Military Review

In the United States have experienced mobile combat laser

82
The US company Raytheon demonstrated the effect of the mobile laser complex HELWS-MRZR, which, during tests, hit an quadcopter with an invisible beam, reports Rossiyskaya Gazeta.




The video frame shows the device installed on the basis of the army version of the buggy, and the UAV hovering at a low altitude. After a while, one of the quadcopter motors flashes and the drone falls to the ground.

Other details of the experiment - the distance, air temperature, strength and wind direction - the developers of the laser installation are not reported.

The abbreviation HELWS stands for "Combat system with a high-energy laser."



Specialists of the manufacturer assure that a miniature laser gun can hit targets also while the vehicle is in motion, and the mobile power source allows you to make laser shots up to 30 on a single battery charge.

The newspaper notes that in recent decades the military of many countries have been actively experimenting with lasers and powerful energy weapons. However, "at the moment, these lasers are basically either rangefinder devices that increase the capabilities and efficiency of conventional weapons, or blinding devices that disable the optics of the enemy, ”the material says.
Photos used:
https://www.youtube.com
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 210ox
    210ox 20 October 2017 13: 57
    +4
    With this, the neighbor’s booby with a slingshot is more effective than this stray. Although seriously, you need to take a closer look at such developments and do your own thing. Despite the apparent absurdity, the military also laughed at the airplane ...
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 20 October 2017 14: 04
      +6
      These are just the first swallows. Undoubtedly, technology will improve over time. These systems are the future.
      1. Thor
        Thor 20 October 2017 15: 56
        0
        Let them saw, we look.
        Enough of what - intelligence will "borrow" bully
        1. Shurik70
          Shurik70 21 October 2017 20: 07
          0
          I watched once a video, back in the early 2000s. The American company advertised its paint. They show an industrial laser as it cuts metal sheets. One of the leading videos of the "accidentally" hollow shirt for a split second, the laser hit, burned instantly. And then they direct this laser at the car body, painted with their paint. So just a very bright bunny turns out. True, then this video almost immediately disappeared and I did not see it anywhere else.
          So the protection of the missile body from the laser is very simple - the coating should reflect or scatter the laser. And, as those inventors have shown, this can be achieved with fairly simple means.
          Or, from the latest publications in the open press
          https://www.popmech.ru/technologies/7456-antiluch
          -bronya-ot-lazera /
          1. aiw
            aiw 21 October 2017 20: 53
            0
            For a sufficiently powerful laser, the coating does not matter.
      2. kos2910
        kos2910 21 October 2017 08: 32
        +3
        Quote: xetai9977
        These systems are the future.

        It’s precisely behind the lasers that they’ve got it, the laws of physics and scattering have not been canceled. The question was well studied back in the 60s. And if there is progress with the power source, dispersion cannot be defeated. Other principles are needed, microwave or plasma. Rather, the railgun is being miniaturized, but there are also nuances.
        1. SMP
          SMP 21 October 2017 09: 15
          0
          The second photo hooked twice .......
          The question was well studied back in the 60s


          Photo of the 60s and photo of HELWS Combat system with a high-energy laser.



          This is only an assumption, but the fact that the Bugs are landing from a parachute led to this idea.
        2. aiw
          aiw 21 October 2017 14: 56
          0
          The diffraction divergence of the lambda / D beam in the microwave due to the significantly longer wavelength with scattering is much worse than that of the laser. The plasma clot will quickly decay in the atmosphere.

          Scattering lasers are OK, there are problems with pulse energy and efficiency - but the progress is tremendous. We will soon see hand weapons, but all sorts of installations on a wheeled chassis are capable of shooting down UAVs / mines / shells already ...
          1. kos2910
            kos2910 22 October 2017 06: 33
            0
            Quote: aiw
            Plasma bunch will quickly fade in the atmosphere

            Yes? They don’t know the ball lightning ... Wrap the plasma in an electromagnetic cocoon, don’t you? And if the plasma is from antimatter? You can protect yourself from the laser with reflectors. And you can shoot drones with cheaper methods ...
            1. aiw
              aiw 22 October 2017 11: 04
              0
              Well, yes, working lasers are too complicated, let's use ball lightning or antimatter (something that even the project does not have).

