Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Approach For Laser Weapons

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the phasers-on-stun-good-luck-kirk-out dept.

Shark 188

An anonymous reader writes "Laser guns and other 'directed energy weapons' have remained in sci-fi lore because of their inefficiency, bulkiness, and poor beam quality. Now an MIT Lincoln Lab spinoff called TeraDiode is developing a diode laser that uses 'wavelength beam combining' to create what it calls the brightest and most powerful laser of its kind. The two-year-old company, backed by $3 million from the U.S. Department of Defense and $4 million from venture capitalists, is working on a compact airborne laser system for planes to shoot down heat-seeking missiles. Eventually, the lasers could be mounted on a tank or ship to destroy enemy UAVs or even incoming artillery shells. That's still at least three to five years away, but with advances in semiconductor lasers there seems to be quite a renewed interest in weaponry."

cancel ×

188 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

okay but... (0, Offtopic)

shaitand (626655) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665742)

But what do the sharks think of the frick'n things?

Re:okay but... (1)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665756)

I concur, we need some sort of shark head mount to be designed as well. Anything short would be a waste of resources.

Re:okay but... (4, Informative)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665964)

Given the phrasing from the post, "... a compact airborne laser system for planes to shoot down heat-seeking missiles," and the links with research from a Big Technical University, a better cultural reference would be the movie Real Genius. Much better match all-told.

Re:okay but... (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665984)

pzzz buzz off

Re:okay but... (1)

Annirak (181684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666026)

Popcorn!

Re:okay but... (1)

coronaride (222264) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666312)

Ok God...let me have it!!

You Degenerate! (1)

hellfire (86129) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666254)

Clearly you were given a great opportunity to be a Chris Knight and you turned it into a moment to be a Kent.

From now on, stop playing with yourself :P

Re:okay but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666706)

Wow. That's one of the most boring comments I've ever seen regarding an otherwise amusing post. Way to spoil the joke... I'm sure you hear that a lot when you do that in person.

Re:okay but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665992)

Seriously people, every FUCKING time a story comes around that involves a laser the "durrr sharks" meme people come out the woodwork and get moderated up.

slashdot is just turning into 4chan with 10 year old memes.

Re:okay but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666234)

The old ones are the best eh!

Re:okay but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666438)

The old ones are the best eh!

Well then Real Genius should triumph over Austin Powers. :-)

Re:okay but... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666770)

"just turning into 4chan", thanks for the old meme

Re:okay but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666080)

They think..uhm... know they will profit big with them. Untill some nation develops reflecting balistics. But the profit was made already so, war mongers win, humanity looses.

Re:okay but... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666498)

How does humanity lose?

The existence of the vast majority of war weapons has deterred and stopped many more wars and saved many more lives then any war has taken. Wars are shorter now with a far lower percentage of the populations dieing then at any other time in history.

ObQuirk (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666224)

But what do the sharks think

Objection, Your Honor! Question assumes cognitive processes not in evidence!

Re:okay but... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666418)

Clearly you don't understand the target demographic of this more compact system, sea bass.

New ways to kill people, just what the world needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665744)

New ways to kill people more efficiently, just what the world needs...

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (2)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665856)

Agreed. It is much better when people are killed by the old methods instead.

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666262)

Agreed. It is much better when people are killed by the old methods instead.

There are no "better" ways to kill. Only easier ways.

I am not convinced that we need easier ways to kill.

I wonder what the Founders would think of the NRA's position on private ownership of laser weapons, which will certainly be: "You can have my laser gun when you wrest it from my smoldering, dead hand".

And no, I don't think the NRA's position would be any different on a handheld, semi-automatic anti-matter weapon or a handheld, semi-automatic planet killer for that matter. Nihilism is nihilism, even when it's wrapped in the flag.

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (2)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666504)

I wonder what the Founders would think of the NRA's position on private ownership of laser weapons, which will certainly be: "You can have my laser gun when you wrest it from my smoldering, dead hand".

