Home » Cyber » Future Wars » Navy One Step Closer to Using Lasers for Ship Defense

Navy One Step Closer to Using Lasers for Ship Defense

by John Reed on January 21, 2011

The U.S. Navy is one step closer to developing a ship-mounted laser capable of defending against everything from swarms of speedboats to anti-ship missiles.

After more than two decades of research, scientists at Los Alamos National Lab last month demonstrated the technology, known as a Free Electron Laser, needed to generate a one megawatt beam that could one day provide light-speed close-in defense of Navy ships.

From the Virginian-Pilot newspaper:

“Until now, we didn’t have the evidence to support our models,” Dinh Nguyen, senior project leader for the Free Electron Laser program at the New Mexico lab, said in a news release.

The free-electron laser works by passing a beam of high-energy electrons, generated by an injector, through a series of strong magnetic fields. The result is an intense emission of laser light.

“The FEL is expected to provide future U.S. Naval forces with a near-instantaneous laser ship defense in any maritime environment throughout the world,” Quentin Saulter, program manager for the Office of Naval Research said in the release.

The laser’s speed will be a benefit to a ship that needs to react to moving or swarming targets. And it provides an effective alternative to using expensive missiles against low-value targets, a release from the Navy said.

The system could even be used as a sensor or for target designation and “disruption.”

Still the system’s got a long way to go before it hits the fleet. The Navy’s moving to test out a 100 kilowatt version of the laser soon and it will be 2018 at the earliest before the Office of Naval Research expects to test out a prototype on a ship.

Here’s the article.

Share |

{ 87 comments… read them below or add one }

Justin H January 21, 2011 at 4:24 pm

A "laser"

Reply

Nadnerbus January 22, 2011 at 3:03 am

Fricking "lasers."

Reply

Bill January 22, 2011 at 10:52 pm

subs with freaking laser beams attached to their heads.

Reply

alan December 13, 2012 at 5:57 pm

laser iron dome and missile iron dome.together 100% iron dome target importance iron dome and she, a method of defense.important iron curtain.

Reply

alan ward December 13, 2012 at 6:02 pm

moving iron dome,and aircraft.iron movement, and aircraft,plus jet -plane iron tageting.on board iron target laser.

Reply

brian January 21, 2011 at 4:54 pm

High Energy Lasers = Nuclear Power.
Nuclear Power = No More Hippies holding back our Navy

All we need to do to move this forward is a massive pot arrest on capital hill

Reply

Justin H January 21, 2011 at 5:27 pm

High energy lasers = gas turbine generators = higher fuel cost

Reply

belesari January 21, 2011 at 9:04 pm

Yes but this system isn't going to always be active. There will be some room made on later vessels maybe even the later burke etc for capacitors and more generators. but even then it wouldnt be active most of the time, so that extra bit of fuel consumption wont be such a worry.

Reply

blight January 21, 2011 at 9:47 pm

There may be a heating issue associated with holding the beam on target for a sustained period of time. If it takes a few milliseconds of beam to kill a target and the thing overheats after knocking out only a few targets, it isnt ready.

It's probable the next-gen ship will mount KE and DE weapons, just as the transition iron ships mounted sails and steam engines.

Reply

wildbill55 January 22, 2011 at 8:07 am

Look at the B-52 that plane has been retrofittex ,modified and upgradded since the first one left the ground in the 50's. Its much easyer to retrofit a ship ,space and weight are not nearly as liminting as on an aircraft. Wildbill55

John R. De Lude January 27, 2011 at 7:24 am

Since all or mostly all new ships are nuclear powered, power consumption is a moot point.

Reply

Justin H January 22, 2011 at 5:37 pm

The navy doesnt want nuke powered destroyers. And the DDG-1000 class uses gas turbine generators to power all of its advanced systems. So I dont know people would vote down my original comment unless they were uneducated.

Reply

Brian January 23, 2011 at 2:26 pm

Umm I am talking about a new design that reflects the power requirements of next generation weapon systems. The DDg 1000 doesn't have the energy reserves to run it's radar and a megawatt class fel at the same time. That's why they were talking about building a cgn(x) off a new hull with a carrier grade reactor so it could run all the systems it needed.

