energies, but the idea is the same.

      There's a good layman's explanation here, and a more comprehensive look in Dick Feynman's book.

    9. Re:so what next ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not really, fuel tanks on planes tend to be in wings, punch one hole in both and that plane won't make it much of anywhere. it will be coming down in short order.

      a single engine jet, punch a hole in that, maybe cut a few of the turbine blades and it will tear itself apart. two engine jet? (fighter jets seem to have two engines right next to eachother) when one engine shreds itself it will likely take out the other.

      punching a hole in the right spot is more than sufficient to take out anything really.

    10. Re:so what next ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite... a reflecting surface has to absorb all the energy and then re-emit it when it is reflected.

      Ummm, no. You're describing fluorescence & phosphorescence. Reflection is different.

      However, unless you have a perfect mirror, you are going to get some absorption & heating on the mirror. With a big enough light source, you will damage the mirror.

    11. Re:so what next ? by Kerelslied · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Distance is the problem.

      Focusing a 'low' power industrial laser 2 inches away is 'easy' (given ten years of experience). If I remember right: the electromagnetic field of a high power laser makes focusing impossible at some distance (>>2 inches). As for mirrors, I have an Ikea mirror that can reflect most of an unfocussed 1kW fased or unfased light beam without any problems.

    12. Re:so what next ? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      They move in a more or less linear fashion so it's easy to predict their movement accurately enough to keep a laser on them and this laser can produce so much heat it won't need much pointing to do damage and there's no way the air will transfer that heat away faster than the laser deals it. Hell, there have been much weaker lasers used to shoot an artillery shell out of the sky despite needing several seconds of firing to produce that damage, tracking and air cooling really aren't the problems.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    13. Re:so what next ? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      A reflector that sends 90% of the energy back might still hurt the laser badly even if it's destroyed almost instantly since the laser receives 9 times the energy it used to destroy the reflector, might cause some damage as well.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    14. Re:so what next ? by Isao · · Score: 1

      ok for christmas I get my brand new 15kw or later my 100kw laser gun.

      but what can i do with that ?

      You could shoot your eye out, kid.

    15. Re:so what next ? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Instead of saying "in any meaningful sense", perhaps I should have said "in the way that you're implying". And instead of saying "all the energy", perhaps you should have said "all the power".

      When you say "absorb all the energy and then re-emit it", it does strongly imply processes like fluorescence, or phosphorescence, or even heating and black-body radiation. Simple reflection is very different -- the period over which radiation is accumulated before being re-emitted is effectively zero.

      Absent higher-order interactions, the important thing is reflective efficiency, which determines the amount of energy that isn't "re-emitted". It's that lost energy that heats things up.

      I freely confess that I don't know how significant higher-order interactions are for conventional reflective materials at these power levels.

    16. Re:so what next ? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Of course, you'd need to do more than just bore a hole through the wing to bring down a plane.

      Maybe not, if the wing is full of jet fuel.

    17. Re:so what next ? by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

      My first thought too. Hello? Wing-stored fuel is pretty much the standard.

      What ARE they teaching them in schools these days?

      --
      Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    18. Re:so what next ? by kocsonya · · Score: 1

      The problem with your explanation of specially aligned atoms getting excited and then emitting photons in sync is that (as you remember from the quantum physics that you refer to) the energy between the excited and ground states of the electron is very well defined. Now that energy corresponds to one particular wavelength of a photon. Therefore, no matter what colour the light you shine onto your reflective surface, you would get only one particular colour back. I have a mirror that does not seem to behave like that, even though it is a polished metal thingly, i.e. it contains identical atoms of a single kind.

      Also, "...when you shine a black light on a white surface...", what exactly is black light? If you mean the UV light, then yes, you get UV reflected back to you, but you can not see it, just as you could not see the light you shone on the surface. The white material seems to shine becase not all UV is reflected. Some of it indeed excites electrons that emit radiation, all sorts of electrons in all sorts of different configurations (in case of T-shirts or a plastic pen i.e. things containing complex molecules) so that their excitation energies are different, therefore the emitted light is not monochromatic. However, that process is not reflection. It is the same process that your fluorescent light uses: it creates UV by electircally exciting low pressure mercury vapour, then that UV is absorbed by the phosphor (that white stuff on the inner surface of the tube), the white stuff gets excited and emits light (not white, actually, but they trick your eyes to *see* it more or less white). There's no reflection in the whole process.

      One more thing: what is the time delay between the mirror absorbing an image and then emitting it? It must be a constant value (*very* constant) otherwise mirrors could not reflect coherent (i.e. laser) light (well, they could but the reflected light would not be coherent any more) and as far as I know laser and mirrors work with each other at a most intimate level?

  13. Handles by jlindy · · Score: 1

    How much ya wanna bet the Army/Navy will weld a handle on the bloody contraption and call it portable?

    1. Re:Handles by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      How much ya wanna bet the Army/Navy will weld a handle on the bloody contraption and call it portable?

      At which point there will be a new Scwarzenegger movie where he carries two of the things and blasts anything that moves, all the while exclaiming, "You've just been lased!"

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Handles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't lase me bro!

    3. Re:Handles by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      "Did you forget your sunblock, Ash-Hole?"

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  14. Tonnes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick! Someone genetically engineer a gigantic shark!

  15. Cool, now can I mount it on my flying car? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now if I could get this mounted on my flying car (http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/15/007225), like, that would be totally awesome.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  16. Well by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When the military gets laser rifles, it'll be that much easier for to make the case for why "assault rifles" should be regulated like bb guns.

    1. Re:Well by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "When the military gets laser rifles, it'll be that much easier for to make the case for why "assault rifles" should be regulated like bb guns."

      Why.....won't we civilians get laser rifles too?

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      With laser control, only the criminals will have lasers.

    3. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Then I could cling to my religion and laser rifle.

      Take that Obama!

    4. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hoky religions and ancient M-16s are no match for a laser rifle on your shoulder, son.

    5. Re:Well by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your right to bear arms only includes the types known to the Founding Fathers, therefore you shall only be allowed to bear laser muskets.

    6. Re:Well by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And only muzzle-loading ones at that!

    7. Re:Well by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      When the military gets laser rifles, it'll be that much easier for to make the case for why "assault rifles" should be regulated like bb guns.

      In much the same was as how after the military got nuclear bombs, it became possible for homeowners to purchase 2000-pound iron bombs from Wal-mart, without a permit.

      Wait...what?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    8. Re:Well by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I know how to build a nuclear bomb, you insensitive clod!

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    9. Re:Well by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Of course you can't get them at Wal-mart, they're on sale at Best Buy!

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  17. I'm going to predict ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1, Insightful

    a sudden spike in sales of mirrors throughout the Middle East.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:I'm going to predict ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the shiny reflective surfaces in Dubai, the entire city could be destroyed by the ricochets.

  18. Multiple lasers is the key by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    can be synchronized with additional units to emit a 100 kW beam

    Using multiple such things, each of them too wimpy to cause much damage seems important. First, it makes it much harder for the enemy to knock them off — hitting one unit disables a small fraction of the whole. Second, the power can be concentrated at different targets depending on the need (soldiers, a missile, an artillery shell, a plane) — rather than the all-or-nothing of a single giant laser. And third, an errant device will not be as harmful — for example, if, when the network of these are shooting at an incoming missile, one of them hits a civilian plane or some other unintended object. No problem — a single beam is too weak to be really harmful.

    Now, of course, they would need to be very precisely targeted and coordinated. Fortunately, we have GPS and powerful computers...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Multiple lasers is the key by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Now, of course, they would need to be very precisely targeted and coordinated. Fortunately, we have GPS and powerful computers...

      And military contractors looking forward to the next major cost overrun rather than shipping a working system.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Multiple lasers is the key by joelleo · · Score: 1

      Additionally, because the source of the laser energy is offset a bit from one another (I assume,) parallax would diffuse any 'ricochet' as there's a very tiny liklihood that fractional reflected energy from more than one of the units would concentrate at a strong enough level to cause damage. Think "angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection." The liklihood would decrease exponentially as the distance of the ricochet victim from the target increases. Likewise with the radial distance between the different nodes of the weapon.

      --
      "In the end, there is simply no weapon more devastating than the truth, delivered in just the right way." - tnk1
    3. Re:Multiple lasers is the key by mi · · Score: 1

      And military contractors looking forward to the next major cost overrun rather than shipping a working system.

      This is such a generic canned response, it can be used to put down any conversation about weapons without delving into a particular system's details. You are failing the Turing Test, in other words...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Multiple lasers is the key by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      At 15 kW, that beam is going to be able to damage almost anything you point it at. The cutting lasers used in industrial production are 3 kW or less, and are fairly effective in slicing through steel.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    5. Re:Multiple lasers is the key by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      And military contractors looking forward to the next major cost overrun rather than shipping a working system.

      This is such a generic canned response, it can be used to put down any conversation about weapons without delving into a particular system's details. You are failing the Turing Test, in other words...

      Not at all. It's a perfectly legitimate comment. My father's old company built military electronics for the Navy and the USAF. His experience was that there was so much unaccountability, fraud and just plain waste that he was constantly amazed that our military works at all. The reality is that our society has paid far more than our military machine is worth. Yes, it's still the biggest one on the planet (even after our substantial post-Cold-War force reductions) but it's also hideously expensive. I'm not putting down the weapon system itself: it sounds like it may be useful in certain contexts. I am saying that there's a high probability that it will ultimately cost us far more that it's worth.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Multiple lasers is the key by mi · · Score: 1

      Not at all. It's a perfectly legitimate comment. [...]

      I didn't challenge the legitimacy of the comment. I just pointed out, that it has nothing to do with any particular government project — it is perfectly generic. If a newspaper reporter were to call an expert soliciting comment in middle of the night, the "expert" could've answered that safely and go back to sleep never learning, what the weapon was...

      I am saying that there's a high probability that it will ultimately cost us far more that it's worth.

      Is that a legitimately on-topic reply to my comment, where I suggested, laser power should be dispersed among multiple smaller installations, rather than a single large one? No, and no...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Multiple lasers is the key by mi · · Score: 1

      The cutting lasers used in industrial production are 3 kW or less, and are fairly effective in slicing through steel.

      How thick is the steel and how quickly is it cut? Will a civilian airplane flying through a 15kW beam (for a fraction of a second) simply be sliced in half?

      And if 15wK is still dangerous, then they should be looking at even smaller ones — just more of them. Maybe, even, rucksack-mounted wirelessly-coordinated ones...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  19. Only the good guys will be allowed one. by bornwaysouth · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It doesn't sound like an anti-tank weapon. More like a means of frying eyeballs.

    So what happens if it is mounted in a suitable high office in New York. You could cripple the city for a while. Drawing the curtains will not help. And the good news is, the operators do not have to commit suicide. The targets are stationary and keep office hours. It could be programmed and left. Visual Basic sounds appropriate.

    1. Re:Only the good guys will be allowed one. by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Nope. Frying eyeballs is against the laws of War. And believe it or not, the US Military *does* believe in them.

      This is for tactical operations, most likely mounted in an AC-130 or some form of chopper. Think of situations where you want to take out enemy targets, but conventional weapons won't work (i.e. in an urban area with civilians around, dropping a bomb might release toxic or NBC materials, target is right next to a culturally significant building/object).

      Or even a situation where none of those occur, but you want stealth -- you want to disable enemy equipment without a huge KABOOM to alert the enemy.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    2. Re:Only the good guys will be allowed one. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Nope. Frying eyeballs is against the laws of War. And believe it or not, the US Military *does* believe in them.

      As in, "shock and awe" ( == "maximize civilian casualties")?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    3. Re:Only the good guys will be allowed one. by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but "Shock and Awe" was not about maximizing civilian casualties. It was to dishearten the Iraqi regular army. Looked at from that POV, it was a success.

      I love the knee-jerk "US Army bad". Have you ever dealt with any of the US military? I have. Without exception, they have all been intelligent, capabable, and professional.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    4. Re:Only the good guys will be allowed one. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      A laser is a precision weapon, it'll probably be used instead of a plain bullet-shooting weapon. Probably only vs soft targets since punching through armor with that power requirement doesn't seem very productive. Would probably be used where the speed of a laser is needed, especially against fast moving airborne targets (planes, large projectiles). For hitting a guy in a city you'd still use a bullet, you'd never drop a bomb to target an individual when you have a clear line of fire.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:Only the good guys will be allowed one. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      You'd need VB Pro though. VB Express has a license that explicitly prohibit using it to control terrorist death rays.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:Only the good guys will be allowed one. by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      When told to target the civil water, power, and sewage stations, they went ahead and destroyed them -- causing countless civilian deaths.

      That's Really Professional, huh?

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    7. Re:Only the good guys will be allowed one. by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      They didn't have to do that because the previous UN sanctions had forced the country's entire infrastructure system into disrepair. Baghdad's water treatment plants stopped operating about 6 years before operation Shock and Awe. These plants provided about 3/4 of the entire nation's treatment capability. The electric infrastructure was destroyed by looting and was in disrepair as well. People actually stole the power lines off the poles.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    8. Re:Only the good guys will be allowed one. by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Have you ever dealt with any of the US military? I have. Without exception, they have all been intelligent, capabable, and professional.