Why would the founding fathers reject citizens owning current generation weapons? Remember, these are men that took up arms and fought for freedom against an oppressive government. Many of them owned weapons that were state of their art for the day, similar to modern day ownership of AR-15s and similar firearms. Private ownership of cannons was not uncommon either.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect duck hunters.

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#36667198)

if you wanted to fight your government, you really need to invest in getting SAM hardware (which, as far as i know, is still illegal) and RPG's, rifles aren't going to be much use to the sort of war that would be waged on the citizens by the government..

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666548)

There are better ways to kill. When those ways minimize or even remove collateral damage, that improves the outcome. These methods are often not easier, requiring much more training, maintenance, and sometimes cost to implement at a cost of reduction in unwanted damage.

Depriving an enemy of the means to fight is the most basic tenet of warfare. Once gunpowder came on the scene, this got much, much messier over the years until guided weapons started getting involved. What used to take a squadron of aircraft to destroy by dropping hundreds of bombs now takes only one or two aircraft dropping one to three bombs each. What used to devastate neighborhoods whether or not it hit the target now involves significantly less collateral damage.

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (4, Interesting)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665922)

The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?
Plus, lets say for the sake of it that the laser based weapons are eventually used to kill people, what exactly is wrong with being "more efficient" about it? By "more efficient", what do you actually mean? In my mind, this means less collateral damage. I like the idea of a weapon that's powerful, yet exceptionally accurate. I like the idea of being able to pick out a target hiding in a crowd and neutralising him without toasting the person standing next to him. I also don't see that as such a terrible thing.

War is tragic, but until we have some sort of united earth, it also seems inevitable. Rather than just building bigger bombs, I'm glad someone is investing in alternative ways of fighting those wars, ways that ultimately mean less people have to die.

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (1)

lpp (115405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665956)

The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?

It is when we're launching humans as projectiles at our enemies. Then even your vaunted DEFENSIVE lasers will undoubtedly be being used to KILL HUMANS.

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665990)

Kill 'em in the air, or let 'em hit and die in a splat. Which is more inhumane?

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666624)

I'm wondering how they choose which humans to use as projectiles. That sounds suspiciously close to HUMAN SLAVERY to me!

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666532)

The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?

But if we have awesome solid state lasers, why not just use the laser to shoot down the planes instead of missiles?

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (1)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666848)

The best way to do that has been outlawed as its called an assassination. Think how many people and how much money we could have saved if over this century alone if we could have just assassinated the prick at the top? That's one thing that I've never understood. That we make assassinating a leader unlawful because of some moralistic subterfuge, like somehow its more moral to go kill several thousand, or several million people who aren't really connected to the process because we don't have the balls to shoot one other guy in the head.

What good is building a purpose built weapon for something if we don't have the moral fiber to use the damned thing because we're stupidly conflicted about it.

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#36667210)

that last line almost sounded like an argument for using nuclear weapons.

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665950)

I don't know. We haven't had an actual, good population-culling in so long that we're starting to see the sociological problems involved in overpopulation.

Add to that the fact that there's nowhere to send the disaffected/indigent/criminal populations. We've pretty much filled up the US and Australia haven't we?

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666154)

War generally does not really cull the human population. It occasionally does so locally or within a certain group, usually because of genocide, but the number of people who die in war is always small compared to the human population of the planet. Short of going nuclear, something like the Black death is much more effective at population culling.

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666064)

I don't think so. I think they just want to be able to cook giant pans of jiffy pop that they snuck into people's houses.

Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666616)

New ways to kill people more efficiently, just what the world needs...

You think you're so creative. You don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death...

obligatory comment? (-1, Redundant)

Muad (11989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665772)

Imma chargin mah lazer!

What about a mesh or laser shield? (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665776)

I would think a shield could be created to protect against UAV's. It would be possible to just create a laser net around a certain area as a defense shield.

How effective would it be?

Re:What about a mesh or laser shield? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665808)

I will fail to mention that FLIR cannot see though glass...

