Fake News or real?

>>134036408
You forgot to archive it
https://archive.is/VWbc4

>>134036408
Aren't the lasers old news? I thought the US had been equipping shit with lasers as anti-missile defence or something.

Forgot to mention it was CNN exclusive I smell something fishy.

>>134036516
I don't know maybe i'm late on this but I thought we only had lasers that were used for minor scientific purposes such as cutting through diamond.

File: Zumwalt destroyer 15 Sept 2015.jpg (27KB, 570x288px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 570x288px

>>134036408

>Have we finally adapted laser beams to use militarily?

We have been for years anon. The Zumwalt class was designed as a test platform for the Navy's next generation of warship armament - Railguns for their main batteries and lasers for CIWS. Shit, they'll eventually probably mount lasers on tanks and possibly aircraft.

>>134036408

How quickly and how often can they actually fire it? Seems like the kind of thing where it would take forever to charge up capacitors, would have very limited range in the atmosphere compared to missiles, and would get fucked by things like fog or rain.

>>134037093
Damn a laser tank sounds badass.
>>134037386
It costs $1 to fire it each time, its like a beam. I don't know the specs of how long it shoots the protons for. It has no range, it goes at the speed of light because it is light.

>>134037386

I don't think they're meant for anything other than short range, defensive purposes. The technology exists for long-range lasers that could fuck someone up, but it's about as practical as a land battleship.

>>134037667
The article claims it has no range, it can shoot down a drone with ease.

>>134037591
>$1 to fire
>protons
>no range

You're a fucking dumbass.

>>134037737
It sounds far fetched right? But that's what the article claims? I feel like it's too good to be true.

>>134037591

It wouldn't be a 'laser tank', it'd be a normal tank that had a laser point defense system with a range of ~a dozen feet at most.

>>134037984
"'It is throwing massive amounts of photons at an incoming object,' said Lt. Cale Hughes, laser weapons system officer. 'We don't worry about wind, we don't worry about range, we don't worry about anything else. We're able to engage the targets at the speed of light.'"- CNN

>>134037386
The system uses several lower-energy beams that converge on the target. That means less energy is lost to atmospheric refraction, resulting in longer effective range. The system's input power is about ~100kW, which for an Arleigh-Burke class is almost nothing.

>>134037722

That's (((CNN))) adding obligatory sensationalist bullshit.

Atmospheric dispersion means that a laser can't have 'no range', and it's effective range (where it's actually still focused enough to damage the target) probably isn't that far. Though being able to disable the engine on dinky pirate ship with 100% accuracy is still based.

>>134038185
I knew it was too good to be true.
But they showed how it took down a drone show maybe there's some use?

>>134038163

A ship generates far more power than a tank, (which is already at a premium for space,) ships can use lasers at longer ranges using that power, tanks don't have that.

File: 1500279109465.jpg (549KB, 1808x1978px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 1808x1978px

>>134038454

He's saying that it works well, anon.

The real question is why DARPA STILL hasn't given us their plasma weaponry en masse yet.

>As of 1993 the project appeared to be in the early experimental stages. The weapon was able to produce doughnut-shaped rings of plasma and balls of lightning that exploded with devastating thermal and mechanical effects when hitting their target and produced pulse of electromagnetic radiation that could scramble electronics.[5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER

>>134036408
>dumb nigger

The Navy has had a space command since the 80s, and lasers since Desert Storm.

>>134038617
If it takes $1 to fire then what is the electrical energy equivalent?

>>134036408
It's real. They're being used as missile defence weapons on warships. I think there are international agreements to prohibit using lasers as anti-personnel weapons.

>>134036408
We have these at work

File: 1523072898635645358.jpg (80KB, 800x623px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x623px

>>134036408
>>134037093
>>We have been for years anon.
Yup.
>1973 - first 'live fire' of a laser weapon by the USAF which downed a drone at Sandia National Lab using a CO2 based laser on a gimble.
>1976 - Army used a Helium laser to down helicopter drones and a few tank targets at Redstone in AL.
>1978 - Army shot down a TOW missile
>1979 - USAF (Boeing/Lockheed) strapped one to a KC-130 and shot down shit from the air
We've been at this a long ass time.
After it was proven in the 70s, a shit ton of funding for lasers went through thanks to Reagan ('star wars' programs) and were mocked in movies like 'Real Genius' (1985)(a basement dwelling autist develops a laser weapon).
The most recent developments have just been making them smaller (capacitor banks... see General Dynamics/Atomics) and better tracking algos for use at sea.

