forums.spacebattles.com Open in urlscan Pro
2606:4700:3031::ac43:b627  Public Scan

Form analysis
2 forms found in the DOM

POST /search/search

<form action="/search/search" method="post" class="menu-content" data-xf-init="quick-search" data-autocomplete-filter="&quot;&quot;">
  <h3 class="menu-header">Search</h3>
  <div class="menu-row">
    <div class="inputGroup inputGroup--joined">
      <input type="text" class="input" name="keywords" placeholder="Search…" aria-label="Search" data-menu-autofocus="true">
      <select name="constraints" class="js-quickSearch-constraint input" aria-label="Search within" style="width: 98px; flex-grow: 0; flex-shrink: 0;">
        <option value="">Everywhere</option>
        <option value="{&quot;search_type&quot;:&quot;post&quot;}">Threads</option>
        <option value="{&quot;search_type&quot;:&quot;post&quot;,&quot;c&quot;:{&quot;nodes&quot;:[23],&quot;child_nodes&quot;:1}}">This forum</option>
        <option value="{&quot;search_type&quot;:&quot;post&quot;,&quot;c&quot;:{&quot;thread&quot;:927273}}" selected="selected" data-suggest-optout="1">This thread</option>
      </select>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="menu-row">
    <label class="iconic"><input type="checkbox" name="c[container_only]" value="1"><i aria-hidden="true"></i><span class="iconic-label">Search only containers</span></label>
  </div>
  <div class="menu-row">
    <label class="iconic"><input type="checkbox" name="c[title_only]" value="1"><i aria-hidden="true"></i><span class="iconic-label">Search titles only <span tabindex="0" role="button" data-xf-init="tooltip" data-trigger="hover focus click"
          data-original-title="Tags will also be searched" aria-label="Tags will also be searched" id="js-XFUniqueId2">
          <i class="fa--xf far fa-question-circle u-muted u-smaller" aria-hidden="true"></i>
        </span></span></label>
  </div>
  <div class="menu-row">
    <div class="inputGroup">
      <span class="inputGroup-text" id="ctrl_search_menu_by_member">By:</span>
      <input type="text" class="input" name="c[users]" data-xf-init="auto-complete" placeholder="Member" aria-labelledby="ctrl_search_menu_by_member" autocomplete="off">
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="menu-row">
    <div class="inputGroup">
      <span class="inputGroup-text">Words:</span>
      <input class="input" name="c[word_count][lower]" value="" placeholder="Lower bound">
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="menu-footer">
    <span class="menu-footer-controls">
      <button type="submit" class="button--primary button button--icon button--icon--search"><span class="button-text">Search</span></button>
      <a href="/search/" class="button"><span class="button-text">Advanced search…</span></a>
    </span>
  </div>
  <input type="hidden" name="_xfToken" value="1658246403,033fd07b34a21eb9938cf8d4be1c54f0"><input type="hidden" name="_xfwebp" value="1">
</form>

<form style="display:none" hidden="hidden">
  <input type="text" name="_xfClientLoadTime" value="" id="_xfClientLoadTime" title="_xfClientLoadTime" tabindex="-1">
</form>

Text Content

 * Forums
   New posts New threadmarks Search forums
 * Rules
   Site rules Staff roster Help files
 * Tickets
   Open new ticket Watched
 * Merchandise
 * History

Log in Register
Search


SEARCH

Everywhere Threads This forum This thread
Search only containers
Search titles only
By:
Words:
Search Advanced search…
 * New posts
 * New threadmarks
 * Search forums


Menu
Log in

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Register

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Navigation

Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
 * Debate Forums
 * The War Room


MILITARY LAYZORS THREAD (AND OTHER ENERGY WEAPONS ARE WELCOME TOO)

 * Thread starter Connor MacLeod
 * Start date Mar 23, 2021

Prev
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5

First Prev 5 of 5

GO TO PAGE


Go


FASBRAN

 * Apr 8, 2022

 * 
 * #101

Doesn't microwave work better as an anti drone tool? I'm pretty sure you could
just continually sweep the sky with a HPM beam and at the very least disrupt the
more vulnerable electronic components of small drones without a ridiculous power
draw
 
 * 1



CRYPTOAM

BUILDING INEFFICIENT ENCRYPTION ALGORITHMS.