Gas turbines regardless of their output have strict capacity limits determined by how big a fuel tank they can carry which determines what kind of equipment they can carry. A ddgn simply cannot leave its radar on and expect to be able to have enough power to fire next generation energy weapons

Reply

Mufasa January 21, 2011 at 10:42 pm

I see you subscribe to the 1970's sitcom dad school of comedy.

Reply

Maxtrue January 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/jammer-co

The new tech is the leverage. DEW and hypersonics will change everything by the end of the decade provided Congress doesn't stop the funding…..

Reply

Musson January 24, 2011 at 9:22 am

Is it just me? Or, does the ship pictured not have a railing?

Are they going to prohibit sailors from being on deck when the sea
is not perfectly calm?

Reply

Musson January 24, 2011 at 1:27 pm

Oh well. I guess it keeps them from being fried by the frickin’ lasers.

Reply

clockdryve January 26, 2011 at 10:00 am

I’m sure there is no railing included in the artist drawing to avoid obstacles to the view eyes…get the point>>>the lasers are the main focus.

Reply

blight January 24, 2011 at 3:55 pm

We're going to smaller government now, so the AARP's constituents don't get mad at the trough getting cut off.

Reply

Jeff January 21, 2011 at 6:52 pm

And those poor Chinese just caught up to the OTH cruise missile generation with their "Carrier Killer", this news must suck for them and their billion dollar investment in the project…Confucius say Sh@#

Reply

PauD January 23, 2011 at 5:02 am

Don't worry, they'll steal all your laser technology too

Reply

DiverDan75 January 23, 2011 at 6:57 am

OTH? over the hooters…..oh wait horizon.
Confucius hadn't even heard of Washington, but he still had it right when he said "Man on hill…..not on the level"

Reply

Maxtrue January 21, 2011 at 7:19 pm

As I said elsewhere, keep screaming about the J-20. Act like we'll reopen the Raptor line and feed our allies in the Far East because we are SO scared. The future is another reality and getting there first is critical. I deeply suspect that what we the public "know" about our present R&D is the tip of the iceberg, though Congress could severely slow the speed we are reaching forward. What nation on earth already has a targeting system and turret that can hit targets from the sky with a high powered laser. DEW is already going into the field.

One energy solution for ABL systems would be energy capacitors that can be recharged in flight by ground or air-based DEW such as tight microwave. Perhaps a DEW absorbing skin. Wouldn't the Chinese find that ironic? This approach as well as advanced electronics, radar, jammers, hypervelocity and rail are the things China worries about. The things they will try to steal…..

Reply

Jay January 24, 2011 at 9:31 am

We should reopen the F22, and SELL it to our allies to recoup development costs.

I hope you are right. I think the US is in a strong position now but it may not be sustainable long term. How are our kids in school scoring in science and math vs chinese kids?
I don't know if you have been in a major university lately, but a lot of the students in engineering, science, and computers are East Asian. The "American" kids are going into literature, poli-sci, ethnic studies, and other such fields. The students in university now are going to be designing the cutting edge in 20 years…

Reply

John R. De Lude January 27, 2011 at 8:01 am

The one MAJOR impediment to REAL progress in new technology & military weaponry is our own "Not So Illustrious Leaders" in the white house & congress. All of which would rather fund pet projects (Pork Barrel Projects) and additional bloated federal agencies that DO NOTHING except waste money.

Reply

Stephen Russell January 21, 2011 at 9:02 pm

Test Laser on AEGIS cruiser or Perry class FFG, or new LPD NY class?
But have turbine use other fuel for Power.
Or use seawater hydro turbines in hull???

Reply

jsallison January 21, 2011 at 9:12 pm

Aside from the graphic reminding me of Verne's Nautilus, or at least several folks' conception of it, I'm thinking fair weather weapon. How badly would foul weather reduce it's effectiveness? That's a rhetorical question, I don't really expect an accurate answer…

Reply

belesari January 21, 2011 at 10:05 pm

Not a whole lot really, besides targeting etc. But that would reduce any hull mounted weapon. The thing about free electron lasers is that they have the ability to be adjusted to different wavelength depending on local conditions which means it can over come cloudy skies, rain etc.

