Truck-Mounted Laser Guns 370
bl8n8r writes "Boeing has announced a contract with the US Army to develop laser cannons that are to be mounted atop 20-ton trucks for the purpose of shooting down incoming artillery, rockets, mortars, or bombs. The High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator project actually shoots stuff instead of just painting a mark on a target for other armament to hit."
I'm so proud (Score:4, Funny)
Next put them in C-130s, or Jeeps, like Rat Patrol.
In this day and age? (Score:3, Funny)
Dude... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, sure, we'll probably sad when they end up used to blind baby seals or to violate the Geneva convention (again), but quit ruining the moment, dammit. You made me misread "cherry truck" as "Cheney truck" and I was afraid I'd get zapped in the face by it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Republican and I found that statement friggin hilarious! Good job!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is cool? (Score:3, Funny)
After the war, torture, Gitmo, NSA's unwarranted wiretapping and all the other crap that has made me ashamed to be an American, I'm glad that we can even for one brief moment have something cool like this.
This is cool? The thing wont even fit on a sharks head... unless the US Army has managed to clone a Megalodon from DNA salvaged from a fossilized tooth or some such artifact in which case they have really pissed off the Navy. The Army should have gone for cloning T-Rexes. Now imagine that, a whole regiment of T-Rexes with lasers on their heads, that would convince those Iraqi insurgents to behave in no time flat. It just goes to show what a mess the Pentagon is still in even though Rumsfeld is long gone.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Whether that's 'fair' or not is another issue altogether. Personally I think as the 'better man' as a country we should stick to those rules on principle. It's unfortunate that the scum on the other side exploit our general unwillingness to break the rules.
Re:Dude... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're wrong. From Article 2, Chapter 1, of the 1st Geneva Convention of 1949:
Note that you're bound to respect the Convention if your opponent is a signatory, OR if your opponent is not a signatory, but chooses to follow the Convention anyway.
Note further that most, if not all, of the instances of the USA violating the Geneva Convention in the current troubles are violations of the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Additional Protocols of the Convention, none of which the USA are signatory to (which means they're not bound by them).
Re:Dude... (Score:4, Informative)
From http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/365?OpenDocument [icrc.org]
Re:Dude... (Score:5, Insightful)
By being a country that has signed the Geneva convention, like the US, Afghanistand and Iraq.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also also, not torturing people is awesome. It should be done for its own sake.
Who are you to talk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I personally don't think Americans fought and died so that we could torture people, or that you speak for the whole country. But that's just me.
And don't give me any flag waving to say that these kinds of gross national failures happen elsewhere or are somehow acceptable. I flew what was probably the biggest damn flag in the state for a good long time.
I don't feel like flying it any more because of all the "patriots" who think that saying "This is the best damn country in the world!" is something you use to excuse problems instead of a reason to acknowledge, fix and rise above them! Dammit, you don't fix things by stuffing your head up your ass! The only way you can NOT feel shame is if you have no damn pride in your country to begin with!
You are no longer of any use to me (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You are no longer of any use to me (Score:4, Funny)
Let's do the math, just coz I'm bored.
The specific heat capacity of stainless steel is 500j/Kg and from this site [engineeringtoolbox.com] I'm going to assume the specific heat capacity of the explosive is the same as "sandy clay" (poor assumption, but this is /. and I can't be bothered doing more research) which is 1381j/Kg.
Lets assume a 5Kg mortar is 40% propellant, 30% explosive and 30% shell, and that you don't have to heat the propellant. The specific heat capacity of a 2.5Kg object with a 50/50 mix of steel and clay by weight is given by:
Lets also say we want to heat the thing from ambient (35 degrees Celcius, coz remember we're in the desers of Iraq) to 100 degrees (I have no idea about explosives, despite the fact that I am a Muslim) in order to detonate it.
100 - 35 = 65 degree deltaAssuming that all energy is absorbed evenly, the formula for energy required is:
Given that watts are a measure of joules per second, assuming you have a quarter of a second "paint time" of the laser on the round, your lazer will need to emit:
(Please note: My assumptions are completely bullshit and this figure is probably way off, but it was fun doing them anyway.)
To put this into perspective, a 20g chocolate biscuit yeilds about 2,200 Kj. So really, forget the billion dollar laser program, just start lobbing chocolate biscuits at your enemy.
If this post wasn't bizarre enough, if you lob that chocolate biscuit fast enough at your enemny for e = mc^2 to come into play, then that same chocolate biscuit will yield:
Just sayin'.
Re:I'm so proud (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the tricky part. You have limited time in which to do this. Also, while I'm not an expert in this stuff, I assume that if you have the mortar spinning, it would be difficult to heat one point to cause a failure.
