It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Excalibur Kills the Chemical Laser

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Excalibur is a solid state fiber optic phased array tactical laser. when the ABL program was a thing it used a huge exothermal chemically pumped laser that took up and entire 747 airliner. it had complex moving parts prisms mirrors turrets stabilizers and stuff like that. it could only fire about 50 shots at most before it emptied its chemical tanks.

solid state lasers have hit weapon strength and the first operational point defense laser has been deployed on a logistical ship. phased array lasers can be steered by phase shifting or frequency conjugation or destructive or constructive interference in a viewing angle almost as good as modern flat screen TVs. that means that aiming does not require servos, hydraulics. a/d converters, stabilizers and time. it can be aimed at the speed of light minus signal processing from the fire control radar. no missile or fighter can take effective evasive action against a weapon of this type.

It will be like the phaser emitter strips on Star trek when they integrate the newer generation of solid state lasers in the generation after excalibur.

in addition the ABL was going to be 100KW tops. the excalibur will eventually get up to multiples of 100K perhaps much more as material improve. and the excalibur will fit on fighters helicopters and small ground vehicles.

in addition to weapons uses it can be used for communications and radar and spacecraft impact (gravel or above) mass hazards where there isn't any time to practice manual gunnery or wait for a turret to move and stabilize and aim.

www.spacedaily.com...


edit on 15-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
S&F ......... but!

Not much of a real world weapon system.

This will not work too well in rain, snow, sleet or hail.

In other words, it is a summer weapon. Even clouds may stop it.



"Number 1! Bring the beam weapons on line!"

"We can't Captain! It's raining!"

"Blast, we will just have to do it the old fashion way! Man the machine guns!"

lol

P



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   

pheonix358
S&F ......... but!

Not much of a real world weapon system.

This will not work too well in rain, snow, sleet or hail.

In other words, it is a summer weapon. Even clouds may stop it.



"Number 1! Bring the beam weapons on line!"

"We can't Captain! It's raining!"

"Blast, we will just have to do it the old fashion way! Man the machine guns!"

lol

P


for now, maybe. but this is not a show stopper as power increases or if one of these is combined with particle weapons. you can cut a channel through the atmosphere and let the beam travel through a vacuum channel to the target. since these things propagate at the speed of light the extra time to cut a channel isn't even going to matter. laser weapons already shoot a turbulence sensing beam and a tracking beam before the weapon beam strikes. so a two part weapon beam is not much different.

Even the drawbacks of particles aren't show stoppers. charged particles can be prevented from blooming with a self sustaining magnetic sheath and a neutral particle beam isn't as hard to do as we first supposed. you just have to go for ions and then when they are going as fast as you want you add electrons to neutralize them. it is harder to shield against even a magnetically jacketed charged plasma than it is to generate it in the first place. lots of energy in a tiny cross section as opposed to spread out over the body of a missile or vehicle.

on the ethics of it it's no less ethical than a bullet. it is more ethical than an explosive or a nuclear bomb. it adds nothing to the ability to kill or hurt people (a hole through a person is bad whether poked by an arrow a bullet or a laser) and actually protects people from indiscriminant weapons like nukes.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 





on the ethics of it it's no less ethical than a bullet. it is more ethical than an explosive or a nuclear bomb. it adds nothing to the ability to kill or hurt people (a hole through a person is bad whether poked by an arrow a bullet or a laser) and actually protects people from indiscriminant weapons like nukes.



Ten thousand protestors marching towards Capitol Hill, chanting their slogans feeling euphoric because there are no Police in sight. Finally! They may be heard! .... A silent beam fires from left to right, cutting every human, Man, Women and Child in half. The citizens die, Ten Thousand at a time.

Question. Is this Ethical?

A lone wolf, angry at his fellow man looks at the children, standing in neat rows and columns at Assembly, all cut in half within one single second. He required no training, no special skill set, just aim, press a button and sweep the beam.

Question. Is this Ethical?

A small submarine comes close to the surface putting its weapons dome above the surface. Fires a one second pulse and takes Air Force One out of the sky.

Question. Is this Ethical? (This is a difficult one)

Anyone with a gripe, can sit a mile away, in a car, firing at people, LPG tanker trucks, Gas Trucks, anything really. No training. No pesky elevation, windage or other calculations, just aim and fire.

Question. Is this Ethical?


Do you really want to usher n this sort of era my friend? An era when your ninety year old grandma or twelve year old child can kill with no skill set.

The silent killer! Could be your next door neighbor firing from his patio and you would never know it. As long as he has a 'nice', target rich view.

I am not looking forward to it!

P





edit on 15/3/2014 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15/3/2014 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
because right now anyone who wants can buy a howitzer, am i right? no. the government does not allow everyone to have a howitzer because that would be bad. but the army has them. i really do not think the day will come where you can buy a weaponized Laser system like you can buy a handgun or semi automatic rifle. and you will never see one that has a battery pack or generator the size of a 30 round magazine. you cannot slew a laser beam and cut an entire crowd of people apart. they don't work like that.

and one laser array *CAN* potentially keep a thousand mile radius area safe from nuclear missiles.