Reply

@Earlydawn January 22, 2011 at 2:06 pm

In fairness, wavelength adjustment to atomospheric conditions is supposedly one of the big technological barriers still standing in the way of the DEWs for the F-22 and F-35.

Reply

ohwilleke January 21, 2011 at 11:35 pm

I wonder how long the laser has to be on target to make an incoming go boom. The fact that the laser gets from ship to target faster doesn't mean that it is a faster way to hit a large number of targets than say a CIWS.

Reply

joe January 22, 2011 at 5:19 am

No. The big test is going to be effective range and cyclic rate of fire; if lasers can provide a CIWS-equivalent "kill zone" out to 3-4,000 m, you've got an equivalent weapon. If it can reach further… you get through more firing cycles and hence have more chances of downing a threat.

In an ideal (but probably unrealistic, at least to start with), it competes with SAM systems rather than CIWS. That's probably a better model, anyway – at least for the moment; Lasers seem rather better suited for a ''you're dead…and….you're dead…and…" at longer ranges rather than the last-ditch CIWS "ohcrudohcrudfiremorefirelotsmorenownownow" approach.

Reply

DiverDan75 January 23, 2011 at 7:03 am

being that they proved back in the 70's that the "Star Wars project" would have to use a particle beam instead of a straight laser to make it through atmosphere from space, I would imagine that the Free Electron would be the same or at least similar to particle beam…hmmm so maybe it could also be fine tuned for underwater use?!?!?

Reply

DiverDan75 January 23, 2011 at 7:04 am

that was suppose to be for jsallison

Reply

belesari January 23, 2011 at 12:55 pm

A laser and a Particle beam are two different things. As was said before the free electron laser can change its fregency do that it can adjust for atmospheric disruption. and yes it could be used underwater not to sink ships but as a communications device.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen January 24, 2011 at 1:57 am

A point defence laser wouldn't necessarily have to make an incoming threat "go boom". For a guided threat (missile), it would be sufficient to weaken the airframe or disrupt/destroy aerodynamic controls. Same goes for small manned systems (boats, aircraft).

For "dumb" weapons like rocket, artillery and mortar ammunition, a hard kill ("boom") might be needed. But since these are not guided, they pose less of a threat to a ship at sea.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

David January 22, 2011 at 3:30 am

All that needs to be moved to acquire next target is small turret with few lenses/mirrors, much more agile than whole CIWS gun. And time needed to kill one target is much shorter. With CIWS, You need to shoot reasonable amout of bullets, until You see they hit, before switching to next target.

Reply

DiverDan75 January 23, 2011 at 7:12 am

who's to say that they wouldn't be able to have 3 or 4 distribution stations and fiber optics to say a dome every 20 feet alongside with computer controlled mirrors at each dome…and every other one having a mirror wheel in it similar to a UPC reader so they could throw up a "wall" of laser patterns the whole broadside of the ship say 200 feet or so out so whatever hit it or tried to pass through it just kinda dissappeared? and the ones in between could be narrow beamed to individual targets….makes you wonder…just thinkin'

Reply

Maxtrue January 22, 2011 at 10:08 am

The ultimate weapon along these lines would combine kinetics and speed of light. Since light travels faster than anything, a fraction of mass would be devastating. Kinda like a burst of coherent plasma blasting through metal with both massive heat and mass. However, such a pulse would not be as flexible in adjusting to atmospheric conditions as a tunable laser working in conjunction with a phase conjugating mirror or other devises modifying the main laser pulse with its target laser to correct for atmospheric distortion.

Sort of like combining a rail with a laser….

Reply

Maxtrue January 22, 2011 at 10:13 am

a particle beam weapon…

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen January 24, 2011 at 2:07 am

You also run head-first into the theory of relativity: Nothing with a rest mass can achieve lightspeed, since this would require infinite energy. Don't forget that the firing platform has to provide all the energy that goes into the projectile/beam/whatever, including losses due to inefficiencies, etc.

Particle beams are feasible since the particles themselves are low-mass, and typically travel "only" at a high fraction of lightspeed.

