Lasers are primarily effective against subsonic missiles due to their speed and the time required for the laser to engage the target. Hypersonic missiles, which travel at speeds greater than Mach 5, creates a plasma sheath that will absorb or deflect laser beams, reducing their effectiveness. Additionally, hypersonic missiles have the capability to change direction mid-flight, making them difficult to track and target. Variations in atmospheric conditions, such as humidity and weather, can also significantly impact the performance and effectiveness of laser systems.
Not to mention a mirror finish renders them pretty useless, and a light fog something that happens everywhere and poof there goes your overpriced weapons system. Laser is such a non starter but nerds keep making governments spend a fortune on them.
"Oh no, there's a light fog, our trillion dollar death ray is rendered inert!" Laser weaponry really is a good IQ test. It immediately identifies midwits.
Yeah, they tested it on Big Ben.. it didn't bring the parliamentary building down. It just scrolled "Free Palestine" vertically on it. It might be £10 per shot but that's in summer months, It's £1000 per shot in winter months due to the shifting price caps on UK Energy and depends on how old the person firing it is. If they're over 60 and earn less than £11000 per year, then they get £300 discount on the first shot.
Germany has 2 More Systems one with the Netherlands (Project Jupiter) on a GTK Boxer planned to be final presented in early 2025. The other is MILOS-D.act against wire locks, mines, door locks and IEDs, including static targets such as wire barriers, electro-optical sensors, antenna structures, metals (door hinges) or IEDs. Their many applications for such systems if we can get the cooling and energy supply smaller & smaller, cheap solutions against aerial threats even for countries with lower budgets and the best not-so-long waiting times for new ammunition production, no reload, if you have the system, but the question is how much parts after how many hours you have to replace and how extensive maintenance is. But really interesting in how many areas we get closer to stuff that was in sci-fi movies
Laser weapons have a very limited usage: basically used against planes, drones and maybe missiles. Light has this bad habit of traveling on a straight line and your enemy won't be dancing at your crosshairs for you to shoo them like a Power Ranger monster does.
_basically used against planes, drones and maybe missiles_ Yes, that _precisely_ what it's intended for. _and your enemy won't be dancing at your crosshairs_ a) the system can track the movements of a target, b) aerial targets tend to fly in straight lines quite a lot.
@@ach_ja The problem is that on the ground the terrain hides the enemy an my mention of cross hairs is about the enemy protected by the topography: behind trees, rocks, montains, buildings, or in trenches. It is not about mobility, it is about light going in straight lines and being easily blocked: a simple old fashioned mortsr can attack a fortification or a trech: a laser can't.
maybe because it's the !german! science guy and the article he's refering to is published in german. Another question: why are you commenting in german language, when this is an international channel?
Lasers might not be the solution for everything but given how expensive other weapons are, I bet they amortize very fast. I think they can destroy those cheap drones for example. I wonder how effective they are in israels case, there already is a laser version of the iron dome. With all current conflicts it wont take long for us to receive some data.
reflective surfaces always have certain wavelengths that will be fully reflected, but always others that are able to penetrate. also, the main focus of energy weapons is as countermeasures to attacks with power in numbers (drone swarms, cheap but frequent missiles, etc.) and those have their main selling point as being cheap to manufacture. It is unlikely that a cheap, mass-produceable material is found that has both the reflective properties to withstand most lasers but also the material strength to be suitable as high-velocity missile shell, control surfaces, and engine exhausts
A highly reflective surface isn't enough. Ignoring the extreme cost of sufficiently reflective materials, it also has to be dust-free. Take dirty snow, for example, which absorbs more light and melts more quickly. High-power laser systems are built in clean rooms because any spec of dust can destroy a whole mirror (or other component).
No real life is not a cartoon, the energies involved & wavelength of the beam make reflection via a mirror impossible. Laser weapon uses a series of large dielectric mirrors & industrial-grade diamonds to focus & combine multiple beams tighter & tighter. Deploying any kind of system to reflect the beam on say a missile surface is not realistic remember the beam from a 50Kw laser can melt through a half-inch of carbon steel in under a second.
_A pretty blatant statement on such a topic and somehow A pretty blatant statement on such a topic and somehow it feels a bit strange to use the word “revolutionize” in the context of warfare,..._ Would mind justifying why you say this is a 'blatant' statement and why it feels a bit strange to use the word “revolutionize” in the context of warfare? Neither of these comments make any sense.
Hey, I want to give you some feedback to your english videos! The German ones have a good production quality, however, I think that the english videos require a slightly different style. The Frame: Most viewers watch youtube videos (even science youtube videos) in order to be entertained. Thus, one of the most important features of a video is its understandability. Also, another thing is, that your english videos attract a larger portion of non native speakers. There are three things that bother me about your language right now: 1. You speak very fast. Most people are non native speakers and for these, it requires a lot more brain juice in order to follow the video. This makes watching the video exhausting, not entertaining and makes people not watch it through 2. The way your sentences are phrased is the style of how english is written, not how it is spoken. Written language carries more details and variety, while spoken language focuses more on understandability. 3. You do not really make a break between your sentences. That is important in a presentation (roughly compatible to the video format that you do) to give the viewer time to process what you just said. These language feature make the videos exhausting and makes me personally not want to watch it after ~1 min. Maybe this feedback helps adressing you the new audience better.