 * Apr 8, 2022

 * 
 * #102

You still have the issue of actually generating such a beam that is effective to
your intended range. Inverse laws are a PITA in this regard.
 


FIREFINDER12

I POST ALOT ON PHONE.

 * Apr 8, 2022

 * 
 * #103

> cryptoam said:
> You still have the issue of actually generating such a beam that is effective
> to your intended range. Inverse laws are a PITA in this regard.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...

Thing is we have basically licked that in the 60s with the First Phase arrays.

Tight beamforming is essential for how those types of radars works. Without it
the system may as well be a lawn norm.

Thought in the Combining effects of the New Aesa systems and You can get some
insane range out of them. Like I have seen a Q50 radar, which is a 50kw AESA
system fire milspec drones by mistake when the Inflanty flew theirs bout 10km
infront. Only figure it out cause we where hear them bitch about Drones
breaking, did some math and had a OOPS moment with our colonels.

Many new regs were made that day.

And the Q50 is a firefinding radar not really design to fight drones. A proper
anti drone one?
 
 * 2



LOCKI

ASPIRING JAEGER PILOT

 * Apr 9, 2022

 * 
 * #104

> uju32 said:
> At close range, a kilometer, two kilometers, sure. At double digit kilometers?
> Against military optics? I doubt it. A 50 kilowatt C-UAS system is point
> defence.
> Something like HEL-TVD might be able to do so, but its a 300kw emitter
> designed as much for cruise missile defense as potting MALE/HALE-class UAVs.
> And according to the diagram you posted, its Layer 5; Layer 6 is LOWER-AD,
> which is designed for ranges of 25km+.
> 
> So HEL has a lower range than that. Its a SHORAD system.
> DIRCM works at much closer ranges as well, against sensors that are basically
> designed to be disposable. Not representative.
> 
> Plus, again, you have to know that theres something out there looking, and
> find the platform doing the looking. EO/IR is passive and does not emit shit.
> The search radar in that diagram thats looking for it? Does, and can be
> detected and localized at multiples of the range at which it can find
> anything.In a near peer environment its not going to be on and looking
> persistently, or it will get ARMed by anything from a drone swarm to a
> ballistic missile to MLRS.
> 
> Plus there's the cost profile.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...


Frying the sensors with dazzling lasers is great but this has the distinct
disadvantage, compared to destroying the drone, of making it impossible to
verify if the drone mission killed.

If you are a big bad Leopard 3 MBT and you are being harrassed by that $100
drone from Radioshack do you just dazzle the drone in that swarm once and
consider it mission killed or do you keep on firing your laser until the drone
does something that indicates its blind (crash into something I guess).

All the time the Leopard 3 is wondering if the drone really is blind or if it's
just calling in the nearest Copperhead 3000 top attack artillery strike.




> fasbran said:
> Doesn't microwave work better as an anti drone tool? I'm pretty sure you could
> just continually sweep the sky with a HPM beam and at the very least disrupt
> the more vulnerable electronic components of small drones without a ridiculous
> power draw
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...


I guess this is a possibility but this does seem like a great way of
broadcasting your location.

I'm pretty sure its possible to harden the electronics of a drone against
microwaves for non-outrageous penalties in weight/cost as well.
 
Last edited: Apr 9, 2022
 * 4



SECOND MOVER

Adviser (Vs)
 * Apr 14, 2022

 * 
 * #105

A look at Iron Beam in action:




> Israel's Defense Ministry reveals that a laser air defense system it is
> developing, dubbed Iron Beam, successfully shot down drones, rockets, mortars,
> and anti-tank missiles in a first series of tests last month.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...


