 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:13 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Martin It is new technology. None of the other high-powered lasers worked out for a weapon. Diode-bade fiber lasers have. -- Ed Huntress On 9/25/2015 9:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266 wrote: On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote: ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of armor plate? 500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks. I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few miles. It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance. i Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new super-smart bombs that are the tank killers. |
|
#42
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 13:56:24 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:54:04 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see what they were hitting. This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the staging area well behind the front is devastated. To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about 4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too. The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound and fury of it all.  Cluster bombs in general... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmfbOwRreU Well, you can sure see the damage from those clusters. It's raining pieces for minutes afterward. -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... |
|
#43
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn On 9/25/2015 9:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266 wrote: On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote: ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of armor plate? 500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks. I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few miles. It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance. i Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new super-smart bombs that are the tank killers. |
|
#44
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:31:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:19:05 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266 wrote: On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote: ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of armor plate? 500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks. I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few miles. It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance. i Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new super-smart bombs that are the tank killers. Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from Textron. .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot? I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see what they were hitting. This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the staging area well behind the front is devastated. To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about 4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too. The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound and fury of it all. You are missing something critical, the explosively-formed penetrators. They are solid metal projectiles formed by specially-designed shaped charges. The projectile will be going about 2 kilometers a second, and is quite capable of devastating a tank. But it doesn't make that big a blast. OK, perhaps I am expecting too many explosions when a tank is taken out. I thought that most anything which penetrated a tank would also hit the stray munitions inside, causing a large explosion. Too many movies? .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator .http://www.google.com/patents/US6186070 What I've had trouble wrapping my mind around is how a wad of nearly molten copper, which is much softer than armor plate, can penetrate the hardened steel. Is sheer velocity/mass the reason? Or do they melt their way through? I can see how the super tough, pointed tungsten rods in many KE tank-busting rounds can do it, but how about the rounded EF copper glob? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge says that shaped charges are kinetic rather than relying on jets of molten metal to melt their way through the target. Interesting. The most effective IEDs are EFPs from Iran. .http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sees-new-weapon-in-iraq-iranian-efps/ It makes little difference that those tanks look OK from the outside. The heavier the armor, the stronger the effect. The inside of a tank hit by such a penetrator is dust and red mush. Ah, OK. I know that penetrators do a frenetic dance inside the cavity they penetrate, bouncing around for quite awhile, destroying anything they touch. -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... |
|
#45
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 14:37:11 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:31:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:19:05 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266 wrote: On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote: ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of armor plate? 500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks. I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few miles. It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance. i Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new super-smart bombs that are the tank killers. Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from Textron. .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot? I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see what they were hitting. This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the staging area well behind the front is devastated. To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about 4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too. The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound and fury of it all. You are missing something critical, the explosively-formed penetrators. They are solid metal projectiles formed by specially-designed shaped charges. The projectile will be going about 2 kilometers a second, and is quite capable of devastating a tank. But it doesn't make that big a blast. .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator .http://www.google.com/patents/US6186070 The most effective IEDs are EFPs from Iran. .http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sees-new-weapon-in-iraq-iranian-efps/ It makes little difference that those tanks look OK from the outside. The heavier the armor, the stronger the effect. The inside of a tank hit by such a penetrator is dust and red mush. Joe Gwinn Ayup...bounce a 5 oz piece of copper around the inside of a tank at 2000 feet per second..and there isnt much left of the crew or the controls. It bounces around like a Ronco Slice and Dice. More like a Cuisinart juicer! -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... |
