German Laser Destroys Targets More Than 1Km Away 338
kkleiner writes "A German company has brought us one step closer to the kinds of shootouts only seen in Sci-Fi films. Düsseldorf-based Rheinmetall Defense recently tested a 50kW, high-energy laser at their proving ground facility in Switzerland. First, the system sliced through a 15mm- (~0.6 inches) thick steel girder from a kilometer away. Then, from a distance of two kilometers, it shot down a handful of drones as they nose-dived toward the surface at 50 meters per second."
Pop Corn (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pop Corn (Score:5, Informative)
Sheesh, and you people have the nerve to call yourselves nerds. A quick back of the envelope calculation:
Laser output: 50kW
Average microwave oven: 1kW
Duration of popping: 2 m. 30 sec. = 150 sec.
Therefore, 1 bag of popcorn every 3 seconds.
House volume: 2000 sq ft * 6 ft high = 12000 cu ft
Volume of a bag of popcorn = 0.25 cu ft
Therefore, 144k bags of popcorn would be needed.
(144k bags * 3 sec per bag) / 3600 secs per hour = 120 hours
Hope Val Kilmer isn't in a hurry.
Re:Pop Corn (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pop Corn (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, 1 bag of popcorn every 3 seconds....(144k bags * 3 sec per bag) / 3600 secs per hour = 120 hours
Because I'm aiming my laser at each bag individually. If I were going to cook a room-sized tin of kernels, I'd disperse the heat using a stained glass window.
I drank what?
Re:Pop Corn (Score:4, Funny)
Sheesh, and you people have the nerve to call yourselves nerds. A quick back of the envelope calculation:
Laser output: 50kW Average microwave oven: 1kW Duration of popping: 2 m. 30 sec. = 150 sec. Therefore, 1 bag of popcorn every 3 seconds.
House volume: 2000 sq ft * 6 ft high = 12000 cu ft Volume of a bag of popcorn = 0.25 cu ft Therefore, 144k bags of popcorn would be needed.
(144k bags * 3 sec per bag) / 3600 secs per hour = 120 hours
Hope Val Kilmer isn't in a hurry.
Would that be metric hours?
Re:Pop Corn (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. Seconds are part of the official SI standard. That makes hours "metric". You basically blew any geek cred with that question.
Re:Pop Corn (Score:5, Funny)
So instead of dropping bombs, the enemy will just drop disco balls. That ought to be fun.
Re: (Score:3)
There will be preparatory aerial smoke bomb bursts.
Re: (Score:3)
So instead of dropping bombs, the enemy will just drop disco balls. That ought to be fun.
"Ach! Meine Augen!"
Re: (Score:3)
"Meine übrig Auge!"
There fixed it for you...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pop Corn (Score:5, Funny)
Grammar Nazis!
Re: (Score:3)
Now that we fixed the grammar it's time to check for language.
Nobody who actually uses German would say 'mein übriges Auge'. Instead one would say 'mein anderes Auge' (my other eye) or something like that.
Now, how did you came to suspect I'm German?
Was it my knowledge of the German language or my pedantery?
Obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pop Corn (Score:4, Funny)
Get that shit away from me. I can't stand it.
Now I know you what to get for your birthday. When is AC's birthday, anyway? 1/1/1970?
Re:Pop Corn (Score:5, Funny)
"It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia."
You know you could have waited till April 1st and won an award. Posting now is just plain stupid.
Popcorn? (Score:3, Funny)
So how well does it make popcorn?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/ [imdb.com]
Godzilla (Score:4, Insightful)
Lastly, they’ll begin making these high-energy laser systems mobile by mounting a laser onto a TM170 armored vehicle.
Godzilla doesn't stand a chance now!
Re: (Score:2)
Two words (Score:3)
Re:Two words (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Now we need flintsteel armor. (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone else think of the Bolo books when reading this.
Re:Now we need flintsteel armor. (Score:4, Informative)
Dinochrome. For the honor of the regiment.