Article here: In ‘game changer,’ Israeli laser-based air defense shoots down
drones
 
Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
 * 15



GENIAL PRECIS

 * Apr 14, 2022

 * 
 * #106

At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems like it takes a few seconds for
this version to shoot down shells. So while performant the Iron Beam could be
saturated if several shells arrived at the same time, within a second or so of
each other, either by coordinated attacks from multiple sources or maybe
submunitions. So that's a limitation for now. But shells are probably one of the
harder targets due to moderately heavy construction and spinning, so it's an
important milestone that it works against shells at all.
 
Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
 * 17



FASBRAN

 * Apr 14, 2022

 * 
 * #107

Is there any info on what role each lens serves?
 


C.J.

 * Apr 15, 2022

 * 
 * #108

> Genial Precis said:
> At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems like it takes a few seconds for
> this version to shoot down shells. So while performant the Iron Beam could be
> saturated if several shells arrived at the same time, within a second or so of
> each other, either by coordinated attacks from multiple sources or maybe
> submunitions. So that's a limitation for now. But shells are probably one of
> the harder targets due to moderately heavy construction and spinning, so it's
> an important milestone that it works against shells at all.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...

People are probably going to have to start hardaing missiles now, wich is good,
makes them more expensive and less deadly that way. Also that issue is solved by
haveing multiple unites nearby in a battery.
 


PATCH

 * Apr 15, 2022

 * 
 * #109

> Genial Precis said:
> At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems like it takes a few seconds for
> this version to shoot down shells. So while performant the Iron Beam could be
> saturated if several shells arrived at the same time, within a second or so of
> each other, either by coordinated attacks from multiple sources or maybe
> submunitions. So that's a limitation for now. But shells are probably one of
> the harder targets due to moderately heavy construction and spinning, so it's
> an important milestone that it works against shells at all.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...


Yes that is the weakness of every projectile interception system on the market.
In fact, a huge part of Israel’s iron dome was about what not to shoot down -
they would calculate which rockets would miss major population centers and
proceed to ignore them, because it is too difficult and more importantly
expensive to shoot down everything.

This looks like a massive upgrade from iron dome though, especially in arid
regions where cloud cover is a non-factor.
 
 * 3



DYAUS

 * Apr 15, 2022

 * 
 * #110

> Genial Precis said:
> At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems like it takes a few seconds for
> this version to shoot down shells. So while performant the Iron Beam could be
> saturated if several shells arrived at the same time, within a second or so of
> each other, either by coordinated attacks from multiple sources or maybe
> submunitions.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...


I assume they'd save the old missile defence rockets for salvos while the lasers
prevent a trickle of damage.
 


EYL

 * Apr 16, 2022

 * 
 * #111

> Patch said:
> Yes that is the weakness of every projectile interception system on the
> market. In fact, a huge part of Israel’s iron dome was about what not to shoot
> down - they would calculate which rockets would miss major population centers
> and proceed to ignore them, because it is too difficult and more importantly
> expensive to shoot down everything.
> 
> This looks like a massive upgrade from iron dome though, especially in arid
> regions where cloud cover is a non-factor.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...


> Dyaus said:
> I assume they'd save the old missile defence rockets for salvos while the
> lasers prevent a trickle of damage.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...


The systems complement each other. Israel's defense concept is built on a
multi-tier system, where each system handles a certain type of threat. At the
top you have Arrow for long-range missiles, then David's Sling for medium range
ones and Iron Dome for shorter range stuff (e.g. Grads). The new laser system is
for the lowest tier where Iron Dome has problems, like mortars and very short
range rockets like Qassams but it covers a much smaller area.
 
