|
We've gone from 'first laser ever' to 'lasers all over the modern household' in pretty much the same time-span as 'first powered flight ever' to 'space'. Viewing the maturity of a technology purely in terms of its military applications is not smart. Also if you are going to view the speed of development of a technology purely in military terms then it's pretty important to fact in that there are military advantages inherent to the basic concept of powered flight which do not apply to being able to make a laser.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:We've gone from 'first laser ever' to 'lasers all over the modern household' in pretty much the same time-span as 'first powered flight ever' to 'space'. Viewing the maturity of a technology purely in terms of its military applications is not smart. Also if you are going to view the speed of development of a technology purely in military terms then it's pretty important to fact in that there are military advantages inherent to the basic concept of powered flight which do not apply to being able to make a laser. Even if you only look at the technologies specifically relevant to laser weapons, those have been in development for a long time. Do you think we're as close to useful laser weapons as the publicity implies? Psion posted:You didn't, actually. You reiterated it. You did not attempt to explain why any of the many, many contrary posts brought up were invalid. There were a lot of posts that had little relevance to my point, but if you'd like me to address a specific argument, feel free to quote it. Godholio posted:You probably think the Orion test flight was a waste of time and money, too. After all, we already did it more than 50 years ago, this is just an incremental improvement over our 1960s efforts. Did I say that laser weapons were a waste of time and money? No, I said the publicity is misleading. Orion also has misleading publicity (e.g. billing the launch as a first step toward Mars) but I'm glad we're doing it. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'm just hoping we actually have legit no-bullshit space races this time. As in, simultaneous blast offs from Kennedy and Baikonur, first one around the moon and back wins. Home run doesn't count if you don't touch second 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Psion posted:okay but level with me, let's say someone builds an E-767 and puts a laser on it. The radome is used somehow to make a huge gently caress-awesome laser beam that shoots things down. You'd re-enlist to fly on it right? Especially if you got to lase a flock of pigeons or something? There's an opening in the reserve squadron that I'm qualified for that I'd apply for RIGHT NOW. There's more room in the dome than you'd think. Edit: the AF is trying to un-retain people though, so you'd probably have to stick your nuts in a waveguide to shoot the laser though. hepatizon posted:
Publicity generates interest which generates funding. Gemini got some press, too, despite being nothing more than tech demonstrators for theoretical future missions. Godholio fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Psion posted:okay but level with me, let's say someone builds an E-767 and puts a laser on it. The radome is used somehow to make a huge gently caress-awesome laser beam that shoots things down. You'd re-enlist to fly on it right? Especially if you got to lase a flock of pigeons or something? They already did this, and then canned it because they couldn't make the laser powerful enough. Godholio posted:Publicity generates interest which generates funding. Gemini got some press, too, despite being nothing more than tech demonstrators for theoretical future missions. If you think misleading publicity for publicly funded projects is ethical, well, okay. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Who gives a gently caress about lasers, we've known about them forever. The revolution is happening in miniaturized computers for tracking and power supplies at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
I don't get the laser hype either, but for completely different reasons. Isn't it just a fair-weather system? How would it work at all in fog, rain or snow? I mean, sure, it's a good response to this asymmetrical warfare poo poo with people in speedboats which also rely on fair weather, but I really can't see it completely replacing conventional CIWS when it comes to shooting down cruise missiles in the north Atlantic in winter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
More interested in nanobot swarms tbh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Edit: the AF is trying to un-retain people though, so you'd probably have to stick your nuts in a waveguide to shoot the laser though. I'm pretty sure people would still sign up even with that qualifier. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Several years ago there was footage floating about that showed a test of a laser aimed at what I think was called a "Shuttle booster rocket" (but, the Shuttle booster were solid fuel, so I'm not sure how they had an empty one to shoot at). I remember that there was a heavy looking cap on top of the target (booster, cardboard tube, whatever it was) that was tethered to the ground. When the target was weakened, the cap crushed it into the ground. Somehow that meant the laser was going to make a great weapon sometime soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Comparing military advancement of lasers to military advancement of airplanes is fundamentally dumb as poo poo. Alternatives to airplanes in the past: staying on the ground, balloons I guess, really tall trees. Alternatives to laser weaponry in the past: I don't have time to type up entire encyclopedias. So yeah, the former was on a MUCH faster research timeline than the latter. You can argue all you like about how this laser is wimpy and takes to long to shoot down basic ISR UAVs or how if the boats were suicide boats packed with explosives it may not disable them before they rammed a navy ship or whatever. But if you compare laser development timelines to that of lasers, you're either an idiot or just have an ax to grind and will be disingenuous to do it. e: oh and the ABL wasn't canned due to just power, it was canned for a myriad of other practical reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
