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.

 

ATHENA Laser Pew Pews a truck out of existence at a range of one mile

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Other laser platforms have been tested on fast moving missiles, rockets, mortars and other high speed projectiles. These objects are not only smaller than a pickup, but MUCH faster moving. There is no reason therefore, to think that a mere pickup truck would present a tracking and targeting problem for a laser system with a decent targeting package. That said, mobile laser technology for the battlefield, as opposed to in the aerial defence field, will really come into its own when one can use it to open up a heavy tank with the same relative ease as one might open a can of Tuna, or sweetcorn.



We need light sabers already dammit!




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
I understand the need for a test like this, but I kind of wonder how "operationally-relevant" it really was. Yes, the laser is capable of this. But I imagine when the laser is mounted to a fast-moving aircraft, and the truck is driving around, rather than being propped so as to be a larger, immobile target, that it'll be significantly harder to keep that beam focused directly on the engine for the few seconds required.

Amazing technology, though, no matter how one looks at it. Quite troubling, as well.


They have been doing this for years and have no problem tracking and targeting fast moving object such as mortar fire and missiles.


The stuff airborne and in space, has been up there since the 80's



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Other laser platforms have been tested on fast moving missiles, rockets, mortars and other high speed projectiles. These objects are not only smaller than a pickup, but MUCH faster moving. There is no reason therefore, to think that a mere pickup truck would present a tracking and targeting problem for a laser system with a decent targeting package. That said, mobile laser technology for the battlefield, as opposed to in the aerial defence field, will really come into its own when one can use it to open up a heavy tank with the same relative ease as one might open a can of Tuna, or sweetcorn.

indeed. all the way from M-THEL days to present. but turrets are problematic. it will be better when aiming with non mechanical methods are adopted. it will put an end to the ol' my missile will just jitter around so you cannot get a target lock and enough dwell time crap that the russians, chinese and MD critics resort to. if you can lock on and adjust aim points at the speed of light no one cares how much the target jitters and jinks.
edit on 5-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
I understand the need for a test like this, but I kind of wonder how "operationally-relevant" it really was. Yes, the laser is capable of this. But I imagine when the laser is mounted to a fast-moving aircraft, and the truck is driving around, rather than being propped so as to be a larger, immobile target, that it'll be significantly harder to keep that beam focused directly on the engine for the few seconds required.

Amazing technology, though, no matter how one looks at it. Quite troubling, as well.


Im sure that it will be opperated by a computer and not the pilot (aiming wise). To make it possible to use.

If war ships can have automated guns then im sure these lasers will be automated to a degree aswell.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Lasers look fun and all -- but imagine what sound waves could do with enough power and the right frequency. I'm sure different materials would require different frequencies, but just imagine...



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I guess to be safe we should start driving old VW bugs with the engine in the back.

This vehicle was stopped and the angle appears to be in a way that it would not deflect part of the beam. This would be harder on something round and shiny and moving.

No matter, the energy would probably kill us if we were in this vehicle even if it did not fry the engine.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
(...Shiny does not stop weapons grade lasers)

i wish they'd let everybody that says that stand in front of an operational weapons grade laser with a mirror so we could get an end to that nonsense.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Imagine what the Dugway test would do to a moving vehicle.
edit on 3/5/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You mean the proving ground? I thought they used that place for chemical warfare testing/training?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

There's a lot more than that going on there.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well, pulsed particle beam weapons would be pretty terrifying if they had proper intensity.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



We need light sabers already dammit!


I can see it....light sabers + shaolin monks = jedi warriors


Apart from that I have heard about LAWS years ago, so the laser tech is already out there for some time now



It also seems that some of the less destructive lasers are already in commercial use





posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
My Smith Jewelers Little Torch with a tip #7 and using oxygen and acetylene is rated for 4800BTU/hr (no ferrous metal oxygen combustion, just produced heat). This is 1.41kW.

This flame on a 1cm circle produce power density of 18MW/m^2.

The laser from OP produce a focus around 15cm diameter. Area = 17.7E-3 m^2.