 * 10



TERRY

MPD AGENT

 * Apr 17, 2022

 * 
 * #112

It should be noted that interception of artillery shells, rockets and mortars,
including in minor salvos, was demonstrated 20 years ago with the Nautilus/THEL
laser. It was a hazardous fluoride based laser that reportedly took the space of
six buses and was never adopted. But the theory that lasers can do CRAM hardly
needed proof.

On the subject, the US Navy killed a target drone representing a subsonic cruise
missile with an undisclosed laser system. The photo of the target shows a clear
shot through the nose cone.

Spoiler

The USN is getting closer to replicating it's feat from the 80s when they shot
down the Mach 2+ Vandal missile with a chemical laser.


> Wetapunga said:
> Detection is the problem, swarming drones are small, agile and low signature.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...

Detection/situational awareness is a problem for either side and a more pressing
one if you only rely on the ground-hugging type of drones. Which I can see
becoming a key asset, just not the only one. Anyone will probably utilize such
swarms in the future, but those who better augment these shortsighted machines
prowling in the clutter with higher altitude, wide area scanning and networking
platforms would have an obvious advantage*. These vehicles would represent high
value targets for the enemy and need to operate inside short- and medium-range
ground-based AD/AMD bubbles that can intercept incoming missiles at a bargain
price.

The way I imagine it is, miniature drone swarms would operate in the front as
defensive screens and raiders, bigger "master" drones loiter tens of kilometers
behind them at below kilometer altitude, and DEW- and missile-armed
self-propelled vehicles below them provide CRAM, SHORAD and MERAD.
Electronically-steered phased array DEWs in particular would be attractive for
their lack of slewing delay.

*Think the chinese army vs the mongol raiders situation. An equal (or even
bigger) force cannot mount an adequate response if they a) have a large area to
defend and b) they can't detect early enough where the enemy is concentrating
their forces to gain local numerical superiority for a successful raid. The
problem of detecting threatening swarm maneuvers in advance is thus critical.
Gaining an edge in this capacity is a high cost-high reward venture.

> If a droneswarm can maneuver like stunt racing squads can with merely human
> PoV remote control, when tied to a nice autonomous flight system they are
> going to be doing terrain following flight at knee height, using shrubs, trees
> and buildings as cover. Its hard enough to spot men on foot in shrubbery,
> let-alone a shoebox sized drone doing 100kmph while pulling 50G turns.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...

I think miniature (shoebox-sized) ground-hugging drones you envision can still
be detected, via airborne SAR. E.g. a SAR with a <5 cm azimuth resolution at a
slant range of 18 km. Processed SAR images that i have seen make me think a
shoebox-sized (or even smaller) object hovering a couple feet above the ground
would be highly detectable at such resolution, most readily via radar shadow.
Then there is the Doppler shift factor when they are moving at speed.. A
reconnaissance platform carrying such equipment would be both highly impactful
and vulnerable, hence the cost.

(I have to ask though, what kind of drones could even perform 50g turns? It
seems extremely unlikely any that aren't equipped with high power rocket engines
are possivle, which i don't think is what you meant. I am not aware of any model
or project remotely approaching this level of performance. The most capable
quadrotor with respect to peak acceleration that I know of is this single
purpose built thing which can pull off 3.6 g on ascend. It's reportedly
ludicrously high for a copter. Bird-like ornithopters with an actual payload are
going to perform even worse than that.)

> Biomimickery will be a big aspect of swarming drone stealth, a bird like drone
> is going to make detection a lot harder (and probably going to be bad for
> local bird populations) Is that a flock of starlings in the trees, or a
> hostile droneswarm. Just an Owl, or a flying set of binoculars?
> Flapping/gliding/soaring flight is quite efficient.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...

