The ADEX 2015 exhibition in Seoul hosted the presentation of the Israeli Iron Ray combat laser system

At the ADEX 2015 exhibition in Seoul, there was a presentation of two variants of the advanced Iron Laser combat laser system developed by the Israeli company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, the newspaper writes "Sight".




In particular, a variant was shown, designed to destroy artillery shells and missiles, as well as a version optimized for hitting unmanned aerial vehicles.

The laser installations of the complex are mounted in standard cargo containers that are installed on the cargo chassis. It consists of a command post, a radar station and two laser installations with a capacity of "several tens of kilowatts" each.

According to representatives of the Israeli company, in the future it is planned to increase the power of laser systems to "several hundred kilowatts", which will focus on the plane, the area with the coin.

The Iron Ray complex is capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to two kilometers. It can be mounted on any chassis, depending on the wishes of the customer.



In the future, the new development will be part of the Israeli layered defense system, which includes the Iron Dome and Strela-2 complexes.
Photos used:
http://gunportal.com.ua
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

269 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Your friend 26 October 2015 11: 24 New
    • 33
    • 0
    +33
    There are no walking robots. Without walking robots with lasers and a quark cannon, it won’t take off.
    1. figwam 26 October 2015 11: 26 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      And if you let the fog?
      1. venaya 26 October 2015 11: 31 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: figvam
        And if you let the fog?

        You need to let it in before you start using it, otherwise it is not effective. "I would know where the case is, spread the straws."
        1. GDP
          GDP 26 October 2015 11: 49 New
          • 18
          • 0
          +18
          The fog was let in - it's a good expression ...
          Given the size of the laser system, she is not able to perform the tasks that are described in the article.
          In principle, it is impossible to shoot down a projectile from a self-propelled laser system, even a rocket is unrealistic ...
          The only reason this unit can be used is to blind optics and fight snipers ...
          Although a slow drone may burn ... Is the game worth the candle?
          To burn a rocket - you need to carry a nuclear reactor with you, an ordinary zrak will cope with this task much more efficiently, and will cost 50 times cheaper ...
          Of course, you can concentrate fire on one target from several batteries at once, but this is the same as shooting gold shells from a cannon ...
          1. jjj
            jjj 26 October 2015 11: 55 New
            • 10
            • 0
            +10
            Given the Palestinians' craving to launch rockets in Israeli cities, the real effectiveness of the development will soon become known
          2. Professor 26 October 2015 12: 09 New
            • -11
            • 0
            -11
            Quote: GDP
            In principle, it is impossible to shoot down a projectile from a self-propelled laser system, even a rocket is unrealistic ...

            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Professor 26 October 2015 12: 25 New
                • -5
                • 0
                -5
                Quote: yushch
                Well, what does your commercial have to do with it? Does he prove or disprove something? Even I am not special on these devices I know that to carry out these tasks you need not kilos, but megawatts of energy. That is, for such an installation, a small nuclear power plant is needed nearby. As soon as the issue of nutrition is resolved, the firearm will go into oblivion like a bow and arrow. In the meantime, there is no mini-energy sources and super capacitors working on fundamentally new technologies that are not expected in the near future.

                Type: I do not believe. Then everything is clear. And if you still want to read, then here: Tactical high energy laser
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Professor 26 October 2015 13: 41 New
                    • -3
                    • 0
                    -3
                    Quote: yushch
                    But until they come up with power sources operating on other physical and chemical laws (and this is almost impossible in the near future), all these devices are nothing more than awesomely expensive toys for adults uncle.

                    Already come up with.

                    Moderator, do I give a link in a foreign language? Can translate it? wink
                    chemical laser
                    1. arane 26 October 2015 14: 01 New
                      • 6
                      • 0
                      +6
                      And what to invent, a supercapacitor for example. Plus you. I basically do not care about your commercial. This is not the point. Beam weapons are a new direction, and they must go their own evolutionary path. Well done Jews, they work, which means that the result will be, or already is. And the system will improve, decrease, grow power, etc.

                      I hope we work in this direction
                      1. GDP
                        GDP 26 October 2015 16: 09 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        You’re constantly duplicating the same video here. But this is the same as comparing a bicycle and a motorcycle ...

                        The Israeli laser installation shown in the picture is located in the body of one combat vehicle, which means it includes a tracking and tracking system, the gun itself, a capacitor bank, a power station, fuel supply, engines, a generator, a transformer, a crew’s and crew’s habitat.

                        Imagine how much space is left for the power plant and what power it can generate ....

                        a Soviet similar laser self-propelled unit was powerful in 10 kW, and was good for nothing but blinding optics. it really was a little smaller, but not a lot of revolution in the field of energy happened during this time ...

                        The American installation that you show in your video consists of several modules, it is not self-propelled and it is much more!

                        Therefore, the power of the American laser 1 MW !!!! and not 10 kW and not even 100 kW

                        That's why he can shoot down a rocket!

                        A stand-alone laser megawatt installation with all associated equipment and a crew cannot be placed in the same truck !!!!
                      2. Throw 26 October 2015 19: 39 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Opening the news directly expected to see the Israeli team under the code "professor" in attack and defense laughing

                        The coolest thing is that if someone leads on this laser-waffle, incl. and the Israeli military, it quickly becomes clear that these piles of iron must be put at least every 4 km.
                        Etozh how much to rivet it is necessary, just drank some holiday! laughing

                        And if a volley? What if it rains? Or Grad?
                        However, let's not talk about sad things ...
                      3. miru mir 26 October 2015 20: 29 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Probably hone this weapon under local realities. Peaceful Israeli villages located on the border itself suffer from mortar single fire.
                  2. romanru4 26 October 2015 23: 24 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Laser weapons are a dead end branch. It may be normal for Israel - there are many sunny days. For other options - just a toy, an expensive toy. The system is too much dependent on various kinds of natural factors.
                2. Saburov 26 October 2015 14: 33 New
                  • 7
                  • 0
                  +7
                  Your article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_laser is complete technical nonsense! Firstly, the article is nothing about supposedly new sources of energy; they talk about methods of pumping a chemical laser; Typical examples of chemical lasers are laser chemical oxygen iodine (coil), all laser gas phase iodine (AGIL) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) and deuterium fluoride ( DF) mid-infrared lasers. Who do you want to deceive? Secondly, it also says that the Ministry of Defense stopped the entire development of chemical laser systems with the termination of the TestBed air laser program in 2012 due to the lack of powerful systems with a "renewable" power source. And thirdly, there is absolutely no evidence and arguments about shot down missiles or shells, except for commercials of this type, in which the distance, character of the target, material, trajectory, number of attempts and other things are absolutely silent. In the USA there are no such problems as in Israel and there you can engage in long-term military programs, without compromising national security. Work continued there and, gradually, the MHTEL project was transformed by Skyguard, and Northrop Grumman was engaged in its development. In the middle of 2007, the system was modernized and put up for sale. A beautiful and effective presentation was prepared, but it didn’t help: the tactical laser missile defense system, the first in the world, couldn’t surpass classical systems by its characteristics and no one bought it. From despair, the laser system was even offered to civilian organizations, but here everyone was waiting complete disappointment. The idea of ​​protecting civilian aircraft from terrorist attacks using such a system was considered absurd. Two years later, when it became clear that no one would buy Skyguard, they put an end to chemical lasers, considering them a dead end branch. Two to you Professor, a physics textbook in your hands and back to school.
                  1. Saburov 26 October 2015 14: 37 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    Quote: Saburov
                    Already come up with.

                    The super-capacitor or ionistor that you are talking about, unless of course you mean optical lasers, which is not used at all for military purposes, only as target designation and rangefinders, or all the same gas-dynamic, gas or chemical, which the military is interested in but here again the ionizer what do you mean? So, I’ll continue essentially any methods and conditions that can’t cope with the main problem described by the post above, even if you have a million micro-generating rays, which in essence and power is similar to one well-focused beam, will not solve the fundamental problems, or rather, I’ll repeat . There is only one way to deal with beam divergence - by reducing the wavelength. However, it follows from the fundamental laws of physics that the shorter the wavelength, the more difficult it is to implement quantum amplification of radiation, or, in human terms, to build a laser.
                    PS The USSR at one time went all the way to create a combat laser from and to what the United States is now doing and reinventing the bicycle, I won’t be surprised if they soon begin to build an installation similar to Terra-3, but in the USSR they realized the futility of these weapons in time, except to blind and burn the enemy’s optics, the laser is not capable of more in combat conditions, due to the low power and elementary and CHEAP methods of protection against it, and of course, speaking of a compact installation, you did not bother to read about the problem of the remaining energy and Cooling installation benefits.
                  2. velikoros-xnumx 26 October 2015 15: 59 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Welcome Saburov
                    Thanks for the detailed informative comments.
                3. Professor 26 October 2015 14: 46 New
                  • -7
                  • 0
                  -7
                  Quote: Saburov
                  Your article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_laser your complete technical nonsense

                  ABOUT!!! An "expert" has appeared. Sneak off again sending me to Google?

                  Quote: Saburov
                  Firstly, there is nothing in the article about supposedly new sources of energy; they talk about methods of pumping a chemical laser

                  Learn materiel - laser DFCL

                  Quote: Saburov
                  Secondly, it also says that the Ministry of Defense stopped the entire development of chemical laser systems with the termination of the TestBed airborne laser program in 2012 due to the lack of powerful systems with a "renewable" power source.

                  Well? Then they stopped, now they resumed.

                  Quote: Saburov
                  And thirdly, there is absolutely no evidence and arguments about the downed missiles or shells

                  Hmm .. There is Video, there are manufacturer's statements and finally there is customer confirmation, but ... the "expert" did not make out "absolutely no evidence." How is the evidence for flying over Israel? Secret until the year 2050? laughing

                  Quote: Saburov
                  Two to you Professor, a physics textbook in your hands and back to school.

                  Oh how thick. Watching a movie again and gaining our minds.

                  File lawsuits against them, “expert.” wink
                4. Saburov 26 October 2015 15: 05 New
                  • 8
                  • 0
                  +8
                  Quote: Professor
                  ABOUT!!! An "expert" has appeared. Sneak off again sending me to Google?

                  Quote: Professor
                  Learn materiel - laser DFCL

                  Professor, let's get down to business, I'm not a young lady to talk to me in riddles. Argument or parry at least one of the above! Moreover, if you believe, then you are an engineer in the former, like no one else should know such things, at least at the school level, and to believe the video (or rather advertising) is at least naive, but you do not believe Red Bull advertising for example? And then maybe they flew already ...
                5. Professor 26 October 2015 15: 27 New
                  • -10
                  • 0
                  -10
                  Quote: Saburov
                  Professor, let's get down to business, I'm not a young lady to talk to me in riddles.

                  No, you are not a young lady, you are a fat troll as an argument declaring "the results are classified" until the 2050 year. And when you are finally pressed with material evidence to the wall, then you just molt. So the video of tests is enough for you (how could they not be classified until the 2050 year?) And information from the official website of the developer. Them and troll.

                  Quote: Saburov
                  And then maybe they flew already ...

                  I flew. On the Yak-52 and on the buck.

                  Waiting for links to your pearls: Well, for example, your aces Iftah Spector or Aviam Village have repeatedly said this ...
                  Send in a search engine, mr. wink
                6. Saburov 26 October 2015 16: 00 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +5
                  Quote: Professor
                  No, you are not a young lady, you are a fat troll as an argument declaring "the results are classified" until the 2050 year. And when you are finally pressed with material evidence to the wall, then you just molt. So the video of tests is enough for you (how could they not be classified until the 2050 year?) And information from the official website of the developer. Them and troll.

                  This is what you pressed me with arguments, I told you that Israel could not intercept MIG-25 with the Soviet crew, otherwise your press would have trumpeted it until now, like the case with MIG-21, secondly, flights and photos the MIG-25RB made over Israel was kept secret until 2050, the only secret photo from a scout I presented to you, it’s not difficult to find out by making an official request to the Central Archive of the Russian Ministry of Defense (even via e-mail http://archive.mil.ru) this is not any. So do not wishful thinking.
                  Quote: Professor
                  I look forward to links to your pearls: Well, for example, your aces Iftah Spector or Aviam Selo have repeatedly said this ...
                  Send in a search engine, mr.

                  Professor I was only convinced that you didn’t even hold the book of Iftakh Spector, and by it there were still a lot of pilots whom you didn’t even know by name, shared their impressions both in the author’s books and on the pages of magazines and newspapers Israel about meetings with Soviet planes, and I already told you, I’m not my dad and mom to make you read.
                  PS Your habit of moving away from the topic, a favorite method and avoiding a direct answer with transferring the accusations to the opponent, with the exact opposite, is the easiest way to make yourself a winner in the dialogs, which speaks of a medium-pronounced inferiority complex, only the Professor has your rating lower and lower below, and all because even schoolchildren on the site began to incriminate you in the so-called trolling and deception without arguments. So how do we agree with the majority or minority?
                7. Your friend 26 October 2015 16: 05 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Saburov
                  Quote: Professor
                  No, you are not a young lady, you are a fat troll as an argument declaring "the results are classified" until the 2050 year. And when you are finally pressed with material evidence to the wall, then you just molt. So the video of tests is enough for you (how could they not be classified until the 2050 year?) And information from the official website of the developer. Them and troll.

                  This is what you pressed me with arguments, I told you that Israel could not intercept MIG-25 with the Soviet crew, otherwise your press would have trumpeted it until now, like the case with MIG-21, secondly, flights and photos the MIG-25RB made over Israel was kept secret until 2050, the only secret photo from a scout I presented to you, it’s not difficult to find out by making an official request to the Central Archive of the Russian Ministry of Defense (even via e-mail http://archive.mil.ru) this is not any. So do not wishful thinking.
                  Quote: Professor
                  I look forward to links to your pearls: Well, for example, your aces Iftah Spector or Aviam Selo have repeatedly said this ...
                  Send in a search engine, mr.

                  Professor I was only convinced that you didn’t even hold the book of Iftakh Spector, and by it there were still a lot of pilots whom you didn’t even know by name, shared their impressions both in the author’s books and on the pages of magazines and newspapers Israel about meetings with Soviet planes, and I already told you, I’m not my dad and mom to make you read.
                  PS Your habit of moving away from the topic, a favorite method and avoiding a direct answer with transferring the accusations to the opponent, with the exact opposite, is the easiest way to make yourself a winner in the dialogs, which speaks of a medium-pronounced inferiority complex, only the Professor has your rating lower and lower below, and all because even schoolchildren on the site began to incriminate you in the so-called trolling and deception without arguments. So how do we agree with the majority or minority?


                  Be careful, she can send you in an emergency as me. He is very touchy.)
                8. Professor 26 October 2015 16: 38 New
                  • -6
                  • 0
                  -6
                  Quote: Saburov
                  This is what you pressed me with arguments, I told you that the MIG-25 with the Soviet crew, Israel could not intercept

                  You first prove that he flew there, then that they tried to intercept him. Well and pearl: Well, for example, your aces Iftah Spector or Aviam Village have repeatedly said this ... wink

                  Quote: Saburov
                  flights and photographs taken by MIG-25RB over Israel are kept secret until 2050

                  Here is how? But the "expert" Saburov is aware of this despite the state secrets. wassat

                  Quote: Saburov
                  Professor, I was only convinced that you did not even hold the book of Iftakh Spector in your hands

                  You again poke his nose in the screenshot of this book? You are welcome:

                  As you can see, I did not just hold it in my hands, but also read it. But your fantasies in it are not confirmed.

                  Quote: Saburov
                  and past him there are still a lot of pilots whom you did not even know by name, shared their impressions both in the author’s books and on the pages of Israeli magazines and newspapers about meetings with Soviet planes

                  For instance? Which of them wrote about the "interception" of the MiG-25?

                  I look forward to links to your pearls: Well, for example, your aces Iftah Spector or Aviam Selo have repeatedly said this ...
                9. Saburov 26 October 2015 16: 54 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Professor
                  You first prove that he flew there, then that they tried to intercept him. Well and pearl: Well, for example, your aces Iftah Spector or Aviam Selo have said this more than once ...

                  Quote: Professor
                  Here is how? But the "expert" Saburov is aware of this despite the state secrets

                  The flights and operation of the 63 OARO are not secret, but the flight routes and photos are marked.
                  Quote: Professor
                  You again poke his nose in the screenshot of this book? You are welcome:

                  Thanks for one page, scroll down ... we were worried that Soviet MiG-25 aircraft could deliver powerful bombing attacks anywhere in Israel with impunity ...
                  Quote: Professor
                  I look forward to links to your pearls: Well, for example, your aces Iftah Spector or Aviam Selo have repeatedly said this ...

                10. Saburov 26 October 2015 17: 22 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  I will tell you a little secret Professor ... from the correspondence - Greetings, now I don’t remember everything, but everything happened like this; a squadron took off from Beni-Sueif, passed over Cairo West at a low altitude, at which time MIG-25 was attached to them. All this was done, because the Jews controlled their entire radar and silence in Egypt with their radar and airborne landing gears, so that they would not detect the moment of take-off. He was accompanied with a course to the north until it entered the Mediterranean Sea and entered the regime. 25 passed almost to Cyprus, turned south and blew through the Sinai. And again, our squadron met him on a decline in the Gulf of Suez, escorting us to Beni Sueif before landing. Preliminarily expelling the Arabs and cordoning off the parking lot with our soldiers (communications company and TEC). After landing, while refueling was in progress, the pilot was brought to the CP. The KP was together with the Egyptian ZRCh brigade, and I had the only room where there was no access to the Arabs. I got a phone. ZAS and the pilots on it reported to the CCP in Cairo, just a few words; 24000 height, 2600 speed, everything is fine. These were the first words after take-off. Then again the squadron escorted before landing in Cairo West. As you see, it’s not just a flight, it’s a whole operation. No one in the Union worked out a flight in silence mode from landing in the cockpit, covering with an entire squadron, and all silently until landing. Reaction of the Jews; if the Arabs applied for a day, the Jews met over Sinai already from duty in the air, from three jump airfields. Those. their intelligence worked great and only when they started serving in 2 hours did they not have time. On the KP, on the radar screens, it was clearly visible the attempts of the Jews to intercept, but alas, almost 10tys were not reached in height. Well, and instantly behind in speed. Attempts to intercept never stopped. In July 1972 at the request of Sadat, all of ours were removed from Egypt. But in 1973. again they asked ours, and probably already these were in Brzeg. How they flew, who covered, I don’t know, in June 1972 I was not there already.
                11. Professor 26 October 2015 18: 45 New
                  • -3
                  • 0
                  -3
                  Quote: Saburov
                  The flights and operation of the 63 OARO are not secret, but the flight routes and photos are marked.

                  Bravo. Bis. good

                  Quote: Saburov
                  Thanks for one page, scroll down ... we were worried that Soviet MiG-25 aircraft could deliver powerful bombing attacks anywhere in Israel with impunity ...

                  Could not:
                  1. They did not fly over Israel.
                  2. The accuracy of the MiG-25 bombing from such a height did not guarantee that it would not be hit "anywhere in Israel," but also into Israel itself. lol
                  So where is the link, mr.

                  Quote: Saburov
                  I will tell you a little secret Professor ...

                  Your fantasies are not interesting to me. Veschdoki in the studio.
                12. Saburov 26 October 2015 19: 10 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Find the Guinness record of E-266 and it is recorded by the Israeli radar.
                13. Professor 26 October 2015 19: 29 New
                  • -2
                  • 0
                  -2
                  Quote: Saburov
                  Find the Guinness record of E-266 and it is recorded by the Israeli radar.

                  Exactly, but the records from the Israeli radars are classified until the 2050 year. fellow

                  PS
                  Today I will not feed you more. Come back tomorrow. hi
                14. Saburov 27 October 2015 00: 56 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Professor
                  Exactly, but the records from the Israeli radars are classified until the 2050 year.
                  PS
                  Today I will not feed you more. Come back tomorrow.


                  You take the Professor finely, not only are you a bad habit of answering a question with a question, but you have gone from a direct answer to the question of how you managed to circumvent the fundamental laws of physics in the miracle of weapons Iron Ray, you also absolutely do not want to read my answers ... is not simpler Only to answer ... I do not agree, that's all.
  2. Your friend 26 October 2015 16: 02 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: Saburov
    Quote: Professor
    ABOUT!!! An "expert" has appeared. Sneak off again sending me to Google?

    Quote: Professor
    Learn materiel - laser DFCL

    Professor, let's get down to business, I'm not a young lady to talk to me in riddles. Argument or parry at least one of the above! Moreover, if you believe, then you are an engineer in the former, like no one else should know such things, at least at the school level, and to believe the video (or rather advertising) is at least naive, but you do not believe Red Bull advertising for example? And then maybe they flew already ...

    Our professor is an expert in everything from lasers, fertility problems to the problems of Syrian migration to Russia. In vain you argue with him.
  3. velikoros-xnumx 26 October 2015 16: 04 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Professor
    There are videos, there are manufacturer's statements

    laughing
    Professor, I beg you, refer to another article in the censor. Hmm, not your style. Usually you had no problems with the informative base.
    Well, take the word expert in quotation marks only because the opponent does not agree with your opinion and gives reasonable arguments. Ugly no
  4. Professor 26 October 2015 16: 43 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Quote: velikoros-xnumx
    Professor, I beg you, refer to another article in the censor. Hmm, not your style. Usually you had no problems with the informative base.

    Again. The manufacturer and the customer have confirmed this information, and documented. Few?

    Quote: velikoros-xnumx
    Well, take the word expert in quotation marks only because the opponent does not agree with your opinion and gives reasonable arguments. Ugly

    What are you? How could I? Komrad is simply lying and is thickly trolling without giving any evidence. And when he is poked in the face in a book in which the hero he mentions allegedly talks about what was not there, the "expert" emits verbal diarrhea and molts.
  • yushch 26 October 2015 14: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Until they come up with a successful technology for carrying out cold nuclear fusion, all such energy-consuming technologies will only be in the development stage no more. And that would not have come up with all these failed attempts.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • GDP
    GDP 26 October 2015 13: 14 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Well, a self-propelled gun - a loading machine, a trailer with a power station, a navigation and sighting module + the gun itself is another truck.
    All this American junk costs half a billion dollars, and after it is launched into the series it will still cost at least as a whole air defense division.
    And all in order to bring down one missile in greenhouse conditions on a high and long trajectory from a previously known direction ...
    Moreover, the radius of action is a maximum of 2 km !!! armor is not even light!

    Do you yourself believe in the effectiveness of this prodigy?

    my friend assembled a laser system, which cost him one and a half bucks to shoot crows from a few meters away. To be honest, he did not kill a single raven, although the ravens were probably in shock. This is from the same series ...
    1. MACCABI-TLV 26 October 2015 18: 13 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: GDP
      Moreover, the radius of action is a maximum of 2 km !!! armor is not even light!

      the city of Sderot stands directly not on the border with the sector (check on Google maps). The shelling of heavy mortars and cash registers with a short radius gives residents only 15 seconds to hide in the shelter. J. Dome does not intercept, since the system does not have time to visit. For us, a working range of 2 km is the same panacea.
      1. GDP
        GDP 27 October 2015 10: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        well, in order to bring down mines and improvised thin-walled rockets in a small area, perhaps it makes sense ...
        If Israel certainly has so much extra money, After all, one installation will not do. dozens, perhaps hundreds of such machines will be needed, given the limited range.
        This is at least tens of billions of dollars - a cost comparable to the budget of an entire country. Where did Israel get that kind of money? This is still not the United States ...
        And isn’t it easier and cheaper to solve the same problems in more traditional ways?
        Diplomacy, intelligence - improving the same iron bathed?
  • rubidiy 26 October 2015 14: 01 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    You do not throw a link to the swill for suckers, but a real video, where without any fraud it is shown how a miracle laser knocks down a practical target.
    In general, I agree with a very robust suggestion that all laser enthusiasts should be used as targets that the laser system should protect from missiles and shells.
    1. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: rubidiy
      You do not throw a link to the swill for suckers, but a real video, where without any fraud it is shown how a miracle laser knocks down a practical target.
      In general, I agree with a very robust suggestion that all laser enthusiasts should be used as targets that the laser system should protect from missiles and shells

      You hope to understand that videos of such tests are almost nowhere and never are uploaded. They are watched by people who are clearly not you. The moment that this weapon was being brought to the exhibition, and the company had many years of experience in the market, somehow should have alerted you. But it’s easier to bull with a stubborn face, right? Just understand, no one in the world really shakes your opinion. The decision will be made by potential buyers, in dollars, euros, rupees or rubles
      1. kos2910 26 October 2015 16: 46 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yes, a flag in your hands if you find idiots who pay for a toy with a radius of 2 km.
        1. MACCABI-TLV 26 October 2015 18: 14 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: kos2910
          who will pay for a toy with a range of 2km.

          answered above.
  • velikoros-xnumx 26 October 2015 15: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Hello professor.
    Quote: Professor
    And if you still want to read, then here: Tactical High Energy Laser

    This is certainly great, but the version of the article is only in the hostile English language, not strong in it. If possible, drop the link to the Russian version.
    Many copies of VOs are broken by laser weapons, and as far as I remember, the conclusions of almost all the articles coincided - a huge amount of energy is required to pump a laser of the required power, at low energy it is all zilch, plus the dispersion and influence of atmospheric conditions on the efficiency of such systems (although in this case the declared range is low and these points are possibly uncritical at these distances). Otherwise, only the blinding of optical devices and the “burning” of the enemy’s electronics really remain. In any case, it would be interesting to get acquainted with the information on the system.
    1. Professor 26 October 2015 15: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
      This is certainly great, but the version of the article is only in the hostile English language, not strong in it. If possible, drop the link to the Russian version.

      Nautilus (Laser PRO)
      1. velikoros-xnumx 26 October 2015 16: 15 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        Nautilus (Laser PRO)

        Thank you for the link, but unfortunately there is zero information, only general phrases what
        1. Professor 26 October 2015 16: 44 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: velikoros-xnumx
          Thank you for the link, but unfortunately there is zero information, only general phrases

          Well, excuse me. I'm not a translator here anymore. But in Russian I didn’t find it anymore.
  • tlauicol 26 October 2015 13: 33 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The video proves that the words “knocking off a projectile from a self-propelled laser system is not possible in principle, even a missile is unrealistic” is just idle chatter request
  • The comment was deleted.
  • GDP
    GDP 26 October 2015 12: 32 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    This video is nothing more than a commercial ...
    I heard about this American laser system
    They even managed to knock down a subsonic missile from the nth attempt, and I note a high-explosive shell ....
    The cost of this laser installation cost 400 000 000 bucks ...

    and the most important thing - This installation is not a complete self-propelled installation.
    It is assembled from several modules ...
    That is, behind this gun you need to drag another wire with a power station.


    For some reason, the Americans themselves are in no hurry to launch this miracle weapon in a series, despite the fact that they are not poor, and they can print as much money as they like ...
  • Samaritan 26 October 2015 12: 35 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    I remember 10-15 years ago, one American received a prize and a grand prize for a laser system that shot down flies in a room ... and now it’s like that! In any case, well done, you see, it can serve people, preserve the lives and health of people!
  • Rrrj 26 October 2015 12: 40 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: GDP
    In principle, it is impossible to shoot down a projectile from a self-propelled laser system, even a rocket is unrealistic ...

    .

    Well, I said the one who has no analogues in the world - all the guys - are apart.
    laughing
  • Banshee 26 October 2015 12: 55 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Beautiful cartoon. Straight "Star Wars" in the flesh. Only absolutely nothing is clear. But probably it should be that way - to confuse others and confuse everyone else.

    At one time, the United States, too, the laser blaster varganili, but came out a complete bummer. If Israel is out - well, cool. To wipe the nose of the allies is a good thing.

    But something tells me that ... in short, I do not believe it. Israel, fortunately, doesn't give a damn about my personal opinion, so everything is fine. Earn - well. It does not work - porzhem relish. And everyone will be happy.
    1. Pimply 26 October 2015 13: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Banshee
      At one time, the United States, too, the laser blaster varganili, but came out a complete bummer. If Israel is out - well, cool. To wipe the nose of the allies is a good thing.

      No, actually. Practice has shown that it needs refinement. But the guys achieved success at a certain level. And work in this area continues
  • Banshee 26 October 2015 13: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Beautiful cartoon. Straight "Star Wars" in the flesh. Only absolutely nothing is clear. But probably it should be that way - to confuse others and confuse everyone else.

    At one time, the United States, too, the laser blaster varganili, but came out a complete bummer. If Israel is out - well, cool. To wipe the nose of the allies is a good thing.

    But something tells me that ... in short, I do not believe it. Israel, fortunately, doesn't give a damn about my personal opinion, so everything is fine. Earn - well. It does not work - porzhem relish. And everyone will be happy.
  • andj61 26 October 2015 12: 24 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: GDP
    In principle, it is impossible to shoot down a projectile from a self-propelled laser system, even a rocket is unrealistic ...

    And what is this shell? If an anti-tank disc is theoretically impossible to shoot it down, it is necessary to melt it, and if it is a land mine, then you can try to detonate it. Apparently, you can. In any case - the time the impact of the laser beam on the object should be calculated at least in fractions of a second - 0,5-1s, otherwise the case will simply not have time to burn through. Yes, and the laser power should be decent - at least 100 kW. Similar, but experimental installations, though stationary, were created in the 80s under the USSR, however, were recognized uneconomical. All the tasks that were supposed to be assigned to the laser can be solved much more successfully by other, cheaper means. And the range is too small - 2 km, as indicated in the article - this is too much for the laser, but extremely small to provide protection for anything.
    1. abrakadabre 26 October 2015 13: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Given the rotation of the projectile, the time to melt the PS wall is much shorter. By orders of magnitude. Therefore, the required power for this is higher.
  • Pimply 26 October 2015 13: 57 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: GDP
    The fog was let in - it's a good expression ...
    Given the size of the laser system, she is not able to perform the tasks that are described in the article.
    In principle, it is impossible to shoot down a projectile from a self-propelled laser system, even a rocket is unrealistic ...
    The only reason this unit can be used is to blind optics and fight snipers ...
    Although a slow drone may burn ... Is the game worth the candle?
    To burn a rocket - you need to carry a nuclear reactor with you, an ordinary zrak will cope with this task much more efficiently, and will cost 50 times cheaper ...
    Of course, you can concentrate fire on one target from several batteries at once, but this is the same as shooting gold shells from a cannon ...


    How smart you are. And in Rafael, where the volume of orders for dozens of positions depends on the reputation, and their potential buyers apparently have no brains
    1. Saburov 26 October 2015 14: 50 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Do you think that people in Rafael are impeccable, ready to work for nothing just to create a system ... you are too trusting, but in fact the technical illiteracy of the MO gives rise to charlatans (though smart) to push the laser as a striking weapon.
      1. Pimply 26 October 2015 15: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Saburov
        Do you think that people in Rafael are impeccable, ready to work for nothing just to create a system ... you are too trusting, but in fact the technical illiteracy of the MO gives rise to charlatans (though smart) to push the laser as a striking weapon.