Re:What about a mesh or laser shield? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666060)

None of this is going to be terribly effective. All you have to do to thwart this system is coat the thing in retro-reflective paint like an industrial version of the striping on traffic cones and stuff. If the target can reflect the incoming photothermal energy instead of absorbing it, the laser no longer works as intended.

Re:What about a mesh or laser shield? (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666388)

Reflective surfaces tend to be ineffective at the energies employed by a weaponized laser. Even if 99.99% of the energy is reflected, 0.01% is still plenty to raise the temperature of the surface, and even the most reflective surfaces tend to become dull as the temperature increases. Coating every potential target with the premium optics-grade mirrors necessary to deflect enough of the beam to avoid such heating would most likely be far more expensive than the laser you're defending against.

Re:What about a mesh or laser shield? (1)

reasterling (1942300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666552)

This may indeed be true but I would certainly hate to be any where within line of site of the target if it is randomly reflecting 99.99% of the weaponized laser beam.

Re:What about a mesh or laser shield? (1)

Radtastic (671622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36667048)

I believe the inverse-square law should give you comfort that unless you're very close, you wouldn't have much to worry about.

Re:What about a mesh or laser shield? (1)

Crispy Critters (226798) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666828)

Laboratory-grade surfaces are needed to reflect laboratory-grade laser intensities, like GW/m^2 cw, or much higher for brief exposures.

What's the highest power laser you can deploy in the field? What's the tightest beam you can fire a km or so at a target after accounting for diffraction? These are not the kinds of numbers that give you instant vaporization of your target.

Re:What about a mesh or laser shield? (1)

IceNinjaNine (2026774) | more than 3 years ago | (#36667042)

What's the highest power laser you can deploy in the field?

That's classified...

Re:What about a mesh or laser shield? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36667182)

IT depends on the power and wave length of the laser, and the heat properties of the material used to deflect it.

A laser can cut through a mirror in case you were wondering. Not reflective surface will be purely reflective in all wavelengths.

Re:What about a mesh or laser shield? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666506)

I'd think a laser defense that could knock out incoming bombs and such would be far worse for the US than for less technological sophisticated nations. The US has become heavily dependant on guided munitions, cruise missiles, etc. If a nation such as China mastered this they could nullify the majority of our weapons and strategies.

Be careful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665782)

...to be nice to your research students, or next thing you know they'll fill your house with corn kernels and reprogram the laser to aim at your house and blow your roof off with popcorn.

Love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665798)

Both Commercial and weapons. Hopefully, the will produce the cutter and welder for us here in America, rather than just giving the tech to China.

Re:Love it (2)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666096)

If China gets it, I can afford the cutter and welder in the same way we afforded the computers we post on.

Re:Love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666480)

Wrong. Once China gets it, they will create/sell it locally for a FRACTION of the price that they will sell it here. Then you will have no need to buy one since your products will already be way too costly.

Fusion? (1)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666644)

I wonder if this would make laser-ignited fusion possible...

Obvious Much? (4, Funny)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665804)

They're calling it the most powerful laser of it's kind, and it's a new kind of laser...

Re:Obvious Much? (0)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666018)

They're making a new solid state laser which will be the most powerful solid state laser to date.
The really high powered lasers used in industry and by the military are chemical lasers.
It's really not that difficult to understand.

Re:Obvious Much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666106)

There you go again, assuming the internet isn't populated by self-righteous ignorant think-they-no-it-alls*.

*What is the plural of this word? Should there be an apostrophe?

Article two weeks ago on Navy Lasers with Boeing (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665832)

Only Boeing's will cost a litthttp://news.slashdot.org/story/11/07/05/2033259/New-Approach-For-Laser-Weapons#le more than 22 times their 7 million and all paid by the US Government.

finally, after all these years... (0)

e3m4n (947977) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665840)

I will finally have sharks with friggen laser beams mounted on their heads.

Re:finally, after all these years... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666648)

I will finally have sharks with friggen laser beams mounted on their heads.

