Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Crossbow kills 5, Mitch and Chris seen buying a lot of popcorn   ( foxnews.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Laser, ATHENA, United States Army, ATHENA laser weapon, laser weapons, Lockheed Martin, Laser pointer, Optical fiber  
•       •       •

5679 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Sep 2017 at 2:44 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-29 04:33:59 PM  

mrshowrules: fireclown: mrshowrules: So as long as the enemy uses drones with a matte finish, stick to the flight plan, on clear days and maintain a constant speed, they don't have a chance.

That's how it is TODAY, yes.

I haven't seen significant advancement since I was 8 years old.  Rail-gun technology has more potential.


I don't know shiat about fark-all, but railguns and battlefield lasers seem to have different applications to me. Like, you use a railgun when you want to dump a couple megajoules of energy into a target all at once, and a laser is for when you want to make a neat hole in one particular part of a target. Shooting a rail gun at a drone seems to be like shooting a .50 at a sparrow.
 
2017-09-29 04:38:11 PM  
You could probably thwart a drone with $1K of radio jamming hardware and a parabolic dish you can buy online.
 
2017-09-29 04:43:03 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-09-29 04:44:39 PM  
if that thing is off the power grid and you can't power it on in a split second and aim and fire but need to have a good bit of juice going to it all the time i hope you have a tanker truck of fuel always at the ready. i'd say about 6 gallons of gas an hour for 30 kw.
 
2017-09-29 04:47:48 PM  
The writer: "Allison Barrie is a defense specialist with experience in more than 70 countries who consults at the highest levels of defense and national security, a lawyer with four postgraduate degrees"

Seriously? Has she no sense of shame about writing such drivel?

Jubeebee: like shooting a .50 at a sparrow.


I'm betting this would also get the "Fox Firepower" writer very excited.
 
2017-09-29 04:49:39 PM  

Jubeebee: I don't know shiat about fark-all, but railguns and battlefield lasers seem to have different applications to me. Like, you use a railgun when you want to dump a couple megajoules of energy into a target all at once, and a laser is for when you want to make a neat hole in one particular part of a target. Shooting a rail gun at a drone seems to be like shooting a .50 at a sparrow.


Velocity is a HUGE consideration when tracking a moving target, be it a drone or a ballistic missile. It's hard as hell to shoot a ballistic missile as it arcs over head because you're chasing it from behind and below. Hitting it with a laser is as simple as pointing the laser at it (and leading by maybe 1 millisecond's worth of travel if it's 200 miles above).

For a drone, yes, the laser would be overkill from that perspective, but I can imagine in a lot of urban environments it might be better to blast a couple laser shots upward than to expend a thousand rounds of CIWS in a vertical direction. I am not sure how the rail gun plays into this, though.
 
2017-09-29 04:51:13 PM  

Jubeebee: mrshowrules: fireclown: mrshowrules: So as long as the enemy uses drones with a matte finish, stick to the flight plan, on clear days and maintain a constant speed, they don't have a chance.

That's how it is TODAY, yes.

I haven't seen significant advancement since I was 8 years old.  Rail-gun technology has more potential.

I don't know shiat about fark-all, but railguns and battlefield lasers seem to have different applications to me. Like, you use a railgun when you want to dump a couple megajoules of energy into a target all at once, and a laser is for when you want to make a neat hole in one particular part of a target. Shooting a rail gun at a drone seems to be like shooting a .50 at a sparrow.


I'm also talking out of my ass a bit.  The drone isn't the target.  If it was, you could simply use cheap radio jamming equipment.  The drone is a proof of concept.  The goal is missiles.  They already have shiat to take out jets very effectively.  Since the St. Ronnie days, the golden grail is to take out a nuclear missile with a laser.  Not going to happen.  Missiles move to fast, and are too shiny to keep a hot enough laser beam on them long enough to destroy them.  Heck, the missiles have heat shielding on them also because of the air friction.

Photons and they only travel one speed so it becomes all about how much photons you can generate.  It is not an efficient way of delivery high speed energy at a super fast moving target.

Know a rail gun can deliver a tremendous about of energy that will definitely destroy a missile.  It just can't hit it because even a projectile at Mach 5 is too slow to reliable hit a far away target moving at similar speeds.  You can't hit a bullet with a dumb bullet that can't steer.  Except a rail gun has more potential.  The projectiles could be made faster and faster and they could be configured in larger and larger arrays and they could be fired in rapid secession.  Simultaneously, you will improve targeting ability.  So one day, you could point a rail gun at an ICBM 500 miles away with an array that shoots 100 projectiles (a millisecond) at Mach 10 and eliminate a missile.
 