        Not. I do not think so. It’s just that there are people in Raphael who are developing very specific systems for specific needs and have a certain reputation. And if the installation went to an international exhibition, then probably these people are no more stupid than you. This system is not for beauty, it becomes an existing missile defense system. Which is regularly checked by real shelling.
        1. Saburov 26 October 2015 15: 19 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          You probably heard a lot from the Professor, read the school physics course, and then we'll talk about the combat use of the laser.
          1. Saburov 26 October 2015 15: 24 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Saburov
            Which is regularly checked by real shelling.

            For example, we set the task ... a volley of full ammunition with BM-21 is fired, how the laser installation will shoot them down if all the energy in the installation is spent on destroying one projectile and the target must be heated for a time of the order of 5-6 seconds ... and the shell has the ability to rotate, and the torn mode of action is generally contraindicated for the laser ... what real shelling ... what are you talking about?
            1. GDP
              GDP 26 October 2015 16: 21 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Pimpled ...
              Respectfully :)

              You do not confuse the warm with the soft, an American installation that is really capable of shooting down missiles is much larger than an Israeli laser truck.

              She consumes energy! An installation of this size could only be shoved into a hefty Boeing, and then it was barely barely possible ... Or onto a ship.
              How do you stuff several trucks into one Rafale?
              Or even at least 1?

              The latest American Hal MD self-propelled laser system (and this is a large, heavy truck) is capable of destroying only mines and drones from a distance of 1,5-2 km ...

              And it took several years of testing to bring down the unfortunate drone 1, it was only possible to shoot it down on 5 on August 2015!
            2. Pimply 26 October 2015 16: 39 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Saburov
              For example, we set the task ... a volley of full ammunition with BM-21 is fired, how the laser installation will shoot them down if all the energy in the installation is spent on destroying one projectile and the target must be heated for a time of the order of 5-6 seconds ... and the shell has the ability to rotate, and the torn mode of action is generally contraindicated for the laser ... what real shelling ... what are you talking about?

              Did you even read the article? Or materials under this system? Or, again, the word "Israeli" blinds her eyes?
              This is part of a MULTILAYER defense system. This means that the complex has many systems, ranging from UAVs in the air to LCD and other systems on the ground. Where is it indicated that the installation is one? Where is it indicated that the entire charge is being spent?
              1. Saburov 26 October 2015 17: 27 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Let's go in order. Show me an article where, for example, it is clearly described in technical and scientific language how they managed to get around the main problems of building a laser? The natural divorce of suckers (military and taxpayers) on the headstock by American scientific and technical swindlers. For the reason that in the foreseeable future, “combat lasers” are not able, in principle, even to approach combat good old good guns / missiles. In the best case, their destiny is extremely narrow, specific areas of application such as burning optics for reconnaissance. equipment, sights, etc. If we talk about the use of lasers on the battlefield to “burn” tanks / infantry / missiles / aircraft, then this is just technical nonsense. And that's why. First, you only have to make a small introduction to the topic - how to evaluate and compare the impact on the target of different types of weapons. Those who are well versed in weapon physics may not read. For the rest of the educational program: What determines the degree of destruction of the target?
              2. Saburov 26 October 2015 17: 28 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                It is determined by three factors: 1) The power supplied from the weapon to the target. A commonplace banal example: the more you hit a person with your fist, the more damage he will inflict, all other things being equal. “Stronger” means applying more muscle at a greater distance in less time. This is power. With regard to guns: the faster the projectile flies, and the heavier it is, the more power. The more he damages the tank, all other things being equal. With reference to the laser - the greater the power of the beam in kilowatts, the stronger it will burn the target. And in the same kilowatts you can translate the damaging properties of any other weapon and compare them. What will we do later. 2) The second factor is the area on which we bring power from the weapon. The smaller it is, the more concentrated the target experiences, the stronger the defeat (we don’t take extreme cases!). If you push the bully with your fist, there will be nothing for him. If you poke him with an awl with exactly the same effort (power), he will not be greeted. When they want to break through a tank, they try to make it a thinner striking element. So as not to “spread” power over the area. If we shoot a beam - we must collect it on the smallest possible area. Remember children's games with lenses and the Sun. A lens collecting the light of the Sun from a circle with a diameter of 5 cm - burns paper perfectly when this beam is compressed to a size of a couple of millimeters. In principle, the first and second factors are usually combined into one - the energy flux density. That is, they receive power in watts divided by the area of ​​impact. The higher this density, the more dangerous the impact. Measured in watts per square centimeter. But I decided to break them down for clarity. 3) The ability of the target to reflect, fend off the power of the weapon. That is, for example, if we take two armor plates and a projectile flying in them, but put one sheet at an angle, then the projectile can bounce off the inclined sheet. All else being equal. That is, the degree of destruction of the target very much depends on its specific vulnerability to this type of weapon with the first two factors being equal. It’s so simple not to sort through the interaction, there are dozens of types of interaction, but then it will be easier. For now, just remember that this must be taken into account. So, we repeat once again: in order to assess the damaging effect of a weapon, we are primarily interested in its power, concentration and methods of protection. Now let's see what has been achieved in the field of lasers and conventional weapons in terms of the above criteria.
              3. Saburov 26 October 2015 17: 28 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Power criterion. The most powerful laser today is the ABL chemical COIL laser. Its power is about 1 megawatts. For comparison: the power of the 76-mm division gun F-22 of the 1936 model of the year is about 150 megawatts. 150 times more! Count yourself - the kinetic energy of the projectile (M * V ^ 2) / 2 divided by the time it is reached (about 0.01 seconds). We still do not take into account the explosive energy in the projectile itself. There are still as many. Think about this simple fact: a small ancient cannon from the time of the Second World War at a price of scrap metal is hundreds of times more powerful than an ultramodern “battle” laser weighing tens of tons and costing over 5 billions of dollars. A shot from ABL alone costs millions of dollars. And this energy shot is comparable to the burst of a heavy machine gun. The power of a Kalashnikov assault rifle is about 100 kilowatts. A US-Israeli laser with the same 100 kW (THEL) power was tested, they wanted to use it to protect against Grad missile shells. THEL installation in size - 6 delivered next to the bus. The project was closed at 2006 for complete inadequacy, although it still successfully shot down missiles and mines. By heating them in flight for several seconds. (The question is - what about the volley ????) Characteristically, no one even mentioned the possibility of defeating infantry with such a laser. Otherwise, even a child would clearly see its true capabilities, comparing it with an ordinary machine gun. It should be noted that it is no coincidence that the US military and experts believe that the minimum required laser power for combat use is 100 kW. As we see, this is really enough to at least get closer to the striking power of small arms.
              4. Saburov 26 October 2015 17: 29 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Laserophiles will say: well, maybe the beam can be concentrated on a small area and thereby achieve a much greater effect with less power? Indeed - after all, industry uses laser machines that quietly cut centimeter steel with powers of only about a few kilowatts. At the same time, their rays are focused on a patch of several millimeters in size. Alas! Here, the physically irresistible diffraction law comes into force, which states that the laser radiation always diverges from the angle = wavelength / beam diameter. At distances of the order of meters, it can be ignored. So what is next? If we take specifically a combat infrared laser with a wavelength of 2 μm (THEL combat lasers work at such a length, etc.) and a beam diameter of 1 cm, then we get the angle of divergence 0.2 of the milliradian (this is a very small difference - for example, ordinary laser pointers / rangefinders diverge by 5 milliradians and more). Divergence 0.2 mrad. at a distance of 100 meters it will increase the diameter of the spot from 1 cm to approximately 3 cm (if anyone else remembers school geometry). That is, the impact density will fall in proportion to the area in 7 times only by 100 meters. That is: if we know that a laser with a power of 100 KW burns an inch steel plate at point-blank somewhere in 2-3 seconds, then at a distance of 100 meters it will do this, roughly, 18 seconds. All this time, an armored personnel carrier (or whom you are going to burn there) must by itself patiently stand and wait. Do not violate those. process, so to speak. Well, as you know - a furrow of a couple of centimeters is unlikely to upset him anyway. For comparison: armor-piercing bullets from Kalashnikov calmly pierce 16 mm steel at the same distance. And I repeat - today the 100 kW laser is a huge installation weighing tens of tons, with huge tanks of toxic chemicals and sophisticated optics. When he "shoots" - huge clouds of poisonous smoke come from him, poisoning the entire vicinity. What will happen to all this if the enemy strikes from 100 meters throughout this kitchen from his good old large-caliber KPVT - you can imagine. And the rocket can accidentally hit ... And on a kilometer the beam density will fall already 300 times.
              5. Saburov 26 October 2015 17: 30 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Therefore, it is easy to understand that the distance of hitting a target even in 1 km for an 100-kW laser is an unattainable dream in real conditions. Unless you understand, for example, a canister of gasoline. Or a naked man tied to a tree. That is, a minimally protected target cannot be hit with such a laser at REASONABLE distances in combat conditions. By the way! On combat conditions: the battlefield is not always a desert White Sands training ground. It's rain. Snow. Fog. Explosions. Fumes. Dust. All these are almost insurmountable obstacles to the laser beam. Here, in general, you can forget about any concentration of the beam - it simply dissipates long before the goal. Who needs an assault rifle that is unable to hit targets in such conditions? I remember that the earliest firearms could not shoot in wet weather - the gunpowder was drenched. And the "shooters" just cut out the old fashioned way. Here it is, the inevitable fate of lovers of hyperboloids. 3) Also a very unpleasant point for "laser" is the ability to protect the target. And it’s very cheap and very cheerful. Because infrared rays are reflected from anything that is not hit (everyone can play with the remote control from the TV). A cheap window film with metallization reflects the vast majority of infrared radiation. Titanium reflects the IR laser very well. But we already barely brought it to the goal (just poetry!). Worse, there are also sublimation resins that are used to protect spacecraft from gigawatt heat fluxes, combined with the terrible mechanical effects of air pressure. In this case, the resin layer is damaged by a centimeter or two. That is, armor / steel is far from the most resistant material for the laser, no. It has long been an order of magnitude more "laser-resistant" coatings. It follows that even if it is possible to increase the power of laser guns by an order of magnitude, to gigawatts, this will not make them a prodigy at all. In this “sword and shield” competition, the shield has a huge, insurmountable head start. That is why laser-lasers very rarely tell WHAT goals they once again managed to hit and at what distance. And what is shown on the video raises more questions than answers. Ah well? - true laser lovers will say - but what do you all tell about chemical lasers when a technological breakthrough has already been made and “combat” solid-state light-pumping devices have appeared? There are no poisonous tanks, and they are much smaller! And decent power has already been achieved - for 100 kW!
              6. Saburov 26 October 2015 17: 30 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                And it's called beautifully - Firestrike. Hmm .. And really, a very compact little thing - 7 blocks each weighing 180 kg. Total 1300 kg. So that? A dream come true? Let's not rush. There are a couple of nuances. This huge cabinet weighing per ton is just the radiating unit itself. At least 500 kW should be supplied with electric power, given that the achieved efficiency of this laser is about 20%. (and even that is very doubtful, usually much less - less than 10%). Thus, 100 kW went into the enemy with us, and 400 kW remained in this cabinet. And these kilowatts need to be put out quickly, right? Otherwise, expensive optics will suffer. The dimensions of a cooling system of such power can be imagined by looking, for example, at a cooling installation. A rather big bandura, weighs 120 kg. The system can just serve for cooling industrial lasers; it diverts power from as many as whole 6 kW. And she consumes the same amount of electricity. So you need something the size of a truck to cool our 100 kW cabinet when firing. And all this in total will consume megawatts of electric power under 1. Well how? Do you still like breakthrough 100 kW solid-state lasers? With the unimaginable power of defeat comparable to a Kalashnikov assault rifle?
              7. Saburov 26 October 2015 17: 32 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Well, for a snack ... The technical details of the system were not disclosed. According to Ezra, the laser power is calculated “in tens of kilowatts”, but in the future it will be increased to “hundreds of kilowatts”. Rafael does not produce laser systems, purchasing them from several suppliers whose names are not disclosed. According to the company, the development of the Iron Ray has not yet been completed. “We are waiting for more powerful lasers. Financing of the system by the Israeli government is still limited, ”─ Ezra said. Israel, which spent more than 300 million dollars on developing the system, decided to quit the Nautilus program. The reason for not participating in an ambitious project was not only that it turned out to be unbearable for Israeli finance, but also political considerations. At some point, the “tit in the hands” seemed to the representatives of the Israeli government more important than the “crane in the sky”. Palestinian rockets regularly fell in Israeli cities and the country's leadership decided to develop a classic-style tactical system - the Iron Dome ABM. There are no such problems in the US as in Israel and long-term military programs can be practiced there, without jeopardizing national security. Work continued there and, gradually, the MHTEL project was transformed by Skyguard, and Northrop Grumman was engaged in its development. In the middle of 2007, the system was modernized and put up for sale. A beautiful and effective presentation was prepared, but it didn’t help: the tactical laser missile defense system, the first in the world, couldn’t surpass classical systems by its characteristics and no one bought it. From despair, the laser system was even offered to civilian organizations, but here everyone was waiting complete disappointment. The idea of ​​protecting civilian aircraft from terrorist attacks using such a system was considered absurd. Two years later, when it became clear that no one would buy Skyguard, they put an end to chemical lasers, considering them a dead end branch. So it’s only in commercials that it knocks down everything, but in fact, as rockets fell on Israel, they fall.
  • MACCABI-TLV 26 October 2015 18: 23 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    Quote: Saburov
    Do you think that people in Rafael are impeccable, ready to work for nothing just to create a system ... you are too trusting, but in fact the technical illiteracy of the MO gives rise to charlatans (though smart) to push the laser as a striking weapon.

    for the sake of Allah, continue to think so for many many more years, and meanwhile, Raphael will not only be in Vietnam.
    http://topwar.ru/84951-vetnam-zakupil-v-izraile-zrk-spyder.html#comment-id-51369
    81
    These are private traders, they are not financed by the state. If they start to charlatan, they will go bankrupt.
    1. Saburov 26 October 2015 18: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: MACCABI-TLV
      These are private traders, they are not financed by the state. If they start to charlatan, they will go bankrupt.

      So they want to build an Iron Ray for Israel’s Defense Ministry for free?
      Did you understand what you said?
      1. MACCABI-TLV 26 October 2015 20: 21 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Quote: Saburov
        So they want to build an Iron Ray for Israel’s Defense Ministry for free?

        Prototypes, prototypes and test samples prior to the decision to purchase MO are on the shoulders of developers, or are funded by foreign customers (as in the case of Barak8)
        1. Saburov 27 October 2015 00: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          What are you saying, what shisha would they build it on? According to Ezra, the laser power is calculated “in tens of kilowatts”, but in the future it will be increased to “hundreds of kilowatts”. Rafael does not produce laser systems, purchasing them from several suppliers whose names are not disclosed. According to the company, the development of the Iron Ray has not yet been completed. “We are waiting for more powerful lasers. Financing of the system by the Israeli government is still limited, ”─ Ezra said. Israel, which spent more than 300 million dollars on developing the system, decided to quit the Nautilus program. The reason for not participating in an ambitious project was not only that it turned out to be unbearable for Israeli finance, but also political considerations. At some point, the “tit in the hands” seemed to the representatives of the Israeli government more important than the “crane in the sky”. Palestinian rockets regularly fell in Israeli cities and the country's leadership decided to develop a classic-style tactical system - the Iron Dome ABM. There are no such problems in the US as in Israel and long-term military programs can be practiced there, without jeopardizing national security. Work continued there and, gradually, the MHTEL project was transformed by Skyguard, and Northrop Grumman was engaged in its development. In the middle of 2007, the system was modernized and put up for sale. A beautiful and effective presentation was prepared, but it didn’t help: the tactical laser missile defense system, the first in the world, couldn’t surpass classical systems by its characteristics and no one bought it. From despair, the laser system was even offered to civilian organizations, but here everyone was waiting complete disappointment. The idea of ​​protecting civilian aircraft from terrorist attacks using such a system was considered absurd. Two years later, when it became clear that no one would buy Skyguard, they put an end to chemical lasers, considering them a dead end branch. So it’s only in commercials that it knocks down everything, but in fact, as rockets fell on Israel, they fall.
  • Your friend 26 October 2015 15: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Pimply
    Quote: GDP
    The fog was let in - it's a good expression ...
    Given the size of the laser system, she is not able to perform the tasks that are described in the article.
    In principle, it is impossible to shoot down a projectile from a self-propelled laser system, even a rocket is unrealistic ...
    The only reason this unit can be used is to blind optics and fight snipers ...
    Although a slow drone may burn ... Is the game worth the candle?
    To burn a rocket - you need to carry a nuclear reactor with you, an ordinary zrak will cope with this task much more efficiently, and will cost 50 times cheaper ...
    Of course, you can concentrate fire on one target from several batteries at once, but this is the same as shooting gold shells from a cannon ...


