|
Lilbeefer posted:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c8e_1423508031 It is cool footage, though the fact that it needed a chase plane to continuously guide it to a moving target seems like a step backwards. Like, maybe 65 years or so. I suppose that's what we're left with since the actual antiship version of Tomahawk turned out to be a turd, and LRASM may or may not be ready sometime in the next decade.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
It's cool but yeah, good luck timing your launch with strike package in a non-permissive environment. I still love the "we brought more poo poo to this partay than we have pylons for" concept 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Aeronautical Insanity: don't laze me bro
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
EightBit posted:It's not the budgetary concerns, it's the political bullshit that we're upset about. It's dumb to gently caress your country's future defenses up by spreading manufacture of poo poo all across the country to pat the backs of constituents; pat their backs by making an effective military It's not even that I disagree, it's just that this thread is balls-out crazy, for better and worse 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Lilbeefer posted:Jesus As someone who operates an industrial laser I can attest that this is a thing that happens. The training I went through was about half stories from people who couldn't see out of one eye anymore and all of them described a popping sound when they suddenly lost vision. Don't gently caress around with powerful lasers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
The Streak Eagle posts didn't make it to the OP 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Does the Navy just have spare container ships that they can shoot missiles at?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Does the Navy just have spare container ships that they can shoot missiles at? The narrowest container ship ever to float a container!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I mean, that all makes sense that you'd object to it. I just think it's funny that you're splitting hairs over a laser pointer when these guys are manning actual guns. because with weapon systems people actually see destruction of the target right in front of them, and they learn by association that whatever is downrange of the barrel can potentially be destroyed. this (hopefully) causes them to be aware of what they're pointing a weapon at. this is not apparent at all with lasers; people almost never see the first-order effects of it besides the actual dot, and never associate that little dot with something that can literally boil the fluid in your eyes. as a result, they flag everything and everyone with potentially damaging lasers without understanding the consequences. also if we gave them IZLIDs we'd have all been stuck wearing bronze visors all the time like some kind of loving apollo landing re-enactment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Does the Navy just have spare container ships that they can shoot missiles at? It's not really a "container ship" as much as it's a barge with some conex boxes stacked on it. They're designed specifically for being shot at with missiles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
brains posted:because with weapon systems people actually see destruction of the target right in front of them, and they learn by association that whatever is downrange of the barrel can potentially be destroyed. this (hopefully) causes them to be aware of what they're pointing a weapon at. These numbers are intentionally not exact, but: you can't point an IZLID anywhere near friendly people until you're over 600m away, and then it's not 'on' them it's 'near' them. And if you're pointing at any kind of flat vertical surface make sure nobody is within 40m of that because the reflection off concrete/etc can still carry enough energy to gently caress up your eyes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
To add a bit of quantitation to the discussion: http://www.lasersafetyfacts.com/resources/Laser-hazard-distance-chart.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:These numbers are intentionally not exact, but: you can't point an IZLID anywhere near friendly people until you're over 600m away, and then it's not 'on' them it's 'near' them. And if you're pointing at any kind of flat vertical surface make sure nobody is within 40m of that because the reflection off concrete/etc can still carry enough energy to gently caress up your eyes. Don't really want to talk about planes even less, but why is it eyes in particular that are so vulnerable? Given the energy these things put off, shouldn't they be able to burn skin as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Sure, but the skin is relatively tough compared to eyes. It's a matter of what gets ruined first, not that you can't hurt someone with a powerful laser some other way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Don't really want to talk about planes even less, but why is it eyes in particular that are so vulnerable? Given the energy these things put off, shouldn't they be able to burn skin as well? Eyes don't have a thick layer of protective cells designed specifically to protect from burning/cutting into the important bits. Also pain receptors, so you will drat well notice that your hand's burning-not so much for your retinas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