              Reflectors from a sufficiently powerful laser do not help, and a bunch of alternative physicists are in another branch.
  2. stolz
    stolz 20 October 2017 13: 58
    +5
    All this garbage: operates at a distance of no more than 50 meters, a huge consumption of electricity, fog, smoke, etc. - an insurmountable obstacle. It's easier to gasp out of a machine gun.
    1. Esoteric
      Esoteric 20 October 2017 14: 32
      +1
      Quote: Stolz
      All this garbage: operates at a distance of no more than 50 meters, a huge consumption of electricity, fog, smoke, etc. - an insurmountable obstacle. It's easier to gasp out of a machine gun.

      At such a distance, as shown in the video, it was possible to burn the entire "copter" ...
    2. NIKNN
      NIKNN 20 October 2017 14: 38
      +5
      Quote: Stolz
      All this garbage: operates at a distance of no more than 50 meters, a huge consumption of electricity, fog, smoke, etc. - an insurmountable obstacle. It's easier to gasp out of a machine gun.

      Yes, the beam retention time on an immovable target was beyond the limits (in childhood, during this time, paper was set on fire with a magnifying glass from the sun), well, the expenditure of force and money on one quadrocopter was excessive, to say the least ... smile
    3. knn54
      knn54 20 October 2017 16: 15
      +1
      -On the other details of the experiment - distance, air temperature, strength and direction of the wind - the developers of the laser installation do not report.
      And about FASTING too.
      And laser weapons can only hit direct fire.
    4. Chestnut
      Chestnut 20 October 2017 17: 41
      +1
      Quote: Stolz
      All this garbage: operates at a distance of no more than 50 meters, a huge consumption of electricity, fog, smoke, etc. - an insurmountable obstacle. It's easier to gasp out of a machine gun.

      All the garbage that we could not - suicidal logic.
  3. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 20 October 2017 14: 00
    +6
    Road going by walking.
    1. Berber
      Berber 20 October 2017 14: 06
      +3
      Or "dashing trouble is the beginning." Efficiency will show real application in combat conditions.
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 20 October 2017 14: 17
        +4
        Quote: BerBer
        Or "dashing trouble is the beginning." Efficiency will show real application in combat conditions.

        Well, in real databases, these systems will appear in years through 20.
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 20 October 2017 14: 39
          +2
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          Well, in real databases, these systems will appear in years through 20.

          Optimistic ... although ... request
    2. faridg7
      faridg7 20 October 2017 14: 08
      +6
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      Road going by walking.

      It is difficult to argue with this, especially with those to whom it reached forty years (and then once, and overcame 400 km)
  4. Dead duck
    Dead duck 20 October 2017 14: 13
    +8
    "Mobile battle laser" this is it laughing

    but what the yankers showed ... from the series "bollywood presents" wassat
  5. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 20 October 2017 14: 15
    +2
    Quote: BerBer
    Or "dashing trouble is the beginning." Efficiency will show real application in combat conditions.

    Terrestrial will only be good in clear weather and a powerful source of energy for food. Airborne at heights above cloud cover. You can’t get physics anywhere; its laws cannot be circumvented. In the meantime, these are all toys for kindergarten, such as current spinners.
    1. Sharansky
      Sharansky 20 October 2017 14: 27
      +8
      Slowly but surely moving towards the goal. When it was impossible to imagine a thin battery for a mobile phone with a capacity of 3600mAh. And now this is the norm.
    2. Berber
      Berber 20 October 2017 16: 15
      +1
      In principle, right. BUT there are trends and you need to track them. Not in all theater and not in any weather conditions are applicable, but in the Middle East, for example, quite.
  6. Professor
    Professor 20 October 2017 14: 18
    +3
    No laser, but I liked the bugs. good
    With this laser, Phantoms should not be shot down, but paratroopers should be burned. Although not themselves, parachutes will burn in seconds.
    1. faridg7
      faridg7 20 October 2017 14: 32
      +2
      Quote: Professor
      No laser, but I liked the bugs. good
      With this laser, Phantoms should not be shot down, but paratroopers should be burned. Although not themselves, parachutes will burn in seconds.

      Well, think about the problem. Before landing in the area of ​​landing an aerosol cloud is not a problem. And landing trophies will find application
      1. Professor
        Professor 20 October 2017 15: 23
        0
        Quote: faridg7
        Well, think about the problem. Before landing in the area of ​​landing an aerosol cloud is not a problem. And landing trophies will find application

        You still have fireworks before landing or arrange the distribution in Votsap right away. wink
        1. faridg7
          faridg7 20 October 2017 16: 01
          +3
          Quote: Professor
          You still have fireworks before landing
          Certainly, fireworks before landing are the same alphabet- who will land people on an uncleaned site
          1. Professor
            Professor 20 October 2017 16: 07
            0
            Quote: faridg7
            Certainly, fireworks before landing are the same alphabet- who will land people on an uncleaned site

            Yeah. In the rear of the enemy. laughing
            1. faridg7
              faridg7 20 October 2017 16: 20
              +3
              Are you afraid that the range of fireworks is not enough? Will the enemy have enough rear depth to prevent his fireworks from reaching?
              1. Professor
                Professor 20 October 2017 17: 18
                +1
                Quote: faridg7
                Are you afraid that the range of fireworks is not enough? Will the enemy have enough rear depth to prevent his fireworks from reaching?

                Of course that's enough. There where the fireworks reach does not land an airborne landing. Enough ordinary infantry.
                1. faridg7
                  faridg7 20 October 2017 17: 32
                  +2
                  This is where such an adversary is, that he has enough rear lines so that our fireworks do not get it?
                  Ordinary infantry should arrive at a slightly prepared bridgehead and airfield at this bridgehead. But the bridgehead with the airfield is just the task of the landing.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 20 October 2017 17: 39
                    0
                    Quote: faridg7
                    This is where such an adversary is, that he has enough rear lines so that our fireworks do not get it?

                    Just do not need the heartbreaking stories about artillery preparation "Caliber".

                    Quote: faridg7
                    Ordinary infantry should arrive at a slightly prepared bridgehead and airfield at this bridgehead. But the bridgehead with the airfield is just the task of the landing.

                    ... deep behind enemy lines. Fireworks aren’t getting there.
                    1. aiw
                      aiw 21 October 2017 18: 52
                      0
                      If the BTA gets there, then strike aircraft will get even more so. Not to mention all sorts of other iskander and KR.
                2. faridg7
                  faridg7 20 October 2017 17: 44
                  +1
                  Quote: Professor
                  Just do not need the heartbreaking stories about artillery preparation "Caliber".

                  Well, if you want, you can use calibers, but the menu has a whole list
    2. parkello
      parkello 21 October 2017 23: 28
      +2
      nifiga Professor, he will not do paratroopers. firstly, the sliding speed is too high to 2.5 m / s, secondly, there is an reinforcing cage sewn on the dome. this is in case there is a break through so that a dome on it such as a mesh is sewn up. so the laser is about nothing ... and the car is nothing ... a ride just right ... with the women on the beach to wind.
      1. Professor
        Professor 22 October 2017 07: 05
        +1
        Quote: parkello
        nifiga Professor, he will not do paratroopers. firstly, the sliding speed is too high to 2.5 m / s, secondly, there is an reinforcing cage sewn on the dome. this is in case there is a break through so that a dome on it such as a mesh is sewn up. so the laser is about nothing ... and the car is nothing ... a ride just right ... with the women on the beach to wind.

        ... and the material of the parachute is no longer combustible?
        1. parkello
          parkello 22 October 2017 12: 49
          +2
          material aviazent. it is possible to burn a hole, but it will not flash at the same time it will melt to the frame, and there the thick straps are sewn ... 1500 kg per gap. and go out. Yes, he will have time to land easily from 600 m.
          1. aiw
            aiw 22 October 2017 19: 01
            0
            Parachute canopy material for landing avisent? Yes, you Yksperdd however ... through Y.
            1. parkello
              parkello 23 October 2017 15: 47
              +2
              You yourself are a puppy. thank God that only here you can speak to me. come close to tear.
              1. aiw
                aiw 23 October 2017 17: 52
                +1
                On the Internet, everyone is just so formidable, I'm already trembling ... crying

                Can you give the name of the parachute model for landing manpower with a dome from an avisent? Or can you just promise to tear your mouth, and tell tales about laser-resistant materials?
  7. spirit
    spirit 20 October 2017 14: 44
    +8
    The first buyer of this laser we know)) To whom copters really bother)
    Wrap two at once laughing
  8. zivXP
    zivXP 20 October 2017 15: 13
    0
    Quote: Stolz
    All this garbage: operates at a distance of no more than 50 meters, a huge consumption of electricity, fog, smoke, etc. - an insurmountable obstacle. It's easier to gasp out of a machine gun.

    Down and Out trouble started. If we do not actively develop and implement, then the enemy will do it faster.
  9. NEXUS
    NEXUS 20 October 2017 15: 43
    +4
    Our electronic warfare systems are much more efficient ..
    Quote: xetai9977
    Undoubtedly, technology will improve over time. These systems are the future.