|
#46
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 14:23:22 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:55:31 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:38:46 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ignoramus32266 wrote: I was thinking, about those smart fuzed bombs and such. Are they actually effective against a smart opponent? Could they be rendered useless by some simple tricks, like inflatable tanks, spray painted tank outlines on the ground, or something else that is cheap but can confuse those weapons? Although not mentioned in the video, these can hit moving targets. For stationary targets, I'm sure that self-heated decoys could work. Basically, the original rationale was to break a mass of tanks flowing through the Fulda Gap in Germany, from afar. The Warsaw Pact had something like three or four times as many tanks as Nato, so there was lots of attention spent on ways to even the balance. Actually, The A-10 was one of these ways. I don't see why they want to replace the lovely and SUPER-EFFECTIVE Warthogs. What's a little DU among friends? DU is only ONE of the rounds that can be fired from the A10 Its a very safe and VERY effective aircraft and should be retained. It's also extremely low-cost to build and operate. Aha, perhaps that's why the arms dealers want it gone and are convincing the Brass to dump it... -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... |
|
#47
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. -- Ed Huntress On 9/25/2015 9:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266 wrote: On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote: ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of armor plate? 500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks. I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few miles. It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance. i Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new super-smart bombs that are the tank killers. |
|
#48
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:25:16 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 14:23:22 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:55:31 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:38:46 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ignoramus32266 wrote: I was thinking, about those smart fuzed bombs and such. Are they actually effective against a smart opponent? Could they be rendered useless by some simple tricks, like inflatable tanks, spray painted tank outlines on the ground, or something else that is cheap but can confuse those weapons? Although not mentioned in the video, these can hit moving targets. For stationary targets, I'm sure that self-heated decoys could work. Basically, the original rationale was to break a mass of tanks flowing through the Fulda Gap in Germany, from afar. The Warsaw Pact had something like three or four times as many tanks as Nato, so there was lots of attention spent on ways to even the balance. Actually, The A-10 was one of these ways. I don't see why they want to replace the lovely and SUPER-EFFECTIVE Warthogs. What's a little DU among friends? DU is only ONE of the rounds that can be fired from the A10 Its a very safe and VERY effective aircraft and should be retained. It's also extremely low-cost to build and operate. Aha, perhaps that's why the arms dealers want it gone and are convincing the Brass to dump it... They're dumping it because an illiterate, barefoot gook with a three-generations-old, black-market Russian MANPADS can knock them out of the sky like flies with a flyswatter. Otherwise, they're great. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#49
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
In article , Larry Jaques
wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:31:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:19:05 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: [snip] Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new super-smart bombs that are the tank killers. Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from Textron. .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot? I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see what they were hitting. This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the staging area well behind the front is devastated. To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about 4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too. The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound and fury of it all. You are missing something critical, the explosively-formed penetrators. They are solid metal projectiles formed by specially-designed shaped charges. The projectile will be going about 2 kilometers a second, and is quite capable of devastating a tank. But it doesn't make that big a blast. OK, perhaps I am expecting too many explosions when a tank is taken out. I thought that most anything which penetrated a tank would also hit the stray munitions inside, causing a large explosion. Too many movies? Probably depends on where the penetrator hit - the magazine is somewhat separate, and unarmed artillery shells are not fragile. .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator .http://www.google.com/patents/US6186070 What I've had trouble wrapping my mind around is how a wad of nearly molten copper, which is much softer than armor plate, can penetrate the hardened steel. Is sheer velocity/mass the reason? Or do they melt their way through? I can see how the super tough, pointed tungsten rods in many KE tank-busting rounds can do it, but how about the rounded EF copper glob? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge says that shaped charges are kinetic rather than relying on jets of molten metal to melt their way through the target. Interesting. The kinetic energy of a kilogram of metal moving at 2,000 meters per second (Mach 6 or 7) is considerable: 2 megajoules. This is a meteor strike. At the force levels of such impacts, there are *no* solids, and only density matters. And speed of course. Think of it like drilling dirt with a water hose. The simulation software used to predict effects are called hydrocodes, as in fluid dynamics. The most effective IEDs are EFPs from Iran. .http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sees-new-weapon-in-iraq-iranian-efps/ It makes little difference that those tanks look OK from the outside. The heavier the armor, the stronger the effect. The inside of a tank hit by such a penetrator is dust and red mush. Ah, OK. I know that penetrators do a frenetic dance inside the cavity they penetrate, bouncing around for quite awhile, destroying anything they touch. And don't forget the steel fragments from where the penetrator barged through four to six inches of armor steel. This inside will look like it was sand blasted. The crew never knew. Joe Gwinn |