    How smart you are. And in Rafael, where the volume of orders for dozens of positions depends on the reputation, and their potential buyers apparently have no brains


    The Americans just burned a hole in the hood, but Rafael is clearly ready to explode rockets and bombs in flight. It can be seen that the Americans have no brains since they are buying the Lockheed installation, not Rafael.
    http://hi-news.ru/technology/kompaniya-lockheed-martin-pristupila-k-serijnomu-pr
    oizvodstvu-boevyx-lazerov.html
    1. Pimply 26 October 2015 16: 42 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: Your friend
      The Americans just burned a hole in the hood, but Rafael is clearly ready to explode rockets and bombs in flight. It can be seen that the Americans have no brains since they are buying the Lockheed installation, not Rafael.
      http://hi-news.ru/technology/kompaniya-lockheed-martin-pristupila-k-serijnomu-pr

      oizvodstvu-boevyx-lazerov.html

      Do you understand the general tasks of these systems?
      1. Your friend 26 October 2015 16: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        http://hi-news.ru/technology/kompaniya-lockheed-martin-pristupila-k-serijnomu-pr

        oizvodstvu-boevyx-lazerov.html

        Yes you. Only you understand. "About the lesser sensitivity of modern lasers to the weather," you said correctly, you directly feel the understanding of tasks .... all kinds of tasks.
  • Silkway0026 26 October 2015 14: 23 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    What interests me the most is whether this shnyaga can knock down sewer and water pipes, which, despite the miracle of Jewish technical thought, "Iron Bonce Dome), good neighbors (the Jews deprived of their land)
    1. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 29 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: Silkway0026
      What interests me most is whether this shnyaga will be able to knock down sewer and water pipes, which, despite the miracle of Jewish technical thought, the "Iron Kumpol Dome", good neighbors (the Jews deprived of their land) were clamoring for the Zraltians

      Fat and not very smart trolling, buddy 8)
  • 44 World 26 October 2015 11: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    While people like Putin and Shoigu are in power in the country, I don’t care what Jews, Americans and others like them invent. Not only will these people find a decent answer, but they will be the first to beat the fight ...
  • Geisenberg 26 October 2015 11: 32 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Quote: figvam
    And if you let the fog?


    Amerikosy was already the case presented this. It turned out that a nuclear power unit must also be dragged to an anti-aircraft laser. I doubt that anyone else will be different.

    So yes ... for the fog - that’s it.
    1. brn521 26 October 2015 12: 12 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Geisenberg
      Amerikosy was already the case presented this. It turned out that a nuclear power unit must also be dragged to an anti-aircraft laser.

      The generator runs continuously, charges the batteries. In combat mode, these batteries are discharged in minutes, with a relatively small supply of energy giving the required power.
      1. andj61 26 October 2015 12: 30 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: brn521
        The generator runs continuously, charges the batteries. In combat mode, these batteries are discharged in minutes, with a relatively small supply of energy giving the required power.

        The power generator should exceed a hundred kilowatts, and no batteries will be able to provide “delivery” of power to the mountain for milliseconds. Capacitors are needed here. And how many “shots” per minute will this installation provide?
        If you “splash out” the power of 100 kW in fractions of a second, then the power of the generator, even with 10-12 “shots” per minute, will go off scale for 1000 kW. Yes, and a capacitor bank for a good body ...
        I do not believe in the economy of such weapons. Laser when used in the atmosphere is unlikely to be cost-effective in the coming decades.
        1. abrakadabre 26 October 2015 13: 57 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          And there are many more ifs and needss of others. The same safe discharge of excess power from losses. Efficiency is not 100%, as you know. Stock of "shots" in a massive attack. Thermal exposure and mobility from counter-battery fire with thermal guidance. Changing the effective shooting range when changing air humidity. The beam divergence and, accordingly, a decrease in the energy density in the spot.
        2. brn521 26 October 2015 14: 16 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: andj61
          If you “splash out” the power of 100 kW in a split second

          It is necessary to distinguish power from energy.
          Quote: andj61
          and no batteries will be able to provide "delivery" of power to the mountain for milliseconds.

          Take from here, for example. http://www.rcdesign.ru/articles/engines/lipol Lithium polymer batteries. The voltage in the cell is 3,6V. Take something in between, for example, the Kokam 1500HC. Maximum discharge current 12V, weight 35g. capacity 1,5Ah. We get the power of 43,2W. A battery with such power will work 1,5Ah / 12A * 60min = 7,5min. How much power do we need? 10 megawatts, for example. Divide 10mln / 43,2 = 231481pcs. Multiply by 0,035kg. Total 8101 kg, i.e. about eight tons. 8 tons will give us 10 megawatts in 7,5 minutes. The calculation is rough, I do not argue. Large cells can be made more efficient and specialized in high discharge current, while miniaturization is considered as a priority. And the voltage of course during the discharge will not be 3,6V, but noticeably less, depending on the internal resistance of the cells. But it demonstrates the very possibility of using modern batteries as a very powerful power source.
          1. andj61 26 October 2015 16: 22 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: brn521
            Quote: andj61
            If you “splash out” the power of 100 kW in a split second
            It is necessary to distinguish power from energy.

            Power issued for a certain time - this is energy. 1J = 1V * 1A * 1s. 1V * 1A - this is the power.
            And here the most important thing is not the power and capacity of the battery, but 1) the ability to give up all the stored energy in a split second 2) recharge again in a short time - if not in a split second, then in 1-2 seconds - that's for sure.
            And for this, capacitors are best suited, such with the prefix "super", and are used for such lasers.
            And so your example as an opportunity to use modern batteries as a very powerful power source is quite indicative. good hi
        3. Bayonet 26 October 2015 15: 14 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: andj61
          The power generator must exceed a hundred kilowatts

          And what is so much? I have 150 kW in my container at work, so there’s still room - at least play a wedding!
      2. Geisenberg 26 October 2015 16: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: brn521
        Quote: Geisenberg
        Amerikosy was already the case presented this. It turned out that a nuclear power unit must also be dragged to an anti-aircraft laser.

        The generator runs continuously, charges the batteries. In combat mode, these batteries are discharged in minutes, with a relatively small supply of energy giving the required power.



        Stupidity, and you know about it.
    2. iConst 26 October 2015 12: 23 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Geisenberg
      Amerikosy was already the case presented this. It turned out that a nuclear power unit must also be dragged to an anti-aircraft laser. I doubt that anyone else will be different.
      - The concept shows that several units will work on the target.

      Today there are quite effective energy storage systems: electronic and inertial.

      Because the power plant will have time to charge the drive between the "shots".

      The second point is the relatively low cost of the laser itself and a very cheap shot.
      1. andj61 26 October 2015 12: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: iConst
        Today there are quite effective energy storage systems: electronic and inertial.

        Because the power plant will have time to charge the drive between the "shots".

        The second point is the relatively low cost of the laser itself and a very cheap shot.

        Concerning energy storage - supercapacitors, of course, are available.
        The question is different - for the destruction of an artillery shell it is required to “simply” melt its body in flight. Can you imagine how much energy a laser should transmit in a split second to a shell? And this is when moving in space with a moderate speed! The power of such a shot, taking into account losses, should go off scale for 100 kW. And it is at a distance of 1,5-2 km. He will not be able to work further at all - this is also noted in the article. And if it will be necessary to shoot down 10-12 shells per minute, then 1000 kilowatts will not be enough. And if the projectile is fired from a rifled barrel and spins in flight, it is unlikely that it will be able to be knocked down at all - or if you still need to increase the power. Therefore, the best option is a stationary laser system with external energy supply. True, the tasks of protecting objects can be solved in simpler and cheaper ways. option
      2. Geisenberg 26 October 2015 16: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: iConst
        Quote: Geisenberg
        Amerikosy was already the case presented this. It turned out that a nuclear power unit must also be dragged to an anti-aircraft laser. I doubt that anyone else will be different.
        - The concept shows that several units will work on the target.

        Today there are quite effective energy storage systems: electronic and inertial.

        Because the power plant will have time to charge the drive between the "shots".

        The second point is the relatively low cost of the laser itself and a very cheap shot.


        To school ! Learn the law of conservation of energy!
  • lelikas 26 October 2015 11: 48 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    Quote: figvam
    And if you let the fog?

    Following the commonplace logic, the next project will be Iron Sun!
    How beautiful it will sound - “Iron Sun” illuminates with “Iron Rays” “Iron Dome” - Japanese poets will make themselves hara-kiri from hopelessness.
  • Berg berg 26 October 2015 12: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Everything has been verified for a long time. If the surface of the projectile or rocket is mirrored, even with a small spraying the probability of destruction drops to 90%! At laser demonstrations, targets were painted perfect black, and a radio beacon was inserted into the rockets!
    1. brn521 26 October 2015 13: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Berg Berg
      If the surface of a projectile or rocket is mirrored - even with a small spraying the probability of destruction drops to 90%!

      Not necessarily a mirror coating. Green pigment gives a reflection of about 40%. High-quality white lead give a coefficient. reflection of about 90%. Those. the laser power will have to be raised 6 times. Use mirror coatings if only expensive, which give out 94-96% reflection. Cheap give out 50-70%. There are “anti-enlightenment” coatings that can give a reflection of up to 99%, while they do not contain metal and are transparent in the infrared range, but they are even more expensive. If they will use it, then to protect guided missiles with their own guidance system.
    2. abrakadabre 26 October 2015 14: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The mirror will spoil when rubbed against the gun barrel. But if you make an ablative coating, as on descent vehicles and shuttles ... And let yourself shoot a laser. To health.
      1. brn521 26 October 2015 14: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: abrakadabre
        But if you make an ablative coating, as on descent vehicles and shuttles ...

        No, the Shuttles have a different defense. It does not fade, as in descent vehicles. There are some expensive heat-resistant tiles.
        Quote: abrakadabre
        And let yourself shoot a laser. To health.

        In general, laser weapons were initially promoted due to the need to shoot numerous weakly protected objects at a fast pace. Some exercises in the United States have shown that the fleet is vulnerable to a mass attack using civilian boats, planes and drones.
    3. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 02 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: Berg Berg
      Everything has been verified for a long time. If the surface of the projectile or rocket is mirrored, even with a small spraying the probability of destruction drops to 90%! At laser demonstrations, targets were painted perfect black, and a radio beacon was inserted into the rockets!

      Do not grind nonsense. The reflecting surface should have ideal parameters for the whole sum of factors. Have you seen enough Hollywood movies?
      1. Your friend 26 October 2015 17: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        Quote: Berg Berg
        Everything has been verified for a long time. If the surface of the projectile or rocket is mirrored, even with a small spraying the probability of destruction drops to 90%! At laser demonstrations, targets were painted perfect black, and a radio beacon was inserted into the rockets!

        Do not grind nonsense. The reflecting surface should have ideal parameters for the whole sum of factors. Have you seen enough Hollywood movies?

        Seriously? Saturn’s satellite reflectivity coefficient Enceladus 90% - there’s a bunch of “ideal parameters for the whole sum of factors”. Imagine, a whole planet has a bunch of ideal parameters !!! Shine.
  • Pimply 26 October 2015 13: 56 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Quote: figvam
    And if you let the fog?

    The sensitivity of modern lasers to the weather is several orders of magnitude lower than that of lasers developed a few years ago
    1. Professor 26 October 2015 14: 34 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: Pimply
      The sensitivity of modern lasers to the weather is several orders of magnitude lower than that of lasers developed a few years ago

      A hydrogen fluoride chemical laser operates in the infrared spectrum of 2.7-2.9 micrometers, and a deuterium fluoride laser at a wavelength of 3.8 microns where the effect of the atmosphere including fog is minimal.
      1. Rrrj 26 October 2015 14: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Professor
        ... a laser based on deuterium fluoride at a wavelength of 3.8 microns where the influence of the atmosphere, including mists, is minimal.

        About how - but can you find out what is the wavelength?
        And under what circumstances should it be considered such?
      2. Saburov 26 October 2015 15: 10 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Professor
        A hydrogen fluoride chemical laser operates in the infrared spectrum of 2.7-2.9 micrometers, and a deuterium fluoride laser at a wavelength of 3.8 microns where the effect of the atmosphere including fog is minimal.

        Absolutely cool ... in what spectrum it operates, solve the fundamental problem that all companies and laser developers face, which is an insurmountable obstacle, or rather ... There is only one way to deal with beam divergence - by reducing the wavelength. However, it follows from the fundamental laws of physics that the shorter the wavelength, the more difficult it is to implement quantum radiation amplification.
    2. Rrrj 26 October 2015 14: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Pimply
      Quote: figvam
      And if you let the fog?

      The sensitivity of modern lasers to the weather is several orders of magnitude lower than that of lasers developed a few years ago

      Oh well - don’t need Lala here - the physical properties of light cannot be fixed - you need to increase the power, that's all.
    3. Your friend 26 October 2015 15: 12 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Pimply
      Quote: figvam
      And if you let the fog?

      The sensitivity of modern lasers to the weather is several orders of magnitude lower than that of lasers developed a few years ago

      What????? What is the "Sensitivity of modern lasers to the weather" - what is this characteristic ??? What are you talking about ??? Overcoming bad weather occurs only in one way - by raising power.
      1. Pimply 26 October 2015 16: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Your friend
        What????? What is the "Sensitivity of modern lasers to the weather" - what is this characteristic ??? What are you talking about ??? Overcoming bad weather occurs only in one way - by raising power.

        In fact, not only
      2. Pimply 26 October 2015 17: 13 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        For example, the Boeing laser uses the BILL system (Beacon Illuminator) - to compensate for atmospheric distortion
        1. Your friend 26 October 2015 18: 44 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Pimply
          For example, the Boeing laser uses the BILL system (Beacon Illuminator) - to compensate for atmospheric distortion

          Seriously? This system detects turbulence / distortion in the atmosphere, and a laser shot bypasses this place. What does this have to do with your claim that "The sensitivity of modern lasers to the weather is several orders of magnitude lower than that of lasers developed a few years ago"?
    4. Saburov 26 October 2015 16: 03 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Pimply
      The sensitivity of modern lasers to the weather is several orders of magnitude lower than that of lasers developed a few years ago

      And what is it lower? The laws of physics have suddenly changed?
  • Temples 26 October 2015 11: 27 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    there was a presentation of two versions of the promising combat laser system "Iron Beam", developed ...

    First you need to develop and test.
    And then demonstrate in real conditions. An artillery shell, for example, destroyed in the smoke of a real battle.
    And so it looks like the presentation of a new science fiction film.
    Hollywood in one word.
    1. vovanpain 26 October 2015 11: 32 New
      • 15
      • 0
      +15
      Quote: Temples
      And so it looks like the presentation of a new science fiction film.

      Now our Israeli comrade Professor will answer you that the film is not fantastic, but documentary.
      1. Your friend 26 October 2015 11: 39 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: vovanpain
        Quote: Temples
        And so it looks like the presentation of a new science fiction film.