There's an interesting comparison of energy levels at http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunconvent…. (scroll down until you reach the "Boom Table").
For instance, a 1 gram (approx 15,4 grains) mass travelling at 75% lightspeed carries a kinetic energy of roughly 11 kT TNT equivalent. Think "mid-size tactical nuke". And if you want to bust the whole friggin' planet, all you need is 1 kg (about 2 lbs) at 99,99% lightspeed: 1500 MT TNT equivalent.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Max January 22, 2011 at 11:22 am

"Laser"? Methinks "laserS" will be needed, not just one, since the likely response to this kind of defense will be to attempt to overwhelm the ship's defenses with vast numbers of missiles/projectiles, so future ships will need at least one on each side, if not a pair on each side.

A thought: could the free-electron laser be used to target Submarines, too? The water would attenuate most laser beams, but maybe the beam could be tuned to travel enough distance through water to do a number on any sub within say, 10 miles. Now that would be a real equalizer! It wouldn't be the old "subs and targets" routine any more.

Reply

Maxtrue January 22, 2011 at 3:53 pm

Lasers I read could operate under water, but there is an even better water-based weapon that concentrates sound. Remember that game where you set one ball in motion and it passes the motion along a series of hanging balls? The information is open source and the NAVY is well at that race. It may be very important at imploding subs at a distance as well as damaging torpedoes. We certainly have some seriously strong sonar capabilities.DEW is already underwater, perhaps a great anti-mine capability. Especially in littoral space, but then my comments are completely open source based and as I am not an expert in such matters.

LOOSE IPS
SINKS SHIPS

Reply

Richard Haven January 23, 2011 at 8:57 pm

Sharks with frikin' lasers…

Maybe it's real, maybe it's the SDI all over again

Reply

Fiesta January 23, 2011 at 9:25 pm

Yeah, speed of light object when it hits anything WILL penetrate. Line of sight means at best 50 miles if it's high mounted on a ship. Don't think bad weather would affect it cause who attacks in bad weather? Wonder if angles will effect the burn through of the Laser? Which also begs the question, if it hits a shell splash in the water… Or a chaff balloon?

Reply

Oblat January 23, 2011 at 11:15 pm

The education level here is pretty shocking. Objects at the speed of light have infinite mass so they require infinite energy to get there.

Reply

Joe January 24, 2011 at 12:44 am

It's more like the following scenario:

X mass ship need Y amount of energy, X mass increased to store/harness greater energy however now needs greater Y amounts of energy.

It's a nasty spiral.

Reply

Maxtrue January 24, 2011 at 2:30 pm

a little mass doesn't slow the speed to insurmountable levels, does it?

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen January 25, 2011 at 10:36 am

Yes it does, I'm afraid, for a given value of "a little".

For instance, a 1 gram (approx 15,4 grains) mass travelling at 75% lightspeed carries a kinetic energy of roughly 11 kT TNT equivalent (from the "Boom Table" at http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunconvent…..

And keep in mind that the firing platform has to provide all the energy that goes into the projectile/beam/whatever, including losses due to inefficiencies, etc.

So in the above example, your firing platform would need to generate the energy inherent in a medium-size tactical nuke every time the weapon fires.

Oh, and BTW, something impacting at (close to) lightspeed WILL NOT PENETRATE! It will instantly turn into energy, together with part of the target. Above something like 97% lightspeed (IIRC), it makes no difference if your projectile is matter or antimatter. It goes POOF into energy regardless.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

blight January 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm

If you think a beam of light is an object…?

Reply

Oblat January 23, 2011 at 11:09 pm

The DoDs new policy of buying equipment that costs more but is less effective has breathed a whole new life into a lot of retro technology – such as lasers.

Here we have a bunch of researchers who are making hay from America's increasing nostalgia for the 50s. Good luck to them, American scientists have a long history of exploiting DoD gullibility to get basic science done.

But the physics is a joke. You have to lase for 6 seconds to deliver the same energy as a single phalanx shell. So while the cost of making projectiles smart and guided falls at an increasing rate. The DoD is interested in the ultimate "dumb gun".

Reply

blight January 24, 2011 at 8:14 am

Agreed, but a DE weapon would have range and hit-times that might make a dent in an enemy missile at long range. For the interim, a first gen laser defense would probably involve large quantities of lasers lasing targets at long range: look at how AA technology evolved during WW2 until ships were bristling with AA (and it was still barely effective); then missile technology meant that most secondary armament disappeared on ships overnight.

Batteries of lasers however, mean power consumption. The legit question though is what is more sustainable, a ship bristling with small lasers, or a ship with CIWS mounts that might run out of long range missiles or ammunition? It's a legitimate question.

Reply

belesari January 24, 2011 at 5:23 pm

I think there are a couple of reasons why they want this system.

1 is safety. No stray rounds to go barreling into any friendly ships in the battlegroup.
2 Multipurpose. Eventually getting this system to where its able to hit both shortranged and long ranged targets like BM and such.

Power is a question but that can be answered by a number of systems either already developed or under development.

And Oblat the gun and ship could be qualified as "retro" so you'll have to be a little more specific about what you mean by it.

Reply

George Bradshaw January 24, 2011 at 12:51 am

This time let us guard this technology and not give it away so that our enamies can use it against us like we always do.

Clinton gave away our long range missel tech. to China. Lets not repeat the same mistake.

Reply

blight January 24, 2011 at 8:11 am

I can't believe people are still doing this run-around.

Loral gave away technical data to China after a rocket exploded on the pad. Nothing to do with Clinton. Please stop with the chain mail hysteria. Besides, a President cannot "give away" tech. We are not a monarchy. Try again.

Reply

jkd January 24, 2011 at 3:52 am

Meh, project Shiva Star sounded cooler

Reply

William C. January 24, 2011 at 9:58 am

Many are opposed to the resurrection of the whole "nuclear cruiser" concept but I believe with such technologies emerging we need to take a serious second look.

Weren't the Virgina class CGNs rather successful in service?

Reply

blight January 24, 2011 at 10:32 am

Got nothing against nuclear cruisers myself. What requirements make the submarine force exclusively nuclear versus surface warfare units?

Reply

praetorian January 24, 2011 at 1:25 pm

I think so, they where decommisioned early though. I think they where up for refueling the
reactors when the Navy thought that was too costly. They also didnt have LAMPS when
they put in the Tomahawks so that was a negative as well. But along with the Long Beach
CGN they never had to re-fuel at sea so they where great escorts to the carriers.

Reply

William C. January 28, 2011 at 9:43 am

They were pretty big ships, couldn't they have placed the armored Tomahawk launchers in a spot that didn't clutter up the landing pad for the helicopters?

Reply

Esoclectica January 24, 2011 at 11:09 am

Guys, Phalanx type CIWS use internal ammo storage that takes a long time to reload. The Navy normally mounts 1 CIWS covering about 270 degrees of the ship from the stern in frigates. Dstroyers and Cruisers are blessed with one on each side. No overlap in missile coverage. Carriers usually have 3-4 with very little overlap. Essentially, no Navy vessel has more than one 1 CIWS covering any threat axis. Phalanx mounts are mounted on universal joints so hey can spin and elevate quickly. They carry about 20 bursts of 50 rounds. and CANNOT be reloaded in combat. They are currently being replaced by 9 shot RAM launchers that cannot be reloaded in combat. A weapon that does not run out of ammo would be nice.

Reply

Oblat January 24, 2011 at 11:45 am

A weapon that does not run out of ammo isn't much use when your hull is on fire.

Reply

crackedlenses January 24, 2011 at 12:35 pm

Tanks and machine guns were unreliable when they first hit the field…….

Reply

Maxtrue January 24, 2011 at 2:29 pm

a few follow-ups.

Adding mass to a "beam" does indeed decrease its speed. Who denied that? By how much? Isn't it very small? So particle beams or even perhaps future rail guns can spit plasma balls exceeding the velocity of today's ammo.

Sensors and guidance tend to be in missile nose cone. Lasers could be tuned to disrupt circuitry, there is a fine line hear between various electromagnetic energy beams and their disabling power. Doesn't take long to punch through fuel tank or propellant.

Today's turret systems developed for ABL can track for how long?

I suggest we are pursuing various levels of protection. The further away the enemy, the easier to zap them. It may turn out that less powerful Phalanx rail systems can fire a cloud of mass in the right direction without the technical hurdles of large rail components.

Let's hope the Chinese can buy pieces of it as they likely did the F-117, shot down over Serbia, or directly from the defense department.

