xXCapto-ExsequorXx

N@tedog

"I'M A CHARGIN' MAH LAZER!!!!!"

You have failed, and this makes me sad.

DirkusMaximus

Collins1

Collins1

takemetoyourtoaster

Roflcopter_Down: Wants you to follow HIM!

puttputt

Screw the laser-cannons. The grunts could come up with something better.

FlaminYawn

Robert Isbell

balloondoggle

The Army doesn't care about roadside bombs they've identified as long as nobody's near it. They may very well toss a $10 bullet as you suggested.

The Army cares about:
1.) Total, obsessive, neurotic battlefield dominance
2.) Shiny new toys

In that order.

Caidence

Of your original 5 points, you are right on all except the last one.

The reason the Army wants this is because of kamikaze trucks that speed towards their target, wired with a hefty amount of explosives. IEDs are something else, and they have other ways of dealing with IEDs that they've identified.

This is for the "OH SHI-!" factor, when 10 seconds to react is a lot.

Also, must mention that the laser is like a constant stream of explosive .50 cals, so it does beat the hell out of a sniper there too.

Good try though.

Caidence

Sonic84

Ribs

Incidentally, Iraqi's did not live under Sharia (or anything close--as Saddam and the Baath party had long been a secular administration) before the US invasion, and the idea of Sharia was not really explored before it. Living under Sharia in Iraq came into prominence after the US Occupation, and it has never held much water amongst most of those in the country, even today, though it exists predomintantly as propaganda in the US media.

Still, you are probably right: people who are simply aware of the costs to the US and the possible effects those costs will have on our children here are just losers, while you would definately be a winner.

capitalass

OldCrow

gundamsdontkillpeople

Point two: The Avenger is a low altitude air defense asset. The laser was made for that purpose.
The article points out that they are testing it for the alternate use of busting up IED's.
You can bet that, based on the success here, they will make a smaller version for just that application.

girraffesack

uberGoober

gadgetfanatic

MorganRW

huygir

gadgetfanatic

Nothing about this particular Humvee will ever see actual combat. But the weapon system keeps getting more and more refined. Lasers are the fantasy weapon of every army on the face of the earth, and eventually they will be made practical.

Pope John Peeps II

The laser is immeasurably more effective, if they can make it practical and useful on the battlefield. Instead of firing rockets at suspicious mounds on the roadside, you let a computer train a high-powered laser on it for two seconds from a distance of 1000 metres to see if it's a bomb. Seems simple to me.

Except you are forgetting to mention the key shortcomings of this system:

1. It's bigger and heavier than any of the alternatives I mention. So what happens when they end up in an ambush? They'll be weighed down with extra hardware that won't have practical uses when being swarmed at close range.

2. It's many factors more expensive than any of the alternatives I've mentioned for the purpose that they are advertising. It's pretty clear that if you have line of sight, you have cheaper, faster, safer, and more convenient alternatives (.50 cal high explosive). Whereas a sniper can carry, oh I dunno, 100 rounds? Do you think that current battery and capacitor technology allows this weapon to fire more than a few times before requiring extensive recharging of its energy source?

3. It actually makes the humvee carrying it a bigger target than American humvees already are. It can be disabled fairly easily by a nicely placed sniper round. It's impractical for battlefield use by all respects.

4. Never underestimate the ability of the government to throw money at defense contractors to create expensive solutions to problems that aren't already solved. Ref: Osprey.

charliedigital

tamoko

Stick with skilled snipers and cheap armor piercing .50 Cal rounds.

tamoko

For these and other ideas check some back issues of Popular Mechanics or ask someone who was there.

Never underestimate the ingenuity of a soldier fighting for his life.

balloondoggle

The laser is immeasurably more effective, if they can make it practical and useful on the battlefield. Instead of firing rockets at suspicious mounds on the roadside, you let a computer train a high-powered laser on it for two seconds from a distance of 1000 metres to see if it's a bomb. Seems simple to me.

Pope John Peeps II

Also: Iraq's Coming Robot Wars

The requirement is for a remote-controlled, wireless robot that weighs 50 pounds or less "to be used for Improvised Explosive Device (IED) detection and identification," according to the Pentagon's solicitation.

charliedigital

Bhp9mm

I offered it as one extreme possibility (and half jokingly). I mean, you guys seem to be ignoring my other alternatives for no good reason.

IF THE LASER HAS LINE OF SIGHT, SO WILL A SNIPER WITH A .50 CAL

CAPS and bolded for emphasis.

