Military Review

German laser four-barreled Gatling machine gun

98
This week, on armory The Defense and Security Equipment Industry exhibition in London, the German arms company Rheinmetall Defense Electronics, introduced a new anti-drone laser system for ship placement. The system includes four high-power lasers, which are mounted on a turret, as a result of which it resembles the Gatling laser machine gun, Popular Mechanics.


German laser four-barreled Gatling machine gun


According to the principle of action, this weapon does not quite resemble traditional Gatling machine guns. Four lasers, each with a power of 20 kilowatts, produce shots simultaneously, and using the technique of spatial superposition, one power of 80 kilowatts is formed from the rays.

According to the company, when using spatial overlay on the target, it is possible to focus any amount of energy - you just need to add lasers.

The lens of each laser is protected by a special coating that prevents the rays from scattering due to fog, water droplets or rain.

With the help of a new gun, we managed to shoot down a drone at a distance of 500 meters. Also, lasers can undermine ammunition, blow up artillery shells, dazzle the sensors of other ships and even burn holes in the hulls of small ships. The actual range of the system seems to be somewhat higher: during a test run, a small laser from Rheinmetall with a power of just 30 kilowatts managed to knock down an 82-mm mine that was in the air at a distance of 1 km.
Photos used:
http://globallookpress.com/
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Riv
    Riv 24 September 2015 07: 34 New
    +8
    Especially in fog it will work well ...
    1. RBLip
      RBLip 24 September 2015 07: 40 New
      +3
      Quote: Riv
      Especially in fog it will work well ...

      and in the desert with the breeze ...
    2. Mitek
      Mitek 24 September 2015 07: 57 New
      +27
      Quote: Riv
      Especially in fog it will work well ...

      No matter how it works in the fog and desert, this is the future. That future that we saw in childhood in science fiction films. Remember the first televisions with water lenses.
      Most likely, such installations will go to the fleet. There are no problems with energy, but on atomic ships it is unmeasured. The cost of an impulse is low, there are no dust storms at sea, and as a remedy against RCC, it will probably prove to be quite good.
      1. jjj
        jjj 24 September 2015 08: 03 New
        +1
        There will be clouds and fogs now scatter
        1. SSR
          SSR 24 September 2015 08: 36 New
          +5
          Quote: jjj
          There will be clouds and fogs now scatter

          No, judging by the comments, the enemy will persuade the Germans to fight in the fog, dust storm, storm and rain ..... True, I do not quite understand how in fog, storm, etc. .... a small drone will fly with its mission and who in the ocean in a storm will drag a mortar to an enemy ship? But Urya quack rolls over. laughing
          1. viktorR
            viktorR 24 September 2015 09: 55 New
            0
            No, you misunderstood. It is the Germans who will persuade everyone else not to fight in the fog and rain.
            1. SSR
              SSR 24 September 2015 10: 19 New
              +4
              Quote: viktorR
              No, you misunderstood. It is the Germans who will persuade everyone else not to fight in the fog and rain.

              Well, yes, yes, yes ... Are you talking about the Germans who laid down almost the whole of Europe for themselves in the 40s by military means and who in the 2000s put under themselves half of Europe in an economic way .... Only in the empty "grunt"?
              I understand if you would say such a thing about the Bulgarians or Poles, at least some kind of sensible part would be in your words, and this is an empty "slogan" of the cap-taker.
              1. andranick
                andranick 24 September 2015 10: 26 New
                +4
                Quote: SSR
                Are you talking about the Germans who laid down almost all of Europe for themselves in the 40s by military means
                Are you sure that the Germans, "which almost all of Europe put under themselves in the 40s by military means"and the present ones are the same? Of these, Germanism was beaten out and spread rot for several generations, and now they continue. The current German is tolerant, and God forbid he speak out for national identity and pride.
                Quote: SSR
                and which in the 2000s laid the floor for Europe economically ..
                Residents of Germany, I would say so, without an emphasis on nationality.
                1. Scoun
                  Scoun 24 September 2015 11: 08 New
                  +1
                  Quote: andranick
                  Are you sure that those Germans, "who laid down almost the whole of Europe for themselves in the 40s by military means" and the current ones are the same?

                  Quote: andranick
                  The current German is tolerant, and God forbid he speak out for national identity and pride.

                  hmm))) interesting ... you only use one news resource? )))
                  Clashes between protesting left-wing radicals and law enforcement in Frankfurt am Main, Germany 88 policemen were injured. In this case, 350 protesters detainedblocked by public transport through the center.

