|
Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
US and Israel already have a laser cannon
Quote:
[ November 08, 2003, 16:34: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
so do the Russians and the Chinese. in fact, the Chinese mount them on tanks, and have been known to shoot at our helecopters with them (with the goal of blinding the pilot - not shooting anything down, which to my knowlege has never actually worked)
a web search should turn up some news articles for you. |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Actually the US laser system if I remember correctly has a higher success rate than current missile to missile systems such as Patriot and quite impressively destroys the targeted missiles. They have tested it a bit out at some of the military areas around here. Seen some footage of one in action was quite impressive. Also one of the test sites is White Sands which is just next door of where I currently live. Of course I am quite biased. I like the idea of laser weapons.
There are also a few companies in the process of designing laser cannons for fighter use to replace current vulcan cannons, heavy machine guns etc that get mounted on the aircraft. Though those are for abit farther in the future. One even has submitted a proposal for a rifle sized laser that could possibly be ready by 2050(if you read the companies proposal however there are alot of ifs for that). Quite simply with successful miniaturization and cost reduction the laser is the weapon of the future. 400 pulses per second urning through an inch of steel in 2 seconds... hard to beat if you can scale it down... Also the Chinese and other laser weapons are not upto par with the current US research. Blinding is one thing burning through steel something else. In addition there have been the occassional reports of Israel leaking US Laser Weapons technology to China. A few links News articlehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in578998.shtml Another One http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-03k.html CNN on possible use on aircraft within just a few years. http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science.../laser.weapon/ Submission of the TIS-1 Laser Rifle Idea http://www.defensereview.com/352003/TIS1.pdf |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
The idea of packing around a small power source, for a rifle, that can power a small town - or melt metal if unshielded - why doesn't my motorcycle run on a couple of those? talk about fully viable electric engines. unless your worried about, you know, safety. or radiation. what was the line from ghost busters? "each of us is wearing a nuclear accelerator on our backs..." "Right. Switch me on." **Phtweeeeeeeeeee** |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
When I read that news article on CNN yesterday, I started to think of this almost immedeatly:
Airborne Laser Program for the USAF |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
this is what i was thinking of before - N. Korea shooting at our choppers with Chinese lasers:
http://www.defensereview.com/modules...rticle&sid=325 neat, but fairly ineffectual. im sure theyre good for crowd control, or keeping the neighbor kids away. |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
This is the major problem with Polonium as a power source assuming you can mass produce it.
Weight for weight it is about 2.5 x 10^11 times as toxic as hydrocyanic acid. Hope your battery pack doesn't leak. And talk about disposal problems. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Edit: And while recoil is an internal force it will act on the casing that holds it and that will be transferred to the person using it. In a handheld firearm any internal force will likely be transferred to an external one due to the size of the weapon and its limited mass. [ October 30, 2003, 22:06: Message edited by: Cyrien ] |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
theres quite a few more problems with Polonium than that, but you basically summed it up. its still a darn neat prospect.
Anyhow, I'm not sure your on top of the whole internal force / external force thing. in a conventional firearm, force is exerted on a projectile. a bullet and gasses exit the weapon, exerting an equal an oposite force on the weapon and wielder. in this hypothetical laser, the force exerted by the light leaving the weapon is negligable, and thus the equal and oposite newtonian force resulting from the projected beam of light is also negligible. the gasses, while moving at high pressure and velocity within the weapon, never leave it. therefore, force should not be exerted on anything outside the weapon. Granted, you will need sturdy components inside the weapon to contain those gasses and to channel them around, but there should be no felt force by the operator. the best practical example that i can come up with, is a solonoid. if a solonoid is sitting on a table, and is repeatedly activated, the coil and the cylinder will both experience force from each other, but the net motion of the entire object should be zero. but i could be easily be missing something obvious. edit: dont you wish you had some? http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/elements/84.html odds are, you do! I just saw an article indicating that commercially grown tobacco contains the stuff! [ October 30, 2003, 22:35: Message edited by: Puke ] |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
why would a laser have recoil?
for some reason, the picture on CBS looks cg. Quote:
any place i can see a video of it in action? |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
The mass of the stream is such a small part of the mass of any weapon that could produce it, that there would be no recoil. The US has been testing an airborne system since the first gulf war, but the test were not all that impressive. I think they mostly helped prove the acquisition and targeting systems. Not to mention that it took a much overweight 747 to carry them. Any system that would be deployed in this time frame has to be basically ready for production. It would take that long to tool up for mass production.