Reply

Maxtrue January 24, 2011 at 5:47 pm

thank you defense tech……I try…..

coolhand77 January 24, 2011 at 12:54 pm

Having a “mix” of different defensive armament would be a better stratagy till all the bugs are worked out to begin with. Laser for extreme LOS defense, RAMs for mid range, and Phalanx for anything that gets past the first two layers. Same reason I suggested the test bed for the rail guns should be a heavy/battle cruiser or a battleship…so if the new sci fi guns fail, you can switch over to the old standbys to complete mission and get the ship out of harm’s way.

“Ruttin’ lasers!”

Reply

Roland January 24, 2011 at 3:05 pm

Russia might have this technology already. Just buy it from them.

Reply

belesari January 24, 2011 at 5:15 pm

I doubt it. Russians have concentrated on EM weaponry not on Directed engergy weapons.

Reply

sail4evr January 24, 2011 at 6:12 pm

The time on target for a laser to burn through or deform and make ineffective depends on the material. Obviously burning through an engine block would take much longer than punching holes in a fiberglass boat like Iran is building. However what is the most effective area of an attacking speedboat armed with cruise missles to target. Sinking is not enough if they still have time to fire missiles.

Reply

Jack D. Ripper January 24, 2011 at 6:53 pm

I work with metal cutting lasers in the 3KW range. The big thing is how much wattage you can put in a given diameter and what you want to do with it. Softening an area takes much less power/sq than does cutting it. If all you want to do is to heat an area to several hundred degrees (burning through insulation/detonating explosives/propellant, etc) that takes even less power per square so you could have a large beam size do the job quite well. It doesn't necessarily mean cutting through metal, but if the optics are up to the task, then a wide beam focussed dynamically would work fine.

Reply

Steve Skobrak January 26, 2011 at 11:05 am

Just like all other weapon technology, someone with a need for $$$ will probably sell us out with no care about our Country. The best weapons we have mean nothing, if we can't stop the giving away of our technology. Just look at the Stealth technology which someone sold to the Chinese? They now have it on their planes too. Yes, the guy got a long prison term, but the Chinese got the info they wanted. The U.S. cannot keep a secret. What a shame. The technology we need to develop is "HOW TO KEEP A SECRET"

Reply

blight January 26, 2011 at 2:45 pm

The technology isn't given away, it's stolen by insiders in those companies for financial gain. Greed is good.

Reply

Vince January 26, 2011 at 8:12 pm

Hang anyone who gives the design away to enemy.

Reply

hippie January 27, 2011 at 10:58 am

We just all need to get along….

Reply

Dr Evil January 27, 2011 at 11:00 am

the key to this plan is the giant laser. It was invented by the noted Cambridge physicist Dr. Parsons. Therefore, we shall call it the Alan Parsons Project.

Reply

Ivan Zelenka January 28, 2011 at 5:07 am

Negatives of Direct Energy Devices:-
1. Current laser devices loose focused energy due to distance and cloud/mist.
2. Due to current low energy at focus (on target), the laser needs to stay on the target for a period of time.
This entails the pointing system of the laser to be extremely accurate to provide a steady focus on one point of a target.
The accuracy of the point device has to increase by a magnitude to also compensate for evasive movement of the target and movement of the vehicle carrying the laser (ship, plane ground vehicle).
3. Cheap counter measures of a target by increasing its reflectivity (mirrored surface) and/or to spin it (practical for missiles and shells.
4. Energy requirements are vast to provide a damaging amount of energy on target. If the Energy is stored in capacitors, it will still need a period of time to be replenished allowing the weapon to be only fired in bursts which are time dependant on store replenishment.
5. Reflective beam directors (mirrors for pointing the beam), loose their cohesion at high energy states; the more energy you pump into the beam the more chance the pointing mirror will be destroyed.

