After decades and decades of research and experimenting, the time has finally come to add deadly lasers to U.S. Navy ships’ arsenals, the sea service has decided.
That’s right, the Office of Naval Research is moving forward with a plan to arm ships with solid state lasers capable of taking out small enemy vessels that could be used in swarming attacks or suicide bombing mission against American warships.
“We believe it’s time to move forward with solid-state lasers and shift the focus from limited demonstrations to weapon prototype development and related technology advancement,” said Peter Morrison, program officer of the Solid-State Laser Technology Maturation program in a May 8 press release announcing the effort.
ONR wants to capitalize on the work it’s done with BAE Systems to marry lasers to the Mk 38 chain guns that are already used to defend ships. The latest versions of that weapon system can be remotely controlled and tied to a number of video and infrared sensors. As we’ve said before, combining all that with lasers will make the naval versions of the Mk 38 all the more deadly to anyone who gets the wrong idea while piloting a small boat near an American warship.
Want to sell your laser to the Navy? You’re in luck, ONR is hosting an industry day on May 16 “to provide the research and development community with information about the program,” reads the service’s announcement. Potential laser-dealers can expect a request for proposals soon after that, according the announcement.
Click through the jump for video of one of ONR’s experimental lasers frying the engines of a small boat.
{ 129 comments… read them below or add one }
What's the advantage to naval laser weapons? If you can direct a laser onto an aircraft or vessel you can also hit it with a projectile, and a cannon is a heck of a lot cheaper and more reliable.
We could also navigate by sextant, instead of GPS. Would you make the same argument there for dated technology?
Cannon fire is inaccurate and subject to rocking waves. Lasers are light speed, if your lined up on the boat when your fire, you will not miss. So basically you have a higher probablility of a hit. Its experimental technology though, eventually I see it being used for missle defense where a laser could fire and destroy targets faster than current systems. But it will take time to develop so dont expect it to work right away.
One question would be "dwell time," by which I mean the amount of time you need to illuminate the target in order to achieve a kill. I recognize that this depends on a lot of variables (the nature of the target, range, laser power, atmospheric factors, what counts as "kill"….oy!) but the laser weapons currently in testing all appear to require a second or two of dwell time to achieve kills. Those are kills against boosting rockets, and mortar shells, or piles of lumber. Can a rocking platform hold the beam on a rocking target long enough to get the desired result, in most weather conditions, and with better performance than a cannon? That's the question, and it's complicated, and so far the answer seems to be "no."
I was posting that eventually it will be a more powerful system capable of incapacititaing a target very quickly. Current systems need a lot of work, but they are a good starting point for future tech. Future tech would need to focus on lethality, and ability to regenerate enough power quickly enough for follow on "shots" at multiple targets. Theorietically lasers provide the fastest possible time to target of any weapon system, its just a matter of what happens when the laser hits said target.
Not a problem, if you recall the targeting sensor on board the ships are already capable of zeroing onto the target once it picks up sufficient reading, most of the unmanned gun weapon systems on modern boat are stabilized anyway which would neutralize the sea movement effect, the sea rocking is not a problem.
The CIWS on ships if you notice in test firing, fires a burst with grouping comparable to the weapon on the ground on a fixed platform, all the guns are stabilized. The problem CIWS face is not in difficulty on stabilizing the gun to aim at the incoming missiles, the problem it face is to first pick up the missile signature through the radar clutter that comes from low flying object (most of them uses tracking radar after all) and get it clear enough to get a firing solution.
Then on top of that the gun must have a sufficient muzzle velocity and saturate the predicted path plus it's predicted evasive path because modern ASM will start erratic evasive maneuver in the terminal phase.
This second part is the biggest problem because even with the fastest shell we have (short of a railgun slug) it still takes a fair amount of time to reach the missile so you have no choice but to saturate the path to ensure a kill. This is what the laser will have it's best advantage at, the gun platform itself is stable, now add an instantaneous DEW on it and all of a sudden the firing solution becomes a hell a lot simpler regardless of what kind of maneuver the missile pulled.
If missiles are designed to roll, it might diffuse beam damage across the casing. Wonder if lasers were tested on a rolling target to assess stopping power.
One of the major reasons is cost-effectiveness: http://www.csbaonline.org/2012/05/02/the-laser-fu…
Also like to point out that an SSL doesn't run out of Ammo so long as the ship has power.
