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.

 

Are Laser & Kinetic Weapons Closer Than We Think?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   
About kinetic weapons: They excist today, they excisted long ago as well. A gun is a kinetic weapons as you should know.

Also for all you people, I suggest you go buy and read the book. "Effects of Direct Energy Weapons" It talks about how direct energy weapons of different types can work with modern day technollogy and it's implications.
Discussed types are: Kinetic, Laser, Microwave and Particle Beams.

I'd read/write more but I'm at school and the bell just went.




posted on May, 10 2004 @ 06:40 AM
link   
i was just wondering if lasers heat up objects what happens if u heated up a projectile and then fired it at a cold object like a tank ?



posted on May, 21 2004 @ 08:46 AM
link   
How about ceramics, or some kind of heat sink device? Could something like that negate enough of the energy to have an effect? How about Tungsten (ala Bunker Buster)? How about a combination of the above?

Also, how effective would this weapon be in the desert? Smoke bombs are bad, sandstorms are crippling. Unreliable operation in a desert environment (diffraction) would make it's use sketch, at best. Especially in Southwest Asia.

Consider any inclimate weather. Fog, precipitation, or heavy smog/pollution could render it weakened to the point of useless.

Increasing the wattage, of course, should make it less susceptible to environmental interference.

Once the wattage is high enough in a small enough package it will make a great weapon, but right now it seems kinda like there's a lot left to be done. . .

[editted to address devilwasp]

Google for Pyrophoric Depleted Uranium rounds, particularly HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) rounds. Good Stuff. ;-)

[Edited on 21-5-2004 by Just1Man]



posted on May, 21 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Just1Man
How about ceramics, or some kind of heat sink device? Could something like that negate enough of the energy to have an effect? How about Tungsten (ala Bunker Buster)? How about a combination of the above?

Heat sink elements could not dissipate the intensity of a weapons class megawatt laser quickly enough to keep the laser energy from having it's desired effect.
There is also the consideration that the energy used by a weapons class laser is emitted in a bandwidth that changes the parameters of what elements would best impede a heat source weapon.

There are certainly a lot of "what if" scenarios one could dream up trying to defeat such a weapon, but you need to consider what enemy assets the laser is designed to target - then consider how countermeasures would impact the useablity of those assets.
For instance laser countermeasures on an artillery missile would either make the missile too heavy, negatively affect its flight characteristics or impact it's very usuability as a weapon - the best case scenario for such countermeasures would be to have no explosive in the warhead and no combustable material for fuel... but this of course would severely impede the ability of the missile to perform it's appointed task.



Also, how effective would this weapon be in the desert? Smoke bombs are bad, sandstorms are crippling. Unreliable operation in a desert environment (diffraction) would make it's use sketch, at best. Especially in Southwest Asia.

Consider any inclimate weather. Fog, precipitation, or heavy smog/pollution could render it weakened to the point of useless.

Interestingly enough such obscurants are having less and less impact on laser weapon development.
Short pulse lasers are managing to drill "ballistic photons" through the thickest obscurants and still produce results on the target.

The chemical lasers currently being developed by Northrop-Grumman and Raytheon for battlefield use are COIL & CO2 infrared short-pulse lasers that emit an amplified energy on the far-infrared spectrum, in the 8-14 micron range. Because of this wavelength the energy of these lasers is only minimally diminished in certain vapors (fogs) and smoke generated by hydrocarbon fuel.

Obscurants that are most effective in blocking battlefield lasers are dust (thick clouds of dust) and smoke produced by white and red phosphorous.

Obscurants that are mildly effective at thwarting the energy of a high power laser are water vapor clouds and fog.



Increasing the wattage, of course, should make it less susceptible to environmental interference.

Once the wattage is high enough in a small enough package it will make a great weapon, but right now it seems kinda like there's a lot left to be done.


The chemical lasers that are being developed as weapons are heavy and operate in the megawatt range - these are not personal weapons like a rifle or pistol nor is there any plan underway to make them such.
Solid state lasers on the other hand have the potential to be a squad sized weapon or a small mechanized infantry weapon. They would be operating in the 100+ kw range, still more than adequate to quickly defeat weak areas of armor although not with instantaneous results as with a megawatt laser.

No one is touting the laser as the latest and greatest weapon...
Lasers have their weaknesses and they have their strengths - What these weapons do strategically is increase the available options for a military that knows which tools achieve the best results in a specific situation.
If a laser is not the best weapon for a specific task then simply go with a better option - the DoD is not replacing anything, only enhancing their toolkit.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Thank you for your follow-up, Intel. I was particularly interested to hear your counter.

The only additional question that I have is, "Would sand on the lens form glass when the weapon is activated?" I guess to go one step further, how susceptible is the exterior of the lens?

If a contaminent could fuse w/the lens, it could cause all sorts of anomalies in frequency and bearing.

Thanks for your input.

--j1m



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Just1Man
Thank you for your follow-up, Intel. I was particularly interested to hear your counter.

The only additional question that I have is, "Would sand on the lens form glass when the weapon is activated?" I guess to go one step further, how susceptible is the exterior of the lens?

If a contaminent could fuse w/the lens, it could cause all sorts of anomalies in frequency and bearing.

Thanks for your input.

--j1m


In many of these ultra-high power CO2 & COIL lasers in the 10+ micron range (far-infrared), the exterior lens is not a focusing lens - but rather a lens protector for the focusing lens, protecting it from airborne particles and other battlefield contaminants.

