Skip to content
 
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.

(US Naval Institute)   U.S. Navy releases video of a ship downing a drone with its frickin' laser beam during the first at-sea test. Pew pew!   (news.usni.org) divider line
    More: Murica, United States Navy, laser weapon, Laser, sea test of the Navy, high-energy laser weapon system, Amphibious ship USS Portland, greater power-generation capabilities, SSL-TM  
•       •       •

6992 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 23 May 2020 at 1:05 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-05-23 6:41:04 AM  

fehk: I was wondering if there's ever anywhere to see live weapon exercises, like air shows but for weapons?


Not these weapons.
 
2020-05-23 6:42:08 AM  

Al!: 2wolves: So the tech savvy op for countries continue research into UMVs, Unmanned Marine Vehicles.  Lasers don't penetrate water.

I have never heard that lasers don't penetrate water.  Good thing that's not a testable assertion.  Oh, wait...

Seriously, even discounting the fact that I can use my laser pointer to shine through a pool with no issues at all, there are all sorts of technologies that rely on laser light penetrating water. Laser light absolutely does penetrate water, and whoever told you it doesn't is an idiot, a liar, or both.


The water absorbs the energy and reduces the effect.

You know what else reduces the damage effect of a laser?  A mirror.  Just make sure it is really, REALLY clean.
 
2020-05-23 6:51:13 AM  
Space Squid:
Two:  The reason the US hasn't had a fight with a modern military is because of weapons like this.  Knowing that we have capabilities like these (and these are just the ones we're willing to show) are deterrents to picking fights with us (from large modern militaries; of course the smaller "scrappier" ones still give it a shot every now and then, but as your comment illustrated, none have succeeded in accomplishing too awful much; again, because of new technologies ...

I would think the real reason the US hasn't had a fight with a modern military is because nations rich enough to have a modern military have no benefit to going to war with the US.  Wars have always been about resources, whether it be land or population or oil (arguably, WWII was the first oil war).  Nowadays, if you as a country are rich enough to fund a modern military, you're rich enough to just buy the resources you need, and set up stable trading partners so that you don't have to worry about supply.

Diplomacy and a tightly interconnected economy.

It is still important to stay on the cutting edge military-wise, because that can change faster than you can leap forward technologically.
 
2020-05-23 6:55:13 AM  
Wow, first the Space Force then a pandemic and now this. Trump is awesome.
 
2020-05-23 7:03:12 AM  

starsrift: OgreMagi: starsrift: Well, to their credit, the US military-industrial is not fighting the last war with this new tech. Now they're fighting completely imaginary ones.

The last attacks on a US ship were some Houthi rebels aiming some rockets in the general direction of an Arleigh Burke, the USS Mason. It's unclear whether the missiles were successfully stopped by the Mason or just fell into the sea.

And of course the attack before that was the bombing the USS Cole, with a speedboat.

On the other hand, I suppose, having your own laser might be a lot more attractive than relying on an F35 CAP.

The laser isn't designed to deal with terrorist insurgents or African warlords.  It's for dealing with bigger threats like China.  It's generally considered a good idea to have the resources to deal with an enemy before they attack.

My point was twofold.

One: A drone is just an aircraft. The US already has plenty of tools already to bring down aircraft. Some of those aircraft it can bring down might even belong to an enemy.

Two: The US hasn't had a fight with a modern military since WW2. In fact, no US navy ship has been actually sunk by hostile action since WW2. That's not a bad thing, per se, but the wars it DOES fight are ones with much less advanced gear, and more, well, more scrappy opponents. If the MI complex develops anything, it should be practical workhorses along the lines of the A-10, not lasers to replace A-A batteries or CIWS. This doesn't appear to be actually better than the previous options, though it looks cool, I guess. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, and the price of ammo is prohibitive.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-23 7:11:15 AM  

AirForceVet: Neat trick. Now let's try a jet-powered drone simulating a cruise middle. Then follow that with a ballistic missile intercept.


It's only an issue of reliable target tracking and aiming. Lasers travel at the speed of light with pretty much zero air resistance or gravitational effects, i.e. if you are pointed at the target and hit the trigger, you will not miss.
 
