But wot about point 'ead sticks?
Posted on 01/29/2009 1:47:10 PM PST by Reaganesque
And if they (Boeing and associates) were able to double the output power from over a year ago, it's certainly a lot closer to being released to battlefield units sooner than many other laser weapons systems.There may not be a ton of UAVs to be used against, but imaginative troops will find more uses for it,...despite any laws of land warfare concerns over what weapons cause more unnecessary suffering and which don't.
There's no mention how long (several seconds?) it actually takes the laser to destroy an inflight (UAV) or ground target (IED, UXO), but it obviously has other potential uses (disabling high voltage power lines and transformers, for instance? Or disabling civilian vehicles withot any evidence of the system being seen to fire its gun or missiles.).
Taking it further, the Stinger is the same 70mm/2.75inches in diameter as many of these precision guided rockets under development.
The vehicle already has optical fire control to engage targets at range, so it's certainly possible these rockets may be an option to replace Stingers where there aren't a lot of airborne threats.
Incorporating a laser designator won't be all that hard (I haven't been to Redstone in 3&1/2 years, hard to tell what other toys they're tinkering with since then).
Nothing about any laser is as simple as “just hooking up a power supply”. Moreover, laser beams travelling in the atmosphere are not simple things
Yes, The problem with lasers is that they are on, and when they move through a plain, they slice.
If you had a strong laser and thousands of people running right at you, a pass or two could kill them all, if the angle were optimal.
It’s a wicked weapon.
Standing behind a tree, too bad.
Standing behind the corner of a wall or building, too bad.
A phaser might rival it.
Wired reports: "On April 17th this year, one Christopher Paul was indicted on terrorism charges; these included an alleged plot to use radio controlled aircraft or boats carrying explosives".
You don't need a Predator -- just an off-the-shelf radio-controlled plane packed with explosives.
It would also make a useful addition to an AWACS plane to defend itself against threats.
Chrysler product?
keep in mind this is what the DEMOCRATS said would never work.
“Chrysler product?”
Failed Marvel Comics character...
But wot about point 'ead sticks?
Like with most things, they're wrong again.
Remember how they savaged Reagan over his Star Wars proposal. And then, more recently, GW over the same thing. "You can't hit a bullet with a bullet". And, of course, we can. And remember how they called Reagan "Raygun" as a way of mocking him?
And now here we are. Hitting a Predator isn't the same thing as hitting an ICBM. But step by step.
Bottom line: Nice job but will we actually use this system in real wars?
lol
Well they did make Redstone ballistic missles, Saturn rockets, and designed the M1 Abrams tank...
Yes, the F-22 could carry it or a later version of it. And the JSF was designed specifically with such a weapon in mind. Helicopters and UAVs too.
ZAPPPPPPPPPPP! Target’s fried.
Courtesy of Israel Military Industries and Elta Electronics.
Nice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.