50 m/s = 180 km/h = 111.85 mph (Score:2)
Why do people use decimals on a non-metric system? sigh...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do people still use non-metric system?
Re:50 m/s = 180 km/h = 111.85 mph (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:50 m/s = 180 km/h = 111.85 mph (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:50 m/s = 180 km/h = 111.85 mph (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
1.87m.
You wouldn't say that the distance between two places is 8800 yards, you'd say 5 miles. That's what's good about metric - you can just shift the decimal seperator to get a nicer number if you change the prefix.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was at school we used decimals in maths. Sometimes the numbers were just numbers (i.e. dimensionless - no units at all). Those, by definition, aren't metric.
So it seems that out of you, me, and all my teachers at least one is a fucking retard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM had PL/1 with syntax worse than JOSS,
and everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Aw! Give PL/1 a break. I used it extensively at Wang - the IBM knock-off. We programmed all the non-kernel OS software with it. It wasn't much worse than Ada.
Re: (Score:3)
In a scientific article I'd expect it to be written exactly that way.
50 m/s one significant digit. 50. m/s two.
That said: Significant digits suck. 99 and 10. both have two significant digits. Calling that +-.5 (half the 'doubtful' digit) one has an error of 5% the other has an error of .5% Significant digits is a quick and dirty method for when you can't do proper error analysis (Sum(firstderivativeWRTblah(blah)*blaherror) or better).
Re: (Score:2)
No it wouldn't.
One, or unknown. If anything you can't expect it to have five at least. Round if off to 100 mph if you feel better with that, or just don't do the conversation at all, guess if people want to really know what it said they should go back to the metric measurement.
Sharks? (Score:5, Funny)
Why did they test it in a country where there are no sharks?
Re: (Score:2)
And give them a heads up? Do you know how quickly sharks reverse-engineered the last weapon tested next to them?
Shoot down? (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you shoot down something that is already nosediving?
Re: (Score:3)
It's so easy. I can do it only with my mind. Works every time.
Re: (Score:2)
easy you blow it up, or damage it off course.
if you destroy it beyond it's intended target it is a good thing
Re: (Score:2)
You distract it and get it to miss the ground. Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
You damage it to the point where it can't avoid impact.
Oooh shiny!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait for the shiny chromed M1 Abrams.
Re:Oooh shiny!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are the heat from the radar absorptive burning off would damage the reflectivity of the mirrored surface, resulting in exactly no point for the mirroring to be there.
Re: (Score:2)
And the ultimate weapon would be something that obliterates everything except a few spots where highly important personnel is located. Just to be sure we hit the enemy.
Glitter Boys (Score:2)
Germans acquire an advanced weapon! (Score:5, Funny)
What can possibly go wrong...?! :p
For starters... (Score:2)
What can possibly go wrong...?! :p
For starters you only get to watch a demo once.
Re:Germans acquire an advanced weapon! (Score:4, Funny)
Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in nineteen eighteen,
And they've hardly bothered us since then.
Tom Lehrer, Mlf Lullaby
Re: (Score:2)
# Let's be meek to them .../#
and turn the other cheek to them -
try and bring out their latent sense of fun
Re: (Score:2)
What can possibly go wrong...?! :p
Uh...your contingency plans?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know dont feed the trolls
Re: (Score:2)
Please let me buy a cruise missile, I promise to look after it well and never use it!
In other words, promises are empty if the actions speak volumes themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
What can possibly go wrong...?! :p
It will be sold to any two-bit dictatorship that has enough cash and an "embassy" in Berlin. Selling arms is much better than going to war yourself.
...especially if your electorate immediately initiates a vigil when the word "war" only gets mentioned. It is the ultimate vote loser.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to worry. Last time I posted a surrender joke some asshat informed me the Frogs were no longer cowards and in fact they had never been cowards.
So we'll be fine behind our fine French defenders. I sleep well.
Re: (Score:2)
Hans, Poland, ja?
