Anti-aircraft laser unveiled at Farnborough Airshow
- Thread starter DFW
- Start date
far-trader
Mongoose
Colour me unimpressed, yet 
From the article: Peter Felstead, editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, told BBC News:
"OK, so a UAV isn't armoured, nor is it flying fast,... "
...not to mention it wasn't evading. Oops, I mentioned it
" ...but as you can see from the video they shot it down in flames," he said.
Yes, after a dwell time of 7 or 8 seconds on that slow, soft, non-evading target. And no way to tell from the video how long it took to get a target lock since it starts pretty much with the actual lock. And a whole host of other hurdles yet to clear. Got a long way to go yet before it would seem to be combat field ready. Seems a bit premature to be celebrating.
From the article: Peter Felstead, editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, told BBC News:
"OK, so a UAV isn't armoured, nor is it flying fast,... "
...not to mention it wasn't evading. Oops, I mentioned it
" ...but as you can see from the video they shot it down in flames," he said.
Yes, after a dwell time of 7 or 8 seconds on that slow, soft, non-evading target. And no way to tell from the video how long it took to get a target lock since it starts pretty much with the actual lock. And a whole host of other hurdles yet to clear. Got a long way to go yet before it would seem to be combat field ready. Seems a bit premature to be celebrating.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
DFW said:far-trader said:
If you only knew...
well, yeah. If only....
got some inside dirt ? Dish, dish.
Follow one of the links to earlier articles, e.g. Record power for military laser, 22 February 2007:
The one demonstrated at Farnborough, according to the article of 19th July 2010, produces a 50kW beam. So much for a 100kW laser in six to eight months...
It also helps if the target is painted a nice absorbent black, as that UAV seemed to be. On the other hand, if the target is brightly reflective, it's easier for other weapons to spot.
The one demonstrated at Farnborough, according to the article of 19th July 2010, produces a 50kW beam. So much for a 100kW laser in six to eight months...
It also helps if the target is painted a nice absorbent black, as that UAV seemed to be. On the other hand, if the target is brightly reflective, it's easier for other weapons to spot.
Raytheon's laser bods have a history of doing stuff like this. A previous test with the Laser Area Defense System (which is probably the same one AdrianH is referring to) had the system 'successfully engage mortar rounds' - that were sitting on the deck rather than flying through the air.
Equally, THEL (tactical high energy laser) claims to have shot down mortar salvoes in flight about six years ago with neither hide nor hair seen of the project since.
You'll notice that the boeing Airborne Laser has largely dropped from public view, as well - there was a declared successful 'hit' on a ballistic missile target August 10 last year, but that was with a 'low-power beam' rather than the full monty. The first high-energy attack on a missile was supposed to be late 2009, but I've not seen anything about it.
The only declared 'attack' test was on a stationary vehicle
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=817
But there's no detail on what 'laser beam's energy defeated the vehicle' means in real terms, or, again, over what time-scale the laser strike was delivered.
In short, right at the moment I'm perfectly happy with rapidly moving chunks of metal, thank you very much.
Equally, THEL (tactical high energy laser) claims to have shot down mortar salvoes in flight about six years ago with neither hide nor hair seen of the project since.
You'll notice that the boeing Airborne Laser has largely dropped from public view, as well - there was a declared successful 'hit' on a ballistic missile target August 10 last year, but that was with a 'low-power beam' rather than the full monty. The first high-energy attack on a missile was supposed to be late 2009, but I've not seen anything about it.
The only declared 'attack' test was on a stationary vehicle
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=817
But there's no detail on what 'laser beam's energy defeated the vehicle' means in real terms, or, again, over what time-scale the laser strike was delivered.
In short, right at the moment I'm perfectly happy with rapidly moving chunks of metal, thank you very much.
Over here there is not much interest in laser weapons left. In ground com-locarno24 said:
bat they are too vulnerable to rain, dust, fog or smoke, natural or artifici-
al, and as anti-air weapons they have still to demonstrate that they can
achieve anything a much less expensive missile can not do, and they also
need more infrastructure and their power requirements make them more
difficult to hide.
shotgun-toting chipmunk
Mongoose
IMO lasers won't have a practical lethal application beyond targetting until we start putting weapons in space to shoot at other things in space. Atmosphere does not play nice.
justacaveman
Mongoose
Remember this is the unclassified info that they're willing to release. This could be the best they're capable of, they could also be sandbagging.
The U. S. Government denied the existance of stealth planes for years after they had been in use. They still won't comment on the existance of Delta teams (They do exist.). The government denied that the NSA existed for decades.
On the other hand they claimed significant progress in the so-called Star Wars ABM program, when they had made none.
Everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
The U. S. Government denied the existance of stealth planes for years after they had been in use. They still won't comment on the existance of Delta teams (They do exist.). The government denied that the NSA existed for decades.
On the other hand they claimed significant progress in the so-called Star Wars ABM program, when they had made none.
Everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Who could that have been - the Chinese and the Soviets can not haveDFW said:
been the target, they did not believe it for a second, because they had
excellent intelligence sources deep within the US military system.
The only target I can think of were the US taxpayers who were made
to believe that it was a great idea to spend a couple more billions in or-
der to make a few companies happy.
Ah, well, but this is politics, so obviously off topic - sorry. :roll:
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
DFW said:
CLICK. Next channel.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Somebody said:
Supreme Headquarters, Alien Defense Organization.
Military Alien Response Squadron
And the infamous part III of the Official Secrets Act (UK) which is illegal to reveal to one who has not signed it.........
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Not forgetting:
United Nations Intelligence Taskforce.
United Nations Intelligence Taskforce.