2020-05-23 7:16:44 AM  

Al!: 2wolves: So the tech savvy op for countries continue research into UMVs, Unmanned Marine Vehicles.  Lasers don't penetrate water.

I have never heard that lasers don't penetrate water.  Good thing that's not a testable assertion.  Oh, wait...

Seriously, even discounting the fact that I can use my laser pointer to shine through a pool with no issues at all, there are all sorts of technologies that rely on laser light penetrating water. Laser light absolutely does penetrate water, and whoever told you it doesn't is an idiot, a liar, or both.


Surely does. It will refract and screw up your aim, but science can deal with such issues. Low wavelength light (photons on general) will have better penetration, iirc.
 
2020-05-23 7:18:00 AM  

OgreMagi: Al!: 2wolves: So the tech savvy op for countries continue research into UMVs, Unmanned Marine Vehicles.  Lasers don't penetrate water.

I have never heard that lasers don't penetrate water.  Good thing that's not a testable assertion.  Oh, wait...

Seriously, even discounting the fact that I can use my laser pointer to shine through a pool with no issues at all, there are all sorts of technologies that rely on laser light penetrating water. Laser light absolutely does penetrate water, and whoever told you it doesn't is an idiot, a liar, or both.

I'm guessing that enough energy to do damage to something could cause the water to vaporize.  And steam is going to diffuse the laser energy.  So it might work, but your going to see a loss of energy.


Not if you are using a frequency outside the absorption spectrum of the medium.
 
2020-05-23 7:21:03 AM  

starsrift: OgreMagi: starsrift: Well, to their credit, the US military-industrial is not fighting the last war with this new tech. Now they're fighting completely imaginary ones.

The last attacks on a US ship were some Houthi rebels aiming some rockets in the general direction of an Arleigh Burke, the USS Mason. It's unclear whether the missiles were successfully stopped by the Mason or just fell into the sea.

And of course the attack before that was the bombing the USS Cole, with a speedboat.

On the other hand, I suppose, having your own laser might be a lot more attractive than relying on an F35 CAP.

The laser isn't designed to deal with terrorist insurgents or African warlords.  It's for dealing with bigger threats like China.  It's generally considered a good idea to have the resources to deal with an enemy before they attack.

My point was twofold.

One: A drone is just an aircraft. The US already has plenty of tools already to bring down aircraft. Some of those aircraft it can bring down might even belong to an enemy.

Two: The US hasn't had a fight with a modern military since WW2. In fact, no US navy ship has been actually sunk by hostile action since WW2. That's not a bad thing, per se, but the wars it DOES fight are ones with much less advanced gear, and more, well, more scrappy opponents. If the MI complex develops anything, it should be practical workhorses along the lines of the A-10, not lasers to replace A-A batteries or CIWS. This doesn't appear to be actually better than the previous options, though it looks cool, I guess. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, and the price of ammo is prohibitive.


Uh, that's just wrong. We've been in several military conflicts since WWII. And some of the adversaries have been relatively capable. We still field 1950s through 80s combat vehicles (with upgrades though) as a bulk of our materiel.
 
2020-05-23 7:22:48 AM  
Thank god our enemies have yet to master the technology of shiny things.
 
2020-05-23 7:23:55 AM  

valenumr: starsrift: OgreMagi: starsrift: Well, to their credit, the US military-industrial is not fighting the last war with this new tech. Now they're fighting completely imaginary ones.

The last attacks on a US ship were some Houthi rebels aiming some rockets in the general direction of an Arleigh Burke, the USS Mason. It's unclear whether the missiles were successfully stopped by the Mason or just fell into the sea.

And of course the attack before that was the bombing the USS Cole, with a speedboat.

On the other hand, I suppose, having your own laser might be a lot more attractive than relying on an F35 CAP.

The laser isn't designed to deal with terrorist insurgents or African warlords.  It's for dealing with bigger threats like China.  It's generally considered a good idea to have the resources to deal with an enemy before they attack.

My point was twofold.

One: A drone is just an aircraft. The US already has plenty of tools already to bring down aircraft. Some of those aircraft it can bring down might even belong to an enemy.