Re:Germans acquire an advanced weapon! (Score:4, Funny)
Most of us Polacks who are not elderly or nationalist are already in Ireland, UK, or, well, Germany, so you can take the old piece of dirt if you want.
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is, that you've already started to invade Western Europe? ;)
Great use for it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shooting down drones. Sort of like one of them electric bug zappers, but for bigger bugs.
I guess I was naive (Score:3, Interesting)
I figured if a laser's very tight-column beam was so close to "perfect" that if it could destroy something at 10 meters, it could destroy or at least severely damage it at 1,000 meters, at least in a vacuum.
Perhaps I should be impressed that 1 km of atmosphere didn't disrupt the laser enough to disable its destructive power. Next time, try 1km of fog or 1km of Beijing smog.
Re:I guess I was naive (Score:5, Informative)
The article seems to suggest that the laser was not simply going through air:
"[W]eather at the Ochsenboden Proving Ground in Switzerland where the demonstration was carried out included ice, rain, snow, and extremely bright sunlight – far from ideal."
Re: (Score:3)
Differentials in air temperature, density, and content (moisture etc) cause tiny amounts of refracting. This adds up to cause the beam to "jitter" [staticflickr.com]
This gets worse as the distance increases. The same phenomena is why earth-bound telescopes don't hold a candle to space telescopes such as the Hubble.
American translation (Score:3, Funny)
50 m/sec is 894.776 furlongs/sec for y'all in the US. :)
Re:American translation (Score:5, Funny)
The preferred unit is furlongs/fortnight you insensitive clod!
If true, low-level warplanes just became obsolete (Score:4, Interesting)
This kind of weapon would be an incredible boost for air defense, at least for close-in ground support and other low-level attacks. It wouldn't do much against artillery shells or naval gunfire. It would also likely allow the development of a laser-based missile defense system far superior to a patriot system. If these things come to pass, the balance of power would shift away from nations with a heavy emphasis on air power (i.e. the U.S. with its aircraft carriers and air force) towards nations with large and mobile ground forces.
Re: (Score:3)
Until the nations with a heavy emphasis on air power just hit all of your frikin' lasers with cruise missiles, and then bomb the shit out of you with their superior air power...
Re: (Score:3)
Skip the lasers. Hit the power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If true, low-level warplanes just became obsole (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yea, it's so easy to put a power plant underground.
Fine then, you can just find the exhaust points and blow those up. Any significant power installation is going to put out a lot of heat, and blocking that heat from being removed is going to cause some serious issues for said installation.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, "That thing's got to have a tail pipe."
Re: (Score:2)
For its finale, the laser’s ability to track a very small ballistic target was demonstrated. It honed in on and destroyed a steel ball 82mm in diameter traveling at 50 meters per second. The small ball was meant to simulate an incoming mortar round.
I imagine the cruise missile shell won't be that hard to perforate, especially that their trajectory is pretty much predictable. Besides:
And the company is already looking past the 60kW, saying in a press release that “nothing stands in the way of a future [high-energy laser] weapon system with a 100kW output.” Lastly, they’ll begin making these high-energy laser systems mobile by mounting a laser onto a TM170 armored vehicle. Their ultimate goal is to mount the lasers on vehicles operating in the open.
It's like attaching a light armoured vehicle with a cruise missile. You are welcome to try... even if you succeed, I suppose one is able to sustain the creation of new lasers longer than the other side is able to build cruise missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the missiles could be delivered by planes that had been designed to be very difficult to detect on radar. Maybe they could fire missiles that are also very difficult to detect.
Or, you could just design cruise missiles that make use of terrain to fly under radar coverage.
We should probably get working on those things, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, like Scorched Earth's "lazy boy" which was a walking device? Or if there's no nasty terrain, an ordinary remotely controlled truck bomb.
Re: (Score:2)
We should probably get working on those things, huh?
I suppose one of these babies will be easier/cheaper to build than a high sophisticated stealth missile: at equally destructive power, the winner is the one that can keep building the weapons longer.
Re:If true, low-level warplanes just became obsole (Score:4, Insightful)
It wouldn't do much against artillery shells or naval gunfire.