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Sure the recoil would exist, but of course Puke (and Thermo - posting as I write) is right - that recoil is extremely small because the emissions are photons, not metal bullets. The damage is done by burning from concentrated high-energy photons, not by kinetic energy imparted by the mass of the photons.
You'd have an extremely powerful laser before you'd have to worry much about recoil from the beam itself. PvK [ October 30, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: PvK ] |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
The discussion of recoil isn't for all the laser weapons but was derived from the TSL-1 Laser Rifle having an estimated 90 lbs of recoil force. It is in the TSL-1 linked PDF document farther down. Bottom of page 5 I think.
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Right, what Cyrien and I are talking about is not the recoil of the laser its self - i only mentioned that in the argument to disway anyone that might have wanted to nit-pick about the small external forces generated by the beam of light its self.
if you read about the laser rifle linked below, it is a chemical laser and works by means of compresed gasses reacting at extremely high velocities and pressures. one of the technical problems is that there has not yet been invented a mechanism to recompress the gas for a second shot. another listed problem is that the gasses surging through the weapon will exert a forward force of 90lbs. meaning that the weapon would leap out of your frikin hands. because i took physics so long ago and dont know nearly as much as i like to let on, i cant understand this. to me, it seems like this should be an internal force, since none of the gas leaves the weapon. thus, my solonoid example. but the more i think about it, the solonoid will probalby twitch back and forth on the table - in a perfect system it would always end up in the same spot - but it would twitch none the less. i think. maybe. dont have a solonoid handy to try it out. can someone with a better grasp on newtonian physics explain this to me? |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Sorry. My own knowledge of such is limited and my earlier statement was pretty much a guess at how something might cause the force. Soooo...
Edit: Actually I had a discussion with a Professor about this weapon and we both agreed that based on what they state it would be better used not as a standard infantry rifle but as a nice sniper weapon. But that was just us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [ October 30, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: Cyrien ] |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Without knowing how the weapon is set up, it's hard to say, but from a Newtonian perspective, sure you have have a "jerk" from something that doesn't release anything. Try putting an energetic cat or dog (or yourself) in a box. An animate object in a box can shift its weight around in the box and make it hard to hold the box still. If it tries to run or jump inside the box, the box will jerk one way and then (when it stops/lands/hits the wall) the other direction. Net force may total zero, but it will move around. A clever animate object can even roll and jerk and get itself to move around using friction, rotation, and/or gravity, without leaving the box.
PvK |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Definitely, you'd need to be in a laboratory setting to detect the photon recoil.
And, as for the internal jerking around, have you ever played a shooting game in an arcade? Just about all the guns in there have solenoids and such to simulate some kickback and let you know you fired. |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
For those of you who like conspiracy theories might get a kick outa this. I would take it with a grain of salt though. But who knows eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn1.htm Narf the image on the CBS page is not CG. I have seen the same image in many other places of much higher quality and have seen an actual video demonstrating that. (Couldn't find a place where the video is available Online. Sorry. The video clip I saw of it was on the History Channel, a show about future combat hardware I believe.) As to the size. You are only seeing the top part that targets and fires the laser. Not the power sources etc. The whole laser is actually much larger than shown in the picture. In fact those soldiers are standing on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
ok, that explains it. i just have this faint paranoa about fake news.
can anyone verify that link from other news sources? [ October 31, 2003, 03:14: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Which one? Too many links in this topic...
The old CBS one or the one I just posted? |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
the one you just posted. should have specified.
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Hrmm... I have found the exact same article word for word in several other locations but none of them are what I would consider reputable. More like the internet Versions of National Inquirer. So... independent verification of anything they mention... no can do. Outa curiosity I tried to find info on the Soviet - Chinese conflict over the river they mention at one point in the article where the Soviets in the 1960's used a laser weapon to blow up a Chinese wall or some such. I can verify the conflict but nothing about laser weapons or any special wall that was blown up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
I haven't tried to check up on anything else in it so far though. |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
inquiring minds want to know http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
what are you talking about!!! give me linkage!!!
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
The articles talk about technical problems and that the laser is not "visible light". So my question is have they solved the "age-old" laser problem of seeing/firing thru clouds or smoke?
I can just imagine the US with it's x-trillion dollar laser rifle being unable to shoot thru the smoke of simple smoke grenades. IIRC even the laser-guided bombs have issues with that....they usually switch to other targeting methods in inclement wether, etc..... |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
The problem with the targeting lasers and dust is that the dust disperses the laser. Since they are guidance and rely on the laser being reflected back the dust blocks it. A laser weapon on the other hand would slice through the dust just like it would body armor, flesh, and a foot of solid steel.
