Lasers only a decade-off!

Check this out: US Lasers.


Synopsis: The next generation aerial gunship of the popular AC-130U Spectre series will feature a laser weapon to destroy missiles, aircraft, and ground targets. This is not fiction, this is fact. And the 'Son of Spectre' could be deployed as soon as two years. It also gets into the predictions that once laser power packs can be shrunk, they will be used as armament on fighters, bombers, and helicopters.

Pretty neat, huh? It's not quite an XJ3 X-wing, but close enough.

EDIT: I dont know why the link isn't working. I suppose you'll have to cut'n paste.

 

awesome, I've been waiting for this type of news!

 

This is old news. We've had lasers for a loooong time-they've just been too big to put on a helicopter.

And, just to burst your bubble, the lasers they're mounting on those gunships are targeting lasers for the National Missile Defense (another horrible bush concoction), not combat lasers.

Anyway.

 

No, these are combat lasers! I can tell the difference between targeting lasers and combat lasers. It's not the ABL, either. It is the first combat aircraft to use a laser as a weapon. This is the real deal.

 

I saw a popular mechanics cover that mentioned something about that in the store recently. Maybe I'll look into picking it up if it's still on news stands around here.

 

"And, just to burst your bubble, the lasers they're mounting on those gunships are targeting lasers for the National Missile Defense (another horrible bush concoction), not combat lasers."

Bush concoction? Hmmmm, well, I guess you weren't paying much attention to laser weapon systems in the eighties. Ever heard of Star Wars? SDI, (the Strategic Defense Initiative)? If not I suggest you look them up. Not to burst your bubble or anything, but these were around long before the current president.

Bush did not come up with or concoct the "horrible", as you say, idea of NMD. He just invested more money into some aspects of it.

However, the Bush administation hasn't invested in the laser side of NMD. The main funding for SDI is currently nearly all going for missile interceptor technology, which by the way is working out magnificently.

There are no such things as "targeting lasers" in SDI research, seeing as the missile interceptors rely on radar and passive heat sensors for their targeting data.

The lasers being mounted on the gunships described will be deployed to destroy and disable air-air and ground-ground missiles, as well as helocopters, armored ground vehicles and other planes. If that is not combat use of a gunship-based laser, what would be?

If a lasers primary use is combat, then I submit that it is a "combat laser".

 

Right, they're not a Bush concoction- they're a Republican concoction.

 

Surface to Surface. Basically, same thing as saying ground to ground, but surface to surface is correct, especially when one uses the anycronym for various missiles.

• SAM= Surface to Air Missile


• AGM= Air to Ground Missile


• SSM= Surface to Surface Missile


• AAM= Air to Air Missile


The funny thing is the AGM would suggest a GGM missile. I'll have to check to see if there is an ASM for attacking ships with since water is a surface, but not ground. And SSM's can strike targets from any kind of surface.

 

ASM = stands for Anti-Ship Missile, but it's only a description for sea-borne of AGMs. AGM-84 Harpoon is an example, anti-ship but keeps the AGM prefix.

 

That stuff has been around since the 80's man. They couldn't test em, becuase if they hit an airplane in airspace, it would slice it in half, even though they had clearence for airspace, it was too big of a risk.

 

You're missing the facts. They ARE putting a combat laser on an operational plance that will use it as a weapon. They're not testing it, I know they have been since the early '80s. It's gotten to where they can fit it inside a Spectre Gunship, and use it as a weapon.

I'm saying is, it's past the feasability stage, and is being developed as a weapon, not an experiment. It's not a question anymore.

They will put a laser on an aircraft.

 

My bad on "ground to ground", no idea what I was thinking when I wrote that. Thank you for correcting me.

BTW, on the SDI, IMO it served a brilliant political purpose in the day of its conception. The effect it had on the Russians, even without being built and considering the amount of media angst over its conception was astounding. The entire story of the program and its political ramifications makes good reading.
(;])

 

Thanks KansasNavy, saves me from having to get out one of the bluejackets manuals I have around here.