I agree with that, they are coming if they are not already here. Things similar
to the Metafly, with feathers and legs for perching. But they should be
significantly worse in terms of thrust and agility than rotor-based drones.
Rotation and props that can be flipped on a dime like in RC stunt helicopters
should be more efficient than any apparatus that relies on beating of wings. I
think such drones would be more suitable for stealthy ISR missions that take
advantage of their high endurance while soaring, with the types optimized for
evade-dash-kill still relying on rotors. Perhaps some kind of hybrid is viable
here but I would have to see such a biomimicking transformer first.


> uju32 said:
> At close range, a kilometer, two kilometers, sure. At double digit kilometers?
> Against military optics? I doubt it. A 50 kilowatt C-UAS system is point
> defence.
> Something like HEL-TVD might be able to do so, but its a 300kw emitter
> designed as much for cruise missile defense as potting MALE/HALE-class UAVs.
> And according to the diagram you posted, its Layer 5; Layer 6 is LOWER-AD,
> which is designed for ranges of 25km+.
> 
> So HEL has a lower range than that. Its a SHORAD system.
> DIRCM works at much closer ranges as well, against sensors that are basically
> designed to be disposable. Not representative.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...

You are underestimating the difference in the irradiation levels required to
shoot down a projectile and disabling an optical sensor.

Note that the THEL/Nautilus was a deuterium fluoride-based laser with emitted
wavelength of 3.8 micrometer.

I.e. it's beam divergence due to diffraction was several times worse than that
of modern SSL emitting at 1.06 micrometer thanks to the Nd:YAG medium.
Nevertheless it could still destroy optical sensors at 10 km range with 50 kW.

If you look closely at Table 5.5 in the post linked in my previous post, the
laser power requirements listed for a given effect include not just different IR
missile seekers but FLIR and IRST systems used for sighting and surveillance.
The requirements are essentially the same for sensor damage/dome destruction
effects. All existing sighting systems are highly vulnerable to high power laser
radiation.

> Plus, again, you have to know that theres something out there looking, and
> find the platform doing the looking. EO/IR is passive and does not emit shit.
> The search radar in that diagram thats looking for it? Does, and can be
> detected and localized at multiples of the range at which it can find
> anything.In a near peer environment its not going to be on and looking
> persistently, or it will get ARMed by anything from a drone swarm to a
> ballistic missile to MLRS.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...

If the passive EO/IR of the altitude drone has gotten good enough to be the
preferred tool for wide area searching (smth i am not convinced is the case or
will be the case in the near future but let's assume), the ground-based laser
would begin to rely on it principally too and have an advantage at that having a
cold background to search against.

The problem of detection runs both ways in other words. As far as infrared EO
sensors are concerned I share Wetapunga's view - a recon drone equipped with
passive sensors is going to have a very hard time finding the first order threat
(which is not even laser AD but swarms of compact ground hugging drones). It's
not just the size that's the problem, shit's getting real in the thermal
camouflage field (and the optical too for that matter). I am more skeptical
about the ability to detect a small low flying drone built with thermal stealth
via infrared EO sensors than one built with radar stealth via a radar. And it's
not because I underestimate radar stealth, but hiding from an active emitter is
just fundamentally the more complex problem in certain situations. SAR makes
things near the surface detectable via radar shadow, which is not something that
can be RAMed away. It can be theoretically DRFM-spoofed away but it requires
embedded ultrafast radar pulse repeaters hooked onto a powerful computer running
false radar echo algorithms, an extremely sophisticated feature for an
attritable asset. In my opinion airborne centimeter-range synthetic aperture
radar will be the method of choice for detecting ground-hugging drone swarms.
It's operation would make it's carrier detectable and therefore targetable, but
it's value as a force multiplier makes the case of it's deployment very
compelling, especially in combination with missile defenses. As for the
laser-carrying drones that could target hostile swarms near the surface, they
could rely on passive EO and cues from the ones equipped with the radar.
 
Last edited: Apr 21, 2022
 * 3



TIMEFORCED

 * Apr 19, 2022

 * 
 * #113

Pretty sure those tiny drones can either be cheap and numerous or hardened and
expensive. And if you don't harden them, whole swathes will be swept from the
sky by Microwave weapons like THOR.

