Well... somebody had to say it...

Lighting the £50 notes the MoD uses to light their Cuban cigars from 2000 miles away.

How much per shot does this cost at a hundred shots per toxic fueling?

RIght now, there's your popcorm all popped for you; and from miles away.

.. the pilots are shielded from someone playing at ground level with a £20 laser pointer. They would never be able to live down the irony..

:-)

> "... it might put a cellphone tower out of action, start a fire or burst a vehicle tyre without anyone realising that US forces were responsible or even present."

Last time I was anywhere near a Herc, I'm pretty sure it was near deafening. Ear defenders are mandatory in the inside, let alone the outside. They kinda show up on radar, too ... like the side of a barn.

If you're going to put a super-secret, extremely expensive, limited-shot, sophisticated weapon into a hostile area, surely you'd want to do something a little more adventurous than burst a tyre? And wouldn't the bright zap of light from the sky be a slight giveaway ....

Mine's the shiny, laser-proof one, thanks.

a superhero or a supervillian?

The GOV is just looking for a way to book airliners going over the speed limit......

MWHAHAHAHAH

Mirrored finish for the tinfoil hat, please; mine's the tinfoil coat.

"Excuse me President Chavez, but your car has another flat tyre."

"Damn those gringos!"

Everyone is hoping for success for the the highest of hi tech, physics notwithstanding. First of all, why have the ABL and ATL become about fielding untested coil lasers. We have already done chemical laser testing (HF/DF) with huge success on the ground for over 20 years. Testing planes on the ground with a laser inside reaches the ridiculous.

In the vacuum the beam diameter at the target stated in this article would be a challenge. But the plane must lase through atmosphere (and jitter not felt on the ground platform). It is easy to calculate that the ATL beam will breakup long before reaching the target at a 20 Km range, even if the target is at 100 m off of the ground. The energy from the beam will be spread at least over an area 10 times in diameter of the vacuum spot size. So much for the new marketing of the ABL and ABL lite (ATL), "invisible" indeed! I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the target of this "precision" weapon, especially not in the aircraft.

Everyone is hoping for success for the the highest of hi tech, physics notwithstanding. First of all, why have the ABL and ATL become about fielding untested coil lasers. We have already done chemical laser testing (HF/DF) with huge success on the ground for over 20 years. Testing planes on the ground with a laser inside reaches the ridiculous.

In the vacuum the beam diameter at the target stated in this article would be a challenge. But the plane must lase through atmosphere (and jitter not felt on the ground platform). It is easy to calculate that the ATL beam will breakup long before reaching the target at a 20 Km range, even if the target is at 100 m off of the ground. The energy from the beam will be spread atleast over an area 10 times in diameter of the vacuum spot size. So much for the new marketing of the ABL and ABL lite (ATL), "invisible" indeed! I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the target of this "precision" weapon, especially not in the aircraft.

So, are you trying to say there will be collateral damage? Go ahead, say it!

It might not be the cost of the fuels/reactants themselves, but the cost of disposing of the reactants after they've lased...

One chemical laser design uses Hydrogen & Flourine, in their liquid states, as the lasing chemicals...

The chemical product formed after the process of lasing has taken place, is Hydrogen Flouride gas, better known in its liquid state as Hydroflouric Acid...

How would Paris Hilton cope with the concept of Excited Dimers...?