And i still dont know if he makes his accent stronger for the vids (since many English expect one hard German accent) or if it is his normal one. But i say he will still grow in the next months , after one point and base quiet fast
Hm I think its a matter of practice. Im sure he will find a way to make it more digestable. If it was up to me I would say he shouldnt look to the others and find his own style. There is no benefit in beeing one of many. He is the german science guy not the english entertainment guy.
Your advice is good for a very general audience - but people watching science videos can be expected to have a slightly higher attention span. There’s nothing wrong with making a more serious science channel, you don’t have to use informal language and cater to the widest audience. Also the speaking fast and sentance structure might apply to non-native speakers but as a native speaker it is completely fine.
I don't like the "oh no it won't stop this superweapon" arguments. This defense mechanism is meant to be used on lower-level weapons as it is cheaper than other defense systems. Take the invasion of Ukraine: Russia retrofits old bombs for a few thousand bucks, while Ukraine uses US defense systems that cost tens of thousands per shot. This would be the application of the laser defense
Lasers are primarily effective against subsonic missiles due to their speed and the time required for the laser to engage the target. Hypersonic missiles, which travel at speeds greater than Mach 5, creates a plasma sheath that will absorb or deflect laser beams, reducing their effectiveness. Additionally, hypersonic missiles have the capability to change direction mid-flight, making them difficult to track and target. Variations in atmospheric conditions, such as humidity and weather, can also significantly impact the performance and effectiveness of laser systems.
Not to mention a mirror finish renders them pretty useless, and a light fog something that happens everywhere and poof there goes your overpriced weapons system. Laser is such a non starter but nerds keep making governments spend a fortune on them.
"Oh no, there's a light fog, our trillion dollar death ray is rendered inert!" Laser weaponry really is a good IQ test. It immediately identifies midwits.
Yeah, they tested it on Big Ben.. it didn't bring the parliamentary building down.
It just scrolled "Free Palestine" vertically on it.
It might be £10 per shot but that's in summer months, It's £1000 per shot in winter months due to the shifting price caps on UK Energy and depends on how old the person firing it is.
If they're over 60 and earn less than £11000 per year, then they get £300 discount on the first shot.
With a good mirror the beam could be reflected back!
An _exceptionally_ and implausibly good mirror. Even the slightest imperfection and the laser would destroy the mirror before destroying the target.
@@gh8447 Retroreflektoren, Katzenaugen... :-)
Germany has 2 More Systems one with the Netherlands (Project Jupiter) on a GTK Boxer planned to be final presented in early 2025.
The other is MILOS-D.act against wire locks, mines, door locks and IEDs, including static targets such as wire barriers, electro-optical sensors, antenna structures, metals (door hinges) or IEDs.
Their many applications for such systems if we can get the cooling and energy supply smaller & smaller, cheap solutions against aerial threats even for countries with lower budgets and the best not-so-long waiting times for new ammunition production, no reload, if you have the system, but the question is how much parts after how many hours you have to replace and how extensive maintenance is.
But really interesting in how many areas we get closer to stuff that was in sci-fi movies
Let's try that laser against a mach 27 missle carrying a 20MT warhead
Do think we should have a 'iron dome' of our own, especially around sensitive and vulnerable targets!!
7:30 The big "but..." would fit better :) 9:15 there is the "but" :D
Laser weapons have a very limited usage: basically used against planes, drones and maybe missiles. Light has this bad habit of traveling on a straight line and your enemy won't be dancing at your crosshairs for you to shoo them like a Power Ranger monster does.
_basically used against planes, drones and maybe missiles_ Yes, that _precisely_ what it's intended for.
_and your enemy won't be dancing at your crosshairs_ a) the system can track the movements of a target, b) aerial targets tend to fly in straight lines quite a lot.
@@ach_ja The problem is that on the ground the terrain hides the enemy an my mention of cross hairs is about the enemy protected by the topography: behind trees, rocks, montains, buildings, or in trenches. It is not about mobility, it is about light going in straight lines and being easily blocked: a simple old fashioned mortsr can attack a fortification or a trech: a laser can't.
How long can the laser target a hypersonic missile with over Mach 10 at such a short range? And how many lasers do you need to cover large areas?
would you not just make your missile or target object reflective by some means
Can't have war when it's raining 😅
Weshalb ist denn der Kanal auf englisch, aber der Screenshot der Quelle 1 bei 0:25 auf deutsch? 🤔
maybe because it's the !german! science guy and the article he's refering to is published in german.
Another question: why are you commenting in german language, when this is an international channel?
What is the point being able to hit something at visual range? It needs to be able to intercept MIRV's in orbit to be a viable system.
_It needs to be able to intercept MIRV's in orbit to be a viable system._ ... unless it's not designed to do that. 🤦
Good video
Lasers might not be the solution for everything but given how expensive other weapons are, I bet they amortize very fast. I think they can destroy those cheap drones for example. I wonder how effective they are in israels case, there already is a laser version of the iron dome. With all current conflicts it wont take long for us to receive some data.
Is it possible to defend with a reflecting surface against this laser weapon?
reflective surfaces always have certain wavelengths that will be fully reflected, but always others that are able to penetrate. also, the main focus of energy weapons is as countermeasures to attacks with power in numbers (drone swarms, cheap but frequent missiles, etc.) and those have their main selling point as being cheap to manufacture. It is unlikely that a cheap, mass-produceable material is found that has both the reflective properties to withstand most lasers but also the material strength to be suitable as high-velocity missile shell, control surfaces, and engine exhausts
I Also thought if you paint whatever you want white the Laser needs to have some crazy output.
A highly reflective surface isn't enough. Ignoring the extreme cost of sufficiently reflective materials, it also has to be dust-free. Take dirty snow, for example, which absorbs more light and melts more quickly. High-power laser systems are built in clean rooms because any spec of dust can destroy a whole mirror (or other component).
No real life is not a cartoon, the energies involved & wavelength of the beam make reflection via a mirror impossible. Laser weapon uses a series of large dielectric mirrors & industrial-grade diamonds to focus & combine multiple beams tighter & tighter. Deploying any kind of system to reflect the beam on say a missile surface is not realistic remember the beam from a 50Kw laser can melt through a half-inch of carbon steel in under a second.
Auf Gehts! :)
Penguins can fly and want to take over the world!
I didn't know that! Sounds like something we should be worried about. 🙄
"Das große ABER" should be translated to "the big HOWEVER".
Or the big but 😂
I Wonder How you‘d solve the großes aber Problem ….
I knew you won‘t say big but 😅
Deutsch: Das große Aber.
Englisch: The big but(t)
Etwas ungünstig 🤣
😂 Geil
Jakob soll einfach the big but sagen
_A pretty blatant statement on such a topic and somehow A pretty blatant statement on such a topic and somehow it feels a bit strange to use the word “revolutionize” in the context of warfare,..._ Would mind justifying why you say this is a 'blatant' statement and why it feels a bit strange to use the word “revolutionize” in the context of warfare? Neither of these comments make any sense.
Hey, I want to give you some feedback to your english videos!
The German ones have a good production quality, however, I think that the english videos require a slightly different style.
The Frame:
Most viewers watch youtube videos (even science youtube videos) in order to be entertained. Thus, one of the most important features of a video is its understandability.
Also, another thing is, that your english videos attract a larger portion of non native speakers.
There are three things that bother me about your language right now:
1. You speak very fast. Most people are non native speakers and for these, it requires a lot more brain juice in order to follow the video. This makes watching the video exhausting, not entertaining and makes people not watch it through
2. The way your sentences are phrased is the style of how english is written, not how it is spoken. Written language carries more details and variety, while spoken language focuses more on understandability.
3. You do not really make a break between your sentences. That is important in a presentation (roughly compatible to the video format that you do) to give the viewer time to process what you just said.
These language feature make the videos exhausting and makes me personally not want to watch it after ~1 min. Maybe this feedback helps adressing you the new audience better.
And i still dont know if he makes his accent stronger for the vids (since many English expect one hard German accent) or if it is his normal one.
But i say he will still grow in the next months , after one point and base quiet fast
Now that you said it, I completely agree
Hm I think its a matter of practice. Im sure he will find a way to make it more digestable. If it was up to me I would say he shouldnt look to the others and find his own style. There is no benefit in beeing one of many. He is the german science guy not the english entertainment guy.
Your advice is good for a very general audience - but people watching science videos can be expected to have a slightly higher attention span. There’s nothing wrong with making a more serious science channel, you don’t have to use informal language and cater to the widest audience. Also the speaking fast and sentance structure might apply to non-native speakers but as a native speaker it is completely fine.
This Comment is very relevant to the video.
I don't like the "oh no it won't stop this superweapon" arguments. This defense mechanism is meant to be used on lower-level weapons as it is cheaper than other defense systems.
Take the invasion of Ukraine: Russia retrofits old bombs for a few thousand bucks, while Ukraine uses US defense systems that cost tens of thousands per shot. This would be the application of the laser defense
Toll!! Mag trotzdem lieber die deutschen Videos
Versuch', etwas langsamer zu sprechen.
/ɪˈlɛktrɒn/ -> /ˈɪlɛktrɒn/