Tanks w/ laser weapons deployed in US in 4 to 5 years

[SUBMAN1]

Northrup seems to be continually successful in this endevour. 100 kw power level is pretty much guranteed. It's not an anti-tank type of weapon since the British designed chobahm armor will probably stand up to it for quite a bit, but it completely changes the art of warfare since it will be used as an anti artillery type device. I mean, how do you fight a modern ground war while being denied artillery capability? It would completely screw the attacking force rendering and religating them back to something of a Napolionic type time where the only way to fight would be through direct means only. Indirect means would be completely eliminated. Anyway, the thoughts on how screwed ones army would be having been denied indirect fire capability against an enemy cannot be denied.

-S

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.mhtml?d=91947

[TteFAboB]

Can it be used against infantry? Or light vehicles?

If such a weapon could be used against that poor soldier who stepped out in the open it could have quite a dramatic psychological effect.

[SUBMAN1]

Can it be used against infantry? Or light vehicles?

If such a weapon could be used against that poor soldier who stepped out in the open it could have quite a dramatic psychological effect.

Lasers are forbidden per some convention (that I forgot the name of) for use against soldiers. An easy laser to field 'at this moment' would use invisible laser light but hemmorage the eyes to the point of permanent blindness in every troop unprotected in the immediate vicinity - like within like 5 miles from the transmitter. Naturally, nuclear reprisal is typically the threat used by the US as a response to doing this to our troops on the battlefield, and we agree also not to use it, but it is well known that these types of systems already exist.

I still find it weird that there are rules in warfare, but definitely neccesary for instances like this.

-S

[TteFAboB]

So the effect is devastating, who else has this technology?

[Godalmighty83]

ive heard of a few tests with this type of system, its the one of the many reasons why the uk has developed electricaly charged armour, which could 'deflect' such a weapon.

[SUBMAN1]

So the effect is devastating, who else has this technology?

The one that hemorages the eyes? I'd assume anyone that has a decent laser program, like Russia, or Isreal, and probably the UK.

As far as Anti-Artillery as shown in that article, the US only, and it will probably be sold to other allies..

-S

[TLAM Strike]

Can it be used against infantry? Or light vehicles?

If such a weapon could be used against that poor soldier who stepped out in the open it could have quite a dramatic psychological effect.

Lasers are forbidden per some convention (that I forgot the name of) for use against soldiers. An easy laser to field 'at this moment' would use invisible laser light but hemmorage the eyes to the point of permanent blindness in every troop unprotected in the immediate vicinity - like within like 5 miles from the transmitter. Naturally, nuclear reprisal is typically the threat used by the US as a response to doing this to our troops on the battlefield, and we agree also not to use it, but it is well known that these types of systems already exist.

I still find it weird that there are rules in warfare, but definitely neccesary for instances like this.

-S

It was the "United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)"

Protocol I restricts fragmentation weapons
Protocol II restricts landmines
Protocol III restricts incendiary weapons
Protocol IV (adopted in 1995) restricts blinding laser weapons
Protocol V (adopted in 2003) sets out obligations and best practice for the clearance of explosive remnants of war

There was a story about a sailor who got his eyes damaged when a Russian laser from a AGI was used on him...

[Kapitan]

russian AGI's still have lasers on board they are the only type of ship in the russian navy that openly carrys lasers.

and they are also only ment for laser rangeing and detection not as an offencive weapons (LARAD) russia has perfected this for the last 15 years. only now has it come about since the sailor inccident

[Wim Libaers]

There are ranging and targeting lasers with sufficient power to cause eye damage. However, their purpose is not blinding (that's a possible side-effect), but giving targeting information, so they are not banned.

[XabbaRus]

Easy way to beat that, mirrored shades....of a fashion :)

[PeriscopeDepth]

I think the laser's greatest potential lies in a surface to air capacity.

PD

[Kapitan]

more than likely all the lasers should d on the russian AGI's is to get the range of a target (same during exercise)thats about it not designed for anything else.

[Marhkimov]

I just saw War of the Worlds on DVD...

...

Lasers scare me. :o

[Godalmighty83]

the most lasers can do is heat, the war of the worlds gives light mass in order to see such damage.

[TLAM Strike]

I just saw War of the Worlds on DVD...

...