                  Germans are not afraid of any wrong tolerance and they are not afraid of detentions and they beat policemen))) you can simply drive into the search engine - protests in Germany and maybe broaden your horizons a bit and you will not throw words into the empty hi otherwise they took the Germans at once tolerast made or maybe they are tolerant only to LGBT? you did not allow such a thought? )))
                  1. andranick
                    andranick 24 September 2015 11: 19 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Scoun
                    hmm))) interesting ... you only use one news resource? )))
                    Actually, yes. A neighbor back in the 80s went there for permanent residence. :) So I trust such a "news resource".
                    you can simply drive into the search engine - protests in Germany and maybe broaden your horizons a bit and you will not throw words into the empty
                    Thank you, I will definitely follow your advice. hi
                    1. Scoun
                      Scoun 24 September 2015 12: 17 New
                      +1
                      Quote: andranick
                      A neighbor back in the 80s went there for permanent residence. :)

                      and my wife is German))) and the neighbors who left for permanent residence there and everyone says and writes different things)) but there is a nephew a student who studies in Austria so the most youthful and bustling information from him))) and it seems that there simply is no person who I would head this not experienced youth (but not the fact that such a thing will not be found in the future), but I also have an Americanoskoschik))) and before the events of 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX he is a light Russophobe)) and after the events he became skeptical of news resources, he’s just on himself felt inform war. He now scolds our corrupt officials and bureaucrats but the events with Volkswagen brought to a new level, his perception of our world and human nature))) hi
            2. Ezhaak
              Ezhaak 24 September 2015 11: 25 New
              0
              Quote: viktorR
              the Germans will persuade everyone else not to fight in the fog, and rain.

              And what about snowfall? Or with Russian (Canadian) frost?
          2. Letun
            Letun 24 September 2015 11: 36 New
            +3
            Quote: SSR
            Quote: jjj
            There will be clouds and fogs now scatter

            No, judging by the comments, the enemy will persuade the Germans to fight in the fog, dust storm, storm and rain ..... True, I do not quite understand how in fog, storm, etc. .... a small drone will fly with its mission and who in the ocean in a storm will drag a mortar to an enemy ship? But Urya quack rolls over. laughing

            Yes lol And if in this article everything was written the same, but about the Russian laser, the same idiots would write in the comments that P.I.Indosia Khan, and in general, this is only the beginning, soon we will be able to shoot the raven over the white house and one thread would even recall a plausible case when our laser anti-aircraft gunners in the 45th shot at an American shuttle flying over the Kremlin, thereby shocking his entire crew and half of the Pentagon in addition wink
            1. ermak.sidorov
              ermak.sidorov 24 September 2015 12: 22 New
              0
              "Well ... how warm - for impartiality !!!"
      2. hydrox
        hydrox 24 September 2015 08: 12 New
        0
        Quote: Mitek
        as a remedy against RCC, it may prove to be not bad.

        We just had to wait for the test results and performance characteristics :: such a thing will certainly want to boast to the manufacturer ...
      3. Nova
        Nova 24 September 2015 08: 22 New
        +2
        Dust storms may not exist, but storms and showers are a fairly common occurrence. Even with rough skies in the air above the water there is a huge amount of splashes, which does not add to the performance of the lasers.
        For me, a laser weapon, no matter how fiercely fought from fiction, can only be used in space, where there are no natural obstacles, including the most basic and main obstacle - the atmosphere. It alone is far from ideal for using laser weapons.
        and it’s just not rational for the military to simply have expensive and energy-efficient installations on board the ship that take up a useful place instead of an air defense system or artillery mountings, and a certain number of narrow-profile specialists from the crew to work with lasers only in cloudless, clear weather.
      4. srha
        srha 24 September 2015 11: 04 New
        +2
        Quote: Mitek
        Most likely, such installations will go to the fleet.
        In the fleet, it’s just the easiest way to counteract such guns. Smoke screen. Or install a steam generator on the principle of home humidifiers. Or a water curtain - a fire extinguishing system with special nozzles is quite suitable. That is, I saw a laser pointing at a ship, turn on the fountain and feel protected. Of course, this will not work for air, other protections will be needed - some sublimation paints and anti-aircraft maneuver, here you need to think and try. And it’s not painful to see the enemy behind the defense, but it will not hurt radars, missiles, guns and machine guns.
        Quote: Mitek
        Impulse cost is low
        And it depends on how you count. If the energy emitted by the laser is one figure, really small. And if the energy expended for this is different, several orders of magnitude more! And if you add cooling, maintenance and depreciation, then plus order. By the way, oddly enough, most of the energy will have to be spent on cooling.

        By the way 2, the power indicated in the article does not say anything about the actual energy of the pulse, i.e. striking factor. I explain, since power = da / dt, then reducing the pulse time, you can reach infinite power at an energy of even 1 Joule.

        I explain, one of the most powerful lasers currently indicated on the WIKI from the Shanghai Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics with a power of 2000 TW had an impulse of 72,6 J in 26 femtoseconds. Your home kettle, in Joules, consumes ~ 4000 times more to heat a liter of water to a boil, though in a few minutes, that's why it has never been laser ...

        Those. the figures given in the article are intended to defeat the brains of chiefs, managers and humanitarians, but do not carry any significant military information.
        1. Scoun
          Scoun 24 September 2015 15: 58 New
          +1
          Quote: srha
          In the fleet, it’s just the easiest way to counteract such guns. Smoke screen. Or install a steam generator on the principle of home humidifiers.

          yo mayo! recourse
          People burn without reading an article ... and they are already drowning whole cruisers with a laser ...
          With a new gun managed to shoot down the drone at a distance of 500 meters. Also lasers can undermine the ammunition detonate artillery shells, blind the sensors of other ships and even burn holes in the hulls of small vessels.

