22 replies to this topic

[Nem]

Time for some laser shootin!

[Cuppa]

Sweet. Wonder when it will first see combat. I want to see it in action

[Dr. Strangelove]

Nem, on 15 Nov 2008, 3:35, said:

Time for some laser shootin!

DAAAAMN! Wonder if the people working at the Northrop Grumman plant a few blocks away worked on this(wouldn't be surprised, they had a laser systems testing room, my dad, a former employee, let me go inside).

[CommanderJB]

Congratulations! You've built a laser in a box. Now what're you going to do with it? Frankly I wouldn't have thought a kilowatt-class laser was enough to set someone's clothing on fire. There's two kilowatts in your average electric kettle. Plus its effectiveness will degrade severely in adverse weather. It may take approximately a week to melt through the tracks on a tank.
Really, an interesting development, but until Northrop Grumman actually shows us what it's capable of, I can't see a single practical application of this, besides perhaps EOD. Which they've been doing for years.

[Zeke]

sometimes I wonder if games are based on RL or the other way around

[NergiZed]

Wow, that's impressive. Far smaller than the Chem lasers in project Airborne laser. It's even smaller than the THEL.

But, I would have to see this in action first.

[Colonel of the Cones]

JB is right, 100 kW isn't that much. We aren't going to be seeing laser tank battles just yet.

But it is about right for shooting down thin armoured targets like cruise missiles and aircraft.

Much more here: Aviation Weekly

Edited by Colonel of the Cones, 15 November 2008 - 12:05.

[Warbz]

When I saw the pic I thought it was a joke, but apparently not. D:

[Erik]

i dont really know about this but it seems possible to have the lasers force concentrated on a VERY small area, then it will instantly melt through steel etc. like industrial lasercutters do. So you wont boom-blew up the tank but pierce it or cut it in piecs.

[Waris]

The heat generated to cut through the armour will light up fuel and ammunition for sure.

[Chyros]

I'm curious to see how powerful they can make it, it'll need some really really huge output to be of battlefield use, I reckon.

Next step in warfare technology: mirror-plated armour .

Zeke, on 15 Nov 2008, 9:23, said:

sometimes I wonder if games are based on RL or the other way around

Ha, exactly.

[Jok3r]

Waris is right. You truly don't need to be able to burn a large hole through a tank to kill it. If you can burn a centimeter square hole through the tanks armor (which is significantly easier said than done, but still possible) you can still go for a catastrophic kill- burn up the ammo. Those shells go off big time. Also- the image with the laser coming from the tank is, in fact, 'shopped. You can't see a laser in air .
Swimmer

[Zero]

Zeke, on 15 Nov 2008, 7:23, said:

sometimes I wonder if games are based on RL or the other way around

Actually, its just like Sci-Fi. A lot of new tech is based from "wacky crazy" video game tech and a lot of video game tech is based on real life weapons.

@ Swimmer. I wouldn't exactly say that. I think SOME lasers can be seen in the air (especially if its large enough), you may just be thinking about infared lasers.

[Erik]

Lasers ( and rays of light in general) can be seen when hitting particles like smoke or water in the air.

[Jok3r]

Zero- thats not true. You can't see lasers, period. Except when they're hitting things. You can however, as Erik said, see reflections off them/offset light from dust, smoke, water, or other small particles in the air (which is what causes rainbows). However, the laser would be a single color, not like in the image. Also- Why would the laser be fired through a tank barrel?

[Erik]

Quote

Also- Why would the laser be fired through a tank barrel?

Why from a vehicle at all? you can fire from a sattelite and have range of a whole earth hemisphere if there are no clouds in the target area...

[Jok3r]

Don (Erik), on 15 Nov 2008, 14:29, said:

Quote

Also- Why would the laser be fired through a tank barrel?

Why from a vehicle at all? you can fire from a sattelite and have range of a whole earth hemisphere if there are no clouds in the target area...

A. Atmosphere.
B. "IF there are no clouds" effectively negates having a rapid-use weapon.
C. OPERATING COSTS

[Erik]

if you use a laser with a wave lengh similar to visible light (best not blue), the atmosphere is no barrier, is the laser is strong enough it may even fire through clouds. But its costy as hell, which is no reason not to do it ( in fact it was done by USA army, they killed a few sattelites with a laser cannon fired from the ground)

[BeefJeRKy]

Swimmer, on 15 Nov 2008, 14:14, said:

Zero- thats not true. You can't see lasers, period. Except when they're hitting things. You can however, as Erik said, see reflections off them/offset light from dust, smoke, water, or other small particles in the air (which is what causes rainbows). However, the laser would be a single color, not like in the image. Also- Why would the laser be fired through a tank barrel?

