StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This is interesting. I thought that they were going to use some mobile version of the THEL laser for anti-artillery work, not this thing.

theheap wrote:Well-dressed link about lasers.

One-hundred kilowatt laser in less than ten years? And mounted atop a Humvee? Excellent. Mind you it's only good enough to blow up a thin-skinned missile in three seconds, so we're still a few decades away from laser tanks.

Hummer mounted LASERs able to pump that much energy out? Egads, maybe they'll have man portable railguns as an after thought.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:

theheap wrote:Well-dressed link about lasers.

One-hundred kilowatt laser in less than ten years? And mounted atop a Humvee? Excellent. Mind you it's only good enough to blow up a thin-skinned missile in three seconds, so we're still a few decades away from laser tanks.

Laser tanks are a stupid concept (laser as the main gun I mean) along with hover tanks with huge cannons (Hey, the Sgt. Bilko film is on Friday).

A tank carries armour that no laser today would burn through in any decent time, no, tanks will have laser turrets against missiles and incoming shells, but the main gun will be a railgun or EM gun.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Laser tanks are a stupid concept (laser as the main gun I mean) along with hover tanks with huge cannons (Hey, the Sgt. Bilko film is on Friday).

I agree. Plus part of what tears the missile to shreds is the aerodynamic forces acting on it after you blow the hole in it with the laser.

A tank carries armour that no laser today would burn through in any decent time, no, tanks will have laser turrets against missiles and incoming shells, but the main gun will be a railgun or EM gun.

Railgun is possible, but they currently have a sever problem with rail erosion. It'll be a while before we see tanks armed with anything other than chemically powered guns.

"Laser Humvees"? Interesting concept at least.

Edit: Post 666...

Beowulf wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Laser tanks are a stupid concept (laser as the main gun I mean) along with hover tanks with huge cannons (Hey, the Sgt. Bilko film is on Friday).

I agree. Plus part of what tears the missile to shreds is the aerodynamic forces acting on it after you blow the hole in it with the laser.

A tank carries armour that no laser today would burn through in any decent time, no, tanks will have laser turrets against missiles and incoming shells, but the main gun will be a railgun or EM gun.

Railgun is possible, but they currently have a sever problem with rail erosion. It'll be a while before we see tanks armed with anything other than chemically powered guns.

Rail erosion has been practically eradicated using special carbon and polymer coatings, I read this a year ago or so, but I'll dig the article up. Note, practically, erosion still occurs, but it's best having a pair of rails that last a few thousand shots than just one or having the slug weld to the rails on firing.

The power problems no longer exist (for tanks or ships) and the idea of a solid round that carries no dangerous propellants is appealing to say the least, letalone the power to puncture anything at immense ranges.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:

theheap wrote:Well-dressed link about lasers.

One-hundred kilowatt laser in less than ten years? And mounted atop a Humvee? Excellent. Mind you it's only good enough to blow up a thin-skinned missile in three seconds, so we're still a few decades away from laser tanks.

Laser tanks are a stupid concept (laser as the main gun I mean) along with hover tanks with huge cannons (Hey, the Sgt. Bilko film is on Friday).

A tank carries armour that no laser today would burn through in any decent time, no, tanks will have laser turrets against missiles and incoming shells, but the main gun will be a railgun or EM gun.

Yes, the only use a laser would have on a tank is to defend it against missiles, or shells fired by other tanks, or possibly to set fire to buildings and light vehicles if the tank commander was in a sufficiently bad mood.

It's main weapon, though, will probably continue to be a chemically propelled shell, perhaps with a bit of extra smarts added to it. Where defensive lasers could be useful on a tank, there's almost no benefit to equipping a tank with a railgun. A chemically propelled shell carries it's propulsive mechanism with it. The projectile for a railgun has to get all it's propulsive force from the tank's internal power supply. And both types of projectiles would likely do equal sorts of damage to the armor of enemy tanks.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote: One-hundred kilowatt laser in less than ten years? And mounted atop a Humvee? Excellent. Mind you it's only good enough to blow up a thin-skinned missile in three seconds, so we're still a few decades away from laser tanks.

Laser tanks are a stupid concept (laser as the main gun I mean) along with hover tanks with huge cannons (Hey, the Sgt. Bilko film is on Friday).

A tank carries armour that no laser today would burn through in any decent time, no, tanks will have laser turrets against missiles and incoming shells, but the main gun will be a railgun or EM gun.

Yes, the only use a laser would have on a tank is to defend it against missiles, or shells fired by other tanks, or possibly to set fire to buildings and light vehicles if the tank commander was in a sufficiently bad mood.

It's main weapon, though, will probably continue to be a chemically propelled shell, perhaps with a bit of extra smarts added to it. Where defensive lasers could be useful on a tank, there's almost no benefit to equipping a tank with a railgun. A chemically propelled shell carries it's propulsive mechanism with it. The projectile for a railgun has to get all it's propulsive force from the tank's internal power supply. And both types of projectiles would likely do equal sorts of damage to the armor of enemy tanks.