        Now our Israeli comrade Professor will answer you that the film is not fantastic, but documentary.

        The professor has a higher standard of living in Palestine than in Germany on the basis that the mortality rate in Germany is higher than in Palestine. What do you want from him?
    2. Ezhaak 26 October 2015 11: 38 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Temples
      And then demonstrate in real conditions.

      We must pay tribute to the boys, they have good cartoons.
      And by the way, and by chance, you have never met the use of cargo containers for installing weapons in them. It seems to me that I have already heard this somewhere.
  • Penetrator 26 October 2015 11: 31 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    What day is this today? Either the Chinese will please the space airship, or the Jews with a super-powerful laser pointer ... Are they not afraid to pierce the Iron Dome with the Iron Ray? smile
    1. Good me 26 October 2015 11: 36 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Penetrator
      What day is this? Either the Chinese will please the space airship, or the Jews with a super powerful laser pointer ...


      On Chinese diodes lol laughing good
    2. voyaka uh 26 October 2015 11: 36 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      They will be combined into a single system. With common radar
      and a computer. Comp. on the basis of the miscalculation of the ballistics of the target
      give a command to shoot either a rocket or a laser beam.
      1. Buffalo 26 October 2015 11: 39 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        If you have time.
        1. voyaka uh 26 October 2015 11: 50 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          for bison:
          "If you have time." ///

          Comp? - milli-seconds. But the rocket does not have time for a close target.
          But the laser has no problems with this - the speed of light. But the laser
          problem with distance. The rocket is stronger here. So the two systems are logical
          complement each other.
          1. Buffalo 26 October 2015 12: 13 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Do not dig there!
            First you need to detect the target, then - give a signal to the control system and destroy. And in both cases, you can get resistance.
            Most likely, Israel is trying to suck a sucker a useless toy, realizing its futility.
            1. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 05 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Quote: Bison
              Do not dig there!
              First you need to detect the target, then - give a signal to the control system and destroy. And in both cases, you can get resistance.
              Most likely, Israel is trying to suck a sucker a useless toy, realizing its futility.

              Do you know any modern air defense systems? There, the target is detected in seconds from the moment of the shot, and in the same time there is a reaction. This system has been declared defeated within 4-5 seconds from the time the target was launched.
          2. andj61 26 October 2015 12: 35 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            But the rocket does not have time for a close target.
            But the laser has no problems with this - the speed of light. But the laser
            problem with distance. The rocket is stronger here. So the two systems are logical
            complement each other.

            The laser must also find the target, "fix" it, and for a certain time to act on the beam. It’s possible that it will be possible to burn through the missile’s body, but the shell - those fractions of a second that will be available to melt it (and can an anti-tank blank be melted at all?), Most likely, will not be enough.
        2. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 03 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: Bison
          If you have time.

          Declared time of defeat in 4-5 seconds from the moment of the shot
          1. Rrrj 26 October 2015 14: 54 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Pimply
            Quote: Bison
            If you have time.

            Declared time of defeat in 4-5 seconds from the moment of the shot

            I can also state however.
      2. aleks 62 next 26 October 2015 11: 42 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        ..... They will be combined into a single system. With common radar
        and a computer. Comp. on the basis of the miscalculation of the ballistics of the target
        give a command to shoot either a rocket or a laser beam ....

        .... Shaw ????? belay ..... You also learned to cut (budget) ????? laughing
        1. Penetrator 26 October 2015 11: 48 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: aleks 62 next
          .You also learned to cut (budget) ?????

          This is not a cut, it's a gesheft
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Ezhaak 26 October 2015 11: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        They will be combined into a single system. With a common radar and computer.
        And here the question begs, how many such devices does Israel need to have in order to close all dangerous directions? Or how with a "tin cumpole" they will drag a couple of cars from place to place?
        1. Ezhaak 26 October 2015 12: 47 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Zionists categorically deny criticism, truthful, and humorous statements addressed to them, calling the speaker this an anti-Semite. They act to their own detriment and are themselves anti-Semites and anti-Jews. (C)
          1. Your friend 26 October 2015 12: 49 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Hedgehog
            Zionists categorically deny criticism, truthful, and humorous statements addressed to them, calling the speaker this an anti-Semite. They act to their own detriment and are themselves anti-Semites and anti-Jews. (C)

            Yes, what are you. Everyone knows that Israeli lasers are the most laser lasers in the world.
  • Finches 26 October 2015 11: 34 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "KC, come on, I’ll go to the gravitsap ..." laughing

    And on the other hand, what only mankind did not believe in all its history of existence!
  • Berg berg 26 October 2015 12: 20 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In the end, they are embracing this MIRACLE to the Americans to shoot down the quadrocopters that fly around the white house!
  • brn521 26 October 2015 12: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Your friend
    There are no walking robots. Without walking robots with lasers and a quark cannon, it won’t take off.

    And crawling robots will not work? The truth moves slowly. But it’s quiet. And the manipulator is long, you can tan the solarium at the enemy’s nights.
    1. Your friend 26 October 2015 12: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: brn521
      Quote: Your friend
      There are no walking robots. Without walking robots with lasers and a quark cannon, it won’t take off.

      And crawling robots will not work? The truth moves slowly. But it’s quiet. And the manipulator is long, you can tan the solarium at the enemy’s nights.

      No, it won’t work. This is not a kosher robot, it hurts like an insect. Need kosher robots, robots with cloven hooves.
  • GSH-18 26 October 2015 12: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The ADEX 2015 exhibition in Seoul hosted the presentation of the Israeli Iron Ray combat laser system

    Jews again think that they are smarter than everyone? lol Oh well..
    In these "toys" we and the states have already played enough in due time.
    You can’t argue against physics. In order for the installation to be really POWERFUL, it needs a power station of several tens of megawatts. Everything else is junk with a range of at best a couple of kilometers. Therefore, the laser is now used only for illumination purposes. yes
    1. Professor 26 October 2015 13: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: GSH-18
      You can’t argue against physics. In order for the installation to be really POWERFUL, it needs a power station of several tens of megawatts.

      ... or a hydrogen fluoride chemical laser.
  • Pimply 26 October 2015 13: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Your friend
    There are no walking robots. Without walking robots with lasers and a quark cannon, it won’t take off.

    Actually, there is already. A little not in the form in the direction of which you are trying to ironize, but there is. And driving, crawling, floating. And all - on combat duty
    1. Your friend 26 October 2015 14: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Pimply
      Quote: Your friend
      There are no walking robots. Without walking robots with lasers and a quark cannon, it won’t take off.

      Actually, there is already. A little not in the form in the direction of which you are trying to ironize, but there is. And driving, crawling, floating. And all - on combat duty


      I - STEPPING no robots
      Pimpled - Actually already IS. A little not in the form in the direction of which you are trying to ironize, but there is. AND driving, crawling, floating.

      How's your logic?
  • Max_Bauder 26 October 2015 14: 59 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Until proven effective in battle, this is from a series of elven magic ax or Thor's hammer.
  • Engineer 26 October 2015 11: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It is terrible to think about how much power a laser should have so that it could damage an artillery shell. This power plant must be used.
    1. kil 31 26 October 2015 11: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      At the ADEX 2015 exhibition in Seoul, a presentation of two versions of the promising Iron Laser combat laser system developed by the Israeli company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems was held
      In the future, the new development will be part of the Israeli layered defense system, which includes the Iron Dome and Strela-2 complexes.
      They have not brought it to mind yet, have not tested it, have not put it into service, and already offer to buy Koreans and others. Is that such a banter, over customers?
      1. voyaka uh 26 October 2015 11: 39 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        for kil 31:
        "They have not brought it to mind yet, have not experienced" ///

        Already experienced in Gaza several years ago. Laboratory
        the sample set several real 120 mm mortar fires in flight
        mines fired from Gaza by means of er. the city of Sderot.
        1. kil 31 26 October 2015 11: 53 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          for kil 31:
          "They have not brought it to mind yet, have not experienced" ///

          Already experienced in Gaza several years ago. Laboratory
          the sample set several real 120 mm mortar fires in flight
          mines fired from Gaza by means of er. the city of Sderot.

          That was said; he has not yet been brought to mind, but we will go in this direction. Adoption of the installation has not yet been debugging. Why then offer on the foreign market? hi
          1. abrakadabre 26 October 2015 14: 05 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            there is a debugging. Why then offer on the foreign market?
            You tell this to companies in the IT sector.
        2. Riv
          Riv 26 October 2015 11: 59 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          ... and burning 120 mm mines fell on the city ... Palestinians rejoice.
        3. The comment was deleted.
          1. voyaka uh 26 October 2015 12: 12 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            "and burning 120 mm mines fell on the city ... Palestinians rejoice" ///

            Mines fell on Palestinian territory. No information,
            they rejoiced or not.
            The laser knocks down for 2-3 km.
            1. Riv
              Riv 26 October 2015 14: 30 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              I see: in Israel these of yours are very bad with logic ... A mortar mine is not a balloon. It flies along a ballistic trajectory and this trajectory cannot be changed with a laser. If they didn’t blow it up in the air, then it will fall where it was shot.
              But if the mines were supposed to fall on Palestinian territory, then I'm sorry, but why was it necessary to shoot them down?
              1. Your friend 26 October 2015 14: 40 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Riv
                I see: in Israel these of yours are very bad with logic ... A mortar mine is not a balloon. It flies along a ballistic trajectory and this trajectory cannot be changed with a laser. If they didn’t blow it up in the air, then it will fall where it was shot.
                But if the mines were supposed to fall on Palestinian territory, then I'm sorry, but why was it necessary to shoot them down?

                Well, why are you like that. Cuts in the military sphere that we have, that they have more relevant than ever.
              2. voyaka uh 26 October 2015 16: 21 New
                • -1
                • 0
                -1
                for Riv:
                A mine is destroyed (explodes) in the air.
                Sorry if I wrote vaguely.
                Shards fall to the ground. Not reaching the target.
                And - not along a ballistic trajectory.
                1. Riv
                  Riv 26 October 2015 17: 34 New
                  • -1
                  • 0
                  -1
                  So all the same: arson, or blew up? And how did the detonated mines fall on Palestinian territory? The questions are cleaner than Bilbo Gollum asked ...
                  Oh, and the Jews love to lie!
                2. The comment was deleted.
        4. GDP
          GDP 26 October 2015 12: 05 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Americans and ours have long been creating such devices, in order to create sufficiently powerful energy, we had to create portable nuclear power plants and powerful gas lasers and neodymium glass lasers, based on amplification of chip-like pulses.
          At the same time, the tests showed very low efficiency even when shooting at low maneuverable and poorly protected targets, and the number of shots, if I am not mistaken, is limited ...
          In a word, unprofitable and not effective ...
          1. Rrrj 26 October 2015 12: 48 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: GDP
            ... lasers on neodymium glassbased on gain chipped pulses.
            .

            You may ask - what is it? Hmmm.
            1. GDP
              GDP 26 October 2015 13: 27 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              This is a solid state laser.
              Such stood on the Soviet self-propelled laser installation - a stylet.
              But unlike gas-chemical, they are more expensive and require more energy, therefore they are mainly used to blind optics ... For this, a small generator with an output of 10 kW is enough.
              1. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 07 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: GDP
                This is a solid state laser.
                Such stood on the Soviet self-propelled laser installation - a stylet.
                But unlike gas-chemical, they are more expensive and require more energy, therefore they are mainly used to blind optics ... For this, a small generator with an output of 10 kW is enough.

                Recent years of development on this topic have taken a big step forward.
          2. Bayonet 26 October 2015 15: 41 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: GDP
            had to create portable nuclear power plants

            Tales then why tell? By the way, have you ever heard of pulsed MHD generators?
            1. Your friend 26 October 2015 15: 45 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Bayonet
              Quote: GDP
              had to create portable nuclear power plants

              Tales then why tell? By the way, have you ever heard of pulsed MHD generators?


              And then how, every year they feed the same.
              http://hi-news.ru/science/kompaktnyj-termoyadernyj-reaktor-ot-lockheed-martin-mo
              zhet-izmenit-mir-navsegda.html
              1. Bayonet 26 October 2015 19: 52 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Your friend
                http://hi-news.ru/science/kompaktnyj-termoyadernyj-reaktor-ot-lockheed-martin-mo

                zhet-izmenit-mir-navsegda.html

                request
                1. Your friend 26 October 2015 19: 59 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  http://hi-news.ru/science/kompaktnyj-termoyadernyj-reaktor-ot-lockheed-martin-mo
                  zhet-izmenit-mir-navsegda.html
                  The space between the lines of the address was superfluous (
        5. tchoni 26 October 2015 12: 21 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Very significant moment. This system has a lot of advantages, but, unfortunately, there is very limited real application for a number of reasons:
          1} the system stands like a cast-iron bridge - therefore there is no talk of mass character. It will be used as a system of protection of very important objects.
          2) The capabilities of the system are limited by the interception of low-speed and slow-moving ammunition. Consequently, the defense will be effective against mortar mines, nurses, freely falling bombs and various missiles
          3) system performance is likely to allow it to work on small series of ammunition (up to a dozen per minute
          All of the above makes the system more likely a prototype, brought to the stage of military trials, rather than a full-fledged combat unit.
          However, the experience of such an nb operation of the complex is invaluable since Allows you to accumulate statistical, technical and tactical experience using such tools
          1. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 08 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: tchoni
            Very significant moment. This system has a lot of advantages, but, unfortunately, there is very limited real application for a number of reasons:
            1} the system stands like a cast-iron bridge - therefore there is no talk of mass character. It will be used as a system of protection of very important objects.
            2) The capabilities of the system are limited by the interception of low-speed and slow-moving ammunition. Consequently, the defense will be effective against mortar mines, nurses, freely falling bombs and various missiles
            3) system performance is likely to allow it to work on small series of ammunition (up to a dozen per minute
            All of the above makes the system more likely a prototype, brought to the stage of military trials, rather than a full-fledged combat unit.
            However, the experience of such an nb operation of the complex is invaluable since Allows you to accumulate statistical, technical and tactical experience using such tools

            I agree completely on all points. It is worth noting that the system is only one of the elements of a multilayer missile defense
          2. abrakadabre 26 October 2015 14: 09 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            1) I agree.
            2) You forgot the UAV level infantry platoon. The rest of the above (which can rotate) - only until the introduction of an external ablation coating and for small masses, due to the large thermal inertness for a short period of exposure.
            3) After the exhaustion of a series of "shots." A gift from a thermal GOS will fly to the spurious thermal radiation of this station and close the debate on this issue.
            1. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 31 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: abrakadabre
              3) After the exhaustion of a series of "shots." A gift from a thermal GOS will fly to the spurious thermal radiation of this station and close the debate on this issue.

              The whole question in practice is in the multi-layer system, and in what tasks this device will be used.
      2. Professor 26 October 2015 11: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Kil 31
        They have not brought it to mind yet, have not tested it, have not put it into service, and already offer to buy Koreans and others. Is that such a banter, over customers?

        They brought it, tested it, until it was put into service. Now we decided to pay back. According to a source in Raphael, a laser is capable of intercepting a target the size of a coin at a distance of up to 2 km. The test results are "very good." By the way, the Raphael laser itself does not produce.
        1. kil 31 26 October 2015 12: 07 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Professor
          Quote: Kil 31
          They have not brought it to mind yet, have not tested it, have not put it into service, and already offer to buy Koreans and others. Is that such a banter, over customers?

          They brought it, tested it, until it was put into service. Now we decided to pay back. According to a source in Raphael, a laser is capable of intercepting a target the size of a coin at a distance of up to 2 km. The test results are "very good." By the way, the Raphael laser itself does not produce.

