Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: The E on July 20, 2010, 02:31:17 pm
-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=laser-downs-uavs
We do live in the future...
-
Saw this a couple of days ago, looks interesting as a point defence system, not sure it would be effective at longer ranges because of degradation, though, can't help thinking this would be better at targetting and destroying AAM or ASMs than aircraft, a single generator could use opical cable to have point-defence energy re-directed to the area of the ship that needs it (kind of like redirecting power to aft weapons in Star Trek or the like), and the vessel could basically have 360' missile cover.
-
just add shark
-
Well, we could hopefully get Star Wars up in orbit, and from there move to Ion Cannons.
-
Nothing new here except for having shrunk the size a bit. The original 1989 or so proof-of-concept laser system required replacing an entire Mk41 VLS. It's still not a practical main weapons system for the Navy because it lacks range and won't work in fog or heavy weather. VLS missiles have neither problem. It'd be nice for point defense, but doesn't appear to offer much of an improvement over Sea Whiz in engagement resolution or ability to deal with multiple inbounds (indeed, it might be worse). And it probably takes up more space.
-
Well, we could hopefully get Star Wars up in orbit, and from there move to Ion Cannons.
Notice the wars we're involved with right now? Space based ICBM kill sats aren't going to do anything about them, other then waste resources and put us deeper into debt. Besides Star Wars already did its job.
-
Fine, we still need some ion cannons though so we can vaporize their mountain strongholds.
-
Nothing new here except for having shrunk the size a bit. The original 1989 or so proof-of-concept laser system required replacing an entire Mk41 VLS. It's still not a practical main weapons system for the Navy because it lacks range and won't work in fog or heavy weather. VLS missiles have neither problem. It'd be nice for point defense, but doesn't appear to offer much of an improvement over Sea Whiz in engagement resolution or ability to deal with multiple inbounds (indeed, it might be worse). And it probably takes up more space.
If they could get the size small enough it might make an interesting point defence on high-altitude bombers I suppose, operating above the clouds would give the laser a certain advantage but then most missiles are coming from below so it would depend on how far above the clouds and whether lasers would really be worth the space compared to the huge EW and Countermeasures bundles already on-board.
-
If they could get the size small enough, it might make an interesting point defence on high-altitude bombers, I suppose, operating above the clouds would give the laser a certain advantage, but then, most missiles are coming from below, so it would depend on how far above the clouds, and whether lasers would really be worth the space compared to the huge EW and Countermeasures bundles already on-board.
The B-2, depending on who you ask, already has an infrared laser for burning out missile seekerheads...
-
Didn't know that, seems like a sensible application. The company rep seems to think it's just a question of getting more power to the laser, whereas the truth is that the important thing is effectiveness, why use the power to cut a missile in half when you can make it self-destruct for a quarter of the energy?
-
it doesn't take much to **** up anything thats powered by a rocket engine, punch a tiny hole in the right spot and its going down. aircraft same thing, you just have to lase the fuel tanks, the laser should puncture the tanks and provide sufficient heat for ignition. if that dont work you could at the very least blind the pilot.
-
Flipside, more power to the laser means more range for the laser since it can lose more to atmospheric interference and still be effective.
-
Yes, it does increase the range, but the fact is that the 'effective' range would be even further if they weren't focussing on the ability to slice UAV's in half :)
-
Well, if it can slice a UAV in half at a certain range, it could burn out a missile seeker at a longer range, couldn't it?
-
Depends on how its working, and what it's targetting, it seems the obsession here is to get the plane that is launching the missiles, which makes sense in a way, take out the source of the problem, then no more problem, however, even now, lasers are big and thirsty, making them more thirsty may not be the answer, it's a trade-off, how much power do you need to make this weapon worth the power it is using?
-
just add shark
yes
-
The ones they were going to (and for all we know have already) mounted in 747s to drop missiles back on their own launch sites worked with 3 lasers. The first was a scanning one that picked up the target. The second was a targeting one that determined range and speed. The third was the high powered one that burned through the skin and detonated the fuel in ms.
What is in the video could be the same thing. One quick high powered shot after tracking. No burning it in 2. Just a quick, precise hit.
As for making the skin reflective yea it might stop the laser but you'll never get close with all that signature.
-
Mirrors will not stop lasers. They will slow them down (maybe) but will always, always burn away or simply be destroyed in the first hit. No mirror is 100% efficient and the fraction of energy that gets through is enough.
-
is it just me or did it take 12 seconds for it to go down?