My understanding is that because the eye is designed to focus light on the retina, it focuses lasers as well, which can result in permanent burn damage to the retina from a powerful laser. Humans have an automatic blink reflex to try and protect the eyes from excessively bright lights, but since laser beams are a more concentrated form of energy than something like sunlight (which the reflex evolved around), it's possible for a laser to do permanent damage in the 1/4 second it takes for the blink reflex to trigger. Infrared lasers are more dangerous than visible ones due to the simple fact that humans don't see infrared light, so the blink reflex won't respond to infrared energy, even when it's powerful enough to cause severe eye damage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It's cool but yeah, good luck timing your launch with strike package in a non-permissive environment. I still love the "we brought more poo poo to this partay than we have pylons for" concept I'm assuming the point is that a plane can laze a moving boat and have a Navy ship 50mi away send a Tomahawk over. I still have no idea why they want to do this though. Is it because a Tomahawk has a bigger warhead than a Harpoon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:I'm assuming the point is that a plane can laze a moving boat and have a Navy ship 50mi away send a Tomahawk over. It's because the plane isn't lazing the boat, it's passing targeting info to the missile (presumably gathered from an on-board sensor, probably a radar) to get it to the point where the missile's internal terminal guidance can take over. Which gets to the second point, they're doing it because Harpoon a) doesn't have a datalink (SLAM doesn't count) and b) has a range something like 10% of the range of a Tomahawk. This isn't supposed to be used on a ship 50 mi away, it's intended to be used on a ship a couple hundred+ miles away. Also no ships in the Navy really carry Harpoons anymore for the above two reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Don't really want to talk about planes even less, but why is it eyes in particular that are so vulnerable? Given the energy these things put off, shouldn't they be able to burn skin as well? Eyes are just really delicate organs that are vulnerable to things in general. Poke a nail into your arm until it bleeds and you'll get a little puncture wound that stops hurting in an hour and heals rapidly. Poke a nail with the same force into your eye... Eyes are also particularly sensitive to heat, because they have very little bloodflow (a network of blood vessels running through your eyeball would make it kind of hard to see), and that continuous supply of moving blood is what regulates your body temperature. To more directly address your question of why eyes are more sensitive than skin, though -- the majority of it is the lens. If you have a laser shining a 5mm^2 wide spot on the wall and it's generating 5 milliwatts of radiant power, the power density of the laser spot is 1mW/mm^2. If you shine that into your eye, the same laser spot might be focused to a point on your retina measuring just a tenth of a square millimeter. Suddenly you're up to 50 times the power density of the spot on the wall -- ever burned things with a magnifying glass? Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
galliumscan posted:To add a bit of quantitation to the discussion: Thanks for these, very informative. What I'm getting from these is that even with a 500 mW green laser you'd have to use some very interesting terrain features to get close enough to a commercial airliner to have any real chance of dazzling the crew, let alone do any actual eye damage. I mean, all distractions to air crew are obviously bad and potentially dangerous, but I think the whole permanent eye damage risk discussion is a bit exaggerated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Thanks for these, very informative. What I'm getting from these is that even with a 500 mW green laser you'd have to use some very interesting terrain features to get close enough to a commercial airliner to have any real chance of dazzling the crew, let alone do any actual eye damage. Theres tons of airports where you can get close enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
I've had green laser shined into my cockpit at night. Even if you ignore the eye damage potential it's still very very effective at preventing you from seeing, which sucks when you're not ready for it. And since the beam is basically invisible except for when you're at one end of it, you're never ready for it.tater_salad posted:We arent talking when planes are 36k in thr sky. The issue is when they are on approach / descending for approach. Around pretty much any city with an airport their altitude is lower (assuming they are landing there). They are well within reach of a "lazor" and they are also ar a critical point of flight.. if you dazzle /light blind a pilot at cruise for a min or two no huge issue.. on final thats long rear end time when they are going 160mph and trying to hit the glide scope and fight winds. Also when you're dodging heavies in a flight of two doing orbits near the departure end of BIAP, splitting your attention between trying to figure out the Iraqi tower guy and the Egypt Air pilot attempting to speak English to each other while keeping the sensor in constraints and suddenly your vision turns to 
Ambihelical Hexnut fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Don't really want to talk about planes even less, but why is it eyes in particular that are so vulnerable? Given the energy these things put off, shouldn't they be able to burn skin as well? TheFluff posted:Thanks for these, very informative. What I'm getting from these is that even with a 500 mW green laser you'd have to use some very interesting terrain features to get close enough to a commercial airliner to have any real chance of dazzling the crew, let alone do any actual eye damage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
We arent talking when planes are 36k in thr sky. The issue is when they are on approach / descending for approach. Around pretty much any city with an airport their altitude is lower (assuming they are landing there). They are well within reach of a "lazor" and they are also ar a critical point of flight.. if you dazzle /light blind a pilot at cruise for a min or two no huge issue.. on final thats long rear end time when they are going 160mph and trying to hit the glide scope and fight winds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:I've had green laser shined into my cockpit at night. Even if you ignore the eye damage potential it's still very very effective at preventing you from seeing, which sucks when you're not ready for it. And since the beam is basically invisible except for when you're at one end of it, you're never ready for it. By any chance are you this guy?  