Reply

Ivan Zelenka January 28, 2011 at 5:09 am

Benefits of Direct Energy Devices:-
1. The device mention in the article uses electrons in a coherent beam, not light. Its beam would not be dissipated by clouds/mist and would burn through.
2. A beam of high energy electrons impacting a target would need less time to damage the target due to the higher energy the beam carries. The energy of a laser is in the heat liberated from the focused light, the energy of the high energy electron beam would be kinetic and heat, providing robust damage in a shorter time.
A pointing device needs higher accuracy the greater distance to a target, to reduce the need for such accuracy in a pointing device, the tactical deployment of such a system would dictate it be used most effectively at extremely short range and therefore as a replacement for close in weapon systems currently deployed on warships, not to replace long range anti aircraft missiles.

Reply

Ivan Zelenka January 28, 2011 at 5:09 am

Benefits of Direct Energy Devices:- (continued…)
3. The energy focused on a target would not be reflected by a mirrored surface due to the kinetic force of the impacting electrons, the surface of the target would be pitted/roughened in a short time. Spinning a target to spread the energy would slow the amount of energy impacting any single point, but once the energy (at such short distance) had weakened the target surface, the spin will act against the target causing its structure to fail under the combine centrifugal force and weakened skin.
4. Storeage of energy will advance with deployable superconducting capacitors currently been developed by the car industry for electric vehicles. These will allow extremely fast charge, and discharge without the issues of inefficentcy caused by componenet heating.
5. High energy electron beams are not directed by mirrors, they are focused by magnets, similar to those in the back of an old tube TV (not flatscreen).

In a nutshell, if the tactical use of a high energy weapon is correctly established (CIWS relacement), they could be shortly deployed.

Reply

Iran Tech June 25, 2011 at 9:36 am

Work with Iran engineers it can be sorted within 2 years

Reply

blight June 25, 2011 at 3:03 pm

Iranian Western-trained scientists and engineers are competent, but Iran's techbase isn't likely to field lasers in two years. The United States is unlikely to field in two years either…

Reply

Nannie March 7, 2014 at 11:20 am

Once optimization iis in wwhy nott check here place.

Here are 5 steps to optimizing your site, it is a very
direct way of helping them out. Corporate entities
are no longer using thhe yellow pages to search for what you were looking for good information.
I know the why not check here trend.

Reply

www.essexcaraudioandalarms.co.uk May 22, 2014 at 8:51 am

We absolutely love your blog and find most of your post’s
to be what precisely I’m looking for. Do you offer guest writers
to write content available for you? I wouldn’t mind composing a post or elaborating on a lot of the subjects you write with regards to
here. Again, awesome weblog!

Reply

we buy home June 28, 2014 at 4:16 am

Genuinely no matter if someone doesn’t be aware of after
that its up to other users that they will help, so here it takes place.

Reply

school of dragons gold August 19, 2014 at 3:49 am

They are actually so populzr in today’s time that even social networking sites are being forced to incorporate with them on their platform.
Although this is thhe main participating age range, people of all
ages, from all over thee world, play in there millions.
People aare no longer just using the web for gathering information anymore; they now see it as
a primary source of entertainment.

Reply

blight January 22, 2011 at 10:53 am

If that were true, the Enterprise would've been refit for two nuclear reactors like the Nimitz instead of the six it was initially fit with; and the Midway would have been kept instead of retired.

It's ridiculously expensive to refit a ship, especially old ones. Look at the Perrys-handwaving about "easy to retrofit a ship" isn't giving them a new lease o

Reply

DiverDan75 January 23, 2011 at 7:18 am

wait a minute, they've already had tractor beams, they're called headlights….and we've had then on our John Deeres for years……ba dum bump, sorry just had to do that

Reply

Curt January 24, 2011 at 3:31 am

While the Enterprise did not get new reactors, it did get entirely new defensive armament and fire control systems at least twice, at least three entirely new communications suites, totally new radars, three different generations of aircrft, and several generations of steam catapults and arresting gear during its life. Even the OHPs had the SQQ-89 installed as well as SH-60B and a hull extension on some of the class.

Reply

blight January 24, 2011 at 8:09 am

That's not comparable to what was being suggested: totally ripping out the guts of a ship to make room for a laser weapon, especially any first generation laser unit of reasonable power. There's probably space, since you're trading a 5" gun and magazine space for a laser and associated machineries, but I imagine you want high-capacity batteries in case of battle damage causing a power failure of some kind, and I imagine there's "other things" that I have not anticipated, not being a directed energy weapon engineer.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: