Comments on: Battlefield May Soon See Frickin’ Lasers

By: elvis

elvis — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:00:04 +0000

«I can’t help but to picture smirking insurgents holding up their bathrooms mirrors as body armor.»

it’ll burn through mirrors, it’s not visible light, so won’t be reflected–

By: elvis

elvis — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:58:52 +0000

it’s about the only weapon that can shoot down an ASBM fired at an aircraft carrier–

By: Joseph Connaughton

Joseph Connaughton — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:59:32 +0000

It’s not going to make muster. Google my article “The First Laser Gun Was Too Cruel To Use”

Joseph Connaughton

By: Joseph Connaughton

Joseph Connaughton — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:54:38 +0000

It aint going to pass muster. Read my article “The First Laser Gun Was Too Cruel to use.

Joseph Connaughton

By: Monster

Monster — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 21:59:20 +0000

I hope for UAVs with lasers, they could loiter over Afghanistan and kill bad guys without blowing up the whole village they are staying in. And their would not have to reload that quickly, given that they have a sufficient energy storage capacity.

By: Jeff M

Jeff M — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:56:20 +0000

Byron Skinner: it’s also interesting to note that lasers are capable of igniting fusion on small fuel pellets when fired at quick and powerful levels. This laser at ~20% efficiency is possibly a precursor to a real energy producing fusion device. It has been known by scientists for a long time that laser blasts are much more likely to produce an effective fusion reactor than the tokamak reactors being tested (ITER). This laser could be a truck-sized nuclear fusion reactor at some time in the future, it’s VERY LIKELY in my opinion. There are devices that “shrink” a laser beam in length, in goes a long duration firing, out comes a shorter duration. This beam combining technology has been in use for laser-based fusion ignition facilities for a long time. Of course the lasers involved are thousands of times more powerful than this one.

By: John

John — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:46:23 +0000

I think Jeff M hit it right on the money. You cannot see, hear, or detect a laser beam coming at you. It’s instant bbq. And as he stated, you don’t need to melt down the entire tank/truck/missile, just hit a critical portion of it. Or even deform the metal enough to wear it effects the aerodynamics of said missle or munition.
150kw is a heck of a lot of laser energy. the enemy won’t know what’s going on until it’s too late to react. No puff of smoke, no tracer, no nothing. Armor would just start blowing up or folks would get the worst sunburn they have had in their lives.
And it will be used as a defensive weapon first. Park two large trucks(will not need a landship or some huge crap like that) in the area you wish to defend, one for power, the other holds the actual laser portion/beam director. All aerial threats could be neutralized.

By: Jeff M

Jeff M — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:02:20 +0000

The interesting thing here is not just the power level, but HOW they reached it, by combining multiple beams, or by amplifying an existing beam. There are other research projects going on right now to design more efficient single-source lasers, through thin-disk mediums or circular fiber-optic laser assemblies. The net effect of all these developments down the road means we can expect 500kw lasers within a few years. This laser is actually capable of 120kw, it is using 7 of 8 available “modules”.
CTR1(SW): The “beer keg” sized generator you’re referring to was probably a device called a “compulsator”, which when combined with a flywheel is able to convert a mass of kinetic energy into a short pulse of electrical energy. This would be good for a 1–2 second shot from this laser, but my guess is it will be used for long-durations in all it’s practical applications.
SMSgt Mac: Free electron laser operates on a completely different principle than this laser. Free electron lasers do have some interesting characteristics that could possibly be used to augment solid state lasers, but they are very complicated and require a lot more space. The solid state laser is at it’s core an up-scaled version of a laser pen.
I see the practical applications being primarily the defense of small cheap artillery or rockets (qasam rockets for instance). A terrorist could launch a $100 rocket at a mall and you could probably shoot it down with a $100,000 interceptor missile, but this laser could do the job for a few hundred dollars. As sec defense rumsfeld put it, by it’s very existence it will serve as a deterrent to use such weapons.
I think it’s underestimated the effect of this laser on a target. With 100kw you certainly could take out a tank, after a minute or two of lasing and 40 degrees hotter, I’m sure the occupants will get out and run away. You’ll scare the bajeebas out of any person on the ground who witnesses his comrade spontaneously combust (for a few hundred $ worth of shot, no less). The reason they are putting these lasers on C-130 for tactical applications is that it is not meant to provide the same capability as a bomb or projectile does. With a laser everything is toally different. You don’t shatter the structure of the tank, you zap a hole through a critical component (the fuel tank), or you shoot out all the tires on a truck in an instant, destroy the fire controls of a machine gun. You could more effectively take out a convoy of vehicles with a laser by disabling every single vehicle at a pre-programmed attack. Imagine, the operator picks out all the vulnerable areas on all the vehicles to disable, presses go, 2 minutes later they are all just sitting their (waving the white flag, hopefully).

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:52:15 +0000

Good Morning Valcan,
The technology will of course develop, but the two questions will always be cost vs target value and can do the same mission with cheaper resources.
Take example one of the systems you mentioned, nuclear reactors. For submarines they proved the right technology but for surface ship other then power hungry carriers they have not been successful. And nuclear power have proven way to expensive for merchant ships.
Again this is a weapon most likely to be kept alive in Science Fiction.
Just to rattle your chain Valcan, do you have an opinion about the possible elimination of CSAR units. Their cost is running into the $ billions, there is the Latin American stand off between the AF and Boeing regarding the CH-47 as a replacement aircraft and the issue of UAV’s don’t leave downed air crews.
This idea though is not with out merit and the absurdity becomes larger when you take into consideration that both the Navy and Air Force maintains duplicate capabilities. Perhaps like in air refueling one service can reduce it capacity and save some more, if not just do away with it all together, use spec ops and regular air crews when (even if) the needs arise.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: noah

noah — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:18:02 +0000

When it gets small enough, i figure these could be useful on helicopters dropping troops into hot-zones. The laser could defend the craft from nasty RPG’s and other small missiles that are cheaply obtained by 3rd world fighters.
Also, a few lasers with morter detectors would help marines and other land-forces in places like Afghanistan sleep better. These lasers could neuter incoming morters fired at the soldiers bunks.