Luneshot fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
what the gently caress? Is that in Egypt or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-23178484
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
vessbot posted:The Streak Eagle posts didn't make it to the OP Post the link to the post and I'll put it in now. Sorry, I am bad OP. Ambihelical Hexnut posted:I've had green laser shined into my cockpit at night. Even if you ignore the eye damage potential it's still very very effective at preventing you from seeing, which sucks when you're not ready for it. And since the beam is basically invisible except for when you're at one end of it, you're never ready for it. I can think of any number of scenarios where a serious-but-manageable failure can become much worse by the pilot suddenly dazzled by green laser light. Recently an aircraft on arrival in LAX suffered a failure where the gear did not deploy on the first attempt. No problem, pilot sees 3 red gear lights, instead of 3 green, crew do a go around, second try no fault. File an incident report, maintenance fixes the plane, life goes on. Now imagine they got blasted with a laser when they select gear down. They see 3 zillion green lights, can't read the "LDG GEAR NOT DOWNLOCKED" on the screen, but still, they get a "too low gear!" ground prox warning. Go around, log two incidents, maintenance changes the pilot's seat cover, fixes plane, life goes on. Now if they haven't got a serviceable GPWS? "highly unlikely that all that perfect storm comes together" you say? Man, you just don't get commercial aviation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Makes it look like a giant rave is going on down there. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
stop talking about lasers, you loving nerds
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Ah, I think you need to check your data there. As far as I know, every DDG and CG still has Harpoons onboard. There may be a few exceptions but I see those harpoon launchers everyday on my way to work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:stop talking about lasers, you loving nerds plane laserer spotted
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Lou Takki posted:Ah, I think you need to check your data there. Only the Burkes before Flight IIA have the Harpoons, which are the ones built before 2002, or around half if you don't count the ones built or planned. The Ticos are in a weird position where they could all be retired as early as 2028 with no planned replacement boat even getting started until the mid 2020s because the Ohio replacements (and Fords) are going to hoover up all the navy's shipbuilding funds for the next decade. The Harpoon is also really, really lovely in comparison to more modern ASMs, especially as it cannot be launched from a Mk 41/57. The Block IV Tomahawk is one part of LRASM. Things will get interesting after they actually get to Increment 2, and especially once they get around to LRASM-B, which I really hope they actually follow through on. This article will tell you a good amount about the LRASM and US ASMs in general. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lrasm-missiles-reaching-for-a-long-reach-punch-06752/ Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Thanks for these, very informative. What I'm getting from these is that even with a 500 mW green laser you'd have to use some very interesting terrain features to get close enough to a commercial airliner to have any real chance of dazzling the crew, let alone do any actual eye damage. You have easy, public access to a hill directly under one of the takeoff/approach paths for SAT:  I haven't heard of any laser incidents here, but it's almost too easy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Yeah we almost only get laser reports from aircraft on approach or very shortly after takeoff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:stop talking about lasers, you loving nerds Gonna attach a laser on my drone and fly somewhere with 10 miles of an airport now just to make people freak the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Gonna attach a laser on my drone and fly somewhere with 10 miles of an airport now just to make people freak the gently caress out. Make sure you are flying for commercial purposes without a license when doing so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:stop talking about lasers, you loving nerds Man, you are a bad poster. Anyway, about lasers, they're pretty funny from a crew resource management standpoint because they go against the normal instinct. Normally when you say "hey, there's something going on outside" the instinct is to look. So, when you get lased and you're the first person to notice, you have to be careful how you say it so that everyone else doesn't immediately look outside to see what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
slidebite posted:Gonna attach a laser on my drone and fly somewhere with 10 miles of an airport now just to make people freak the gently caress out. The Ultimate Aviation Troll mlmp08 posted:Make sure you are flying for commercial purposes without a license when doing so. Look, I operate a completely legitimate aerial surveying business, and part of that job is knowing the exact line of sight range from the white house to Ronald Reagan airport. If you can think of a better way if finding that out than unmanned autonomous drones with multi-Watt, multi spectrum lasers mounted to them, I'd like to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 22:05
|
|