    The future is just more for EW technology ..
    1. parkello
      parkello 21 October 2017 23: 32
      +2
      Definitely yes, but the Amersa make a name for themselves ... they develop and hang noodles on everyone’s ears. That’s almost in a series and is made for everyone. but in reality they will cost two copies and then forget .. but in terms of information, they break ahead. and the whole world thinks. except that they have no one else. like landing on the moon .. also a bike. but nevertheless. it is believed that they landed there. and you prove that it’s not so ... ours didn’t land ... but in vain. but it was necessary to smash them to smithereens.
      1. aiw
        aiw 22 October 2017 11: 05
        0
        Leonov, the first to go into outer space, believes that the Americans were on the moon. Do you know something that he does not know?
        1. parkello
          parkello 22 October 2017 12: 51
          +2
          Leonov .. the same victim of the information war.
          1. aiw
            aiw 22 October 2017 13: 24
            0
            Well, yes, of course - all the astronauts and scientists are victims of the information war, you alone are smart d'Artagnan in a white coat.
  10. Stoler
    Stoler 20 October 2017 15: 51
    +2
    Scary thing belay Spend millions of bucks to then warm up the stationary quadrocopter for five minutes and knock it down with fanfare fool And if a grenade launcher hung on it? Or some other stray ??? Who would you bet on ??? wink
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 October 2017 16: 07
      0
      On the laser, of course. The ray is invisible. And there is no sound. A quadrocopter with a grenade launcher will not understand who burns it. And it will fall without identifying the source of the fire.
      1. dvina71
        dvina71 21 October 2017 20: 08
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The ray is invisible.

        Already now, laser radiation sensors are installed on more or less expensive equipment. There is nothing difficult to shoot an aerosol in the direction of radiation .. Here are just standing copters and shoot them. Physics as a science is the weak spot of Americans. So they are trying to turn a feature film into reality .. It would be better if the lyrics of T. Brass .. realized ..
        1. aiw
          aiw 21 October 2017 20: 55
          0
          Judging by the comments of the physicist, 99% of VO commentators have a weak spot.

          Will you shoot an aerosol from a copter? When did he get hit by a combat laser?
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 21 October 2017 21: 02
            0
            So what is the little thing then ... let's tactical nuclear weapons on the copter fucking ... Isn't it easier to remove it from the usual rifle? Not?
            1. aiw
              aiw 21 October 2017 21: 14
              0
              Not easier. An ordinary rifleman has a smaller range, accuracy is significantly lower and limited BC.

              Now we are seriously talking about covering up our units from mortar mines and possibly art. shells - for ordinary shooting it is very difficult. And this radically changes tactics on the battlefield.
              1. dvina71
                dvina71 21 October 2017 21: 25
                +1
                Quote: aiw
                Now we are seriously talking about covering their parts from mortar mines and possibly art

                And this is all laser .. seriously? Well, let's start with the fact that the defense will have to be built near a non-weak source of electric energy. Continue ... how do you imagine laser defense during an art raid? Smoke, ashes in the air .. the mass of suspensions of different composition ... And all this you flash with a laser (light beam .. I remind you) like a warm butter knife?
                \ The problem with the Americans is that they represent the war in the movies ...
                1. aiw
                  aiw 21 October 2017 21: 32
                  0
                  Seriously. Tales about the terrible gluttony of lasers are no more than tales, the power consumption of the laser does not exceed the power of the carrier engine.

                  Smoke, ashes, etc. - yes, this creates a certain problem, but mainly for lasers used for guidance. For a sufficiently powerful combat laser, which is guided by the radar, this is not a problem - to burn through the wall of the projectile is much more difficult than to pass through smoke and dust. And where does smoke and dust come from, if nothing reaches the target and is torn in the air?
                  1. dvina71
                    dvina71 21 October 2017 21: 56
                    +1
                    Quote: aiw
                    And where does smoke and dust come from, if nothing reaches the target and is torn in the air?

                    Dreamer....
                    1. aiw
                      aiw 21 October 2017 21: 57
                      0
                      about the rest you have nothing to say? OK.
  11. Engineer
    Engineer 20 October 2017 16: 04
    +1
    For testing I had 3 days to wait for good weather
  12. afrikanez
    afrikanez 20 October 2017 17: 05
    0
    Yes, these Americans have already tortured everyone with their laser pointer! lol
  13. Warrior-80
    Warrior-80 20 October 2017 19: 53
    +1
    I think until they come up with new sources of energy, compact and high-energy unlikely these weapons will be effective, but as they say, "the road will overpower
  14. Nasty
    Nasty 20 October 2017 20: 32
    0
    And in our apartment there is gas.
  15. SMP
    SMP 21 October 2017 09: 00
    0
    Quote: kos2910
    Quote: xetai9977
    These systems are the future.