          Are you going to put a steam generator on a mine? or drone smoke screen?
          1. srha
            srha 24 September 2015 20: 00 New
            +1
            And you, Mr. Marshal, are you reading or just writing? Read again what I wrote above: "Of course, this will not work for air, other protections will be needed - some sublimation paints and anti-aircraft maneuver, here you need to think and try." So I don’t need to ascribe your fictions to me, and then criticize them! Have you earned the title of Marshal with such demagogic tricks?

            By the way, I'm on the same page at 15-30, i.e. wrote before your post
            Quote: srha
            As an example, change the green color to a mirror, make a notch with corner reflectors
            True, this is another comment, they might not read of course, but your style of "not reading" is understandable ...

            And to think about advancing protection, especially considering the current capabilities of lasers for target designation and damage to sensors, damage to the retina of the human eye - not harmful!
    3. vkl-47
      vkl-47 24 September 2015 08: 07 New
      +2
      The secret weapon of the Third Reich)))))
    4. Oznob
      Oznob 24 September 2015 14: 20 New
      +2
      In fog and drone, how to do nothing.
      1. SSR
        SSR 24 September 2015 21: 59 New
        +2
        Quote: Oznob
        In fog and drone, how to do nothing.

        What is it about)) and the people brought a whole naval battle and conspiracy theories))) here the comrade already offers an anti-aircraft maneuver))) but he doesn’t "notice" that the article says about the defeat from 500 meters, although which one is anti-aircraft anti-aircraft))) here it is up to the "anti-gun" maneuver)))
        1. srha
          srha 25 September 2015 09: 52 New
          0
          Have you watched the video how a rocket was shot down from 2013 meters in 1500? The next step will be 5000, then 10000, will you be ready to overcome with your approach? She ... t!

          At one time, too, there were people who shouted - "with a saber on a dashing horse, with little blood, on a strange land", but it turned out - it was necessary to think and check!

          By the way, how long does a shell from an ACS 2C3 Acacia fly 500 meters? Almost a second. How long will the rocket fly during this time? ~ 150 m. How long can he evade? Up to 20 m. So your sarcasm about the "anti-gun" which, it seems you do not know, for flying purposes is called anti-aircraft - is inappropriate.
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 24 September 2015 07: 38 New
    +4
    According to the company, when using spatial overlay on the target, it is possible to focus any amount of energy - you just need to add lasers.


    Anyway, this installation requires a giant power plant .... while this can be done on ships.

    But the shot itself costs a mere penny .... therefore, if the problem of laser power supply is solved, lasers will become commonplace in the army.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 24 September 2015 07: 57 New
      0
      Quote: The same Lech
      Anyway, this installation requires a giant power plant.

      Why a giant, conventional diesel generator set
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 24 September 2015 09: 19 New
        +4
        Quote: rosarioagro
        Why a giant, conventional diesel generator set

        bully and do not forget about a couple of cars of supercapacitors, the generators are not able to give out the necessary power at the moment.
    2. shuhartred
      shuhartred 24 September 2015 09: 23 New
      +4
      Quote: The same Lech
      Anyway, this installation requires a giant power plant .... while this can be done on ships.

      But the shot itself is worth a mere penny ..

      In my opinion you contradict yourself. How can a shot cost a penny if a giant power plant is needed to produce a shot? You do not take energy from the air, you need to produce it, but it costs money and judging by the power of the laser is considerable.
  3. oberon 1
    oberon 1 24 September 2015 07: 46 New
    0
    We also had our own developments. GOI was doing this.
    1. hydrox
      hydrox 24 September 2015 08: 15 New
      -2
      Not only GOI: I saw the same thing in the Moscow Region on the T-72 chassis ...
    2. Cube123
      Cube123 24 September 2015 08: 50 New
      +3
      We also had our own developments. GOI was doing this.

      Not just GOI. In general, the first drone in the USSR was hit by a laser more than thirty years ago.
      1. Oberon812
        Oberon812 24 September 2015 10: 24 New
        -1
        Still, three hundred kilograms of the Soviet laser - this is not for you spools! With a well-aimed throw, you can damage the tank! lol
  4. Igor39
    Igor39 24 September 2015 07: 46 New
    +1
    As I understand it, when applied by manpower, it will be burned or receive severe burns, as is humane and in German!
    1. Artyom
      Artyom 24 September 2015 07: 56 New
      +1
      if the kit has a mirror surface, then you can get the return wassat
      1. Cube123
        Cube123 24 September 2015 09: 02 New
        +3
        Quote: Artyom
        if the kit has a mirror surface, then you can get the return wassat

        You can’t get a return. The surface is uneven and not set strictly perpendicular to the beam. Therefore, the return beam will simply scatter without harming anyone.
        1. Oberon812
          Oberon812 24 September 2015 10: 30 New
          +1
          Strict perpendicularity to the beam is not required, it is enough to stick such "counter-laser screens".

          There will already be problems with focusing at the return point, yes.
          1. Cube123
            Cube123 24 September 2015 10: 57 New
            +2
            This crap wink called a corner reflector. The problem with focusing will be unsolvable, because a convergent bunch goes to the goal, reflecting it, it will go diverging. Not to mention diffraction scattering. And not to mention the aerodynamics of the target studded with such corners.
            1. Oberon812
              Oberon812 24 September 2015 13: 23 New
              -1
              Well, thanks, but I thought what kind of thing this is. And something in the message did not see the term "crap", which caused your smile.
              Quote: Cube123
              And not to mention the aerodynamics of the target studded with such corners.

