US Air Force SOC Commander Proposes AC-130s with Laser Weapons - Polidicks

Whoah! Read thread wrong and thought they were preposing putting lasers on the A-10 Warthog. Now that be sumthin'.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47279874]F-35.[/QUOTE] haha thanks for the F-35 joke, we've never heard that before. Shit talk all you want, a few years ago we wouldn't of been able to imagine the technology that has gone into that thing. It's literally Science Fiction come true in some aspects of it.

[QUOTE=MrBob1337;47278431]This seems like a good idea for precision strikes. Little to no collateral damage if you're careful.[/QUOTE] But the next CoD'll be really boring if we don't have collateral damage.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47279188]He was talking mounting either one, a high-powered laser or a microwave gun. That said, I acknowledge that it definitely would do less wholesale collateral damage than the AC130's usual armament. Though, I think I remember reading that the AC130 already has the lowest collateral damage rate of virtually any weapons system in the USAF. Probably because they only get called in when everything has gone to shit. Still not a big fan of zapping people with lasers.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]“If we just want to take a comms node out in the middle of the night — nobody hears anything, nobody sees anything. It just quits working because we burn a hole in it.”[/QUOTE] They are not used for zapping people with.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;47279908]Whoah! Read thread wrong and thought they were preposing putting lasers on the A-10 Warthog. Now that be sumthin'.[/QUOTE] Putting a gun on a gun seems kind of excessive.

[quote]The Navy recently deployed its "LaWS" Laser Weapon System aboard the transport ship USS Ponce[/quote] I still can't deal with the fact that they named the ship "USS Ponce", like, did noone even google the word

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47279874]F-35.[/QUOTE] You know, you talk a lot of sense but get rated dumb for it. I don't get it.

[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47280487]I still can't deal with the fact that they named the ship "USS Ponce", like, did noone even google the word[/QUOTE] It's a battleship with lasers how is not totally pimp

[QUOTE=mastfire;47279907]time to mirror up[/QUOTE] Won't help, no mirror can reflect 100% of light so the bit that gets through melts the mirror and then you're on the other side.

By the way, the LAWs is made by Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, a company which picked up most of their Executives off of Titan Corporation after the Abu Ghraib scandal. To me it sounds like another [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative]Star Wars[/url] project with how much secrecy there is surrounding the costs and details of the project.

So it's a killing machine with Laserbeams? I've heard this before... [video=youtube;Bh7bYNAHXxw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw[/video]

[QUOTE=GunFox;47279568]I imagine the psychological effect of watching someone melt in front of you would be remarkably potent.[/QUOTE] People already have issues with drones. [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/american-drone-policy-could-create-a-state-of-perpetual-war-warns-top-us-military-officials-9568395.html[/url] [url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/06/us-usa-qaeda-drone-idUSBRE8551B820120606[/url] Blowing people up without them seeing anything/immolating them from an unseen foe is only going to cause terror, it makes us the bad guys and gives them good propaganda material. We become the guys who use terror to acheive a goal. Lasers are a cool idea for a weapon but burning people to death is something we criticize IS for yet we're so happy to jump at the opportunity for our guys to do it also? Granted missiles cause more collateral, something like 27 civilians per actual target. [url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147[/url] but its naive to think that lasers will reduce collateral or that it will somehow make them "clean kills" with no consequences. [quote]were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.[/quote] If people were serious about stopping terrorists/islamists/people we don't like we'd be more concerned about creating conditions where such ideologies aren't supported so can't exist. As it is we're just going to keep on killing people and people will keep on rising against us, with both sides thinking they're in the right. [sp]just for a note im not talking about IS, though they garner lots of support because of how messed up the region is, I'm talking about people joining the taliban because they genuinely believe they are protecting themselves and their families[/sp]

Mirrors probably wouldnt work because the US military isn't stupid enough to use wavelengths that get reflected by mirrors. It would require a mirror capable of tuning itself to the wave length of the laser for that to work. Either that or they could do the shotgun approach and have several layers of mirrors each with a different wavelength that they would reflect. Of course this could be pretty easily defeated by a laser capable of pulsing different wavelengths

[QUOTE=OvB;47278890]I'd rather have the ability to pin point a single person and toast them, than a 105 blowing apart the whole block, or a 30mm chaingun turning 100 square yards into swiss cheese for a few baddies. [editline]7th March 2015[/editline] War is nasty, but my vote goes to the thing that can kill the least amount of bystanders.[/QUOTE] To be fair, if your calling in a gunship you generally don't care about the block, this is for quickly dispatching moving targets without the bullet lag, with optics you can precisely target a vehicles engine and slag it while its moving at 60 mph If this is just an upgraded version of what the navy is already fielding then it probably would work but I doubt it'd be any more effective than the big gun its replacing Also when do we ever actually use those gunships outside of ground wars in the middle east

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47280304]haha thanks for the F-35 joke, we've never heard that before. Shit talk all you want, a few years ago we wouldn't of been able to imagine the technology that has gone into that thing. It's literally Science Fiction come true in some aspects of it.[/QUOTE] I'll be impressed when the bloody thing actually works as advertised. Right now when I see an F-35 I see a very expensive pile of failure. [editline]8th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;47281117] Also when do we ever actually use those gunships outside of ground wars in the middle east[/QUOTE] Quite a few 'nam vets have very fond memories of AC130s saving their asses. And, hell, AC-47s, the pre-cursor aircraft built to prove the concept. The AC130 will work in any ground war, we just haven't really been fighting any that weren't in that blasted wasteland shithole.

