Movie military question

just watched battle of/for los angeles and they used "lazing" to guide the missles to the target

seeing as we thankfully have a lot of military guys in the membership I was wondering if anyone could clarify how this tech works. seemed like they guided the missle to it's target with the laser but in the movie the laser didn't project until a few seconds before impact which makes it hard to believe something launched from that far could be guided that quickly. It would be cool if this actually existed but hollywood has fooled me before (damn war of the worlds)

atriot:

I wasn't in the military but I have helped design and test those types of systems. I recently completed a test setup for ATFLIR on the FA-18. Normally the laser needs to be on the target or at least somewhere in the general area when the bomb is released so it can get its initial heading. There are shoulder fired rockets that get to the target within a couple of miles and only a few seconds, so the laser needs to be on target when the missle is launched.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJzUCM1Z8-E

H8PVMT said:

just watched battle of/for los angeles and they used "lazing" to guide the missles to the target

seeing as we thankfully have a lot of military guys in the membership I was wondering if anyone could clarify how this tech works. seemed like they guided the missle to it's target with the laser but in the movie the laser didn't project until a few seconds before impact which makes it hard to believe something launched from that far could be guided that quickly. It would be cool if this actually existed but hollywood has fooled me before (damn war of the worlds)

atriot:

Click to expand...

I am a AF WSO and that is one of several ways to do it. If you are dropping on a known target that you have a planned run in to you can pickle off, go through an offset, then start to lase the target as the weapon goes terminal, you can plan on something like 2-3 seconds per thousand feet for time of fall. You can fling it pretty accurately without the target being designated, the laser gets you down to gnats ass. You can also have scenarios where a dude on the ground talks you on while lasing so the pod will pick it up, or you can have an airborne FAC lase the target from another jet.

There are all kinds of really cool ways to kill people and break stuff from a jet.

wolfpackjeeper said:

There are all kinds of really cool ways to kill people and break stuff from a jet.

Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons I love 'Merica :thumbup:


Off topic:
I hate the american top gear, but one was on tv the other day and I found what the guy said to be completely redeeming:
"The rest of the world seems to think Americans are arrogant, but to be fair - F*** YOU!"


what you said reminded me of that.....

:cheers:

Haven't seen the movie, but there are two possibilities I can think of:

One, they just got it wrong, either intentionally because the way the tec. actually works didn't fit the plot, or because nobody related to the movie knew how the tec. works.

The other is possibility is the time distortion normally used in movies because watching 45 second to a minute of people waiting around for a bomb to fall affects the pace of the movie, and directors don't like all the boring "waiting around" that real life entails.

Never played around with terminally guided gravity bombs, but for mortar and artillery, the target has to be illuminated long enough for the seeker to sense the target and adjust the trajectory of the falling shell. Normally the spotter calls the target, the fire direction control confirms the fire mission ready to go and asks for ilum, the spotter confirms the target is lit up, then FDC sends the present. For indirect fire, the call is "On the way." For a typical mortar, the hang time on a fire mission can be as long as two minutes. For artillery the wait can be as long a 5 minutes. In actuality, the target doesn't have to be illuminated until the last 1/3 to 1/2 of the flight time, as the seeker head can't sense the reflected laser light while the shell is rising(seeker head pointed at the sky)

My understanding of the aircraft systems is they also usually illuminate before weapons release.

"Clear and present danger" has a pretty good depiction of laser guided munitions in use, although they kind of dramatized the weapon release a bit.

They are a lot of fun, speaking from someone who was a 13F for 14 years. You can put a 155mm copperhead though a firing port in a bunker at over a kilometer on a good day. As the designators got smaller they were much easier to carry, first ones were suitcase sized and needed to be either on a tripod or a pintle mount. It's almost scary now what a fist can do, especially with the new guns that are out there not to mention the mlrs.