              Reflexes greatly worsen aerodynamics?
              1. Cube123
                Cube123 24 September 2015 15: 39 New
                +1
                Quote: Oberon812
                And something in the message did not see the term "crap", which caused your smile.

                Nikolay, you used the term "anti-laser screens", which caused a smile. And the photo is very colorful. I apologize if I offended with something smile
                In relation to reflectors, they are also different. Aerodynamics are not impaired by those with a flat front surface and reflection coming from the rear ribbed surface. But the range of working angles they have is much smaller than that of the mirror ones and, it seems to me, they are absolutely unsuitable in order to cause a “return” that could harm the attacking side, as Artyom suggested. If the task is simply to get a reflected signal for the locator, then yes, it’s better so far nothing has been invented.
    2. Azitral
      Azitral 24 September 2015 08: 18 New
      +4
      Paradoxically, it’s very difficult to burn a person with a laser. It consists of water, in which the heat capacity is one hundred times higher than that of metal. Where steel evaporates, a person will receive a small, very painful burn. It is on the pulse. Continuous mode is another thing, you’ll burn there, but it takes seconds to burn.
      And the laser itself is not an absolute weapon, but a good component (for "close combat") of the ship’s air defense system.
      As for the "compact, light, powerful" energy sources, there is still nothing even in the long run. Actually, batteries are generally nonsense (at the required capacity you can’t isolate the poles, pierce either air or insulation), and “explosive” generators are expensive, dangerous, unreliable, and generally exotic. So powerful generators. But a sufficiently powerful diesel is also possible in the troops, at headquarters and rocket batteries.
      1. Shuttle
        Shuttle 24 September 2015 13: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Azitral

        As for the "compact, light, powerful" energy sources, there is still nothing even in the long run. Actually, batteries are generally nonsense (at the required capacity you can’t isolate the poles, pierce either air or insulation), and “explosive” generators are expensive, dangerous, unreliable, and generally exotic. So powerful generators. But a sufficiently powerful diesel is also possible in the troops, at headquarters and rocket batteries.

        Graphene capacitors. Those. graphene-based capacitor banks.
        http://innogest.ru/m?na=11927
    3. brn521
      brn521 24 September 2015 11: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Igor39
      As I understand it, when applied by manpower, it will be burned or receive severe burns, as is humane and in German!

      Why burn? Blinding is enough. It’s just that they don’t write about such capabilities of combat lasers, because contrary to various conventions. And the same laser, of course, can not only shoot down projectiles, but also burn optics and eyes to a heap, and at a much greater distance.
  5. APASUS
    APASUS 24 September 2015 07: 48 New
    +12
    The lens of each laser is protected by a special coating that prevents the rays from scattering due to fog, water droplets or rain.

    This is at least the Nobel Prize, even with this coating you can use the laser under water and in a sandstorm. fellow
    1. Riv
      Riv 24 September 2015 08: 00 New
      +2
      What is the Nobel? Darwin Award right away!
    2. hydrox
      hydrox 24 September 2015 08: 20 New
      +3
      Quote: APASUS
      The lens of each laser is protected by a special coating that prevents the rays from scattering due to fog, water droplets or rain.

      God, what nonsense!
      Energy is scattered in the channel of the beam, and not on some lenses!
      By the way, from what lenses and how they are cooled (how much energy is taken away with cooling, I don’t ask anymore) ...
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 24 September 2015 08: 44 New
        +3
        They have a good “coating” on the lenses: they change the properties of the medium along the path of the beam! wassat
        Lied or shifted! Then it turns out that we are talking about anti-fog lenses with wipers ... smile
        IMHO
        1. Oberon812
          Oberon812 24 September 2015 10: 42 New
          +2
          Comrades, well, it’s still simple, probably the translators were mistaken - not a lens, but a fiber, just the length of 500 meters indicated in the article. Protects from rain and dust - be healthy! For reliability, you can add a fly swatter at the end of the fiber, as an additional damaging factor (you can save energy not sour, by the way) wassat
      2. andranick
        andranick 24 September 2015 09: 00 New
        +2
        By the way, from what lenses and how they are cooled (how much energy is taken away with cooling, I don’t ask anymore)
        This is the question that many forget, but most do not suspect. And he is critical. I'm afraid that we are lagging behind in this area. And precisely to solve this problem, support is needed for fundamental science and R&D in the field of high-energy lasers. What would happen when the technology ripens - we also had everything.
        1. Cube123
          Cube123 24 September 2015 09: 51 New
          +2
          Quote: andranick
          This is the question that many forget, but most do not suspect. And he is critical. I'm afraid that we are lagging behind in this area.

