Ship-Mounted Laser Weapon Torches Enemies a Mile Away
- Thread starter Scott Bullock
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Now we're talking!Zechnophobe said:
Oh, and 2000 feet per second! Thats got to be some sort of typo, or else the thing requires a personal nuclear reactor to power it and is the size of a mountain.
2000 Feet! how is that even possible?
Combination missile defense and offensive weapon?! Sounds good to me!
[sub][sub]...I'll just let the yanks perfect it before I agree that Canada should get some too.[/sub][/sub]
[sub][sub]...I'll just let the yanks perfect it before I agree that Canada should get some too.[/sub][/sub]
I think projectiles will still be the solution for a long time, even after the laser is fully effective as a weapon. It would have a hard time competing with a fully functional railgun for sheer destructive capability, and range.YouEatLard said:
Ammo is heavy and expensive, as well as being wasteful, since the materials used to create it end up wherever they land. A projectile also travels a lot slower than a laser does, which makes a significant difference against fast-moving targets, like missiles and jets. The weaponized laser project is primarily intended as a missile defense system and anti-aircraft weapon.s0m3th1ng said:
Of course, once it can take out a jet there's no reason why it can't target other ships as well, if necessary.
This is a less destructive and more accurate weapon. It would be used for less lethal intents, as demonstrated in the video.HappyPillz said:
Ah just what I like to see another expensive waste of time from the US DoD. Why spend millions of dollars on weapon that is can only ever be of less use the current weapons. A laser beam can only travel in straight lines but the world is curved so for laser mounted 30m above sea level it can only hit targets 12 1/4 miles away. The current short range USN surface to air missile has range of 27+ miles. Ever wonder why the US budget deficit is so big?
The navy wants death rays? *checks watch* well what-do-ya-know its almost future.
I think it would be kinda cool to have laser weapons on ships but this demonstration doesn't make it look practical. It only started a small fire and when your on a boat surrounded by water putting out a small fire is a minor concern.
I think it would be kinda cool to have laser weapons on ships but this demonstration doesn't make it look practical. It only started a small fire and when your on a boat surrounded by water putting out a small fire is a minor concern.
We don't kill people nearly efficiently and effortlessly enough, time to get moving! >:OScott Bullock said:
Laser weapons terrify me.
Think about it. Weapons have begun requiring progressively less skill to use. Going from the bow-and-arrow to the gun, instead of being something you needed a lot of skill and physical strength to accomplish, killing became pretty much just point and shoot.
Laser weapons are even easier to aim. As long as you have an accurate sight, you can just point the weapon, pull the trigger, and whatever's at the other end dies horribly. No need to account for windage or projectile trajectory. It's like an FPS weapon.
Granted, laser energy does attenuate quickly over a long range, but if a laser is powerful enough to kill within its effective range, it can still probably light things on fire or cause permanent blindness at very long range. Using adaptive optics, a laser could be accurate as far as the eye can see, and any chump can use it with a minimum of training as long as it's a clear day and he has line-of-sight.
I hate weapons. I really do. But, as they say, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, so Megawatt death ray it is. If we're going to be able to kill and maim people at the press of a button, I'm glad that ability will (ostensibly) be on my side.
Think about it. Weapons have begun requiring progressively less skill to use. Going from the bow-and-arrow to the gun, instead of being something you needed a lot of skill and physical strength to accomplish, killing became pretty much just point and shoot.
Laser weapons are even easier to aim. As long as you have an accurate sight, you can just point the weapon, pull the trigger, and whatever's at the other end dies horribly. No need to account for windage or projectile trajectory. It's like an FPS weapon.
Granted, laser energy does attenuate quickly over a long range, but if a laser is powerful enough to kill within its effective range, it can still probably light things on fire or cause permanent blindness at very long range. Using adaptive optics, a laser could be accurate as far as the eye can see, and any chump can use it with a minimum of training as long as it's a clear day and he has line-of-sight.
I hate weapons. I really do. But, as they say, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, so Megawatt death ray it is. If we're going to be able to kill and maim people at the press of a button, I'm glad that ability will (ostensibly) be on my side.
Missiles? Ah right. I'll just fire one *whoosh*.albino boo said:
That'll be 100 million dollars. And it got shot down half way.
Now you know why we want lasers. They fire for pennies on the megadeath!
Anything a weapon like this can do, we're already doing with projectiles. We're currently using .50 Cal rifles to disable drug running ships. They shoot over the bow as a warning and when it doesn't stop they pop a few into the engine. Problem solved. Noone gets hurt, and the boat comes to a stop. It there a chance of shrapnel? Yes, but a very low chance. Is there a chance of a large fire/explosion when combining high power light with a boat? Yes, low chance on the explosion, almost 100% on the fire. This is likely one of the reasons they're demo'ing it on an outboard.philosophicalbastard said:
We could go back and forth on the pros and cons of the end product (destruction) all day. What it comes down to in my eyes is infrastructure and maintenance. You need an ass load of power to run a laser like that. High amperage, high voltage components that are both expensive to run and ridiculously expensive to fix.
Mean while, ye olde .50 cal is cheap, inexpensive (relative to the laser), and can be field stripped. It doesn't require (sometimes dangerous, sometimes very expensive) high pressure gas to be stored on hand. Any part of the .50 cal can be replaced in... what an hour?
Ammo argument: A ridiculous amount of ammo and extra rifles could be stored in the area that this laser's PSU sits in. And btw, high power means large generators, meaning desiel fuel, meaning it can only be run for so long. This puts it on par at this level as well.
The combination of weight and power requirements is the reason we chose the 747 as an airbourne platform (and not a Learjet or F-22). All of the above is also why the F-22, EF-2000, and SU-37 have guns, not lasers.
So, question of bullet or laser, the bullet will almost always win.
If that were possible, they'd not need to stick them on satellites. However, even if you could guarantee a satellite to be in the correct position when you want to fire, and you could maintain literally pin-point accuracy and incredibly tight focus up and down...you are shooting your satellite with a laser.s0m3th1ng said:
Now, you could mount such a device on the laser itself. It still wouldn't work, but it'd not work by less than bouncing a surface based laser beam of one. More expensive, though, but you have to pay for things that not work less.
It isn't. They are "working on" building one, that's not to say they can ever get one. The US military was "working on" a weapon that would turn enemy soldiers gay so they'd have sex with each other instead of fighting. That didn't work either.Hero in a half shell said:
You can't burn through steel that quickly, if nothing else because you to pass the beam through the vapour you've just made. Before you get that elusive 2000 feet, you have to pass a laser through 1999 feet of vapourised steel.