As for targeting. There are existing weapons targeting systems that can cut through it. Just use those. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif There is linkage se5a. Check the first page. I have several links in one of my Posts. [ November 01, 2003, 02:03: Message edited by: Cyrien ] |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
I'm kinda' familiar with physics and have read the articles, I just don't see how these would be an all-purpose weapon for terrestrial applications. In orbit, yes; I see no problems except for those noted (power, scale, etc.) Ground-based systems? - I see too many issues surrounding the concept of keeping them laser pulses propigating at full power thru our atmosphere except under "optimal" conditions. Just my $.02.... |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
In practical terms, you don't need full power to reach the target. Just a large enough fraction that you can crank up the juice to compensate without destroying your weapon.
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Excluding techical points, my major resentment to the development of new weapons is the question of containment. Would you really feel better if US develop a new laser antiaircraft weapon and few years later we will find a terrorist sitting outsite JFK with it ?
And please, don't be so sure you can keep a monopoly on it. If you coud, why so much fuss now about nukes and other WMDs in the first place ? |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
All in all, not as bad of an event as, say, a nuke snuck through the borders and detonated; a possibility which has been around for decades. Sure, a nuke detonated near the ground is less effective than a nuke detonated higher up, but it would still be much more devastating than a few airplanes going down due to an AA attack. The possibility of evil people getting their hands on something and using it towards evil ends isn't, in and of itself, a sufficient reason not to make it; if it seriously was, you'd want to elmininate auto manufactoring (a car makes a nasty weapon, especially after loading the back with exposives - anyone remember the Oklahoma City Bombing?), canning plants (the product can be poisoned; if done at the cannery with spot-checking terminated to do the terror thing, there is no way to tell until people turn up sick or dead), many fertilizers (bomb materials), computer information systems (viruses, spyware, identity theft, consumer information tracking, et cetera), kitchen knives (can be used to cut people), the mail system (historically has been used to deliver bombs and junk mail to people), et infinium. Most objects can be used by evil people in evil ways. If you worry about it too much, you'll be too frightened to get out of bed in the morning (also too frightened to stay in bed - a pillow can be used to suffocate someone). Note: All listed uses of stuff above are evil, and shouldn't be done. Well, okay, the jury isn't necessarily out on junk mail yet. If lasers can be turned into an effective anti-missle defense, then they have a useful purpose, and are worth a look at. Just think: What happens if ICBM's with nuclear warheads become effectively nullified by laser-based anti-missle systems? No nuclear war -> no devastating nuclear-induced world-ending climate change. |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
Just few more trillions of $ to the dust bin. Why not keep the current status quo and send a man to Mars instead ? |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
However, even if ICBMs aren't fully obsoleted, it could provide an effective defense against older ICBMs in the hands of less technologically advanced Groups (most extremists fit that Category, if they have ICBMs at all), as well as providing a defensive measure with a reasonable expectation of success that nations can throw money at as an alternative to offensive nuclear capability. Quote:
Would the recourses be better spent elsewhere? Possibly. Will they be? Probably not. Are there useful non-military applications of the laser technology the military is developing? Yes. |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Keep in mind that a lot of modern technology was pioneered by the military as a means to kill people more effectively...
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Defending against a few ICBM's is a very different problem from defending against a country with an armageddon-sized nuclear arsenal. If your nation has enough nuclear firepower to destroy the world many times over, no matter where they detonate their warheads, and you were considering nonsense such as ICBM warfare to destroy a continental-sized enemy, you were really talking about a flamethrower battle on the Hindenburg - mutual assured destruction. Against such a threat, lasers aren't much help, because if someone is threatening to destroy the whole planet, they can still do so by detonating their arsenal in their own silos.
Against "emerging nuclear powers", laser ABM might be useful. During the cold war, I was really worried about the idea of Reagan's "Star Wars" concept to try to make the Soviet arsenal obsolete. Imagine if the Soviets had been slowly developing an effective ABM system... Humans... sigh... PvK [ November 04, 2003, 06:56: Message edited by: PvK ] |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Actually, the whole point of "star wars" was to throw lots of money into defense, which the Soviets wouldn't be able to match without breaking their already overstretched economy. It wasn't necessary for the program to work as such, only to look as it might work.