Also, I would like to add that I can understand why Bush wants to put his Strategic Missile Defense system in place. However, I don't nessicarily agree that it should be done. Star Wars was certainly one thing in the 80s, and the notion did act as a potential deterent. However, it seems that the US and Russia were always coming up with new deterents and threats to each other during the Cold War. But this new round of Star Wars seems more likely to actually provoke some into developing such weapons even faster than they already have been doing so. And not only that, but do so in a way that renders SMD null and void. It's like saying "We have something to stop you from attacking us, now why don't you try and top that."

 

Oi... this topic always bothers me. The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) setup we've had ever since the '40s (when we first started playing with nukes and the Russians joined us in the sandbox) had worked well. Everyone understood that once one stupid person pressed the big red button (you know, the one that says in bright bold letters 'DO NOT TOUCH'), the entire world would be destroyed. And just to make _sure_ that this would always be in place, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 1972 or 1973 (can never remember which) stated very clearly that neiter the US or Russia, the two superpowers at the time, would develop, help to develop, or deploy any system which might allow them to protect themselves from the missiles. Everyone was fine an good with this... 'til SOMEONE (we won't mention any names) decided to whip up the Star Wars plan.
Personally, I just think this was a cover for the first planetary defense platforms to protect us from an invasion an all that, but... who knows.
Anyway... Star Wars was basically scrapped. Everyone was happy again. But then... Our current illustrious (notorious?) president decides to take it upon himself to break a treaty that's been in effect for 30-ish years and say 'No, we're better, we want to make sure that if we push the button, we'll survive'.
Selfish, non?

(BTW - Nice republican crack, Cat )

 

Do you know why it was scrapped? Becuase the couldn't test it. It was too big of a risk they might have hit an airplane, and slice it in half.

 

Black_Hole,

You have been reading too much Star Wars... We do not have lasers that could simply "slice through" an airplane while it is in flight. That is not at all how the anti-missile or anti-radar lasers are designed to work.

The way that a laser cuts through metal is by transferring energy (tranformed into heat) into a confined area of the metal, causing it to melt or burn. However, this requires a great deal of energy and time to do, depending on the laser, the metal and the atmospheric conditions (because some of the heat is transferred to the atmosphere and changes its optical properties, an effect called atmosperic blooming).

Instead, anti-missile and anti-radar lasers are designed to transfer enough heat to the target to damage the electronics and/or destroy the explosives in the missile or radar. Even this is only effective over a short range because of the atmospheric blooming effects.

The lower-energy a laser is, the farther it can go in an atmosphere without atmospheric blooming. However, past a certain point, it cannot transfer enough heat to damage the target.

Kimball Kinnison

 

The US has been developing combat lasers since '83 during which a specialy outfitted Air Force plane had some kinda primitive gas firing divice kinda like a blaster.

 

Chiss, you sure you're not thinking of that bad B movie from the 80s where the US was about to be hit by missiles, but the gov. pulled out some big laser from some secret compound and shot 'em all?
Or are you thinking about that asteroid movie from a few years back where they put the chemical lasers on the three F-16s to try and hit the asteroids?

If memory serves, the military is working on particle beam weapons at the moment, but there's only been limited success with them... not enough to 'slice an airplane in half'

 

No, not a movie, I sawe it in a book while doing a science project on hologrames.

 

If they are combat lasers, then go kill Bin Laden before he becomes the next Vader
"Bush I am your father"

 

"But this new round of Star Wars seems more likely to actually provoke some into developing such weapons even faster than they already have been doing so. And not only that, but do so in a way that renders SMD null and void. It's like saying "We have something to stop you from attacking us, now why don't you try and top that." "

That is like saying that we should stop trying to find innoculations for diseases because new viri will always arise. The idea of SMD is to render ICBMs null and void. As time moves on, more and more countries are developing both nukes and the boosters to carry them. If we don't have a defense against that attack, why are we worrying what attacks will be developed in the future?

I for one am not content to let our defense technology stagnate simply because someone might someday come up with something better. Fact is they already have attacks we can't defend against, and that is the point of SDI.

"Everyone understood that once one stupid person pressed the big red button (you know, the one that says in bright bold letters 'DO NOT TOUCH'), the entire world would be destroyed."