"….an SSL doesn't run out of Ammo so long as the ship has power"
And a way to cool the laser, since a weapons-grade SSL will produce copious amounts of waste heat. But since ships (in all but the most unfortunate instances) are floating around on the world's largest heat sink, this ought not to be much of an issue.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
one more way to destroy the already devastated environment which humans depend on for survival.
You think using sea water to cool a laser is going to devestate the enviroment? Thine tin foil is on a bit too tight dear sir.
Fck the environment.
Instant gratification coupled with the ability to more quickly address larger numbers of targets.
Ralph: You never need to reload – you have plenty of "Ammo" a Laser is much faster to hit its target 186K Miles Per second, it shoots straighter no matter what the windage, Therefore the odds of hitting that target in a millisecond is a lot greater given the up and down movement of the ocean waves.
1: No Munitions to carry, saves on weight. Ship is faster, lighter and more efficient.
BTW you never need to resupply on Munitions – CHEAPER, and Better – ever hear Bugs Bunny say it NO MORE BULWETS ah too bad..
2: No munitions to buy, Cheaper.
3: No Munitions to possibly explode on your ship – SAFER.
4: Faster time to target, quicker kill time.
5: Straighter and faster to target more accurate.
6: Not affected by windage or ocean rolling during firing cycle for the split second aim / fire.
Is that good enough for starters.
Hooah to you.
Hi all,
Are you forgetting laser injury to the eyes? I don't think the Navy want to admit it publicity, but any high powered laser, Class IV, will blind anyone, just like shining a flashlight at ya. The Russians know that well. The video of burning a "floating" boat is sarcastic. In reality, ti would be moving fast, at least 40 plus knots. Flash laser of the boat crew will render them useless, if they are looking at the ship.
Well, in theory, if you have a nuclear reactor and a laser, you get many more"shots" than you would with a cannon using traditional munitions. Plus you would not have a powder magazine to be blown up on your own ship.
Depends on the laser, though. Is it solid state? Chemical? NUCLEAR PUMPED X-RAYS?
All of the above, please. "SAY CHEESE" will be the war cry.
This just seems to be the natural progression or evolution of weapons and warfare and it was bound to happen one day.
Set Phasers to stun Mr. Spock…..
Air Force shoud have this too.
Lasers could replace missles. If they found a way to delivier enough energy for a single milisecond kill they would replace missles for sure. Again, light speed, no waiting 5 min for a long range missle to reach target, and no way to evade once you are locked on and the laser is inbound. But I see that tech being at least a few decades away from trial.
One problem… A laser is a line of sight weapon. You can't bend that beam over the horizion. So the missile still has a place.
Simply mount a Phase conjugat system (mirror) on a UAV. Now you can expand your range of fire beyond he visible horizon. Ship fire towards the drone, then reflected towards the end target solves that problem. It would also put further use on our UAV fleet.
Tiger, from 40,000 feet your line of sight is nearly
God-like!
;-)
I don't think lasers will replace missiles anytime soon, but they will be a nice weapon to have at your disposal. But I do think that lasers fit the airforce better in some ways than the navy, but the navy has the power needed and the ability to carry larger weapons.
as mentioned there are ways to circumvent limitations on LOS, though in the original design for it's role this wouldn't be a problem since it was not meant to replace long range BVR weapon anyway on a ship.
The bigger problem is the energy dissipation especially at sea level atmosphere, which is massive and hence why laser have never been used as a real offensive weapon before as not only do they require significant power, their effective range drops drastically depending on the atmosphere condition they are fired on.
Ahh, very true for long range ICBMs and the like. I wasnt clear, I was thinking a fighter armed with a laser for taking out other fighters. Definetly decades in the future, but the concept is slowly becoming a reality.
Yeah, i am thinking in terms of it's potential as a naval weapon, but I assume you mean when fired against ICBM? Actually it's probably less of a problem for long range ICBM targets, since although you might be firing it from sea level, the beam would be firing towards the sky hemisphere and thus for the most part of the path it'll be traveling through the thinner atmosphere.
Same with using the laser to shoot high altitude aircrafts.
The main problem is when using it on sea level and firing it at ANOTHER target roughly on sea level (ie: pretty much every ASM and strike aircraft inbound towards a naval fleet) , now that's just brutal. The efficiency rating will drop like a brick for long range shot, more so when the weather is bad.
