Laser Weapons In U.S. Sights

[dArKeR]

U.S. scientists are on the verge of creating a laser weapon that could give American forces an awesome advantage on the battlefield, but would also raise tough questions for Pentagon war planners, a newspaper reports.

After 40 years of work, the Pentagon may have a solid-state laser in its arsenal within a decade, reports the Oakland Tribune.

Compared to the chemical lasers now in use by America's military, solid-state lasers would be compact and efficient — perhaps running off the engine of an Army Humvee or an Air Force F-16.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/20/tech/main578998.shtml

Yeah! The year 2003 in the year of our Lord. Let's spend more money to learn new ways to murder people while we let our nation die. No jobs, no health care, poor education, Walmart paying its workers less than poverty rates with 30% less health... What a proud Bush Family example of what America should be.

[flamingyouth]

1. What I call a "Laser"

Sorry, couldn't help the gratuitous Dr. Evil reference in this circumstance.

[BloodyWilliam]

2. I don't support them, but I DO want one...

[leftyandproud]

7. same here...I'm just evil like that ;) NT

[bemildred]

3. This is drool.

Marketing drool for the military industrial complex.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. Hot Tip:

They already exist and they have already taken war shots.

[ewagner]

5. Proof? Documentation? n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. Whoow Nellie! Don't point that thing at me!

Yeah, they are all real -- the livermore fusion pumped laser, the ray gun that slowed down the Beatles in Buckingham Palace, and Santa too!

[NickB79]

6. I could see some potential drawbacks to laser weaponry

Lasers do have the potential to give a very powerful destructive force to a target at long distances, but for REALLY long range when you're shooting over the horizon, or when shooting over hills and in wooded areas, something that can lob a shell (like a mortar, howitzer, or at sea on a battleship) would definitey be preferable. Same goes for cruise missiles. You can't fire a laser past a certain distance before the curvature of the Earth becomes too great. For fighter jets these would be ideal though: you can't dodge a laser beam fired at 186,000 MPH no matter how talented you are. I don't think we'll be seeing lasers replace most conventional weaponry any time soon.

I did read something last year about this already; it mentioned plans to install laser weapons as replacements for the conventional 20mm cannons on the new F-22 and F-35 fighters they're developing for release around 2008-2010.

[leftyandproud]

8. read in popular science...

these things will be used ON THE BATTLEFIELD...They will have portable anti-missle lasers to be mounted on hummeres, and jet bombers flying overhead can use a laser to take out like 3 anti aircraft missles SUMLTANEOUSLY!!! I don't want to see these used in an offensive, but if we are fighting anyway, and if they will save the lives of our pilots and soldiers, go for it.

[tlb]

9. I recall pictures of an army laser rifle from the 1960s

Too weak and bulky to be a practical weapon of course, but as the article says, it's 40 years of R&D. It has always been only a matter of time.

[PennyLane]

10. Isn't This The Technology........

......the FBI stole from Nikolai Tessla's apartment after his death?
Has anyone ever read anything about this?

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. I think that one became the Ronco Bug Zapper

[Devils Advocate NZ]

13. I wonder how they overcame atmospheric lensing?

The big problem with laser weapons used to be that any weapon powerful enough to cause damage to a target would "boil" the air through which it travelled, causing the air to become turbulent and thus dissipate the energy of the beam.

They talk in the article of using pulses. Perhaps they have figured out a pulse rate that delivers enough energy to the target without causing atmospheric lensing.

The question I have is, if they have developed lasers to such a degree, why are they spending billions on a missile based Missile Defence Shield? Surely powerful lasers would be far better at taking out incoming warheads than other missiles, especially as you can keep firing until you run out of electricity?

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Range

I think the issue is probably one of range. Battlefield range is relatively small compared to the range needed to shoot down missiles.

[ErasureAcer]

15. they need to make phasers

ala star trek...so they can set them to stun.

[Robb]

16. Every three months

...Someone does a "they probably have laser weapons going now" story. And every six or eight they might mention RF interference weapons, which are much more interesting from a tactical perspective, but far less "sexy". The point is, even Jane's believes we've got these new products rollin'.

Read up on my links page, most of the high-power microwave position papers include a laser element in the discussion. Directed Energy: it's not just phasers anymore. :silly: