Comments on: Laser Gunship Zaps Target

By: Wembley

Wembley — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:40:00 +0000

But the best thing about the ATL is — “plausibile deniability” -
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/dn14520-us-boasts-of-laser-weapons-plausible-deniability.html

By: Jeff M

Jeff M — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:12:52 +0000

What we should do soon if destroy Russia’s nuclear arsenal. They are a real problem. The ABL should help in this goal. Where are the UAV-mounted missile interceptors? That should be part of the strategic missile defense initiative.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:02:44 +0000

Perhaps they can make future versions small enough to fit on a B-2. Certainly a B-52 could operate a laser and still support a conventional payload.
The more I read on future tech the more it becomes possible instead of just fiction. More projects like this one are becomming in just a few years, instead of sometime in the future. Its exciting what we are now able to do and what we will soon do.

By: James

James — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:41 +0000

LOL why do i sence another upgrade for the BUFF coming lol
also though i could see using a realy realy powerful laser on a ship i dont see why you would use a chem laser with a ship the size of a say iowa class you could put some dang powerful nuke or in the future fusion reactors…
lol i was just thinkin about all the ppls who keep saying convetional wars are threw.…like you know that one in georgia?…lol dos vi donya
may russia pay for its violation of a free country

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:49:26 +0000

Baby steps, but steps nonetheless.
I can just imagine the proponent of a new advanced naval gun ship announcing — “We set up the gun on a platform at our test range and a shell came out when we fired it.“
Fixed location, ground based lasers don’t cross any thresholds of technology.

By: atacms

atacms — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:14:22 +0000

Christian,
Can you find out if they damaged the target? They said they lased it, but they don’t speak about the effects to the target.
Thanks.

By: Curtis

Curtis — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:02:54 +0000

Quote:
“On the ground? From a turret on the C-130’s belly? I’m doubtful that there is sufficient ground clearance under the plane to carry that off.“
Two words: Jack stands. That should give the plane sufficient space to drop its ball(s) while on the ground.
I wonder if the system can acquire and fire fast enough to zap missiles, mortar and arty rounds in midair? Frying terrorists like a fat kid with a magnifying glass is both fun and useful, but zapping inbound fire would be all type kinds of cool.

By: ajay

ajay — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:47:22 +0000

Turret needn’t be huge; just big enough to house the objective lens/mirror assembly. It could be retractable, anyway, like the ball turret on a B-17.
Or fire from the side. Basically this is a sort of super Spectre.

By: Mark Cronk

Mark Cronk — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:37:47 +0000

On the ground? From a turret on the C-130’s belly? I’m doubtful that there is sufficient ground clearance under the plane to carry that off.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:23:38 +0000

Yes, lasers are sexy, but I think the future involves some sort of direct conversion of stored chemical energy to blast effect, delivered through some sort of gravity assisted mechanism.
It’s just so much simpler and more efficient.