Lasers are dope.

>>134036408
It has been announced years ago. Yes it is happening. The destroyers have enough power to shoot missiles down with lasers and it only costs a dollar or per shot.

Thanks /pol for informing me of this information. Holy shit i'm stupid.

File: 1500345540967.jpg (11KB, 431x272px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 431x272px

>>134038901

That's unironically not how it works

>>134036463
I'll admit, sometimes I post silly links just because I want you to archive them. I guess I like the attention.

>>134036463
i love you

Lasers will eventually end M.A.D.

its real but it needs its own seperate reaction with super caps because batteries wouldnt be able to output the required amperage within that time frame

they would need to charge it up between shots (10-20 minutes) but ive seen experiemental varients in the navy since about 09-10

in reality the rail gun looked way more promising

>>134036516
They tried mounting them on AC130 aircraft, but ran into two problems:
1) The lasers are basically spent after one use.
2) There are so many chemicals and cooling implements involved that it made the venture unprofitable unless they were willing to go through lasers like candy.

The navy has been trying for a long time to make CIWS (ship defenses) into lasers because there is no lead time involved. You point at the missile, you shoot at the missile. It's never worked. There have always been problems involved. For one the massive energy cost, for two it's never really taken down anything that is solid enough to fly at Mach 1
It takes a shitton of energy to burn through metal.

>>134037093
way ahead of you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW757uG8Op0

>>134036408
Been that way for a while. Funny the dems all laughed at him but Reagan was right. Think it was more about him being popular and a republican. They have to shit on anyone who opposes them.

>>134036408
It's real. You're an idiot. I work on a base that tests them.

It's fucking garbage, yeah it can light a shitty boat or drone on fire, after it focuses on it for 20-30 seconds. But a missile/plane with any maneuverability/made for high speeds(ie. high air friction/heat) its useless.
It's a meme weapon on a meme ship that's only use is a place where spec ops can be placed so they won't be at some fob getting shit faced every night at a campfire

>some dumb fuck who spent 9 months on that floating rust bucket

>>134036408
they have remote mobile ones on semi trailer that can shoot down mortar and artillery shells as well

>>134039434
So outside of the risk of burnout, would one of our next gen carriers with its two nuclear reactors be able to power a laser, even if that meant using capacitor banks?

>>134036463
You do the Lord's work. Thank you.

>>134039434
energy isn't much of a problem on a vessel with a nuclear reactor. The chemicals are though. Its a step though and technology is a test of time and will. We will have it eventually.
The one thing that would jump start a lot of things and most likely would lead to ww3 is oddly enough an energy dense battery, Every single whizz bang toy and mobile weapon of death would be possible with something that can be rapidly charged, is robust and durable and energy dense. Something to the order of a kilowatt hour of storage a lb. 20x what lithium is now.

>>134036408
Lasers exist for a long time now

>>134039352

>they would need to charge it up between shots (10-20 minutes) but ive seen experiemental varients in the navy since about 09-10

Since they're prepping to utilize it as a general CIWS platform (anti-missile duty included,) I'm assuming they've found a way around that, likely with utilizing pulses over a constant beam and either energy storage within the system itself or efficient power transfer. Newer AShMs adopt the MIRV strategy of having one missile separate into multiple warheads before impact, so it at least has to be able to counter that.

>the rail gun looked way more promising

Completely agree, and it's a massive money-saver.

File: 1499920682274.gif (915KB, 200x161px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 200x161px

>>134039862

>The major powers develop laser systems efficient enough and with sufficient coverage to render nukes obsolete

>Suddenly there's no risk of MAD if you start a large-scale war

The 21st Century is going to be a wild ride.