Two: The US hasn't had a fight with a modern military since WW2. In fact, no US navy ship has been actually sunk by hostile action since WW2. That's not a bad thing, per se, but the wars it DOES fight are ones with much less advanced gear, and more, well, more scrappy opponents. If the MI complex develops anything, it should be practical workhorses along the lines of the A-10, not lasers to replace A-A batteries or CIWS. This doesn't appear to be actually better than the previous options, though it looks cool, I guess. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, and the price of ammo is prohibitive.

Uh, that's just wrong. We've been in several military conflicts since WWII. And some of the adversaries have been relatively capable. We still field 1950s through 80s combat vehicles (with upgrades though) as a bulk of our materiel.


Yeah, the Vietnamese shot down over 12,500 US/RVN aircraft, of which about 5,000 were fixed-wing planes. They weren't doing that with slingshots and BB guns.
 
2020-05-23 7:26:24 AM  

Mister Peejay: Space Squid:
Two:  The reason the US hasn't had a fight with a modern military is because of weapons like this.  Knowing that we have capabilities like these (and these are just the ones we're willing to show) are deterrents to picking fights with us (from large modern militaries; of course the smaller "scrappier" ones still give it a shot every now and then, but as your comment illustrated, none have succeeded in accomplishing too awful much; again, because of new technologies ...

I would think the real reason the US hasn't had a fight with a modern military is because nations rich enough to have a modern military have no benefit to going to war with the US.  Wars have always been about resources, whether it be land or population or oil (arguably, WWII was the first oil war).  Nowadays, if you as a country are rich enough to fund a modern military, you're rich enough to just buy the resources you need, and set up stable trading partners so that you don't have to worry about supply.

Diplomacy and a tightly interconnected economy.

It is still important to stay on the cutting edge military-wise, because that can change faster than you can leap forward technologically.


WWII was instigated by a butthurt Germany over the fallout from WWI.
 
2020-05-23 7:33:21 AM  

valenumr: Mister Peejay: Space Squid:
Two:  The reason the US hasn't had a fight with a modern military is because of weapons like this.  Knowing that we have capabilities like these (and these are just the ones we're willing to show) are deterrents to picking fights with us (from large modern militaries; of course the smaller "scrappier" ones still give it a shot every now and then, but as your comment illustrated, none have succeeded in accomplishing too awful much; again, because of new technologies ...

I would think the real reason the US hasn't had a fight with a modern military is because nations rich enough to have a modern military have no benefit to going to war with the US.  Wars have always been about resources, whether it be land or population or oil (arguably, WWII was the first oil war).  Nowadays, if you as a country are rich enough to fund a modern military, you're rich enough to just buy the resources you need, and set up stable trading partners so that you don't have to worry about supply.

Diplomacy and a tightly interconnected economy.

It is still important to stay on the cutting edge military-wise, because that can change faster than you can leap forward technologically.

WWII was instigated by a butthurt Germany over the fallout from WWI.


Resources.  They wanted land, and they wanted oil.  That was the real reason they turned east, they needed oil.  They spent the whole prewar era stockpiling oil and developing synthetic alternatives.
 
2020-05-23 7:34:12 AM  

valenumr: Mister Peejay: Space Squid:
Two:  The reason the US hasn't had a fight with a modern military is because of weapons like this.  Knowing that we have capabilities like these (and these are just the ones we're willing to show) are deterrents to picking fights with us (from large modern militaries; of course the smaller "scrappier" ones still give it a shot every now and then, but as your comment illustrated, none have succeeded in accomplishing too awful much; again, because of new technologies ...

I would think the real reason the US hasn't had a fight with a modern military is because nations rich enough to have a modern military have no benefit to going to war with the US.  Wars have always been about resources, whether it be land or population or oil (arguably, WWII was the first oil war).  Nowadays, if you as a country are rich enough to fund a modern military, you're rich enough to just buy the resources you need, and set up stable trading partners so that you don't have to worry about supply.

Diplomacy and a tightly interconnected economy.

It is still important to stay on the cutting edge military-wise, because that can change faster than you can leap forward technologically.