Lasers scare me. :o :roll:
Go watch Firefly (Episode 14: Heart of Gold to be specific) and you will see a much more realistic portrayal of laser technology in Sci Fi. If you hit a building with it, the flammable material will burn, it doesn’t vaporize people, and it even runs out of power. :up:

[Oberon]

Mmmmmmmm.....Heat Ray.......*drools*

Well's Heat Ray always put me in mind of a giant paint stripper, since its actual beam was barely visible.
Amazing what Wells thought up that we used in some shape or form today.
Tanks, nukes, lasers, and chemical weapons for one thing.

[Takeda Shingen]

Frankly, I feel that the weather machine would be much more an asset than the heat ray. If only Rumsfeld would listen.

[Oberon]

Frankly, I feel that the weather machine would be much more an asset than the heat ray. If only Rumsfeld would listen.

Aye, that or the Iron Curtain.... ;)

[SUBMAN1]

the most lasers can do is heat, the war of the worlds gives light mass in order to see such damage.

Yeah - Lasers do not explode - they only punch holes in objects in a similar manner as a bullet.

Of course, I wonder what the reaction of a resistant material might be? Possibly violent? So maybe I am wrong.

-S

[TLAM Strike]

Of course, I wonder what the reaction of a resistant material might be? Possibly violent? So maybe I am wrong.

-S If you used a laser on something like a tank's reactive armor it might explode (like its designed to when hit by a shell) but against most objects there would be no explosion unless it reacts explosively to heat. Building armor to defend against lasers is a simple matter of building the armor denser and thicker or using something to disperse the laser before impact like clouds of dust (or chaff?).

[Torpedo Fodder]

ive heard of a few tests with this type of system, its the one of the many reasons why the uk has developed electricaly charged armour, which could 'deflect' such a weapon.

Electric armor is meant to defeat HEAT warheads, not lasers.

Easy way to beat that, mirrored shades....of a fashion

Mirrors would not be a particularly effective defence against high-powered destructive lasers: no mirror can reflect 100% of the laser beam, and will absorb some of the beam and thus heat up in the process. In several tests, the very best mirrors money can buy were quickly shatterted by lasers less powerful than 100kW. What's more, in battlefield conditions, the mirror would inevitably get dirty, and thus would absorb more heat from the laser. Your best bet against lasers is simply to use highly dense armoring material or ablative armor.

[SUBMAN1]

Of course, I wonder what the reaction of a resistant material might be? Possibly violent? So maybe I am wrong.

-S If you used a laser on something like a tank's reactive armor it might explode (like its designed to when hit by a shell) but against most objects there would be no explosion unless it reacts explosively to heat. Building armor to defend against lasers is a simple matter of building the armor denser and thicker or using something to disperse the laser before impact like clouds of dust (or chaff?).

Agreed, but I think it is a matter of time before energy weapons can overpower the thickest of armor. We will have multi-megawatt lasers rolling arund in tanks instead of a 120mm smoothbore. Massive power also allows for the possibility energy shields as well, and I will start a massive posting of various ways to do this, but is that our future?

One thing I do know, lasers are a direct fire mechnism, unless you can get your buddy to stand in the line of fire and hold a mirror for you (Not gonna happen!:)). So, by 2025, the standard infantry man will be fielding heat sinking missiles (True US Army Req) that make missing impossible, so what chance will the future enemy of the US have against tech like this? I remember Rhumfield saying he likes unfair warfare, but this is getting rediculous!!!

-S

[TLAM Strike]

So, by 2025, the standard infantry man will be fielding heat sinking missiles (True US Army Req) that make missing impossible, so what chance will the future enemy of the US have against tech like this? I remember Rhumfield saying he likes unfair warfare, but this is getting rediculous!!!

-S Ever read Sun Tzu?

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete. "

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

Technology matters not its the tactics of each side that win the battle.

[CCIP]

Technology matters not its the tactics of each side that win the battle.

:yep:

And come on, is this the first time we have the "new technology will ruin everything" thing? The machinegun... the tank... then, of course, sonar and the supposed end of submarine warfare...

That's the nature of war for you. :hmm:

[TLAM Strike]

In a fair fight the winner is the one with better technology, those with inferior technology must fight unfair or lose. The Viet Cong, the Iraqi Insurgency, George Washington’s Colonial Army- when faced with a well-armed conventional opponent take to the countryside or in to the inner cities. Force the enemy to lay siege to your country until he is bleed dry and loses the will to fight.

[SUBMAN1]

So, by 2025, the standard infantry man will be fielding heat sinking missiles (True US Army Req) that make missing impossible, so what chance will the future enemy of the US have against tech like this? I remember Rhumfield saying he likes unfair warfare, but this is getting rediculous!!!

-S Ever read Sun Tzu?

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete. "

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

Technology matters not its the tactics of each side that win the battle.

Cool - send your sword equiped Chinese soldier against my tank! I'll even give you an advatage - you can use China's old Vegabonds to do your dirty work! :) I'll still mow em down like I do the lawn! :P

-S

[TLAM Strike]

Cool - send your sword equiped Chinese soldier against my tank! I'll even give you an advatage - you can use China's old Vegabonds to do your dirty work! :) I'll still mow em down like I do the lawn! :P

-S Just wait till you step out of your tank to take a leak. You'll be dead and it will be my tank... ;)

[Marhkimov]

send your sword equiped Chinese soldier against my tank! I'll even give you an advatage - you can use China's old Vegabonds to do your dirty work! :) I'll still mow em down like I do the lawn! :P
Oh SUBMAN1?


Let me remind you that the Viet Cong defeated the far superior forces of the Greatest Military Nation in the World, and they didn't do it with overpowering means.

You practically can say that they won using sticks and stones, against B-52s and Battleships. Now of course, they got slaughtered when it came down to the physical aspect of warfare, but they won where it mattered most: tactics and psychology.

And they ultimately won the war.

[SUBMAN1]

send your sword equiped Chinese soldier against my tank! I'll even give you an advatage - you can use China's old Vegabonds to do your dirty work! :) I'll still mow em down like I do the lawn! :P
Oh SUBMAN1?


Let me remind you that the Viet Cong defeated the far superior forces of the Greatest Military Nation in the World, and they didn't do it with overpowering means.

You practically can say that they won using sticks and stones, against B-52s and Battleships. Now of course, they got slaughtered when it came down to the physical aspect of warfare, but they won where it mattered most: tactics and psychology.

And they ultimately won the war.

Our infrared capability was new and somewhat lacking back then. no more hiding now! :)

Actually - it never has been a war against the US Troops - they killed 10 to 1 back then, and today in Iraq, Bush said the number is about 50 to one. The real war is with the American people.

-S

PS. you see the new room penetrating radar they are deplying to Iraq now? Soldiers can now see if there are people in the adjacent room before they even expose themselves.

[SUBMAN1]

Cool - send your sword equiped Chinese soldier against my tank! I'll even give you an advatage - you can use China's old Vegabonds to do your dirty work! :) I'll still mow em down like I do the lawn! :P

-S Just wait till you step out of your tank to take a leak. You'll be dead and it will be my tank... ;)

Good point. I guess someone can man the .50 cal when I take a leak! :) Last time I checked, an M1A2 has 4 crew so maybe I should have 2 people man .50's? :P

-S

[Marhkimov]

You can bet that we'll lose in Iraq too.

You can deny it all you want, but everyone knows that we'll pull out before the entire thing is over.

[SUBMAN1]

You can bet that we'll lose in Iraq too.

You can deny it all you want, but everyone knows that we'll pull out before the entire thing is over.

That is one thing I would doubt this time big time. The US has a different attitude than in Vietnam. There are still the war protesters, but no real massive anti war rallys. Iraq also has a end game plan that includes its own people - unlike Vietnam. It is a very different war and one that will ultimately be won. The question is, when can the Iraqies actually support themselves solely? Most operations now don't even involve US or British troops, so they are getting close, but when is the answer?

Anyway, the US Troops on the ground think the media are complete idiots and they see a much different picture than what the US media reports. I can post some letters from US troops incase anyone is interested, but it is interesting to see it from the eyes on the ground vs what sells a story.

-S

[TLAM Strike]

Our infrared capability was new and somewhat lacking back then. no more hiding now! :)

PS. you see the new room penetrating radar they are deplying to Iraq now? Soldiers can now see if there are people in the adjacent room before they even expose themselves. Yes there is hiding. The place is called plain sight. Can that room penetrating radar detect the difference between civilians or enemy insurgents? No. Kinda reminds me of a mission in ‘Tie Fighter’ when scanning the cargo of a shuttle the player detects “Rebels” and I just scratched my head and asked “Does this scanner determine a persons political affiliation?” Use non-combatants as cover and enemy troops as a source of supplies (Uniforms):

“The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice.
Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.” -Sun Tzu

[TteFAboB]

Tie Fighters have far more advanced scanners, but in its roots it's like Friend or Foe, if it doesn't have an Imperial Union Card, it's Rebel. :arrgh!:

[Rotary Crewman]

Getting back on track. As aircrew we get shown various videos, pictures, of threatening weapons (The Tor-M1 video we got shown wasn't pleasant). One of the videos which was a recognised threat was the use of lasers to dazzle pilots and rearcrew. One of the only countries to not take part in the agreement (its name escapes me) was the US. They now have rifles with a laser mounted on top used purely to dazzle people (Aircrew, ground troops whatever). We also were shown a dialog of a scientist working on laser technology. A series of events happened whilst he was conducting experiments and ended up having his eye popped by the laser and melt down his face. Which made us all realise how dangerous lasers can be.

There are many threats in the enviroment us fly boys go in, including large flying telegraph poles from the ground, but this one scares me the most. Not only does it cause temporary blindness and things in the short term that could cause the aircraft to ditch but its the long term effects, of which most escape me now but the ones that hit home were eventual permanent blindness and flashbacks.

I don't fancy hanging out the side of a helicopter trying to manouver it into a tight location only to have some farmer from somethinkistan using a laser purchased from America blinding me and causing the helo to crash.

Keep up the good work though :roll:

[Takeda Shingen]

In a fair fight the winner is the one with better technology, those with inferior technology must fight unfair or lose. The Viet Cong, the Iraqi Insurgency, George Washington’s Colonial Army- when faced with a well-armed conventional opponent take to the countryside or in to the inner cities. Force the enemy to lay siege to your country until he is bleed dry and loses the will to fight.

Or, in the case of the American Revolution, until you can persuade your enemy's enemy to win the battles for you.

[Skybird]

Fair fight...? Just listen to that phrase itself.

Is asymmatrical warfare - unfair? It is beyond such categories. Guerillas fight the way they do, to counter for example technological superiority of their enemy. Fairness is not at question here, has nothing to do with it at all. Or honour, btw. Fight the way that you win or be amongst those that are left - that is what war is about.

Fairness... Well, thinking in such terms with regard to warm, that is really queer.

BTW, I can fight off and defeat an opponent who has a knife, or even a pistol, if he is not too far away and acts stupid. Fair fight. F-5 Tigers in an excersice back in the late 80s, I think, defeated an equal force of F-15s, both teams were American pilots. Fair fight. Over at SB they just reported how a good team of Leo-1-tankers defeated an attacking force of Abrams by clever tactics. Fair fight. - Not always does "in a fair fight" the better technolgoy guarantee the winning of a fight. Partisan and guerilla tactics is about how to counter an attack by forcing the enemy into a kind of battle were his superior charcateristics are minimzed or neutralised. That'S what it all is about, denying him his strength, and exploiting and maximizing his weakness, without giving him a target yourself. Is that "unfair"? :-?

Or does "fair fight" mean that the enemy should behave according to the other side's textbook and shall cooperate with his opponent's intention to wipe him off the table?

BTW, my impresison of the VC and the Iraqi insurgents is that they are very successful in what they wree doing. Vietnam war was lost for the US, and one cannot say that the US has Iraq under control. Quite the opposite.

Fair fight... :dead: That is only valid for toy-armies made of tin soldiers

[TLAM Strike]

In a fair fight the winner is the one with better technology, those with inferior technology must fight unfair or lose. The Viet Cong, the Iraqi Insurgency, George Washington’s Colonial Army- when faced with a well-armed conventional opponent take to the countryside or in to the inner cities. Force the enemy to lay siege to your country until he is bleed dry and loses the will to fight.

Or, in the case of the American Revolution, until you can persuade your enemy's enemy to win the battles for you. "Battle" singluar verb. Don't give the French too much credit... :D

But they did defeat Kapitian’s Invincible Royal Navy and for that they forever have my thanks :-j

[Takeda Shingen]

I think you're oversimplifying the effects of the French entry into the war. With the defeat at Yorktown, it became clear that retaining the American colonies would require an expensive war of attrition. Having just spent an enormous amount of money in conflicts around the world as a result of the French and Indian War, Great Britian saw that bankruptcy was a distinct possibility. Thus, the result of the American Revolution was a strategic, not tactical, victory as a result of French intervention. The British has little to fear from Washington's tactical ability and the colonists' skill as combatants.