          Do not be afraid. I’ll tell you in secret that this problem was solved in the USSR for capacities that today's lasers do not reach many times.
          1. andranick
            andranick 24 September 2015 09: 59 New
            0
            Encouraged. Maybe I have false data, but what I know is that the optical system was not ice in terms of the material from which it was made (for a long time it was not enough). Traditionally, optical glassmaking has always looked westward, which led to a constant position of the overtaking one. This is the basis of my fears and hopes expressed above.
            1. Cube123
              Cube123 24 September 2015 11: 49 New
              +1
              Glass is not used there at all due to low thermal conductivity. It is impossible to quickly remove the absorbed heat, and uneven heating distorts the optical surfaces and the quality of the optics drops dramatically. Commonly used cooled metal mirrors. And durability is a problem regardless of the material of the mirror. Any speck of dust on optics in a beam leads to burnout simply because its absorption coefficient is much higher than the absorption of working optics.
  6. ARES623
    ARES623 24 September 2015 07: 50 New
    +2
    This cartoon is endless fog. But in life - in the European part of Russia, and even in Siberia, the weather is mostly clear enough, and in the Crimea it’s even cloudless in general. There is enough space for application, there would be a product. By indirect signs, our research institutes are also working in this direction, though the results are more silent. But there is hope that we are not far behind.
    1. 31rus
      31rus 24 September 2015 07: 59 New
      +1
      You dear, you are missing out on artificial installations of smoke, aerosol, and thermal noise, in the right amount and place, so to speak, of additives, powerful energy problems, the source of which can be identified and destroyed, and again the UAV will detect the ship before the laser is used
    2. 31rus
      31rus 24 September 2015 07: 59 New
      0
      You dear, you are missing out on artificial installations of smoke, aerosol, and thermal noise, in the right amount and place, so to speak, of additives, powerful energy problems, the source of which can be identified and destroyed, and again the UAV will detect the ship before the laser is used
      1. jjj
        jjj 24 September 2015 08: 05 New
        -1
        A missile is guided by a laser beam
        1. hydrox
          hydrox 24 September 2015 08: 23 New
          +1
          ... especially if it's an impact drone ...
      2. Riv
        Riv 24 September 2015 10: 03 New
        0
        Moreover: the UAV radar will detect not only the ship, but this installation itself from over the horizon. She, too, is not small.
      3. Riv
        Riv 24 September 2015 10: 03 New
        -1
        Moreover: the UAV radar will detect not only the ship, but this installation itself from over the horizon. She, too, is not small.
  7. Russia
    Russia 24 September 2015 07: 55 New
    +2
    The lens of each laser is protected by a special coating that prevents the rays from scattering due to fog, water droplets or rain.

    This is only an optics protection.
    But with an increase in the distance to the target, the required power for its physical destruction increases (if my memory serves me) exponentially. And the creation of a smoke screen generally turns the laser into an expensive toy.
  8. RomanS
    RomanS 24 September 2015 07: 56 New
    +1
    A special coating on the lens cancels the laws of physics. Nk right Ray Ban some sort! The idea as a whole is interesting, but for each "trunk" you need a soy guidance system, precisely coordinated with the rest. An unreliable complex is obtained.
  9. Samy
    Samy 24 September 2015 07: 57 New
    0
    And if you let smoke in the wind into the laser? Cope?
  10. Voha_krim
    Voha_krim 24 September 2015 08: 00 New
    +1
    The laser produces a beam of light not only of the same length, but also synchronous, i.e. in one phase. And it will be possible to observe the synchronism of all 4 lasers - a question. They can come in antiphase, in which case the effect will be zero. So simply adding up the laser powers is not correct. So it would be possible to direct a dozen lasers (enough energy) to aim at the target - and that’s it, the issue has been resolved!
  11. ivan bogomolov
    ivan bogomolov 24 September 2015 08: 08 New
    +1
    Well, a very interesting work, I think we have something to work on, and probably have been working for a long time, God will help us. soldier
  12. Thirsty for wind
    Thirsty for wind 24 September 2015 08: 13 New
    +1
    Drive hooligan drones to fit.
  13. Oman 47
    Oman 47 24 September 2015 08: 14 New
    +2
    Shot 82 mm. mine at a distance of 1 km.?
    What kind of makar is this ?! Heated ???

    Tales of the Vienna Woods ...
    1. Makarov
      Makarov 24 September 2015 08: 21 New
      0
      a mine per kilometer knocks down, and an UAV for 500 meters ... fantastic))) A real Gatling would probably be more agile)))
  14. Armored optimist
    Armored optimist 24 September 2015 08: 14 New
    0
    The absence of adequately powerful and compact sources of energy will restrain this type of weapon for a long time.
  15. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 24 September 2015 08: 27 New
    +1
    "with a capacity of only 30 kilowatts, it was possible to shoot down a 82-mm mine, which was in the air
    at a distance of 1 km. "////

    Somehow not really ... Our laser sets fire to mortar mines at a range of 3-4 km.
    The maximum required distance is 7 km. This is the dead zone for the Iron Dome.
    And once the laser successfully fills it.
    1. Weigher
      Weigher 24 September 2015 09: 05 New
      +1
      Well, did you hit a lot of shells with Palestine with this laser, or where do they fly to you constantly?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 24 September 2015 09: 17 New
        +2
        The system was once tested in real combat conditions -
        Palestinian friends helped, as always smile . The laser shot down for several minutes (although it was still in a "laboratory" form). Now they integrate it into the system
        radar-computer missile defense "Iron Dome". Comp will decide what to shoot: rocket or
        laser depending on the ballistics of the target.
    2. Das Boot
      Das Boot 24 September 2015 10: 32 New
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      "with a capacity of only 30 kilowatts, it was possible to shoot down a 82-mm mine, which was in the air
      at a distance of 1 km. "////