Thanks for the responses guys
As for the timing in the movie the main dude gets blown down and then remembers there is a rocket incoming, scrambles to the laser and points it about a second before impact

I had no idea the tech even existed and I was sure the timing was a bit exaggerated but its way cooler now that I know its realish

RichP said:

You can put a 155mm copperhead though a firing port in a bunker at over a kilometer on a good day.

Click to expand...

Blast from the past! Wow!

I was working a support mission in europe when they introduced/demonstrated the copperhead to NATO in 1986. It was a huge dog and pony show, but the fire missions were fun to do. 'First time I got to see F-16s doing their thing in the ground attack role. Only time I saw A-10s live-firing.

tbburg said:

Blast from the past! Wow!

I was working a support mission in europe when they introduced/demonstrated the copperhead to NATO in 1986. It was a huge dog and pony show, but the fire missions were fun to do. 'First time I got to see F-16s doing their thing in the ground attack role. Only time I saw A-10s live-firing.

Click to expand...

You should see NoE B52's when they come in from your six at tree top height around 500mph and you can see the rotary launchers spitting out 250's and just staying about 50 yards ahead of the blast wave when they make the run.

H8PVMT said:

just watched battle of/for los angeles

Click to expand...

I thought the movie was pretty good.

bigalpha said:

I thought the movie was pretty good.

Click to expand...

Watch out, there is a spoof on netflix right now. It is terrible, I was waiting for it to turn into a porno, cause that is the only way it could have saved itself.

wolfpackjeeper said:

Watch out, there is a spoof on netflix right now. It is terrible, I was waiting for it to turn into a porno, cause that is the only way it could have saved itself.

Click to expand...

Yes, we watched that too. It's worse than most SyFy movies.

wolfpackjeeper said:

Watch out, there is a spoof on netflix right now. It is terrible, I was waiting for it to turn into a porno, cause that is the only way it could have saved itself.

Click to expand...

whatever you do, watch the one titled Battle: Los Angeles. Battle for los angeles was insanely bad and really pissed me off.

in4aride said:

This is one of the reasons I love 'Merica :thumbup:


Off topic:
I hate the american top gear, but one was on tv the other day and I found what the guy said to be completely redeeming:
"The rest of the world seems to think Americans are arrogant, but to be fair - F*** YOU!"


what you said reminded me of that.....

:cheers:

Click to expand...

I actually just watched that today on the history channel website. It was the ZR1 Vette vs some ferarri episode. Thought it was funny too.

dgrigorenko said:

whatever you do, watch the one titled Battle: Los Angeles. Battle for los angeles was insanely bad and really pissed me off.

Click to expand...

wasnt that the one where a quarterback was using ninja stars? and some hispanic dude was trying to steal a wall?

bigalpha said:

Yes, we watched that too. It's worse than most SyFy movies.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure it is the syfy version, which I watched end to end when it premiered

the one I referred to was the good theater version

\

I've got the greatest military movie question ever.


Why do people keep saying "The Hurt Locker" is based on a true story? That's like saying transformers is based on a true story.

If you want to see a true story watch Restrepo

you mean to say that you have never snuck out of base in your ACU pants and a hoodie with your M-9 tucked in your waistband, to go avenge the death of some kid who sold you crappy DVD's?

AIbandit said:

Why do people keep saying "The Hurt Locker" is based on a true story?

Click to expand...

It is based on a true story. After all, there ARE American solders in Iraq. That's asmuch or more accuracy then then they usually manage.
You know, "Titanic" was also based on a true story. There was a ship called the titanic and it did hit an ice berg and sink, after all. So was "Casino", after all, there are mobsters in 'Vegas. So is "Avatar". Everybody knows smurfs are real. Right?

wolfpackjeeper said:

you mean to say that you have never snuck out of base in your ACU pants and a hoodie with your M-9 tucked in your waistband, to go avenge the death of some kid who sold you crappy DVD's?

Click to expand...

Well I did sneak off with my M-9 to find him but it wasn't to avenge his death. Little bastard sold me girls gone wild and it was actually a copy of "Cool as Ice" starring vanilla ice.