Laser: one hole at a time whether a person or tank or missile or plane. just like a fire arm.

Nuke: millions dead, cities destroyed. environment unlivable for tens of thousands of years.

Ethically; I'll go with the laser.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 





Laser: one hole at a time whether a person or tank or missile or plane. just like a fire arm.


For the time being, you are right! But not for long. This is the holy grail for the military mind. You said yourself, these are early days. Beam weapons are sought after because they can sweep across a field of fire, the ultimate machine gun!

To buy a howitzer is difficult. To make a howitzer is also difficult. You need a huge machine shop, you have to make your own ammo, on small task!

Building with electronics simply requires a work room, even the kitchen table will do! A few basic tools, soldering iron, multimeter and you are good to go. A howitzer is difficult to get through customs! A circuit board secreted inside a laptop, pretty easy! TSA Kiddie fiddlers at airports are basically a dumb lot.

Governments can't stop the influx of drugs coming into a country, how do you think they will do trying to stop a single type of electronic component coming through when they have no idea what they look like. Much of what you need is available off the shelf!

Consider the words uttered by those who developed the Atom Bomb. They had no idea of where it would lead. We do!

At some point science needs to take some responsibility because, heaven forbid, your Government will never do it!

P



edit on 15/3/2014 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

pheonix358


For the time being, you are right! But not for long. This is the holy grail for the military mind. You said yourself, these are early days. Beam weapons are sought after because they can sweep across a field of fire, the ultimate machine gun!


i didn't mean that these things cannot fire fast. they can. but it still is functionally equivalent to existing weapons like automatic or semi automatic rifles. one beam equals one bullet in effect. and military minds as you put it also protect you from outside threats.i was one of those military minds for twenty years. my access to weapons and ordinance was not evil and neither is it evil for the people who took over my watch for me when i retired.



To buy a howitzer is difficult. To make a howitzer is also difficult. You need a huge machine shop, you have to make your own ammo, on small task!

Building with electronics simply requires a work room, even the kitchen table will do! A few basic tools, soldering iron, multimeter and you are good to go. A howitzer is difficult to get through customs! A circuit board secreted inside a laptop, pretty easy! TSA Kiddie fiddlers at airports are basically a dumb lot.



it's not as easy as going to radio shack and building a crystal radio. the components are rare and restricted.



Governments can't stop the influx of drugs coming into a country, how do you think they will do trying to stop a single type of electronic component coming through when they have no idea what they look like. Much of what you need is available off the shelf!


will the government fail in it's vigilance occasionally. yes. but that is not preventable and the only solution is to renew their villagance. it's not an argument for not allowing them to continue their efforts.



Consider the words uttered by those who developed the Atom Bomb. They had no idea of where it would lead. We do!



oh i am pretty sure they knew. most were very reluctant to unlease the bomb on the world. they only agreed because the alternative was worse. both Germany and Japan as well as the soviets were working on thier own bomb. and Oppenheimer uttered "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

The other scientists were so worried about the use of the bomb that some of them informed the russians and gave them technical knowledge on how to build thier own bomb. thier acts led to the cold war and the deaths of millions in proxy wars gulags and purges.



At some point science needs to take some responsibility because, heaven forbid, your Government will never do it!

It turns out scientists are not very good at developing rational governmental policies. they need to be kept to thier campuses and labs. when a scientist interferes in politics it often leads to disaster. see silent spring and the deaths of millions from malaria that resulted from banning effective pesticides. Global warming is going the same way. these florescent bulbs are another example. they cause skin cancer and contain mercury. if they had shut thier faces for a few years we could have went directly to LED bulbs that have no such problems. or better yet stayed with incandescent ones and merely upgraded our energy infrastructure.

P



edit on 15/3/2014 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 





but it still is functionally equivalent to existing weapons like automatic or semi automatic rifles


Perhaps for now, but later, no, not likely.

A beam weapon is a beam weapon, it is not like firing bullets. You are referring to a pulsed laser. That is where it will start, just like firearms started with the muzzle loader. A heavy machine gun is at the end of the development cycle for firearms. A beam capable of staying on for a few seconds can obviously be swept across a target zone.

You also have missed one of the important factors. That is, the end of needing training.

Back in the good old days of swords and shields, you needed a lot of training, a lifetime to get good. Same with bows and arrows.

Firearms took us to the next level where a few months training were required to blow those sword wielding guys away.

Beam weapons are another huge step where any idiot can just aim and fire. Really, not much different to a computer game. Think of a laser rifle, tucked away on a remote controlled platform, hidden from view and accessed via the internet. How many people can you kill before they find the weapon. You will never run out of bullets as long as you have power.

The new age is dawning.