Once again, I'm not an expert on this stuff and I may be wrong. That said, here's my strategy for defeating one of these: Fire a group of spinning and reflective mortars followed closely by a larger group of "regular" mortars. At worst, the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it depends on what the insurgents are hauling. Sure, for heavy weapons (like artillery and armor), insurgent transport capabilities are pretty crappy. But for small arms and explosives, insurgent transport networks, combined with good caching strategies (like the tunnel-depots in Vietnam) can provide a very robust and reliable supply chain.
Given that
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The are many solutions of hitting a speeding object some of them cheap and other prohibitively expensive and a "Star-Wars laser" is very much on the expensive side. A cheaper solution and one that has been tested with varying degrees of
They're getting smaller every day. (Score:5, Funny)
Today: Truck-mounted laser.
Tomorrow: Shark-mounted laser.
Re:They're getting smaller every day. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and currently it makes some really fine popcorn [wikipedia.org]!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They're getting smaller every day. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
C-RAM (Counter Rocket/Artillery/Mortar) is a great thing for the guy in the field.
And to the guy who talked about blinding baby seals, you don't have to worry about that. If this thing would hit you with a strike that would blind you, you'd be dead anyways with a coagulated brain.
Can't I just make shiny bombs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this a case of billions of investment being defeated by a rag and a can of polish?
Re: (Score:2)
it isn't that hard to do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They're getting smaller every day. (Score:4, Funny)
Tomorrow afternoon: Large tank of water in the back of a truck to carry shark-mounted lasers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:They're getting smaller every day. (Score:4, Funny)
That's great, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's great, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?
Number Two: Sea Bass.
Dr. Evil: [pause] Right.
Number Two: They're mutated sea bass.
Dr. Evil: Are they ill tempered?
Number Two: Absolutely.
Dr. Evil: Oh well, that's a start.
Damnit! (Score:5, Funny)
Sharks, I wanted sharks. Is that so difficult?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to start with the giant man-eating badgers, then you get to build camera mounts for squirrels; only then, do you get to work with the sharks.
The adult in me says (Score:5, Funny)
But the kid in me says...
SA-WEEET!!!!!!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Peace Activist Has To Admit Barrett
Re:The adult in me says (Score:5, Funny)
No, that's the adolescent in you. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's the adolescent in you that says that. It wants to stop killing, hurting, and threatening, and goes after a tool that is capable of such things.
But once you've had enough time and thought to understand the unintended consequences of the simple "solution" - disarming the law-abiding - you'll reach the adult understanding that self-defense requires force, and that a credible threat of retaliatory force produces a net reduction in killing, hurting, and threatening.
"Mutual Assured Destruction" works at both the wholesale level (having prevented an all-out nuclear war for over half a century now) and the retail level (convincing crooks they want to leave you alone and either go after an easier victim or find a new line of work.)
Second-order effects often swamp first-order effects, producing (initially) counter-intuitive results. Part of growing up is learning which situations are like that, and what the useful counter-intuitive solutions are. (To people with less experience this is often mistaken for wisdom, cynicism, or evil.)
Unfortunately there is a significant fraction of the population that either never DOES grow up or never learns some important lessons about rare, but deadly, situations.
Re: (Score:2)
You might find it instructive, before parroting those urban myths and stereotypes, to do a little research on the actual number of people hurt or killed in such incidents per year.
Then ask yourself if preventing such such a vanishingly small number of lives and injuries is worth actually having the enormously greater number that were prevented by with-gun self-defense in the same period.
Of course that's the sort of thing an adult would do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey I have no problem with defensive systems like this.
Sure... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sure... (Score:4, Funny)
a girl's got to have her standards
Oblig. CNC (Score:4, Funny)
Command and Conquer... (Score:2)
power reqs. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Knocking out a barrage of RPG fire is unlikely, RPGs are actually very short ranged, pretty much strickly line of sight, sub 300 meters. There's several different technologies designed to help deal with RPG fire. As for plain bullets, the old technology still work
MTHEL already tested against multiple mortars (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bullet is more likely to be a spinning projectile... the molten blobs would fan out into a ring due to centrifugal force.
Kind of like "snake shot" for your pistol.
I tried to shoot a possum out of a tree with snake shot... I finally hit him with the wad, and knocked him down. Did him in with a shovel. That snake shot stuff is crap.
My analysis (Score:2, Insightful)
Pro: Well-paid engineers and scientists are kept in the U.S. at work on neat toy, keeping valuable talent working on a difficult problem.
Con: Obscenely-paid CEOs who came up with idea to push this useless weapon get a huge payoff, keeping destructive leeches working on the simple problem of continuing corrupt government.