          Is it really Beijing? belay Professor tell me, do not tear my soul.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Your friend 26 October 2015 13: 03 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Kil 31
            Quote: Professor
            Quote: Kil 31
            They have not brought it to mind yet, have not tested it, have not put it into service, and already offer to buy Koreans and others. Is that such a banter, over customers?

            They brought it, tested it, until it was put into service. Now we decided to pay back. According to a source in Raphael, a laser is capable of intercepting a target the size of a coin at a distance of up to 2 km. The test results are "very good." By the way, the Raphael laser itself does not produce.

            Is it really Beijing? belay Professor tell me, do not tear my soul.

            Cool "They brought it, tested it, until it was put into service" - but they brought a cartoon about the system to the exhibition. If "brought and tested" could already show the test frames, if the "Test Results" are very good.))) Probably modest.
            1. Bayonet 26 October 2015 15: 47 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Your friend
              Cool "They brought it, tested it, until it was put into service" - but they brought a cartoon about the system to the exhibition.

              So what? Not only do we show cartoons and layouts, what will happen "after 2020"?
              1. Your friend 26 October 2015 15: 53 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Bayonet
                Quote: Your friend
                Cool "They brought it, tested it, until it was put into service" - but they brought a cartoon about the system to the exhibition.

                So what? Not only do we show cartoons and layouts, what will happen "after 2020"?

                Before asking a question, do you carefully read what they write?
                Of course, this system is not "what will be" after 2020 ", it already exists, exists now, and wrote to you," They brought it, tested it. "
        2. tchoni 26 October 2015 21: 33 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Professor
          Now we decided to pay back. According to a source in Raphael, a laser is capable of intercepting a target the size of a coin at a distance of up to 2 km.

          By the way, they don’t lie to the campaign. The video where the laser warms the fuse of the projectile proves it.
    2. just exp 26 October 2015 11: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      progress does not stand still, which is now problematic and may become commonplace in the future.
      but our emnip also does not stand still and work is in full swing. just do not advertise the results.
    3. venaya 26 October 2015 11: 39 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: Engineer
      ... what power the laser must have so that it can damage the artillery shell. This power plant must be used.

      Oh, not enough, I assure you. To verify this conclusion, it is enough to carry out simple mat. calculations
      1. Bayonet 26 October 2015 15: 49 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: venaya
        Oh, not enough, I assure you. To verify this conclusion, it is enough to carry out simple mat. calculations

        Once "simple mathematical calculations", they proved the impossibility of flying vehicles heavier than air smile
        1. Your friend 26 October 2015 15: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Bayonet
          Quote: venaya
          Oh, not enough, I assure you. To verify this conclusion, it is enough to carry out simple mat. calculations

          Once "simple mathematical calculations", they proved the impossibility of flying vehicles heavier than air smile

          When and who argued so, just wondering?
          1. Bayonet 26 October 2015 18: 45 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Your friend
            When and who argued so, just wondering?

            The great American astronomer Simon Newcomb - "No probable combination of known substances of known machines and known forms of energy can be embodied in an apparatus practically suitable for a long flight of a person in the air ..." The venerable authority wrote his article at the very moment when Wright in his bicycle workshop, built their plane.
            Sir William Price, chief engineer of the Post Office of England, categorically stated that "the distribution of electric energy for lighting is a stupid invention" ...
            Edison, who was able to assess the prospects of electric lighting with far greater insight than his contemporaries, later turned out to be as short-sighted as Pris, opposing the use of alternating current.
            Here is what a professor A. W. Bickerton said in one of his articles (1926): “The stupid idea of ​​a shot at the Moon is an example of those extreme absurdities that scientists working in“ mind-tight compartments ”reach in full isolation from each other. We will try to critically analyze this proposal. In order for the shell to completely overcome the force of gravity of the Earth, it needs to be informed of a speed of 11 kilometers per second. The equivalent thermal energy of one gram is at this speed 15 calories ... The energy of nitroglycerin - the most blasting explosive that we have - is less than 180 calories per gram. Consequently, this explosive itself has only 1500/1 of the energy that it needs to break away from the Earth, even if it does not have any additional load ... From this it appears that this proposal is not feasible at its very core ... "
            1. Your friend 26 October 2015 18: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The great American astronomer Simon Newcomb - "No probable combination of known substances of known machines and known forms of energy can be embodied in an apparatus practically suitable for a long flight of a person in the air ..." The venerable authority wrote his article at the very moment when Wright in his bicycle workshop, built their plane.

              "Oddly enough, Newcom showed at the same time a sufficient breadth of views: he acknowledged that some completely new discovery .... could make flying in the air feasible." "simple mathematical calculations" - they are not here.
              Here is what a professor A. W. Bickerton said in one of his articles (1926): “The stupid idea of ​​a shot at the Moon is an example of those extreme absurdities that scientists working in“ mind-tight compartments ”reach in full isolation from each other. We will try to critically analyze this proposal. In order for the shell to completely overcome the force of gravity of the Earth, it needs to be informed of a speed of 11 kilometers per second. The equivalent thermal energy of one gram is at this speed 15 calories ... The energy of nitroglycerin - the most blasting explosive that we have - is less than 180 calories per gram. Consequently, this explosive itself has only 1500/1 of the energy that it needs to break away from the Earth, even if it does not have any additional load ... From this it appears that this proposal is not feasible at its very core ... "

              What does this have to do with your assertion that "Once" simple mathematical calculations "proved the impossibility of flying vehicles heavier than air." In 1926, airplanes flew only on the road.
              1. Bayonet 26 October 2015 21: 08 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Your friend
                What does this have to do with your assertion that "Once upon a time" simple mathematical calculations ",

                If you paid attention to the quotation marks, it would become clear what is relevant - allegorical! And it was meant that many real and ordinary things for us were previously denied as not possible! Time will pass and today's allegations about the impossibility of laser weapons will be considered a naive fallacy. smile hi
        2. venaya 26 October 2015 15: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Bayonet
          Once "simple mathematical calculations", they proved the impossibility of flying vehicles heavier than air

          Oh, how interesting! Tell us, we will listen.
          1. Bayonet 26 October 2015 19: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: venaya
            Oh, how interesting! Tell us, we will listen.

            In 1895, William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), president of the London Royal Society for the Advancement of Nature, declared: “Flying vehicles heavier than air are impossible.”
            "Flying a car heavier than air seems impractical, unimportant and simply impossible." - Simon Newcomb. Only 18 months later, the Wright brothers made the first manned flight in history. Thomas Edison also believed that other methods must be sought to move through the air.
            “Fun with alternating current is a waste of time. No one will use it. Never". - Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1889
            In 1897, Kelvin noted that the radio has no prospects. In 1878, the Western Union company distributed a memorandum among employees saying: “The so-called“ telephone ”has too many shortcomings and cannot be regarded as an effective means of communication. It is of no interest to our company. ”
            "There is no chance that space communications satellites will be able to improve the operation of telephones, telegraphs, television or radio in the United States." - T. Kraven, member of the Federal Communications Commission, 1961 (the first communications satellite was launched in 1965)
            When in 1909, Henry Ford's lawyer decided to co-own the automobile company of his famous client, the president of the Michigan Savings Bank discouraged him: “Do not do this. There will always be horses, and cars are just a temporary fad. ”
            “As for submarines, all I can imagine is how their crews die from suffocation.” - Herbert Wales, British novelist, 1901
            “There is no reason to use a computer at home.” - Ken Olsen, president, assessor and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, a manufacturer of large computers in a data center, spoke out against personal computers in 1977.
            In 1932, the great Einstein spoke in the same vein: "There is not the slightest sign that controlled decay of the atomic nucleus will ever be available."
            These are the things Slavik. Never say never - life has its own sense of humor ... smile
    4. Professor 26 October 2015 11: 59 New
      • -5
      • 0
      -5
      Quote: Engineer
      It is terrible to think about how much power a laser should have so that it could damage an artillery shell. This power plant must be used.

    5. retardu 26 October 2015 17: 58 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3

      obviously not a power station
      1. Your friend 26 October 2015 18: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0

        Here is a more recent video. Killing a rubber boat. Do you think it will not be faster from an automatic or grenade launcher? Especially in comparison with the cost.
  • Teberii 26 October 2015 11: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The idea is interesting, but how many shots it can fire. Very expensive in terms of reloading to spend on one shell.
    1. voyaka uh 26 October 2015 11: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This is solved with the help of supercapacitors. They connect
      in turn, each gives a powerful discharge. Remember the "pyramids"
      in the brilliant story of Alexei Tolstoy? -very similar.
  • Mikhail Krapivin 26 October 2015 11: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The more complex the system, the easier it breaks. I would put on our long-range and short-range air defense, and not on these confused guys.
    1. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 09 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
      The more complex the system, the easier it breaks. I would put on our long-range and short-range air defense, and not on these confused guys.

      Based on your theory, the best weapon is a stone and a club, and the best PRO is a shield
  • Buffalo 26 October 2015 11: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    To show at the presentation is a window dressing. Weapons are tested in war.
    It is not yet known how the control system of this anti-aircraft defense system will behave when exposed to electronic warfare.
    1. 31rus 26 October 2015 11: 43 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And how will the reb behave against the enemy's reb? This is an “eternal” battle between “offensive and defense”
    2. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 09 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Bison
      To show at the presentation is a window dressing. Weapons are tested in war.
      It is not yet known how the control system of this anti-aircraft defense system will behave when exposed to electronic warfare.

      This is Israel. The real use of this thing is just around the corner.
      1. Your friend 26 October 2015 15: 50 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Pimply
        Quote: Bison
        To show at the presentation is a window dressing. Weapons are tested in war.
        It is not yet known how the control system of this anti-aircraft defense system will behave when exposed to electronic warfare.

        This is Israel. The real use of this thing is just around the corner.

        "This is Israel" - oh my goodness, that explains everything. I hope when you wrote this, said it with aspiration and dreaminess in your eyes.)))
        “The real use of this thing is just around the corner” - well, when, once you wrote that “not far off,” then you have information about it. Hit us with a date.))
        1. Pimply 26 October 2015 17: 38 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Your friend
          "This is Israel" - oh my goodness, that explains everything. I hope when you wrote this, said it with aspiration and dreaminess in your eyes.)))
          “The real use of this thing is just around the corner” - well, when, once you wrote that “not far off,” then you have information about it. Hit us with a date.))

          You see, little friend. The world doesn’t give a damn about your opinion. The decision is made by adult uncles, and nothing will change from who and what squeaks on VO. You can convince yourself of what is convenient, but reality usually just kicks a heavy boot in the ass.
          1. Your friend 26 October 2015 17: 46 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Quote: Pimply
            Quote: Your friend
            "This is Israel" - oh my goodness, that explains everything. I hope when you wrote this, said it with aspiration and dreaminess in your eyes.)))
            “The real use of this thing is just around the corner” - well, when, once you wrote that “not far off,” then you have information about it. Hit us with a date.))

            You see, little friend. The world doesn’t give a damn about your opinion. The decision is made by adult uncles, and nothing will change from who and what squeaks on VO. You can convince yourself of what is convenient, but reality usually just kicks a heavy boot in the ass.

            Ahahahaha ... What a deep philosophy ... What wise thoughts ... Yes, "you just aren't some kind of Spinoza" tm))))
            And what is my opinion to the “world do not care”, otherwise I did not express any opinion in my previous comment? Eka, you equated yourself with the WORLD, you are our humble one, and you know to spit badly, uncultured.))))
            This is all the lyrics, you know the terms for using this system here, well, hit us with this data?
    3. abrakadabre 26 October 2015 14: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Yes, even without electronic warfare. For example a volley from the same Grad. After the interception of the first shells, a smoke cloud will grow from the explosions, which will more and more interfere with the interception of subsequent salvo missiles.
      How will such an installation survive the close explosion of the OFS (field of fragments)? And how will it work after a shock from a shock wave on the ground and in the air from close gaps (the battlefield is the same)?
      1. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: abrakadabre
        Yes, even without electronic warfare. For example a volley from the same Grad. After the interception of the first shells, a smoke cloud will grow from the explosions, which will more and more interfere with the interception of subsequent salvo missiles.
        How will such an installation survive the close explosion of the OFS (field of fragments)? And how will it work after a shock from a shock wave on the ground and in the air from close gaps (the battlefield is the same)?


        For this, something must fly. You so imagine that everything is there one on one, as in Westerns. Everything is designed for multi-layer system
        1. Your friend 26 October 2015 14: 42 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Pimply
          Quote: abrakadabre
          Yes, even without electronic warfare. For example a volley from the same Grad. After the interception of the first shells, a smoke cloud will grow from the explosions, which will more and more interfere with the interception of subsequent salvo missiles.
          How will such an installation survive the close explosion of the OFS (field of fragments)? And how will it work after a shock from a shock wave on the ground and in the air from close gaps (the battlefield is the same)?


          For this, something must fly. You so imagine that everything is there one on one, as in Westerns. Everything is designed for multi-layer system

          Yes you? The point is to block the "multi-layer" system, when you can make layered systems from classical systems.
  • Krut 26 October 2015 11: 32 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    This is the site of "Military Review" and I see no reason to minus the article.
    1. General Frost 26 October 2015 11: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You correctly noticed that this is the site of "Military Review", and not fantastic dreams. It is extremely poorly believed. Respectfully to all forum users hi
      1. sa-ag 26 October 2015 11: 45 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: General Frost
        not fantastic dreams

        For Israel, which is in a state of permanent war, introducing "fantastic dreams" into itself is somehow unprofitable, otherwise a piece of a water pipe filled with explosives will land on its head
      2. Bayonet 26 October 2015 15: 53 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: General Frost
        You correctly noticed that this is the site of "Military Review", and not fantastic dreams

        Well then, let's discuss the "three-line" and "maxims" - no fiction !!!
  • Krut 26 October 2015 11: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Bison
    To show at the presentation is a window dressing. Weapons are tested in war.
    It is not yet known how the control system of this anti-aircraft defense system will behave when exposed to electronic warfare.

    Israel is doing just fine with this. The war never ended for 67 years.
    1. Buffalo 26 October 2015 11: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It is one thing to fight Palestinians armed with improvised missiles, and quite another to fight with China, for example. Remember the effect of using our ATGMs, or MiG-25s, against the Israeli army?
      Sclerosis is an interesting disease - nothing hurts, and every day is the news ...
      1. tilix 26 October 2015 12: 10 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        the effect of the use of our ATGMs, or MiG-25

        Please tell us about the effect of the use of the MiG-25 against the Israeli army, I really want to hear.
        1. Your friend 26 October 2015 12: 11 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: tilix
          the effect of the use of our ATGMs, or MiG-25

          Please tell us about the effect of using the MiG-25, I really want to hear.

          Also interesting.
        2. Professor 26 October 2015 12: 13 New
          • -5
          • 0
          -5
          Quote: tilix
          Please tell us about the effect of the use of the MiG-25 against the Israeli army, I really want to hear.

          Let me tell you. It means that the MiG-25 flew over an Israeli destroyer, with its EW, scored all destroyer systems and all sailors and destroyer officers immediately resigned. crying

          PS
          Here is a video of the downing of an unnamed analogue in the MiG-25 world.
          1. tilix 26 October 2015 12: 18 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Well, then he flew by, and remained so. But the main thing is that the analogue is not available. <gesundheit>
          2. mvg
            mvg 26 October 2015 12: 54 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Well, they shot down 1 piece, having set up an ambush .. on F-15 It was the case. You are a master in ambushes. But how many flights did the MiG fly directly over Jerusalem? With impunity .. At the same time, he "made it clear" that a couple of FAB-500s in size were able to dump with impunity. And for that time, the 25th really was a good scout ..
            Regarding the Israeli destroyer ... and what are there? It’s a sinful thing, duaml that nothing larger than a corvette is not being built, for German money. Well, plus DEPL Dolphin. The same funded by Germany
            1. tlauicol 26 October 2015 13: 31 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              In the same year, 1981, the Jews shot down another MiG25, 10 years later, the Americans shot down three pieces in Iraq.
              FAB-500 couple with impunity? Two more Miga-25s shot down in Azerbaijan like that
            2. Professor 26 October 2015 13: 37 New
              • -3
              • 0
              -3
              Quote: mvg
              But how many flights did the MiG fly directly over Jerusalem?