But it'll serve well most likely for the final defense layer (shortest range) of a ship where the expected kill range is extremely short.
the air force had a 747 they were planning on using for ballistic missle defense. that fell through though. I think they are still doing weapons testing and progression for the ABL. but its just a test bed at this point
FYI guest, the ABL is officially retired as of Feb 14th
I have to admit, while the whole thing is conceptually exciting, this video does not sell me on the idea that lasers are mature enough as a weapons system to waste time and money to deploy them in that role. What was the time on target to get the effect I just saw? Milliseconds? 10 seconds? Did it take 10 seconds of time on target to set fire to one engine of something so small as a fancy zodiac?
I don't need a big effect. Take a small caliber armor piercing round. I shoot at an APC. No big explosion, one small hole, but the effect inside is devastating. Doesn't look like much from the outside, but the interior equipment is wrecked and the enemy crew is dead or disabled. That would be an example of a kinetic kill. I don't need fireworks, I simply need minimum time on target to "kill" the threat and move on to the next threat. That is not what I saw in this video.
I saw, seemingly, too much time on target to, hopefully, disable one of two engines and still have an active threat that can shoot back and maneuver. One explosive 20mm shell, a couple of .50 caliber rounds, or a 1 second burst from a 7.62 minigun would have absolutely devastated this example target, eliminated it as a threat and allowed you to move on to the next threat.
This video makes a laser look like the equivalent of naval "crowd control" at best. If the threat is small boats packed with explosives, or better yet a swarm, this would not be my weapon of choice based on this demonstration. If the threat was larger and more sturdily built, it would not even be a thought.
By all means, keep working on it. between lasers and railguns, I like the idea of minimizing the on board stores of explosive munitions. The magazine has always been the traditional point of weakness for any warship. But this demo did not demonstrate a mature weapons system ready for deployment, much less replacement of any current systems, not yet. Looking forward to the day, it's just not here yet.
Take the USS Cole, they saw the boat, sailers trained M60s on it, but were ordered not to fire. Maybe if they had a laser……..
Got to walk before you run. They're not replacing bullets and shells yet, but that doesn't mean that it's a waste of time and money to fit them to a ship.
A deployment aboard a vessel should allow the boffins to evaluate laser weapons in the real environments in which the finished products will eventually operate; hopefully, lessons will be learned and a few more small steps will be made.
Laser have one advantage: it can burn electric circuits and sensors of say enemy guided projectile or aircraft. In some experiments just 20KW lasers mentioned to temporally disabled enemy systems, or say totally confuse enemy IR guided weapon. Even if it doesn't burn throw metal the enemy ship, aircraft or missile is totally disabled and than the ordinary weapon can finish it off.
Now we can microwave our suicide Iranian boaters and fill them with holes at the same time.
It can ignite their crotch bombs at long range!
That's a really good addition, especially against Iran's pesky speed boats.
This is what you put on large cargo ships! Fire hoses and lasers, no pirate will stand in our way!
Mythbusters tested one of these weapons. It failed.
u have to try better than that, i mean at least make it sound plausible…
it's kinda like saying 'mythbuster' tested a fusion bomb, it failed… not that it had anything to do with this, but it's about as ridiculous and insensible that everyone can spot the troll.
Check Episode 157, "President's Challenge".
LMAO! You really think that was the same thing as this? LOL, ok……..
Direct energy weapon, sir.
dude, he really thinks so, LOL
wait, you mean the legendary Archimedes’ death ray?
dude, the output of a modern military-use laser is way higher than this, ****, they weren’t even in the same scale
****, they were even different concepts to begin with.
Mythbusters don't follow the Scientific Method at all, they're a fun TV show, but I wouldn't quote or source them.
They try, but more controlled environments are required, which get in the way of enjoyment value.
Mythbuster wasn't really wrong per say, but he's basically comparing a laser (coherent light beam) with sun beam (incoherent light beam), nvm a laser… he's comparing a MILITARY grade laser with it.
I don't think he realizes that we've already shot mortars and artillery shells with the chemical lasers for quite a while now on the ground with the 'ALMOST' mobile THEL unit.
But then again, i don't think he care for it, it's most likely a troll.
Take an optics class- lasers are MUCH hotter than polished brass sun reflections.