WWII was instigated by a butthurt Germany over the fallout from WWI.


So they said. It's a lot easier to whip up the masses with "WE HAVE BEEN GRIEVOUSLY INSULTED AND MUST AVENGE OUR HONOUR" than with "look, we think there's an opportunity here to seize the wheat surplus of Ukraine and the oil fields of southern Russia and then we'll be self-sufficient even if the British blockade us again, so let's capitalise on Stalin being an idiot and murdering like all of his generals in a fit of paranoia, and then we can get back to rebuilding Mitteleuropa only with extra genocide this time."
 
2020-05-23 7:45:43 AM  
Maybe if there was a way of bringing this light inside the body, almost a cleaning.

external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-23 7:52:03 AM  
Anyway, "war is about resources" is only half true. People want resources but never for their own sake -- there's always some goal the resources will be used for, whether profit or domestic leverage or aggrandisement or defence against a rival looking for one of the above -- and there are usually plenty of ways to get at either the resource or the end goal without a particular war being fought at a particular time.
 
2020-05-23 7:55:44 AM  

Mister Peejay: Space Squid:
Two:  The reason the US hasn't had a fight with a modern military is because of weapons like this.  Knowing that we have capabilities like these (and these are just the ones we're willing to show) are deterrents to picking fights with us (from large modern militaries; of course the smaller "scrappier" ones still give it a shot every now and then, but as your comment illustrated, none have succeeded in accomplishing too awful much; again, because of new technologies ...

I would think the real reason the US hasn't had a fight with a modern military is because nations rich enough to have a modern military have no benefit to going to war with the US.  Wars have always been about resources, whether it be land or population or oil (arguably, WWII was the first oil war).  Nowadays, if you as a country are rich enough to fund a modern military, you're rich enough to just buy the resources you need, and set up stable trading partners so that you don't have to worry about supply.

Diplomacy and a tightly interconnected economy.

It is still important to stay on the cutting edge military-wise, because that can change faster than you can leap forward technologically.


And there is a lot more to be gained from projects that start out as weapons like these.  I know NASA has discussed using... I believe the words they used were:  "a big-ass laser" to get rid of space junk.  They want to fire the laser up into the tracking path of orbital debris.  If the debris is small enough, it can vaporized.  If it's bigger, then it will create a thermal ablation effect on one side of the debris, where the heat radiating off of the debris will alter it's orbital path.  With precise enough gear, they can utilize it to de-Kessler-rize the orbital areas around Earth.  Reduce the space litter.  Dangerous space litter!
 
2020-05-23 8:57:10 AM  
So is this for the aliens that are coming in the fall?
 
2020-05-23 9:16:42 AM  

valenumr: OgreMagi: Al!: 2wolves: So the tech savvy op for countries continue research into UMVs, Unmanned Marine Vehicles.  Lasers don't penetrate water.

I have never heard that lasers don't penetrate water.  Good thing that's not a testable assertion.  Oh, wait...

Seriously, even discounting the fact that I can use my laser pointer to shine through a pool with no issues at all, there are all sorts of technologies that rely on laser light penetrating water. Laser light absolutely does penetrate water, and whoever told you it doesn't is an idiot, a liar, or both.

I'm guessing that enough energy to do damage to something could cause the water to vaporize.  And steam is going to diffuse the laser energy.  So it might work, but your going to see a loss of energy.

Not if you are using a frequency outside the absorption spectrum of the medium.


Yes, materials can be transparent to some wavelengths of light, but not others. The problem is that you also need to use a wavelength that will interact correctly with the drone material and be able to deliver enough energy to destroy it.
 
2020-05-23 9:21:51 AM  

pkjun: Anyway, "war is about resources" is only half true. People want resources but never for their own sake -- there's always some goal the resources will be used for, whether profit or domestic leverage or aggrandisement or defence against a rival looking for one of the above -- and there are usually plenty of ways to get at either the resource or the end goal without a particular war being fought at a particular time.


