Rheinmetall builds first Laser-Cannon Options

[Stahlseele]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/01/14/ger.../#ixzz2IHVKwmdP
be afraid, be very very afraid!
capable of cutting through half an inch of armor plating from 2/3 of a mile away.

[DamHawke]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/01/14/ger.../#ixzz2IHVKwmdP
be afraid, be very very afraid!
capable of cutting through half an inch of armor plating from 2/3 of a mile away.

That's some impressively scary tech. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[_Pax._]

Yes, yes it is.

<.<

>.>

... can I have one? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Neraph]

IIRC, a year (or two) ago Americans successfully tested one from a helicopter that destroyed a ground target.

... 4 years. Man I feel old now. Article.

OTOH, the guy who made this was from Germany.

[_Pax._]

NEraph, the C-130H is not a helicopter. It's a CARGO PLANE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130H#C-130H_model

Whereas the vehicle-mounted 1Kw version built by Rheinmetall can be mounted on an APC; they used the TM-170: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM-170

Wee slight difference of scale, n'est-ce pas?

[Neraph]

Hepticopter, aarplain, whichever.

My point was that Boeing had a working one four years ago, which means definite room for improvement (as in, they probably have by now). Further, they successfully tested it against a ground target while in motion. You're right - that is a definite difference of scale. Go to a gun range and practice shooting a target, then try shooting the same target while biking past it.

[kzt]

Go to a gun range and practice shooting a target, then try shooting the same target while biking past it.

Multi-axis stabilized gun mounts are a pretty well understood technology.

[_Pax._]

Hepticopter, aarplain, whichever.

The C-139 Hercules is a large aircraft. It's the airframe they based the gunships used in Viet Nam off of - meaning, it's a plane that can and does mount 155mm Howitzer artillery pieces as just one of several weapon systems..

My point was that Boeing had a working one four years ago, which means definite room for improvement (as in, they probably have by now).

The system fired from that C-130H was a Chemical laser. Which means, it has a limited amount of ammunition - and that there's not a lot of room for improving how many shots' worth can be carried.

Whereas the Rheinmetall weapon, though immobile and ground based in it's present incarnation ... I see no indication it's a chemical weapon. (I also see no practical reason it couldn't be mounted on a naval vessel ... with all the happy benefits of a nuclear power plant to run it with, too.)

And they have a much smaller, 1Kw version they can put on a frelling truck. A truck that the C-130H could carry two or three of, mind you.

Further, they successfully tested it against a ground target while in motion. You're right - that is a definite difference of scale. Go to a gun range and practice shooting a target, then try shooting the same target while biking past it.

Rheinmetall's 50kW system tracked an 82mm steel ball, which was itself a moving target - the laser system was in "skyguard" configuration, meaning "anti-aircraft" - they aither shot, or air-dropped, that ~3-inch metal ball.

So, yeah. Shoot a stationary ground vehicle from an airplane moving in a straight line ... or shoot an 82mm ball that's moving in a ballistic arc, with a stationary gun. Guess which one is a harder target to hit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[hermit]

My point was that Boeing had a working one four years ago, which means definite room for improvement (as in, they probably have by now).

Given their problems to develop batteries that don't explode ...

The system fired from that C-130H was a Chemical laser. Which means, it has a limited amount of ammunition - and that there's not a lot of room for improving how many shots' worth can be carried.

I'd assume it was one, though there have been persistent rumors of a super battery being developed by automobile corps. Nothing has been shown though, so it's probably bogus.

Further, they successfully tested it against a ground target while in motion. You're right - that is a definite difference of scale. Go to a gun range and practice shooting a target, then try shooting the same target while biking past it.

Rather, driving past it in a vehicle with fire-on-the-move technology (incidentally, Rheinmetall produces those too, though, so the tech may be related).