US laser warplane under threat from Barack Obama

Nice technology flawed idea, the enemy would fire a laser in anti-phase to it elminating it.

Oh and icbms are resistant to laser fire.

The first, very limited, test firing was staged in late November. The laser was loaded on to a Boeing 747 and fired from a stationary plane at a target on the ground just a few yards away
Click to expand...

And the power requirements scale exponentially with distance, so your going to require a nuclear reactor to power it if you want any sort of range. Laser rifles are somewhat feasible with todays technology, this is not.
 
Last edited:
This is such a waste of cash and has been for 40 YEARS. I cant believe its still on the drawing board to be honest!

EDIT:
Energize said:
Nice technology flawed idea, the enemy would fire a laser in anti-phase to it elminating it.
Click to expand...

Like anyone is going to be stupid enough to build ANOTHER one . . . .
 
Supposedly this will replace the howitzer on the front of the AC-130H.

It'll cost around $20,000 per shot using a chemical fuel.

I remember looking at this a while ago and not being very impressed.
"$200,000 missiles to blow up $10 tents" springs to mind.

As a cost to stop a nuke it seems quite reasonable, but how many ICBMs fly at sub orbital altitudes? None.
 
Energize said:
And the power requirements scale exponentially with distance, so your going to require a nuclear reactor to power it if you want any sort of range. Laser rifles are somewhat feasible with todays technology, this is not.
Click to expand...

No it;s a chemical laser, it uses then for it's power source not a generator.

which is why laser rifles arn;t feasible, unless you expect troops to take a blast of searing hot poison gas to the face every time they fired.
 
Energize said:
Nice technology flawed idea, the enemy would fire a laser in anti-phase to it elminating it.

.
Click to expand...

After getting perfectly inline with the original planes laser? thats hard wnough to do in a lab with stationary lasers in clamps, let along two vast moving jets.


and then fireing, and some how doing all of that in the second or so it takes the laser to hit them :/
 
Tefal said:
After getting perfectly inline with the original planes laser? thats hard wnough to do in a lab with stationary lasers in clamps, let along two vast moving jets.
and then fireing, and some how doing all of that in the second or so it takes the laser to hit them :/
Click to expand...
"A little learning is a dangerous thing."
 
meghatronic said:
All of them on take off/re-entry :)

(optimistic, aren't they)
Click to expand...

If an icbm was taking off they would be too far away to hit it, upon re-entry there are multiple independant warheads which have a very large range, it would be virtually impossible to shoot them all down. Imagine 5 Trident II missiles, that could be as many as 60 warheads travelling at nearly 30,000 KPH.

Tefal said:
After getting perfectly inline with the original planes laser? thats hard wnough to do in a lab with stationary lasers in clamps, let along two vast moving jets.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't need to be, just enough to reduce the lasers power to be ineffective. Would be combined with other measures like mirrors and high heat dissipation structural materials also.

and then fireing, and some how doing all of that in the second or so it takes the laser to hit them :/
Click to expand...

To destroy an underground silo it would take time, they would not be destroyed instantly like they would if they were hit with a bomb.

Personally though I'd be more worried if I was in the plane, just after the laser hits the ground you would be destroyed by the defence laser or sam.
 
Last edited:
While it sure as hell sounds awesome to strap some lasers to a plane and fire them off from above, exactly what benefits does it have over your bog standard laser guided bomb or even a canon?
 
neoboy said:
While it sure as hell sounds awesome to strap some lasers to a plane and fire them off from above, exactly what benefits does it have over your bog standard laser guided bomb or even a canon?
Click to expand...

Well it travels at the speed of light which means it's pretty much impossible for anything mobile to defend against it or avoid it, with the exception of things like icbm's of course (due to the insane speed they travel at and 3D movement). While shooting down mirv's from icbms or destroying defended underground silos isn't possible you could instantly attack any mobile target you were in range of, provided you were able to power the laser.

Though after 12 years and only being able to destroy an object a few yards away it doesn't look like it's going to be much use. The amount of energy required to fire hundreds of miles is so massive compared to that, you have to wonder if it will ever happen.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I think it's just too early for such technology, for now we'll just rely on the pilots ability to hit moving targets. Suppose does make sense to cut spending for such project in this economical climate.
 
The Telegraph said:
Mr Obama has stated a preference for abandoning weapons whose efficacy is not yet proven.
Click to expand...

Very sensible. Would you buy an unproven weapon at vast expense to the taxpayer?
 
humpsmall.gif
 
Evangelion said:
Very sensible. Would you buy an unproven weapon at vast expense to the taxpayer?
Click to expand...

:confused:

Are you trying to say that it isnt worth it to stay one step ahead in terms of ones military?

I've been reading up on this and IF it works, a fleet of 747's in the air over the US would render nuclear attack against the US impossible. Thats a massive advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom