Real LASER weapon in action

[Saffy]

I want one for scorching  swear words into the bonnet of tailgaters but it defiantly needs the starwars peeew peeew sound effects added.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/des/videos/index.html

[MuddyMike]

I would like to see what damage it did other than scorch the bonnet.

Mike

[Sider]

If that was a missile??? It would definitely bring it to a premature demise. I suspect that the most difficult task left for them is to perfect the targeting system (a missile on reentry moves at about 10k mph), but the energy delivery is there.

I bet the ayatollah is starting to wet his chilaba.

[Saffy]

3rd world version involves a giant magnifying glass and duck tape.

[Suvvey]

I don't get it :-k Millions of pounds worth of development to produce a weapon with the same devestating power as a squadie with squeezie bottle of thinners? :roll:

[Sider]

You try and get the squaddie to deliver the thinners to a target moving at 5+ times the speed of sound, and on top of that, put a match to it.

Problem with stopping a missile is hitting it, not the amount of energy needed. Wether you are using conventional ordinance (AAA) or missile (SAM), you have to match trajectories, and make 2 objects travelling at staggering speeds meet in what is really a very small area in space. You are playing with 4 dimensional vectors, and the computing capacity needed is unbelievably high.

Just think of the billions spent in developing Patriot, and how unsuccesful it was the first few times they deployed it. Difference is, Patriot was designed to target short and medium range missiles. Speeds are much lower, yet they still struggle.

The beauty of using laser is that you have very little delay between firing and impact (ordinance and missiles travel at supersonic speeds, Laser travels at light speed).

I could write a 200 page essay with lots of equations and examples to justify it, but beleive me, as long as there are ICBMs and MIRVs out there, it is well worth investing in projects like this one. And in the long term, it will make it much cheaper to actually make use of it than using AAA or SAMs.

[Suvvey]

Any one remember 'humour'? :roll:

[Sider]

Sorry, I didn't intend to sound that serious. It's just that anti-missile defence is an issue about which I'm quite passionate. Anything that could reduce the chances of nuclear war get's my vote, even if it's not perfect.

[V8MoneyPit]

You try and get the squaddie to deliver the thinners to a target moving at 5+ times the speed of sound, and on top of that, put a match to it.

Nah, you need a Marine to do that (in a strong southern USA accent)  :lol:

[Suvvey]

Ah but a Yank wouldn't do it without Air cover, Artillery, several tanks, HMG's and a few cases of 5.56 for himself :roll:

A Brit squaddie would be chuffed if he got a match to go with the thinners :twisted:

[dxmedia]

They've just completed further testing on this.

It's a 20 tonne weapon and the only one which the boeing can carry (unarmed plane apart from the laser).

The laser can burn a hole in the wing of a stationary car - hardly the spec of steel which a warhead is made of.

It's got 6 shots before it need to land and refuel the laser - A HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's managed to hit and take down an unmanned drone plane. Hardly 5 times the speed of sound.



How to defeat - paint what ever silver.

What a complete and utter white elephant.

[dxmedia]

Oh here's an article on it - google'll bring up some more...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/14/atl_fender_driller/