It would be somewhat effective against artillery shells. Most large shells travel slowly and rely on explosives for their damage. Heat one up enough and you'll either bork the fuse or set off the explosives prematurely. Now you've got non-aerodynamic shrapnel with a relatively low terminal velocity raining down rather than a high explosive shell.
The other thing about slow moving artillery shells is that they're slow, so there's time to effect the flight path. Heat the metal enough and you'll have superheated metal gas ablating from the surface of the shell. The force from that will be enough to alter the course of the projectile. With enough tracking/accuracy, you could theoretically divert the shell to land somewhere harmless (or at least less damaging).
Easy to counteract (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You jest, but wouldn't a cloud of reflective/diffusive things (e.g. chaff, glass beads, smoke, dust, etc.) counteract this quite well.
Please do not look directly at laser (Score:2)
with remaining head.
German Laser Destroys Targets More Than 1Km Away.. (Score:4, Funny)
Still too weak (Score:4, Interesting)
100 kW is considered to be militarily useful, 1 MW is considered to be a battle grade laser.
There are 100 kW solid state lasers [engadget.com] available to the US military so this is not exactly leading edge military laser power. The interesting bit about this article is the revolver design they used.
Do I have to spell it out? (Score:2)
Uh oh. (Score:3)
"it shot down a handful of drones as they nose-dived toward the surface "
Wait until the drones have the lasers.
Then we're in trouble.
The perfect point defense system (Score:2)
NT
Did Anyone Else See The Headline... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It has already been done.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/05/wicked-lasers-shark/ [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The same group of companies already make awesome weapons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neONcIVGUJA [youtube.com]
"35mm caliber Swiss-german revolver cannon, it fires a sophisticated tungsten fragmentation promity fuze high explosive amunition. The rate of fire is 1050 rpm and the muzzle velocity 1170 mps."
You can be certain that there known what there are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope someone brings one to the next machine gun shoot. It's good to live in a country with sensible gun laws. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
This would be a massacre. A comparable machine once faulty fired only 1/8 second and killed 9 soldiers and injured 14 others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oerlikon_35_mm_twin_cannon#History [wikipedia.org]
Aside of that, there is actually also a big question about weapon control in Switzerland as well. A few days ago, a depressive ex-military has killed 3 innocent peoples in a small village not so distant from where I live. I can't find up to date English link to it. Use Google Translation: http://www.lematin.ch/faits-diver [lematin.ch]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the part where it killed drones flying at 50m/s?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how fast light is, "almost instantly" is a heck of a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
It's not an instant process. Each unit of time under exposure more heat is dumped into the reflective surface. As the heat goes up it begins to fail, increasing the amount of heat absorbed per unit of time.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Brought to you by the Pew Pew Pew Research Center.
Re: (Score:2)
...with remaining eye.
Re: (Score:2)
With remaining... head?
Re: (Score:2)
I will live to see Star Wars like lasers in my life time!!!!!
But only if you don't look straight into their beam.
Re: (Score:2)
.. and this happens just weeks after the USA Death Star petition came in the news.
Linked by TFA article, there's another [singularityhub.com].
The project’s goal is to build powerful lasers — two in Romania and the Czech Republic and a third in Hungary...
...
The project coordinator for the Romanian site, Nicolae-Victor Zamfir, told Bloomberg that each laser will be 10 times more powerful than any laser currently in existence, such as the one at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
...
The expected date for the first laser facility to become operational is sometime in 2017.
These lasers will be intense enough to perform electron dynamics experiments at very short time scales or venture into relativistic optics, opening up an entirely new field of physics for study. Additionally, the lasers could be combined to generate a super laser that would shoot into space, similar to the combined laser effect of the Death Star in the Star Wars trilogy, though the goal is to study particles in space, not annihilate planets.
So... US won't start funding a Death Star project by 2016 while EU will have a Death Star prototype operational in 2017.
Re:it had to be said (Score:5, Funny)