At 30kW on this area, it produce a power density (irradiance) = 1.7MW/m^2.

THIS IS 10X LESS THAN MY JEWELERS TORCH!!!

Imagine what could I do with a real "ordinary" acetylene torch I can get in any hardware store...

Now try to cut a SOLID copper mirror of non negligible mass using your doomsday laser weapon, even using the big acetylene torch!

I'm sure with all the knowledge here in this thread there is someone with a calculator and capable of rechecking my numbers if I made an error.

Advise: When purchasing a defense system, never take for granted the "words" from marketing dept., bring an engineer with you!
That's why they are often called "the smoke and mirror dept.".

ETA: Ah and if you want a bozo to hold that copper mirror to do the test "once for all", you can count on me! As long as the operator of the laser is not protected, we'll see who's gonna "spontaniously combust" the first!

ETA2: Even with that lame cu mirror of 90% reflectivity, the loss would be around 3kW, if my hands are not to be exposed and the mass of the mirror is not too small, I would be able to hold with bare hand for some time before it's temp increase too much... Imagine with an Epner hard laser gold coating!





edit on 2015-3-5 by PeterMcFly because: (no reason given)

edit on 2015-3-5 by PeterMcFly because: (no reason given)

edit on 2015-3-5 by PeterMcFly because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Lasers look fun and all -- but imagine what sound waves could do with enough power and the right frequency. I'm sure different materials would require different frequencies, but just imagine...


The energy in sound is amazingly low. The amount of ass you can put into sound has a hard limit when the pressure in the rarefaction zones goes to a vacuum.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Meanwhile America starves, Fights itself, divides itself over seas and at home. . Meanwhile they remain in huge debt.

At least you have military and their toys of destruction


So lame and a waste of money. Go play call of duty.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I agree!

And scientists have discovered a way to bend light, slow it down, all sorts of cool tricks, that might, one day, lead to the creation of something very much like it. Until then however, these weaponised laser platforms are all the bvvvvvm,Schwing bvvvvm, that we are going to see!



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Now if we could figure out a way to direct some kind of beam that would break/disrupt atomic bonds...
edit on 5-3-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Elementalist

Um... Are you aware how much cheaper it would be, to run a laser aerial defence platform, or a ground based anti-armour system, in terms of material resource expenditure, than it is to run a projectile weapon for the same purpose?

Think about this for a moment. When a laser is deployed, electrical energy is expended, and channeled through the apparatus, to produce a staggeringly powerful beam. That beam hits the target, hovers over a weak point for a small amount of time, and presto blammo, the item is rendered useless. That electrical energy COULD be regained over time, if the technology improves exponentially, and gets solar energy upgrades which it will if the MIC believes it would be a good idea (which they are more likely to get behind if their weapons would be better off for it).

But when a cannon of comparative power is deployed at the moment, a shell is launched, and that shell, full of depleted uranium in many cases, is then expended, and is never gotten back. The casing might be reused I suppose, but what cannon operator polices his brass, I ask you? The detonating materials within the shell, the shell itself, the whole thing is expended and never reclaimed when a shot is fired with conventional weapons.

We are talking about the difference between using electrical energy, and using metal projectiles. Given the fact that if certain technologies were to be improved upon to a decent degree, reclaiming expended electrical power would be much less problematic than it is now, and the fact that there is only a finite amount of metal to work with on this planet, I would say it makes far more sense to fire a gout of highly focused photons at something, than it ever does to launch a lump of metal at it, from a conservation point of view.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croewww.duffelblog.com...

You HAD to know...



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elementalist
Meanwhile America starves, Fights itself, divides itself over seas and at home. . Meanwhile they remain in huge debt.

At least you have military and their toys of destruction


So lame and a waste of money. Go play call of duty.


(1. ) last i checked it's not the governments job to feed your ass; it's yours.

(2. ) the portion of the govt budget that goes to R&D isn't pee in the ocean compared to entitlements already going out.

(3. ) The Govt's job description does actually include providing for the defense of the nation which is a pretty important prerequisite for being able to eat.







 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join