Boeing's advanced tactical laser (ATL) tested

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 651465
  • Start date Start date
peetee said:
never got the whole idea of this, planes wobble and what not, its going to be fairly useless at range in the air.
Same as the whole railgun on a destroyer in transformers 2.. what about the waves? meh.
Click to expand...
Gyroscope.
 
peetee said:
never got the whole idea of this, planes wobble and what not, its going to be fairly useless at range in the air.
Same as the whole railgun on a destroyer in transformers 2.. what about the waves? meh.
Click to expand...


What about the waves? Heard of a gyroscope? Tanks have them, ships have them. It means the barrel stays on target regardless of the platform motion.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
What about the waves? Heard of a gyroscope? Tanks have them, ships have them. It means the barrel stays on target regardless of the platform motion.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, it means it can compensate, to a degree, not fully. If the barrel for instance was its lowest possible point and a wave moves the ship up 20 metres, you're simply not going to be able to hit the target.

Rough sea's can have massive movement and a gyroscope can't just negate that, neither could they do so on a plane that drops 50ft in a split second due to turbulance.

Distance is a problem, power is a problem, damage is a problem. Massive power, no range and lasers still struggle to do any appreciable damage, put it on a plane at thousands of feet, power requirements and the like, existing weapons on planes do more damage.
 
Iv heard of gyroscopes but my understanding was the same as above, they compensate, they dont cancel out, over range surely this will reduce accuracy?
Correct me if im wrong, but that was just my impression on the whole thing.
 
drunkenmaster said:
snip.
Click to expand...

Planes hardly ever drop 50ft.
The power and range is there. Size is still a bit of an issue but getting better.
Normal weapons are not more effective.
Since when can a normal weapon take out a human or engine from miles away with no collateral damage.
When the lasers get small enough they will be mounted on fighter planes and when patrolling the skies they can take out targets at will, silently and instantly and massively cheaper than any smart bomb/missile. Also have many more "rounds".

The only comparable weapon to a Tactical laser would be a 50cal sniper even then it has huge disadvantages to a laser system.
 
Id like to see if one of these on a plane could hit a modern AA missile to be honest, im not so convinced yet.

Would be an unreal weapon and countermeasure in theory.
 
Weak, I want to see the laser cut through the bonnett, through the block and for the front of the car to fall off, that would be epic.
 
peetee said:
Id like to see if one of these on a plane could hit a modern AA missile to be honest, im not so convinced yet.
Click to expand...

the large jumbo sized ones have taken out missiles.
The portable land based one developed in conjunction with Israel has taken out Ground to Ground rockets and is in final stages of testing. Should be on the battle field within 2 years.

So the chances are these can do the same.
 
Remember seeing something a few years off of a large one being tested on a prop, but it failed - it was due to be getting shoved in a jumbo too.

Would like to see them in action in smaller and faster jets though, cant imagine them being oh so popular though... £££!
 
drunkenmaster said:
No it doesn't, it means it can compensate, to a degree, not fully. If the barrel for instance was its lowest possible point and a wave moves the ship up 20 metres, you're simply not going to be able to hit the target.

Rough sea's can have massive movement and a gyroscope can't just negate that, neither could they do so on a plane that drops 50ft in a split second due to turbulance.
Click to expand...

Obviously there are caveats, but they are so obvious to anyone of normal intelligence I didn't consider it worthy of mention.
 
AcidHell2 said:
the large jumbo sized ones have taken out missiles.
The portable land based one developed in conjunction with Israel has taken out Ground to Ground rockets and is in final stages of testing. Should be on the battle field within 2 years.

So the chances are these can do the same.
Click to expand...

Very true.

Peetee said:
Same as the whole railgun on a destroyer in transformers 2
Click to expand...
That's just bs. Miniguns have been used for decades as an effective anti-missle system on carriers and larger ships such as frigates, its only a short time before they move on destroyers
 
Last edited:
depsite the naysayers, that video is somewhat impressive, it may not seem much, but the question is, at what range was that fired from? what speed was the aircraft?

Okay, it was from a hercules, but still no idea of altitude/speed, but a good demonstration of sustained accuracy
 
AcidHell2 said:
The portable land based one developed in conjunction with Israel has taken out Ground to Ground rockets and is in final stages of testing. Should be on the battle field within 2 years.
Click to expand...

iirc the project was scrapped.

Loads of Israelis where doing a petition a while back to have the Americans give them the prototype so they could carry on with it.
 
Tefal said:
iirc the project was scrapped.

Loads of Israelis where doing a petition a while back to have the Americans give them the prototype so they could carry on with it.
Click to expand...

That sucks, do you know why? the testing seemed to be going great. Or was it just America not wanting to share the technology.
 
Cookeh said:
That's just bs. Miniguns have been used for decades as an effective anti-missle system on carriers and larger ships such as frigates, its only a short time before they move on destroyers
Click to expand...

i said RAILgun, not minigun, have you seen transformers 2? Its a tad different to a minigun.

And I believe you're thinking of gatling guns.
Our older type 42 destroyers have them, whereas our newer type 45 dont, though are fitted for them.
 
AcidHell2 said:
That sucks, do you know why? the testing seemed to be going great. Or was it just America not wanting to share the technology.
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30laser.html?_r=1

the United States and Israel quietly shelved the experimental weapon, mainly because of its bulkiness, high costs and poor anticipated results on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

Israel is currently doing a rocket based ground defence version that's almost ready for deployment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom