PonceAlyosha: Anyone care to explain how the anti-mine robot works? Or is it just essentially dragged over where you desire to cross?

It shoots out a long strand of grenades then asplodes them, the concussion destroys/explodes the mines. Pretty simple tech, just on a robot now.

Kotecks: The 'R2-D2' it talks about is the CIWS and those things terrify me. They track any target and don't differentiate friend from foe, already a simple mistake can cause them to open up on us pilots. All we need now is lasers to make it more deadly. Eek.

When I was in the Navy we said CIWS stood for "Christ It Won't Shoot"

You know who else had a raygun?

I liked the video of the Roomba on steroids.

/Do not taunt Happy Fun Roomba

M-O-O-N, that spells ray gun. LaWS yes.

Does it make the noise that the Transformers guns did on the old '80s cartoon?

/Cuz that would farking rule.

PonceAlyosha: Anyone care to explain how the anti-mine robot works? Or is it just essentially dragged over where you desire to cross?

From that video, it's a line charge. You line it up, launch a rocket powered explosive filled tube and detonate, hopefully either exploding or disrupting any mines near the line charge.

It's like a miniature MICLIC.

cbackous: I prefer the speed of darkness

while light takes time to travel.. darkness is already there.

Ok...that's deep.

/I'm outta here
//treading water too tiring

Cool. Let me know when they figure out how to make light sabers.

Headso: This has more potential than the missile defense pork project, plus it's freakin badass to have a laser, that alone is worth the tax money.


Why? Because I think it's pretty obvious the ability to shoot down missiles, mortar rounds and artillery - thing from which there has been no defense from before other than "don't be standing in the way" - has a lot more potential than one more anti-aircraft system.

Now if you're talking technical hurdles... I still cannot fathom how we could send - and return - men to walk on the moon and yet somehow it's supposedly impossible for us to be able to engineer a system which could lase a missile. And frankly, since a working system has already in fact been built, that's utter hogwash.

I'm just amused that iRobot has expanded it's line of floor sweepers, pools sweeper, and gutter sweepers with a mine sweeper.

Here's to hoping they're more reliable than my Roombas.

"The LaWS system simply vapourises the target."

BULLSHAT

I'm only here for the LaWLs.

Imma redoin' mah post.

"You're on notice, motherf***ers."

borland502: firefly212:

Intra-service slap fight!

I only play Navy one weekend a month now, but I work for a company that makes UAVs and am occasionally get asked for insight on the inter-Navy outlook on the different warfare specialties, and have best summed it up with this: "the day the last manned aircraft lands and the Navy uses UAVs exclusively there will be much rending-of-garments and beating-of-breasts in the streets of Pensacola. The day the last manned submarine returns to port and the Navy uses autonomous submersible vehicles exclusively there will be much joy and dancing and celebration in the streets of Groton."

Unfortunately UAVs are much further developed.

mongbiohazard: Why?

A laser could actually have a shot at handling an icbm equipped with multiple real and dummy warheads. Those k-kill devices would easily be overwhelmed, they can barely shoot down a single missile sending out a signal.

LT L: borland502: firefly212:

Intra-service slap fight!

I only play Navy one weekend a month now, but I work for a company that makes UAVs and am occasionally get asked for insight on the inter-Navy outlook on the different warfare specialties, and have best summed it up with this: "the day the last manned aircraft lands and the Navy uses UAVs exclusively there will be much rending-of-garments and beating-of-breasts in the streets of Pensacola. The day the last manned submarine returns to port and the Navy uses autonomous submersible vehicles exclusively there will be much joy and dancing and celebration in the streets of Groton."

Unfortunately UAVs are much further developed.

Its interesting that assuming you could get a secure, near real time link to a UAV there really isnt any reason to have a person inside - it basically limits the flight envelope and adds weight and complexity to the aircraft. Sure, it eliminates the whole "cool fighter jock" image down to that of a highly skilled and well trained video game player - but if our technology can already produce a fighter well ahead of the rest of the world, imagine not having to worry about g-forces or surviveability.

And if you can do it with a plane you sure as hell could do it with a tank. Some of our future war fighters might not even have to leave home. They're watching the game...a light goes on in their living room notifying them its work time and they go out to the garage where a full simulator and data link puts them in the action. Bases would only need enough people and resources to maintain the hardware. Instead of bad luck or a mechanical malfunction killing your best pilots they simply get connected to a new plane and away we go.

mongbiohazard: Headso: This has more potential than the missile defense pork project, plus it's freakin badass to have a laser, that alone is worth the tax money.


Why? Because I think it's pretty obvious the ability to shoot down missiles, mortar rounds and artillery - thing from which there has been no defense from before other than "don't be standing in the way" - has a lot more potential than one more anti-aircraft system.

Now if you're talking technical hurdles... I still cannot fathom how we could send - and return - men to walk on the moon and yet somehow it's supposedly impossible for us to be able to engineer a system which could lase a missile. And frankly, since a working system has already in fact been built, that's utter hogwash.



The argument seems to be that since we haven't been able to make a 100% perfect system from the start, then there's no reason to even bother spending more money developing that technology.

It's pure bullshiat of course.

It's like saying just because we haven't cured cancer yet, we should just give up now and save the money we could be spending on it.

No one said the system will be cheap, it's still very much next generation technology that needs a lot of work and time to perfect, but I think it's worth doing.

dstanley: Article in American English (new window) instead of whatever the hell that article was.

"raygun"? Serial?

The primary source is also available.

Headso: This has more potential than the missile defense pork project, plus it's freakin badass to have a laser, that alone is worth the tax money.

Actually, old chap, we have now developed an airborne laser capable of shooting down a ballistic missile during its boost phase - which is the best time to do it. There is even video of the shot. Missile defense, real multi-staged missile defense, is here.

That "line charge" video appeared to have a dog of some sort running across the screen before the detonation.

/Dead doggy!

iRobot co-founder had previously told Wired that his company wasn't in the business of making weaponised robots, and it's probably sticking to its guns, so to speak.

Yeeeahhhh... not a weapon because it is meant for destroying mines. Got it.

Can we give the Japanese whaling research fleet one of these? I think it would make Whale Wars a hell of a lot more amsuing, albeit a much shorter show. There's only so much whiny hippie I can stand before I get the urge to go harpoon one.

/nevermind it was part of the weapon.

looks at self and slaps the back of my head

My God, the Navy hit something they were supposed to? Color me surprised.

Headso: mongbiohazard: Why?

A laser could actually have a shot at handling an icbm equipped with multiple real and dummy warheads. Those k-kill devices would easily be overwhelmed, they can barely shoot down a single missile sending out a signal.


That's simply bullshiat.

The THEL system which was already built in the early 2000's can track and destroy dozens of mortar rounds, artillery shells and simple rockets which are not "sending out a signal". Those are very small targets with very short flight paths and are very difficult to intercept.

If it's already been done, then it's obviously not impossible, now is it? Besides the fact... I have yet to hear a legitimate reason why this thing which is supposedly not feasible - but has already been done - is not feasible, or why any theoretical shortcomings are impossible to overcome or design around.

And even if the tech isn't where we want it to be yet... so what? This system in TFA is still being developed, should they scrap it because it didn't magically spring up fully formed and functional from the mud in front of Mother Jones publishing building? Should they stop researching cures for cancer because the perfect cure for all cancer hasn't been invented yet?

mongbiohazard: Headso: mongbiohazard: Why?

A laser could actually have a shot at handling an icbm equipped with multiple real and dummy warheads. Those k-kill devices would easily be overwhelmed, they can barely shoot down a single missile sending out a signal.


That's simply bullshiat.

The THEL system which was already built in the early 2000's can track and destroy dozens of mortar rounds, artillery shells and simple rockets which are not "sending out a signal". Those are very small targets with very short flight paths and are very difficult to intercept.

If it's already been done, then it's obviously not impossible, now is it? Besides the fact... I have yet to hear a legitimate reason why this thing which is supposedly not feasible - but has already been done - is not feasible, or why any theoretical shortcomings are impossible to overcome or design around.

And even if the tech isn't where we want it to be yet... so what? This system in TFA is still being developed, should they scrap it because it didn't magically spring up fully formed and functional from the mud in front of Mother Jones publishing building? Should they stop researching cures for cancer because the perfect cure for all cancer hasn't been invented yet?

Nice post. Mother Jones by the way, was instrumental in the Ford Pinto "crisis" with completely false reporting. Won an award for it even.

mongbiohazard: And even if the tech isn't where we want it to be yet... so what? This system in TFA is still being developed, should they scrap it because it didn't magically spring up fully formed and functional from the mud in front of Mother Jones publishing building? Should they stop researching cures for cancer because the perfect cure for all cancer hasn't been invented yet?

The best it can be is not going to be good enough. They have limited potential, that is why I think it is a waste not because of the "it ain't perfect now" strawman.

Elfich: I assume the navy likes it because you don't have to lug around all the weight from the ammunition. And the power supply on a nuclear vessel is not a problem.

Weight, bulk ... and safety. When this thing fails, it probably just fails to work, maybe some localised shorting or arcing or shattering. Boom-boom munitions have a way of going boom-boom on an unplanned basis when shiat goes south. (Ask non-President John McCain about that. He was not only on the Forrestal for the explosion and fire, he was in the cockpit of one of the two planes struck by the misfiring missile that started it off.)

Headso:
The best it can be is not going to be good enough. They have limited potential, that is why I think it is a waste not because of the "it ain't perfect now" strawman.


WHY? You have yet to explain why it isn't possible for it to be "good enough". You just keep repeating the assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary (you know, like the working system that was already been built and performed spectacularly) without explaining WHY.

It's not like FTL travel where the rules of physics might possibly be insurmountable. This is simply shooting down a missile with a laser - something which has already been done. We've shot down missiles, artillery rounds, mortar shells.... hell, we've already bounced lasers off the farking moon. You telling us we can hit a 2 foot target on the moon - but not a 30 foot missile 50 miles away?

So I want you to explain to me what is the insurmountable obstacle to having a working laser-based missile defense system. I'm all ears.

mongbiohazard: WHY?

a k-kill device is not a laser.

going down the laser technology road = good
going down the kinetic kill technology road = bad

The missile defense pork project centers around kinetic kill technology and I think that is a waste of money.

Thunderpipes mongbiohazard: Headso: mongbiohazard: Why?

A laser could actually have a shot at handling an icbm equipped with multiple real and dummy warheads. Those k-kill devices would easily be overwhelmed, they can barely shoot down a single missile sending out a signal.


That's simply bullshiat.

The THEL system which was already built in the early 2000's can track and destroy dozens of mortar rounds, artillery shells and simple rockets which are not "sending out a signal". Those are very small targets with very short flight paths and are very difficult to intercept.

If it's already been done, then it's obviously not impossible, now is it? Besides the fact... I have yet to hear a legitimate reason why this thing which is supposedly not feasible - but has already been done - is not feasible, or why any theoretical shortcomings are impossible to overcome or design around.

And even if the tech isn't where we want it to be yet... so what? This system in TFA is still being developed, should they scrap it because it didn't magically spring up fully formed and functional from the mud in front of Mother Jones publishing building? Should they stop researching cures for cancer because the perfect cure for all cancer hasn't been invented yet?

Nice post. Mother Jones by the way, was instrumental in the Ford Pinto "crisis" with completely false reporting. Won an award for it even.


High powered lasers lose a lot at greater ranges due to atmospheric scattering and blasting airborne particles. For relatively close objects like artillery rounds, the defensive systems are probably limited by the ability of the detection and targeting systems, but for ICBMs and such which need to be destroyed at much greater ranges, the defensive systems are probably limited by the physics of the laser beams and the requirement for significantly more powerful shots.

/BTW Where does Mother Jones come into all of this?

Headso: mongbiohazard: WHY?

a k-kill device is not a laser.

going down the laser technology road = good
going down the kinetic kill technology road = bad

The missile defense pork project centers around kinetic kill technology and I think that is a waste of money.


/facepalm

So you DO think that lasers could make good anti-missile systems, and that it's not a waste of time... ok...

Don't pull that kind of bait and switch and then complain that someone is trying to use a "strawman" argument with you. This is a thread about a laser system, I've been linking you laser systems and discussing lasers... and now you're going to pretend like you've been talking about something else the whole time when I was very clear in every post that I was talking about lasers? How dishonest of you.


Scrophulous Barking Duck: High powered lasers lose a lot at greater ranges due to atmospheric scattering and blasting airborne particles. For relatively close objects like artillery rounds, the defensive systems are probably limited by the ability of the detection and targeting systems, but for ICBMs and such which need to be destroyed at much greater ranges, the defensive systems are probably limited by the physics of the laser beams and the requirement for significantly more powerful shots.


Adaptive optics are definitely a way around this. Adaptive optics have been in use for years already in astronomy.

Atmospheric scattering is not an insurmountable barrier, as testing of the YAL-1 has already proven.


Scrophulous Barking Duck:/BTW Where does Mother Jones come into all of this?


I just used them as an example to be funny. I picked a deeply leftist publication though as the opposition/support for anti-missile technology in general has for decades been split deeply along partisan lines. I can't really understand WHY, but it is. I can only imagine it either has to do with the fact that Ronald Reagan, paragon to the right, was an early and vocal proponent of missile defense or just a more general aversion of weapons technology advancement by those on the left. Otherwise, it just looks suicidal...

Is geeky enough to freely admit she finds this thread fascinating.

Carry on.

Ominous Reagan fireside chat: [points up] "the Threat...from above."

Jubeebee: mongbiohazard: The THEL system which was already built in the early 2000's can track and destroy dozens of mortar rounds, artillery shells and simple rockets which are not "sending out a signal". Those are very small targets with very short flight paths and are very difficult to intercept.

There is quite a bit of difference between a 12kg mortar round traveling at 300m/s and a 400kg reentry stage ICBM traveling at 6000m/s.

Exactly. The YAL-1 (747 with a friggin' laser) is intended to engage ballistic missiles in the boost phase, when they're slow and bright and full of explode-y fuel. That whole program is really designed to orbit just outside of North Korea and wait for the crazy midget to finally try something. It doesn't do you any good against an actual military with an effective air force and ICBMs.

For midcourse and terminal stage interception you need something more substantial than a laser beam. Reentry vehicles are pretty tough and dense and it would take more than even what is on the horizon in the next 25 years in laser power to do anything useful against them.

The Navy SM-3 and the Air Force GBMD programs have had some success in these areas, but they're far from perfect. Shooting down ICBMs is complicated, and taking the attitude of "perfect or scrap it" is really dumb.

Jubeebee: There is quite a bit of difference between a 12kg mortar round traveling at 300m/s and a 400kg reentry stage ICBM traveling at 6000m/s.


Certainly. So we'd probably need a different system for the big stuff. Which is why there has been work done on different systems to address those separate threats separately. But there is utterly no reason why defending against either threat with a laser system is ultimately impossible or impractical.

Remember that an ICBM might be travelling at 6,000 m/s, but light travels at 299,792,458 m/s - in other words, almost 50,000 times faster. A laser is the PERFECT tool for defending against missiles.

Can someone shoop in the death star gunners please...