Droning On

[Darwin]

The Navy successfully tested a ship-based laser recently shooting down a drone:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_1...41-501465.html

The "drone" appeared to be a glorified RC plane and it took the laser about ten seconds to flame it out of the sky. An RC plane tootling along at 50-60mph is one thing but downing a supersonic cruise missile or attack jet is another matter. Way another matter. As always "more development is needed".

[Frosted]

WE'VE got bloody lasers and everything now, the Royal Navy said last night.


They cost like 50 billion pounds each. The Ministry of Defence signed a contract for the Raytheon surface-to-air laser after senior ofifcers tried one at the Farnborough air show and said it was totally brilliant.

Admiral Sir Roy Hobbs said: "Brigadier Hayes got well longer on it than I did but I was all like 'Pyow! Pyow! Pyow!” and the unmanned plane just went 'ba-BOOOSH!' and there was fire everywhere.

"I'm getting six of them. One for the Navy, one for my pal Geoff and four for me. I'm going to have one in my bedroom, one on my bike and two on my mum's car. "

A Raytheon spokesman said: "The deployment of solid state laser technology reflects not only the need for innovation in a changing battle environment but also means you get to hold something that is just totally cool as ****.

"I got to fire one at a melon. It was amazing."

Hobbs said he was keen to install the Raytheons in the fleet immediately, but has conceded that engineers must make sure all the parts have arrived first and that they need to be painted and left to dry before assembly.

He added: "As soon as they're fitted I'm going to sail to Afghanistan and I'll be all waiting for an enemy plane to fly overhead.

"And the American officers will be like 'Let's fire rockets at it' and I'll just zap it with my laser and they'll be all like 'what the f*ck?' and I'll be like 'have you not got one?'"

[Darwin]

Nobody likes a smartass Paul. Except me of course.

[sgreger1]

We've had several laser based defense systems for quite some time, most of them not really ready to be fielded yet and frankly are not something I would rest our security on. They require a lot of fuel to power (I think it's hydrogen or something, I forget, but the lazer isn't just a beam of light) and takes a lot of power and has a lot of technical problems (plus they cost a fortune to operate).

They have successfully knocked some missiles down, but it's like 1 in 5, hardly something we can trust in case of a real threat. There's a 1 in 5 chance I can shoot down a low flying blackhawk with a scoped rifle but I wouldn't leave that as my last line of defense.

I hope they pour money into it and make kickass laser weapons that can be used in an offensive posture but I think that is a looooong way away. Right now, however, we have ample technology for intercepting several different types of ordinance whether they be smart or dumb bombs, hot or cold, and we should stick to that untill the lazer thing catches on in 20 years. As of right now, all this shit I keep seeing about jetmounted lasers and ground based defense/offense lasers is little more than a pipe dream that is not practicle for any long range/on demand applications.

But good luck to them. And frankly, untill I see them nuke the oil spill from orbit, I have no trust that America would have the balls to do something cool like make laser weapons.



EDIT: Also, spending $20 billion on a laser to shoot down a ****ing 10 foot drone in a controlled environment is hardly a great investment of our money right now. Last I checked, Al Quaida wasn't using UAV's.

[Darwin]

Oh lasers are beams of light alright but they require immense power input to the device that generates the beam (infrared). The big boy, the megawatt job in the Airborne Laser Lab, uses large amounts of incredibly toxic chemicals to generate the energy needed for beam propagation. The Navy setup uses an industrial laser far lower in output that is likely powered directly by onboard generators feeding into some huge frakkin' capacitors. It's been said that the best way to damage an enemy with a laser is to drop it on him. Probably still the case but shipboard close in defense is a much smaller hill to climb technologically than shooting down ballistic missiles or fighters hundreds of miles away.

[dxh]

We've had several laser based defense systems for quite some time, most of them not really ready to be fielded yet and frankly are not something I would rest our security on. They require a lot of fuel to power (I think it's hydrogen or something, I forget, but the lazer isn't just a beam of light) and takes a lot of power and has a lot of technical problems (plus they cost a fortune to operate).

They have successfully knocked some missiles down, but it's like 1 in 5, hardly something we can trust in case of a real threat. There's a 1 in 5 chance I can shoot down a low flying blackhawk with a scoped rifle but I wouldn't leave that as my last line of defense.

I hope they pour money into it and make kickass laser weapons that can be used in an offensive posture but I think that is a looooong way away. Right now, however, we have ample technology for intercepting several different types of ordinance whether they be smart or dumb bombs, hot or cold, and we should stick to that untill the lazer thing catches on in 20 years. As of right now, all this shit I keep seeing about jetmounted lasers and ground based defense/offense lasers is little more than a pipe dream that is not practicle for any long range/on demand applications.

But good luck to them. And frankly, untill I see them nuke the oil spill from orbit, I have no trust that America would have the balls to do something cool like make laser weapons.



EDIT: Also, spending $20 billion on a laser to shoot down a ****ing 10 foot drone in a controlled environment is hardly a great investment of our money right now. Last I checked, Al Quaida wasn't using UAV's.

I heard that these things need a lot of power. In Berkley the labs they use to create fusion with lasers need an unrealistic(for most applications) amount of power.

[sgreger1]

Oh lasers are beams of light alright but they require immense power input to the device that generates the beam (infrared). The big boy, the megawatt job in the Airborne Laser Lab, uses large amounts of incredibly toxic chemicals to generate the energy needed for beam propagation. The Navy setup uses an industrial laser far lower in output that is likely powered directly by onboard generators feeding into some huge frakkin' capacitors. It's been said that the best way to damage an enemy with a laser is to drop it on him. Probably still the case but shipboard close in defense is a much smaller hill to climb technologically than shooting down ballistic missiles or fighters hundreds of miles away.

I didn't mean to imply weapons grade lasers weren't essentially beams of light, just that (as you mentioned) there has to be a LOT of chemicals on board to reach beam propagation, which makes the whole effort much harder to accomplish, esepcially in airborne applications where weight makes a significant difference in how long you can keep the laser on station in any given area. I could see short range naval defense, but flying in the laser squadron to melt the enemy is years away.

[sgreger1]

I heard that these things need a lot of power. In Berkley the labs they use to create fusion with lasers need an unrealistic(for most applications) amount of power.

They do require a lot of power and also a lot of chemicals.

For example, the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser Testbed, (formerly Airborne Laser) weapons system is a megawatt-class chemical oxygen iodine laser(COIL) mounted inside a modified Boeing 747-400F. And even after all the money weve poured into this thing, it can still only take down a ballistic missile in the boosting phase, which leaves a very short window of oppertunity for this thing to go to work.

[Tobakssmak]

WE'VE got bloody lasers and everything now...

Funny! Thanks Frosted, I needed that.

Carry on, blah blah lasers need power blah...

[tom502]

The Fuhrer invented the drone.

[Frosted]

[f. bandersnatch]

Tom- Hitler didn't invent shit. Not even that gay little mustache, he stole that from Chaplin.

Frosted- thanks for keeping it light my friend.

Lasers- f*ck you.

[LaZeR]

Tom- Hitler didn't invent shit. Not even that gay little mustache, he stole that from Chaplin.

Frosted- thanks for keeping it light my friend.

Lasers- f*ck you.

wtf did I do? I don't even think I posted anything in this thread.

[tom502]

Lol!

[Frosted]

wtf did i do? I don't even think i posted anything in this thread.

lmfao