Haww haw hawww hoo hoo hooooo heee heee hee!! GIGGLE!! SNORT!!!

Has Dreamworks approached you to write another Shrek sequel?

Popcorn! (0)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665842)

Is ready!

No seriously, listen...if there's ever anything I can do for you, or more to the point, to you, you let me know, okay?

Re:Popcorn! (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665910)

Can you hammer a six-inch spike through a board with your penis?

Re:Popcorn! (1)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665938)

Not right now.

Re:Popcorn! (1)

ABadDog (28370) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666218)

A girl's got to have her standards.

Re:Popcorn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666430)

my penis IS a 6cm spike. oh wait..

Sometimes it rhymes (0)

overshoot (39700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665898)

With the rest of the economy in the tank, invest in tanks. And guns. And bombs, etc.

Whatever else happens, killing people is always good business.

Re:Sometimes it rhymes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665932)

True, but I think lasers in particular will always have a bright future.

Are you sure? (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666048)

I mean, couldn't they be a flash in the pan?

becareful what you wish for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665940)

eventually I believe that someone will figure this out. But, as amazing as this technology is... I really hope it doesnt turn out to be one of those things that we wish we could uninvent.

Re:becareful what you wish for... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666012)

i honestly can't think of anything that i wish we could "uninvent"

I would much rather invent and learn the hard way and progress forward than to bury my head in the sand and ignore the possibilities and not further the understanding of the world.

get ready for sony's yellow-ray drive (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665962)

only, what cutsie misspelling should they use when creating the marketing name for it?

sigh....

Wait! You mean the enemy has (1)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665976)

UAVs or even artillery shells?

Re:Wait! You mean the enemy has (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666006)

You mean the current Global War on Terror (tm) theaters are the last wars that will ever be fought by the United States? You're remarkably optimistic... or potentially just an idiot.

Oh thank goodness... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665978)

Now we can kill each other better...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not Pollyanna. I believe we need the ability to defend ourselves against the world's jerks. It's just... sometimes I really wished we could work more towards helping each other than hurting each other. It kind of wears on you after a while.

Re:Oh thank goodness... (3, Insightful)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666090)

Dude, we ARE the world's jerks.

We have met the enemy (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666156)

... and he is us.

The scary part isn't I remember reading that Pogo when it first appeared in newspapers. It's that it's just as true as it ever was.

Re:Oh thank goodness... (2, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666178)

Dude, we ARE the world's jerks.

I think that's overly simplistic. The U.S. does lots of jerky things. But I think there's no shortage of non-U.S. jerks who would take over any land that they felt they could successfully conquer. ( China/Tibet and Russia/Georgia are two recent examples. )

Re:Oh thank goodness... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666678)

I think that's overly simplistic.

Well we do watch a lot of preachy sci-fi. The problem with everybody holding hands and singing songs about peace love and harmony is that the guy with stick gets his way un-challenged. Doctor Who hasn't covered that, yet.

Re:Oh thank goodness... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666282)

Shhhh, don't rock the military-industrial gravy train. Welfare is bad for individuals but good for companies.

Re:Oh thank goodness... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666324)

Right now an effective anti mortar and rocket system could be saving a LOT of lives in Misurata and the other cities Ghadafi has been sieging. Heck if we could effectively stop his offense it would even save lives on his side as we wouldn't have a reason to bomb his armor columns.

Re:Oh thank goodness... (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666482)

Right now an effective anti mortar and rocket system could be saving a LOT of lives in Misurata and the other cities Ghadafi has been sieging. Heck if we could effectively stop his offense it would even save lives on his side as we wouldn't have a reason to bomb his armor columns.

I don't doubt that. But I'm just guessing that if that $7M+ could have been spent on malaria research, cancer research, water purification systems, etc., there could have been more lives saved. If Libya was at peace, that is, which goes back to my main point.

Where's the innovation? (1)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665994)

No where in that article did I see any new technology. Just semiconductor lasers and optical beam combining. Bit scarce on the hard numbers too.

