Wow. If I thought that I could ship that here, or if I thought it wouldn't cost more than $500, I would totally want to buy one. Cool...
Laser Enthusiast Builds Super-Dangerous Homemade Pistol
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You also have to factor in the costs of re-tooling our manufacturing plants for such weapons, plus the cost of re-training the entire armed forces on how to use and maintain laser weaponry.Hawk of Battle said:
The benefits of man-portable energy weapons over existing weapons aren't great enough to justify spending that much time money and effort. Hell the M4 is rated for precision accuracy against a man-sized target up to 500 meters.
Until there's a major breakthrough that makes lasers worth replacing projectile weapons (lower maintenance costs, or lower cost to operate), you won't see congress throwing any money at it.
Though, the Air Force is looking into mounting lasers onto AC-130s (as if they don't have enough firepower already) for use against ground targets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Tactical_Laser
I wasn't talking about immediately, overnight, replacing all guns for all military forces the world over, I was simply stating my amazement at why we don't even have a single man-portable prototype energy weapon anywhere in the world when it is clearly plausible to make one.SilentHunter7 said:
I wish I hadn't made my initial post now, that comment has been quoted now more than any other I have ever made, with people completely taking what I've said the wrong way, as well as shoving facts that I am well aware off down my throat as if I don't already know that, yes, there are very large aircraft/shipboard laser systems being used, but that wasn't what I was talking about.
I'm gona have to start sticking qualifiers in all my posts from now on, explaning every little detail of what I know on any given subject and asking people not to re-explain such things to me multiple times over because this is getting a little ridiculous now.
As far as prototypes are concerned, you never know what they might have. But when you look at the state of the United States finances right now, it's no mystery why no such project is being funded, publicly, at least. We can't even spare the funds for a proper space vehicle.Hawk of Battle said:
Ah, but we (as in, humanity) do have such weapons. They're just not very "nice" (like land mines, flamethrowers and cluster bombs), so are banned under Protocol IV of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. For example, the Chinese ZM-87 was designed to permenantly blind enemy troops at the range of serveral kilometers or temporarily blind them at ranges of 10KM or more. Obviously, having been designed in the '80s, its a big, heavy piece of kit (its intended to be fired from a tripod, like a Heavy MG). Systems desinged to cause temporary blindness are still being developed, such as the American PHASR, which (supposedly) only causes temporary blindness and so isn't covered by the UN Protocol. Similar systems are also employed in active defence systems installed on armoured fighting vehicles. The most famous example is probably the Russian Shtora system used on the T-90, which incorporates lasers to "blind" enemy range finders.Hawk of Battle said:
Essentially any further development of lethal laser systems is hampered by the current regulation because anything lethal out to a useful range will also be blinding. Personally, I'm of the opinion that this is no bad thing - weapons purposefully created to permenantly disable without being able to kill "cleanly" (as much as that word isn't adequate), or even at all, is something that has no place in a modern military.
That doesn't actually burn you fyi. It's microwave radiation (so not a laser at all), and what it does is activate the pain nerves on your skin. So it does indeed hurt quite a bit, but ideally without lasting effects. (Hasn't really been tested to see if there's any long term effects though; possible damage to the eyes is of concern).Celtic_Kerr said:
Great. Another way for idiots who think they're cool to seriously hurt themselves and others. =S
Lasers aren't toys, people.
Lasers aren't toys, people.
Yes, I did actually read the article that I submitted. It's actually an energy microwave beam that they use. I believe they did test some to the eyes, but they claimm the chances of develloping cancer are very low. They're done alot more testing since 2002 when they released itHexenwolf said:
Cheaper too. The device will probably be less durable and easy to maintain than a common or garden firearm as well.Eldarion said:
It's less effective to make trendy stuff like lasers practical than it is to make practical weapons effective. Paint it pink and write "Hello Kitty" on it, et voila.
I doubt lasers will ever have a huge presence on a battlefield. They have enormous potential for negating the threat from ICBM's and such weapons and if they can improve the efficiency a good bit it might even make air to air missiles obsolete as well, but the power input would just be too demanding for a vehicle or handheld weapon to ever be more effective than coventional weapons. The points about laser firing sniper rifles is interesting, since it would make the job as simple as point and click on the person that you want to see dead and it'd be much more stealthy as well, but even with major advances in technology I'm quite sure the lasers power source would still have to be bigger than the sniper himself. In close quarters, a gun really doesn't have to do anything that a reliable little MP5 isn't capable of, except maybe slightly longer range and capacity for for open areas, and for those, you already have assault rifles, which offer those traits, and in my opinion even those are less pleasant to use than submachine guns.