Sounds like something AFSOC would do. I really hope they actually did manage to fix the issue with the 105 on the J model though(it had this annoying habit of shattering the new carbon fiber props the J has) [QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47279012]They have, Lockheed Martin managed to stop a car by boring a hole clean into the engine block with a laser from a distance of 1 mile, so yeah, lasers don't suck anymore.[/QUOTE] [t]https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/1*Uv0E-OK1OMljCYSgssLpvQ.jpeg[/t]

Y'all ever watch AC-130 footage? It's incredible how the crew in their flying fortress is so detached from the killing. Gunner's just watching tiny dots run around and get blown into tinier dots in a fuzzy TV image. Being on the ground during one of those attacks must be absolute hell because shit just starts blowing up all around you. Dudes get ripped apart by the chaingun, and the cannon can level a small building just like that. Now imagine you're just walking around with your patrol or whatever and suddenly your buddy's on the ground with a hole clean through his chest, or one of the cars just stops working and the engine's on fire. No indication why it happened. That'd be awful. [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47278718]That doesn't seem like a very good idea. Lasers have virtually no area of effect. The most powerful battlefield laser currently in existence could miss me by a couple inches and I'd barely feel warm. The 105 just needs to land reasonably close to a target. [/QUOTE] I'd imagine that combining advancements in position sensor technology, gyroscopes, tracking cameras, etc with a recoil-less weapon means a laser is actually [I]capable[/I] of precision strikes, unlike a 105mm cannon. [editline]8th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Kyle902;47280978]Mirrors probably wouldnt work because the US military isn't stupid enough to use wavelengths that get reflected by mirrors. It would require a mirror capable of tuning itself to the wave length of the laser for that to work. Either that or they could do the shotgun approach and have several layers of mirrors each with a different wavelength that they would reflect. Of course this could be pretty easily defeated by a laser capable of pulsing different wavelengths[/QUOTE] Mirrors also don't work against all the other weapons the C-130J would have besides the laser. So it's just a matter of switching to a precision bomb/shred the target with the 30mm

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47279874]F-35.[/QUOTE] So you can't, thanks.

[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;47281994]So you can't, thanks.[/QUOTE] The F-35's an expensive hunk of junk. Able to perform multiple roles, good at absolutely none of them, and extremely high maintenance, meaning its available flight time is limited.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;47280698]People already have issues with drones. [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/american-drone-policy-could-create-a-state-of-perpetual-war-warns-top-us-military-officials-9568395.html[/url] [url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/06/us-usa-qaeda-drone-idUSBRE8551B820120606[/url] Blowing people up without them seeing anything/immolating them from an unseen foe is only going to cause terror, it makes us the bad guys and gives them good propaganda material. We become the guys who use terror to acheive a goal. Lasers are a cool idea for a weapon but burning people to death is something we criticize IS for yet we're so happy to jump at the opportunity for our guys to do it also? Granted missiles cause more collateral, something like 27 civilians per actual target. [url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147[/url] but its naive to think that lasers will reduce collateral or that it will somehow make them "clean kills" with no consequences. If people were serious about stopping terrorists/islamists/people we don't like we'd be more concerned about creating conditions where such ideologies aren't supported so can't exist. As it is we're just going to keep on killing people and people will keep on rising against us, with both sides thinking they're in the right. [sp]just for a note im not talking about IS, though they garner lots of support because of how messed up the region is, I'm talking about people joining the taliban because they genuinely believe they are protecting themselves and their families[/sp][/QUOTE] Well, a laser isn't the same as burning, I mean is it really the same as feeling your skin bubble and crack as you slowly burn to death when a laser will essentially just a bore a hole clean through you? I mean if you just disintegrate someones chest cavity they're definitely not gonna be alive for long and it's really no different from shooting someone. [editline]9th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Kyle902;47280978]Mirrors probably wouldnt work because the US military isn't stupid enough to use wavelengths that get reflected by mirrors. It would require a mirror capable of tuning itself to the wave length of the laser for that to work. Either that or they could do the shotgun approach and have several layers of mirrors each with a different wavelength that they would reflect. Of course this could be pretty easily defeated by a laser capable of pulsing different wavelengths[/QUOTE] The one lockheed tested recently essentially seems to stitch together a bunch of different lasers and combines them into one multiple wavelength beam so that seems to already have been solved.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47278358]Even if these laser weapons are viable, why replace the biggest gun on the thing with one? Surely it'd be cheaper to operate without the missiles than without the 105mm HEAT.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47278718]That doesn't seem like a very good idea. Lasers have virtually no area of effect. The most powerful battlefield laser currently in existence could miss me by a couple inches and I'd barely feel warm. The 105 just needs to land reasonably close to a target. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=booster;47278760]Would it really be used against people though? Wouldn't it be way more effective against stationary targets? Like vehicles, caches and such.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BAZ;47278976]This type of laser would more likely be used for taking down incoming rockets and missiles rather than actually shooting anything on the ground[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;47279411]Lasers are never going to be a truly practical weapon for anything other than defensive counter-measures, killing unarmored combatants/civilians, or use as secondary weapons to damage soft-spots on vehicles or materiel items[/QUOTE] If only the article explained what the intended role of the laser was. Oh wait it does if you can overcome ADHD for the thirty seconds it takes to skim the article. [quote][b]"If we just want to take a comms node out in the middle of the night — nobody hears anything, nobody sees anything. It just quits working because we burn a hole in it.[/b][/quote] Stealthy anti-materiel, for which a laser will do fine, because it is not meant to do the same thing as the 105. Can we put this non-argument to rest?

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47279012]They have, Lockheed Martin managed to stop a car by boring a hole clean into the engine block with a laser from a distance of 1 mile, so yeah, lasers don't suck anymore.[/QUOTE] FUTURE