open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked U.S. Navy Adopts Amarr Laser Technology!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2011.04.15 11:09:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
If the best a US navy laser can do is ligth some plastic covers on fire over several minuts. I am not impressed.

The laser can be used to pop your eyeballs and fry your brains out. It is a lot more impressive only can it not be shown on YouTube. It does not always have to be the boat that is target. Some pirates have pretty nice boats and you might decide to keep these instead of destroying them.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.15 11:13:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
Originally by: Esharan
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/14/laser.weapon/index.html?hpt=T2

Looks like the U.S. Navy is moving towards Amarr Laser Tech instead of MAC's(Hybrids) or Projectiles perhaps?

Hmmm...


If the best a US navy laser can do is ligth some plastic covers on fire over several minuts. I am not impressed.


Also pro tip: This is a hoax, in case you did not know.

How is this a hoax? As in if the US navy lasers are not capable of doing that damage they should fire many people.



Btw popping eyeballs out really is trivial. Well okay popping them out takes some power, but a regular dealextreme laser will permanently blind you in a fraction of a second.

Lucious Shakiel
Posted - 2011.04.15 12:18:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Kara Sharalien

Originally by: Wilhelm Riley
it's a real life example of that urban legend about NASA spending billions on developing a pen that can write in space while Russia just used pencils.



The reason America spent millions developing the spacepen is because when the tips of pencils inevitably snap off in a zero gravity environment, they tend to float away and stick in hard to find places, only to puncture previously air-tight fixtures in the cabin as soon as you accelerate the craft. If the Russians do still use pencils in space, this neatly demonstrates and encapsulates why their space program was and is so terrible, and why they kept killing astronauts in horrific ways during the 60's.


Kara had it correct. That really is just an urban legend. The space pen was developed privately by a man named Paul Fisher with his own money. When he finally got it to work, he sent it to NASA who then tested it and put it into service. It has since been used on all space flights, American AND Russian. Prior to the pen, BOTH sides used pencils.


Back on topic though, the Navy is actually going the Gallente route. The new destroyers are going to have railguns.

Logan LaMort
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.15 13:43:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Lucious Shakiel
Back on topic though, the Navy is actually going the Gallente route. The new destroyers are going to have railguns.


No, Caldari, railguns and missiles Wink

Wilhelm Riley
Posted - 2011.04.15 16:19:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Lucious Shakiel
Originally by: Kara Sharalien

Originally by: Wilhelm Riley
it's a real life example of that urban legend about NASA spending billions on developing a pen that can write in space while Russia just used pencils.



The reason America spent millions developing the spacepen is because when the tips of pencils inevitably snap off in a zero gravity environment, they tend to float away and stick in hard to find places, only to puncture previously air-tight fixtures in the cabin as soon as you accelerate the craft. If the Russians do still use pencils in space, this neatly demonstrates and encapsulates why their space program was and is so terrible, and why they kept killing astronauts in horrific ways during the 60's.


Kara had it correct. That really is just an urban legend.


I know it's an urban legend, I said it was at the start of my post! Jeeze it was just an example..

mama guru
Gallente
Thundercats
Posted - 2011.04.15 16:27:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
If the best a US navy laser can do is ligth some plastic covers on fire over several minuts. I am not impressed.

The laser can be used to pop your eyeballs and fry your brains out. It is a lot more impressive only can it not be shown on YouTube. It does not always have to be the boat that is target. Some pirates have pretty nice boats and you might decide to keep these instead of destroying them.


And for the million dollar question: Why use a laser for frying someones eyes out when you can blow up the boat with a 40mm naval gun at a fraction of the cost and with like ten times the efficiency from a logistics perspective?

It's 20-30 years before these weapons are in any way effective, and even then strategic bombing and similar tactics will dominate large wars.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.04.15 16:40:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 15/04/2011 17:00:56
All this high tech weaponry and yet western military's hit a brick wall in fighting conflicts in under developed countries against guerrillas in urban environments.

USA's potential future enemies whose military's tech is up to date are also major global trading partners. And a conventional war would be tricky as nukes would be on the table.

The most probable war zones in the future will be for securing strategic oil assets. So why not the US start creating light mercenary brigades.

Graelyn
Amarr
Wolfsbrigade
Posted - 2011.04.15 16:46:00 - [38]
 

You think we aren't? Cool

Dav Varan
Posted - 2011.04.15 17:11:00 - [39]
 

Amarrica ?

