3 ms·
I doubt that this will be more effective than conventional projectile-based weapons. Also, lasers that need this kind of power usually require and release chemi
by Kenji 12y ago
I doubt that this will be more effective than conventional projectile-based weapons. Also, lasers that need this kind of power usually require and release chemicals that are very damaging to the environment. It'd make a lot more sense to install this on a ship with a nuclear reactor as a power source. But then again, I guess it'd be unlikely that the laser is used because those ships usually aren't at the front line.
- sgdread 12y agoIt depends on target. Lasers will work much better against optical sensors (on drones, missiles, etc.).
- aaronem 12y agoThe press release explicitly excludes that use: "Those efforts are separate from military laser designators to guide precision munitions, non-lethal crowd control devices or discontinued instruments intended to blind enemy electro- optical sensors."
- mpyne 12y agoWell, just because the laser wasn't obtained from an acquisition program intended to defeat enemy EO sensors doesn't mean that it won't be useful for that purpose, either by destroying the EO sensor's platform or getting a lucky shot and hitting the sensor itself.
- njharman 12y agoEffective has many parameters. It's already more effective in that it doesn't require ammo logistics and it has multiple modes from warning to lethal. I bet it sucks in the rain and has no over the horizon capability. But systems are trade offs and it is rare for one to be best in every way / situation. Also comparing results of hundreds of years of engineering (modern naval gun) to 1st gen / prototype is disingenuous.
- Someone1234 12y ago> Also comparing results of hundreds of years of engineering (modern naval gun) to 1st gen / prototype is disingenuous. Disingenuous? It is the logical thing to do. You don't compare electric cars to golf carts, you compare them to other cars trying to compete in the same market segment. The same is true here. You compare this new laser gun to the thing it hopes to replace (which in this case are projectile based weapons). Maybe, just maybe, an argument could be made that it would be unfair to compare a prototype to a production gun. But this laser is now production ready, so that complaint is now moot.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoWho says that laser is meant to replace projectile weapons? It's an additional weapons system that may replace or augment one of many others already installed. Kinetic energy weapons have some clear military advantages over rayguns, so total switch won't happen soon, if ever.
- icegreentea 12y agoThe press release says that this particular system is basically just 6 welding lasers focused on a single point. Welding lasers are usually solid state or gas lasers (not chemical lasers). In general, while the Airborne Laser used chemical lasers, and some mobile land lasers also use chemical lasers, those applications have a clear limitation on power generation. It's hard to get all the electricity to power a big solid state laser on a plane, or on a truck. But its a lot easier on a ship.
- trhway 12y ago>Also, lasers that need this kind of power usually require and release chemicals that are very damaging to the environment. welcome to solid state laser revolution. No chemicals and very high (compare to previous generations of lasers) efficiency - >20%. These military lasers are in 50Kw range - can be driven from a small (Navy notion of "small" :) generator. (more precisely - banks of high efficiency solid state semiconductor lasers pump one or few large crystals like Nd:YAG)
- ganzuul 12y agoThere is no need to release the hydrogen fluoride into the environment. It can be neutralized in for example calcium.