In this thread on laser artillery interceptions Eyer8 mentions
I thought DAMN! Move over Phalanx!
Under the circumstances it seems like there has been a ton of laser based weapon research. Not long ago I posted a thread on
and the consensus seemed to be that regualr shells are so cheap/plentiful/effective that it wouldn’t be worth the conversion.
Is this changing?
Lockheed/Martin is working on laser armed fighter jets, laser artillery/missle interception is at hand, were we too hasty in our predictions on the age of laser weaponry?
Side question, battery technology has had some improvements over the last few years, how far out are laser based small arms.
So far as I know, the only practical use for lasers in warfare is to target things moving too fast for bullets. With a personal weapon, this occurs essentially never, so even if we had the energy-storage technology, it still wouldn’t be practical.
On the tactical level, I can think of a few reasons:
[ul]
[li]Lasers have no frag or shrapnel, thus, much less collateral damage.[/li][li]The technology may be bulky now, but in say 10/20 years, we may be able to carry a laser platform in a smaller space and a lighter weight than a typical projectile weapon plus ammo.[/li][li]Projectile weapons are subject to gravity. Lasers ain’t.[/li][li]A “burst” of laser travels much quicker than a projectile. Less reaction time from OPFOR (which will probably never know what hit 'em), and they would be virtually undetectable (no backblast or return).[/li][li]They look cool in battle. Heh? You never watched GI Joe as a kid??[/li][li]Wounds to personnel would be somewhat less “messy”. IR lasers could cauterize a wound closed before OPFOR member bled to death.[/li][li]Lightsabers for all Officers and senior NCOs. Trust me on this. . .[/li][/ul]
Actually I think it would be more likely that body fluids would be flashboiled into steam near the point of impact causing a small steam explosion just inside the target. Ouch.
I assume that you mean over the small distances that battles are typically fought in. I would imagine that many physicists would be intrigued if it was found that gravity no longer exerted any force on photons and other particles.
[ul]
[li]As long as the vehicle in question has fuel it has ammo. The reduction in logistical overhead alone could make a serious difference in feasibility. Combined with small fission reactors for power and you have tanks that only need fuel and or ammo every few years. Yes there is that icy radioactive mess if it takes an engine hit, hopefully its in someone elses country when and if it gets hit.[/li][li]Along the same line survivability could increase dramaticly from the lack of carrying explosive ammo.[/li][li]Hi Opal[/li][li]Smoke, although a deterrent is simply a matter of power level. Smoke particles will get cooked/vaporized by the beam just like armor at the target. Like regular artillery, with sufficent power it won’t matter whats in the way.[/li][li]Less “BIG BOOM” when main weaponry fires. I would imagine you still will have some visible atmospheric effect from air being cooked in the beam path.[/li][/ul]
For a land based laser battery or a ship mounted one you need not worry about ammo. The Phalanx eats ammo like nobodies business. Sure there is a lot of room aborad a ship for it but it still takes up room, poses a hazard in an ammo explosion and so on. I’m sure they could think of other uses for that storage room.
I couldn’t say for certain but I would hope the nuclear reactors aboard an aircraft carrier would be sufficient to provide essentially limitless firing ability. Also, while bullets may be relatively cheap your laser needs nothing but power which you’ve got from your reactors anyway so once installed it’d probably be cheaper to run.
As to gravity light does indeed bend in a gravitational field but photons are not ballistic creatures. Even if I’m wrong on that the speed of light means that in the .000000001 seconds (made that up) it takes to time on target the photon will have dropped imperceptibly. I would guess that the calculations necessary to get a laser on target are far simpler than those for bullets too. The laser won’t drop due to gravity, is unaffected by wind and time to target is as near to zero as makes little difference over any distance we are likely considering here.
You think? I would tend to think you need more time than a short, instantaneous burst of energy to build up that kinda energy in water. I could see if you hit a guy with a (morse code for simplicity’s sake) dah-dah-dah of energy, you’d have three really warm, ‘steaming’ injuries; a dit-dit-dit would only burn out the affected spot and the tissue immediately surrounding it, without the steaming body fluids.
I’m gonna go get my laser pointer, a couple of car batteries, and a watermelon. I’m gonna try this. Now I’m all sorts of curious.