              How many? wink
          3. Bayonet 26 October 2015 15: 56 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Professor
            It means that the MiG-25 flew over an Israeli destroyer, with its EW, scored all destroyer systems and all sailors and destroyer officers immediately resigned.

            There's something else about diapers forgot to add smile hi
            1. Professor 26 October 2015 16: 31 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Bayonet
              There's something else about diapers forgot to add

              The pampers were when the MiG-25 with the Autobase landed a squadron of Israeli drones. But that is a completely different story.
  • 31rus 26 October 2015 11: 41 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    But in vain you are respected so, it is with the idea and the project that everything new begins, by the way there were already articles from current copies to mass production, I think this project is not only real, but also beneficial in all respects, even if there is a short range
    1. Buffalo 26 October 2015 11: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Wait and see. As grandfather Nechipor used to say: "Do not rush!"
      None of the manufacturers of combat lasers tested them under the influence of Russian electronic warfare equipment.
      The praised NATO systems, too, enjoyed unquestioned authority until they clashed with ours in Syria. Their aircraft and air defense systems, instead of targets, see the light on the radar screens, even if they see the target with their own eyes.
    2. Buffalo 26 October 2015 13: 21 New
      • -5
      • 0
      -5
      There are enough analogs, we have at least.
      And the Israeli Air Force is afraid of them, like fire.
    3. region58 26 October 2015 17: 08 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: 31rus
      But in vain you are respected so, it is with an idea and project that everything new begins

      I fully support. The system is created for specific conditions and specific goals. I don’t know about the shells, they still rotate in flight (although not all), but against drones it’s the most. Well, if it’s true (inclined to believe all the same) that the mines are set ablaze in flight - it's all so super. If you solve the problem of energy storage, then the thingоbox.
  • Mountain shooter 26 October 2015 11: 42 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The laser seems to be fiber. With LED pumping. Hence the high efficiency in the continuous or quasi-continuous radiation mode. But keeping focus on a fast-flying target is a very difficult task. And if the shell is painted with silver - the required power increases "at times." As a person a little connected with laser technology, I see problems in the implementation of this project - above the roof. Even under ideal conditions.
    1. sa-ag 26 October 2015 11: 53 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      But keeping focus on a fast-flying target is a very difficult task

      Why, does a projectile fly along a calculated ballistic trajectory, do not maneuver, all the burden falls on the software, the computing power of the computer and the servos?
      1. Riv
        Riv 26 October 2015 12: 03 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        And you also need to correctly determine the trajectory of this goal. Other methods, except for radar, not invented. What is the difference between a laser radar and a missile complex radar? Only by the fact that he is closer to the front and having once taken direction, it can simply be covered with artillery.
        1. Professor 26 October 2015 12: 06 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: Riv
          And you also need to correctly determine the trajectory of this goal. Other methods, except for radar, not invented.

          Invented, manufactured and adopted. IR cameras are called.
          1. Riv
            Riv 26 October 2015 14: 37 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            It's funny Do your Israeli schools not explain that infrared is the exact same electromagnetic radiation? Probably not. A simple question for a true Jew: why does the passive head of a MANPADS rocket capture a working airplane engine from a distance of only 2-3 kilometers? After all, a jet engine has a radiation power several orders of magnitude higher than a flying mine.
            1. Your friend 26 October 2015 14: 45 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Riv
              It's funny Do your Israeli schools not explain that infrared is the exact same electromagnetic radiation? Probably not. A simple question for a true Jew: why does the passive head of a MANPADS rocket capture a working airplane engine from a distance of only 2-3 kilometers? After all, a jet engine has a radiation power several orders of magnitude higher than a flying mine.

              Everything that has been done in Israel is true, kosher, ingenious and, by definition, effective, what has been done in Russia has been drunk and hahaha. (((Well, obviously. Why are you arguing with them.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Mountain shooter 26 October 2015 12: 04 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Pick up the lens, focus the sun bunny and burn the picture. Now imagine that this speck, without trembling, must be held on a flying mortar mine at a distance of 2 km. Can you imagine the accuracy of servos? And the quality of the optics?
    2. brn521 26 October 2015 12: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      But keeping focus on a fast-flying target is a very difficult task.

      This is when viewed perpendicular to the trajectory. The faster you have to turn the laser, the less accuracy. But if you aim along the trajectory, then the angular displacement is minimal. For example, if the projectile is aimed at the installation itself or something located close enough. With shells, another problem is that they move too fast, there is less time for defeat.
    3. Your friend 26 October 2015 12: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      The laser seems to be fiber. With LED pumping. Hence the high efficiency in the continuous or quasi-continuous radiation mode. But keeping focus on a fast-flying target is a very difficult task. And if the shell is painted with silver - the required power increases "at times." As a person a little connected with laser technology, I see problems in the implementation of this project - above the roof. Even under ideal conditions.

      Um, and if you also spin the projectile, give it rotation so that the laser cannot concentrate on one point of the projectile, I wonder how much the efficiency of this system will fall?
    4. lablizn 26 October 2015 12: 14 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      There are no tens of kW LEDs yet.
      Look at industrial lasers for cutting metal -
      they are gas and operate continuously.
      The problem, of course, is in pumping power.
      Capacitors are good for pulsed operation, and for guaranteed target destruction, some minimum continuous exposure time is required depending on both the radiation power and the thickness
      and other physical characteristics of the material.
      And of course, the variance, there’s no getting around it.
      By the way, the radiation power decreases in direct proportion to the square of the distance, so ...
      Very big doubts!
      1. brn521 26 October 2015 13: 20 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: lablizn
        By the way, the radiation power decreases in direct proportion to the square of the distance

        This is for a point source of light radiating in all directions. Those. not about lasers at all.
    5. fzr1000 26 October 2015 12: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Doesn’t paint peel off when the shell is heated in the barrel?
      1. abrakadabre 26 October 2015 14: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It depends on what. For example, special resins slowly burn out protecting the spacecraft during descent from orbit. And you can protect the shell cover in simple ways:
        - linings like BOPS
        - protruding belts ...
  • pts-m 26 October 2015 11: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    it’s interesting. Have you thought about the person himself? how it will affect the body. Let the laser side by side, who is in front of him. Well and the rest will take and evaporate.
  • Mercenary 26 October 2015 11: 46 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The guys have stagnation in the names "iron beam" "iron shield"! And the Israelites themselves have “iron eggs” for so many years surrounded by Arabs and are still alive! laughing
  • slaw14 26 October 2015 11: 59 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Something they each time began to present it or do I have a deja vu? The site’s archive also has a similar presentation, which is 1,5 years old.

    http://topwar.ru/39691-izrailtyane-pokazali-zheleznyy-luch.html
    1. Prisoner 26 October 2015 12: 04 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      They are taken by starvation. Persistent. winked
  • Denis DV 26 October 2015 12: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Energy nowhere to go? These power plants in a peaceful direction would hi
  • Prisoner 26 October 2015 12: 03 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Then they have an "iron dome" in fact, "an aluminum colander", now an iron beam. The next crash of engineer Green, or Rabinovich. If you like. laughing
  • meGrail 26 October 2015 12: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It is difficult to say something, based only on a drawing and computer animation. But, it is interesting that in the figure exactly 2 rays are concentrated on one target. Perhaps they mean a lot of relatively weak lasers with a common control and aim. In an extreme case, the system degenerates into Chinese miles with laser pointers :)
    I will refrain from commenting on the possibility of hitting missiles and shells, but against drones, snipers, and others equipped with optical devices, it will definitely work.
  • tilix 26 October 2015 12: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Dear ladies and gentlemen, this and the lightning laser are spraying feces. And imagine for a second what’s on this projectile, rocket, etc. It affects not one, but several such devices. After all, it is written in black on the newspaper, lightings will be in the group, and in the group of 5,6,10 planes.
    Now consider the power first, and what happens?
    1. Your friend 26 October 2015 12: 34 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: tilix
      Dear ladies and gentlemen, watering this and the lightning leiser with feces. And imagine for a second what’s on this projectile, rocket, etc. It affects not one, but several such devices. After all, it is written in black on the newspaper, lightings will be in the group, and in the group of 5,6,10 aircraft.
      Now consider the power first, and what happens?

      Those. all 5-6-10 “lasing lasers” will be concentrated on one point of the rocket, I can’t imagine how to reduce such a number of rays on one point of a moving projectile? or everyone’s power is enough to burn a rocket on its side, then why make a fence with a few rays?
      Feces? For how many years Americans have been dealing with this topic and no particular success is heard, and therefore questions arise.
      1. tilix 26 October 2015 12: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        But suppose it’s bad to just heat a rocket in the warhead, which will also rotate like a grill? But to burn the stabilizer, and where will it fly?
        I don’t know HOW they will be used, but obviously not like a lonely knight rushing to a mill with a laser spear.
        IMHO, yet some <PR> is available.
        1. Your friend 26 October 2015 12: 45 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: tilix
          And let's just heat the rocket in the warhead, which will also rotate badly on the grill?

          AND? How to heat? Will it cause any damage to the rocket? Does it keep off the trajectory?
          1. tilix 26 October 2015 12: 50 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            AND? How to heat? Will it cause any damage to the rocket? Does it keep off the trajectory?
            < smile > But we will see this in the near future. It just amazes me that (almost) in all the negations of the system, it is always said about a single exposure. Not at all.
            1. Your friend 26 October 2015 12: 56 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: tilix
              AND? How to heat? Will it cause any damage to the rocket? Does it keep off the trajectory?
              < smile > But we will see this in the near future. It just amazes me that (almost) in all the negations of the system, it is always said about a single exposure. Not at all.


              “we’ll see this in the near future” - we’ll see, although the small successes of the USA in this matter raise certain doubts.
            2. mvg
              mvg 26 October 2015 13: 08 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Straight stabilizer, and immediately "burn"? recourse for what? This is how many joules are needed to melt the luminium?
              True they say: “blind” OGSN, crush sensors, light drones that “curl” over the battlefield .., snipers, etc., this is real. But knocking down an iron blank of a shell is too cool.
              Moreover, no one says that the Jews are stupid and they don’t have technologies ... In reality, there are things where you are ahead of the rest. Air defense, missile defense, drones, good anti-ship missiles and ATGM systems ... But the time of lasers has not come yet.
        2. andj61 26 October 2015 13: 07 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: tilix
          But suppose it’s bad to just heat a rocket in the warhead, which will also rotate like a grill? But to burn the stabilizer, and where will it fly?

          Of course, you can shoot down a missile with a laser. And if you use the good old aviation gun? Or a small rocket, air to air. Wouldn't it be cheaper? wink
          And it will be five or six lightings to heap one rocket from the lasers - long and hard - but this can be achieved easier, cheaper, and by conventional means.
          The mere use of a laser in the atmosphere is a controversial and unpredictable issue, depending on the transparency of the atmosphere, and range is only 2 km. There are traditional methods for destroying missiles. And the destruction of shells - it is much easier to destroy the gun that shoots these shells. Of course, I understand that Israel is forced to look back at the reaction of the European-American Tolerasts, that it is introducing such wonders of technological thought as the "iron dome" and the "iron beam", although to ensure the safety of its citizens it would be necessary "only “make impossible any shelling of one’s territory by destroying terrorists and preventing their very possibility of appearing on adjacent territory.
          1. tilix 26 October 2015 19: 19 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Wouldn't it be cheaper?
            Allow me to disagree with you? It is necessary to count two kilometers not from the point of the shot but from the point of impact, and more or less depends on it (the point of impact). The alignment, of course you can do it yourself. What is at first a dome, and what is then a laser, if it flies along the kumpole.
    2. rubidiy 26 October 2015 14: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: tilix
      After all, it is written in black on the newspaper, lightings will be in the group, and in the group of 5,6,10 aircraft.
      Now consider the power first, and what happens?

      it turns out 5,6,10 suicide bombers. Give them to al Qaeda. They will use them with greater benefit. fool
  • gladysheff2010 26 October 2015 12: 27 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: lelikas
    "Iron Sun" illuminates with "Iron Rays" "Iron Dome"

    Brilliant hawk! good Gorazdy other manufacturers of weapons and military equipment to do cartoons, but movies twist-Hollywood at the forefront! fellow
  • Buffalo 26 October 2015 12: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: tilix
    the effect of the use of our ATGMs, or MiG-25

    Please tell us about the effect of the use of the MiG-25 against the Israeli army, I really want to hear.

    At the request of the workers ...

    Go into the search engine and do not be too lazy to type the phrase "MiG-25 against Israel", "" Samail "against the nuclear threat." Or something like that and you will be happy ...
    The file is too big, and the admin punishes the links ...
    1. Your friend 26 October 2015 12: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Bison
      Quote: tilix
      the effect of the use of our ATGMs, or MiG-25

      Please tell us about the effect of the use of the MiG-25 against the Israeli army, I really want to hear.

      At the request of the workers ...

      Go into the search engine and do not be too lazy to type the phrase "MiG-25 against Israel", "" Samail "against the nuclear threat." Or something like that and you will be happy ...
      The file is too big, and the admin punishes the links ...


      “At that time, the MiG-25 took support of the calculations of two Hawk anti-aircraft systems. Six rockets soared into the sky. But a 6kg better and a smaller mid-flight MiG climbed to a height of 900km and reached a speed of M28.”

      I am tormented by vague doubts that the MiG25 can take such a height. Which, for me, casts doubt on the whole article at once.
      1. tilix 26 October 2015 12: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        doubt that MiG25 can take such a height
        Why, let’s say he did it. MEANING? What, besides a very high escape, has this flight demonstrated?
        1. Your friend 26 October 2015 13: 00 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: tilix
          doubt that MiG25 can take such a height
          Why, let’s say he did it. MEANING? What, besides a very high escape, has this flight demonstrated?

          What is the difference that "demonstrated this flight." Article fake as for me, the point is to discuss it. History has already proved that without normal, professional control of the aircraft, no matter how cool the plane is, nothing will work. As proved by the aerial battles successfully lost by Arab pilots in all Arab-Israeli wars.
          1. tilix 26 October 2015 19: 20 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            History has already proved that without normal, professional control of the aircraft, no matter how cool the plane is, nothing will work
            Here, the golden words spoken in time.
      2. mvg
        mvg 26 October 2015 13: 18 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        And what do you think is the height record? E-266 rose higher, and this is the future MiG-21. MiG-31 in the anti-satellite version, climbed even higher .. ( wassat they say up to 38 km "uphill, but with a run")
        Yes, officially, the MiG-25 flew up to 20 km, a typo in the article .. but the hockeys didn’t shoot at that much .. 20 km, plus M3.0 or even M3.2 and now not every S-300 will catch up .. :-)
        MiG-25 for Jews, it's like U-2 for us in due time .. You see, but you can’t take it.
        1. Your friend 26 October 2015 13: 24 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: mvg
          And what do you think is the height record? E-266 rose higher, and this is the future MiG-21. MiG-31 in the anti-satellite version, climbed even higher .. ( wassat they say up to 38 km "uphill, but with a run")
          Yes, officially, the MiG-25 flew up to 20 km, a typo in the article .. but the hockeys didn’t shoot at that much .. 20 km, plus M3.0 or even M3.2 and now not every S-300 will catch up .. :-)
          MiG-25 for Jews, it's like U-2 for us in due time .. You see, but you can’t take it.

