Comments on: The Laser Avenger Zaps Its Target

By: ctrega

ctrega — Fri, 15 May 2009 01:21:27 +0000

Crust old clown!
Your retired why spend your day posting on shit go to the beach!!!

By: BoulderRedneck

BoulderRedneck — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:57:37 +0000

I think we should, like anvil 85 said, be more concerned about it’s potential as defense. all it takes is one nuke to take out the U.S. the EMP could disable most cars and anything electric. Iran can win. It is imperitive that we develop weapons like this, but not like boeing’s new laser humvees. this cannot help us. Yes, you might say that the best defense is a good offense, but in nuclear war, you need a defense. or you can just die.

By: BoulderRedneck

BoulderRedneck — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:35:47 +0000

Hey, all you out there, i just researched the crap out of lasers, and for those who don’t know, you need some liquid nitrogen and a lot of other crap to cool these things. If they can’t make these things more powerful,they can’t do $hiz.cool idea, but boeing needs to go back to 747’s and leave this alone, or they can try to get better ideas.
Also, our current president wants to remove missile defense systems for “peace reasons”. bull$hit.I thought everyone should know and I’m hoping this is a conservative site.

By: Sunny Deng

Sunny Deng — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:49:39 +0000

Dear Sir or Madam
Wish you everything goes very well.
I will tell you good new, we manufacture new jammers with lots of function.
It is vehicle mounted bomb jammers for military convoy protection, convoy jamming system counters remote controlled IED attacks by terrorists for convoy security.
Any problem, please communicate me.
Waiting for your reply,
Regards
Sunny Deng
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd.
Website: http://www.tangreat.com
E-mail: jammer_blocker05@tangreat.com
MSN: hongsunny2008@hotmail.com
Skype: sunny20081634
Tel: 86–755-33620232
Fax: 86–755-82527821
Mobile: 86–15815576734

By: anvil85

anvil85 — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 03:49:46 +0000

I have not followed this chat and perhaps I shouldn’t comment with my two cents but here goes. Prior to my retirement from the army(air defence artillery) I attended a laser warfare course. At the time (1992) the idea with laser based weapons was to destroy sensitive electronics which the enemy weapons and or intelligence gathering assets were dependant on. Heating to an appropriate temperature in the general area in which these components exist would suffice. Treated,mirrored eye covering was offered as protection. I don’t believe shredding armored plated vehicles and cutting people in half was the idea. My apologies if I’m off topic or my input is out of date. Thanks, Anvil85
eye protection was passed around and offered as protection

By: Bitter Cup

Bitter Cup — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:58:04 +0000

The main point to all of this is that Directed Energy Weapons are only getting better…While conventional delivery systems, (ie; Missles, IED, Artillery and Aircraft) are in their “mature” phase.

By: len wilson

len wilson — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:32:55 +0000

any device that is being developed by the weapon corporations that does business with the pentagon should be evaluated and put in the field to save our young soldiers lives.… and limbs…
IED’s are the biggest killer of our soldiers…so the arm chair retired none serving cynical aces should get with the program of helping our armed forces… not trying to stop weapons production that will help them…please check out the evaluation of the weapons for it’s realistic effectiveness and save your high school b.s. theories.…if you were brillant… you would have come up with a better idea to help…

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:55:21 +0000

The posts that talk about using laser weapons to cut through metal don’t have the basic concept firmly in hand.
All current and realistically near term laser weapons cause something that is already inherently explosive (like IEDs, airborne munitions, UAV fuel tanks or ballistic missile booster sections) and make them blow up prior to planned detonation, or have an inherently fragile target (like avionics or a pilot’s eyes).
These are modern versions of Archimedes weapon of 241 BC.

By: JIMBO

JIMBO — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:21:30 +0000

Hey Brian — YOU DON’T KNOW SHIT!

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:08:37 +0000

Coward: Yeah, part of the problem is that terrorists don't wear big neon signs that say "jihad" on them. They dress like everybody else. So how do you distinguish the terrorist hiding in a building three blocks away from the normal guy standing on the streetcorner three blocks away? Crusty ol Chief: You can rant and rave about how your "keepin' it real" hurt your career and how you have the guts to "tell it like it is". You're just an anonymous guy on the internet -- facts, logic, and clear thinking are what will earn you respect here, not emotional ranting. The fact is, Boeing can spend their money on whatever they want. They can spend 14 billion dollars on building a better taiwanese hooker for all I care. This money comes from their own company coffers -- not a cent financed by the taxpayer. Now, if its gonna save lives, great. If its not needed, fine. But it IS an impressive technological achievement. It IS something Boeing should be proud of. It's something that would have been impossible ten years ago. b: It's become readily apparent over the few years I've read this site, that 75% of the posters don't know half of what they're talking about. You're threatening to push that number higher. The inverse square law has already been explained. As to your other points, 100kW HAS been identified as the minimum level for "laser weapons". If this was a weapon we were talking about, I'm sure that would matter. There's a damn big difference between firing a laser at an immobile target and firing it at an armored tank moving at 40 mph. A 1kW laser is great for cutting through metal as long as you can focus the beam on it for five minutes. But try keeping a laser focused on a moving enemy vehicle (in the same spot, no less) for five minutes. Much more difficult. That explains the discrepancy in power output.