PDA

View Full Version : US Navy to develop fibre lasers



BlackRain
02-07-2006, 10:09 AM
US Navy to develop fibre lasers

By Andrew Koch JDW Contributing Strategic Editor
Washington, DC

Within a decade the US Navy wants to develop a high-powered laser small enough to fit on a tactical combat aircraft and powerful enough to destroy fleeing ground targets, a senior service scientist said.

According to Michael Deitchman, head of the Air Warfare and Weapons Department at the Office of Naval Research, within 10 years the navy wants to develop a 100 kW fibre laser in a pod, which is able to be hung under tactical aircraft such as F-18E/F Super Hornets.

The laser, carried in a composite 1,817 litre external fuel-tank pod on the aircraft's centreline pylon, would weigh about 1,814 kg (4,000 lb) and be able to strike 20 targets in 60 seconds before needing to be recharged.

The navy and other armed services have been developing solid-state lasers (SSLs) as a future aircraft weapon, but Deitchman noted that fibre lasers offer better thermal management qualities and are less complex than solid-state devices. The army and air force continue work on scaling up the power of SSLs.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw060206_1_n.shtml

Andeh
02-07-2006, 10:18 AM
What does it actually do, burn them?

Chris
02-07-2006, 10:24 AM
wouldnt this be too cruel? I mean burn someone to death doenst sound funny, beeing cooked in your tank neither

BlackRain
02-07-2006, 10:31 AM
wouldnt this be too cruel? I mean burn someone to death doenst sound funny, beeing cooked in your tank neither

It's a cheaper solution to storing traditional dumb bombs and more environmentally friendly. Less potentially hazardous submunitions left scattered across a battle space.

Too bad if the bad actors don't like it.

Chris
02-07-2006, 10:35 AM
It's a cheaper solution to storing traditional dumb bombs and more environmentally friendly. Less potentially hazardous submunitions left scattered across a battle space.

Too bad if the bad actors don't like it.

right too bad, lets start to use chemical weapons and napalm instead of todays bombs. They are cheap, and it kills thousand of peoples in a blink of an eye, oh no wait, maybe its going to let them die slowly in a couple of hours, mhh who cares as long as the enemy doesnt use it on our troops...

BlackRain
02-07-2006, 10:45 AM
right too bad, lets start to use chemical weapons and napalm instead of todays bombs. They are cheap, and it kills thousand of peoples in a blink of an eye, oh no wait, maybe its going to let them die slowly in a couple of hours, mhh who cares as long as the enemy doesnt use it on our troops...

I think you missed the point of the article.

It is about lasers and not chemical weapons.

There is no law against using lasers.

It is any less horrible to be burned and disfigured by an IED or conventional explosive then to be burned and disfigured by a laser?

War is hell.

Chris
02-07-2006, 10:56 AM
offcourse, war is hell, but in my opinion its better to have the chance to get wounded and survive than definitely getting killed.

I also know that its not about chemical weapons, but both seem to be as cruel.

ENSIGN FOREVER
02-07-2006, 10:57 AM
What next? Sharks with frikkin laser beams??

micronazi
02-07-2006, 11:13 AM
Lasers in my opinoin offer the safest and cleanest munition we could possibly use. almost negligible collateral damage and surgical precision. I'd rather burn a combatant to death and certainly kill him, then drop a bomb and risk killing an entire family taking cover in a nearby house.

Regards,
micronazi