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.

 

Manpackable Laser Weapons on the Way for U.S. Military's Future Soldiers?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Can these laser weapons replace a saw or knife?

If so, then building/construction just got a whole lot easier!




posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Here is an article that describes this a little better.

Military Laser

Part way down, the article states. "That much power won't get you a Star Wars-style blaster. But it should be more than enough to zap the mortars and rockets that insurgents have used to pound American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. "

So, initially, it wouldn't be to shoot people but rather to shoot down mortars and/or rockets. That would be additional safety for the US troops while they shoot conventional weapons at the opponent.

It's not Buck Rogers time yet.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 




Exaggerating only very slightly, I mean "slice and dice" capability against those vehicles from the Airborne Tactical Laser. The ABL also has much greater capacity than simply burning a hole in a missile fuel tank... from 250-300 nm away.


Even that's a gross exaggeration.

Steel, composite armour and kevlar are about several thousand times denser than air.


During the experiment, the Airborne Laser Lab destroyed five AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and a Navy BQM-34A target drone.

www.fas.org...

Sidewinders and BQM drones are not humvees and tanks.

The laser would have to be focused on the vehicle for several minutes to completely knock it out via disrupting engine operation or triggering an explosion of ammunition.

There's no way in hell a megawatt, chemical laser has the actual density to cut through steel and/or heat it up until the point of failure where it melts.

It can damage sensitive equipment on a vehicle and effectively incapacitate it, yes, but outright destroy it? No.

Steel melts at around 2500F while composite Chobham armour, like that found on the M-1 melts at above 3000F.

There's no laser in the world capable of generating such temperatures yet.

Destroying vehicles is a far cry from destroying missiles travelling at Mach 5+ which only need a little bump to go off course or allow air vortices or wind sheer to rip them apart.

[edit on 2/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I think your analysis is clouded by your perception of how actual military application and contact damage occur on the battlefield. The engineers working on these systems are quite confident in the capacity I've mention thus far, even more in fact. As I said, white world capability will be understated.

I have thus far never mentioned a tank, merely that up-armored vehicles are not a a problem for the Advanced Tactical Laser. The possibility of the ABL to be used against ground targets and airborne aircraft has been looked at, but is not a necessity at the moment. Potential capability is there, however.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 



I think your analysis is clouded by your perception of how actual military application and contact damage occur on the battlefield.


Nope, just by your very vague and ambiguous wording.



I have thus far never mentioned a tank, merely that up-armored vehicles are not a a problem for the Advanced Tactical Laser.


What exactly does "not a problem" mean in this context?

Destroyed? Disabled? Immobilised?

Care to be any more generic....


The engineers working on these systems are quite confident in the capacity I've mention thus far, even more in fact. As I said, white world capability will be understated.


That works both ways. Every country lies about their military capability, especially the United States, hell they did it for 60 years on and off in a cat & mouse game with the Soviets, so you could say they're quite adept at it.

You're two-dimensional views of United States military prowess only further undermine what you say.

Don't swallow whatever they say whole.


The possibility of the ABL to be used against ground targets and airborne aircraft has been looked at, but is not a necessity at the moment.


Of course it's "possible".

It's possible to use a pistol to take down a helicopter.

Who cares about possibility and probability?
The question is how and when.

So far, no tests have been conducted in an A2G role and the military firmly looks set on developing the YAL and ABL in a strictly ABM role against rogue missile launches.


Potential capability is there, however.


No it's not. That's not potential, that's fantasy.

If they somehow manage to mount a nuclear reactor onto a 747, then maybe it could be.

Currently, there's simply nowhere near enough wattage required to physically destroy ground vehicles like Humvees.

[edit on 2/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


Let me turn your attention to an interesting article:


At a range of 1 meter, that requires an energy release of 0.63MJ, and once the beam is substantially inside the object, most of the flash will be deposited on the rest of the inside of the object, so it's really only object shells we need to worry about.

If the beam has an area of 50 square centimeters ( AV:T scale) to emit a total of 630 kJ it must be emitting 12.6 kJ/cm2.

projectrho.com...

12.6kJ per centimetre squared means 12,600kJ of energy required for a laser to travel 1 kilometre that has a circumference of around 50 square centimetres.
(Take a look a ruler and you'll see that's actually quite small, which means it makes it even all the more harder for that laser to hit something a great distances, because it's so tiny, hence it needs to be 100% accurate)

Now let's say we take the YAL-1, with a range somewhere in the area of 300-600km.
Imagine it's being used to target a ground vehicle (i.e. a Humvee), at 500km away, and has roughly the required destructive power to damage it severely.

According to the source:

A single pulse with a total energy of 100 MJ (MegaJoule) would have the effect of the detonation of 25 kg of TNT.


25kg of TNT is equivalent to the explosive power of 11 RPG, HEAT warheads (world.guns.ru...), considerably more than enough to destroy a Humvee, considering one well-aimed RPG can cripple it.

100 MJ=500MW
Hence, a 100MJ beam requires 500 Megawatts of energy.

Now for a laser to travel 500km, with enough energy to maintain it's focus, according to the above formula (12.6kJ per centimetre), it requires 630,000kJ. (12,600x500) Or 630 MegaJoules.

Add that on top of the energy requirements for the explosive force behind a 100MJ beam and you roughly need 3650 Megawatts of energy.

Just to give you an idea of the ridiculous energy requirement that figure represents, US Nuclear plants have summer capacities of 500-1300MW: en.wikipedia.org...

Now, take that into account and realise what exactly your imaging a 747-mounted, airborne laser to be capable of, when you say it can destroy a vehicle like a Humvee.

Knowing full well, a civilian nuclear power plant, cannot even generate the required energy to accomplish that feat.

Yet somehow you're trying to tell me, the US military has mounted a generator that outputs more energy than a civilian reactor, into a space (the 747) that is probably 1/1000th the size of a nuclear power plant?



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



There are advances being made in battery technology all the time, with that in mind, do you envisage something being able to power a laser sometime in the near future?

Or for that matter, advances in laser technology having the same result?


The only breakthroughs needed here are advances in power generation. That's it.

Find a way to miniaturise a heavy-water reactor into the space backpack and a soldier with a handheld laser will have the destructive capability of a fleet of tanks.

Miniaturisation and regenerability are the only things hampering advances in military lasers.

Currently, there's just no way of generating hundreds of kilowatts or megawatts of energy, in anything smaller than an airliner, and even that is not sufficient energy for a chemical laser to be able to destroy vehicles or even missiles.

Which effectively rules out handheld laser weaponry for the time being.

Cold Fusion is the only emerging electrochemical, current-producing technology I can think of that has the potential to be safe, portable and most of all powerful enough to generate megawatts of energy in condescend spaces and at room temperature.

Lasers currently are just nowhere near as powerful (in terms of kinetic and explosive energy) as an equivalent-sized ballistic weapon simply because they lack the necessary power supply.

There's absolutely no way any sane military in the world is going to choose a hundred dollar assault rifle over a multi-million dollar laser weapon for their standard issue battle rifle; which weights more, is less accurate, has less ammunition capacity and can very easily be damaged during normal battlefield wear & tear, not to mention needs constant maintainence.

Lasers are simply not practical for field usage.

In an Anti-Ballistic Missile role like the YAL or ABL laser, than maybe they have certain advantages over SAMs or air-launched ABMs (namely speed and accuracy).


[edit on 2/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join