Also, shoulder mounted rockets, cheap, lightweight, disposable, and multi-purpose.

charliedigital

workingonyourinvoice

Lukewpnunn

Pope John Peeps II

2. I offered alternatives. I bet a sniper can hit a roadside bomb, assuming it's visible, with a .50 cal high explosive round from over a mile out. Is that far and safe enough for you? How about a cheap-o RC car mounted with C4 or a grenade?

3. How about a relatively cheap shoulder mounted rocket? Easy to carry, easy to use, cheap, disposable, light, multipurpose...

These are all better alternatives than this laser.

charliedigital

bobojuice

What I just remind you is that your government is preparing a "good" future for your children because unlimited spending won't last and somebody will have to pay the bill, your individualist person, off course, don't care because you won't be here to see the consequences...

Dude27

you can throw a hand grenade far enough and accurate enough to be safe from the blast zone of a roadside bomb? Are you Brett Farve?

drewheyman

1. It's a huge honkin' target for the terrorists.

2. It probably costs $#,###,###.00 per unit. By contrast, a shoulder mounted rocket costs how much? How about a nicely placed sniper round at the lens? Yeah, terrorists win; your tax dollars lose.

3. How do they expect to charge the capacitors/batteries out in the wild? It'll blow one charge and then need to wait how long until firing again?

4. I'm pretty sure that troops would prefer a tougher, faster vehicle over another variant of the Humvee with a huge bullseye on its back adding several hundred/thousand pounds to the weight of their vehicle in case they need to get out of a sticky situation fast.

5. Clearing roadside bombs? A .50cal high explosive round seems like it would do the trick better than this at a MUCH cheaper price. How about giving them some RC cars mounted with C4? Or how about just throw a hand grenade at it? Why such hairbrained solutions to such a simple problem? (Finding them is the hard part, but that's a different problem altogether and one that this weapon doesn't solve anyways.)

Not that it's a waste...I'm sure it'll be badass and the stuff they learn today will build better variants tomorrow, but they're smoking crack if they think this thing has any sort of *practical* real life application today.

charliedigital

The first article of this new Protocol IV initially declares, It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. . .

-

BLINDING lasers are well within our capabilities today, while blowing stuff up is much harder. It's really hard to put enough heat on a moving target, made of METAL, to burn it up or blow a large enough hole to really disable it. The UN ban only effects weapons SPECIFICALLY designed for blinding. US or other countries could design a MEDIOCRE anti-tank weapons like the one in the article, that, oh, btw, are VERY GOOD at BLINDING enemies... by "accident". Many countries are already on that road.

-

[www.fas.org]

"Anti-personnel laser weapons are inexpensive, sold openly by the Third World, have line-of-sight aiming, and are capable of producing catastrophic results if used against aircrews and sensors in flight (especially during takeoffs and landings). Commercially available laser weapons include the ZM-87, developed by the Chinese and first displayed at the International Defense Exhibition in 1995. In addition, the Russians sell a truck-mounted high-energy laser. And the University of Tasmania in Hobart sells a CO2 laser system for controlling forest undergrowth. The system is used to ignite logging debris from distances of 100 to 1,500 meters. The laser, costing $86,500, is mounted on a gun turret carried in a 2-ton truck and is simple to operate. Similar systems are available commercially throughout the world."

dcartist

I can only find a single reference to it on the web now.

[acronyms.thefreedictionary.com]

I guess the 1995 UN protocol banning weapons designed to blind probably did the program in. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that Bush resurrected it though, given his complete lack of... morals, ethics, or anything resembling a soul.

dcartist

Then your children can live under sharia.

Loser.

kbarrett

frigg

Bill for your children future: umbearable...
nice future... thank you Georges!

Dude27

LOL...how do yo know they don't have these types of weapons? Killing biological targets is way different than forcing the ignition of a IED.

FrankenPC

Being able to clear out Seattle rush hour traffic in under 30 seconds?

Priceless.

Monty

tellahoohooo

halloweenjack

Razta

But who cares. Lasers.

Ron-Mexico

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

HDC

Derrick

tellahoohooo

Aneurism

It was a weapon the size of a canon that was on a flatbed truck. They pointed it at a rabbit, pushed a button - no beam, no sound, nothing - and the rabbit rolled over dead. This was in the late 40s! Lasers weren't even invented until 1959! It must have been some sort of x-ray weapon.

I would have thought miniaturization would have shrunk it more by now. Maybe they need to get a few tips from Apple, Sony or IBM? :-D

leicaman

jahknow

HDC