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
Quote:
[ November 04, 2003, 10:11: Message edited by: deccan ] |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
I'm not being argumentative BTW - I would genuinely like to know some examples of this(plus it's generally reassuring to hear some sort of example when people make sweeping statements). |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Re: The Teller interview in the Economist. What exactly is inherantly immoral about spending money on technology that does not currently exsist? That's what research and development is all about. At the start of the Manhattan project noone knew for sure the bomb would work. The same with the airplane, tanks, guns, any piece of weapons technology. And any civilian technology also for that matter.
The Stratregic Defense Initiative was a massive program to advance the technology needed to achieve a missle shield. Debate the morality of having a missle shield if you want, but once the decision is made to develop one, saying it's imorral to spend the money to research it is a bit odd. |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
I'm not being argumentative BTW - I would genuinely like to know some examples of this(plus it's generally reassuring to hear some sort of example when people make sweeping statements). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is a TV show in the US on the History Channel now called "Tactical to Practical" that deals directly with this issue. A few that I know of. The Microwave Oven - by product of radar experiments Radar - WW2. Yah. GPS - Modern. For military location. Now it is everywhere. Sonar - WW1. Hydrophone to find the first U-boats. Now try and find a modern fishing vessel that doesn't have it. Jet Engines - WW2. Kevlar - Saved many military lives and many police officer lives. Night and Infrared Imaging technology - Oh yah. All over now. First the military though for obvious reasons. The Computer - Some of the earliest computers and major computer breakthroughs were there to calculate the trajectories of ICBMs and calculate where they would hit. Also crypobreakers etc. Nuclear Power - I shouldn't have to say more on this one. Satellite Recon and Imaging - All military are first. Now lots of civilian firms that use this technology. Cryptography - Military for wartime use to civilian, specifically for the computer in modern life. Submarine (increasingly more uses for this vessel being foud in the civilian sector) Just to name a few. In fact most militarily advanced nations have programs or departments within the military that exist specifically to analyze the feasibility of releasing specific technologies to the public after having been developed for the military. These same agencies also have the role of analyzing developing civilian technologies and determining if they can be put to use for the military. http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/keyfacts/f...sification.htm I had one for the US but I closed the page and now I can't remember the combination of searches that got me to it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif [ November 04, 2003, 14:49: Message edited by: Cyrien ] |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Good list Cyrien. Two minor nitpicks.
The original mechanical and electromechanical computers were actually being used to calulate artillery trajectories before the invention of ICBMs. But the principle is correct. And nuclear power is one on your list that I believe the early research was in the area of power generation and later was harnessed for it's explosive potential. I could be wrong about that though. Maybe the early reactors were just about making enough useable material to build a bomb. |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
And yes you are right about the artillery projectiles as well for the first ones, but I am also right about the later ones and advances in them for more complicated ICBM calculations. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif So YAY! to us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
someone brought up mirrors, to target or deflect lasers, a page or so back.
while that works for low powered lasers, i believe these days most are directed by magnetic fields, much like the particle guns in side a television tube. the problem with mirrors - especially on more powerfull beams - is that they actually are not all that reflective. even with a reflection index of about 90%, which is nigh impossible to create and maintain, a laser will quickly damage or destroy the mirror. most of the problem lies in that mirrors are not all that reflective, the rest of the problem lies in that the reflectiveness is highly subject to damage and is hard to maintain (frequent polishing, must controll exposure to elements, temperature...) somone else mentioned laser propulsion for space vehicles - i believe nasa recently flew the first small craft (model airplane) powered entirely by lasers. maybe a week or two ago. |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Quote:
A laser mirror must be relective at the laser frequency. We used a CO2 laser to mark Intergated Circuit epoxy packaging (IC chips). The mirrors were (copper?) not good for personal use. |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Which bring up the question "What ever happened to particle beam weapons?" Back in the late '80s the Soviets were supposed to be ahead in this field and rumors were they were going to put one on a Kirov class cruiser. I heard that these weapons were going to pack quite a wallop. Like being sand bLasted, lased and electrocuted all at once. The down side is that they were defeated by magnetic fields (deflector shields?) and were bended even more by gravity than light and were therefore even hard to target over long ranges. Jane's defence weekly says that the U.S. Navy is looking at fuel cell powered ships with less maintenance and more surplus electricity available....things that make you go "hmm"
I think fuel cells and weapons grade chemical lasers might even use the same caustic chemicals. Hmmmmm! |
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
To Cyrien: You forgot SPAM. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam
Spam was created before WW2 and not by the military. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
It was made popular and brought into the mass market by WW2 though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.