The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Planes with frickin' laser beams...
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=418
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Foamy [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:50 am ]
Post subject:  Planes with frickin' laser beams...

Link...with video

Quote:
Air Force, Boeing test laser weapon

Updated: Sunday, 04 Oct 2009, 10:57 PM MDT
Published : Sunday, 04 Oct 2009, 10:57 PM MDT

* Pilot Reporter: Bob Martin
* Web Producer: Devon Armijo

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) - A plane at Kirtland Air Force base has been blasting some targets at White Sands Missile range without bullets or bombs. Instead, the plane employs a laser as its weapon of choice.

The Air Force has just released the video the futuristic weapon at work.

This is the first time the weapon was successfully fired at a target with the intent of damaging it.

Boeing, who developed the laser, said its precision could someday reduce collateral damage during an attack.

"This milestone demonstrates that directed energy weapon systems will transform the battlespace and save lives by giving war fighters a speed-of-light, ultra-precision engagement capability that will dramatically reduce collateral damage," said Greg Hyslop, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems.

The Air Force said the laser's precision could be especially helpful in urban environments where military targets are often surrounded by noncombatants.

While Boeing and the Air Force said the recent White Sands test proves the laser and its computerized targeting system function properly, more testing is planned.

The two entities are also collaborating on another laser that will be mounted on a 747 jetliner with the aim of shooting down enemy missiles.


This is cool.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yeah, but it would still require direct line of sight. That's a limitation.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

Also, there may be some Geneva issues with it....

Author:  Micheal [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

Welcome to the future.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

I wonder what kind of duration is has to be sustained over to achieve weapons-grade energy transfers? Given that it's a non-trivial sustained exposure, I wonder how they handle stabilization?

All the precision in the world won't help if you can't maintain it in a bit of turbulence, hehe. So I bet there's a bunch of additional cool stuff under the surface eclipsed by the "ooh, lasers, shiny!" And that's from an ex-optics major, so don't underestimate the intensity (hehe) of my "ooh, lasers, shiny!" reaction.

Author:  Lonedar [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
I wonder what kind of duration is has to be sustained over to achieve weapons-grade energy transfers? Given that it's a non-trivial sustained exposure, I wonder how they handle stabilization?

All the precision in the world won't help if you can't maintain it in a bit of turbulence, hehe. So I bet there's a bunch of additional cool stuff under the surface eclipsed by the "ooh, lasers, shiny!" And that's from an ex-optics major, so don't underestimate the intensity (hehe) of my "ooh, lasers, shiny!" reaction.


I can't say how long the beam needs to be on target for a kill...cause they don't let me know that. But I do know it is pretty damn short. But the advances in adaptive optics are making atmospheric disturbances less and less significant for uses such as this, and other more peaceful applications. I can't wait for images from some of the new telescopes that are being built. Turbulence on the firing platform itself isn't a significant issue at the altitudes it will be flying.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

Nifty. And yeah, high altitude -- hadn't thought about the reduction that would have on turbulence.

Author:  DFK! [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

I saw something similar on a show I was recently DVR'ing called "That's Impossible" (or similar).

Author:  Rafael [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

Defensible measures could include a huge smoke or particle cloud releasing device to scatter the beam. Just thinking out loud here.

Targetting is probably handled by computers with lots of complicated targeting models and software. High altitude applications would be questionable for the same reason as my above remark: the atmosphere is a participating medium, varying day to day, second to second and from one point to the next.

BGE likes to keep me on hold :/

Author:  Slythe [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Planes with frickin' laser beams...

Just so long as we can put a giant foil-covered ton of corn kernels in someone's house, aim the laser, and watch popcorn burst through all the doors and windows.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Yeah, but it would still require direct line of sight. That's a limitation.


That's true, but all weapons have limitations of some sort. It's going to be significantly more accurate than a ballistic weapon.

Quote:
Also, there may be some Geneva issues with it....


The Geneva Convention does not address weapons. The Hague convention does, but it does not address energy weapons. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits laser weapons specifically designed to blind people, but not laser weapons intended to cause destruction. Ultimately, this is really just like a ballistic or explosive weapon; it's just transferring light energy instead.

Author:  Hokanu [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Planes with frickin' laser beams...