The external lens is usually made not from standard silicon based glass but a potassium chloride (KCl) salt, and the focusing lens is generally made from Zinc Selenide (ZnSe).

There are also lens coatings that do a very good job of preventing particles from adhering themselves to an external lens, but if grains of sand were indeed fused to the external lens it would not decrease the potency of a laser with a beam in excess of a meter in diameter.
However, the battlefield operators of the weapon may very well need to replace the external lens frequently for this reason.

Hope this helps~



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
There are also lens coatings that do a very good job of preventing particles from adhering themselves to an external lens, but if grains of sand were indeed fused to the external lens it would not decrease the potency of a laser with a beam in excess of a meter in diameter.
However, the battlefield operators of the weapon may very well need to replace the external lens frequently for this reason.

Hope this helps~


An excellent thread, very informative!!


I'd imagine an electrostatic field and charged components would keep much of the dust at bay. Air jets may also keep the lens surface clean while the apparatus cools (convection currents from a hot surface would draw smoke and other small aerosols in very easily).

For countermeasures against laser weapons, look at the Russians' response to the early U.S. Anti-Ballistic Missile program. Have your launch vehicle carry a large number of kill vehicles - a case of not putting all your ducks in a basket. Hang on, that's not right...

The missile could be coated with ablative insulation, carrying away excess heat energy as bits flake off, just like on Apollo / Soyuz heat shields. But this would cause added problems with missile guidance...

As for wavelength - there are only a few good atmospheric windows to operate in. These are the 10 - 12 micron infrared range, the visible range, and patches in the UV range. Of course, with decreasing wavelength comes increased scattering from all sorts of sources.

Atmospheric Scattering

>EDIT<

Whoops, left out some important points...

It might be a good countermeasure to bombard the area containg the THEL with many small pellets or rods - solely for the purpose of kicking up dust to scatter the beam! While the THEL redeploys, follow-on munitions strike their targets.

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by Lampyridae]



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Definitely helpful. I end up with a lot of black boxes when trying to find info on this device. I'm not suprised, tho, based on how much a nice DoD contract is worth in the private sector.

Is this technology seriously @ the megawatt phase? Up until this thread, I was under the impression it was in the hundred kilowatt range.

Thanks again,
--J1M



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 04:02 AM
link   
It was in the 30kw range as far back as the 70s, with succesful interceptions of artillery shells and missiles!

>EDIT<

I think heat sinks are a bit unwieldy. Some kind of turbo-cooling jacket, perhaps, containing lithium which can be ejected once molten. Seriously high tech though. I think the aim would also be to slightly increase missile endurance - then hit them with more missiles and overwhelm the defence lasers. The defence lasers would also become priority no. 1 target.

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by Lampyridae]



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Just1Man
Definitely helpful. I end up with a lot of black boxes when trying to find info on this device. I'm not suprised, tho, based on how much a nice DoD contract is worth in the private sector.

Is this technology seriously @ the megawatt phase? Up until this thread, I was under the impression it was in the hundred kilowatt range.

Thanks again,
--J1M

Chemical Lasers have been in the megawatt range for years -

Solid State lasers on the otherhand have not been in the megawatt range for long.
In fact there are currently no plans for weaponized solid state lasers in the megawatt range - only the 100kw range. I think the most powerful solid state megawatt lasers are at Lawrence Livermore National Lab and one in the UK...



[Edited on 24-5-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Marvellous isnt it the march of new technology for the battlefield. We'll be able to look forward to the Israeli army zapping Palestinians for throwing stones at them and precision assassinations of terrorist suspects accross the middle east. We'll fight the poorest and most ill equipped nations on earth with the most sophisticated weaponry ever devised............. and we wonder why there is the phenomenon of suicide bombing



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
using tec.web.bridge, i reply to your post.
I can confirm, some subjects are known as 'feeders' and are able to feed in excessive amounts of pulsed kinetic energy into developedcicuitry that focuses through a masar prism principle a controlable beam, that produces a pulse.
Without being more clear, I suggest you contacy'john lewis research field.u.s.
This is being used in GEORGIA now
Keep digging.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Nans DESMICHELS
 


Damn expensive tanning Salon.
second



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by StarChild
 


We've already used kinetic weapons in war.

It is known as "APFSDS" (armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot).

en.wikipedia.org...

www.russianarmor.info...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
lasers have been in use for awhile in Israel . why do you not think lasers could be used as weapons check this out
www.wickedlasers.com...
if you can own something like this just imagine what the gov. has. yes thel is good for shooting down missiles but think of this have one or two mounted on a ship the size of a cutter enemy is hiding on the side of a small hill 10 miles away that is overgrown with brush use thel on low power to start brush fire to flush them out of cover



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
A few years ago, (spring of 2009 i think) I had the oportunity to pick the brain of a DARPA guy, I asked him when our troops would get laser guns, he told me that when they could affordably mass produce them, then they would have them. the technology is there it is just too expensive to make it feasible.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Read about it if you are interested (Some may have seen this already), it's basically an automated directed energy defense for aircraft/ground forces etc, straight out of DARPA:

High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS)

Some advances have been made in miniaturization of the cooling systems lately.
edit on 24-1-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
i want one of those wicked lasers now ^_^



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
laser weapons would be awesome

as always this type of technology would be kept secret for a while should it even exist



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join