New Approach For Laser Weapons 188
An anonymous reader writes "Laser guns and other 'directed energy weapons' have remained in sci-fi lore because of their inefficiency, bulkiness, and poor beam quality. Now an MIT Lincoln Lab spinoff called TeraDiode is developing a diode laser that uses 'wavelength beam combining' to create what it calls the brightest and most powerful laser of its kind. The two-year-old company, backed by $3 million from the U.S. Department of Defense and $4 million from venture capitalists, is working on a compact airborne laser system for planes to shoot down heat-seeking missiles. Eventually, the lasers could be mounted on a tank or ship to destroy enemy UAVs or even incoming artillery shells. That's still at least three to five years away, but with advances in semiconductor lasers there seems to be quite a renewed interest in weaponry."
What about a mesh or laser shield? (Score:2)
I would think a shield could be created to protect against UAV's. It would be possible to just create a laser net around a certain area as a defense shield.
How effective would it be?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of this is going to be terribly effective. All you have to do to thwart this system is coat the thing in retro-reflective paint like an industrial version of the striping on traffic cones and stuff. If the target can reflect the incoming photothermal energy instead of absorbing it, the laser no longer works as intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Reflective surfaces tend to be ineffective at the energies employed by a weaponized laser. Even if 99.99% of the energy is reflected, 0.01% is still plenty to raise the temperature of the surface, and even the most reflective surfaces tend to become dull as the temperature increases. Coating every potential target with the premium optics-grade mirrors necessary to deflect enough of the beam to avoid such heating would most likely be far more expensive than the laser you're defending against.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the highest power laser you can deploy in the field? What's the tightest beam you can fire a km or so at a target after accounting for diffraction? These are not the kinds of numbers that give you instant vaporization of your target.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, more than likely, this stuff will be deployed to a desert.
Those premium optics-grade mirrors better be coated with much better shit than you can get at your local prescription eyeglasses store. Coating each one of them with something harder than any dust particle will be quite expensive indeed.
Of course, that just means a half billion per drone. From the state of affairs in the US the military industrial complex it gets whatever money it wants anyways......
Let me know when they figure out
Re: (Score:2)
IT depends on the power and wave length of the laser, and the heat properties of the material used to deflect it.
A laser can cut through a mirror in case you were wondering. Not reflective surface will be purely reflective in all wavelengths.
Re: (Score:2)
They have them. (Score:2)
You can order it from the ACME catalog.
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/05/14/the-original-acme-catalog/ [neatorama.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious Much? (Score:5, Funny)
They're calling it the most powerful laser of it's kind, and it's a new kind of laser...
Re: (Score:2)
think-they-no-it-alls*.
*What is the plural of this word? Should there be an apostrophe?
Honestly, I don't no.
Article two weeks ago on Navy Lasers with Boeing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
get ready for sony's yellow-ray drive (Score:2)
only, what cutsie misspelling should they use when creating the marketing name for it?
sigh....
Wait! You mean the enemy has (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of the above were fought with large-scale firepower, heavy use of air forces, and heavy weapons. Meanwhile, Russia, China, both Koreas, Japan, and most of the Middle East continue a build
Oh thank goodness... (Score:2)
Now we can kill each other better...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not Pollyanna. I believe we need the ability to defend ourselves against the world's jerks. It's just... sometimes I really wished we could work more towards helping each other than hurting each other. It kind of wears on you after a while.
Re:Oh thank goodness... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, we ARE the world's jerks.
We have met the enemy (Score:2)
The scary part isn't I remember reading that Pogo when it first appeared in newspapers. It's that it's just as true as it ever was.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, we ARE the world's jerks.
I think that's overly simplistic. The U.S. does lots of jerky things. But I think there's no shortage of non-U.S. jerks who would take over any land that they felt they could successfully conquer. ( China/Tibet and Russia/Georgia are two recent examples. )
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's overly simplistic.
Well we do watch a lot of preachy sci-fi. The problem with everybody holding hands and singing songs about peace love and harmony is that the guy with stick gets his way un-challenged. Doctor Who hasn't covered that, yet.
Re: (Score:2)
If china went half way around the world and took over a country like Egypt, then i guess you could consider it the same as what America did attacking Iraq.
face it, America are the jerks of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, USA is involved but shows no sign of wanting to take over. Why would it ? They're aligned with US's purpose.
Mexico and South America weren't always aligned with US's purpose.
it appears that the difference could have more to do with the types of government and how each enforce control. (America through finance, china through oppression) but when US policy defines that countries laws, how different is it really? weather the control is gained from show of force or through paying off dictators, its still influencing and operating in someone else back yard for your own purpose at the expense of the citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's overly simplistic
Pussies think everyone can get along and dicks just wanna fuck all the time without thinking it through.
But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want is to shit all over everything.
So pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while because pussies get fucked by dicks.
But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck.
And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get?
You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh thank goodness... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now an effective anti mortar and rocket system could be saving a LOT of lives in Misurata and the other cities Ghadafi has been sieging. Heck if we could effectively stop his offense it would even save lives on his side as we wouldn't have a reason to bomb his armor columns.