Idonis Callor
Posted - 2011.04.15 18:44:00 - [40]
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

Scoreboard, turns out the American programme has killed more than the Russians go figure IN SOVIET RUSSIA!

digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
Posted - 2011.04.15 19:45:00 - [41]
 

Biggest differences with a laser is that there's no ammo involved, or gun powder to fire that ammo or missiles that pack explosives, stored on board the ship itself, so the ship itself becomes harder to kill as an enemy round might get a lucky shot and hit the area where stuff like the above is stored inside the ship.


Minmatar ships would a floating bomb if an enemy ship gets a lucky shot into the armory in the real world....Kinda like this example:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv1niwxQgoY...Just past the 2 minute mark.


Then there's the logistics side of it, basically not having a need to ressuply the ship with ammo anymore since it doesn't need it in the first place, even more so when lasers become fully solid state and don't require chemicals at all either and raytheon has a 100 kw solid state laser in testing right now, where in a recent test, shot down 4 UAV's in succession..The navy wants that scaled up to the megawatt class eventually so that it's effective against ship armor, but it might be another decade or 2 before something that powerfull is technically feasable.



Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2011.04.15 20:12:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 15/04/2011 20:12:11
Originally by: mama guru
Originally by: Whitehound
The laser can be used to pop your eyeballs and fry your brains out. It is a lot more impressive only can it not be shown on YouTube. It does not always have to be the boat that is target. Some pirates have pretty nice boats and you might decide to keep these instead of destroying them.


And for the million dollar question: Why use a laser for frying someones eyes out when you can blow up the boat with a 40mm naval gun at a fraction of the cost and with like ten times the efficiency from a logistics perspective?

It's 20-30 years before these weapons are in any way effective, and even then strategic bombing and similar tactics will dominate large wars.

I had given the answer ... because you want to keep the boat. Or you might want to keep what is on the boat as evidence. Seriously, is it really this hard to read or to think before one posts?

Landrae
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.15 21:01:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Azureite
The US Navy also displays a telling lack of shield-tanked boats. More evidence of an Amarrian mindset taking hold.


Armor boats eh? Striking how similiar that is to gallente.

Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
Posted - 2011.04.16 00:08:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Astenion on 16/04/2011 00:12:59
Originally by: mama guru
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
If the best a US navy laser can do is ligth some plastic covers on fire over several minuts. I am not impressed.

The laser can be used to pop your eyeballs and fry your brains out. It is a lot more impressive only can it not be shown on YouTube. It does not always have to be the boat that is target. Some pirates have pretty nice boats and you might decide to keep these instead of destroying them.


And for the million dollar question: Why use a laser for frying someones eyes out when you can blow up the boat with a 40mm naval gun at a fraction of the cost and with like ten times the efficiency from a logistics perspective?

It's 20-30 years before these weapons are in any way effective, and even then strategic bombing and similar tactics will dominate large wars.


A laser travels almost instantly and has pinpoint accuracy...are you REALLY saying that a projectile round launched by an explosion is somehow more efficient and cost-friendly and more accurate than a beam of light?

Also the ABL, or Airborne Laser, is a USAF program and not a USN program. The ABL is mainly used to intercept missiles but can be used against ground targets as well.

Strategic bombing? As in carpet bombing? Have you been in a cave for the past 30 years? There's a reason the air commands were renamed over 25 years ago...SAC doesn't exist anymore. Welcome to the 1980's.

Gotta love the 13-year-olds with zero knowledge about military hardware deployment apart from what they get playing CoD. It sure is fun to pretend, I bet.


Mire Stoude
The Undesirables
Posted - 2011.04.16 06:42:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Mire Stoude on 16/04/2011 06:44:52
Originally by: Wilhelm Riley
What is it with America and wasting money, it's a real life example of that urban legend about NASA spending billions on developing a pen that can write in space while Russia just used pencils. Except in this case they're spending billions developing lasers while the rest of the world would just shoot the outboard motor with a .50 cal.


I believe the quote I read to answer that question was: "Our ability to hit a small moving target with another small moving target is rapidly approaching it's limit." Obviously referring to missiles and jets.

Katie Tanaka
Posted - 2011.04.16 13:55:00 - [46]
 

This might be the only instance in which hybrids kick the ass of lasers:
US Navy railgun test

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.04.16 20:04:00 - [47]
 

An interesting issue is that laser requires direct line of sight to hit a target. This is available when you are using a laser on an incoming missile or smaller gun boat/ship.

However, the battleships has been shooting at each other at much larger ranges, where line of sight is not available. A good example are battles during WW Two. Battleships would launch observation plains to observe the target and provide corrections to fire control. I predict that in the navy the laser will not become a primary weapon. Most likely use is as defensive weapon against missiles and aircraft.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.04.16 21:52:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 16/04/2011 21:56:25
Edited by: Vogue on 16/04/2011 21:53:00
The new primary threat to deep water navies is the anti ship ballistic missile. So far publicly China is the only country with them. The US Navy has said at present these new threats can overwhelm the current advanced Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. The US Navy is planning to refit the Aegis ships in the coming years. But a US Navy panel has said the Aegis is in a low state of readiness due to cost saving.