          And here is the height record ??? This is not a record aircraft, but the usual production MiG-25. About what they say - that's not interesting at all. And it’s not interesting when "typos" are made, because "typos" immediately turn the article into propaganda lies. Let's not make typos to laugh at our enemies.)
        2. Bayonet 26 October 2015 16: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: mvg
          and this is the Mig-21 future. MiG-31

          MiG-21 and MiG-25 have in common - only the name MiG smile hi
      3. Bayonet 26 October 2015 16: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Your friend
        MiG climbed to a height of 28km and developed a speed of up to M2,8. "

        I am tormented by vague doubts that the MiG25 can take such a height.
        The absolute height record for an aircraft with a turbojet engine was set just on the MiG-25M by A.V. Fedotov on July 22, 1977 and is 37800 meters.
        1. Your friend 26 October 2015 16: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Bayonet
          Quote: Your friend
          MiG climbed to a height of 28km and developed a speed of up to M2,8. "

          I am tormented by vague doubts that the MiG25 can take such a height.
          The absolute height record for an aircraft with a turbojet engine was set just on the MiG-25M by A.V. Fedotov on July 22, 1977 and is 37800 meters.

          Of course, I may somehow be wrong, I’m not clear speaking, you think, in this moment-25, about which we are talking and who participated in the 1973 Arabs war with Jews, A.V. Fedotov was sitting and the plane was MiG-25M ??? Do you think I don’t know that there are record, lightweight aircraft on which records are set?
  • nrex 26 October 2015 12: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Hedgehog
    Quote: Temples
    And then demonstrate in real conditions.

    We must pay tribute to the boys, they have good cartoons.
    And by the way, and by chance, you have never met the use of cargo containers for installing weapons in them. It seems to me that I have already heard this somewhere.

    Yes, and cartoons and rays in the 80s under Reagan. The cartoon series for adults was called SDI.
  • raid14 26 October 2015 12: 39 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    First exhibited at the exhibition of the latest military and civil aerotechnology "Singapore Airshow 2014", which opened on February 11, 2014 in Singapore.
    The design of this system consists of: a radar detecting an enemy missile; a thermal imager that determines its trajectory; management and control systems; two laser systems. After the radar detects the projectile, the thermal imaging camera begins to follow its path until two lasers that fire simultaneously destroy the projectile in the air. In order to bring down one projectile, the system needs only 4-5 seconds.
    Designed to eliminate mortar shells and ultra-small radius missiles at a distance of up to 7 kilometers. It is assumed that the Iron Ray will be able to shoot down small unmanned aerial vehicles.
    http://warspot.ru/730-zheleznyy-luch-sbitaya-raketa-pochti-darom
    1. Buffalo 26 October 2015 14: 04 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Have you tried sparrows from a cannon? There - the same, no more than 5 seconds.
      I propose to rename the system to "Paper Tiger". laughing
  • Gunther 26 October 2015 12: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    voyaka uh Quote: They will be combined into a single system. With a common radar and computer. Comp. on the basis of a miscalculation of the ballistics of the target will give the command ....

    The Palestinians will send an "Iron Worm" to the "Comp"))))
    And the "Iron Dome" will be covered with an iron basin.
    I approve the desire of the Israeli company RADS to participate in the cut, we adopt the experience of senior comrades :-)
  • Buffalo 26 October 2015 13: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If this system were effective, Israel would not be slow to use it, for example, in Syria. But I would not have taken her to Korea to sell.
  • Mentat 26 October 2015 13: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    promising combat laser system "Iron Beam"

    The phrase is an oxymoron and a mockery of taxpayers. Although maybe they it going to vtuhivat Balts, Georgians and other especially developed.
  • Mentat 26 October 2015 14: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In particular, it was shown an option designed to destroy artillery shells

    Comrades Jews completely collapsed from oak?
  • rubidiy 26 October 2015 14: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    I do not believe. Then everything is clear. And if you still want to read, then here: Tactical High Energy Laser

    wikipedia ... link to wikipedia article ... good
    1. Professor 26 October 2015 14: 35 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: rubidiy
      wikipedia ... link to wikipedia article ...

      Start with a wiki. More will come next. wink
      Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)
    2. Pimply 26 October 2015 14: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: rubidiy
      wikipedia ... link to wikipedia article ...

      The Wikipedia article refers to very specific scientific materials. Are you ready to master them?
  • a-cola 26 October 2015 14: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Scrap - this is really an iron beam))) They will come up with the same name. If you insert the word iron in the name, they will buy more readily.
  • Thunderbolt 26 October 2015 14: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    http://zoom.cnews.ru/rnd/news/top/lazery_vyhodyat_na_pole_boya
  • Mentat 26 October 2015 14: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    The video proves that the words “knocking off a projectile from a self-propelled laser system is not possible in principle, even a missile is unrealistic” is just idle chatter request

    The video shows only two things:
    1. I believe the creators of this video in the suckers on the camels who buy it.
    2. Your technical illiteracy, as you repeat this nonsense.
    1. Pimply 26 October 2015 15: 01 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      Quote: Mentat
      The video shows only two things:
      1. I believe the creators of this video in the suckers on the camels who buy it.
      2. Your technical illiteracy, as you repeat this nonsense.

      And all the suckers, and all on camels. Only one you are clever and Reverend, in VO broadcasting the truth 8) Bravo. And nothing that is the development of a howling country, the development of technology, which is now actively being conducted in several countries at the same time, the development that will become part of the existing and regularly deployed missile defense system. But you are smarter than everyone, right, my little friend
      1. Your friend 26 October 2015 15: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        Quote: Mentat
        The video shows only two things:
        1. I believe the creators of this video in the suckers on the camels who buy it.
        2. Your technical illiteracy, as you repeat this nonsense.

        And all the suckers, and all on camels. Only one you are clever and Reverend, in VO broadcasting the truth 8) Bravo. And nothing that is the development of a howling country, the development of technology, which is now actively being conducted in several countries at the same time, the development that will become part of the existing and regularly deployed missile defense system. But you are smarter than everyone, right, my little friend

        Ahahahaha, what a righteous anger, a person just did not like the movie)))
  • Mentat 26 October 2015 14: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Professor, would you like to discuss in detail about laser projectile shooting? :)
    And then somehow you silently put cons.
    1. Professor 26 October 2015 14: 51 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      Quote: Mentat
      Professor, would you like to discuss in detail about laser projectile shooting? :)
      And then somehow you silently put cons.

      With whom to discuss? With Northrop Grumman Corporation testing or Israeli Defense Ministry attending the test? Try to refute their claims that their laser intercepted:
      28 Katyusha missiles, including volleys and without warning
      5 artillery shells
      3 rockets of large caliber
      10 mortar shells, including three in one gulp
      7 medium, 2 heavy and 1 light rockets
    2. andj61 26 October 2015 15: 50 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Mentat
      Professor, would you like to discuss in detail about laser projectile shooting? :)
      And then somehow you silently put cons.

      In fact, back in the 80s, lasers were tested to protect an object from missiles. And quite successfully shot down both missiles from the hail, and more missiles. That's just the effective range of the defeat - like today mentioned in the article - did not exceed 2 km. The results were considered unsuccessful - a similar effect can be achieved easier, cheaper and more reliable. But the installation of MLRS and artillery to guarded objects in general should not be allowed to reach the firing range.
  • Horn 26 October 2015 15: 21 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Not if you fix the shell, warm it, of course, it will bend. Sadness only: a shell, a female dog, rotates in flight. Focusing at one point is basically impossible. In addition, the competition of "weapons and armor" immediately begins - they will begin to apply a reflective layer to the target. Triple prisms will install. And high-speed targets are shrouded in a plasma layer. A laser for them - as if by a known organ - is a palm.
    1. Horn 26 October 2015 18: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What a reasoned minus! In the best traditions!
      1. Your friend 26 October 2015 18: 45 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Horn
        What a reasoned minus! In the best traditions!

        I put you a plus, because true.
  • Shuttle 26 October 2015 15: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Your friend
    There are no walking robots. Without walking robots with lasers and a quark cannon, it won’t take off.

    Yes, OBR they rule!
    1. padded jacket 26 October 2015 16: 06 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Another "wet" fantasy of the Israeli military-industrial complex (although they shot a good cartoon lol) now they have problems - their products are no longer buying, having finally realized that almost all of them seem to be of extremely low quality and are only imitations of someone’s real samples and therefore their military-industrial complex began to invent various fabulous wunderwaffes (superweapons) similar to Hitler’s fascist Germany but this as we remember, it did not save him and the Soviet Army ended the war in Berlin anyway smile
      Heads of defense concerns: "Israeli defense industry in crisis"
      The country's defense industry is experiencing a pronounced crisis: in 2012, defense exports amounted to $ 7,5 billion, a year later it fell to 6,5 billion, in 2014 amounted to 5,5 billion, and in 2015 it will reach only 4-4,5 billion dollars.
      http://newsru.co.il/finance/23oct2015/oboron304.html
      1. Your friend 26 October 2015 16: 09 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: quilted jacket
        Another "wet" fantasy of the Israeli military-industrial complex (although they shot a good cartoon lol) now they have problems - their products are no longer buying, having finally realized that almost all of them seem to be of extremely low quality and are only imitations of someone’s real samples and therefore their military-industrial complex began to invent various fabulous wunderwaffes (superweapons) similar to Hitler’s fascist Germany but this as we remember, it did not save him and the Soviet Army ended the war in Berlin anyway smile
        Heads of defense concerns: "Israeli defense industry in crisis"
        The country's defense industry is experiencing a pronounced crisis: in 2012, defense exports amounted to $ 7,5 billion, a year later it fell to 6,5 billion, in 2014 amounted to 5,5 billion, and in 2015 it will reach only 4-4,5 billion dollars.
        http://newsru.co.il/finance/23oct2015/oboron304.html


        What? But how could you write this ??? Right now, Israel comrades will prove to you that black is white, and your data is a lie, dirt and provocation. Hold on)))
        1. padded jacket 26 October 2015 16: 49 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Your friend
          What? But how could you write this ???

          This is not I wrote, but an Israeli news resource smile
          Quote: Your friend
          Right now, israeli comrades will prove to you that black is white, and your data is a lie, dirt and provocation

          Yes, they don’t like to compose and whitewash the Israeli superweapons.
  • Mama_Cholli 26 October 2015 15: 55 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It’s interesting, but how will the electronic filling of these lasers “feel” after the rupture of some EW ammunition, or the use of an UAV, for example?
    Will they function as well, or have the developers not thought about this yet?
    Sorry if so. After all, then all this will be effective only against the "banana republics", and for example, a real aggressor such as the United States can avoid the fate of destroying all its deadly pieces of iron on the way up .... and world peace will never be achieved.

    pisi:
    ))
  • miru mir 26 October 2015 16: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Who could imagine the current cell phone twenty years ago smile
    1. Your friend 26 October 2015 16: 27 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      “Who could imagine the current cell phone twenty years ago,” said Viktor Ivanovich Petrik, inventing his absolute, mega-cleaning, super-advanced nanofilter. (joke)))
      1. miru mir 26 October 2015 16: 54 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Quote: Your friend
        (joke)

        Good afternoon, comrade Petrosyan)))
        1. Your friend 26 October 2015 16: 58 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: miru mir
          Quote: Your friend
          (joke)

          Good afternoon, comrade Petrosyan)))

          Sketch about Petrosyan in 2015? fuuuuu)))
  • Gunther 26 October 2015 17: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Mama_Cholli Quote:
    It’s interesting how the electronic filling of these lasers will "feel" after the rupture of some EW ammunition ...

    No need to sadden the ChSV of our Israeli comrades with drones and especially EW)))
    As part of the opposition launched by the Palestinian partisan firecrackers, the "iron dome" is functioning at the very least.
  • miru mir 26 October 2015 17: 26 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    As far as I remember, the interception efficiency is 87%. Not at all like
    Quote: Gunter
    at least it functions.

    hi
  • fzr1000 26 October 2015 19: 16 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well, here’s a batch from lunch on the subject. Thanks for the discussion.
  • Wiski 26 October 2015 20: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    By the way, the American development of HEL MD (a combat laser from Boeing) with a power of 10 kilowatts launches a 60 kW diesel generator wink

    Regarding dust and atmospheric problems, this has already been decided and verified.

    Boeing and the U.S. Army tested the advanced HEL MD (High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator) combat laser in coastal environments. According to a press release from the American company, despite the bad weather - strong wind, rain and fog - a 10-kilowatt installation successfully hit several air targets at the Eglin air base in Florida.

    During testing, the laser was mounted on an Oshkosh armored vehicle. The HEL MD complex also includes the EMMR radar station, designed to detect cruise missiles, artillery and mortar shells, and UAVs.

    Previous HEL MD tests took place in 2013 at the White Sands training ground in New Mexico. Then the complex hit over 90 mortar rounds and several unmanned aerial vehicles.

    According to the results of both tests, a combat laser hit a total of 150 air targets, including 60-mm mortar shells and drones. In the future, it is planned to increase the power of HEL MD to 50 or 60 kilowatts and to improve the power supply systems of the installation.



  • Mentat 26 October 2015 21: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: Mentat
    Professor, would you like to discuss in detail about laser projectile shooting? :)
    And then somehow you silently put cons.

    With whom to discuss? With Northrop Grumman Corporation testing or Israeli Defense Ministry attending the test? Try to refute their claims that their laser intercepted:
    28 Katyusha missiles, including volleys and without warning
    5 artillery shells
    3 rockets of large caliber
    10 mortar shells, including three in one gulp
    7 medium, 2 heavy and 1 light rockets

    To begin with, it would be nice to know what exactly was meant in these tests, so to speak, under an artillery shell. I suspect it was a specially prepared imitator. Why - below.

    Let's look at the points of nonsense of storytellers from Northrop and Israel Defense Forces:

    1. These storytellers are generally aware that the explosives used in artillery shells do not detonate from heating? What are they going to blow up there, TNT, which burns quietly for itself, phlegmatized RDX with the same properties, ten, which ignites with difficulty?

    2. The projectile generally rotates in flight, the entire blank will have to be heated almost uniformly so that it glows to such an extent that the detonator capsule works.

    We conclude that it is not the whole shell that needs to be heated, but its sharp part, in which the shock detonator is located. The article states that the system can focus laser beams on a coin-sized area, i.e. just about the area on the fuse. However, nothing has been written about the dynamics of this process, and this is natural.

    There are a number of problems:
    1) What to do with armor-piercing and anti-caliber shells. Answer: do nothing with this system;

    2) fuses are generally ground fuses, so they are not available for direct heating, which, as we found out, leads to the impossibility of detonating a projectile;

    3) the most important point that reveals the whole delusional essence of such vidosiks and little articles - it is impossible to determine the position of the fuse on the projection of the approaching projectilebecause the exact direction and position of the projectile on the ballistic curve at the time of its detection is not known.
    The claimed range of 2 km leaves no time window for updating the trajectory, nor time for heating.

    Instead of a fuse, lasers can be focused on the casing with the ensuing consequences, not the fact that they and the fuse have time to heat up, as it transfers heat to the shell of the projectile and rotates;

    4) Well, for starters, modern electronic fuses, with full protection against premature operation of the igniter capsule (which is even on old fuses, by the way), i.e. the entire volume of the fuse will have to be heated, which is tightly connected to the shell of the projectile with heat removed to it. And the latest fuses are also filled with polyurethane insulation. Bye-bye, mighty heaters!

    Given all of the above considerations, I have only one word: clowns.
  • Gunther 26 October 2015 21: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Mentat Quote: With all of the above considerations in mind, I have only one word: clowns.

    Something was recalled by the Yankel comedy where Sergeant Bilko (a forerunner of RADS) made a flying tank :-)