Photons on target

[Kaido]

Frickin' laser beams!

http://www.wired.com/2014/09/armys-new-laser-cannon-blasts-drones-out-of-the-sky-even-in-fog/

Can take out incoming:

* Rockets
* Artillery
* Mortar strikes
* UAV drones

All with an Xbox controller! :awe:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Can I cook with it?

 

[Kaido]

Can I cook with it?

Yes, it's kind of like grilling, but you can cook it while the animal is running away :awe:

 

[Markbnj]

I saw video a few months back of the mortar test and it was amazing.

 

[IronWing]

Lasers are going to be the ultimate stealth weapon when deniability is desired. "We have no idea who punched a hole in your new reactor/carrier/parliament building."

 

[Markbnj]

Lasers are going to be the ultimate stealth weapon when deniability is desired. "We have no idea who punched a hole in your new reactor/carrier/parliament building."

Just in general they're a huge game changer. The system Boeing is working on now can already drop mortar rounds in flight. Think what the technology will be capable of twenty years from now. A nation wealthy and sophisticated enough to build and deploy large numbers of such weapons would have a tremendous military advantage.

 

[RelaxTheMind]

in my weapon ignorant thought process... what if the shell is covered in a mirrored surface?

 

[olds]

Kind of looks like an MLRS unit.

 

[tynopik]

won't make that much difference, nothing is 100% reflective and will become less so as they are heated up

 

[MrColin]

Our tax dollars will surely buy some of these for Israel soon. You're welcome Israel.

 

[Brian Stirling]

won't make that much difference, nothing is 100% reflective and will become less so as they are heated up

Actually, lasers use mirrors in order to work at all so mirrors WILL reduce the energy absorbed by whatever is covered by the mirror and depending on the quality of the mirror, the percent reflectivity, the counter-measure of covering with mirror surface could be very effective.

It is interesting that it is billed as effective against mortars but not artillery. Mortar rounds are much slower and many have little if any spin whereas arty rounds are much faster and tend to be spin stabilized. Spinning is an effective way to reduce the effectiveness of lasers by requiring the laser to heat a much larger area. So, a good counter measure would be to use spin and have a mirror polish on the exterior.

If the laser needs to illuminate the target for 5 seconds another counter measure would be to fire many in quick succession to overwhelm the laser.


Brian

 

[Exterous]

Lasers are going to be the ultimate stealth weapon when deniability is desired. "We have no idea who punched a hole in your new reactor/carrier/parliament building."

Well sure we had a giant bus sized vehicle across the street with a tiny turret facing you but that doesn't prove anything...

 

[tynopik]

Actually, lasers use mirrors in order to work at all

In a very controlled environment, ie nothing that you will find on a battlefield, especially after being shot out of a tube into the atmosphere

 

[Phoenix86]

Well sure we had a giant bus sized vehicle across the street with a tiny turret facing you but that doesn't prove anything...

Looks at the facts: very high power, portable, limited firing time, unlimited range. All you'd need is a big spinning mirror and you could vaporize a human target from space.

 

[tynopik]

unlimited range

not exactly . . .

 

[Phoenix86]

not exactly . . .

It's also not likely to fill a house with Jiffy pop.

Maybe that's the defense for these weapons systems.

 

[Brian Stirling]

In a very controlled environment, ie nothing that you will find on a battlefield, especially after being shot out of a tube into the atmosphere

Yeah, but if the efficiency isn't 98% but more like 80% it's still 80% making the job of the laser 5X harder!


Brian

 

[Phoenix86]

Irregular trajectories could fuck with lasers a bit too., imagine trying to target a wobbling projectile.

 

[tynopik]

Yeah, but if the efficiency isn't 98% but more like 80% it's still 80% making the job of the laser 5X harder!

Only for the first little bit, that 20% is quickly going to heat it up and char/distort it so that continues to lose reflectivity, which allows it to heat up more, etc.

It's basically a 'virtuous cycle' from the laser's perspective in that the more it heats a spot, the more vulnerable that spot is

Let's say it takes 4 seconds to zap a target normally, it might now take 5 seconds instead, so only 25% harder

 

[Markbnj]

Irregular trajectories could fuck with lasers a bit too., imagine trying to target a wobbling projectile.

Targeting accuracy and the amount of energy that can be delivered in a specific amount of time would be two of the most likely areas of improvement over the next few evolutions, I think.

 

[skimple]

Actually, lasers use mirrors in order to work at all so mirrors WILL reduce the energy absorbed by whatever is covered by the mirror and depending on the quality of the mirror, the percent reflectivity, the counter-measure of covering with mirror surface could be very effective.

It is interesting that it is billed as effective against mortars but not artillery. Mortar rounds are much slower and many have little if any spin whereas arty rounds are much faster and tend to be spin stabilized. Spinning is an effective way to reduce the effectiveness of lasers by requiring the laser to heat a much larger area. So, a good counter measure would be to use spin and have a mirror polish on the exterior.

If the laser needs to illuminate the target for 5 seconds another counter measure would be to fire many in quick succession to overwhelm the laser.


Brian

Spoken like a true 13E!

 

[DrPizza]

Actually, lasers use mirrors in order to work at all so mirrors WILL reduce the energy absorbed by whatever is covered by the mirror and depending on the quality of the mirror, the percent reflectivity, the counter-measure of covering with mirror surface could be very effective.

It is interesting that it is billed as effective against mortars but not artillery. Mortar rounds are much slower and many have little if any spin whereas arty rounds are much faster and tend to be spin stabilized. Spinning is an effective way to reduce the effectiveness of lasers by requiring the laser to heat a much larger area. So, a good counter measure would be to use spin and have a mirror polish on the exterior.

If the laser needs to illuminate the target for 5 seconds another counter measure would be to fire many in quick succession to overwhelm the laser.


Brian

Another possible countermeasure: a heat shield. Such as a reinforced carbon-carbon (nose cones of intercontinental ballistic missiles, wing tips/edges of Space Shuttles) Though, they'd probably still be shot out of the sky, not as quickly. Add in rotation, not to mention - if targeting the lasers themselves, a wonderful signal to lock onto - they might just last long enough to hit target.

Of course, the vast majority of our enemies wouldn't have the sophistication to do so. So, it would simply make our fights just that much more one-sided; until it was occupation time and they killed us by the thousands using IEDs.

 

[jagec]

Only for the first little bit, that 20% is quickly going to heat it up and char/distort it so that continues to lose reflectivity, which allows it to heat up more, etc.

It's basically a 'virtuous cycle' from the laser's perspective in that the more it heats a spot, the more vulnerable that spot is

Let's say it takes 4 seconds to zap a target normally, it might now take 5 seconds instead, so only 25% harder

As long as we're just making numbers up, I'm going to say that it would now take 4.1 seconds, so only 2.5% harder.

 

[TreVader]

The problem with this device is it is massively impractical and expensive when compared to the combo of traditional artillery and air power.


TL;DR the army is retarded

 

[Markbnj]

The problem with this device is it is massively impractical and expensive when compared to the combo of traditional artillery and air power.


TL;DR the army is retarded

That's probably true for now. But will it always be true? Those same arguments were used against the airplane, for example.