Laser Weapon Operational

[Cyberman]

Wouldn't the retro-reflective paint used in street signs be cheaper, lighter and more reliable?

Yes, but angle reflector has the added benefit of always reflecting essentially the entire laser beam impinging upon it back to exactly where the laser beam came from.

Why simply reflect the laser in diffused pattern when you can flatter the laser weapon by returning its own compliments?

I'm not sure of the optical logistics involved, but that's largely how retro-reflective signs work - by reflecting the light back along the same axis. There's probably some scattering going on but basically that's why you can see it brightest from head on, while not so much from outside the vehicle. The TV and cinematic trick of front-axial projection works in the same way.

[The Grand Nudger]

Society with an energy crisis decides to turn energy into ammunition-directly. What could go wrong.

[thesummerqueen]

You can heat yourself by pulling yourself up with your bootstraps, Rhythm, and walking wherever you gotta go. It was good enough for grandpappy.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know, I shouldn't be such a pussy, I hear gnawing on things, like frostbitten limbs..also generates heat.
(baby oil lamps maybe?)

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd imagine the operating frequency of a laser weapon would be useful information to an opponent.

---

Here's the photo with the article:

---

I think they're doing more than interfering with comm, as is also indicated by this paragraph:


They're using this as a weapon to repel small craft, according to the article.

Thats why I think it's a blue laser. The luminisity doesn't need to be too high to melt through metal with a blue laser. A UV laser would have more energy per photon, but the article mentioned a "dazzle" option. This suggest to me that they're still operating in the visible light range.

My point wasn't about operating frequency, but rather usage. Whatever the frequency is, they're clearly intending it as a destructive weapon, as well as having a dazzle option.

I'm willing to bet that another use being considered for deployment would be as a replacement for the CIWS missile defenses mounted on our aircraft carriers and Aegis-equipped warships.

[Heywood]

I'm willing to bet that another use being considered for deployment would be as a replacement for the CIWS missile defenses mounted on our aircraft carriers and Aegis-equipped warships.

The problem with using it to shoot down missiles is that missiles can be spun while in flight making it difficult for the laser to target a spot long enough for burn through and destruction.

Against ships, I suppose a ship could pump sea water through a series of mist making devices. The goal would be to envelope the ship in a mist which would scatter diffuse the laser.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm willing to bet that another use being considered for deployment would be as a replacement for the CIWS missile defenses mounted on our aircraft carriers and Aegis-equipped warships.

The problem with using it to shoot down missiles is that missiles can be spun while in flight making it difficult for the laser to target a spot long enough for burn through and destruction.

The US and Israelis have already used lasers to down artillery shells in flight, which of course are also spinning.

The idea of misting seems pretty interesting, for larger vessels.

[Anomalocaris]

Society with an energy crisis decides to turn energy into ammunition-directly. What could go wrong.

The total amount of energy consumed in process of resource extraction and fabrication of normal conventional metal encased explosive ammunition considerably exceeds the amount of energy the ammunition can usually deliver to target. So turning energy directly into laser ammunition in the long run may well represent a considerable savings in total energy consumed.

You can think of it this way. The total amount of useable chemical energy contained in the fuel that a cruiser carries in her fuel bunkers vastly exceeds the total amount of chemical energy contained in all the conventional munition she carries. Where as a typical ship may only ever consume 1-2 entire magazine load of ammunition during her entire service life, she would go through several bunkerfuls of fuel oil each month. So only an very small portion of the total energy consumed by any warship during her entire service life would be in the form of ammunition going bang! Vast majority of the energy goes into churning water and sending hot exhaust up the smoke stack.

The reason why one does not normally perceived this proportion is energy in the fuel is normally released over a period of weeks, or if the ship catches fire, many hours, where as the energy in the munition is typically released in milliseconds to microseconds. So release of energy from munition is more spectacular.

If a ship could extract some of the energy in her fuel to convert into munition, she would gain considerably in total firepower, in terms energy available for delivery to target, over any reasonable amount of conventional weapons and munitions she could carry.


Weapons are powerful because they deliver energy at an extremely high rate, not because they deliver a whole lot of energy. The total amount of energy embodied even in nuclear weapons is actually very low in the overall scheme of energy consumed by our civilization. Think of it this way, each time a commercial passenger liner flies across the pacific ocean, it burns as much energy in jet fuel as contained in a medium sized tactical nuclear weapon.

When a large fossil fuel powered aircraft carrier burns up one tank ful of fuel (if she is steaming fast she could do that in a 3-4 days) she has burned up several times the energy released by the Hiroshima bomb.

The total amount of fuel energy burned by a medium sized electrical utility in one year to supply a city of 2-3 million exceed the total energy delivered by Czar Bomba, the largest hydrogen bomb ever exploded by man.

[The Grand Nudger]

The total amount of energy consumed in process of resource extraction and fabrication of normal conventional metal encased explosive ammunition considerably exceeds the amount of energy the ammunition can usually deliver to target. So turning energy directly into laser ammunition in the long run may well represent a considerable savings in total energy consumed.

It may, we'll need -much- better lasers though. A much better way of extracting/producing energy, and chiefly.... a much better way of storing it (ala a magazine in the case of a useful weapon). I wonder what the RoF on that thing is, btw?
(pew pew).

[nik]

I wonder how soon it would be before people start to install angle reflectors on their missiles so any laser beam pointed at the missile will be reflected back to the laser projectors and damage or destroy it.

The difference between a laser weapon and a projectile weapon is a target can reflect the laser straight back at the laser gun. No one had invented anything that can bounce a bullet straight back at the gun that fired it.

my question is how long before we start shooting these at reflectors on satellites? science fiction laser orbital strikes are just around the corner guys and its scary as hell (for christians) or faith (for atheists)