Kind of like infantry vs artillery, but they can't even take cover.
 


PATCH

 * Apr 19, 2022

 * 
 * #114

It seems to me that none of the militaries have invested sufficient resources
into drone warfare to know what the correct doctrine and best practices would
be. It’s like adding a forth theater to the traditional army navy air triangle.

Obviously (although it’s not obvious), the next step in stone development would
be to build a drone both hard enough to resist current anti-drone weapons and/or
cheap enough to overwhelm them.

We might never know the most effective deployment of drones though, simply
because we won’t know what works until it’s been battle tested. And there are
many effective uses of them in battle, all requiring testing in real world
conditions.
 
Last edited: Apr 19, 2022


MECHASAURIAN

IMPERIAL WARLORD

They/Them
 * May 3, 2022

 * 
 * #115

Okay, so, for an uneducated layperson like me:

What are the differences in property between something being hit with a laser,
and something being with with a solid slug or explosive round?
Assuming...uh...equal energy transferred to the target upon impact? (Is it even
so easy to compare the two?)

Joule-for-joule, is one "better" at destroying stuff than the other, putting
aside concerns like "how do I actually power this laser, cool it, etc"? Does
this differ between types of materials?

I'm asking mainly with relatively silly science-fictiony handheld ray guns in
mind and how they'd compare to guns. But I'm also curious as to their viability
in point-defense. Again leaving aside questions of energy storage and stuff,
joule for joule, why would militaries want lasers to shoot down
mortars/rockets/artillery shells rather than projectile-based CIWS?
 


CONNOR MACLEOD

YES.

Staff
 * May 3, 2022

 * 
 * #116

First this really isn't the forum for sci fi questions, and trying to force it
to become that is a good way to get irate staff on your case.

Secondly, it depends on what kind of laser you're assuming. HEat rays are going
to basically be like longer ranged flamethrowers with all the benefits and
drawbacks. A pulse laser (or pulse train laser) will be more in the realm of
kinetics like a slugthrower, although there can be differences and context.

In terms of small arms (at least) you an go to atomic rockets and Luke
Campbell's site to get a better grasp of the implications:




ENERGY WEAPON SIDEARMS - ATOMIC ROCKETS


www.projectrho.com

How to Build a Laser Death Ray: Anti-personnel death rays

Anything different (antivehicle, etc.) is going to be more complicated and far
more speculative than I think this forum permits because it depends on how the
target is designed/what its made of and a slew of other equally hypotheticla
factors. Nevermind messy stuff like the Solid STate Heat Capacity laser.

IRL And for the forseeable ('practical/realistic' future) slugthrowers have
lasers beat hands down for a whole lot of roles. Doesn't mean theere isn't some
(complementary) utility or that the potential isn't believed to be there (its
just starting to be explored for pulse lasers) its just beyond the realm of what
can be said with any certainty - its entirely speculative.
 
 * 6



TERRY

MPD AGENT

 * Jul 12, 2022

 * 
 * #117

The USAF has received the laser component of it's self-defense airborne laser
pod called LANCE. It's a Lockheed Martin design developed within the scope of
the SHiELD program. With all of the ingredients delivered the next step is
putting them together and testing the pod on the ground.

Northrop Grumman has completed the preliminary design review for a (coherently
combined) high-energy laser prototype that will feature an architecture scalable
to more than a megawatt. NG intends to test the prototype at progressively
higher powers later this year to prove the coherent beam combining design.
 