However, this has little to do with either lasers or tanks, as so, I apologize for sidtracking this discussion.

[Oberon]

What? You mean the Americans didn't use laser tanks?!

However did we lose? :cry: ;)

[Excalibur Bane]

Well, the only problem I can see with laser weapons would be any kind of fog, rain, etc. That would drastically cut the range of the weapons down to near nothing. Of course it depends on the type of laser too. They are probably using something more advanced then a focus laser. Heh. Chemical laser I would suspect. Still, I don't see a way around the problem with it being refracted by atmospheric distortions. :hmm:

Anyway, aside from the rather nasty blindess effects of laser, it would be virtually useless as a fatal kind of weapon. The heat of it would just cauterize any wounds. You'd have to hit them somewhere in the brain. Maybe the heart, not sure if that would be fatal though. I suppose if you used a big enough one, you could either vaporize them or light them on fire, like the old ant and the magnifying glass. That would be interesting. :dead:

[Wim Libaers]

Anyway, aside from the rather nasty blindess effects of laser, it would be virtually useless as a fatal kind of weapon. The heat of it would just cauterize any wounds.

Not really. Blindness should be enough to eliminate enemies, killing is not needed, just make them unable to fight.

Cauterizing wounds? Depends on the laser. Strong continuous-wave IR lasers like CO2 lasers would do that, but fast pulsed lasers, especially UV excimer lasers can behave differently. Such lasers can deliver energy very quickly, vaporizing a surface layer without giving much time for surrounding material to heat up (which is why they are used for cutting heat-sensitive materials).

[Oberon]

Wouldn't an affective form of defence be the same tiles they use on the shuttles for re-entry. Ok, it wouldn't last forever but it'd give you enough time to return fire and/or move position.

[Excalibur Bane]

Or have everyone run around with giant mirrors :P

Mmm. Fun.

[Bill Nichols]

High power military lasers are real.


ABL Testing Boosts Confidence in Ability to Shoot Down Ballistic Missiles
6 December 2005
Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry “Trey” Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), said today that the Airborne Laser’s (ABL) megawatt-class chemical laser had successfully completed its 2005 “Knowledge Point” of firing long enough with sufficient power to prove it is technically capable of destroying boost-phase ballistic missiles.
Since the series of tests began on Nov. 10, 2004, the Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) has been fired more than 70 times, beginning with a burst of a fraction of a second and increasing until a firing on Dec. 6 exceeded the full duration goal at a level that is believed to be capable of destroying a ballistic missile during its boost phase, or within the first few minutes after it is launched.
Although the precise duration was not announced for security reasons, the firing time surpassed goal ABL engineers wanted to reach to achieve the second MDA Knowledge Point for the year.
On Aug. 1, MDA announced the successful completion of the first Knowledge Point – the conclusion of an eight-month long series of flight tests of the ABL aircraft, YAL-1A, which demonstrated the performance of the ABL’s sophisticated battle management and beam control/fire control systems.
The ABL COIL is composed of six interconnected modules, each as large as a sport utility vehicle turned on end. Each module weighs about 6,500 pounds and has 3,600 separate parts. When fired through a window in the aircraft’s nose turret, it produces enough energy in a five-second burst to power a typical household for more than one hour.
Currently, the aircraft is undergoing modifications to its aft section at the Boeing facility in Wichita, Kan., readying it for installation of the COIL beginning in 2006. Following a lengthy series of ground and air tests of all its complicated systems, ABL will begin additional testing that will include the planned intercept of a ballistic missile target before the end of the decade.

More news articles below:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6473144/

More info here:

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060127-042543-8671r

http://www.gizmag.com/go/2809/

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/mission.html

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/abl_usa.html

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=ee45654c-eadc-4aa0-9c57-dbe6b82cff6e

http://www.photonics.com/spectra/applications/2003/May/appsAirborne.gif

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/2004-10/14714975.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/yal-1a_airborne-laser_041213-f-0000p-009.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/special/abl/pics-clips/images/midres/abl30.jpg

http://www.airbornelaser.com/pics-clips/images/midres/aar3_shryne.jpg

More pics here:

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/military/abl/pics-clips/index.html