Yes you can if its blue or green. But then again these will likely be infra-red to maximize the heating effect.

[Erik]

i didnt know that

Edited by Don (Erik), 15 November 2008 - 20:55.

[Jok3r]

[quote name='Scope' post='564723' date='15 Nov 2008, 15:27'][quote name='Swimmer' post='564705' date='15 Nov 2008, 14:14']Zero- thats not true. You can't see lasers, period. Except when they're hitting things. You can however, as Erik said, see reflections off them/offset light from dust, smoke, water, or other small particles in the air (which is what causes rainbows). However, the laser would be a single color, not like in the image. Also- Why would the laser be fired through a tank barrel?[/quote]

Yes you can if its blue or green. But then again these will likely be infra-red to maximize the heating effect.
[/quote]
Dust and smoke in the air. Still, your right, under certain circumstances and certain wavelengths, you can. But not with a traditional "Pew Pew" red laser.

[partyzanpaulzy]

I thought Laser weapon has been used first time in USSRxChina conflict on Ussuri river in 1960's.
At least they say it so (also some people say there were strong cables going to frontline).

I thing it won't take long we can see laser tank, TS tech (except Tiberium) is getting real, all of this will be real in 2033, just sometimes not so powerfull (CnC was realistic except of cartoonish RA2 and cartoonish-mangooish RA3). Maybe Russians will redo their T-95 in 2025 from 150mm cannon to laser cannon in X-rays wavelength (to be more dangerous, could I call it RASER? MASER uses microwaves, here we call X-rays roentgen rays + XASER would sound worse that RASER to me).

That video is awesome! Better than lighter.

EDIT: Railguns and LASERS:
I have heard when some guys ciphered out about Abrams hit by Railgun rifle one scientist said:
"You would have to carry small powerplant behind you to operate such gun!"
But power needed to operate LASERs is similar, you would have to carry small powerplant to operate gun capable to penetrate Abrams armor.
Maybe one day there will be railguns on tanks against armor and lasers against infantry, missiles and other air objects (like pigeon when tankman will be hungry )
Also railgun artillery. On the other hand convential weapons don't need such amount of power and lasers are less reliable, now ( + anti-missile cannon is 3times less capable than normal cannon of this size).

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 16 November 2008 - 01:11.

[CommanderJB]

Swimmer, on 16 Nov 2008, 5:33, said:

Waris is right. You truly don't need to be able to burn a large hole through a tank to kill it. If you can burn a centimeter square hole through the tanks armor (which is significantly easier said than done, but still possible) you can still go for a catastrophic kill- burn up the ammo.
Swimmer

That's one heck of a big 'if'. For a start, it rather relies on the laser only having to melt metal. Putting aside the fact that this sort of Goldfinger-style cutting laser would I suspect be difficult even today, against laminates, composites and ceramics (such as in any form of Chobham armour), with their massively higher heat resistance and different reactions to being heated, this would really be worse than useless. There's no way a box that big is able to generate a laser capable of melting through several centimetres of hardened steel, anti-spalling Teflon, various bits of equipment on the inside of the tank and then the casing of the ammunition itself (which is typically stored in bins under the turret floor at any rate, meaning you'll have to slice through the middle of the tank, which will be possible in about a month if it's stationary). Not to mention using this on a moving platform, against a moving platform, or worse both would be effectively impossible thanks to the fact that it would never stay exactly on the target area, leading to an exponential decrease in effectiveness. Particularly if they're on the move, tanks just aren't vulnerable to modern, and in most cases projected, lasers. In fact absolutely anything on the battlefield you care to name save a naval vessel is going to be a more attractive target than a tank.
Lasers will have their uses, eventually; but we'll need to see massive advances in energy generation technologies before we see them appearing on armoured vehicles. A far more practical application is on aircraft, such as the YAL-1 or F-35, where they 'only' have to defend against incoming thin-skinned missiles and aircraft. Their engines provide effectively the only mobile source of power good enough for even this, and as the article says, you've then got to start worrying about cooling. Not to mention they'll manoeuvre like a pig dipped in mud when you've got all that gear aboard.
We'll see lasers on the battlefield as offensive weapons, I have no doubt; but I suspect it will only be towards the end of the century that DEWs start to take the place of the field gun and other such staple pieces of warfare technology. If they ever do. After all, simplicity has a quality all of its own.

Edited by CommanderJB, 16 November 2008 - 01:24.