An EVE head gets the idea of missile spam. If you have ballistic missiles spread over a vast land mass protecting 2000 miles into the sea it could create a safety buffer. Then my amateur guess (with wiki trolling ugh) would be that submarines would be used to attack ballistic missile launchers from satellite intel. But these launchers are mobile and would be preferably kept camouflaged in dense wooded areas.

The Falklands conflict has been the only modern naval conflict so far. And found exposed many gaps in naval warfare tactics. So I think this is still the case. In ww2 mass heavy industry could really knock out ships, planes, tanks etc with fairly common manufacturing tooling apace. When a modern naval force is depleted through attrition it would take years to reship. A modern aircraft carrier takes eight years to build in peace time.

Lucious Shakiel
Posted - 2011.04.16 22:59:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Wilhelm Riley
Originally by: Lucious Shakiel
Originally by: Kara Sharalien

Originally by: Wilhelm Riley
it's a real life example of that urban legend about NASA spending billions on developing a pen that can write in space while Russia just used pencils.



The reason America spent millions developing the spacepen is because when the tips of pencils inevitably snap off in a zero gravity environment, they tend to float away and stick in hard to find places, only to puncture previously air-tight fixtures in the cabin as soon as you accelerate the craft. If the Russians do still use pencils in space, this neatly demonstrates and encapsulates why their space program was and is so terrible, and why they kept killing astronauts in horrific ways during the 60's.


Kara had it correct. That really is just an urban legend.


I know it's an urban legend, I said it was at the start of my post! Jeeze it was just an example..


My mistake, I was walking to Kara and meant to say that you had it correct.

AGORAPHOBIC NOSEBLEED
Posted - 2011.04.18 08:49:00 - [50]
 

**** Cheney Is AMARR!!

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.18 10:33:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
If the best a US navy laser can do is ligth some plastic covers on fire over several minuts. I am not impressed.

The laser can be used to pop your eyeballs and fry your brains out. It is a lot more impressive only can it not be shown on YouTube. It does not always have to be the boat that is target. Some pirates have pretty nice boats and you might decide to keep these instead of destroying them.


A bullet can pop my head as well. Easier and cheaper.

Maybe they got better lasers, but that video (assuming it is actually real) is just pathetic.

While lasers sound fun and exciting, they are unpractical for a lot for reasons, might be better in the future, but mass times velocity equals a lot of energy.

Not usless, ofc, but melting the plsatic on a boat engine? Come on :) I know you fanbois want to belive, but this is kinda of sad.

Spookyjay
Caldari
Animosity.
Posted - 2011.04.18 11:38:00 - [52]
 

Ah what well. When they combine lasers and sharks let me know.
Or when they combine lasers and rail guns so the rail gun fires a shell with a laser that burns through the armour before it hits. let me know.
Till then nothing is more impressive than tinfoil in a microwave.Shocked

Awesome Possum
Original Sin.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2011.04.20 21:13:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Awesome Possum on 20/04/2011 21:39:30
Originally by: mama guru
It's 20-30 years before these weapons are in any way effective


Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
they are unpractical for a lot for reasons, might be better in the future


And if we stopped all testing, we'll magically wake up in 20-30 years to effective* laser weapons? Rolling Eyes

idiots

We didn't wake up and walk outside one morning to any of the modern technology we take for granted, it took years of research, trial and error, and lots of money.

Sader Rykane
Amarr
The Dark Space Initiative
Revival Of The Talocan Empire
Posted - 2011.04.21 02:58:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Vogue
Edited by: Vogue on 15/04/2011 17:00:56
All this high tech weaponry and yet western military's hit a brick wall in fighting conflicts in under developed countries against guerrillas in urban environments.

USA's potential future enemies whose military's tech is up to date are also major global trading partners. And a conventional war would be tricky as nukes would be on the table.

The most probable war zones in the future will be for securing strategic oil assets. So why not the US start creating light mercenary brigades.


Probably because people would give us a frowny face if we didn't hold back. Blowing up an entire country kinda would make us look bad.... uh... worse.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.04.21 10:56:00 - [55]
 

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Minmatar T3 pickup truck with rocket launcher Laughing

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.04.21 11:54:00 - [56]
 

Another example of T3 Minmatar. This time a helicopter rocket launcher on a pickup truck.

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only