Question: What happens if the guy who pushes the button is a nobody, some terrorist? When that missile levels a city because even though we see it coming we can't stop it, do we blow up the world in response? Truth is we can't respond to that. One single missile fired by some idiot rogue has the capability of killing untold millions of people anywhere on Earth, and nothing could be done, except in some twisted vision of "vengeance." The solution to that is to be able to do something when the missile is coming, namely shoot it down.

"And just to make _sure_ that this would always be in place, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 1972 or 1973 (can never remember which) stated very clearly that neiter the US or Russia, the two superpowers at the time, would develop, help to develop, or deploy any system which might allow them to protect themselves from the missiles."

Does anyone really believe Moscow abided by that treaty? There have been anti-BM sites outside the main Russian cities for years.

The treaty was made, as you said, when the USSR and US were the superpowers, and more importantly when they were the only nations capable of creating a worldwide nuclear holocaust. Now other people have the same weapons, and can do the same damage, and those countries have never signed a treaty. Things change. Thirty years ago is a very long time.

"But then... Our current illustrious (notorious?) president decides to take it upon himself to break a treaty that's been in effect for 30-ish years and say 'No, we're better, we want to make sure that if we push the button, we'll survive'.
Selfish, non? "

The idea is not to create an offensive weapon here! It is a pure defense, an insurance system against attacks. As in, the US is not about to be pushing the button first! The Cold War is over. We are not the imperialists that our enemies of that era made us out to be. The US wants to defend itself from attacks, not reprisals. We aren't evil. The days of US expansionism are long past. We aren't a bunch of idiots that are suddenly going to start lobbing BMs around when we think we've created a good defense system. Geez. Give the US more credit than that.

Never has it been stated that the technology of SDI would be top-secret or a US-only system. The idea is in the works to cover the entire world with this so NOONE can fire an ICBM at ANYONE. Is that a bad idea? I don't think so.

 

Kimball_Kinnison, LOL. My uncle was head of the development team. OK, so it wasn't a laser, but a particle beam that could possibly do that. He didn't (doesn't) tell me much about it, but that is what I gathered from him.

 

"Question: What happens if the guy who pushes the button is a nobody, some terrorist? When that missile levels a city because even though we see it coming we can't stop it, do we blow up the world in response? Truth is we can't respond to that. One single missile fired by some idiot rogue has the capability of killing untold millions of people anywhere on Earth, and nothing could be done, except in some twisted vision of "vengeance." The solution to that is to be able to do something when the missile is coming, namely shoot it down. "

Well, see... The only problem with that is that if a nuke strike happened on US soil, there would be some that automatically launched... Yes, there are launch codes required, yes there are safeguards... but the interceptors would fire. Those that intercept the incoming missiles go boom... its all good. Those that miss have nuclear payloads of their own to strike at strategic targets.

"Does anyone really believe Moscow abided by that treaty? There have been anti-BM sites outside the main Russian cities for years."

Oh, so two wrongs now make a right? Because someone else does it illegally, we can do it too and not feel bad? Hell, lets all just become drug dealers then. They do it illegally!

"The idea is not to create an offensive weapon here! It is a pure defense, an insurance system against attacks. As in, the US is not about to be pushing the button first! The Cold War is over. We are not the imperialists that our enemies of that era made us out to be. The US wants to defend itself from attacks, not reprisals. We aren't evil. The days of US expansionism are long past. We aren't a bunch of idiots that are suddenly going to start lobbing BMs around when we think we've created a good defense system. Geez. Give the US more credit than that.

If we have the ability to blow things up with no fear of reprisal, that makes us more apt to do it. 1847, Lord Acton: 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely'. If we have the power, we'll be tempted to use it. Geez this is a great parable to the Force. You've got to understand that not everyone in the world is a Jedi. There are plenty of Dark Jedi out there. Jedi understand that with power comes a responsibility, and that they should only use their powers at certain times (though Jacen is rather prickish about that, but...), and know that if they slip up, someone's gonna have to pay the price. Dark Jedi take that power and use it to the fullest, thereby getting their goal accomplished with the maximum amount of force, but don't understand that they (or those around them) are gonna have to suffer the consequences.