      Somehow not really ... Our laser sets fire to mortar mines at a range of 3-4 km.

      the range of defeat of Iron Beam was, it seems, declared 2 km. But all the same, at 10 kW versus 30 at RM - twice.
    3. brn521
      brn521 24 September 2015 10: 36 New
      0
      And if these mines are painted with silver, is there enough laser power? Reflectivity rises fourfold if the mines were originally of the usual green color.
    4. ermak.sidorov
      ermak.sidorov 24 September 2015 12: 27 New
      0
      ... here it is already gone "specific conversation": laser + missiles - an interesting hybrid should succeed ... only the capacitor bank and the generator will still have to be dragged along - mobility may suffer ...
  16. feniks
    feniks 24 September 2015 08: 31 New
    0
    Four lasers to focus is a problem. And what is this distance of 500 meters? And on the sea, everything must be taken into account, even the horizon line.
    1. brn521
      brn521 24 September 2015 11: 24 New
      0
      Quote: feniks
      And what is this distance of 500 meters?

      Last line of defense of the ship. Now she is at the mercy of small-caliber artillery, which is poorly and slowly induced and gets worse. Even with new-fangled homing shells, things do not really roll, because the speed of these shells is often comparable to the speed of the target. The laser is much more accurate, it fires faster, the flight time of the beam to the target = 0. Yes, and there is no recoil, which allows the use of a very accurate guidance system. Minimal maintenance, no ammunition needed. Just put the box and pull the cable to it. Theoretically, the whole ship can be hung like a Christmas tree. And there is enough power in any way, modern warships almost all electric ships, which do not care where to drive power, to screws or lasers.
  17. feniks
    feniks 24 September 2015 08: 34 New
    -2
    And the use of electronic warfare, generally reduces the laser to "0".
    1. viktorR
      viktorR 24 September 2015 10: 24 New
      0
      Well, if it’s not to zero, then you can “kill” the guidance radar
    2. brn521
      brn521 24 September 2015 11: 28 New
      0
      Quote: feniks
      And the use of electronic warfare, generally reduces the laser to "0".

      At such a working distance, the target can also be detected in the optical range.
  18. bunta
    bunta 24 September 2015 08: 52 New
    0
    Enchanting name. "Laser machine gun." And of course Gatling needs to be remembered. As without him.
  19. Denis DV
    Denis DV 24 September 2015 08: 56 New
    -1
    two barges with batteries included laughing
  20. Engineer
    Engineer 24 September 2015 08: 56 New
    +3
    Gatling Laser Machine Gun
    fool
  21. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 24 September 2015 09: 01 New
    0
    An attempt to circumvent the laws of nature. Many laser beams of "subcritical power" are brought to the target. The technique must be very accurate. True, fog, smoke and other aerosols for this weapon are not transparent. And reflective coatings reduce the efficiency of the goal tenfold.
    1. Slon1978
      Slon1978 24 September 2015 09: 39 New
      0
      By the way, really :) After all, this can be an extremely cheap and effective solution. More precisely, one of. In addition, the laser guidance system is a radar that can be suppressed by interference. In addition, natural phenomena (target attack due to clouds or in rain / fog), heat-absorbing coatings on the front parts of the attacking munition. There is something for us to think about and what to theoretically oppose.
  22. Sigi3mund
    Sigi3mund 24 September 2015 09: 04 New
    +1
    If the lasers are adopted and they will be actively used, then, I think, mortar mines and so on will be painted with reflective paint, and the effectiveness of an expensive laser will drop significantly.
  23. afrikanez
    afrikanez 24 September 2015 09: 05 New
    0
    The laser has thousands of reasons not to hit the target. The question is, why is it needed, so good? It seems like the realization of a dream of mankind. Watch less fiction gentlemen are good and be realistic.
    1. brn521
      brn521 24 September 2015 10: 57 New
      0
      Quote: afrikanez
      The laser has thousands of reasons not to hit the target.

      On the contrary, the most accurate weapon. The only problem is power. What we see in the article. First of all, cheapness, instead of just one superlaser, which even looks to melt itself, uses several simpler lasers. There is still a problem with lens cleanliness. The Germans use a coating that protects the lens from spray and water dust. As a result, we get horseradish, which in potential will be able to bring down rockets and shells, as soon as the production of such horseradish is gaining momentum and cheaper.
  24. Slon1978
    Slon1978 24 September 2015 09: 32 New
    +2
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The laser shot down for several minutes (although it was still in a "laboratory" form). Now they integrate it into the system
    radar-computer missile defense "Iron Dome". Comp will decide what to shoot: rocket or
    laser depending on the ballistics of the target.