Slythe wrote:
Just so long as we can put a giant foil-covered ton of corn kernels in someone's house, aim the laser, and watch popcorn burst through all the doors and windows.


You ever have that dream where you are on top of a pyramid wearing sungod robes with naked women throwing little pickles at you?

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Planes with frickin' laser beams...

Slythe wrote:
Just so long as we can put a giant foil-covered ton of corn kernels in someone's house, aim the laser, and watch popcorn burst through all the doors and windows.

Yes!

Author:  Corolinth [ Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

All we're missing is the PPC.

Author:  Timmit [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:28 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
The two entities are also collaborating on another laser that will be mounted on a 747 jetliner with the aim of shooting down enemy missiles.
Pretty sure the ABL program was scrapped this year...

Author:  Elessar [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 9:46 am ]
Post subject: 

Can I get one for my plane please?

Author:  Lonedar [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Timmit wrote:
Quote:
The two entities are also collaborating on another laser that will be mounted on a 747 jetliner with the aim of shooting down enemy missiles.
Pretty sure the ABL program was scrapped this year...


The second developmental aircraft was cancelled. The existing plane is fully funded through the end of next year and will likely be funded for R&D purposes out beyond 2012.

Author:  Nevandal [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Micheal wrote:
Welcome to the future.


If this post was written in the past...where the hell am I? More appropriately, when the hell am I?

Author:  Imperi [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Nice sig, Corolinth...

Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

The ABL anti-missile program hasn't been completely scrapped, but the SECDEF has recommended that the second YAL-1 aircraft be scrapped for now and the program return to the R&D stage.

This laser is mounted on a C-130 instead of a 747 and appears to be an effort to diversify the laser into other roles beyond just missile defense though. From the video it doesn't demonstrate enough power to be worthwhile (yet) but it certainly has the accuracy.

Author:  Kairtane [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Diamondeye wrote:
This laser is mounted on a C-130 instead of a 747 and appears to be an effort to diversify the laser into other roles beyond just missile defense though. From the video it doesn't demonstrate enough power to be worthwhile (yet) but it certainly has the accuracy.


Are you kidding? An airborne laser weapon is mounted on a propeller driven aircraft that is likely older than the people flying it?

This post is made somewhat tongue in cheek. I am aware the C-130 is a quite capable aircraft and I'm sure there's a valid reason for not using a C-141 or something more modern. But geez, really?

Author:  Talya [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Rafael wrote:
Defensible measures could include a huge smoke or particle cloud releasing device to scatter the beam. Just thinking out loud here.


Mirrored armor.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:17 am ]
Post subject: 

Yes, but can we shoot tesla-inspired lightning weapons yet?

Image

Author:  Lonedar [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Kairtane wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
This laser is mounted on a C-130 instead of a 747 and appears to be an effort to diversify the laser into other roles beyond just missile defense though. From the video it doesn't demonstrate enough power to be worthwhile (yet) but it certainly has the accuracy.


Are you kidding? An airborne laser weapon is mounted on a propeller driven aircraft that is likely older than the people flying it?

This post is made somewhat tongue in cheek. I am aware the C-130 is a quite capable aircraft and I'm sure there's a valid reason for not using a C-141 or something more modern. But geez, really?


You funny!

Author:  Midgen [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Kairtane wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
This laser is mounted on a C-130 instead of a 747 and appears to be an effort to diversify the laser into other roles beyond just missile defense though. From the video it doesn't demonstrate enough power to be worthwhile (yet) but it certainly has the accuracy.


Are you kidding? An airborne laser weapon is mounted on a propeller driven aircraft that is likely older than the people flying it?

This post is made somewhat tongue in cheek. I am aware the C-130 is a quite capable aircraft and I'm sure there's a valid reason for not using a C-141 or something more modern. But geez, really?


My sarcasm meter is broken, so I hope you were kidding. C-141's are 1960's era aircraft and only a slightly newer design than the C-130. They also have vastly different capabilities. The 141 will carry more, but it isn't favorable for small airports, jungle/desert runways, etc... Both are missile magnets and are mostly obsolete.

The C-17 is sort of a 1980's upgrade that is the best-of-both worlds, but is probably too expensive and in too short supply to use as a test platform, which is all this C-130 is.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/