"Never has it been stated that the technology of SDI would be top-secret or a US-only system. The idea is in the works to cover the entire world with this so NOONE can fire an ICBM at ANYONE. Is that a bad idea? I don't think so. "

Actually, it _has_ been stated that this would be a US-only technology. If it was meant for world consumption, don't you think that it would be run by a _world_ organization like... oh, I don't know... the United Nations?

 

"Well, see... The only problem with that is that if a nuke strike happened on US soil, there would be some that automatically launched... Yes, there are launch codes required, yes there are safeguards... but the interceptors would fire. Those that intercept the incoming missiles go boom... its all good. Those that miss have nuclear payloads of their own to strike at strategic targets."

Are you saying that if a nuke exploded over a US city, some of our own nuclear missiles would automatically be deployed against random, predetermined targets that may or may not be relevant? I think not.

"Oh, so two wrongs now make a right? Because someone else does it illegally, we can do it too and not feel bad? Hell, lets all just become drug dealers then. They do it illegally!"

No, two wrongs do not make a right. However, If I enter into a contract with a company to pay me for my services, and they don't pay me, I am not required to deliver any services. A treaty is a two way bargain. When Germany invaded the USSR in 1941, should Stalin have let them attack and not taken any military action against them just because the Soviet Union had signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler? If one side of a bargain is broken, the other side is null! That was all I was saying.

Drug dealers? Law is law. Law is only a requirement for one side to do or not do something. A treaty is a treaty. Both sides must follow the rules in order for a treaty to be relevant. When one side disobeys the treaty, that treaty is useless. The only thing it would then do is limit one side.

"If we have the ability to blow things up with no fear of reprisal, that makes us more apt to do it. 1847, Lord Acton: 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely'. If we have the power, we'll be tempted to use it. Geez this is a great parable to the Force. You've got to understand that not everyone in the world is a Jedi. There are plenty of Dark Jedi out there. Jedi understand that with power comes a responsibility, and that they should only use their powers at certain times (though Jacen is rather prickish about that, but...), and know that if they slip up, someone's gonna have to pay the price. Dark Jedi take that power and use it to the fullest, thereby getting their goal accomplished with the maximum amount of force, but don't understand that they (or those around them) are gonna have to suffer the consequences. "

I will be as clear on this as I can. I do not want my country to be vaporized because some people don't think that my countrymen are capable of handling power. We had nuclear weapons for nearly a decade before anyone else did. That was power. And what did we do with that power? We ended a war. We didn't start throwing nukes at everyone who had ever pissed us off. We didn't try to take over the world. And if we ever are fully capable of defending against nuclear attack, we will not try then either.

If you really think that as soon as the US is capable of defending itself from nuclear attack, it will start nuking everyone else, then I feel sorry that your worldview is so insecure. With that logic, the only people defending the free world from those evil barbaric Americans are the Russians, the Chinese, and the North Koreans.

I think dark jedi are a bad example here. The power of having nuclear weapons is not a question of individual responsibility or self discipline in the US. No one person ever controls our nukes. No two or three people, either. So this "dark power" of being able to shoot down nukes before they roast our children would have to "corrupt" our highest leaders as well as those military personel manning the launch installations.

We've missed a point here. Humankind is always improving, technology wise. The emergence of new weapons happens all the time. Eventually someone is going to design and implement something that will make ICBMs obscelete. We just want to get there first. And we will.

If you think we will abuse that power, then I have a right to disagree.

"Actually, it _has_ b

 

Off politics for a sec, I think putting a laser on the Spooky is just too cool. Ok, the thing already packs a 105mm howitzer, a 40mm cannon, and a 25mm minigun, plus up to 12 Hellfire missiles. Add a laser . . .

Uncle Sam: As you can see, bin Laden, your suicide bombers and ludicrous rhetoric have failed. Now witness the POWER of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL airborne gunnery platform!

(Emerald beam of light reaches out from the sky, striking a cave in central Asia and vaporizing Osama bin Hidin', leaving only molten rubble and his bat-guano covered beard)

Uncle Sam: This feels good! Now where's that idiot Saddam today?