I don't doubt that. But I'm just guessing that if that $7M+ could have been spent on malaria research, cancer research, water purification systems, etc., there could have been more lives saved. If Libya was at peace, that is, which goes back to my main point.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorists will love it. (Score:2)
Re:Terrorists will love it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect that they will have about the same success with this as with all the other types of weapons they've used to shoot down commercial airliners.
easy solution for artillery shells. (Score:2)
Just bring back the New Jersey class and the 16 inch AP shells. I doubt that a laser would have much effect on them :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
dang it you are right. My bad thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Antiship missiles, however, would be very effective.
No actual information (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Queue Real Genius gags (Score:2)
That's great! I'll be ready with the massive popcorn pan in 5 years! I should get started soon, maybe Jordan can come over and help me, she never sleeps.
A new approach... (Score:2)
From the side?
Real Genius Not Sharks (Score:2)
I am sad that anything that involves lasers is automatically an Austin Powers Shark joke. Real Genius is by far the better and funnier movie. Please help endorse the correct kind of nostalgic references.
This is clearly objectively correct and in no way affected by my bias for and love of Real Genius. I don't care that it was probably the only movie I've ever seen that included real hacking and appropriate technology references.
Won't somebody think of the children?
Also get off my lawn.
Birds? (Score:2)
Eventually, the lasers could be mounted on a tank or ship to destroy enemy UAVs or even incoming artillery shells.
I can see this resulting in a lot of dead birds in the future.
The Crossbow Project (Score:2)
The Crossbow Project: There's no defense like a good offense.
Maritime Laser Demonstrator (Score:2)
Recently the navy "disabled" (i.e. caught on fire) a small ship using a high-power solid-state laser (video here [wired.co.uk])
Is this a good time to start my company? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I concur, we need some sort of shark head mount to be designed as well. Anything short would be a waste of resources.
Re:okay but... (Score:5, Informative)
Given the phrasing from the post, "... a compact airborne laser system for planes to shoot down heat-seeking missiles," and the links with research from a Big Technical University, a better cultural reference would be the movie Real Genius. Much better match all-told.
Re: (Score:2)
pzzz buzz off
Re: (Score:2)
Popcorn!
Re: (Score:2)
Ok God...let me have it!!
You Degenerate! (Score:2)
Clearly you were given a great opportunity to be a Chris Knight and you turned it into a moment to be a Kent.
From now on, stop playing with yourself :P
ObQuirk (Score:2)
But what do the sharks think
Objection, Your Honor! Question assumes cognitive processes not in evidence!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does humanity lose?
The existence of the vast majority of war weapons has deterred and stopped many more wars and saved many more lives then any war has taken. Wars are shorter now with a far lower percentage of the populations dieing then at any other time in history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In soviet russia sharks meme you!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, we'll let the engineers worry about that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are no "better" ways to kill. Only easier ways.
I am not convinced that we need easier ways to kill.
I wonder what the Founders would think of the NRA's position on private ownership of laser weapons, which will certainly be: "You can have my laser gun when you wrest it from my smoldering, dead hand".
And no, I don't think the NRA's position would be any different on a handheld, semi-automatic anti-matter weapon or a handheld, s
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what the Founders would think of the NRA's position on private ownership of laser weapons, which will certainly be: "You can have my laser gun when you wrest it from my smoldering, dead hand".
Why would the founding fathers reject citizens owning current generation weapons? Remember, these are men that took up arms and fought for freedom against an oppressive government. Many of them owned weapons that were state of their art for the day, similar to modern day ownership of AR-15s and similar firearms. Private ownership of cannons was not uncommon either.
The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect duck hunters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
if you wanted to fight your government, you really need to invest in getting SAM hardware (which, as far as i know, is still illegal) and RPG's, rifles aren't going to be much use to the sort of war that would be waged on the citizens by the government.
Your statement might be true if the government is distant, as in American Colonists vs George III in England. However it is untrue when the government is local, and the government officials live and work near the citizens, as in American Colonists vs George III's governors and institutions located in the colonies. Note that the American revolutionaries began by threatening the local tax collectors and such, not the king and his ministers.
A more contemporary failing of your logic would be the Arab Spring
Re: (Score:2)
And it was certainly not written to protect the individual ownership of handguns outside of a well-regulated militia.
Tnat view of the law didn't even exist until the late 1970s. Did you know that? Before that, even the most conservative thinkers believed the 2nd Amendment was only to guarantee state militias. No less than Judge Robert Bork, one of the patron saints of today's Right Wing, held that belief publicly as late as the 1980s.
Re: (Score:2)
There are better ways to kill. When those ways minimize or even remove collateral damage, that improves the outcome. These methods are often not easier, requiring much more training, maintenance, and sometimes cost to implement at a cost of reduction in unwanted damage.
Depriving an enemy of the means to fight is the most basic tenet of warfare. Once gunpowder came on the scene, this got much, much messier over the years until guided weapons started getting involved. What used to take a squadron of aircr
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that the notion that wars are meant to "kill bad guys" is a delusion.
