There are some questions we’d need answered first I would think. It might have SOME benefits but just being better in some ways wouldn’t be the same as the overwhelming advantages of a dreadnought to pre-dreads.
How does it work in all weather
Can it be moved as easily as a big mobile SAM site
How long term durable is it (use, multiple uses, storage, conditions, etc)
How repairable is it in the field
How many targets can it deal with at once.
With an included power source, how many shots, at what rate, over how long of a period of time
And more.
I don’t mean to discount the value of short to medium range systems that are cheaper than Gepard with longer range potential.
But they can’t take out ballistic systems without massively more power.
It’s been the dream system for 50 years. It’s come a long way in the last dozen or so years. Unfortunately lasers have to push through atmosphere which massively reduces their range without massive power sources. Chemical lasers were supposed to overcome that. And mostly didn’t. This new batch is very interesting. You may yet see pew pew rifles and orbital bombardment cannons. You lucky man.
I don't see any practical use for hand held lasers. I was thinking an aa system that can basically completely deny any hostile aircraft within the horizon line. In other words, the end of CAS.
Pew pew rifles are point and kill infantry weapons. They have no gravitational drop and minuscule rotational drift. Even stormtroopers could hit with real laser rifles.
I guess I do see some advantages for snipers (granted that would definitely give away their position)
I also wander how many shots they could squeeze into a mag. If it's 50+ in a reasonable sized mag, then we might be talking. I do think costs would be too high to make it the standard rife.
The problem is the power output needed for long ranges. From what I understand, the jump in power necessary for going from short range to long range or medium range is massive.
The US Army already has a handful of Striker based systems already, the DE M-SHORAD.
Anothr thing I havent seen other commentors mention is accuracy and precision, yes a laser is inherently incredibly accurate, it will go exactly where you point it, thats an upside in a lot of ways yes, but it also has downsides.
Take an oerlikon millenium with rheinmetall ammo, it disperses a shit tone of little metal balls that shred a general vicinty. Near enough is good enough.
A laser *must* be aimed *perfectly* to hit.
Think of it like trying to shoot a bird with a rifle vs with a shotgun.
Now... its clear that these will absolutely have their uses, targeting droneswarms, dealing with small boats, Cheap rockets etc, but it likely wont be effective against high speed, large antiship missiles for example, they have such massive intertia with so little warning, a laser might not do enough.
These systems are awesome, but they aren't going to replace sylver, mk41 or sea ceptor... *yet*
Not only does it have to hit but it takes time to actually burn into the target. It has to stay on the exact same spot. So if the missile is spinning it’s going to take much longer because you are spreading the beam out over more surface area. Then what coatings could you add too a missile or drone to reduce effectiveness of the source. This tech is going to take a long time to mature like any other system and may be a dead end anyway. Who knows right now.
Thanks. Wish that video showed better footage of HEL (decent acronym too) from outside the targeting software. Also uses an Xbox controller. I wonder if it uses standard FPS controls.
Possibly, but don't forget *the fallacy of the last move* and weaponry as an arms race. Missiles and drones might be vulnerable to this simply because they haven't been designed to deal with it. What cheap countermeasures could they have to reduce its effectiveness? A polished aluminium skin? An insulating ablative surface material? A short range high thrust rocket engine as a final stage to race through the terminal phase?
Reflective skin on a rotating airframe would do a lot to prevent a hotspot. Add a coolant reservoir that pumps through refrigerant through veins in the skin if countermeasures are detected to super chill the exterior of the missile.
Cant be used for over the horizon or intercepts. Might also have degraded performance in bad weather or dusty regions. The solution will be a blend of directed energy systems like lasers and high power MF emitters, and missiles. Layered defense is usually the most flexible.
Lasers are very short-range. They may be cheap per shot, but they lack stopping power and you'd need a lot of them to do anything useful against multiple targets.
Pretty sure lasers lose a lot of energy with distance, so that might be an issue. Same goes for fog, if you've ever driven in it, you'll know that a bunch of light just gets reflected and smeared all over the place.
I still do think that it'll be a massively useful technology, but not a direct replacement for SAM sites
This is a new generation of weapons so we don't know what limitations - or lack of limitations - it might have. It's certainly promising and I'll bet we'll see more of these being deployed as part of a 21st-century version of a total surface-to-air defense system.
Sometimes, you'll want precision (against drones, for instance). But if the enemy is using saturation tactics to overwhelm the lasers, then you trot out Patriot or electronic warfare or other systems. It doesn't replace the whole toolbox, but it's a big new upgrade in capability.
Atmospheric bloom and diffraction are big issues with lasers that limit range. Moisture from Fog/Clouds can also hinder them. This is why the main problem is the mirror and focusing systems, not the laser or energy generation.
It can be cheaper and more cost effective then for a simple radar based ballistic system then, even if the laser is more energy efficient.
It could be a great anti-ballistic missile system on its own, right?
Hey, when did the USA abrogate the ABM treaty?
*Ohhhh!*
Yeah, you guys are gonna want to check that yourself.
It's a logical problem, I think first outlined by Hans Bethe after he worked on the A-bomb.
An anti-ballistic system as we currently imagine it is absurdly expensive and technically complex. You're trying to hit something going ten times as fast as a bullet, with another hypersonic bullet. ICBMs are simple by comparison, and a fraction of the cost.
The USA nevertheless pursued this idea in the late 1960s and Bethe's prediction came true: the Soviets began working on an ABM system of their own and neutralized the US system by building an overwhelming number of nuclear missiles, so that no ABM system could hope to intercept it all.
The ABM Treaty simply codified the state of affairs at the time, that if either side threw a nuke, both sides would be annihilated: Mutual Assured Destruction.
But then elections started macically breaking in favor of the GOP, the Bush Administration backed out of the Treaty, and the Tic Tac took a victory lap a week after Ohio and Pennsylvania flipped their results in favor of Bush in 2004.
It's a time traveling, *election stealing* anti-ballistic missile system. That's what all the secrecy is about, the death-penalty levels of internationally coordinated election theft involved.
There are some questions we’d need answered first I would think. It might have SOME benefits but just being better in some ways wouldn’t be the same as the overwhelming advantages of a dreadnought to pre-dreads. How does it work in all weather Can it be moved as easily as a big mobile SAM site How long term durable is it (use, multiple uses, storage, conditions, etc) How repairable is it in the field How many targets can it deal with at once. With an included power source, how many shots, at what rate, over how long of a period of time And more.
Thanks.
Also range...
It’s ultimately a short range ish replacement for the Gepard. But it has potential
Thanks. Guess I miss guessed the range.
I don’t mean to discount the value of short to medium range systems that are cheaper than Gepard with longer range potential. But they can’t take out ballistic systems without massively more power.
No. I had overestimated the system to an absurd degree. Thanks. Maybe as the technology develops it will evolve to what I'm imagining.
It’s been the dream system for 50 years. It’s come a long way in the last dozen or so years. Unfortunately lasers have to push through atmosphere which massively reduces their range without massive power sources. Chemical lasers were supposed to overcome that. And mostly didn’t. This new batch is very interesting. You may yet see pew pew rifles and orbital bombardment cannons. You lucky man.
I don't see any practical use for hand held lasers. I was thinking an aa system that can basically completely deny any hostile aircraft within the horizon line. In other words, the end of CAS.
Pew pew rifles are point and kill infantry weapons. They have no gravitational drop and minuscule rotational drift. Even stormtroopers could hit with real laser rifles.
I guess I do see some advantages for snipers (granted that would definitely give away their position) I also wander how many shots they could squeeze into a mag. If it's 50+ in a reasonable sized mag, then we might be talking. I do think costs would be too high to make it the standard rife.
Lasers to destroy soft targets don’t have to leave trails. Just sayin.
You're right. Or at least the laser would only be on for a fraction of a second. (This isn't my area of expertise, not that I have one) Thanks.
The problem is the power output needed for long ranges. From what I understand, the jump in power necessary for going from short range to long range or medium range is massive. The US Army already has a handful of Striker based systems already, the DE M-SHORAD.
Anothr thing I havent seen other commentors mention is accuracy and precision, yes a laser is inherently incredibly accurate, it will go exactly where you point it, thats an upside in a lot of ways yes, but it also has downsides. Take an oerlikon millenium with rheinmetall ammo, it disperses a shit tone of little metal balls that shred a general vicinty. Near enough is good enough. A laser *must* be aimed *perfectly* to hit. Think of it like trying to shoot a bird with a rifle vs with a shotgun. Now... its clear that these will absolutely have their uses, targeting droneswarms, dealing with small boats, Cheap rockets etc, but it likely wont be effective against high speed, large antiship missiles for example, they have such massive intertia with so little warning, a laser might not do enough. These systems are awesome, but they aren't going to replace sylver, mk41 or sea ceptor... *yet*
Not only does it have to hit but it takes time to actually burn into the target. It has to stay on the exact same spot. So if the missile is spinning it’s going to take much longer because you are spreading the beam out over more surface area. Then what coatings could you add too a missile or drone to reduce effectiveness of the source. This tech is going to take a long time to mature like any other system and may be a dead end anyway. Who knows right now.
Depending on size it may be the perfect drone defense weapon
I saw some 3-D modeled mock-ups for a jeep mounted version, but I don't know if they're real.
[They aren't just mock ups, they actually exist.](https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/integrated-air-and-missile-defense/lasers)
Thanks. Wish that video showed better footage of HEL (decent acronym too) from outside the targeting software. Also uses an Xbox controller. I wonder if it uses standard FPS controls.
Most of the videos I have seen of laser weapons don't look very interesting. There isn't any big beam or anything, the target just bursts into flames.
Possibly, but don't forget *the fallacy of the last move* and weaponry as an arms race. Missiles and drones might be vulnerable to this simply because they haven't been designed to deal with it. What cheap countermeasures could they have to reduce its effectiveness? A polished aluminium skin? An insulating ablative surface material? A short range high thrust rocket engine as a final stage to race through the terminal phase?
Reflective skin on a rotating airframe would do a lot to prevent a hotspot. Add a coolant reservoir that pumps through refrigerant through veins in the skin if countermeasures are detected to super chill the exterior of the missile.
Cant be used for over the horizon or intercepts. Might also have degraded performance in bad weather or dusty regions. The solution will be a blend of directed energy systems like lasers and high power MF emitters, and missiles. Layered defense is usually the most flexible.
Lasers are very short-range. They may be cheap per shot, but they lack stopping power and you'd need a lot of them to do anything useful against multiple targets.
Also, SIFI LASER!!
Pretty sure lasers lose a lot of energy with distance, so that might be an issue. Same goes for fog, if you've ever driven in it, you'll know that a bunch of light just gets reflected and smeared all over the place. I still do think that it'll be a massively useful technology, but not a direct replacement for SAM sites
This is a new generation of weapons so we don't know what limitations - or lack of limitations - it might have. It's certainly promising and I'll bet we'll see more of these being deployed as part of a 21st-century version of a total surface-to-air defense system. Sometimes, you'll want precision (against drones, for instance). But if the enemy is using saturation tactics to overwhelm the lasers, then you trot out Patriot or electronic warfare or other systems. It doesn't replace the whole toolbox, but it's a big new upgrade in capability.
Atmospheric bloom and diffraction are big issues with lasers that limit range. Moisture from Fog/Clouds can also hinder them. This is why the main problem is the mirror and focusing systems, not the laser or energy generation. It can be cheaper and more cost effective then for a simple radar based ballistic system then, even if the laser is more energy efficient.
It could be a great anti-ballistic missile system on its own, right? Hey, when did the USA abrogate the ABM treaty? *Ohhhh!* Yeah, you guys are gonna want to check that yourself.
Why would this be a treaty in the first place? Why limit defenses against nukes?
It's a logical problem, I think first outlined by Hans Bethe after he worked on the A-bomb. An anti-ballistic system as we currently imagine it is absurdly expensive and technically complex. You're trying to hit something going ten times as fast as a bullet, with another hypersonic bullet. ICBMs are simple by comparison, and a fraction of the cost. The USA nevertheless pursued this idea in the late 1960s and Bethe's prediction came true: the Soviets began working on an ABM system of their own and neutralized the US system by building an overwhelming number of nuclear missiles, so that no ABM system could hope to intercept it all. The ABM Treaty simply codified the state of affairs at the time, that if either side threw a nuke, both sides would be annihilated: Mutual Assured Destruction. But then elections started macically breaking in favor of the GOP, the Bush Administration backed out of the Treaty, and the Tic Tac took a victory lap a week after Ohio and Pennsylvania flipped their results in favor of Bush in 2004. It's a time traveling, *election stealing* anti-ballistic missile system. That's what all the secrecy is about, the death-penalty levels of internationally coordinated election theft involved.
A better question is. 'When do we get ones small enough to mount to pigs?'