Laser Cannon Warfare, Boeing tests

This is fascinating hot stuff:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/11/bo...l_laser_fitted/

This post has been edited by PIATLAS on Mar 18 2008, 02:28 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Oxygen_Iodine_Laser

Been there, some real cool stuff I gotta say

If I had a nifty new toy like that,, I would love to take it out for a test drive.
I sure wondered about that missile that North Korea launched last year, that for some strange reason it just tumbled into the sea of Japan. Hummmm. could it be?

As far as I know, they're still trying to cram the laser into the 747, so it's more likely, IMO, that the NKoreans simply didn't have the missile built right.

I work for a company that builds rocket engines, and it's trickier than it looks.

Wcelliott, how practical is this idea of putting a laser cannon into practice in a blank? I need not say what the blank represents for obvious reasons and you can figure it out.

http://www.physorg.com/news130511435.html

The top story here offers help to the U.S. economy in the way of titanium powders at a reasonable cost. The military is beaming over this technique as mentioned. The car industry can use JIT inventory to exactly match the parts produced from this technique. Both military and car industries will benefit tremendously by lowering prices down the board and boosting economy.

Laser cannons are obviously a possible beneficiary without need to mention, but I did.

Is this what you mean by blank?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KU_JqTZHRU
Maybe could be used for a DIY blank?

Ayyyyyy. Great to know some are clueless is comforting.

If by "blank" you mean "satellite", I worked on the Space Based Laser for three years before it was cancelled.

I could go into greater detail about why it was cancelled, but let's just say that "Dilbert" cartoons are more fact-based than most people would believe.

If you're thinking about putting the SBL laser on a ship, it only works in a vacuum.

If you're talking about putting it on an airplane, it's called "AirBorne Laser", and that's what they're having trouble cramming into a 747.

There are other tactical lasers, but they don't have the range or power to destroy IRBMs (yet).

The likeliest answer to the NKorean missile failure is that it's harder to make missiles work than most tin-pot dictators seem to think. (The same is true of high-energy missile-defense radars.)

Airborne Laser testing

More ABL testing

ABL and Hanscom Air Force Base

I worked at Hanscom, at the MIT Lincoln Laboratories where that work is being done, although in a different group.

It's is a pretty cool idea, and the big Jet at that little airport looks like Gulliver.

Okay, the vacuum answer is the one I'm searching for all along wcelliott.

Actually, the Soviet's spent time and money developing a version of a space-based laser that used technology that *could* be used at sea level (non-vacuum), but to the best of my knowledge, we don't have any ship-based directed-energy weapons capable of shooting down a missile.

I hesitate to mention it and fuel speculation, but for honesty's sake, the technology is feasible, whether it was developed or not is something I wouldn't know.

I still feel that it was more likely a simple matter that missiles aren't as easy to build and as reliable the NKoreans might seem they are.

Thanks for understanding the hesitation and the answers.

Thanks for understanding my hesitation in answering.



This post has been edited by wcelliott on Jun 17 2008, 01:43 AM