https://youtu.be/8VLovd9bS5U
We watched that video t- oh, you linked it.
I have some doubts about green lasers ever getting adopted on the battlefield, it's way too easy to accidentally blind literally every soldier in line of sight of the emitter, the beam and the target. It's trivially easy to permanently blind yourself with even an oversized laser pointer. I think IR lasers are here to stay
>>64444612>IR lasers cant blind>if i dont see it isn't real If anything IR lasers dont trigger blink reflex and deliver more energy to eye tissues with shame beam intensity
>>64444612>I have some doubts about green lasers ever getting adopted on the battlefield,The colour of the beam doesn't matter, it's bout the inensity. Pretty much all commercial lasers have an infra-red emitter and get fired through a waveguide to shift the frequency over. It's cheaper.Thing is, as mentioned earlier, it's about power. So, at focal point, my 4W burning laser will carve 3-5mm through steel, and that is true if it's red, blue, green or IR. You can't see IR. CES t'other year displayed some cars. LIDAR on the vehicles was wiping out professional photographers very expensive camera sensors, burning them out with the laser. Only found out when reviewing subsequent pictures and they're fucked.Your eyes work similar. IR *will* damage them. You won't see the beam, you'll just get the damage.What will prevent laser adoptation is the power requirements, and the fact when you light it up you've just given enemy hardware a target.
>>64444561>sea basedBased
>>64444662>and the fact when you light it up you've just given enemy hardware a target.thats the same case with bullets and missiles, but at least with lasers if you can see it, its already too lateand for the short-range defense role that lasers will be used for, its not like the target can really do anything about it
>>64444561on a scale of 1 to 10 how much does this hurt bros?
>>64444561Call me when we get laser rifles
>>64444680NTA but you can "wild weasel" any AD system using small bait drones But a laser is harder to relocate and more expensive to lose
does a simple thermal coating + radar make this useless?
>>64444561Buy a ad
>>64444561Whatever happened to plasma weapons?
>>64444662Realistically my 10w is kind of a minimum for that, 4w has too many heat issues, it doesn't go clean through fast enough.
>>64445802We'd need advancements in power generation first before we can seriously start tackling stuff like experimental plasma weapons
>>64444954Only because it's new tech. Once lasers displace cannons as the secondary armament of ships, you'll start to see naval calibers hike up in price as the demand plummets for new parts.
>>64445802The atmosphere.
>>64444561>AI waifu controlled laser armed dreadnoughtsAre we finally escaping the clownworld timeline bros?
>>64445802>>64445813It's a meme until or unless someone can figure out plasma stability/coherence, otherwise you're dumping >10x the power for every doubling of distance. If a mile takes a megawatt, 5 miles takes 120.Lasers >just werkBecause the inherent problem is significantly easier to solve. Multi aperture focusing and beam collimation is, essentially, a geometry task.Achieving the same for plasma is like asking a cell phone radio tower to implement an infinite QAM encoding and also have zero RF spread over distance.Aint gonna happen
>>64444612Holy fucking shit some people are stupid. At "weaponized" power levels it doesn't matter what wavelength the light is, it will literally (as in actually, not millennial literally) make your retinas explode like popcorn.
>>64445802Space use only.
