View Full Version : tres cool
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2407807.stm
us had a "laser" track in on an artillery shell, and blast it to kingdom come in flight.
artillery shells move quite fast.
Mudflap
11-06-2002, 12:47 AM
I'm impressed.
*theMAC looks at his free laser pointer he got from northern hydraulics and feels inadequate*
it was bound to happen
"even a blind hog can find an acorn" -some redneck
Asmodeus
11-06-2002, 12:33 PM
"Such a beam could knock out targets at distances ranging from tens of kilometres to, in theory, thousands of kilometres."
Impressive, yup. But, for the thousands of kilometers... would have to a satellite equiped with this ray gun thingy. Goes into line of sight and the curvature of the earth, yadda.
Neat, but makes me nervous.
artillery is a ballistic weapon, goes up pretty effin high, and then comes down pretty effin fast.
but since its a ballistic weapon, --a weapon that is essentially dropped on you from above, the earth-curvature thing isnt really an issue. A computer should have plenty of time to spot it, track it, and zap it.
There are other ballistic weapons out there.
Nukes.
perhaps starwars isnt that bad of an idea afterall. If we can core a skin-contact hit w/ a laser, modern nukes are not hardened in such a manner that would defend against a laser blast (or a rock that simply happened to be in the path of the nuke) We can shoot them down.
Dont get me wrong, nukes travel MUCH HIGHER than artillery rounds, and as a result travel MUCH FASTER, but the technology is coming.
Theres another thing to comment on, while we can HIT something thousands of kilometers high, can the tracking radar TRACK something that far away?
Koliedrus
11-07-2002, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by ZiM
Theres another thing to comment on, while we can HIT something thousands of kilometers high, can the tracking radar TRACK something that far away?
That would be a "yes" since radar pulses travel at light speed as well. Any lag would come from computational processes. For reference, radar is used to image asteroids and the surface of Venus through its thick atmosphere.
Without having looked for the answer, my question deals with recharge-rate. If the system can only fire once in, say, 30 seconds, it becomes a vulnerable target for low-tech ordinance. Multiple shells raining down might be beyond the capabilities of a defensive weapon such as this.
For that matter, the cost of one firing versus the cost of an artillery shell needs to be taken into account.
Impressive, yes. Its weaknesses need to be addressed at the outset.
SimpleSimon
11-07-2002, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Koliedrus
That would be a "yes" since radar pulses travel at light speed as well. Any lag would come from computational processes. For reference, radar is used to image asteroids and the surface of Venus through its thick atmosphere.
Without having looked for the answer, my question deals with recharge-rate. If the system can only fire once in, say, 30 seconds, it becomes a vulnerable target for low-tech ordinance. Multiple shells raining down might be beyond the capabilities of a defensive weapon such as this.
The article identifies the power source as a chemical reaction. Without more specifics it is hard to address recharge rate, but there are relatively inexpensive, rapid recycle rate chemical powered lasers which are extremely powerful. A bank of such weapons ripple firing in sequence should be capable of sustained multiple firings per second from a single vehicle mounted weapon system. The biggest single problem I foresee is the extremely dangerous nature of the exhaust, for those in the area around the vehicle.
For that matter, the cost of one firing versus the cost of an artillery shell needs to be taken into account.
It is not the ratio of weapon system firing cost to artillery shell cost that should be the concern here - rather it is the cost of the weapon system and it's use versus the cost of the systems and people the artillery shells are intended to destroy that should be examined.
Impressive, yes. Its weaknesses need to be addressed at the outset.
Koliedrus
11-07-2002, 04:59 PM
When I say "cost" I don't mean $$$ alone. Depending on whether it's sturdy and self-contained or fragile, requiring a battery of specialists to maintain its functionality, it will either shield or offer false security.
As much as I like the idea of an immediate-action-defense-system, I can't place much faith in one if it requires what amounts to an uninterrupted supply line. It needs to be at least as self-sufficient as a Howitzer.
The power source should be independant and lasing charges should be simple to load.
If you don't mind, explain the exhaust problem as you see it.
(Edit: Points understood)
SatansLeftHand
11-07-2002, 05:23 PM
if he's talking about the chemical laser system i think he is, the exhaust gasses are both poisonous and corrosive. conventional gas masks do not last long in their vicinity, as the filters tend to melt.
Koliedrus
11-07-2002, 06:03 PM
For some reason, I keep recalling an "Outer Limits" story about a being of light with an impervious force shield. Just's a recollection, I'm sure.
I suppose we should weigh the benefits of any weapon against the overall cost of its intented use; defensive or offensive.
Originally posted by Koliedrus
That would be a "yes" since radar pulses travel at light speed as well. Any lag would come from computational processes. For reference, radar is used to image asteroids and the surface of Venus through its thick atmosphere.
speed wasnt necessarily the issue i was refering to, it was the power of the radar. --Can we make a powerful enough radar that can monitor a large enough piece of sky to find the targets? Im sure in the test they new exactly where the shell was to be fired frmo and exactly what part of the sky to point their narrow radar at. You wont have that luxury in combat.
Without having looked for the answer, my question deals with recharge-rate. If the system can only fire once in, say, 30 seconds, it becomes a vulnerable target for low-tech ordinance. Multiple shells raining down might be beyond the capabilities of a defensive weapon such as this.
For that matter, the cost of one firing versus the cost of an artillery shell needs to be taken into account.
Maybe what we should look into isnt so much the cost of firing vs the cost of an artillery shell, maybe we should look into the cost of firing vs the cost of NOT firing.
Look down the road.
They use this system on rockets.
Rockets can carry nuclear warheads.
The cost of firing and destroying a nuclear tipped rocket, vs the cost of NOT destroying an inbound nuclear missile...
maybe thats what we oughta think about as well.
Impressive, yes. Its weaknesses need to be addressed at the outset.
vBulletin v3.5.3, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.