War is, or was, often seen as the simple way to do that.
Oil is behind the Middle East conflict now. Isis knows it needs oil to get the money to pay for the soldiers to have the influence. They obviously don't drink the oil, they exchange it for weapons from China and cash from turkey among many others. So it attacks oil fields as part of its campaign to become regionally dominant in not just cultural but also economic ways.
The US, despite being an exporter of oil at present, knows what's up. It's taken a stance against Isis so it parks some tanks on top of any oil field that isis might be able to grab, whether the host state wants us there or not. This deprives them of the oil, the money, and the influence to make people fight.

We can simplify all that to say the war is over oil.  If we could snap our fingers and change the dominance energy sources we used then the value of the oil would dwindle as quickly as the need to fight over it.

I think the issue here is the cost to bargain vs the cost to take. Germany needed resources to feed its expanding empire in WWII (or such was the stated reason) so it spent every last penny on soldiers and tanks to run over the border and take it, assuming they'd easily make it back in the long term.
Of course things didn't play out that way. Today Germany has an even larger population than it did during WWII with comparatively no military power to speak of. Becoming part of the American hegemony was a cheaper way to get everything they needed so there was no resurgence to war making.

When you introduce a cheap weapon that lets any third world force go toe to toe with a first world force then you risk changing that balance of power.  It becomes cheaper to take the resource rather than to negotiate for it, and suddenly your first world army is targeted by a swarm of drones.
Regardless of whether that force is buying the stuff itself or acting as a proxy, they'll fight you and take the resources to get the money and become the primary influence in a region.

Taking out that drone swarm becomes a priority to maintaining your control of the oil, which you need to do even if you yourself aren't using that specific oilfield because you have to deprive the enemy of easy resources.
 
2020-05-23 9:27:37 AM  

fehk: I was wondering if there's ever anywhere to see live weapon exercises, like air shows but for weapons?


Chesapeake Bay off Aberdeen Proving Grounds; just stay out of the restricted areas.
 
2020-05-23 9:35:12 AM  
So be sure to coat your drones with something that reflects IR well?
 
2020-05-23 9:44:31 AM  
Looks like a continuous-beam laser, so less "pew pew", more "fzzzzzzzzzzzzt".
 
2020-05-23 9:58:24 AM  

GameSprocket: valenumr: OgreMagi: Al!: 2wolves: So the tech savvy op for countries continue research into UMVs, Unmanned Marine Vehicles.  Lasers don't penetrate water.

I have never heard that lasers don't penetrate water.  Good thing that's not a testable assertion.  Oh, wait...

Seriously, even discounting the fact that I can use my laser pointer to shine through a pool with no issues at all, there are all sorts of technologies that rely on laser light penetrating water. Laser light absolutely does penetrate water, and whoever told you it doesn't is an idiot, a liar, or both.

I'm guessing that enough energy to do damage to something could cause the water to vaporize.  And steam is going to diffuse the laser energy.  So it might work, but your going to see a loss of energy.

Not if you are using a frequency outside the absorption spectrum of the medium.

Yes, materials can be transparent to some wavelengths of light, but not others. The problem is that you also need to use a wavelength that will interact correctly with the drone material and be able to deliver enough energy to destroy it.



There's also the issue that waves on the surface means the laser will be dancing all over the place due to refraction.

Also, ocean water is murky.  Most submarines are not going to cooperate by staying near the surface.

Also, a ship-mounted laser is simply not going to be able to fire underwater because anywhere beyond the critical angle, it will simply reflect off the surface.  If any sub is so close to your ship that it's visible through the water surface (i.e. targetable), your ship is already dead.  Actually it would have been dead ten minutes ago.

Finally, water conducts heat really, really well.  I just did an experiment:

I have a 1500mW laser which normally burns through electrical tape nearly instantly (making nasty acrid smoke).  If I put the same tape dangling in a glass of water, I get interesting "crackling" sounds and a glow at the surface of the tape.  I think that's basically the water boiling and possibly even turning into plasma.

Anyway, it just roughened up the surface of the tape after many seconds but did not cut through.  Basically a laser is amazingly less useful on the same object under water because the water is a huge heat sink.  Waste of time.
 
2020-05-23 9:59:51 AM  

AirForceVet: Neat trick. Now let's try a jet-powered drone simulating a cruise middle. Then follow that with a ballistic missile intercept.