    It’s precisely behind the lasers that they’ve got it, the laws of physics and scattering have not been canceled. The question was well studied back in the 60s. And if there is progress with the power source, dispersion cannot be defeated. Other principles are needed, microwave or plasma. Rather, the railgun is being miniaturized, but there are also nuances.


    + 100% I agree with you, but Americans don’t so much money to pump in both laser weapons and railguns, which are generally not applicable in the war, then why?
    My personal assumption is that preparations are underway for the conization of the moon, and weapons are being practiced on earth that can only be used effectively in zero gravity. The reselsotron hypersonic gun can be effective only in near-Earth or near the lunar orbit.
    So it is with lasers, the bugs that showed are similar to the one Neil Armstrong rode on the surface of the moon.



    Helium-3 mining plans on the moon [edit | edit wiki text]
    Helium-3 is a by-product of the reactions taking place on the Sun, and is contained in a certain amount in the solar wind and interplanetary medium. Helium-3 entering the Earth’s atmosphere from interplanetary space quickly dissipates back [13], its concentration in the atmosphere is extremely low [14]
    The moon, which has no atmosphere, retains significant amounts of helium-3 in the surface layer, according to some estimates up to 500 thousand tons [15], according to others - less than 10 million tons [16].
    Hypothetically, in thermonuclear fusion, when 1 ton of helium-3 enters the reaction with 0,67 tons of deuterium, energy is released that is equivalent to burning 15 million tons of oil [17] (however, the technical feasibility of this reaction has not yet been studied). Consequently, the population of our planet’s lunar resource helium-3 (according to maximum estimates) could be enough for about five millennia [17]. The main problem remains the reality of helium mining from lunar regolith. As mentioned above, the content of helium-3 in the regolith is ~ 1 g per 100 tons. Therefore, to extract tons of this isotope, at least 100 million tons of soil should be processed in situ.
    NASA developed concept designs for hypothetical regolith processing and helium-3 separation plants [18].


    Uranus 235 as scientists say, has restrictions on production, who says it has 50 years left
    someone says 100 years.
    When it was crap, the Americans came up with SDI and lit Gorbachev, now they are silent like a fish on ice.
    In general, this is not casual, this is the opinion.
  16. Mentat
    Mentat 21 October 2017 11: 37
    +1
    Quote: xetai9977
    These are just the first swallows. Undoubtedly, technology will improve over time. These systems are the future.

    There is no future for them from the word at all. How much can you scribble this unscientific crap.
    The Americans are cutting their budget money and trying to drag them into another arms race. It looks very strange, because they are aware of the USSR laser program.
    1. aiw
      aiw 21 October 2017 18: 33
      0
      There is no future for them from the word at all. How much can you scribble this unscientific crap.

      Can you scientifically substantiate your claim?
  17. Mentat
    Mentat 21 October 2017 11: 40
    0
    Quote: SMP
    Americans don’t have enough money to pump both into laser weapons and railgun guns, which are generally not applicable in a war, then why?

    Railguns are quite applicable to themselves, on this principle and gun mounts will most likely work in the foreseeable future. Today for them there are no energy batteries of the required capacity and materials for the rail.
    1. dvina71
      dvina71 21 October 2017 20: 11
      0
      Will they fire near Earth orbit? How do you imagine using artillery a shell which flies in a straight line to the horizon? And then it goes into orbit ..
      1. aiw
        aiw 21 October 2017 20: 56
        0
        And how are ICBMs flying over the horizon interesting? They will have a speed greater than that of a railgun shell ...
        1. dvina71
          dvina71 21 October 2017 21: 04
          0
          Quote: aiw
          And how ICBMs fly off the horizon is interesting

          And you take a look at the trajectories of the ICBMs and the composition of the warhead ICBMs ... and compare this with a barrel of several tens of kilograms of weight ... that will shoot from ... well, almost ... barrel ...
          1. aiw
            aiw 21 October 2017 21: 16
            0
            And in your opinion the trajectory of the ICBMs is why this? And what does the letter “B” mean in the abbreviation ICBM?
            1. dvina71
              dvina71 21 October 2017 21: 28
              0
              Ie the presence of ICBMs up to ten blocks in 50kt do not bother you? And do you persistently compare the ICBMs with the railgun? I'm starting to worry about your health ... temperature? Weakness? diarrhea? .. Not? Things are good?
              1. aiw
                aiw 21 October 2017 21: 36
                0
                Mdya ... take care of your health, but rather open what thread Perelman "physics for the curious" at least. B - means ballistic. After the booster section, these warheads follow the same ballistic trajectory as the railgun shell (we don’t take dilution now, well, there’s a minimum increase in speed), the whole difference is that the rail boom has the booster section equal to the barrel length.