+1 to octopusmagnificens.
even if you just naturally go against anything with US label on it which you do all the time regardless and is by now your staple, surely you can realize the gross mistake there.
quote: "you just naturally go against anything with US label on it which you do all the time regardless and is by now your staple…"
Your false impression. Not true.
You might wanna start changing the impression you put on other ppl then, starting by being objective like say… here in this very thread.
It's very easy to recognize US fanatics, and US haters, (and i would prefer to have nothing to do with either but well internet is internet) both are extreme end after all which typically have their comments colored with their tendency (which makes them utterly useless when trying to debate something objectively), and you are emanating the later in most of your comments thus far on record by bucket load so you are not exactly gonna cover the elephant in the living room by pretending it didn't exist.
Next USN budget request? Sharks with fringing lazer beams on their heads…….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw
Or at least mutated Sea bass…
damn you beat me to it
The thinking may be to field test (water test?) the technology by way of use against small boats as part of the development process. Supersonic sea skimming cruise missiles & anti-ship ballistic missiles are difficult targets for both cannons & defensive missiles. Lasers have the potential to be the best defensive weapon.
In a typical scenario of ASM attack against a ship, we can expect a barrage of ASMs designed to overload the defensive layers of the ship, the laser can serve as potentially the best FINAL layer, the short range close in distance where the missile is in terminal phase and you pray to your almighty god that the decoy and the close in weapon do their work.
But you still need something to intercept them beyond that range where the lasers are not very effective. Lasers have high dissipation when going through the sea level atmosphere, can't expect the laser to be very effective beyond limited range around the ship (limited comparative to the supersonic missiles range and speed anyway).
I want my wave motion gun =(
Damn, I loved that show. My intro to modern Anime.
Yeah! me too
Guess I'll have to settle for Shock Cannons first.
I think the MTHEL together with CIWS model are more better than the one shown on the picture above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCBwLJjzDJQ http://gizmodo.com/5907237/the-c+ram-centurion-te…
And probably if we add .Buratino Heavy Flame Thrower System like the one from T-72 on every boats and ship we have, it could become more competitive than any Chinese and Russians missile boats and ships.
Your joking right?
We wouldnt want to light the water on fire, we might hurt the poor innocent fish or even risk lighting a whale on fire! Or heaven forbid we burn some seaweed!
*Insert* screems of horror from the nearest hippie
Think of the peace-loving plankton harmed by your collateral damage!!!
/satire
Hitting a flat, black engine bobbing in the water is not a good approximation of defending yourself against swarming speedboats or missile.
At the same time, this looks like a good future prospect, but I want projectiles as my backup. At least with a gun + laser combo, the laser can attack the target for the few seconds it takes for the projectiles to arrive.
This is like the early cannons and guns, which were heavily backed up by archers and pikemen
Big-Rick – I agree…time to get some operational experience even if the technology isn't quite ready.
Eventually, directed energy weapons will re-shape the battlefield to one of "if you can see it, you can kill it". This will have a significant impact on naval aviation as well, because any aircraft that comes within line-of-sight of a laser turret is toast.
It'll take massive energy to pump into the laser in order to produce a beam with sufficient energy to still do lethal damage to something as large as an aircraft at long range.
Ideally you'd rather fire the laser from high above in the thinner atmosphere, not on sea level, but if you are forced to do so expect the range to be significantly degraded… especially if the weather condition is unfavorable.
Logically it won't get to the point where it's energy efficient to do it, no matter what you do it'll never be efficient for lasers to do that task at long range, it can however serve very well in short range replacing the traditional cannon at range where the dissipation is less severe.
They could go back to the old days of attacking out of smoke. easy to do.
??? warships are not the target for the DEW, never was, i mean it's not like the DEW can do any real damage on the ship except perhaps on the sensor suite and even then not gonna happen except at very short range.
The one that would benefit the most from the atmospheric dissipation of DEW is the incoming weapon or the strike craft (be it nimble aircraft/drone or suicidal speedboat) inbound on the ship, and they are not exactly in a position that can maintain a smoke screen with them given their primary objective is to get as fast as possible towards the target ship to get their payload in range.
It's highly unlikely that full sized warships will ever engage each other with DEW, since i don't see how it can be made efficient for ultra long range engagement that ships find themselves at in modern naval warfare
Unless of course you paint your plane with mirrored paint….
ant it is waaaay cheaper than the laser.