Very useful (defensive) weapon (Score:2)
Today it takes a dedicated 20-ton truck. In three years, there will be a Bradley-mounted design. In 10 or 20, these things would be mounted on helmets to protect individual soldiers.
Stop counting other people's money (CEOs') and rejoice at the progress your side of the war is making.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very useful (defensive) weapon (Score:4, Funny)
Boeing are a member of neither RIAA nor MPAA. What's the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very useful (defensive) weapon (Score:5, Insightful)
False dichotomy. You can rejoice at some aspect of a war (such as fewer deaths), while still looking for "a better way".
So will this be the demise of their ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So will this be the demise of their ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lasers so far are mostly being considered for defensive roles to shoot missiles and artillery down. This is a good role for lasers, since first hitting the target at the speed of light is good when you're trying to hit a small fast moving target, and second because the energy needed to destroy a warhead isn't that large.
Two awesome future technologies, two roles. It's a good time to be a geek.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um, what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, WTF?
MTHEL? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty impressive technology though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This freaking laser beams on freaking trucks sounds a lot like Northrop's Nautilus [jpost.com] project which ended in abject failure.
MTHEL works, but is too bulky (Score:3, Interesting)
First, if you don't know about THEL, see this video. [google.com] Beam weapons aren't a joke any more.
Mobile THEL was a repackaging of the original fixed THEL system into three semitrailers. It's too bulky to deploy and too vulnerable on the ground. This thing is meant to defend against short-ranged mortars, rockets, and artillery. So it has to be sited up near the sharp end. Something more rugged and more mobile is needed.
Now that everyone has seen THEL shooting down rockets, artillery projectiles, and mortar
Dual use? (Score:5, Funny)
YouTube video of prototype (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVxZ9IHTH2E [youtube.com]
Car Wars! (Score:2, Funny)
It won't work... (Score:2)
INTERIOR: DEATH STAR.
Walls buckle and cave in. Troops and equipment are blown in
all directions. Stormtroopers stagger out of the rubble.
Standing in the middle of the chaos, a vision of calm and
foreboding,
Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)
Popcorn for everyone!!!
Quake 3? (Score:5, Funny)
Fess up (Score:5, Funny)
Who wrote that summary, George Bush?
Slashup Mashup (Score:4, Funny)
Boeing has developed a new squirrel mounted laser. Lasers have been mounted to squirrels and released on the Iranian border. Unfortunatly the squirrels were all captured by iranian police, but not after they fried their eyes out.
Cost? $50 million nuts.
When can I get some of this tech? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
dogs (Score:3, Funny)
i need one of these for the dogs next door.
Countermeasures: (Score:3, Interesting)
First one is intercepted halfway to the laser truck, explodes, deploys chaff on detonation.
Second one is intercepted halfway between previous interception, and laser truck, because truck's radar was impaired by chaff, second one explodes, deploys chaff on detonation, closer to truck.
Lather, rinse, repeat, until the radar's range is too short to give the computer enough time to find an intercept solution.
Cost to attacker: 9, $500 chaff shells, + 1 $2000 HE shell.
Cost to defender: $50 Million laser + whatever else the attacker decides to shell with impunity next.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First one is intercepted halfway to the laser truck, explodes, deploys chaff on detonation.
Second one is intercepted halfway between previous interception, and laser truck, because truck's radar was impaired by chaff, second one explodes, deploys chaff on detonation, closer to truck.
So you've reduced your rate of fire by 90%, giving me plenty of time to locate, target and destroy your artillery before you can significantly damage my troops. Makes
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, chaff is usually just a bunch tin foil and other highly reflective materials. None of which would likely stay in the air long enough to make that much difference. Unless you have a lot of mortars or whatever, you might not have a fast enough rate of fire.
Might work in pure mountain air (Score:4, Interesting)
No, not really (Score:5, Informative)
How do clouds and smoke change this? (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess the only consolation is that the enemy will have a harder time seeing you with all the clouds and smoke.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How do clouds of popcorn change this? (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, it works when fired from a satellite! [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
B1 Bomber, not a satellite. The "sales clip" was of a little shuttle-like craft, but the actual test used a B1.
Re:How do clouds of popcorn change this? (Score:5, Funny)
So would this be called Jiffy Chaff?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I watched the film last night, funnily enough
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(Up until a few months ago, I worked 2 rooms over from some of the guys doing the modeling and simulation for this particular system
Re: (Score:2)
What sort of projectile did you assume?
A thin-skinned missile that will blow up when you get through the hull? Or an artillery shell with thicker walls and rotation that will distribute the heat over its surface?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can not deliberately attempt to maim. You can try to kill, and maim as a side effect of a failed kill.
Also, with the strength of this laser, you'd have fried brains along with the blinded eye.