      I grew up in a navy town. Our experiences just couldn't be more different.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    9. Re:Only the good guys will be allowed one. by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      not uncommon for eastern block nations. Like Bulgaria.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    10. Re:Only the good guys will be allowed one. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      "Shock and Awe" was not about maximizing civilian casualties. It was to dishearten the Iraqi regular army.

      By doing what, precisely? How do you think, they did it, by shooting from louder guns and launching larger rockets at whatever small amount of tanks and military installations they could find? Or maybe it was by destroying more targets, what would require attacking civilians?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  20. Can it make popcorn? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can it blow up a house using a giant jiffypop container?

    1. Re:Can it make popcorn? by baKanale · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but you'd need a tracking system, and a large spinning mirror.

  21. I can see by fishthegeek · · Score: 0, Redundant

    them selling the Naval version of this now, with the lasers mounted on sharks!

    --
    load "$",8,1
  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Uh, Dr Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.2: Uh Dr Evil, the sharks wouldn't be able to swim if we attached the lase...

    Dr Evil: Silence Number 2! How about an octopus?

    No.2: No.

    Dr Evil: An evil octopus?

    Scot: Thats the same thing you freakin moron.

    Dr Evil: Scot, Shh!

    No.2: No. Dr Evil, i propose we use Whales.

    Dr Evil: Whales? Whales..

    Number 2, i do not like you're plan, in fact, i do not like you either.

  24. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AntiHero says: This is bullshit! They can just sell laser weapons all willy-nilly! Such unmonitored debauchery and pranksterism! Silly humans. One sided fights are not fights at all, how can you feel big about yourself, you need to kill yo'self fool, because your ego sucks. Overinflated egoes are ruining the planet.

  25. C&C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like the US is really trying to model its Military force after Command and Conquer! /me waiting for weather machine...

  26. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a historic day by blincoln · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since before the dawn of time, Man has dreamed of the laser cannon - even when Woman said it was dumb and that the costumes on Star Trek were ridiculous.
    The ancient Hebrews called it "Uriel" - "the flame of God". The Romans had an entire god (Apollo) devoted to the laser cannon and its many uses. The Greeks dreamed of Prometheus stealing the laser cannon of Zeus and giving it to mortals. In Norse mythology, the end of Ragnarok is marked by the wolf Skoll consuming the last remaining laser cannon and condemning the world to a laser cannon-less eternal night.
    Today, the laser cannon is at last ours. Thank you, Northrop-Grumman, and thank you, US military-industrial complex. The spirits of countless millennia stand in silent awe at what you have wrought.

    --
    "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    1. Re:Ladies and gentlemen, it is a historic day by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Since before the dawn of time, Man has dreamed of the laser cannon - even when Woman said it was dumb and that the costumes on Star Trek were ridiculous.
      The ancient Hebrews called it "Uriel" - "the flame of God". The Romans had an entire god (Apollo) devoted to the laser cannon and its many uses. The Greeks dreamed of Prometheus stealing the laser cannon of Zeus and giving it to mortals. In Norse mythology, the end of Ragnarok is marked by the wolf Skoll consuming the last remaining laser cannon and condemning the world to a laser cannon-less eternal night.
      Today, the laser cannon is at last ours. Thank you, Northrop-Grumman, and thank you, US military-industrial complex. The spirits of countless millennia stand in silent awe at what you have wrought.

      Dude, that's like a prayer for War Nerds. In which spirit

      "When we encounter aliens, they will respect us not for our literature and society but for our death ray technology"

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  27. 15kW is not very much. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Unless it is a pencil-thin or smaller beam, 15kW is just plain not very much. I mean, it's a lot of energy, I wouldn't want it pointed at my couch... but it is only about as much as you would get out of 150 light bulbs. Maybe even less, considering the conversion factor.

    I guess it is on the verge of being practical. But not much more, yet.

    1. Re:15kW is not very much. by leighklotz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unless it is a pencil-thin or smaller beam, 15kW is just plain not very much. I mean, it's a lot of energy, I wouldn't want it pointed at my couch... but it is only about as much as you would get out of 150 light bulbs. Maybe even less, considering the conversion factor.

      I guess it is on the verge of being practical. But not much more, yet.

      Well, lessee...a 100mW (20dBm or 0.1W) collimated burning laser will pop ballons and burn dark objects such as electrical tape. This one is 15KW (~72dBm) so that's ~72-20=52dB times the power, or about 15KW/0.1W=150,000 "burning lasers", assuming Northrop-Grumman can collimate a laser as well as some guy on Instructables.

    2. Re:15kW is not very much. by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Informative

      I guess you haven't worked with lasers much. A 3 Watt CO2 laser will burn paper in less than a second or so. Light bulbs put out a lot of power. If you hold on to a light bulb that's on, your hand won't last very long. Nevertheless, the destructive power is small compared to conventional weapons. The advantage here is accuracy.

    3. Re:15kW is not very much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15kW is about 180hp. That's a lot of power being delivered to a pencil-sized spot.

    4. Re:15kW is not very much. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I guess you haven't worked with lasers much. A 3 Watt CO2 laser will burn paper in less than a second or so. Light bulbs put out a lot of power. If you hold on to a light bulb that's on, your hand won't last very long. Nevertheless, the destructive power is small compared to conventional weapons. The advantage here is accuracy.

      Accuracy as well as time-on-target.

      More to the point, the coherent light from a laser causes much higher peak temperatures than a simple collimated beam of the same average power. The issue, it seems to me, is going to be this: does the laser have a coherency length sufficient to deliver coherent light to the target? Otherwise it's just going to be a bright light.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:15kW is not very much. by elistan · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the filament of a 100 watt incandescent light bulb operates at about 2500 degrees C. Also, did you notice that the runtime of this laser is continuous? So imagine holding 150 tungsten filaments at 2500 degrees onto a surface the size of a pencil, or heck even a quarter, for as long as you can hold the aim steady. That's a lot of energy transfer, probably enough to vaporize just about any material in a very short time. Aim this laser at your couch, and in short order I suspect it'll burn though your couch, your walls, out the house and through your car, through the neighbor's house, the neighbor's dog, and continue on for a while yet.

    6. Re:15kW is not very much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lightbulbs are rated based on their electrical power consumption, not the light they produce. I'm just winging the numbers here, but a 150 watt lightbulb might be 10% efficient, emmitting 15 watts of light. The rest is usually expended as heat.

      Don't quote me, but I think lasers are rated by their output power, not by their power consumption. A 150 watt laser could emmit 10x the photonic energy of a 150 watt lightbulb.

      Could anybody confirm / reject this?

  28. FIRESTRIKE? Watch out for Smokey by fortapocalypse · · Score: 3, Funny

    Smokey says "Only YOU can prevent huge frickin' weaponized lasers!"

  29. The future! by Zouden · · Score: 4, Funny

    The top two articles at the moment on Slashdot:

    >Northrop Grumman Markets Weaponized Laser System
    >Pentagon Clears Flying-Car Project For Takeoff

    Has the future finally arrived?

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    1. Re:The future! by myrdos2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      In fact, the future arrived yesterday.

    2. Re:The future! by the_weasel · · Score: 1

      In fact, the future arrived yesterday.

      Indeed - that's how it looked yesterday. But when I woke up this morning I was disappointed to learn today was still the present.

      Ah well. There's always tomorrow!

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    3. Re:The future! by mattwarden · · Score: 1
    4. Re:The future! by master_p · · Score: 1

      It depends...if the next article is 'Linux on the desktop reaches 90%'...

      Or Duke Nukem Forever is released...

  30. Water vapor or sand cloud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if the bad guys' vehicle had sensors that figured out they were having a laser trained on them, wouldn't some of the beam's pinpoint energy be absorbed or deflected by a simple fan arrangement that blew downwards and kicked up a cloud of sand or dust around the vehicle? Or shoot out water vapor or from internal tanks? Same thing for shipboard protection against directed beam weapons, just keep the thing shrouded in a big cloud of seawater mist. Seems pretty obvious to me.

  31. Power? by failedlogic · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, if I buy this new toy, how many C-Cell or 9V batteries do I need? The companies are usually to cheap to put them in the box.

    1. Re:Power? by NixieBunny · · Score: 2, Informative

      You'd only need a megawatt or so to get 100kW of laser power out the spigot. You can get a megawatt form Caterpillar Power in a 30 foot semi-trailer.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    2. Re:Power? by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

      You only need one. But you have to replace it every 2.5 milliseconds.

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    3. Re:Power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also need a cooling system that can absorb 900kW -- that's a decent sized radiator right there.

  32. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was no stereophonic amplification equipment in the '50s. At least, virtually none at consumer or hobbyist level. Theaters had stereo systems. Per wikipedia...

  33. Can't... resist... by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Funny

    FIRESTRIKEâs can be linked together to get a more powerful beam

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  34. Did anyone else read by ekimd · · Score: 1

    this as FIRSTSTRIKE?