|
#50
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
In article , Ed Huntress
wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn |
|
#51
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Star Wars is still a ways off. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#52
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
In article , Ed Huntress
wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. And they will work for a while, and are perfect for defeating a swarm attack. But a lightweight water-cooled shield will defeat a 30 KW laser, so long as the sea doesn't run out of water. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. Yep. The problem here is the distance and the unsteady atmosphere. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. And no worries about unsteady atmosphere. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Yes tracking is key, but so are active optics, to maintain a bright focal spot despite blooming due to the beam itself. Star Wars is still a ways off. Yes, but we will get there, one new capability at a time, as the art progresses. Joe Gwinn |
|
#53
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
Guess you wanted nerve gas loads inside and if the boom wasn't enough
then the marketing group got to clean up the bomb zone... Targets normally don't have much boom unless they are looking for a show. They are old versions that have fuel to put them there unless a crane lift didn't. Martin On 9/27/2015 10:22 AM, Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:31:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:19:05 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266 wrote: On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote: ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of armor plate? 500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks. I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few miles. It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance. i Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new super-smart bombs that are the tank killers. Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from Textron. .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot? I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see what they were hitting. This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the staging area well behind the front is devastated. To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about 4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too. The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound and fury of it all. You are missing something critical, the explosively-formed penetrators. They are solid metal projectiles formed by specially-designed shaped charges. The projectile will be going about 2 kilometers a second, and is quite capable of devastating a tank. But it doesn't make that big a blast. OK, perhaps I am expecting too many explosions when a tank is taken out. I thought that most anything which penetrated a tank would also hit the stray munitions inside, causing a large explosion. Too many movies? .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator .http://www.google.com/patents/US6186070 What I've had trouble wrapping my mind around is how a wad of nearly molten copper, which is much softer than armor plate, can penetrate the hardened steel. Is sheer velocity/mass the reason? Or do they melt their way through? I can see how the super tough, pointed tungsten rods in many KE tank-busting rounds can do it, but how about the rounded EF copper glob? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge says that shaped charges are kinetic rather than relying on jets of molten metal to melt their way through the target. Interesting. The most effective IEDs are EFPs from Iran. .http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sees-new-weapon-in-iraq-iranian-efps/ It makes little difference that those tanks look OK from the outside. The heavier the armor, the stronger the effect. The inside of a tank hit by such a penetrator is dust and red mush. Ah, OK. I know that penetrators do a frenetic dance inside the cavity they penetrate, bouncing around for quite awhile, destroying anything they touch. -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... |
|
#54
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
I'm talking about an ICBM or MRV coming in at high speed
and you shoot it with a BB, the BB dents the skin which then causes friction and burning and you know the rest. Think of the Shuttle. Something out of place or moving into the airflow burns and causes massive disruption and explosions as it cascades into death. Martin On 9/27/2015 7:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:13 -0500, Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Martin It is new technology. None of the other high-powered lasers worked out for a weapon. Diode-bade fiber lasers have. |
|
#55
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
Can you imagine the barrel of a tank cannon heated up in a spot -
I think it just might 'backfire'... Martin On 9/27/2015 2:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Star Wars is still a ways off. |
|
#56
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:11:49 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:31:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:19:05 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: [snip] Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new super-smart bombs that are the tank killers. Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from Textron. .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot? I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see what they were hitting. This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the staging area well behind the front is devastated. To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about 4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too. The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound and fury of it all. You are missing something critical, the explosively-formed penetrators. They are solid metal projectiles formed by specially-designed shaped charges. The projectile will be going about 2 kilometers a second, and is quite capable of devastating a tank. But it doesn't make that big a blast. OK, perhaps I am expecting too many explosions when a tank is taken out. I thought that most anything which penetrated a tank would also hit the stray munitions inside, causing a large explosion. Too many movies? Probably depends on where the penetrator hit - the magazine is somewhat separate, and unarmed artillery shells are not fragile. Yes, probably. What I've had trouble wrapping my mind around is how a wad of nearly molten copper, which is much softer than armor plate, can penetrate the hardened steel. Is sheer velocity/mass the reason? Or do they melt their way through? I can see how the super tough, pointed tungsten rods in many KE tank-busting rounds can do it, but how about the rounded EF copper glob? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge says that shaped charges are kinetic rather than relying on jets of molten metal to melt their way through the target. Interesting. The kinetic energy of a kilogram of metal moving at 2,000 meters per second (Mach 6 or 7) is considerable: 2 megajoules. This is a meteor strike. Indeed! At the force levels of such impacts, there are *no* solids, and only density matters. And speed of course. Think of it like drilling dirt with a water hose. The simulation software used to predict effects are called hydrocodes, as in fluid dynamics. That's very telling, isn't it? The most effective IEDs are EFPs from Iran. .http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sees-new-weapon-in-iraq-iranian-efps/ It makes little difference that those tanks look OK from the outside. The heavier the armor, the stronger the effect. The inside of a tank hit by such a penetrator is dust and red mush. Ah, OK. I know that penetrators do a frenetic dance inside the cavity they penetrate, bouncing around for quite awhile, destroying anything they touch. And don't forget the steel fragments from where the penetrator barged through four to six inches of armor steel. This inside will look like it was sand blasted. The crew never knew. The pureed crew? -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... |
|
#57
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
In article , Larry Jaques
wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:11:49 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:31:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:19:05 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: [snip] Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new super-smart bombs that are the tank killers. Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from Textron. .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot? I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see what they were hitting. This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the staging area well behind the front is devastated. To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about 4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too. The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound and fury of it all. You are missing something critical, the explosively-formed penetrators. They are solid metal projectiles formed by specially-designed shaped charges. The projectile will be going about 2 kilometers a second, and is quite capable of devastating a tank. But it doesn't make that big a blast. OK, perhaps I am expecting too many explosions when a tank is taken out. I thought that most anything which penetrated a tank would also hit the stray munitions inside, causing a large explosion. Too many movies? Probably depends on where the penetrator hit - the magazine is somewhat separate, and unarmed artillery shells are not fragile. Yes, probably. What I've had trouble wrapping my mind around is how a wad of nearly molten copper, which is much softer than armor plate, can penetrate the hardened steel. Is sheer velocity/mass the reason? Or do they melt their way through? I can see how the super tough, pointed tungsten rods in many KE tank-busting rounds can do it, but how about the rounded EF copper glob? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge says that shaped charges are kinetic rather than relying on jets of molten metal to melt their way through the target. Interesting. The kinetic energy of a kilogram of metal moving at 2,000 meters per second (Mach 6 or 7) is considerable: 2 megajoules. This is a meteor strike. Indeed! At the force levels of such impacts, there are *no* solids, and only density matters. And speed of course. Think of it like drilling dirt with a water hose. The simulation software used to predict effects are called hydrocodes, as in fluid dynamics. That's very telling, isn't it? The most effective IEDs are EFPs from Iran. .http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sees-new-weapon-in-iraq-iranian-efps/ It makes little difference that those tanks look OK from the outside. The heavier the armor, the stronger the effect. The inside of a tank hit by such a penetrator is dust and red mush. Ah, OK. I know that penetrators do a frenetic dance inside the cavity they penetrate, bouncing around for quite awhile, destroying anything they touch. And don't forget the steel fragments from where the penetrator barged through four to six inches of armor steel. This inside will look like it was sand blasted. The crew never knew. The pureed crew? Exactly. Red mist. Cooked. Joe Gwinn |
|
#58
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:22:20 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:31:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:19:05 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266 wrote: On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote: ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of armor plate? 500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks. I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few miles. It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance. i Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new super-smart bombs that are the tank killers. Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from Textron. .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot? I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see what they were hitting. This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the staging area well behind the front is devastated. To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about 4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too. The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound and fury of it all. You are missing something critical, the explosively-formed penetrators. They are solid metal projectiles formed by specially-designed shaped charges. The projectile will be going about 2 kilometers a second, and is quite capable of devastating a tank. But it doesn't make that big a blast. OK, perhaps I am expecting too many explosions when a tank is taken out. I thought that most anything which penetrated a tank would also hit the stray munitions inside, causing a large explosion. Too many movies? .