I fear the belief that there are neat and clean ways to conduct warfare to minimize casualties on our side and the "good" people on the other side. It will lead to very bad things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some 100-lb toothpick pressing a button and killing hundreds of people who are just numbers to him is not progress.
Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (Score:5, Interesting)
The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?
Plus, lets say for the sake of it that the laser based weapons are eventually used to kill people, what exactly is wrong with being "more efficient" about it? By "more efficient", what do you actually mean? In my mind, this means less collateral damage. I like the idea of a weapon that's powerful, yet exceptionally accurate. I like the idea of being able to pick out a target hiding in a crowd and neutralising him without toasting the person standing next to him. I also don't see that as such a terrible thing.
War is tragic, but until we have some sort of united earth, it also seems inevitable. Rather than just building bigger bombs, I'm glad someone is investing in alternative ways of fighting those wars, ways that ultimately mean less people have to die.
Re: (Score:2)
The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?
It is when we're launching humans as projectiles at our enemies. Then even your vaunted DEFENSIVE lasers will undoubtedly be being used to KILL HUMANS.
Re: (Score:2)
Kill 'em in the air, or let 'em hit and die in a splat. Which is more inhumane?
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully we do it democratically, by voting. Conveniently, we already have a reasonable quantity of individuals who have already been elected for some purpose or another by the public. I suggest, for the sake of efficiency, we just reuse the same votes.
Re: (Score:2)
The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?
But if we have awesome solid state lasers, why not just use the laser to shoot down the planes instead of missiles?
Re: (Score:2)
takes to long,
Planes have greater maneuverability,
Planes have pilots that can pick up on such clues,
to kill a missile you just have to burn through a mm or two of shell, and either detonate the warhead, or destroy hardware inside(a burned out guidance ship is useless.
To kill a UAV,(slow moving over a fixed area)you simply have to burn through the again thin shell to destroy sensitive electronics or ignite the fuel supply
To take out any fighter jet or bomber the skin suddenly becomes 2-5 times thicker, armor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably it's because the people who made it unlawful to kill the pricks at the top are the pricks at the top.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, sir, assassination is too efficient. If you haven't noticed, common capitalist likes a full-scale war much better.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the definition of "moral fibre" is not "being prepared to act like a psycopath".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, once missiles become untenable to use in combat, they won't be fielded as often. At that point, everyone will just be shooting lasers at one another, because it's probably the only weapon aside from bullets (with many advantages and disadvantages) that can't practically be shot down by lasers. Actually, that's pretty awesome.
We might see stuff like the bomb equivalent of grapeshot to thwart lasers... that's a possibility, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution against the lasers: missiles with mirrors on them!
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing collateral damage isn't actually a good thing, holistically speaking.
For true peace, war needs to be hell, it needs to be bloody, it needs to as brutal and insane as it can be.
When war is clean, cheap, and easy, it's employed much more indiscriminately, more frequently, and allowed to continue for much longer. War needs to be expensive, yes monetarily but also morally expensive. The images of thousands of innocent people dead and dieing is one of the last true deterrents of war. A deterrent that
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. I think they just want to be able to cook giant pans of jiffy pop that they snuck into people's houses.
Re: (Score:2)
New ways to kill people more efficiently, just what the world needs...
You think you're so creative. You don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death...
Re: (Score:2)
War generally does not really cull the human population. It occasionally does so locally or within a certain group, usually because of genocide, but the number of people who die in war is always small compared to the human population of the planet. Short of going nuclear, something like the Black death is much more effective at population culling.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you hammer a six-inch spike through a board with your penis?
Re: (Score:2)
Not right now.
Re: (Score:2)
A girl's got to have her standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i honestly can't think of anything that i wish we could "uninvent"
I would much rather invent and learn the hard way and progress forward than to bury my head in the sand and ignore the possibilities and not further the understanding of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
exactly.. most people think of Atomic or bio weapons when they make the "uninvent" comment - but the truth is that the further understanding that came from them goes far beyond the horrors..
now i'm not a fan of the end justifies the means - if there was a way to learn about the atom and other things without the horrors that happened i can't help but wish we had gone that route - but that would require a change in a fundamental way we as humans think, and i don't see that happening any time soon (research f
Are you sure? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If China gets it, I can afford the cutter and welder in the same way we afforded the computers we post on.
Fusion? (Score:2)
I wonder if this would make laser-ignited fusion possible...
Re: (Score:2)
I will finally have sharks with friggen laser beams mounted on their heads.
Haww haw hawww hoo hoo hooooo heee heee hee!! GIGGLE!! SNORT!!!
Has Dreamworks approached you to write another Shrek sequel?
Re: (Score:2)
Given that lasers are plasma ablative, ordinary ceramic armors would probably be more effective, and would have the added bonus of also stopping conventional weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone always has to post a mirror/silver paint comment.
Silver paint isn't perfectly reflective. It might mean the laser has to be a little bit more powerful, or on for a little bit longer, but you still get fried.