As tanks get progressively more electric, it will be inevitable that we will get to a point when an EM gun will be far more effective be it due to the fact that it will make the tank fully electric. The Abrams could, with some tinkering, field a small railgun if need be. The velocity of such weapons would make ERA or any laser system hard pressed to hit something travelling at, say, 10km/s. The rounds could be smaller too. A round of mass 1/2 going twice the velocity of a round of mass 1 will do more damage due to KE, so a 90mm railgun with the added firepower, range and lack of combustibles will be ideal for the future FCVs (or MBTs or whatever the bloody US Army calls tanks nowadays).

The laser defence will happen though, RPGs do practically jack to our tanks today anyway bar the high end models or ATGMs. A helicopter gunship will always be a tank's worst enemy (or the dreaded A-10). The laser would be ideal for hitting the delicate and lesser armoured systems on these aerial units, they may be tough, but Apaches and Warthogs can't fly without pilots.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote: Yes, the only use a laser would have on a tank is to defend it against missiles, or shells fired by other tanks, or possibly to set fire to buildings and light vehicles if the tank commander was in a sufficiently bad mood.

It's main weapon, though, will probably continue to be a chemically propelled shell, perhaps with a bit of extra smarts added to it. Where defensive lasers could be useful on a tank, there's almost no benefit to equipping a tank with a railgun. A chemically propelled shell carries it's propulsive mechanism with it. The projectile for a railgun has to get all it's propulsive force from the tank's internal power supply. And both types of projectiles would likely do equal sorts of damage to the armor of enemy tanks.

Well... most serious anti-tank rounds these days that are fired by MBTs are long rod penetrators. Lasers don't really help against this, because it's basically a solid rod of either tungsten alloy or DU alloy. It's quite possible that railguns will be put on tanks in the near future (next 50 years). For one thing, you don't really have to worry as much about ammo cooking off because there isn't anything to go off in the round itself, at least for a long rod round. A second bonus is that the rounds themselves will be lighter, making it easier for the loaders to move the rounds around. Another advantage of the railgun is that it doesn't really have a speed limit like the chemical guns do. The disadvantage of the railgun is that when you're out of gas, you can't shoot...

While it's not certain, the US Army at least wants to see EM guns in some vehicles within 20 years, they already have plans drawn up at Lockheed I think for a system to be used in something no bigger than an Abrams.

Fingers crossed.

Beowulf wrote:

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote: Yes, the only use a laser would have on a tank is to defend it against missiles, or shells fired by other tanks, or possibly to set fire to buildings and light vehicles if the tank commander was in a sufficiently bad mood.

It's main weapon, though, will probably continue to be a chemically propelled shell, perhaps with a bit of extra smarts added to it. Where defensive lasers could be useful on a tank, there's almost no benefit to equipping a tank with a railgun. A chemically propelled shell carries it's propulsive mechanism with it. The projectile for a railgun has to get all it's propulsive force from the tank's internal power supply. And both types of projectiles would likely do equal sorts of damage to the armor of enemy tanks.

Well... most serious anti-tank rounds these days that are fired by MBTs are long rod penetrators. Lasers don't really help against this, because it's basically a solid rod of either tungsten alloy or DU alloy. It's quite possible that railguns will be put on tanks in the near future (next 50 years). For one thing, you don't really have to worry as much about ammo cooking off because there isn't anything to go off in the round itself, at least for a long rod round. A second bonus is that the rounds themselves will be lighter, making it easier for the loaders to move the rounds around. Another advantage of the railgun is that it doesn't really have a speed limit like the chemical guns do. The disadvantage of the railgun is that when you're out of gas, you can't shoot...

And a railgun is going to consume enormous quantities of energy just to shoot the damned thing. Fire a ten kilogram projectile (say a 90 mm x 300 mm hunk of stuff with a paltry density of 5 g/cm^3) at a a very high velocity, say 1.2 km/sec (About 3x the speed of sound), and you have to impart about 7.2 megajoules of kinetic energy on the round. (And some kinetic penetrators carry 10 megajoules of kinetic energy.) The energy requirements go down for low-velocity HEAT type rounds, but we're still talking megajoules of energy. And that's not considering efficiency of converting the electrical energy stored in the tank's internal batteries into useful kinetic energy.

It's still much cheaper (in terms of expending the tank's energy) to use chemically propelled rounds.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:

Beowulf wrote:

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote: Yes, the only use a laser would have on a tank is to defend it against missiles, or shells fired by other tanks, or possibly to set fire to buildings and light vehicles if the tank commander was in a sufficiently bad mood.