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator .http://www.google.com/patents/US6186070 What I've had trouble wrapping my mind around is how a wad of nearly molten copper, which is much softer than armor plate, can penetrate the hardened steel. Is sheer velocity/mass the reason? Or do they melt their way through? I can see how the super tough, pointed tungsten rods in many KE tank-busting rounds can do it, but how about the rounded EF copper glob? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge says that shaped charges are kinetic rather than relying on jets of molten metal to melt their way through the target. Interesting. The most effective IEDs are EFPs from Iran. .http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sees-new-weapon-in-iraq-iranian-efps/ It makes little difference that those tanks look OK from the outside. The heavier the armor, the stronger the effect. The inside of a tank hit by such a penetrator is dust and red mush. Ah, OK. I know that penetrators do a frenetic dance inside the cavity they penetrate, bouncing around for quite awhile, destroying anything they touch. Look up "spalling" |
|
#59
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:40:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:22:20 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:31:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:19:05 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266 wrote: On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote: ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of armor plate? 500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks. I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few miles. It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance. i Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new super-smart bombs that are the tank killers. Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from Textron. .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot? I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see what they were hitting. This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the staging area well behind the front is devastated. To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about 4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too. The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound and fury of it all. You are missing something critical, the explosively-formed penetrators. They are solid metal projectiles formed by specially-designed shaped charges. The projectile will be going about 2 kilometers a second, and is quite capable of devastating a tank. But it doesn't make that big a blast. OK, perhaps I am expecting too many explosions when a tank is taken out. I thought that most anything which penetrated a tank would also hit the stray munitions inside, causing a large explosion. Too many movies? .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator .http://www.google.com/patents/US6186070 What I've had trouble wrapping my mind around is how a wad of nearly molten copper, which is much softer than armor plate, can penetrate the hardened steel. Is sheer velocity/mass the reason? Or do they melt their way through? I can see how the super tough, pointed tungsten rods in many KE tank-busting rounds can do it, but how about the rounded EF copper glob? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge says that shaped charges are kinetic rather than relying on jets of molten metal to melt their way through the target. Interesting. The most effective IEDs are EFPs from Iran. .http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sees-new-weapon-in-iraq-iranian-efps/ It makes little difference that those tanks look OK from the outside. The heavier the armor, the stronger the effect. The inside of a tank hit by such a penetrator is dust and red mush. Ah, OK. I know that penetrators do a frenetic dance inside the cavity they penetrate, bouncing around for quite awhile, destroying anything they touch. Look up "spalling" I did, right after watching the movie "The Jackal". That was a meanass little remote controlled toy, wot? The look on Jack Black's face... -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... |
|
#60
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:24:21 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: The most effective IEDs are EFPs from Iran. .http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sees-new-weapon-in-iraq-iranian-efps/ It makes little difference that those tanks look OK from the outside. The heavier the armor, the stronger the effect. The inside of a tank hit by such a penetrator is dust and red mush. Ah, OK. I know that penetrators do a frenetic dance inside the cavity they penetrate, bouncing around for quite awhile, destroying anything they touch. Look up "spalling" I did, right after watching the movie "The Jackal". That was a meanass little remote controlled toy, wot? The look on Jack Black's face... Indeed. btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond-armour_effect http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=99177 Anti-spall liners work...up to a point...after that...cringe. |
|
#61
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Star Wars is still a ways off. Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. |
|
#62
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
|
|
#63
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
wrote in message
... On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Star Wars is still a ways off. Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. ============ How can you use a computer yet be so ignorant? Have you heard of Radar, a highly theory-dependent military invention of the mid 30's? We tested torpedos that sensed the target ship's magnetic field in 1928. The Navy developed the electromechanical drive used in modern hybrid cars a century ago for battleships and submarines. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.htm Cell phone technology arose from military research during WW2, as did computers themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper The DEW Line early warning radar project of the 50's forced us to learn how to network computers automatically. Mitre, the think tank where I worked, was formed to help integrate IBM's computer expertise with Raytheon's radar knowledge. No single existing company possessed the combined skills the project demanded. I used and maintained an Army-Air Force ancestor of the Internet in the early 70's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Digital_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...ations_Network Can you understand this description of WW2 tech? That principle of rectangular polar conversion is basic to advanced electronics. Sin^2(X) + Cos^2(X) = 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-f...ection_finding -jsw |
