Weaponized lasers in the news...

[JJWMACHINECO]

Laser engraved on the back of a mirror.

[Stuka]

For those talking about the color of the objects, how many weapons are painted a color that will reflect the laser energy? Not many, if any, at all. It would be dumb to do so.
...

You mean tactical vehicles, boats, airplanes, missiles, etc. generally aren't painted bright shiny reflective colors, and generally don't have highly polished reflective surfaces all over them? Huh, who would have figured that! Kind of goes against several of the insights others have posted in this thread, doesn't it!

Hmm, maybe the designers of the weapon system (which probably has government funding and oversight) actually know what they are doing, after all...

[absolom7691]

You mean tactical vehicles, boats, airplanes, missiles, etc. generally aren't painted bright shiny reflective colors, and generally don't have highly polished reflective surfaces all over them? Huh, who would have figured that! Kind of goes against several of the insights others have posted in this thread, doesn't it!

Hmm, maybe the designers of the weapon system (which probably has government funding and oversight) actually know what they are doing, after all...

Exactly what I was thinking. Either keep your camo color get cooked by a laser or become shiny and easy to spot and get obliterated by any number of conventional weapons, cheap ones too, since you'd be easily spotted.

[steve-o]

You mean tactical vehicles, boats, airplanes, missiles, etc. generally aren't painted bright shiny reflective colors, and generally don't have highly polished reflective surfaces all over them? Huh, who would have figured that! Kind of goes against several of the insights others have posted in this thread, doesn't it!

Hmm, maybe the designers of the weapon system (which probably has government funding and oversight) actually know what they are doing, after all...

Well, my point being basically to your OP, Stuka, with that laser puncturing a soft rubber boat. Do you think it would have the same effect to an aircraft carrier?

[Stuka]

Well, my point being basically to your OP, Stuka, with that laser puncturing a soft rubber boat. Do you think it would have the same effect to an aircraft carrier?

Nope, I doubt if that particular version is meant for a carrier, but I also doubt that the full capabilities of the system being tested have yet to be displayed for the world to see. It's is not unusual for the some weapons capabilities to stay "under wraps" during development & fielding. (Been around that scenario a time or two...)

It appears to me that it is intended for use against the smaller surface craft (think pirates, terrorists operations, etc.) that are in many ways the biggest threat today against civilian and occasionally, military shipping or shore-based operations. Plus, it's very accurate, with minimal collateral damage, which would definitely expand its usefulness as the portability improves!

The "rubber boat" is exactly the kind of threat that took out the USS Cole in 2000.

Also, prior to commencement of operations that eventually became Desert Storm, we had an entire Task Force in the Persian Gulf operating helicopters off the back of Navy frigates, whose whole purpose was to intercept and if necessary, destroy small attack boats sailing out of Iran & other Gulf countries that were threatening shipping and offshore oil platforms.

Being able to deal with the yahoos with lasers would have been a much safer - and quicker - than having to launch 58D's and Little Birds off the back of some crowded Navy frigate in the middle of the night for NVG low-level over-water intercept missions!

[planters]

No one weapon does everything. An argument for lasers beside accuracy and nearly zero time of flight is that each "shot" costs very little compared to any ordinance except a simple bullet. Also, free electron lasers are broadly tunable and the absorption wavelength can be well into the infrared. Low emissivity surfaces that would reflect the laser in the visible will make the target more obvious for detection at a longer range. These lasers can be chirped so it will be very difficult to protect sensitive instrument/sensors and troops from them with passive coatings. By firing the main pulse through a pre-pulsed channel divergence and absorption can be reduced. The upper limit on power for FEL's is not due to damage in the medium which is just electrons in a vacuum and so average powers of many MW will probably be achieved as the electron sources increase in current

[steve-o]

I'm just sayin' (and I ain't professin' to be some kind of an expert on laser weaponry) that I would like to see a laser (or any directed energy weapon) pierce 1/4"-1/2" steel (of any painted color) at 1KM .. that's all .. whether it be IR, UV, microwave, gamma, X, or pre-pulsed-channeled etc.. We may be close . I dunno.. I guess we'll just have to wait and see..

[planters]

I don't think that challenge would be tough. Maybe someone here with experience with high power industrial lasers could give an estimate for the time required for a few kW beam to pierce that much metal. Now, feed that beam through a 1/2M diameter telescope. Depending on the M^2 and for disc and fiber lasers in this power range this could be near 1 (diffraction limited), the far field spot could be a few mm in diameter. Trumpf has 16kW lasers as a standard product. The problem is they aren't going to show the state of the art, so we'll just have to build it ourselves. Do you think there would be any concern that this would set a bad example for those enthusiasts @ LPF?

[LaNeK779]

all this technology and yet we have people dying from hunger and mosquitos in africa

makes one wonder

[Stuka]

all this technology and yet we have people dying from hunger and mosquitos in africa

makes one wonder

Blame that on the thugs that run those countries,and the backwards mindsets of the populations.
Aid is not always welcomed, and more and more often proves to be extremely dangerous for those who are trying to help.