    --
    'Impossible' is a word that humans use far too often. -- Seven of Nine
  35. Caution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Do not reach for loose RJ-45 with remaining arm."

  36. Ladies and gentlemen, it is biblical prophesy by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    You joke but it's developments like this that put Revelations in a new light (no pun intended).

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:Ladies and gentlemen, it is biblical prophesy by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      You joke but it's developments like this that put Revelations in a new light (no pun intended).

      The same light ... it's just more coherent.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  37. Where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask Kent.

    Kent, its God. You have been a bad boy.

  38. Someone's gonna have to change their name by denttford · · Score: 1

    Cause I think this is more deserving of the moniker than the current Etherkiller.

    --

    Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
  39. My Right to Bear This Laser! by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    This is what the right to bear arms is all about! I want that laser for self-protection!!

    1. Re:My Right to Bear This Laser! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you can afford it, why can't you have it?

  40. Here's my favorite part, from another article: by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Low Power Setting Provides nominally 100 watt alignment beam

    Article is here.

    "Alignment beams" are normally low-power (a few milliwatts) visible beams used to indicate the path of an invisible beam. I guess with this one you'd point the alignment beam, move the glowing/smoking spot to your intended target, then hit the big switch.

  41. and i saw a pale horse... again... by retchdog · · Score: 1

    Oh Christ, not the end-times again?!

    I'm not even 30, and as far as I've kept track, I must have been through at least four of those bloody things. Let's see, just off the top of my head: Gorbachev's birthmark made him the 666; and I suppose that means he must have invented RFID too at some point; Iran was supposed to nuke the world sometime last year. Hmm, I know there've been more. Oh yeah, the formation of the European Union was supposed to be curtains for sure, but unless they plan to end the world through the phantom menace of trade regulations it's just not happening.

    None of them have lived up to St. "Moldy Rye is Safe to Eat"-John's promises though; kind of anticlimactic. I'm getting jaded, and laser-planes just don't cut the mustard. I demand more! Let's genetically engineer some GIGANTIC SCARLET BULLS and put some whore-riders on 'em.

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    1. Re:and i saw a pale horse... again... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Takes a retch to spoil a perfectly good laugh,

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  42. Built in power supply! by Opr33Opr33 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just put a solar panel on it and aim the laser at the panel. That should provide loads of power!

    1. Re:Built in power supply! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck modded a perpetuum mobile insightful?

    2. Re:Built in power supply! by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      "Lisa, in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

      To answer the other (AC) response: because Funny doesn't boost karma. Mods aren't trying to game the system; they're trying to fix the system.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  43. Pure Speculation by Molochi · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mine.

    7.62NATO (used in the old Phalanx Anti Missle System's miniguns) delivers about 400 joules at 500m. This laser needs about 27ms of on point contact to do that. Of course I'm assuming that the laser isn't affected much by water vapor in the air. And that heat is as effective as kinetic energy.

    75kW Generators (TFA says it's 20% efficient) are basicly small trailer/pick-up bed sized. But that includes a 4L Diesel engine and a fuel tank. Share the vehicles motor and add some energy storage like a bank of capacitors so you can move and fire. Put a big radiator on the roof for cooling 600 Prescotts :) and you're good to go. I think you could shoehorn it into a Hummer sized vehicle.

    Really, it sounds like a replacement for something like the Phalanx or semi-fixed medium to heavy machineguns. It has the bonus of being really accurate, so set up however many automated turrets you want and slave them to a targeting or master laser.

    --
    "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    1. Re:Pure Speculation by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

      7.62NATO (used in the old Phalanx Anti Missle System's miniguns)

      Phalanx doesn't use 7.62 NATO. It uses a 20mm cannon, not a minigun.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Pure Speculation by Molochi · · Score: 1

      Doh! you're right!

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    3. Re:Pure Speculation by FluffyWithTeeth · · Score: 1

      75kW Generators (TFA says it's 20% efficient)

      No... a 100kW laser powered by a 75kW source would be 125% efficient. This thing is going to need 500kW. It would probably work on a a large tank or a ship, but I see no reason why you'd want to.

      Well, I'd want to, but that's just because lasers are cool, and natoinal defence isn't my job.

    4. Re:Pure Speculation by Molochi · · Score: 1

      TFA says it takes 8 of them to get past the magic 100kW number desired by the military. They're controlled to fire at the same spot. My speculation was that you could mount each on a light vehicle like an automated machine gun turret. Flip a switch and they all target the same marking laser. You wouldn't be limited to 100kW, a destroyer could have 80 of these chained together for a megawatt of slicing and dicing goodness.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  44. You think I am stupid? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    As a matter of fact, I have had a 100mW pocket laser, and liked to pop balloons and such with it. 100mW is a bit light to try lighting cigarettes though. You had better mount it on a tripod to hold it steady.

    I also know of people who have home-built 50KW nitrogen lasers. (Yes, that was 50KW, and yes, no mistake, that was nitrogen!) And they are powered by relatively small batteries or wall power supplies. But they are large, and very short-burst, and so need serious lens work to burn anything.

    Which brings up a point: it is not the wattage that matters, beyond a certain minimum. That 50KW laser will seldom burn anything, because the pulse is so short. The relevant term here is not Watts or KWatts, but KWH! Power x time = energy.

    A MW burst of power, over a short enough time, would hardly be noticeable. But a MWH can run a small city for that hour.

    The point is that this is a MILITARY laser! It has to burn serious shit, like kevlar personal armor and steel-clad warheads. And 15KW is pretty goddamned lightweight for that, unless you can aim it and hold it perfectly steady for a good period of TIME!

    Yes, I understand that they can also be combined to bring heavier firepower to a target. But that is not the same as having all that firepower in one place. The logistics can be difficult.

    All I was saying, if you read my whole comment, is that this is beginning to become practical. But it is on the far low end of the scale.

    1. Re:You think I am stupid? by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      "Which brings up a point: it is not the wattage that matters, beyond a certain minimum. That 50KW laser will seldom burn anything, because the pulse is so short."

      Exactly. This one is continuous 15 kW, not nano-second 50 kW.

      Yes you are stupid.

  45. Eight Lasers by troll8901 · · Score: 1

    Another bullet point is that TFA states that "The firm has said that at least eight of these can be linked up to get a proper 100 kilowatt beam" but how exactly would that be done?

    I guess the designers have this as an eventual goal.

  46. To low-rated poster: by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    No, it isn't. A thousand or even ten thousand horsepower isn't squat, unless it is exerted over TIME. A 180 horsepower laser, over one millisecond of time, equals barely enough for you to even notice that it is there, much less burn anything of any consequence.

    Everybody here so far has been confusing power with energy, and that is a pretty big goddamned mistake.

    1. Re:To low-rated poster: by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      This is a CW laser, for which power and energy are equivalent, in the sense that one watt of power for one second delivers one joule (one watt-second) of energy.

  47. Ethernet? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    I predict the consumer versions will have a USB interface and Windows-only drivers... :/

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Ethernet? by AgentKeech · · Score: 1

      Brings a new meaning to Wake on Lan....

  48. Much to learn have you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you forgotten all of Yoda's teachings?

  49. Marvin the Martian wants one.. by Hillview · · Score: 1

    "Where is the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!"

    --
    -Troll, Flamebait, and Offtopic are NOT equivalent to disagreement.
  50. Actually, no... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    exoskeleton research has to do with mechanical assistance of human muscle; it has absolutely nothing to do with armor.

  51. 100 kW combined? by tyler.willard · · Score: 1

    Fuck that.

    I want 5 megawatts by mid-May.

    1. Re:100 kW combined? by bytethese · · Score: 1

      Where's the laser? It's coming. It's coming? Ha! It's not even breathing hard.

    2. Re:100 kW combined? by tyler.willard · · Score: 1

      You listen to me! You bug...!!

  52. Not so. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I should not even have to explain -- because if you knew squat about this, it would not be necessary -- that there are, among other classes, "first-surface" mirrors often used in telescopes. Look it up. And even that is just one example. A mirror -- and even first-surface is only one subset of the available kinds -- does NOT have to "absorb" the energy in order to reflect it. That is a huge assumption that is simply false.

    Assuming that is true... that a reflective surface must absorb the light before re-emitting it in a complementary direction -- would be to assume that, for example, white paper must absorb light and then redirect it in order to accomplish its reflective quality, while a black piece of paper would simply absorb the light. If that were the case, not only would the black piece of paper become warmer (as it does), the white piece of paper (or other efficient reflector closer to ideal) would actually become cooler, since it must expend energy to absorb then re-emit the light in a direction opposite to the direction the light originally entered. (Even you admit that energy is expended in the process of reflection.) That might only be a small effect, but it would be noticeable.

    Not only would the material reflect the light, it would become cooler in the process.

    Most reflectors are less than ideal, but the basic principle still holds. You don't get something for free.

    Not only that, but a good many designs for relatively high-powered lasers rely on internal reflection from mirrors to achieve the lasing effect at all. If what you claimed about reflectors were true, these lasers would not even work! Their end mirrors would melt down before light were ever emitted from the device. But lase and emit they do, easily enough to melt several inches of steel, without a shred of problem with (or heating of) the mirrors.

  53. Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've seen the effectiveness of laser weapons in Firefly. You'll know that the only regulation being done, will be to get people to use those instead of gunpowder based weapons.

  54. Something like.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this, most probably. Good uniform, made for very powerful laser operation.

  55. Great Idea!!!!!..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    1) Give billions of government tax dollars to private firm to develop giant high-tech laser weapon.

    2) Develop said weapon.

    3) Put weapon on the market.

    4) Sell weapon to FOREIGN GOVERNMENT so they can ARM THEMSELVES WITH THEM.

    5) Pocket proceeds from sale.

    6) PROFIT!!!!! (sort of)

    Wow. Now we are paying to develop a high-tech weapon that will now be SOLD to foreign governments. 10 bucks says China, Russia, N. Korea, and the Middle East are already trying to get their hands on one.

    Even only selling them to "friendly" governments doesn't mean that the weapons won't be RESOLD through middlemen to hostile ones.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Great Idea!!!!!..... by mjwx · · Score: 1
      10 bucks says China, Russia, N. Korea, and the Middle East are already trying to get their hands on one.

      10 Renminbi/Roubles says they already have one, more than one I'd say and possibly more advanced than this. If this is being announced publicly than the Military already has something bigger.

      BTW, the Middle East is a geographical location and not a country in any usage of the word.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  56. "Making available" by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    I wonder how many different three-letter-agencies are going to come and pay me a visit if I actually try to order one.

    Then again, I'd much rather have one of those flying cars from the other article. They seem much more useful in everyday life, if you can pay for the gas.

  57. I'll take one by koan · · Score: 1

    But make it the size of a rifle so I can get a head shot from 10 miles away, it's a brave new world of assassination, nothing visible, no noise, and nothing left over for CSI.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  58. How is this any more deadly than a gun or an RPG? by Tikkun · · Score: 1

    I'm curious just how useful this will be. Is there any reason our military should buy this?

  59. 2nd Amendment by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Congress shall make no law infringing the right of the people to keep and bear 100KW lasers.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  60. How do you aim it? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    If you've ever tried to shine a laster pointer on that bald guys head 20 rows down at a rock concert, you know that this is not a trival issue.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  61. Act Now! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Be the first kid on your block to be the last kid on your block!

  62. rj45 by visible.frylock · · Score: 1

    The solid-state laser unit weighs over 400lbs, sends/receives instructions and data via an RJ-45 jack

    Sweet! The internet connectivity will make it really easy to update the firmware!

    --
    Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
  63. Dear Northrup Grumman: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blast through this CLOUD OF SMOKE.

    Lasers as military weapons: Zzz.

    Yet another way to defraud the already bankrupt U.S.A.

    Thanks for playing.

    Cordially,
    K. Trout, Novosibirsk

  64. Turbines are torque monsters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However it delivers (net) 3800ft-lbs at 1000rpm Torque which is 5152 joules per second which is 5.152kW.

  65. Obligatory question by fgouget · · Score: 1

    Does it support Power over Ethernet?

  66. Reflective indeed. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    With all the shiny reflective surfaces in Dubai, the entire city could be destroyed by the ricochets.

    They call those "specular reflections" and yes, you could end up with a lot of blind citizens if someone cut loose with a high-powered laser. The human retina is extremely easily burned by even low levels of coherent light. The thought of a hundred kilowatt laser being used in the open in a heavily populated area is unnerving.

    The original Geneva Convention banned a lot of weaponry (mustard gas, etc.) that would leave large numbers of mutilated or otherwise severely-handicapped people after a conflict ended. I have the feeling that high-powered laser systems may end up in a similar situation, for the same reason.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  67. You don't mount it on a Hummer... by PeterWone · · Score: 1

    You mount it on a Warthog! Or a battlemech, but those are so nineties. Anyway, you guys all ask the wrong question. The real questions are

    • How much?
    • Where can I get one?
    • Can I be the Master Chief, and
    • Technically this isn't a firearm because it doesn't throw a projectile. Does this mean that, due to the lag of law behind tech, for the time being it's unregulated and therefore legal for me to have one? Once I have one it's a lot harder to tell me I can't have it! Can anyone say "sentry gun"?