 * 11



ZECTRAN

 * Friday at 12:56 AM

 * 
 * #118

> Connor MacLeod said:
> Secondly, it depends on what kind of laser you're assuming. HEat rays are
> going to basically be like longer ranged flamethrowers with all the benefits
> and drawbacks. A pulse laser (or pulse train laser) will be more in the realm
> of kinetics like a slugthrower, although there can be differences and context.
> 
> In terms of small arms (at least) you an go to atomic rockets and Luke
> Campbell's site to get a better grasp of the implications:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ENERGY WEAPON SIDEARMS - ATOMIC ROCKETS
> 
> 
> www.projectrho.com
> 
> How to Build a Laser Death Ray: Anti-personnel death rays
> 
> IRL And for the forseeable ('practical/realistic' future) slugthrowers have
> lasers beat hands down for a whole lot of roles. Doesn't mean theere isn't
> some (complementary) utility or that the potential isn't believed to be there
> (its just starting to be explored for pulse lasers) its just beyond the realm
> of what can be said with any certainty - its entirely speculative.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...


Wait, if pulsed lasers behave like kinetic slugthrowers in terms of damage than
does that mean we technically already have laser Gatlings but without the
rotating "barrels"? (For this analogy, I'm gonna treat the laser emitters as
"barrels" )
 


LOCKI

ASPIRING JAEGER PILOT

 * Friday at 2:53 AM

 * 
 * #119

> Zectran said:
> Wait, if pulsed lasers behave like kinetic slugthrowers in terms of damage
> than does that mean we technically already have laser Gatlings but without the
> rotating "barrels"? (For this analogy, I'm gonna treat the laser emitters as
> "barrels" )
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...


No.

From my understanding a standard laser destroys a target by heating it up. If
you want to find out what it would do to a target you merely have to look up the
specific heat and melting point of the target material.

Pulsed lasers and other super short pulse lasers damage a material by a
completely different mechanism. They deliver the energy in such a short time
frame the laser energy overloads the atomic bonds of the material causing
mini-explosions rather than just melting the material.

We had a big long discussion about this in the VS technical subforum.
Interestingly using ever shorter pulses of increasing power (fluence) can be
counter productive in some industrial applications. The pulse "explodes" the
material turning it into a plume of gas and this can dissipate the followup
pulses. Dunno what that means for military applications. Presumably the race
between defence and offence will be ever lasting and future enemies will try to
tune their armor to dissipate pulsed lasers of known wavelengths and pulse
widths.

Edited for clarity's sake re: plumes of vaporised gas interfering with followup
pulses.
 
Last edited: Saturday at 10:07 AM
 * 5



WALKIR

AEWAB LURKER

 * Friday at 9:05 AM

 * 
 * #120

Huh. Somehow missed this thread. So, crosspost:




MBDA GERMANY DEMONSTRATES PORTABLE LASER WEAPON FOR THE FIRST TIME

MBDA demonstrates portable laser weapon for the first time Lars Hoffmann ...
According to MBDA, the current system has a laser output of several 100 watts
and uses components that are largely available on the market. Both the laser
source and beam delivery system weigh less than 25 kg each...
forums.spacebattles.com
 


MECHASAURIAN

IMPERIAL WARLORD

They/Them
 * Saturday at 8:38 PM

 * 
 * #121

> locki said:
> We had a big long discussion about this in the VS technical subforum.
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...

Can I please have a link to this thread?
 


LOCKI

ASPIRING JAEGER PILOT

 * Saturday at 7:38 AM

 * 
 * #122

> Mechasaurian said:
> Can I please have a link to this thread?
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...


No problems. These are the papers I used

1. Metal Ablation with Short and Ultrashort Laser Pulses

2. Nanosecond Laser Processing of Diamond Materials
- this was the best paper
- This study made the observation the depth of penetration of the nanosecond
laser did not increase past a certain fluence (joules per cm^2) because the
formation of a plasma plume absorbed all subsequent pulses. Increasing the
fluence further did not increase ablation depth.
- for those who don't work with lasers fluence is just energy per cm^2. Its
basically what laypeople equate to the power of the laser.