-
Can wire up sounds.tbl to ships PA pleasings?
-
seeing as this is one of those solid state lasers, i dont think power is an issue, especially on ships with onboard nuclear reactors. you can bet that any vessel's reactor(s) can put out way more power than the ship requires.
-
seeing as this is one of those solid state lasers, i dont think power is an issue, especially on ships with onboard nuclear reactors. you can bet that any vessel's reactor(s) can put out way more power than the ship requires.
The only surface ships in the modern US Navy with nuclear reactors are the carriers. We sent the CGNs to the scrapyard years ago, sadly. (And probably stupidly.)
-
Mirrors will not stop lasers. They will slow them down (maybe) but will always, always burn away or simply be destroyed in the first hit. No mirror is 100% efficient and the fraction of energy that gets through is enough.
Lasers can't penetrate the shields of the USS Enterprise. :P
-
Yes, because a CVN has somewhat more substantial armor than your average fighter. Still, you could probably do some damage to its superstructure with a laser....
As scifitastic as this topic is, let's keep it real, shall we?
-
Yes, because a CVN has somewhat more substantial armor than your average fighter. Still, you could probably do some damage to its superstructure with a laser....
CVN are perhaps the only ship you can't mission-kill by wrecking their radars, weirdly enough.
-
Yes, because a CVN has somewhat more substantial armor than your average fighter. Still, you could probably do some damage to its superstructure with a laser....
As scifitastic as this topic is, let's keep it real, shall we?
I wasn't referring to that enterprise. :P
-
You may not have noticed this, but we're not talking about fictional ships here.
-
Mirrors will not stop lasers. They will slow them down (maybe) but will always, always burn away or simply be destroyed in the first hit. No mirror is 100% efficient and the fraction of energy that gets through is enough.
Lasers can't penetrate the shields of the USS Enterprise. :P
Yes but...they aren't mirrors.
-
You may not have noticed this, but we're not talking about fictional ships here.
You may not have noticed that lasers have a time honored place in science fiction, allowing for jokes like that for people like you to misinterpret.
-
You may not have noticed this, but we're not talking about fictional ships here.
You may not have noticed that lasers have a time honored place in science fiction, allowing for jokes like that for people like you to misinterpret.
Your delivery needs some work.
-
I do suppose one concern is the fact that, as planes themselves get more and more stealthy, weapons like this rely on the ability to detect them. Admittedly, at this moment in time that's fine, there are only very few countries with stealth tech, but I personally can see reactionary defences being more of a role-player in future warfare than long-range ones.
-
Overtime someone will figure out a way to crack stealth. Nothing reigns supreme forever.
-
stealth isnt fool proof, they still have to navigate around radar stations, you wouldn't dare fly over one, even in a stealth fighter. stealth also isnt cheap and can sometimes be detrimental to performance.
-
stealth isnt fool proof, they still have to navigate around radar stations, you wouldn't dare fly over one, even in a stealth fighter. stealth also isnt cheap and can sometimes be detrimental to performance.
Or just wait until someone invents a new detection method not involving radar or ir.
-
The Russians have two-meter-band VHF radar that can probably defeat stealth.
-
The Russians have two-meter-band VHF radar that can probably defeat stealth.
You mean Steel Yard?
-
The Russians have two-meter-band VHF radar that can probably defeat stealth.
Two meter band is getting so large missiles might not even register consistantly.
-
The Russians have two-meter-band VHF radar that can probably defeat stealth.
Two meter band is getting so large missiles might not even register consistantly.
They're quite confident that stealth aircraft will appear as beachball-sized targets, and apparently the physics backs them up.
-
They're quite confident that stealth aircraft will appear as beachball-sized targets, and apparently the physics backs them up.
Oh, I don't doubt stealth aircraft will show up reliably, but two meter wavelength is longer than some missiles, so I'm not sure the radar's much use for anything else. :P
-
The Russians have two-meter-band VHF radar that can probably defeat stealth.
Two meter band is getting so large missiles might not even register consistantly.
They're quite confident that stealth aircraft will appear as beachball-sized targets, and apparently the physics backs them up.
physics theory backs up TONS of **** that doesn't actually work in the real world. not saying it won't, but it's not assured.
-
The Russians have two-meter-band VHF radar that can probably defeat stealth.
Two meter band is getting so large missiles might not even register consistantly.
They're quite confident that stealth aircraft will appear as beachball-sized targets, and apparently the physics backs them up.
So use it alongside conventional radar. :)