The reason I heard was that it was a flying tank of poisonous chemicals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
It was a giant flying tank of poisonous chemicals, it didn't and couldn't work, and the use-case was dumb as gently caress to begin with (ascent phase ICBM intercepts, IIRC).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It was a giant flying tank of poisonous chemicals, it didn't and couldn't work, and the use-case was dumb as gently caress to begin with (ascent phase ICBM intercepts, IIRC). It could totally gently caress up an ICBM. Once or twice. If the enemy let it hang out in contested airspace and promised not to shoot at it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
goomsnarr posted:Several years ago there was footage floating about that showed a test of a laser aimed at what I think was called a "Shuttle booster rocket" (but, the Shuttle booster were solid fuel, so I'm not sure how they had an empty one to shoot at). Um. What you're misremembering is a laser being tested, in 1985, against a segment of Titan ICBM missile body. As the real target would rely upon pressurization of the fuel providing the force to stabilize the structure of the missile against the loads imposed by acceleration, the "tethers" where there to apply compressive loading to the target to mimic what would happen were the laser being used against a pressurized missile body in flight instead of just a segment of missile body sitting on the ground. The laser in question was MIRACL, a megawatt-class deuterium-fluoride research testbed. This test was never mean to show that this laser was going to make a great weapon sometime soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Comparing military advancement of lasers to military advancement of airplanes is fundamentally dumb as poo poo. My only point about development timelines is that, for whatever reason, laser weapons have been "just around the corner" for decades, and that this laser's capabilities (which aren't new) don't make that prediction any more believable. They are vaporware. Airplanes and liquid-fueled rockets (technologies that other people brought up as counterexamples) were never vaporware. Good point about the availability of alternative technologies -- we'd be working a lot harder on lasers if we hadn't perfected guns. However, it's not an accident that we perfected guns first -- they're much easier. Mortabis posted:The reason I heard was that it was a flying tank of poisonous chemicals. Because said poisonous chemicals have the best available power output (still not good enough). hepatizon fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Alternatives to airplanes in the past: staying on the ground, balloons I guess, really tall trees. Balloons got used for some jobs, sometimes in places they weren't appropriate at all. I recall hearing about the US putting one up during the Spanish-American War, which was great until they realized that the Spanish now knew where they were and hadn't previously. It turns out having a big floating gas bag over men in a forests makes their location obvious. Somehow they kept doing aerial artillery observation and recon. Cyrano4747 posted:I'm just hoping we actually have legit no-bullshit space races this time. As in, simultaneous blast offs from Kennedy and Baikonur, first one around the moon and back wins. Where will you fit the floats to do a proper Schneider Trophy race though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Laser weapons (really, all directed energy weapons) have a ton of potential and offer quantum leaps in some capability areas (cost per shot, magazine depth, responsiveness etc).hepatizon posted:They are vaporware. Not really, no. Sea and land based tech demonstrators are employing weaponized lasers and masers right now today this very day. There are a lot of operational issues and some tech issues to overcome as every system has but there isn't really any reason to think that they won't become operationally useful relatively soon. bewbies fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Not really, no. Sea and land based tech demonstrators are employing weaponized lasers and masers right now today this very day. There are a lot of operational issues and some tech issues to overcome as every system has but there isn't really any reason to think that they won't become operationally useful relatively soon. I want to believe, but this is indistinguishable from what people said in 2004. What are the key improvements since then? Do we have multi-megawatt solid-state lasers yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:I want to believe, but this is indistinguishable from what people said in 2004. Well since then we've shot down mortars, UAVs, and SRBMs with lasers while mounted on on truck, aircraft, and ship-sized systems. And anti-satellite lasers are a thing, not in the sense of shooting down a satellite from the ground, obviously, but in tech that allows lasers to interfere with imagery collection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Um. Thank you. At this point I'm just glad it wasn't a complete figment of my imagination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
You know what, gently caress Goddard so much. They probably made him up in the 40's when they figured out all the important stuff was already invented by Germans and Russian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