Spoiler: Ablation depth limited by plasma plume formation rather than fluence
It can be further observed that the ablation depth is limited for higher values
of fluence for all PCD materials. As shown in figure 4 laser radiation is
absorbed in the plume after material has been evaporated. This effect is further
analyzed by two experiments. First experiment (figure 7) shows the plasma
formation during single pulse laser ablation for different values of fluence.
For that purpose a CMOS camera is installed and synchronized with the laser
source. It is obvious that the size of plasma plume is scaling with fluence. The
plume size variation for different diamond materials is insignificant (not
shown). Summing up the short pulse laser ablation behavior of different PCD
materials depends on the thermal properties of the diamond. Higher thermal
conductivity leads to higher achievable ablation depth. The ablation depth is
limited by plasma formation and absorption of laser radiation in the plasma
plume. Absorbance of laser radiation in the plume has to be avoided to achieve
high process efficiency.

And a link to the long running VS debate on realistic lasers where this topic
came up. This thread tends to stoke strong emotions and I'm in the minority in
being skeptical of the real world efficacy of directed energy weapons
(especially within an atmosphere). I'm a kinetic solutions type of personality
who likes direct kinetic solutions to disputes so it can get a bit heated (pun
intended) at times. I like lasers for ECM and soft kills but I'm very dubious
about lasers being the most effective way to attain a hard kill.




IS THERE ANY REALISTIC PROTECTION AT ALL AGAINST LASERS?

That's totally fair. They are all good points. We are certainly well into
theoretical territory here so anything goes but I certainly wouldn't be
objecting to anything you point out. Also thank you for finally explaining why
shorter wavelengths are better at doing damage by shock rather than by...
forums.spacebattles.com
 
Last edited: Saturday at 7:39 AM
 * 4



TERRY

MPD AGENT

 * Saturday at 9:05 AM

 * 
 * #123

For those who have missed the recent interview on laser weapons that Raytheon
gave to TheDrive, a few takeaways:

- their 15 kW lasers are between TLR 7 and 8 now; are effective against UAV
groups 1-2.
- the 50 kW laser is between TLR 6 and 7; is effective against UAV groups 1-3
and some RAM threats.
- 100+ kW devices are still in the engineering phase (although since the 100 kW
Iron Beam seems to be moving into production they must be referring to their own
projects)
- the 50 kW are in low rate production, Raytheon is preparing for full rate.
 
Last edited: Saturday at 10:36 AM
 * 3



YORA

 * Saturday at 10:30 AM

 * 
 * #124

> Zectran said:
> Wait, if pulsed lasers behave like kinetic slugthrowers in terms of damage
> than does that mean we technically already have laser Gatlings but without the
> rotating "barrels"? (For this analogy, I'm gonna treat the laser emitters as
> "barrels" )
> Click to expand...
> Click to shrink...

That would be called a machine gun.
 

Prev
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5

First Prev 5 of 5

GO TO PAGE


Go
You must log in or register to reply here.
Share:
Share


SIMILAR THREADS

Impact of lightweight energy weapons on military development
 * ray243
 * Jun 15, 2019

Replies 11 Views 436
Jun 16, 2019
chimeric oncogene

The Military Small Arms & Other Weapons discussion thread
 * Connor MacLeod
 * Feb 8, 2018
 * Words: 5.7k

1 ... 103 104 105
Replies 3K Views 104K
Monday at 9:31 PM
wellis

Energy Weapons
 * kingdragon
 * Jan 12, 2009

Replies 10 Views 489
Jan 13, 2009
LoofahBoy

Infantry energy weapons
 * kion
 * Apr 13, 2009

Replies 3 Views 450
Apr 13, 2009
Steel Warrior

How much energy will energy weapons need?
 * NoNamer
 * Jan 10, 2007

Replies 15 Views 505
Jan 11, 2007
Abanim

 * Debate Forums
 * The War Room


 * Style chooser

 * Contact us
 * Terms and rules
 * Privacy policy
 * Help
 * RSS


Top