Terrorists will love it. (1)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665996)

So, what's the chance this could be used by terrorists to shoot down commercial airliners?

Re:Terrorists will love it. (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666086)

I expect that they will have about the same success with this as with all the other types of weapons they've used to shoot down commercial airliners.

easy solution for artillery shells. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666008)

Just bring back the New Jersey class and the 16 inch AP shells. I doubt that a laser would have much effect on them :)

Re:easy solution for artillery shells. (2)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666034)

I think you mean the Iowa class, of which New Jersey was a member.

Re:easy solution for artillery shells. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36667072)

I think you mean the Iowa class, of which New Jersey was a member.

Somebody needed a lesson in proper naming of structures along with that OOP course.
Obviously the class should be named "State."

Re:easy solution for artillery shells. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36667234)

I think you mean the Iowa class, of which New Jersey was a member.

Somebody needed a lesson in proper naming of structures along with that OOP course. Obviously the class should be named "State."

Actually, no. Perhaps you could use "State" as the type but that would exhibit poor programming style making the class battleship specific.

No actual information (4, Informative)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666020)

There's no technical information here, just that they can now make a more powerful diode laser. More info here [teradiode.com] .

Re:No actual information (1)

toppavak (943659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666622)

Which is still extremely useful tech, even if the weapons application turns out to be just a fruitless route to attract free money for the government if they can make smaller, cheaper, more powerful and more efficient lasers, they'll have no shortage of potential customers.

Where's the wisdom? (1)

gtirloni (1531285) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666126)

So much intelligence capable of creating incredible things. So many problems in the world. Why waste time on fricking weapons?

Queue Real Genius gags (1)

hellfire (86129) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666160)

That's great! I'll be ready with the massive popcorn pan in 5 years! I should get started soon, maybe Jordan can come over and help me, she never sleeps.

Re:Queue Real Genius gags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666272)

Actually, by the end of the movie it was obvious what her problem was. I assume she sleeps well now.

A new approach... (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666256)

From the side?

Haven't we seen theese before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36666390)

I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary about exactly this kind of defence weapons on Discovery years ago, not sure if they had a working one or if it was just in the planning face but they where close to beeing able to put them on airplanes

Real Genius Not Sharks (1)

glassware (195317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666442)

I am sad that anything that involves lasers is automatically an Austin Powers Shark joke. Real Genius is by far the better and funnier movie. Please help endorse the correct kind of nostalgic references.

This is clearly objectively correct and in no way affected by my bias for and love of Real Genius. I don't care that it was probably the only movie I've ever seen that included real hacking and appropriate technology references.

Won't somebody think of the children?

Also get off my lawn.

Birds? (1)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666514)

Eventually, the lasers could be mounted on a tank or ship to destroy enemy UAVs or even incoming artillery shells.

I can see this resulting in a lot of dead birds in the future.

The Crossbow Project (1)

fatboy (6851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666598)

The Crossbow Project: There's no defense like a good offense.

Maritime Laser Demonstrator (1)

TheSync (5291) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666600)

Recently the navy "disabled" (i.e. caught on fire) a small ship using a high-power solid-state laser (video here [wired.co.uk] )

What if... (1)

luizd (716122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666708)

...someone just paint the target using silver color (or the respective reflective color for the laser)?

Laser Launch Systems? (1)

techcodie (1140645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666888)

sorry, don't have time to RTFA or even all of the comments, but would any of these help in this circumstance?

been waiting for 35 years for someone to get a handle on this.

hmmm (1)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | more than 3 years ago | (#36667162)

But wont it look kind of funny when all the marines have to dress in Kylie Minogue sparkly dresses to deflect the lasers???

Counter for antiship missiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36667196)

I imagine a big part of the push for developing this technology is to have something that can be mounted on ships to counter anti-ship missiles. Specifically the kind of ballistic anti-ship missiles that China wants to perfect/deploy as deterrent against the US 7th fleet operating in what it sees as its territorial waters/sphere of influence.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>