                To prevent the railgun from shooting beyond the horizon, its initial speed should be greater than the first cosmic (8km / sec - and then, if we neglect the atmospheric resistance) - alas, the theoretical limit for the EMNIP railgun is about 5 km / sec.
  18. Mentat
    Mentat 21 October 2017 11: 45
    +2
    Quote: Sharansky
    Slowly but surely moving towards the goal. When it was impossible to imagine a thin battery for a mobile phone with a capacity of 3600mAh. And now this is the norm.

    It is difficult to imagine what horizons you need to possess in order to instruct this nonsense of pluses. It seems that here people with in the majority.
  19. garik77
    garik77 21 October 2017 15: 10
    0
    Laser weapons systems will remain a toy until compact thermonuclear reactors appear, without powerful energy sources they are suitable only for demonstration presentations with flying toys.
    Perhaps in space you can use a combat laser, feeding it from a nuclear reactor, but it will be a very bulky thing
    1. aiw
      aiw 21 October 2017 18: 06
      0
      The power consumption of the laser climbing onto the tracked or wheeled chassis with acceptable mobility is not more than the power of the carrier engine. So do not here about the reactors ...
  20. Mentat
    Mentat 21 October 2017 18: 50
    +1
    Quote: aiw
    There is no future for them from the word at all. How much can you scribble this unscientific crap.

    Can you scientifically substantiate your claim?

    It has already been sucked up at VO a million times, use the search and expand your horizons as a whole. Moreover, you should first familiarize yourself with the information on the topic on which you want to speak. Then I would not have to speak out.
    1. aiw
      aiw 21 October 2017 21: 02
      0
      This is not the answer, my friend. And at the expense of horizons and familiarization with information on the topic - before giving such advice to strangers uncles, try to start with yourself. At VO, 99% of commentators do not have elementary physics in high school, are you one of them?

      So, you cannot substantiate your statement “scientifically”? Because with my TZ (A graduate of the Physics Department of Moscow State University, Ph.D., has been working in the specialty for 20 years) it is fundamentally wrong.
  21. Mentat
    Mentat 21 October 2017 18: 54
    +1
    Quote: aiw
    The plasma clot will quickly decay in the atmosphere.

    Immediately see a specialist!
    True, there is even no theoretical basis on this subject (stable autonomous plasma formations in the atmosphere), but this is nothing, the main thing is to say something scientifically weighty and you can carry nonsense.
    1. aiw
      aiw 21 October 2017 21: 05
      +1
      True, even there is no theoretical basis on this subject.

      But you can immediately see a layman. The Vlasov-Maxwell equation, magnetic hydrodynamics, 100500 plasma installations in science and technology - the fact that you know nothing about this does not mean that it does not. And with stories about ball lightning, go to grandmothers at the entrance or to citizen Gridasov.
  22. Mentat
    Mentat 22 October 2017 11: 26
    0
    Quote: dvina71
    Will they fire near Earth orbit? How do you imagine using artillery a shell which flies in a straight line to the horizon? And then it goes into orbit ..

    You would take a school physics textbook in your hands ...
  23. Mentat
    Mentat 22 October 2017 11: 29
    0
    Quote: aiw
    And with stories about ball lightning

    It was you who began this story. Quote: “In the atmosphere, plasma clots fade out quickly.” Why are you disowning Gridasov? You are relatives.
    Only he is not shy to carry nonsense, but for some reason you are shy. More boldly, you really want to, judging by your texts: plasma clots plow the expanse of the atmosphere, laser weapons capture the future.
    1. aiw
      aiw 22 October 2017 12: 13
      0
      No, my friend, about autonomous plasma formations were the first to start your speech; you don’t have to share your laurels with me.

      You will argue that a plasma bunch (a group of ions and electrons flying at a high speed towards the target) released from which wunderwafer thread quickly dissipates in the atmosphere?

      I never heard from you the scientific justification for your claim that laser weapons have no future - one solid blah blah blah. Change your nickname better, you never pull on the mentat.