It's main weapon, though, will probably continue to be a chemically propelled shell, perhaps with a bit of extra smarts added to it. Where defensive lasers could be useful on a tank, there's almost no benefit to equipping a tank with a railgun. A chemically propelled shell carries it's propulsive mechanism with it. The projectile for a railgun has to get all it's propulsive force from the tank's internal power supply. And both types of projectiles would likely do equal sorts of damage to the armor of enemy tanks.

Well... most serious anti-tank rounds these days that are fired by MBTs are long rod penetrators. Lasers don't really help against this, because it's basically a solid rod of either tungsten alloy or DU alloy. It's quite possible that railguns will be put on tanks in the near future (next 50 years). For one thing, you don't really have to worry as much about ammo cooking off because there isn't anything to go off in the round itself, at least for a long rod round. A second bonus is that the rounds themselves will be lighter, making it easier for the loaders to move the rounds around. Another advantage of the railgun is that it doesn't really have a speed limit like the chemical guns do. The disadvantage of the railgun is that when you're out of gas, you can't shoot...

And a railgun is going to consume enormous quantities of energy just to shoot the damned thing. Fire a ten kilogram projectile (say a 90 mm x 300 mm hunk of stuff with a paltry density of 5 g/cm^3) at a a very high velocity, say 1.2 km/sec (About 3x the speed of sound), and you have to impart about 7.2 megajoules of kinetic energy on the round. (And some kinetic penetrators carry 10 megajoules of kinetic energy.) The energy requirements go down for low-velocity HEAT type rounds, but we're still talking megajoules of energy. And that's not considering efficiency of converting the electrical energy stored in the tank's internal batteries into useful kinetic energy.

It's still much cheaper (in terms of expending the tank's energy) to use chemically propelled rounds.

Let's use a more realistic penetrator... 10mm radius x 300mm at a density of 18000 kg/m^3 which is around 1.7 kg. Let's round that up to 2 kg, and shoot it at 1.5 kps. That's actually more like 4.5 MJ. So it's megajoules of energy. That's about the KE of an Abrams moving at 18 mph... I think it should be able to supply that amount of power.

Lasers on Humvees! What's next for the Army, killer humanoid robots?

paladin wrote:Lasers on Humvees! What's next for the Army, killer humanoid robots?

Haha, no, not for a very long time. Same reason it's going to take a while to see railguns on tanks. Too much expense to build a humanoid robot to do the same job a human infantryman can do.

I'll take this laser: http://www.airbornelaser.com

The laser anti-aircraft cupola idea for the top of a tank is great, making mobile AA defense a practical thing on the battlefield. I wonder if it could be fast enough to intercept TOW type weapons systems?

Almost as interesting is the fuel-electric hybrid engines for the HumVees, another interesting feature of the article largely unsung.

Coyote wrote:The laser anti-aircraft cupola idea for the top of a tank is great, making mobile AA defense a practical thing on the battlefield. I wonder if it could be fast enough to intercept TOW type weapons systems?

Depends on how fast they can swing the laser head. Probably should be fairly fast, which means that it might be able to, depending on flight time.

ABL is a fun toy. Later versions will use the passenger version of the 747-400 with the stretched second deck (the -400F does not have it) so they can dedicate the bottom to the laser assembly.

But where are my sharks with frickin' laser beams attatched to their heads?

weemadando wrote:But where are my sharks with frickin' laser beams attatched to their heads?

In the shark tank, where else?

Beowulf wrote:Let's use a more realistic penetrator... 10mm radius x 300mm at a density of 18000 kg/m^3 which is around 1.7 kg. Let's round that up to 2 kg, and shoot it at 1.5 kps. That's actually more like 4.5 MJ. So it's megajoules of energy. That's about the KE of an Abrams moving at 18 mph... I think it should be able to supply that amount of power.

It is still cheaper, easier and better to create ammunition propellant with the desired properties and less of the unwanted properties than to try to mount and power a railgun assembly. That is until it is acceptable to have nuclear power tanks.

Rubberanvil wrote:

Beowulf wrote:Let's use a more realistic penetrator... 10mm radius x 300mm at a density of 18000 kg/m^3 which is around 1.7 kg. Let's round that up to 2 kg, and shoot it at 1.5 kps. That's actually more like 4.5 MJ. So it's megajoules of energy. That's about the KE of an Abrams moving at 18 mph... I think it should be able to supply that amount of power.

It is still cheaper, easier and better to create ammunition propellant with the desired properties and less of the unwanted properties than to try to mount and power a railgun assembly. That is until it is acceptable to have nuclear power tanks.

If you put a diesel-electric drive on your tank, you suddenly have loads of power for a railgun, and laser, and what have you. The railgun has the property of being able to use totally inert AT ammunition, which means that your crew survivability goes up dramitically, because you no longer have stuff that will deflagrate in your tank.

For a purely electric tank powered by gas turbines or fuel cells, a railgun is not impossible, it can easily be done with tech today that would fit a Bedford truck. The military simply isn't making tanks with such weapons yet for obvious reasons.