اطبع هذه الصفحة 
         ارسل هذه الصفحة 
   اجعل الكمبيوتر صفحتك الرئيسية 
  الصفحة الرئيسية  
القسم الانكليزي
Laser & Electronic Weapons:
Infiltrate the Realm of Battlefields

A laser weapon is more precise than a bullet; it is not a niche weapon system like some other weapons that US military is using throughout where it is only good against air contacts, or it is only good against surface targets, or it is only good against ground-based targets. It is a very versatile weapon, which can be used against a variety of targets. The laser weapon has the advantage of moving at the speed of light, an advantage that not other weapon ever invented comes even close to matching. For comparison, that is 50,000 times the speed of an incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). "It is extremely powerful, throwing massive amounts of photons at an incoming object," says one laser weapons system officer. "We do not worry about wind, we do not worry about range, we do not worry about anything else. we are able to engage the targets at the speed of light," he introduced the weapon. So, imagine we have been fired by such a weapon; it would be more catastrophic than the worse catastrophe.

Drones & Laser Weapons Face to Face
US army has recently tested drone-killing lasers as threats are growing on the battlefields. Infantry-carrying Stryker vehicles mounted with the Mobile High Energy Laser, a 5 KW beam that scrambles the circuits of drones, took part in demonstrations at the Maneuver Fires Integration Experiment at Fort Sill in Oklahoma. The system includes radar detection and a camera to visually track aircraft on a screen, where an operator targets the drone with the laser. A “hard kill” will disable the drone mid-flight and send it crashing to the ground, the Army said. A “soft kill” occurs when the laser severs the communications link between the drone and its ground control station. we can send artillery after the ground control station,” Lt. Col. Jeff Erts of the Fires Battle Lab at

the Fires Center of Excellence at Fort Sill has mentioned in an Army story about the exercise. In all, 50 drones were brought down during the exercise, the story states. The laser, which does not emit a sound when it pulsates, is the centerpiece of an experimental Stryker variant used during the field exercises. It is mounted atop the 16.5-ton infantry vehicle where a .50 caliber machine gun or Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher would be, outside the vehicle commander’s hatch. An M240B machine gun replaces that weapon, according to an Army video demonstrating the vehicle. In future use, it remains unclear how effective the weapon could be in operations against larger, more sophisticated unmanned aircraft used by conventional militaries, whose signals could be better protected as the aircraft fly much higher than commercial drones. While lasers maintain their energy over long distances, atmospheric and weather conditions could affect their ability to scramble more powerful, heavier military-grade unmanned aircraft, said Paul Scharre, a former unmanned system policy official at the Pentagon and director of the Future of Warfare Initiative at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank. Those aircraft might require more power to affect their systems than the 7-horsepower beam currently used by the Mobile High Energy Laser, he said. Two variant vehicles with the laser were deployed to Europe in March for testing with an active unit, the Army said in a news release. Successful tests of the mobile lasers is a significant step after decades of questions and theories about how direct-energy weapons could be used in battle, Scharre said. Power requirements and the time taken between shots are key limitations of direct-energy weapons, Scharre said. He likened batteries to rifle magazines, with laser firings depleting a battery until they need to be swapped out, he said. Batteries mounted externally power the mobile lasers and can be recharged by the vehicle, Monica Gutherie, Army spokeswoman at Fort Sill, said. There is also technology in the works to use the vehicle’s power source directly. During the exercise, soldiers brought down drones as fast as a few seconds after engaging them, though the 50 drone kills were spread out over ten days. Scharre said a big consideration is if the weapon can quickly down aircraft and move on to other targets in a scenario where drones swarm an objective.
Non-Lethal Weapons Under the Microscope

Taser International Exposed Investigating Its Own Non-lethal Weapons Deaths The proliferation of non-lethal weapons is predicated largely upon the advertising of weapons makers like Taser International that have repeatedly asserted their products are obviously much less dangerous than traditional weapons. However, the science behind the use of these weapons has been in conflict, and investigations into Taser-related deaths have been inconsistent. One news article concluded that supposedly non-lethal Tasers do in fact put citizens at a greater risk than without their use. Electrophysiologist, Dr. Douglas Zipes, published an article for the The American Heart Association which covered 8 cases where a 50,000 volt Electronic Control Device (TASER X26) was used and victims lost consciousness. His conclusion was that this particular non-lethal weapon could induce cardiac arrest. The idea that literally short-circuiting someone’s nervous system could potentially lead to death should not have been surprising, but other peer-reviewed evidence, as well as lengthy investigations into real-world situations, also began to support the many wrongful death claims that have been filed against police departments. Conclusions seemed abundantly clear in a subsequent wider study that sought to document Taser use in large- and mid-size cities such as Columbus, Ohio; Portland, Oregon; and Knoxville, Tennessee. The research was divided into two studies; the first to examine the rate of injury to those apprehended vs. apprehension by standard police methods; and the second study examined the rate of injury to the officer apprehending the suspect. The researchers found citizens were injured 41 percent of the time when officers used a stun gun only during apprehension. By contrast, citizens were injured only 29 percent of the time when no stun gun was used (when stun guns were used with another restraint method, such as pepper spray or wresting the suspect to the ground, citizens were injured 47 percent of the time). The study looked at 13,913 use-of-force cases in seven cities. The researchers took into account a host of factors, including the amount of citizen resistance, influence of alcohol or drugs, and officer experience. Injuries ranged from cuts to broken bones. Although Taser International has in fact paid out multi-million dollar settlements, they have been defiant about addressing their product’s results as any type of crisis. Following an explosive documentary in 2015 called Killing Them Safely (trailer below) Taser International issued the following statement to Business Insider: TASER technology is the most extensively researched less-lethal weapon with more than 500 related reports and medical studies. These studies consistently have found that the TASER is generally safe and effective as a response to resistance option. In a 5-year TASER safety study by the US Department of Justice ‘an expert panel of medical professionals concludes that the use of conducted energy devices by police officers on healthy adults does not present a high risk of death or serious injury.’
إطبع هذا المقال    قرأ هذا المقال   5756 مرة   
  القسم الانكليزي مؤشرات معلوماتية الكمبيوتر الأخضر جديد البرامج الانترنيت والطيران جديد الاتصالات أمن المعلومات جديد المعدات المعلوماتية غدا أخبار الشركات