    Specify what all the same there is a speech? If by "mines" we mean home-made NURSs with solid powder fuel, then setting them on fire in the air is a very real task. If a classic mine with TNT, which even burns almost no fire, and has much smaller dimensions, then this is a completely different story.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 24 September 2015 10: 16 New
      +2
      Standard army 82-mm and 120 mm mines.
      The laser also shoots down artillery shells (with search, guidance and escort
      there is no problem), but the shells
      The body is thicker, rotation and speed are greater. If you can catch time
      shoot down a whole volley, then the shell is only one.
      Our specific problem is mortars, since the Palestinians
      shoot from the yards of residential buildings, where it is impossible to throw without victims
      rocket or bomb.
    2. viktorR
      viktorR 24 September 2015 10: 26 New
      0
      Moreover, the heat capacity of the “cast-iron” mine wall will be higher than that of NURS
  25. sieras
    sieras 24 September 2015 10: 01 New
    0
    yeah. they will chase men with sandals and Kalash with laser equipment.
  26. Das Boot
    Das Boot 24 September 2015 10: 11 New
    +1
    About twenty years later - Jedi swords?
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 24 September 2015 11: 18 New
      +2
      After 100 years, the weapon of World War IV ...
  27. Lee_Mubai
    Lee_Mubai 24 September 2015 11: 00 New
    0
    Or maybe it's just another attempt by amers to draw us into an arms race, like the last century! ???)
  28. Averias
    Averias 24 September 2015 11: 29 New
    0
    I will not give an assessment and speak for or against. Let me give you a trivial example, the famous Boeing with a powerful laser (like gas, too lazy to clarify) on board, designed to shoot down missiles on a demarche from a distance of 300 km (I could be wrong). Where is he? And he stands in the exhibition hangar (equipment dismantled) as an exhibit (what? Ambition?). I will not go into technical details why it didn’t go beyond the prototype. I will give only two reasons: Because of the wild beam intensity, a breakdown occurred (the emitting head failed several times). And the EM field, at the moment of the train of pulses (and it works in the pulsed mode, the constant radiation is the carrier beam), the EM field from the capacitors created a lot of problems inside the aircraft, both for instruments and for the crew. As well as cooling, wear and much more.
  29. srha
    srha 24 September 2015 11: 35 New
    +3
    What is the main problem of using lasers and other energy types of weapons, then EVO? In spent power and efficiency.

    What does a gun or rocket do? Spending a relatively small amount of energy on the carrier, the projectile loaded with high-energy explosives is removed from the carrier and delivers this explosive to the target. (I do not consider small-scale shooting, yes there, all the energy is released in the carrier, but it is small).

    What do lasers and other EVO do? They convert energy several times, losing at each stage in accordance with the efficiency, in the end they spit out a very small part of this energy in the form of energy concentrated either in the beam or in the blank, for the railgun, or in any other radiation. And all the power that was used to form the killer energy for the target is allocated on the carrier, which is forced to spend even more energy for its utilization and safe dispersal. Given the many transformations, and often low efficiency, the power released at the source and the energy necessary for its safe disposal are several orders of magnitude higher than the energy delivered to the target.

    In other words, in the case of using the EVO, the power allocated to the EVO carriers is several orders of magnitude, usually thousands or more times more than the power allocated to the target. Those. Problems for the EVO carrier are much greater than for the purpose. True, if a carrier like a destroyer is millions of times larger than a target like a UAV or a rubber boat, then you can achieve success in hitting such a target and successfully dissipate the power on the carrier. But is it worth it?
  30. brn521
    brn521 24 September 2015 13: 49 New
    -1
    Quote: srha
    the power released at the source and the energy necessary for its safe disposal are several orders of magnitude higher than the energy delivered to the target.

    There, it’s more likely not about energy, but about financial costs. For example, RCC will have to be packaged in an additional shell, much more complex and more expensive than now. Well, the enemy will pack his RCC, spend it. And in response we will add a couple more pieces to the laser battery, this is not artillery with its dimensions and recoil. And if, as a result, the entire power of the ship’s power plant is not enough to disable at least one warhead on approach, it doesn’t matter, lasers can be easily removed and used somewhere else, even in some kind of production. Whereas a gun decommissioned as unnecessary will go to a warehouse or scrap metal, but installation requires constructive preparation of a ship’s hull.
  31. srha
    srha 24 September 2015 15: 30 New
    +1
    Shooting down RCC with a laser, this is from the area of ​​Star Wars. There are no reliable facts of the kind. The fact that a mine was blown up, which moves predictably and, even, freezes at its peak, does not mean that it is possible to bring down a high-speed maneuvering low-flying anti-ship missile.
    Even shooting down the simplest missiles does not solve the RCC problem. Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgUnDeED9MM

    Quote: brn521
    an extra shell, much more complex and more expensive than it is now.
    Now they don’t put protection at all, and if they start, then in principle I can immediately offer not expensive and not complicated, which will require many times more power. As an example, change the green color to a mirror color, make a notch with corner reflectors, etc.

    Quote: brn521
    it's not artillery with its dimensions and recoil
    That's for sure, only the conclusion is strange. Combat lasers (are we talking about combat rather than target designations?) Are so much heavier and heavier than artillery that they don’t fit into tanks and armored personnel carriers. You are misled by showing only the emitting block. Usually several power trailers are pulled behind such a block. Compare the dimensions of the mine and the power supply for the laser, which knocks it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RyFcBcLOZM

    By the way, this little mine can also “knock down” this huge power supply, which is in the background ...
    1. andranick
      andranick 24 September 2015 16: 11 New
      0
      So no one has yet answered me how such a laser eld will overcome the situation when several mines / shells / missiles arrive at it at the same time ... It is clear that no one will substitute such a fig for a volley of mortar batteries. A volley MLRS Grad or similar - master? If not - and what for it is not necessary to protect shells.
      1. brn521
        brn521 25 September 2015 09: 56 New
        0
        Quote: andranick
        So no one has yet answered me how such a laser eld will overcome the situation when several mines / shells / missiles fly to it at the same time ...