If the laser is sufficiently powerful, it just heats the area locally until it shatters.
pretty much what blight says, and this is particularly acute with Q-switched lasers which i am guessing they must be trying to develop for military laser application as well.
it's one of the reason why normal silver reflecting mirrors are not used for lasers (the pulse will damage and eventually destroy the mirror) and usually some type of dielectric mirror is used instead in laser apparatus, and typically the mirror used is one that is already designed specifically to the laser design wavelength for maximum reflection.
so if you just use simple reflecting paint (which is similar to silver mirror layer), the laser will just burn the layer off, and dielectric mirror layer is more or less impossible in design as far as i know of for application covering that kind of large body not to mention that you'd have to know what wavelength to be expected.
Dear Scott, Your use of the quote "If you can see it, you can kill it." is unintentionally appropriate due to the fact that lasers used in war will lead to huge armies of permanently blind soldiers. This is something that the weapons developers don't want you to know yet as their products might be banned like the poison gases of World War One."Not quite ready" is an understatement. Those that applaud such developments are politically lame.
I think the point of getting the weapon system on-board ships is so that they (sailors) can start training on them realistically, even though the system isn't mature yet.
This testing and feedback will allow the designers/engineers to make improvements and upgrades.
You can only do so much testing in a lab environment
wow
Must for CG, FF, DD types & USCG cutters alone
& for carrier defense (air & sea).
& reuse old shore fortresses to house Lasers like those that held turn of century hiding guns. Awesome.
& mount into SSN sub sail???
Sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
the Ultimate Weapon
Yeah…blah blah blah … so how's that work on my mirror? Dumb²
i think it´s more future rail gun than laser.
both…
railguns like most kinetic weapon are not affected as much by the atmospheric condition as most DEW, the downside being it still have travel time for the projectile.
there are situation and time suited for each, ideally you'd combine both types in the ship's armament mix and have lethal reach for any range, against pretty much any target, but that's a long way ahead.
Rail guns for targeting anything larger than a speedboat or missles. lasers for smaller targets. Lets face it, even a 5 foot hole burned completly through a carrier isnt going to stop it from killing you (not to mention that burning through meters worth of solid steel is probably not within the relm of possability). Heck the USS Cole had a 40'x40' hole and they still kept her afloat. But take a smaller boat that cant recover from a hole/multiple holes and now you have a laser weapon that can work. But add a railgun that can punch some real holes in big ships and now we have the combo for sucess. Lasers for defensive systems, railguns for projecting real combat power!
Can we just fast forward already and arrive at that stage? Id love to see this tech mature within my lifetime…..
Technically a weapon doesn't have to sink the combat vessel in offensive use, for instance a DDG with burnt out radar and fire control sensor array is not much of a combat asset. Or a carrier that can't launch or land aircraft on it's deck (though how you gonna do this with the tiny laser beam is anyone's guess).
Even just burning the radar array from beyond a few kilometers is most likely out of the question though with the laser output and efficiency we got, and a few kilometers is a tiny distance considering modern naval engagement with range several hundred kilometers.
The laser would be best used against the hull of a speedboat…would penetrate much faster and a sinking boat is no longer a threat. Plus, anyone who does not believe these weapons could not in a matter of milliseconds disable an operator, or would not be used in that fashion is dreaming. If you see your comrade in the boat next you and see his uni go up in flames….I guarantee you that would send them scrambling.
It really isn't too hard to hit a target that's not moving. I'm sure the enemy is going to say, "Oh, the U.S. Navy is firing a laser at us. Let's stop and give them an easy shot at our engines!" It's too soon people!
Thats not what it was ment to show. Its ment to show a capability is there, a capability that needs refined, but a proof of concept. Testing goes on from here.
Too soon?
Ummm….. do you have ANY idea of the state of our technology?
You don't wait for weapons to fully mature before deploying them. Nobody waited for rifling before rolling out smoothbore weapons or for them to be better than longbows. They were initially fielded, found a niche reason to be and grew from a niche to the dominant form of weapon.
Didn't appear to be much bang for the buck.
It isn't… the point however is to start working on it so it can be in the future.
we know it's potential, now it has to get there… so we have to start from somewhere.
The Navy will keep all its projectile weapons, these lasers will only be onboard as another option until they can "fire phasers"….or launch a full spread "photon torpedos"….
Agreed. I think that part of the benefit of the lasers is that enemies will not know the full capability of the weapon and therefore gives a psychological advantage to the US. DE is also very useful against warheads, which are more sensitive to heat: the US showed this more than 10 years ago.
This is an old video saw this a while ago on youtube. I would think they have progressed since then and if they are considering fielding the system I am sure they have the targeting systems in place to track a moving target for the duration needed to cause damage remember an incoming missile or high trajectory projectile would be far easier to track than a boat or an aircraft that could manuver.
They probably have come farther, but don't have a cool video to show. The US and I think Israel have experimented and successfully shot mortars and artillery shells out of the sky with lasers so the high-speed targetting and tracking exists. Disabling or destroying something as large as a military vessel is still down the road, but thin-skinned things like missiles, shells, and some boats are within the realm of possible right now. Disabling that outboard motor might have taken a good minute, but imagine the collateral damage of trying to go for the same effect with a machine gun. Someone made the comment earlier of using the laser to fry comms and radars and making the enemy ship operationally useless without destroying it.
that's probably me,
realistically though that'd be against small vessels or disabled ships, since we can't really imagine a situation where large active combat vessels (DDG or corvette and above) coming into effective range of DEW which for sea atmosphere level is most likely not going to be more than a few kilometers, a dozen or more perhaps in optimistic best case scenario but i highly doubt it.
so while theoretically it should be possible, the likelihood of it happening in real is more or less nill since modern naval ships fire their missile ordnance at each other from hundreds of kilometers away and i cannot recall any scenario where they'd come into short range where any of their guns even can reach each other.
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto.
<heavy spanish accent ON>
Let us go back in time to the time, 1503.
The place Cerignola (present-day Italy) during the Second Italian War.
The protagonists are Spain, led by Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba called "El Gran Capitán" (The Great Captain) against the French under Louis d'Armagnac, Duke of Nemours.
Duke: So, so-called "El Gran Capitán", I blow farts in your in your general direction and scoff at your slow reloading arquebuses. I have come to whip your shite stained culoes!
El Gran Capitán: Bring it Froggy!
(battles ensues)
Duke: Holy crap!. It appears those arquebusiers have shot me and I shall die!
El Gran Capitán: How do like my arquebusiers now, Puta!!!!
<heavy spanish accent OFF>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cerignola
Seriously, ya got to start somewhere. Laser technology is moving at a fast pace and military lasers will be a real game changer. As noted, cooling and power supply is the gating item at present. Ships ave both in abundance.Also note the article says they will be used in conjunction with the Mk 38 chain guns for defense against close in targets. While it takes tens of seconds to get black smoke, I for one would NOT wish to be on the receiving end of that laser!
TenX out
It's maybe a great defense against super-sonic cruise missiles, especially for a carrier.
Its still not an answer to a swarm of would be Iranian attackers in dozens if not hundred of small boats and ekranoplans all attacking at once.
Its better than a 25mm bushmaster that runs out of ammo in a minute or so.
Ekranoplans?!? There are about two in existence now- lets worry about actual threats please-
Here's hoping for XRAY. Could you imagine being able to sweep a ship and vaporize the crew? JUST the crew? Inside and outside of the boat.
Maybe a broad beam laser. Superheat the entire ship enough to melt barrels and VLS hatches.
Swarms? Port and starboard FLASH system. Think of the arc of a MIG welder only on a monumental scale. Instant blindness. At that kind of power you should be able to throw in some EMP and fry out the electronics. Turn that swarm of speed boats into a swarm of row boats.
We're finally, finally, getting into heavy duty technology. It's time to put the cannon to rest. It's done us a great service and I salute it every step of the way. It's been on the deathbed since the carrier proved itself in WW2 and now, soon, we can put it down completely.
Keep in mind the impressive array of new civilian tech that will be birthed from this. The laser light shows at Sea World are due for an upgrade!
I think many of the comments on this topic miss a couple of important points. Check out paragraph three of the story. “We believe it’s time to move forward with solid-state lasers and shift the focus from limited demonstrations to weapon prototype development and related technology advancement,” said Peter Morrison, program officer of the Solid-State Laser Technology Maturation program in a May 8 press release announcing the effort.
It's also important to realize that all weapons grade lasers need an adaptive focusing system to compensate for changes is atmospheric conditions so the beam stays on target and remains focused.
A marine environment with unpredictable waves and sea spray is a pretty tough challenge for the optical systems of a laser weapon. Sure, those boat engines didn't explode into flame, but the test did demonstrate that our targeting and focusing systems work. So, now, it's mostly a matter of scaling up the power. We don't need new technologies to do it; there are already systems that permit stacking multiple lasers to create a single beam.
Laser weapons can be used during a tactical stand-off when other conventional weapon systems can not be used for reasons of diplomatic expediency, etc. Such weapons (SSL) can inflict damages to or incapacitate a small boat or an unmanned aircraft creating a moment of anxiety or momentary panic or confusion among the enemy personnel. Such a combined effect can create a tactical advantage on the battlefield. Surprise effect and stealthiness of SSL use are of paramount importance. Laser weapons are silent killers and sabotage instruments. Their psychological effect on the enemy is also considered as an element of combat effectiveness during the early period of their potential deployment. So far, it is too early to talk about laser weapons as a substitute to conventional weapon systems.
How about a phase plasma rifle with a 40 kwatt range
I agree, I think this is just a step in the progression of directed energy weapons. I think these types of weapons are much better suited to attack supersonic anti-ship missiles. With virtually no mass required to aim these weapons you can have almost instantaneous aiming corrections. If let's say in 5 years you can double the upper end of laser power to about 2 megawatts you have a weapon that could destroy multiple incoming missiles at virtually the same time. And if you can narrow the beam by half you will boost the effective power by another factor of 2.
A similar weapon for ground troops could intercept incoming mortars,RPG rounds and artillery rounds.
However without another break through on high energy storage the device required to store high enough potential for these weapons are going to take up some serious space. The energy to full this level of directed energy is typically stored in massive flywheels that drive near instant pulses of extremely high voltages. You don't just plug these into your generator no matter how big your generator is, including nuclear powered generators.
DGR == DaGrandRetard …. enough said
Which is you know about as related with each other as calling my magnifying glass a DEW, i mean i am TOTALLY directing my astounding commercial grade 10cm focused sunbeam to fry ants… it's a DEW right?
I mean i know you are probably doing this on purpose since i don't think anyone could possibly not realize the massive difference in energy involved and process, but couldn't you… oh i don't know… pretend to sound plausible at least ?
While the basic concept was the same, it is vastly differant. Direct energy is scientifically valid, its just a matter of how you get enough energy onto the target in order to achieve the desired result. The Myth busters put on a good show but it far from debunked the theory that direct energy can be used as a weapon. It was more or less debunking a myth that you could use enough mirrors to acheive the same result.
I prefer DaGranderRetardish, but thanks anyways.
How about DemotedGrumpyRookie?
You mean your family tree?! I understand how you feel growing up in that miserable environment. Feel free to use guns. Make the entire family tree pay. Yehhhhhhhhhhh.
Pfft. They'll figure it out. We're dabbling with Lasers, Solar Power, Geothermal Power, Mach 5, Railguns, the Army Doc who recently may have found that cure to cancer… Whatever the heck DARPA and those like them are dishing out. An entire grand spectrum of things more to mention.
I'm not worried in the least. A hundred years from now all this stuff will be ancient history and childsplay compared to what will be on the table then.
Keep calm and carry on. Hopefully we'll live long enough to see these techs become mastered…. Maybe even see the next birth of amazing things we will create.
Then we can look back on our long lives and laugh at ourselves for lack of faith in our ability coupled by an abundance of fear.
LOL. The extent and severity of environmental devastation has always been in proportion to human beings' so-called "technological advancement and progress"
The US has been the biggest offender in environmental crimes and things will remain the same in the foreseeable future. Am I supposed to believe that the brainless, clueless American sheeple can somehow wake up to the reality all of a sudden with true PhD caliber knowledge and wisdom to handle decades of environmental disaster? They can't even pick the proper food for themselves. LOL
They probably do, after all… some missiles roll naturally as part of their flight stabilization mechanism.
Naturally though, there's not much that the roll will do to the nose section since from the direction of the target ship, that section will always be in line of sight regardless of the roll and they could just focus it right dead center on the nose tip.