>>134039780
Cap banks are only good for instant storage. Lots of power for a split second. Capacitors are not energy dense. A large capacitor say rated in farads not micro farads would be larger than your head and barely store more than a watt hour of energy. However it can dump what its cost in a micro second and thats a lot of power.

>>134036408
The Army successfully test fired a laser weapon mounted on an Apache weeks ago.

>>134040295
Rig a tactical nuke on a commercial drone, undeadable.

>>134040295
Nuclear weapons are already obsolete. The powers that be realized how useless full scale nuclear war is and how useful subversion and small scale warfare is. Nukes will still have a place but only in tactical and small situations. So many counter measures exist and the cost of a full scale nuclear war would make that option a no go. No one wins a nuclear war. No one. You can only hope to not lose as bad as the other guy and rebuild faster. Either way its a huge risk, with insane cost and little return.

>>134040411

>tactical

That's the real difference innit. Besides, it's only a matter of time (not very long) till the technology gets refined enough to put it on a ground-based, dedicated platform like AA and the Tunguska. Sure, a nuclear commercial drone delivery system would be goat for terrorists, but I doubt it'd work with conventional armies.

>>134040531
the problem is that during ww2 they moved the battlefield from outside the city to inside the city and targeting civilians became the norm.

>>134040531

>Nuclear weapons are already obsolete. The powers that be realized how useless full scale nuclear war is and how useful subversion and small scale warfare is. Nukes will still have a place but only in tactical and small situations. So many counter measures exist

You're right but you're wrong. Nukes are indeed a high-risk, little-reward scenario all things equal. Like you said though, plenty of countermeasures already exist, and new ones are constantly being implemented and refined. This leads to a situation where one side feels that it's invulnerable to retaliation.

This is why the anti-ballistic shield that NATO has been encircling Russia with has such terrifying implications for them and why Putine is so hostile towards it.

>>134040531
Not really. There are two main reasons why nuclear weapons are not as obsolete as one might think. The countermeasures you speak of are not really that effective. Their purpose is to complicate nuclear attack plans, so that you would have to factor in chances of missile interception into an already complicated strategy. The other reason is that each nations' nuclear stockpile is not actually large enough to completely annihilate the other side. The nations in question would thus prioritize military targets over civilian targets. The nuclear balance as it is encourages blitzkrieg conventional strategy to fully utilize the advantages of the first nuclear strike.

>>134036463
Thanks based Dane

>>134036408
>10 billion dollar laser pointed at me
>hold up mirror
>blow up laser

>>134045384
since these lasers are mostly being used for CIWS, the odds of mounting a mirror on your missile that actually returns fire are lower than the chance of a Zuckerberg presidency.

>>134036408
I know people personally who are involved in militarizing laser-based free-space optics communications systems that came out of Google X.

>>134038438
>Atmospheric dispersion means that a laser can't have 'no range', and it's effective range (where it's actually still focused enough to damage the target) probably isn't that far. Though being able to disable the engine on dinky pirate ship with 100% accuracy is still based.

>what is adaptive optics
dumb nigger

>>134047452

>current adaptive optics
>making lasers into 2stronk4u win buttons

Sure, they make warship-mounted laser CIWS viable and mitigate the weather fucking it up within its effective range, but you're an absolute retard if you think we're anywhere close to a practical platform that completely negates dispersion.

>>134047452

>current adaptive optics
>making lasers into 2stronk4u win buttons

Sure, they make warship-mounted laser CIWS viable and mitigate the weather fucking it up within its effective range, but you're an absolute retard if you think we're anywhere close to a practical platform that completely negates dispersion.

>>134038617
hypothetically its (more) feasible with a chemical laser. But the military isnt interested in chemical lasers because of the potential for supplies to dry up in event of war.

The US has been trialling Laser based point-defense for its nuclear powered ships since 2014 and Rail Gun turrets are being actively developed.

>>134048594
>but you're an absolute retard if you think we're anywhere close to a practical platform that completely negates dispersion

Modern laser turret systems are using secondary lasers to create a cylinder of near-vaccum, which the primary laser is fired through. It doesn't completely negate dispersion, but it *significantly* reduces it.

>>134037591
Protons are not light

>>134036516
Very old news. OP is most likely underage.