|
#65
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Star Wars is still a ways off. Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if they just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance. As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you do if it rains? -- Ed Huntress When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of it in ~1995. -jsw DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades. As I mentioned, the man who helped me built a ruby-rod laser in 1965, Dr. Herb Elion, was doing advanced laser research for the Navy then. When they dropped the chemical lasers for impracticality, diode lasers were already making progress in industry. So a lot of research tagged along with that. Those are the weapons we have today. The realm that further advances in laser weapons are in consists largely of problems with maintaining beam integrity. The government has thrown a lot of money into university research that's been working on that. It's very complex. Laser technology has been pushed so hard, from so many angles, for so long, that it seems doubtful that it could have moved much faster, no matter how much military-industrial-complex money was thrown at it. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#66
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Star Wars is still a ways off. Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if they just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance. As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you do if it rains? -- Ed Huntress When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of it in ~1995. -jsw DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades. As I mentioned, the man who helped me built a ruby-rod laser in 1965, Dr. Herb Elion, was doing advanced laser research for the Navy then. When they dropped the chemical lasers for impracticality, diode lasers were already making progress in industry. So a lot of research tagged along with that. Those are the weapons we have today. The realm that further advances in laser weapons are in consists largely of problems with maintaining beam integrity. The government has thrown a lot of money into university research that's been working on that. It's very complex. Laser technology has been pushed so hard, from so many angles, for so long, that it seems doubtful that it could have moved much faster, no matter how much military-industrial-complex money was thrown at it. -- Ed Huntress In the mid 60's a military contractor beamed a ruby laser between their NH facilities 15 miles apart. While they were setting up the beam hit the ground, causing a woman to fall into a fit of religious ecstasy from seeing the Burning Bush. I spent three college summers working on government research grants. |
|
#67
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 3:38:53 PM UTC-7, Jim Wilkins wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Star Wars is still a ways off. Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. ============ How can you use a computer yet be so ignorant? Have you heard of Radar, a highly theory-dependent military invention of the mid 30's? We tested torpedos that sensed the target ship's magnetic field in 1928. The Navy developed the electromechanical drive used in modern hybrid cars a century ago for battleships and submarines. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.htm Cell phone technology arose from military research during WW2, as did computers themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper The DEW Line early warning radar project of the 50's forced us to learn how to network computers automatically. Mitre, the think tank where I worked, was formed to help integrate IBM's computer expertise with Raytheon's radar knowledge. No single existing company possessed the combined skills the project demanded. I used and maintained an Army-Air Force ancestor of the Internet in the early 70's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Digital_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...ations_Network Can you understand this description of WW2 tech? That principle of rectangular polar conversion is basic to advanced electronics. Sin^2(X) + Cos^2(X) = 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-f...ection_finding -jsw You want ignorant I'd suggest you read Larry Jackass's posts and start calling him out on his never ending bull****. From 9/11 truther to complete machining moron. Larry is easily the dumbest mother****er I've ever seen post to this group. I guess that what decades of being an alcoholic does to someone who has very little brains to start with. |
|
#68
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:38:48 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. Nicola Tesla was actually the initiator of what could have been Star Wars tech way back when. Ever hear of Tunguska? http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... |
|
#69
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
|
|
#70
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
The fighter interceptors were to be above the clouds in thin air.
No rain. Fighters and all military are rated to take off in adverse weather. You can see the extreme with the hurricane hunters. Flying through a wall. The first go that we gave away was anti-missile missile - pre "Star Wars" tag and before Regan . The missile would fly in the region and explode itself - throwing its payload and itself at the incoming up in the apogee area where the arc is narrow. Have the incoming wipe themselves up. Then there were the lower defense missiles that were directed to each war head that had the characteristics of a real bomb not just shape and weight. All sorts of advanced radar work and physics out your ears on that. So the short fast (real fast) missiles would destruct them raining their trash in a small region of entry, but no 50 MT bomb boom. It was neat to see the pictures of our Sea Air Rescue (flying boat) bombing with 5 pound flour sacs on the decks of Soviet subs filming operations. They could not say anything since they were in violation of treaty... Think sticky flour all over you with limited shower facilities. Martin On 9/28/2015 4:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Star Wars is still a ways off. Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if they just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance. As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you do if it rains? |
