• Raytheon's Ship-Mounted Laser Weapon Incinerates a UAV in Flight
    50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=OvB;23678040]Laser still makes contact with the mirror and will thus still burn through it. Not really anything you can do to fight lasers other than a really strong, thick metal.[/QUOTE] Or armour that boils away and produces an opaque mist that blocks the harmful parts of the light spectrum the laser uses like IR light. [editline]07:13PM[/editline] [QUOTE=FunnyBunny;23679533]Using electricity as a weapon on a ship made of metal, surrounded by water, trying to shoot something down several miles away. Gee I can't imagine what would go wrong.[/QUOTE] ...:monocle: Sir I have to say that is the most astoundingly retarded thing I have read all day, well done. And lasers aren't electricity for christs sake, tanks are also made of metal and air conducts electricity under certain conditions. Everything conducts to some degree. Even your flesh.
EAT THIS SOMALIAN PIRATEs!!!!
Where's the OP's source?
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;23687848]Where's the OP's source?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Raytheon+revealed+its+next-gen+directed+energy+weapon+at+the+Farnborough+Air+Show+today,+releasing+video+showing+its+Laser+Weapons+System+(LaWS)+--+a+six-laser+weapon+that+focuses+on+a+single+target+--+engaging+and+then+destroying+an+unmanned+aerial+vehicle+from+the+deck+of+a+Navy+vessel+at+sea.+The+tests,+conducted+in+May+and+June,+show+the+LaWS+illuminating+and+then+heating+the+underside+of+a+drone+aircraft+shortly+before+it+goes+up+in+flames+and+loses+trajectory,+plummeting+into+the+ocean+below.+Guided+by+Raytheon's+Laser+Close-in+Weapon+System+(CIWS),+a+sensor+suite+that+locks+onto+and+guides+the+energy+weapon,+LaWS+shot+down+three+similar+drones+during+the+tests,+which+mark+the+first+time+a+solid-state+laser+has+shot+down+an+aircraft+on+the+wing+over+open+seas.&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8[/url]
[QUOTE=GunFox;23682120] Though note that ANTI-SHIP missiles are going to be traveling considerably slower. Anti-ship missiles are massive compared to other missiles and can't quite achieve the same blinding speed. The AGM-84 Harpoon anti ship missile travels only at roughly 260 m/s. Which is roughly on par with a .45 ACP pistol round in terms of speed.[/QUOTE] That's just US anti-ship missiles though. Soviet/Russian ones were designed to get past the latest US Navy carrier air defenses when they were introduced and really pack a wallop. The gigantic AS-4 "Kitchen" for example flies at speeds up to Mach 4 and carries a massive 900 kilogram warhead.
More expensive toys to waste hundreds of billions in taxpayer money on every year... Seriously, the Navy hasn't faced a credible threat since WW2. Have they even lost ships to enemy fire since then?
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;23691870]More expensive toys to waste hundreds of billions in taxpayer money on every year... Seriously, the Navy hasn't faced a credible threat since WW2. Have they even lost ships to enemy fire since then?[/QUOTE] More like since the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Navy was pretty formidable when it was still around. They lost a [url=http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-4.htm]few ships[/url] during the Korean War but since then, no. I do remember reading about how the frigate USS Stark was damaged by an anti-ship missile in the 1980s.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;23691965]More like since the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Navy was pretty formidable when it was still around. They lost a [url=http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-4.htm]few ships[/url] during the Korean War but since then, no. I do remember reading about how the frigate USS Stark was damaged by an anti-ship missile in the 1980s.[/QUOTE] I don't think the Russian Navy directly fired on and sunk any American ships during the Cold War, much like our guys they were under pretty strict orders never to fire unless fired upon. Not that both sides didn't still lose a lot of people to accidents...
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;23692045]I don't think the Russian Navy directly fired on and sunk any American ships during the Cold War, much like our guys they were under pretty strict orders never to fire unless fired upon. Not that both sides didn't still lose a lot of people to accidents...[/QUOTE] Nope, but the fact remains that the Soviet Navy was prepared to fight the US and NATO's navies even though it would be unlikely that naval portion of such a conflict be a Soviet victory.
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;23677972]Why does this feel a heap like propoganda? The fact that it's an artist's rendition, and the fact that the article makes it sound much more powerful than it actually is kinda gets to me.[/QUOTE] Well you could always watch the video of it downing a drone in about 3 seconds [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3zxxogDRIw[/media] Not only that, Missiles aren't terribly difficult for a trained pilot to avoid, This will always hit, providing it tracks as well as it did in that test
Amazing, we have laser AA defences, how about a laser that tracks and burns down mosquitoes ? it would sell millions.
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;23692639]Amazing, we have laser AA defences, how about a laser that tracks and burns down mosquitoes ? it would sell millions.[/QUOTE] There already is one, to stop the spread of malaria, it's still a prototype. Rated clock
Already building that dude. Argh!!! ninjas!!! :argh:
[QUOTE=Squeaken;23678774]Isn't if a missiles spinning the laser won't do shit to it?[/QUOTE] It'd just continuously heat it until the warhead or fuel detonated, like roasting a pig on a spit.
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;23692669]There already is one, to stop the spread of malaria, it's still a prototype. Rated clock[/QUOTE] Yeah, but i never saw any video of that working, i doubt it's anything more than a concept.
[QUOTE=bravehat;23687143] ...:monocle: Sir I have to say that is the most astoundingly retarded thing I have read all day, well done. And lasers aren't electricity for christs sake, tanks are also made of metal and air conducts electricity under certain conditions. Everything conducts to some degree. Even your flesh.[/QUOTE] Good job not reading the quote that I was replying to. I wasn't talking about the laser in the OP. The quote I was replying to was saying that ships should use lightning as a weapon. I was replying that it would be a stupid Idea, because it would be impossible (even if we had a way to generate it) to try to get a lightning bolt from a ship to a missile several miles away, without it arc-ing to hit the water/battleship itself. [QUOTE=DireAvenger;23680358]Because ships totally run on steam.[/QUOTE] What does that have to do with anything?
By the way don't question the ability for these things to track their targets. The gun based system can shoot down incoming mortar shells and Exocets even while compensating for wind and bullet travel time.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;23692733]Good job not reading the quote that I was replying to. I wasn't talking about the laser in the OP. The quote I was replying to was saying that ships should use lightning as a weapon. I was replying that it would be a stupid Idea, because it would be impossible (even if we had a way to generate it) to try to get a lightning bolt from a ship to a missile several miles away, without it arc-ing to hit the water/battleship itself. What does that have to do with anything?[/QUOTE] Well there could be ways to use lightning as a weapon. I don't see how it would effect the ship under attack as the systems will be well shielded and grounded I believe, but what you could do is use a low powered laser to heat the atmosphere around the ship and ionise parts of the ship while using another laser to generate charge in clouds above the ship, hope that the difference in charge is high and then bam, lightning everywhere in this bitch.
[QUOTE=DrLuke;23677902]Install this to a plane, and you're safe.[/QUOTE] That ought to do it... Or even just chrome plate your aircraft :smug:
good job. now find a way to put it on a plane. i want laser plane fights
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.