2017-09-29 04:55:08 PM  
God...now I can't get the thought of Laslow Hollyfeld in pajamas out of my head.
 
2017-09-29 05:03:55 PM  

mrshowrules: I'm also talking out of my ass a bit.  The drone isn't the target.  If it was, you could simply use cheap radio jamming equipment.  The drone is a proof of concept.  The goal is missiles.  They already have shiat to take out jets very effectively.  Since the St. Ronnie days, the golden grail is to take out a nuclear missile with a laser.  Not going to happen.  Missiles move to fast, and are too shiny to keep a hot enough laser beam on them long enough to destroy them.  Heck, the missiles have heat shielding on them also because of the air friction.


That's got me thinking... what spectrum would you need to go through the heat shielding but not the uranium.  Heat the uranium to prematurely detonate the charge.  Of course, that's another order of magnitude of precision.
 
2017-09-29 05:21:15 PM  

afghanwhiggle: Lorenzo Von Matterhorn: Last night I had a dream where I saw myself standing in sort of sun-god robes on a pyramid with a thousand naked women screaming and throwing little pickles at me.

I thought I was the only one with that dream.


Never pass on a chance for it...


img.fark.net
 
2017-09-29 05:25:01 PM  

HoratioGates: mrshowrules: I'm also talking out of my ass a bit.  The drone isn't the target.  If it was, you could simply use cheap radio jamming equipment.  The drone is a proof of concept.  The goal is missiles.  They already have shiat to take out jets very effectively.  Since the St. Ronnie days, the golden grail is to take out a nuclear missile with a laser.  Not going to happen.  Missiles move to fast, and are too shiny to keep a hot enough laser beam on them long enough to destroy them.  Heck, the missiles have heat shielding on them also because of the air friction.

That's got me thinking... what spectrum would you need to go through the heat shielding but not the uranium.  Heat the uranium to prematurely detonate the charge.


I... don't even know where to begin with this.
 
2017-09-29 05:28:02 PM  

mrshowrules: Know a rail gun can deliver a tremendous about of energy that will definitely destroy a missile. It just can't hit it because even a projectile at Mach 5 is too slow to reliable hit a far away target moving at similar speeds. You can't hit a bullet with a dumb bullet that can't steer. Except a rail gun has more potential. The projectiles could be made faster and faster and they could be configured in larger and larger arrays and they could be fired in rapid secession. Simultaneously, you will improve targeting ability. So one day, you could point a rail gun at an ICBM 500 miles away with an array that shoots 100 projectiles (a millisecond) at Mach 10 and eliminate a missile.


Boost phase intercept is the more straightforward application for a railgun.
 
2017-09-29 05:42:54 PM  
I am doing the cha-cha while reading this, so I am getting a kick.
 
2017-09-29 05:43:12 PM  
Just swat the drones with a garden rake like was done on battlebots.
 
2017-09-29 06:00:22 PM  

mrshowrules: Missiles move to fast, and are too shiny to keep a hot enough laser beam on them long enough to destroy them.  Heck, the missiles have heat shielding on them also because of the air friction.


You aim center of mass, and heat the skin. The skin crumples or the fuel detonates.
 
2017-09-29 06:36:06 PM  

mrshowrules: Missiles move to fast, and are too shiny to keep a hot enough laser beam on them long enough to destroy them.


Back in the 90's my father was a senior scientist at HELSTF for 4 years vaporizing actual, non-drone-like "shiny" missiles and long range artillery out of the sky with a larger, building-sized version of this system.

"Missles move too fast". Sure they do.
 
2017-09-29 06:38:25 PM  
Move the damn cue cards closer to the camera.  Having them that far stage left will drive anyone in the biz quite angry.
 
2017-09-29 08:10:18 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Laughing my ass off at the name of the Foxnews blog section for this stuff.

Fox Firepower

It's like a bald eagle came all over the browser window.


The article was laid out like a slow build masturbation session.
 
2017-09-29 10:03:43 PM  
Soon, the United States' influence will cause corner reflector mirrors to be forbidden arms by international law.
 
2017-09-30 02:03:18 AM  
不ゴジラ光線
 
2017-09-30 09:53:22 AM  
The problem here is that it won't be long until America's enemies get laser based AA guns as well.  Then it's all over.  For the over 70 years all US military doctrine has been based on us having 100% domination over the battlefield's airspace.  Take that away and our whole military is FUBAR until we come up with a completely new system... and considering that we've been in Afghanistan for a good 16+ years now, it's safe to say that we're not exactly quick to adapt anymore.
 
Displayed 21 of 71 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report