I guess it's about time to post this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTx_qTwQqjU
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Well since then we've shot down mortars, UAVs, and SRBMs with lasers while mounted on on truck, aircraft, and ship-sized systems. THEL and YAL-1, the mortar/SRBM-killing platforms I assume you were referring to, were both operational in or before 2004, and they were canceled because they sucked. Are there replacements that suck less? Shooting down a compliant UAV is not exactly a game-changer. VVVV low-altitude for starters hepatizon fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
What's a non-compliant UAV?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Let's be honest, the main reason people are so hostile to  lasers is that we'd have to admit that Grover was maybe partially right about something.Do we really want to do that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Godholio posted:What's a non-compliant UAV? All of them. Doubly so for the Army's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:All of them. I think you mean Germany.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
The drones that sell loose cigarettes are judged the most non compliant of all
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Grover may be dead and buried under a pile of formerly load-bearing drywall, but it seems his spirit lives on in many of you!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
LeadSled posted:we'd have to admit that Grover was maybe partially right about something. stopped clock, etc
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:
No, don't puss out on this. You're making bullshit claims. Give us something besides "the tech isn't mature yet." There's no such thing as a compliant UAV. I assume you're using a phrase like that because it was moving in a straight line, at a reasonable altitude. Guess what...that's what they do. Low-altitude makes them easy targets from the ground. Honestly a medium or high altitude, small or LO UAV is the hardest to target because it's the hardest to acquire in the first place. If it's flying low enough to try to lose itself in the ground returns it's flying low enough to gain the attention of people on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Godholio posted:No, don't puss out on this. You're making bullshit claims. Give us something besides "the tech isn't mature yet." By "compliant" I mean these tests involve trivial targets under trivial conditions. Low altitude makes the test easy because the beam is less attenuated. Also, the drone was a ScanEagle, which is too tiny to carry weapons. Also the pilot makes no attempt to maneuver. It's a turkey shoot. I really don't get why shooting down a drone would impress anyone -- they could have done that in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Hitting something that is maneuvering isn't a function of the laser, it's the tracking system. And in the case of a laser that is nearly instantaneous hit at great distances it shouldn't be that hard. Basically if you get in the range of a laser that can burn fist sized plus holes into your fuselage it doesn't really matter what you're flying, it's a turkey shoot 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:I don't get the laser hype either, but for completely different reasons. Isn't it just a fair-weather system? How would it work at all in fog, rain or snow? I mean, sure, it's a good response to this asymmetrical warfare poo poo with people in speedboats which also rely on fair weather, but I really can't see it completely replacing conventional CIWS when it comes to shooting down cruise missiles in the north Atlantic in winter. This is exactly what I was going to post, and I haven't seen it addressed yet. Someone who's smarter than me on lasers (read: almost everyone), any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
priznat posted:Hitting something that is maneuvering isn't a function of the laser, it's the tracking system. And in the case of a laser that is nearly instantaneous hit at great distances it shouldn't be that hard. I think it's the tracking and stabilization that's the highlight, even if the lasers still have mountains to cross. This older video of the HEL-MD is a better example IMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Ok6DICyzk Mazz fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
priznat posted:Hitting something that is maneuvering isn't a function of the laser, it's the tracking system. And in the case of a laser that is nearly instantaneous hit at great distances it shouldn't be that hard. "Instantaneous" doesn't help much when you have to keep the beam trained on that same fist-size spot for several seconds. The tracking system can't do that without a lot of help from the target.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
I dunno, I think you're overestimating the ability for aircraft or missiles to maneuver in ways that the tracking couldn't compensate for. It's pretty interesting stuff, not quite the "death ray" yet, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
priznat posted:I dunno, I think you're overestimating the ability for aircraft or missiles to maneuver in ways that the tracking couldn't compensate for. Tracking can't compensate for the hot spot being rolled out of view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
That's a good point. They'll have to figure out a way to project more energy for quicker burning. How effective would a laser detection system be on the potential targets, ie would they be able to tell that their fuselage is being targeted? There's probably scatter all over the place from lasers in a combat zone so there could be a lot of false positives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 07:00
|
|