Time
Coming soon: Drones with lasers
When MQ-1 Predators are armed, they head off into the wild blue yonder with a lone pair of Hellfire missiles under their wings. It’s a double-barreled shotgun you can’t reload.
But folks at General Atomics are getting increasingly excited by the HELLADS — the High Energy Liquid Laser Defense System. It is designed to shrink a flying laser into a package small enough to cram onto an aircraft.
“It would give us an unlimited magazine,” says one person close to the program.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Unlimited magazine? Good luck with that.
Then again, anyone think that if Obama decided to arm drones with nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion systems, the media would care?
astonerii on December 10, 2012 at 6:58 PM
Unlimited? Uhm, you need an energy source. Energy source requires fuel. It isn’t unlimited. Doesn’t work through smoke / haze. Could be defeated by certain reflective coatings.
It is probably fine if your opponents are camel jockeys or individuals in a regular vehicle but isn’t going to be very effective against a “real” opponent.
Looks to me like the military is living up to its tradition of fighting the previous war and is now gearing up for what it needed for Afghanistan and Iran even though those events are practically over.
crosspatch on December 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM
And we thought “Sharks with Lasers” were so cutting edge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw
ProfShadow on December 10, 2012 at 7:01 PM
Meant Afghanistan and Iraq … man, I am just Mr. Typo today.
crosspatch on December 10, 2012 at 7:01 PM
You have to admit, it is rather considerate of him to normalize all this stuff for the next Republican president.
HitNRun on December 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM
Unless it has an onboard nuclear reactor that laser is going to need something to fuel it.
sharrukin on December 10, 2012 at 7:05 PM
I want one armed with a lasercat.
rbj on December 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM
Please! Just because the drone isn’t packing bullets doesn’t mean it’s shots are unlimited. Unless they’ve managed to build a nuclear powered drone (which would only be effectively unlimited, not actually unlimited) then the number of shots that L.A.S.E.R. weapon can fire will be as limited as conventional weapons. Of course that’s no reason not to pursue it. The extended range, increased accuracy, and additional uses (such as firing a low power L.A.S.E.R. beam as a designator for a cruise missile strike) make it a worthwhile goal. But it won’t be the finger of god. Well, not yet anyways…
Browncoatone on December 10, 2012 at 7:16 PM
Drones have always had lasers.
It’s how you guide a hellfire.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2012 at 7:19 PM
They are gearing up with what they can based on the technology of today. This gives industry experience and leads to the next advancement. Is some of it wasteful, yes it is, and it is still mostly worth it.
Same goes for NASA…
Year__________NASA budget____________________
__________(Nominal)__________% of Fed Budget__________2007 Constant
______________________________Million Dollars
1959____________ 145__________0.20%__________ 1,841
1960____________ 401__________0.50%__________ 3,205
1961____________ 744__________0.90%__________ 6,360
1962__________ 1,257__________1.18%__________12,221
1963__________ 2,552__________2.29%__________24,342
1964__________ 4,171__________3.52%__________33,241
1965__________ 5,092__________4.31%__________33,514
1966__________ 5,933__________4.41%__________32,106
1967__________ 5,425__________3.45%__________29,696
1968__________ 4,722__________2.65%__________26,139
1969__________ 4,251__________2.31%__________21,376
1970__________ 3,752__________1.92%__________18,768
1971__________ 3,382__________1.61%__________15,717
1972__________ 3,423__________1.48%__________15,082
1973__________ 3,312__________1.35%__________14,303
1974__________ 3,255__________1.21%__________11,494
1975__________ 3,269__________0.98%__________11,131
1976__________ 3,671__________0.99%__________11,640
1977__________ 4,002__________0.98%__________11,658
1978__________ 4,164__________0.91%__________11,411
1979__________ 4,380__________0.87%__________11,404
1980__________ 4,959__________0.84%__________11,668
1981__________ 5,537__________0.82%__________11,248
1982__________ 6,155__________0.83%__________11,766
1983__________ 6,853__________0.85%__________13,051
1984__________ 7,055__________0.83%__________13,561
1985__________ 7,251__________0.77%__________13,218
1986__________ 7,403__________0.75%__________13,421
1987__________ 7,591__________0.76%__________13,735
1988__________ 9,092__________0.85%__________14,454
1989__________11,036__________0.96%__________16,734
1990__________12,429__________0.99%__________18,019
1991__________13,878__________1.05%__________19,686
1992__________13,961__________1.01%__________15,310
1993__________14,305__________1.01%__________18,582
1994__________13,695__________0.94%__________18,053
1995__________13,378__________0.88%__________16,915
1996__________13,881__________0.89%__________16,457
1997__________14,360__________0.90%__________15,943
1998__________14,194__________0.86%__________15,521
1999__________13,636__________0.80%__________15,357
2000__________13,428__________0.75%__________14,926
2001__________14,095__________0.76%__________15,427
2002__________14,405__________0.72%__________15,831
2003__________14,610__________0.68%__________16,021
2004__________15,152__________0.66%__________15,559
2005__________15,602__________0.63%__________16,016
2006__________15,125__________0.57%__________16,085
2007__________15,861__________0.58%__________15,861
2008__________17,318__________0.60%__________17,138
2009__________17,782__________0.57%__________17,186
2010__________18,724__________0.52%__________17,804
2011__________18,448__________0.53%__________17,005
2012__________17,770__________0.48%__________16,014
Total inflation adjusted cost of NASA $870,221.
I tend to think that NASA has been well worth the investment. Less than a trillion dollars and if you look see, the 1960′s were the big spending years.
All the technology created ended up increasing the wealth of every American by multiples of the cost.
astonerii on December 10, 2012 at 7:21 PM
Why, Obama will ensure an unlimited supply of electricity by putting windmills on top, of course. Backed up by algae generators and solar panels. Resistance is futile.
petefrt on December 10, 2012 at 7:44 PM
Sounds like Operation Crossbow.
Socratease on December 10, 2012 at 8:14 PM