Artillery shell shot down by laser!

[Sadico 1]

Soon we'll see artillery shells covered with mirrors to deflect the lasers, or maybe rockets with smoke generators so they can't be hit by the laser.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Nov. 06 2002,09:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Soon we'll see artillery shells covered with mirrors to deflect the lasers<span id='postcolor'>

interesting idea. However, I don'ty think the surface would remain reflective enough after the concussion in the gun tube.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">or maybe rockets with smoke generators so they can't be hit by the laser. <span id='postcolor'>

smoke generators don't do anything to lasers. it only makes them visible.

oh how the "King of Battle" has been dethroned

remember though, this is in a controlled environment. I imagine it will take some time to get it to battlefield reliability.

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">smoke generators don't do anything to lasers. it only makes them visible.<span id='postcolor'>

Visible light and infrared doesn't go through smoke as far as i know, but i don't know what frequency is used in that laser. Maybe the russians will outfit their missiles with that plasma generator they wanted to use in the MFI, photons can't go through plasma.

[Lord Ryan 0]

hum

i dont think its a real advantage

imagine using hundreds of canons they couldnt destroy em all

[Sadico 1]

Yeah, i doubt it can be really useful against a soviet style barrage of hundreds of cannons, but against a few artillery rockets like in Israel it can be very good.

[KingBeast 0]

How much do we actually know about this system? I mean surely they had to target the artillery shell first, before it was fired, and then shot it down in mid air? Because i doubt very much this system just "detected" a shell flying through the air, quickly targeted it, and then show it down.

Its a beginning and the technology sounds useful, but dont overestimate it i would say.

[Mister Frag 0]

Detecting and tracking artillery shells in flight using radar has been a staple of modern militaries for many years.

The ability to do this is important for pinpointing enemy artillery positions and directing counter-fire.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Nov. 06 2002,14:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How much do we actually know about this system? I mean surely they had to target the artillery shell first, before it was fired, and then shot it down in mid air? Because i doubt very much this system just "detected" a shell flying through the air, quickly targeted it, and then show it down.

Its a beginning and the technology sounds useful, but dont overestimate it i would say.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it does all that... picks up on the shell, tracks a few points, determines trajectory, fires. That's the big deal about it I think.

EDIT: Similar to automatic anti air defence systems that some ships and bombers have...

[Harnu 0]

What are all you Europeans afraid of?

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Nov. 06 2002,16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What are all you Europeans afraid of?<span id='postcolor'>

obsolescence?

I think the shift toward defensive oriented measures is a good direction for military R&D.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Nov. 06 2002,22:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What are all you Europeans afraid of?<span id='postcolor'>

Bush Doctrine 2.0

[Harnu 0]

Offense is as important as defense. And it's not like were gonna start taking over Europe any time soon.

[edc 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And it's not like were gonna start taking over Europe any time soon.<span id='postcolor'>

Though with all the prejudice towards Americans from euros on this forum I'd support it.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Nov. 06 2002,16:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And it's not like were gonna start taking over Europe any time soon.<span id='postcolor'>

Though with all the prejudice towards Americans from euros on this forum I'd support it. <span id='postcolor'>

no no no. all you'd hafta do would be to get the French and Germans quarreling again. it will naturally go downhill from there

[FallenPaladin 0]

Well, thanks...

[advocatexxx 0]

If this system can infact detect something as small and fast as an artillery projectile, not to mention have the capability of destroying it, then think of what it can do against airplanes. They're much bigger and slower so targetting their engines/fuel tanks/weapons and melting them to hot shit wouldn't be a problem right ?

Just think of what Osama could do with this. Every weapon has its counter-use. Same goes for nukes. They're likely never to be used, rather serve as "scare" items, though had they never been invented then all the resources and time could have been spent on something far more productive than researching the most efficient way of annihilating millions of people.

[Saturnalia 0]

If memory serves, plans exist to equip the F-35 (JSF) with a 100 kW laser capable of air and possibly space attack.

Macross Plus anyone?

Link #1

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ Nov. 06 2002,14:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ Nov. 06 2002,07:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Full battlefield automatisation would be bad.

A war is pointless if there are no soldiers fighting putting their asses on the line for a cause they believe in(or in most cases command)

Fully automated war would just mean huge wasted resources.War'd be started quicker by stronger states since they don't risk any lives.

But yeah well,this is a good defense system,would be interesting on a tank  

(I think I've been watching too much gundam wing)<span id='postcolor'>

Lol. Resources are always wasted in mass quantities in any war.  That plus many, many, many human casualties.  If one can be avoided of the two then I'm for it.

Wars are fought with military hardware.  Once a country's military has been defeated the country is considered defenseless.  If we can make robots, have them fight then why not.  Although this technique would decrease the human population control doctrine.  An all out nuclear war with India and China would definitely free up some oxygen and tons of recources.<span id='postcolor'>

not to mention all the gases from cow poo

[Lazarus_Long 0]

My knowledge of optics and laser technology may be a bit rusty, but how does this laser actually destroy the projectile?  From my understanding lasers don't exactly behave like the blasters in Star Wars that seem to explode on impact.  I assume that in this case the laser beam locks on to the target and heats it up to some ludicrus temprature.  I can see how this could easily destroy a missile by frying its circuitry, but an artillery shell?  I guess it must heat up enough to ignite the explosives inside.  That sounds like one hell of a powerful laser.  I did'nt even know we could get them that hot using todays technology.  

Any physics majors in here care to shed some light on this?

[ralphwiggum 6]

i'm no physics major, but my understanding is that for missiles, laser will make enough dents(reduce density) so that pressure of flying would deepen the weakened part until they are open and rendered useless.

[Sadico 1]

The USAF Airborne Laser (a 747-400F with a high energy chemical laser) destroys theather ballistic missiles puncturing their fuel tanks during the boost phase.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

I'd say the best way to counter artillery fire would be to make sure you didn't get anyone pissed off enough that they'd fire one at you. If only things were that simple...

[DarkLight 0]

Naaaah there's a better solution, nuke the 'bad guys' before they even reach their stupid artillery!

Gosh, another great idea by DarkLight!

[Sam Samson 0]

I wonder what took them so long. the army has been experimenting with x-ray laser cannons ever since president reagan's days.

[Sadico 1]

Adaptive optics i guess. That lasers use computer-controlled deformable mirrors to shape the laser beam and focus it on the target. The atmosphere distorts the beam and without that, the range of the laser would be very limited because most of it's energy would be lost. That technology was developed quite recently for use in telescopes.