|
#71
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 10:15:04 AM UTC-7, slow eddy wrote:
I built my first laser in 1965, with a synthetic ruby rod given to me by Dr. Herb Elion of Princeton University, who did pioneering laser research for the US Navy. I then attached it to a shark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw |
|
#72
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
We used the campus water tower to range with. It was easy
to get mechanical distance and later it was done using a laser. On a dark night, without a moon, you could just see it on the tower with a small telescope or binoculars. Love the burning bush. We worked on a neutron gun. Spooky. But I learned how to protect oneself from a neutron explosion or beam. Candle wax. Large thick blocks. Then the same in concrete. I was using a machine in the same lab as our 'mad' and lovable scientist from Scotland. Fresh out PHD in the right field. And a voice we never heard in East Texas in the late 60's. And 5 years after I lived in the south pacific. Martin On 9/28/2015 6:40 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Star Wars is still a ways off. Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if they just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance. As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you do if it rains? -- Ed Huntress When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of it in ~1995. -jsw DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades. As I mentioned, the man who helped me built a ruby-rod laser in 1965, Dr. Herb Elion, was doing advanced laser research for the Navy then. When they dropped the chemical lasers for impracticality, diode lasers were already making progress in industry. So a lot of research tagged along with that. Those are the weapons we have today. The realm that further advances in laser weapons are in consists largely of problems with maintaining beam integrity. The government has thrown a lot of money into university research that's been working on that. It's very complex. Laser technology has been pushed so hard, from so many angles, for so long, that it seems doubtful that it could have moved much faster, no matter how much military-industrial-complex money was thrown at it. -- Ed Huntress In the mid 60's a military contractor beamed a ruby laser between their NH facilities 15 miles apart. While they were setting up the beam hit the ground, causing a woman to fall into a fit of religious ecstasy from seeing the Burning Bush. I spent three college summers working on government research grants. |
|
#73
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
Good one.
Martin On 9/28/2015 5:38 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote: wrote in message ... On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Star Wars is still a ways off. Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. ============ How can you use a computer yet be so ignorant? Have you heard of Radar, a highly theory-dependent military invention of the mid 30's? We tested torpedos that sensed the target ship's magnetic field in 1928. The Navy developed the electromechanical drive used in modern hybrid cars a century ago for battleships and submarines. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.htm Cell phone technology arose from military research during WW2, as did computers themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper The DEW Line early warning radar project of the 50's forced us to learn how to network computers automatically. Mitre, the think tank where I worked, was formed to help integrate IBM's computer expertise with Raytheon's radar knowledge. No single existing company possessed the combined skills the project demanded. I used and maintained an Army-Air Force ancestor of the Internet in the early 70's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Digital_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...ations_Network Can you understand this description of WW2 tech? That principle of rectangular polar conversion is basic to advanced electronics. Sin^2(X) + Cos^2(X) = 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-f...ection_finding -jsw |
|
#74
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:40:48 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Martin Eastburn wrote: Well you are looking at baby lasers. In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter. Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses. All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV. This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself. Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield. Joe Gwinn The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical. The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers. There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons. Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then). These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time. Joe Gwinn Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast. At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor. For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do. Star Wars is still a ways off. Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if they just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance. As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you do if it rains? -- Ed Huntress When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of it in ~1995. -jsw DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades. As I mentioned, the man who helped me built a ruby-rod laser in 1965, Dr. Herb Elion, was doing advanced laser research for the Navy then. When they dropped the chemical lasers for impracticality, diode lasers were already making progress in industry. So a lot of research tagged along with that. Those are the weapons we have today. The realm that further advances in laser weapons are in consists largely of problems with maintaining beam integrity. The government has thrown a lot of money into university research that's been working on that. It's very complex. Laser technology has been pushed so hard, from so many angles, for so long, that it seems doubtful that it could have moved much faster, no matter how much military-industrial-complex money was thrown at it. -- Ed Huntress In the mid 60's a military contractor beamed a ruby laser between their NH facilities 15 miles apart. While they were setting up the beam hit the ground, causing a woman to fall into a fit of religious ecstasy from seeing the Burning Bush. Set her knickers on fire, did it? I spent three college summers working on government research grants. |
|
#75
