Back to Squawk list
  • 31

The Air Force Is Putting Death Rays on Fighter Jets. Yes, Death Rays.

Lasers will help older fighters stay alive while flying the deadly skies. The U.S. Air Force envisions placing laser weapon systems on fighter jets by the mid-2020s. The service is banking on a defense contractor’s SHiELD laser system, a pod-mounted laser that will protect fighters from incoming missiles. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

and frickin' sharks too!!
Fins to the left! }-^')
Beats sea bass! LOL!
Whoever downvoted this apparently doesn't understand what this thread is talking about. Oh behave!!
Some people just do not get Jimmy. ;)
Their loss. FINZUP!
alan75035 3
Some people get all the cool toys! :(
nathatt 2
They've been doing this for 20+ years.
And Popular Mechanics succumbs to modern media's trend towards fake news headlines to get clicks.

"Death Rays?" Who dreamed up that absurdity? An incompetent journalist? Oh, but I repeat myself.

The article actually does a good case of suggesting this weapon as really an "ANTI-DEATH" weapon.
Well, let's just say that taking your technology cues from Popular Mechanics is about one step above Buck Rogers.
While not every prediction comes true, there are things that have.
Your point being? It may be fun to see what technological developments are being played with and that is what PM does - provide entertainment for technology fans. Nothing wrong with that (I used to read Popular Science regularly when I was a kid - PM at that time really stuck to, well, mechanics). But one really shouldn't look to PM for an analysis of those technologies or read their articles as predictions of winners or losers. They are reporting, not analyzing.
That even a reknowed magazine can get it wrong. Don't forget, that even in this day and age in which information is kept in the ether, it relies on mechanical devices of some type somewhere.
My suggestion is that one will get it wrong when one doesn't care about getting it right. That headline was so contrived and absurd to suggest beyond reasonable doubt that there wasn't any care given by Popular Mechanics to get it right. Unless the definition of getting it right is manipulating people into clicking a fake news headline to then make money by feeding them ads. As a discerning reader, I expect more from publications that want to be respected.
PM has been making predictions since its inception, you may have missed reading them. Even in this article, the subheading states such.

"Popular Mechanics is in the business of predicting. Whether it's tech trends, concept cars or tomorrow's top science, we have been looking forward on the printed page throughout our 100-plus-year history. And it's not always accurate."

What you may remember about it and what I remember about it appear to be 2 different things. Their prediction in 1968 about watches being communication devices as well as time pieces was off by a few years, but surprisingly close as to function with the inception of the Apple Watch.

We can agree to disagree.
You are on some other point that I did not make.

Nowhere in the article does it substantiate use of the term 'Death Rays'. And in case we might have misinterpreted the headlines meaning, it is repeated. 'Yes, Death Rays'. The use of the term had one purpose only. To get clicks by misrepresenting the facts into something absurd.
And PM has been using such article headlines since its inception as well.
Too bad. That does not speak at all well of the editors.
Maybe build some "X-wing" fighters and a couple of "Tie" fighters as well?
lynx318 2
R2 that stabiliser has come loose again.
If I can fly and X-Wing, where do I sign up?
This is very very impressive engineer aerospace this is music to my ears
very scary stuff California have enough problems with forest fires now you are going to let the airforce fly around with a laser weapon system it great if it hit the target but what happens when they miss ???
Jeff Hill 1
There's a whole lot of computing required to compute the trajectories of two high speed objects that are maneuvering to avoid being hit. The radar to track the incoming missile needs to be extremely precise, and the servo mechanism to aim the laser has to be both precise and very fast to hit and keep the laser on target long enough to do any damage. On the plus side, you probably don't have to "fry the electronics" on an IR guided missile. You probably just need to heat the sensor up enough to confuse it to defeat the missile.
And Russia is developing...mirrors
Mirrors reflect radar really well.

Not a good choice.
lynx318 1
Surprised there isn't development of mini railguns to shoot missiles down with hypersonic darts.
considering the immense power requirements of such a system, i will be interested in how this defensive laser system comes to be put on aircraft....
D Rotten 0
Ahhhh......Lockheed Martin; the holder of all thing 'ET' Tech! They have all sorts of 'fun' stuff that the public has no clue about. The public (most) is also unaware the we've had DEW (Direct Energy Weapons) in space and here on the ground. Children are naive, after all.


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..