lasers should be antiair
Moderator: Moderators
- Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0snvhQmi78&NR
lol, fox sensationalism at its best: This weapon functions like a futuristic force field!!! (err.. well no... ehh.... what we really mean is, it's a conventional countermeasure launcher. BUT IT'S SORTA THE SAME RIGHT??!)
Still interesting though.
lol, fox sensationalism at its best: This weapon functions like a futuristic force field!!! (err.. well no... ehh.... what we really mean is, it's a conventional countermeasure launcher. BUT IT'S SORTA THE SAME RIGHT??!)
Still interesting though.
The whole east coast of the Persian gulf is Iran (Iran is also known as Persia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Persian_Gulf_map.png
My original post was in relation that if there in the future would be usable beam weapons, they would be especially good against fast-moving targets, like missiles and mortar shells. Especially in the air since you have LOS. They would not be used at close range against slow-moving tanks.
Of course, they're damn expensive weapons too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Persian_Gulf_map.png
My original post was in relation that if there in the future would be usable beam weapons, they would be especially good against fast-moving targets, like missiles and mortar shells. Especially in the air since you have LOS. They would not be used at close range against slow-moving tanks.
Of course, they're damn expensive weapons too.
Well, in reality the one thing that really limits laser technology right now is power production. Right now, our most effective laser (as in, fastest possible damage) is using power messured in the high hundreds of kilowatts (we may be into megawatts now, not sure). The problem is, this kilowatt laser requires the total output from an entire power plant, the only way we could have the kind of laser that would fuck up a tank within the time it takes for the laser to discharge is well into the gigawatt range, and to do that would require a fusion power source.
Railguns (which use almost as much power) are actually a more feasable weapon at this point.
But there is something interesting you should all look at, this is a weapon being developed in Conneticut right now, its pretty fucking impressive.
The DREAD
Video of it in action!
I don't know about you guys, but I'm putting all my money on Centrifuge technology.
Railguns (which use almost as much power) are actually a more feasable weapon at this point.
But there is something interesting you should all look at, this is a weapon being developed in Conneticut right now, its pretty fucking impressive.
The DREAD
Video of it in action!
I don't know about you guys, but I'm putting all my money on Centrifuge technology.
I would assume the dread would only use slightly more power than ur standard high power electric fan. Centrifuge technology is simply a fan with extremely little space between blades (enough for a ball ammunition round to fit between) spinning fast enough to propell the rounds out against the enemy. Of course, with the velocities they are talking about i would imagine anywhere between 500watts to a full Kilowatt. Any more would be impractical.
Do you really know what you are talking about ? if we take a laser, that could focus lets say, one kilowatt of energy to a spot 1cm x 1cm area, do you think there is a material used in tanks that would withstand this and not melt ? A 0,3 watts laser will burn through a common white paper used in copiers. I suggested a one kilowats laser. Thats 3300x stronger than the laser i mentioned. Forget gigawats, probably even megawats. Kilowat class lasers melt through steel.Quanto042 wrote:Well, in reality the one thing that really limits laser technology right now is power production. Right now, our most effective laser (as in, fastest possible damage) is using power messured in the high hundreds of kilowatts (we may be into megawatts now, not sure). The problem is, this kilowatt laser requires the total output from an entire power plant, the only way we could have the kind of laser that would fuck up a tank within the time it takes for the laser to discharge is well into the gigawatt range, and to do that would require a fusion power source.
I was a bit unclear in my last post. I did not try to say that one kilowat would be enough to melt thru a tank, i just wanted to say that you dont even need megawatt class lasers to make it into an effective antitank weapon.KDR_11k wrote:Well, what kind of temperature does that cause? How long would you need to sustain that and how likely is it that the target will remain still for that duration?
And why don't you just fire an antitank round then?
- Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
I just think that the only way Lasers would be useful in a miltary situation is if they actually did real damage, i don't want to them to melt shit in 5 minutes, in the heat of battle you don't have that long to wait, i want a laser that fucks up its target in less than a second, and for that we need a gigawatt laser.
- unpossible
- Posts: 871
- Joined: 10 May 2005, 19:24
The DREAD looks like a nice idea
i would like to know how you get zero recoil from something firing projectiles...if it does just as much kinetic damage as a machinegun then it has to give it's projectiles the same KE, meaning it'll have identical recoil. i think someone is confused.
physics be damned!


i would like to know how you get zero recoil from something firing projectiles...if it does just as much kinetic damage as a machinegun then it has to give it's projectiles the same KE, meaning it'll have identical recoil. i think someone is confused.
physics be damned!