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:38:48 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. Nicola Tesla was actually the initiator of what could have been Star Wars tech way back when. Ever hear of Tunguska? http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... Yes, I've heard of it. I research historical mysteries. They've found the hole the bolide made on impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Cheko Tesla grossly underestimated the impedance and losses in what was then called the Heaviside Layer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr_BMf6W7So We know much more about it now that we can make accurate measurements. http://www.wanttoknow.info/war/haarp...fare _weapons I got my amateur radio license at Mitre, from a retiree who had been an early British radar boffin. He covered the properties of the ionosphere extensively, then told us which of the antennas out on the front lawn he had used to determine them. You really are a sucker for simpleminded voodoo science. The reality is much more interesting if you can handle its mathematical complexity. -jsw |
|
#76
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:47:48 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:38:48 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. Nicola Tesla was actually the initiator of what could have been Star Wars tech way back when. Ever hear of Tunguska? http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... Yes, I've heard of it. I research historical mysteries. They've found the hole the bolide made on impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Cheko Tesla grossly underestimated the impedance and losses in what was then called the Heaviside Layer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr_BMf6W7So We know much more about it now that we can make accurate measurements. http://www.wanttoknow.info/war/haarp...fare _weapons I got my amateur radio license at Mitre, from a retiree who had been an early British radar boffin. He covered the properties of the ionosphere extensively, then told us which of the antennas out on the front lawn he had used to determine them. You really are a sucker for simpleminded voodoo science. Gee, what a nice way to put that, Jim! The reality is much more interesting if you can handle its mathematical complexity. I got up to algebra II and some trig in tech school, but the heavier stuff used in quantum/higher physics is beyond me. -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... |
|
#77
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 7:23:02 PM UTC-7, Larry Jaques wrote:
I got up to algebra II and some trig in tech school, but the heavier stuff used in quantum/higher physics is beyond me. Tying his own shoelaces is way beyond 9/11 truther Larry Jackass. |
|
#78
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:47:48 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:38:48 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production. Nicola Tesla was actually the initiator of what could have been Star Wars tech way back when. Ever hear of Tunguska? http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... Yes, I've heard of it. I research historical mysteries. They've found the hole the bolide made on impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Cheko Tesla grossly underestimated the impedance and losses in what was then called the Heaviside Layer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr_BMf6W7So We know much more about it now that we can make accurate measurements. http://www.wanttoknow.info/war/haarp...fare _weapons I got my amateur radio license at Mitre, from a retiree who had been an early British radar boffin. He covered the properties of the ionosphere extensively, then told us which of the antennas out on the front lawn he had used to determine them. You really are a sucker for simpleminded voodoo science. Gee, what a nice way to put that, Jim! The reality is much more interesting if you can handle its mathematical complexity. I got up to algebra II and some trig in tech school, but the heavier stuff used in quantum/higher physics is beyond me. Pseudoscience explanations intentionally spare the poorly educated from those confusing numbers, such as the temperature of combustion and the melting points of metals. |
|
#79
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:27:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: Pseudoscience explanations intentionally spare the poorly educated from those confusing numbers, such as the temperature of combustion and the melting points of metals. So, people are poorly educated until they have been taught these? Set Theory Group Theory Algebra (linear, abstract, etc.) Differential and integral calculus of a single variable Differential and integral calculus of several variables Ordinary differential equations Partial differential equations Real Analysis Complex Analysis Topology Discrete mathematics (combinatorics, graph theory, etc.) Number Theory Geometry (projective, differential, etc.) Probability theory Statistics (statistics is often taught as a discipline in its own right, rather than as part of a maths course). You have a high bar, sir. -- "Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round... |
|
#80
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:27:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: Pseudoscience explanations intentionally spare the poorly educated from those confusing numbers, such as the temperature of combustion and the melting points of metals. So, people are poorly educated until they have been taught these? Set Theory Group Theory Algebra (linear, abstract, etc.) Differential and integral calculus of a single variable Differential and integral calculus of several variables Ordinary differential equations Partial differential equations Real Analysis Complex Analysis Topology Discrete mathematics (combinatorics, graph theory, etc.) Number Theory Geometry (projective, differential, etc.) Probability theory Statistics (statistics is often taught as a discipline in its own right, rather than as part of a maths course). You have a high bar, sir. I never suggested that people should have my education, or that small subset of it, unless they intend to work in aerospace electronic R&D. I frequently post simplified explanations that don't require even introductory calculus. This is an example of the mathematics of digital communications: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrica...F12_chap07.pdf -jsw |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Damn... dropped it | Woodworking | |||
| Sharp DV-L80 dropped | Electronics Repair | |||
| Dropped kerb | UK diy | |||
| Almost dropped the phone. | Woodworking | |||
| Dropped Sanyo TV | Electronics Repair | |||
Linear Mode