P


XL5

posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   
You can not buy diode lasers over a certain wattage at a physical store (5-10 milliwatts at most). Sure, there is power creep with laser diodes bought online. Single emitter laser diodes have a limit that can't really be past, so they make arrays of them, its like the limits on computer chips.

If some one were to put together a 1KW array of laser diodes and propperly couple them into a single beam, it would not fit into a backpack and could not be hidden. You would need a 2.5-3KW gas powered generator to power it all AND water cooling, it would also be about 70-100lbs IMO. Thats just for 1KW.

Getting a laser powerful enough to cut people in two like that for the public would be just as easy as getting weapons grade plutonium. Making an array of beams into one would be like making the rest of the bomb. Give it 200 more years and REAL freedom and it may be possible, but by then, given true freedom, I don't think lasers will be the problem.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Pheonix is making a point that is being missed here.

In the US, tne notion of the second amendment is all about reciprocacy. Essentially, if a weapon is fit for the government, it is fit for The People.

I am a firm believer in this. And because of this belief, have to wonder why we would want to continue creating more effective ways of killing more people.

If one doesn't enjoy the horrors of a population armed with the new weaponry, then one would have a duty to prevent said new weaponry from being created/marketed.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
Pheonix is making a point that is being missed here.

In the US, tne notion of the second amendment is all about reciprocacy. Essentially, if a weapon is fit for the government, it is fit for The People.

I am a firm believer in this. And because of this belief, have to wonder why we would want to continue creating more effective ways of killing more people.

If one doesn't enjoy the horrors of a population armed with the new weaponry, then one would have a duty to prevent said new weaponry from being created/marketed.


Not totally. arms had a specific meaning when the 2nd was written. even the founders did not consider that civilians should have cannon for example. arms meant a weapon that could be carried and employed by a single person. it did not mean ordinance such as grenades (primitive ones did exist at that time) and crew served weapons such as cannon. by extension it did not mean tanks and armed APCs either. this despite the well know fact that the continental army's first cannon were loaners from wealth landed civilians who happened to have them for protection of their estates and marine mercantile ships.

i imagine a new tech like a laser would fall under the same restrictions. you would probably see restrictions on wattage and fire rate and pulse length. a powerful crew served piece would be restricted to those with the proper fees and licenses. just like automatic weapons are restricted today.

get the fed to give you a class three license and pay a 200 dollar fee per weapon and you can go fully auto. that has not led to chaos in nearly 100 years. i imagine the federal restrictions on cannon tanks fighter jets that are not demilled and the safe storage and range use of ordinance is even more restrictive and expensive. to use a modern cannon system you need a miles in diameter restricted impact range and range personnel, a certified crew, a FIST team or other forward observer, multi-thousand dollar ordinance and powder permission to use facilities a secure ammo bunker far from neighbors that can be harmed if your ordinance goes off in the bunker... you can't store grenades in a city apartment or in your glove box.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 



This isn't a 2A debate, but the founders....we don't know what they thought or considered as it relates to todays weapons. What we DO know is that they intended The People to be a counterweight to government. And that anything fit for Uncle Sam as a weapon, was fit for Joe Public. This notion would balance power and keep The People in a position to regulate a renegade government



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

stormbringer1701
Not totally. arms had a specific meaning when the 2nd was written. even the founders did not consider that civilians should have cannon for example.

That is utter nonsense. The only cannons available to the Continental Army were civilian owned. Of course the Founders accepted that civilians should own cannons. The point of the Second Amendment was that the population should be armed to the same extent as their government. But the civilian disarmament crowd has done a cracking job of painting that as a right-wing fringe idea.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Cohen the Barbarian

stormbringer1701
Not totally. arms had a specific meaning when the 2nd was written. even the founders did not consider that civilians should have cannon for example.

That is utter nonsense. The only cannons available to the Continental Army were civilian owned. Of course the Founders accepted that civilians should own cannons. The point of the Second Amendment was that the population should be armed to the same extent as their government. But the civilian disarmament crowd has done a cracking job of painting that as a right-wing fringe idea.
if you read you'll see that i mentioned that. however those very founders took up those cannon after the war anyway.
edit on 16-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


move to colorado and buy a ski lodge and buy one for avalanche protection



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
USS Ponce destroys a drone with LAWS laser turret:



i read an article a couple of weeks ago that said the Ponce with Laser turret installed will deploy this summer to the persian gulf theater.

also the navy Rail gun is about to be sea tested.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

pheonix358
S&F ......... but!

Not much of a real world weapon system.

This will not work too well in rain, snow, sleet or hail.

In other words, it is a summer weapon. Even clouds may stop it.



"Number 1! Bring the beam weapons on line!"

"We can't Captain! It's raining!"

"Blast, we will just have to do it the old fashion way! Man the machine guns!"

lol

P


It will be a first line defense system. That doesn't mean there will not be other methods used as well. It also drastically reduces opportunities for attack. If your enemy can ONLY attack when it's raining that's a huge victory in and of itself.




top topics



 
6

log in

join