6 ms·
This will almost certainly be used for weapons in short order. Currently if you want thermal imaging or very low light capability you have to use very expensiv
by edrxty 5y ago
This will almost certainly be used for weapons in short order.
Currently if you want thermal imaging or very low light capability you have to use very expensive substrates. Being able to use CMOS detectors for MWIR/LWIR would instantly increase available resolutions by an order of magnitude at any given price point, assuming these filters are actually relatively cheap.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- CamperBob2 5y agoYep, if it works at all, ITAR will slap it with a "Don't even think about using this for anything" label.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- toss1 5y agoNo, if they slap a label on it, it isn't "Don't Use It", it is "Don't even think about exporting this without permission.". It may have been relaxed, but regular IR cameras that we can buy and use here everyday in the US may land you in jail for selling them in eBay and shipping them to a customer in China or Iran. But we can buy, sell, and use them freely.
- pomian 5y agoor even to Canada
- CamperBob2 5y agoTo say that's a gross oversimplification is putting it mildly.
- toss1 5y agoOf course it is! It's not an essay on the details of the massive security bureaucracy surrounding military-use goods that provide the United States with a critical military or intelligence advantage. It's merely a 2-sentence comment to slightly improve the previous oversimplification by indicating the ITAR focus is on exporting, not domestic use — it's even in the name: "International Traffic in Arms Regulations".
- nine_k 5y agoAnything and everything will be used for weapons. All, from nuclear reactions ultrafast computers to water pipes and sugar. The problem with weapons is not that science and technology allow more and more. Say, Pol Pot's regime, or the Rwanda genocide, have shown that large-scale atrocities can be perpetrated using very low-tech means.
- withinboredom 5y agoI doubt it. It sounds like it has to be “charged” with visible light or something. That means it’s unlikely to be useful some time after sundown, or after being used. I don’t see a military springing for that because it would put constraints on the types of operations they can run unless it adds significant upsides (such as an increase in FOV or something). I do see it being more useful for civilians though, who don’t need them at any random point of the night.
- hoseja 5y agoI think you can just back(front?)light it.
- withinboredom 5y agoWouldn’t that defeat the purpose of everyone within 5 miles can see your glowing eyes?
- comradesmith 5y agoFinally, night vision goggles that look like something out of the movies
- Retric 5y agoThe cost difference is unlikely to be relevant for a Mach 4, air to air missile. But, if this is small and cheap enough it might get added to a lot of currently unguided weapons like bombs and RPG’s etc. Militaries constantly make cost vs effectiveness trade offs, and new technology can very easily change the equation.
- HideousKojima 5y agoThe Russian T-90 tank uses infrared emitters as countermeasures, looks like a pair of angry eyes: https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/Image-2-T-90S-Main-Battle-Tank.jpg https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2...