        As well as conventional air defense artillery in the presence of several targets. The priority goal that this particular laser dive will take will be selected.
        1. andranick
          andranick 25 September 2015 14: 11 New
          0
          Then the remaining goals will bring this "pointer" along with the "battery". Which should have been proved.
    2. brn521
      brn521 25 September 2015 11: 02 New
      -1
      Quote: srha
      Shooting down RCC with a laser, this is from the area of ​​Star Wars.

      In the same way as shooting down mines and shells.
      Quote: srha
      Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgUnDeED9MM

      I looked. Burned a rocket in the initial section of the trajectory. Well, in English I am not strong.
      Quote: srha
      in principle, I can immediately offer not expensive and not complicated, which will require many times more power. As an example, change the green color to a mirror, make a notch with corner reflectors

      The reflection coefficient of mirrors is the same as that of many white pigments. 80%, at best 90% Reflection coefficient of green pigments 20-25%. The difference is palpable, but uncritical. As for corner reflectors. at first I didn’t understand, then I remembered from the university program the dependence of the reflection coefficient on the angle of incidence. Just how will it look in the case of anti-ship missiles, mines and shells? Aerodynamics cannot be spoiled. It is also impossible to increase the visibility in the radio range.
      Quote: srha
      Combat lasers (are we talking about combat rather than target designations?) Are so much heavier and heavier than artillery that they don’t fit into tanks and armored personnel carriers.

      And here are tanks, armored personnel carriers and more. An article about which: "Rheinmetall Defense Electronics introduced a new anti-dron laser system for ship placement"
      Quote: srha
      Usually several power trailers are pulled behind such a block.

      I have already spoken about this. Most warships are mostly electric ships. All the power of shipborne power plants is at our service.
      Quote: srha
      By the way, this little mine can also “knock down” this huge power supply, which is in the background ...

      Still would have drawn a cartridge from PM. How can ammunition be considered outside the complex of its use? So you can come to completely erroneous conclusions. For example, any person can be disabled by a shot from the PM. So why do we need all this junk, aviation, navy, artillery ... After all, there is such a powerful and such universal Makarov pistol. We rivet them more and the thing is in the hat.
      1. srha
        srha 25 September 2015 17: 41 New
        0
        Quote: brn521
        In the same way as shooting down mines and shells.
        not this way. one was already, the other was not yet. The bottom line is different.
        Quote: brn521
        The difference is palpable, but uncritical
        , well ..., instead of 20 tons of capacitors, you need to drag 40 tons and only because of the color change by five cents - in my opinion, a good effect. And if you take into account the power of the ship power plant, which is not unlimited, then it is worth painting.
        Quote: brn521
        And here are tanks, armored personnel carriers and more
        to compare the size of the laser system and the guns, the first does not even fit in the tank, and the other only. Or, I will say this, not all 40 tons are presented, but they saw the tank. For some reason, from your post, it seemed to me that you think that installing a combat laser installation is easier than a gun. So in size and weight, not lighter.

        By the way, you’ve read such cool conclusions from the previous article “by the way,” but it’s just “by the way.”

        Well, so that your criticism is not spent on lightweight "by the way," a few more cheap techniques for creating more laser-resistant ammunition:
        Facing the body with a refractory, low-heat-conducting material, for example, ceramics, for example, by the methods of powder ceramics or plasma and high-speed flame spraying.
        Equipment more resistant to heating explosives.
        Spin, although they are almost all spinning.
        For mines, since the speed is small - make it somersault.
  32. brn521
    brn521 28 September 2015 11: 45 New
    0
    Quote: srha
    not this way. one was already, the other was not yet

    Jews say it was, but bad.
    Quote: srha
    instead of 20 tons of capacitors, you need to drag 40 tons

    Yes, at least 1000 tons, if only it worked. As I have already noted, naval artillery as an air defense works unsatisfactorily. If this 1000 tons and cope with RCC, and small things can shoot at a brisk pace, a similar installation will be used.
    Quote: srha
    the power of the ship power plant, which is not unlimited

    Be that as it may, there are dozens of megawatts. If it is possible to focus at one point, then the above "cheap" methods of protection will cease to be cheap.
    Quote: srha
    Spin, although they are almost all spinning.

    Shells spin. RCC, as a rule, is not. Cruise missiles are not particularly unwind.
    Quote: srha
    For mines, since the speed is small - make it somersault.

    It’s good that no one else reads this topic. And then the people would certainly appreciate these your somersault mines.

    Quote: srha
    For some reason, from your post, it seemed to me that you think that installing a combat laser installation is easier than a gun.

    Not one large installation, but several normal ones with their own drives. The interception of single targets is not the only problem of the modern fleet. Even 15 years ago, experiments identified the problem of the vulnerability of ships to a mosquito fleet of civilian boats. The naval weapons system simply could not cope with the task of intercepting a large number of targets. And now the cheaper drones have pulled themselves up, as well as the concept of the “drone cloud”. So ship lasers are not developed because of a whim. And they are seriously planning to install instead of traditional artillery.