You usually don't waste a ballistic missile on a ship.
 
2020-05-23 10:01:22 AM  
Nobody picked up on the fact that the reason the firing platform is an amphibious support vessel is because the laser needs something like an MIT lab with the requisite power to fire it?  Sure, you have to start somewhere but this thing is huge.  See the earlier picture of the 747 Airborne laser? Same issue, that was a flying chemical plant that could burn paint off missiles on a good day.  Come back to me when it's the size of an iPhone and I can blind my Fox viewing neighbors from across the county.
 
2020-05-23 10:01:54 AM  

kudayta: AirForceVet: Neat trick. Now let's try a jet-powered drone simulating a cruise middle. Then follow that with a ballistic missile intercept.

How about we fix the roads and dams, get medical care to everyone in this country, improve education with a reality-based curriculum, shore up the foundations of our democracy with some election security, start making some real changes to our society to combat global ecological and climatological collapse, and some judicial and law enforcement reform to reduce the impact of institutional racism first?

/in no particular order
//I didn't even address sexism or misogyny, I just don't even have a clue how to fix that


A rat bit your sister Nell, huh?
 
2020-05-23 10:02:42 AM  

KodosZardoz: Meh. Let me know when we have Laser Chimps. LASER CHIMPS!


We are laser chimps.
 
2020-05-23 10:07:29 AM  
Wake me up when they can shoot down a cruise missile target.

/Seriously, wake me up, I want to watch it.
 
2020-05-23 10:16:03 AM  

fusillade762: [pixl.varagesale.com image 640x640]


Do you know how many have gone down because of what happens there?
 
2020-05-23 10:24:25 AM  
Real Genius!
 
2020-05-23 10:27:14 AM  

kudayta: AirForceVet: Neat trick. Now let's try a jet-powered drone simulating a cruise middle. Then follow that with a ballistic missile intercept.

How about we fix the roads and dams, get medical care to everyone in this country, improve education with a reality-based curriculum, shore up the foundations of our democracy with some election security, start making some real changes to our society to combat global ecological and climatological collapse, and some judicial and law enforcement reform to reduce the impact of institutional racism first?

/in no particular order
//I didn't even address sexism or misogyny, I just don't even have a clue how to fix that


Start with a sammich!

/on my way down
 
2020-05-23 10:51:19 AM  
Hold up everybody-- we're missing the main issue here.

How did Subby manage to end a headline with an exclamation point?
 
2020-05-23 11:02:26 AM  

This text is now purple: AirForceVet: Neat trick. Now let's try a jet-powered drone simulating a cruise middle. Then follow that with a ballistic missile intercept.

You usually don't waste a ballistic missile on a ship.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-​s​hip_ballistic_missile
 
2020-05-23 11:22:59 AM  

Al!: 2wolves: So the tech savvy op for countries continue research into UMVs, Unmanned Marine Vehicles.  Lasers don't penetrate water.

I have never heard that lasers don't penetrate water.  Good thing that's not a testable assertion.  Oh, wait...

Seriously, even discounting the fact that I can use my laser pointer to shine through a pool with no issues at all, there are all sorts of technologies that rely on laser light penetrating water. Laser light absolutely does penetrate water, and whoever told you it doesn't is an idiot, a liar, or both.


My skunk laser penetrated yer cat.
Le pew.  Le pew.
 
2020-05-23 11:35:30 AM  
Well, that video was rather underwhelming...
 
2020-05-23 11:40:39 AM  

starsrift: This doesn't appear to be actually better than the previous options, though it looks cool, I guess. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, and the price of ammo is prohibitive.


It can shoot down a drone. Yes, existing surface to air missiles can do that. For at least one million dollars a shot. This weapon costs under $20 per shot. Can fire repeatedly and for long periods of time. It can target a variety of targets - aircraft, incoming missiles, small vessels. It is better in every conceivable way.
 
2020-05-23 11:41:42 AM  

blackmenace: Mr Vice-President, I served with Race Bannon. I knew Race Bannon . Race Bannon was a friend of mine. Mr. Vice-President, you're no Race Bannon


Race baiter is close.
 