But the roll is not just an advantage for the missile though, it is also a weakness that can be exploited by the laser… even if you are not directly on the path of the missile.
Missiles flying at high speed is essentially a very thin skinned guided rocket with high structural tension after all, if the missile is also rolling on top of that then all it takes is a slight 'abnormality' in it's normal roll pattern to turn it into a self destructive oscillation. The question is just where to hit it to induce it, and how much power is needed to do sufficient damage to it's body or surface control to start it.
(1) comments in this forum constitutes only one facet of my opinions regarding the US.
(2) for the sake of argument, just because one holds negative opinions of US govt, military, and geopolitical policies doesn't in itself render the opinions wrong, biased, or extreme.
(3) the caliber of many posters in this forum is well below par, making their opinions highly suspect. (often they don't even read carefully what I have actually written, and respond based on what they imagine to be my position.
"for the sake of argument, just because one holds negative opinions of US govt, military, and geopolitical policies doesn't in itself render the opinions wrong, biased, or extreme. "
correct, but when you start letting that negative opinion skewing your judgement on matter related to them then you have to ask yourself if you are still capable of making any subjective comment regarding them if you allow the negative opinion to color and skew all your rationalization on them.
The opinion itself is not wrong since that's everyone's freedom (but likely biased by then), but the judgement and rationalization you make through your comment (which are colored by the opinion) may very well be wrong once it's skewed by the opinion.
If i may suggest something let's say you disagree with their policies and what not, it's a good idea to NOT word your sentence like this: "LOL! further proof of the american "Government" turning against itself! No wonder they can never win a war! "
The US fanatics will obviously downvote that kind of comment instantly, but even the middle liners who sit in between will look at that and likely decide that you belong on the opposite camp when you choose your words poorly like that.
not sure what you mean by "related matters" but I can say my opinion of US government policies is solidly negative pretty much across the board in its own. It shouldn't come as a surprise as I've made my position very clear on the nature of the US political system – a phony democracy run by shadow powers.
As for the quoted post, it's written by an impostor.
There are obviously many US fanatics in this forum. It's partly why I haven't taken some of the conversations seriously. When they throw BS everywhere, I might as well have some fun at their expense.
But even fun can be quite constructive sometimes. Like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzdr-wzE2OA&fe…
phony?
so you are saying that the one i am replying to right now is possibly not the same passingby in that thread, and possibly a yet again different passingby in the other thread?
well isn't this entertaining…
incidentally, that video was entertaining… but highlight the one problem that both pro US and anti US media work created suffers…
sensationalism, ie: in order to push for their point to regular masses (which have the attention span of a fly), the points are:
A. condensed in the most vague or broad manner possible with the largest number or aspect chosen for psychological impact.
B. cycled quickly before any one of them receive any scrutiny or invoke an elaborate thought process (not that most ppl do, but it's a risk you'd rather not take).
While this is common procedure for PR process (and to an extent with some lawyer's technique), it makes for a very poor actual discussion material.
If they intend for an actual constructive material, they will start slowly, elaborating on every point they make and backing it with as much of the data they have that supports it.
And NEVER ever, cut and chop videos or document text off (editing) if it contains matter related to the opinion that are to be formed on it like a certain sensationalism video about 'collateral murder' did a few years back. Especially not when the full length video or document was easily available too.. kinda shooting your own foot once ppl see the full material.
I was referring to this part — "LOL! further proof of the american "Government" turning against itself! No wonder they can never win a war! "
that's written by someone else.
Isn't that in turn a big assumption that all missile engagements will be dead center on nose tip? For instance, defending vessels may be engaging missiles presenting a wider target heading for a different ship: for instance, ships in a picket may be firing on a missile heading towards a carrier in the middle.
That said, the whole missiles-and-lasers thing was probably studied during ABL…but that was a while ago. And we were probably thinking of Harpoon ASMs in laser-and-missile studies and not something like BrahMos.
That is correct, however consider as well that missiles or rather rocket structural design in general are most susceptible to structural failure on the thin walls of their cylindrical body compared to their head cone so it partially evens out…
Basically, any structural failure might be enough to simply cause the missile to fly apart, and either turn into shrapnel or perhaps splash into the sea?
That is often the case with rockets, structural failure on rockets (and by that extension missiles) in general are always fatal for the rocket due to the extreme force they are under.