2020-05-23 11:50:00 AM  

blackmenace: [Fark user image 425x240]
Mr Vice-President, I served with Race Bannon. I knew Race Bannon . Race Bannon was a friend of mine. Mr. Vice-President, you're no Race Bannon


Pence isn't Race Bannon. He's RaceWar Bannon+MOTHER
 
2020-05-23 12:06:06 PM  

AirForceVet: Neat trick. Now let's try a jet-powered drone simulating a cruise middle. Then follow that with a ballistic missile intercept.


Telephone pole-sized rods of tungsten dropped from orbit
 
2020-05-23 12:13:30 PM  

tricycleracer: AirForceVet: Neat trick. Now let's try a jet-powered drone simulating a cruise middle. Then follow that with a ballistic missile intercept.

Telephone pole-sized rods of tungsten dropped from orbit


A telephone pole sized rod of tungsten would be so expensive to get into orbit, along with enough fuel to de-orbit it hard enough that it can't be seen or avoided days in advance, that it would be much cheaper and easier to just buy the country that has the target.
 
2020-05-23 12:15:18 PM  

Mister Peejay: tricycleracer: AirForceVet: Neat trick. Now let's try a jet-powered drone simulating a cruise middle. Then follow that with a ballistic missile intercept.

Telephone pole-sized rods of tungsten dropped from orbit

A telephone pole sized rod of tungsten would be so expensive to get into orbit, along with enough fuel to de-orbit it hard enough that it can't be seen or avoided days in advance, that it would be much cheaper and easier to just buy the country that has the target.


It was a cold war hypothetical.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinet​i​c_bombardment
 
2020-05-23 1:00:34 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Came looking for references to Jonny Quest - either 'Mystery of the Lizard Men' or 'The Robot Spy', take your pick.


Jonny Quest | Laser Rescue | Boomerang Official
Youtube nj9rsXMvzr0
 
2020-05-23 1:01:52 PM  
Didn't China do something simlar with a plane downing a missile with lasers?
 
2020-05-23 1:25:10 PM  
So now we're going to have to cover all the aircraft with mirrors like a disco ball
 
2020-05-23 1:44:10 PM  

GrymReeper: fehk: I was wondering if there's ever anywhere to see live weapon exercises, like air shows but for weapons?

Chesapeake Bay off Aberdeen Proving Grounds; just stay out of the restricted areas.


Thanks, I'll do some research on this one. Have a motorcycle road trip coming up and it would be a great addition
 
2020-05-23 2:08:06 PM  
If you could see the enemy ship, you could blind the bridge crew in an instant.

Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half, and put that money into infrastructure and health care.  What's the point of spending $800B a year to defend a "shiathole" country?
 
2020-05-23 3:17:45 PM  

Mister Peejay: tricycleracer: AirForceVet: Neat trick. Now let's try a jet-powered drone simulating a cruise middle. Then follow that with a ballistic missile intercept.

Telephone pole-sized rods of tungsten dropped from orbit

A telephone pole sized rod of tungsten would be so expensive to get into orbit, along with enough fuel to de-orbit it hard enough that it can't be seen or avoided days in advance, that it would be much cheaper and easier to just buy the country that has the target.


It doesn't need to be the size of a telephone pole. Look at the energy of a basic tungsten sabot round. It is basically a freight train going throw gh a square in hole, and the penetrator is roughly 3/4" x 16".
 
2020-05-23 3:20:00 PM  

indy_kid: If you could see the enemy ship, you could blind the bridge crew in an instant.

Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half, and put that money into infrastructure and health care.  What's the point of spending $800B a year to defend a "shiathole" country?


Okay zoomer. Good to know you appreciate the liberty and security you were born into.
 
2020-05-23 3:34:23 PM  

Space Squid: but as your comment illustrated, none have succeeded in accomplishing too awful much; again, because of new technologies like these).


Not counting the Taliban, ISIS, Afghanistan in general, Al Qaeda, Slobodan Milosovic's gang, and a few others like Boko Haram.

You've not fought a modern military because you're in NATO.
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  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.