Home » Cyber » Lasers and Ray Guns » Navy set to deploy laser aboard Ponce

Navy set to deploy laser aboard Ponce

by Kris Osborn on April 8, 2013

The Navy will deploy a high-energy, solid-state directed energy, or “laser” weapon early next year on board the amphibious transport dock Ponce, Navy officials said Monday.

This will be the first such deployment of the Navy’s Laser Weapons System after it completed test shots last summer aboard the destroyer Dewey. The laser targeted fast boats and unmanned drones in the tests completed in the Pacific off the California coast.

Navy leaders have spent $40 million developing the solid-state laser weapons system over the past six years. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Greenert displayed a video of the laser weapons system at the Sea Air Space Expo on Monday at National Harbor, Md.

The laser weapon system began as a developmental effort by the U.S. Naval Sea Command and the Office of Naval Research.

“The CNO has tasked us to move this capability into the operational domain,” said Rear Adm. Matthew L. Klunder, Chief of Naval Research.“This is a new innovative technology to give sailors and Marines the advantage they need for the current and future fight.”

The idea is deploy a low-cost, high-energy effective weapon against a range of potential threats, including enemy drones, fast-attack boats and what is referred to as small boat swarm attacks wherein large numbers of small watercraft attack simultaneously.

The laser weapon system uses heat energy from the laser to destroy targets, Klunder explained. Each round is remarkably cheap compared to other forms of ammunition.

“One round of directed energy is equivalent to one U.S. dollar. This is real data for real performance,” Klunder said.

In fact, the laser weapons system can easily integrate with the electronics on-board Navy ships, most of which produce more than enough electrical power to support the weapon, said Rear Adm. Thomas J. Eccles, chief engineer and deputy commander for Naval Systems Engineering.

Thus far, the laser weapons system is a perfect 12 for 12 in test shots, said Eccles. At the Expo, senior Navy officers showed a video of a successful test engagement involving a test-firing of the laser weapon system on board the Dewey. The weapon successfully incinerated a “dummy” or mock UAS target.

The directed energy power emitted from the laser can be adjusted to lethal and non-lethal modes — giving ship commanders a range of options when it comes to executing their missions, Eccles said.

In fact, the senior Navy leaders explained that laser or directed energy weapons are likely to increase in use in the future as a way to supplement kinetic weapons or solutions, Navy leaders explained.

“As we look at a future of more and more energetic weapons like this, you can see efficiencies gained in a number of ways,” Klunder said.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy

Share |

{ 132 comments… read them below or add one }

blight_ April 8, 2013 at 6:37 pm

Good. Looks like a spotting laser to the right of the main laser?

I'm assuming that the covering stays open for the most part, and only closes up for the rain?

Reply

Ben April 8, 2013 at 9:15 pm

I'd guess it stays closed most of the time, personally.

Keeps it clean and particulate-free, reducing maintenance. Wouldn't want shit baking onto that expensive lens.

Reply

blight_ April 8, 2013 at 9:23 pm

The question is how quickly can the laser be brought into action if required? Perhaps it's a question of when the CO thinks the laser is needed, then you clear the laser for action by opening the shell.

Reply

cg23sailor April 9, 2013 at 9:08 pm

Those thinking that the opening of the protective covering and it's detriment to response time has never watched whole missiles being mechanically rammed out onto launcher rails from a below decks magazine and then the whole launcher rotating to firing bearing in a mere heartbeat.

The time to open the protective cover is a non-issue. It can happen literally in an eyeblink.

Reply

NathanS April 8, 2013 at 11:15 pm

AFAIK, the laser to the side has a couple of purposes. Yes, it is a tracking laser and range-finder, but it also measures the atmospheric conditions between the laser and target. The lens of the main laser is shaped accordingly to reduce atmospheric disbursement. This dramatically increases the range, and allows for use in more adverse weather conditions.

This technology isn't anything new – it's been used in spy satellites for years.

Reply

arc June 12, 2013 at 9:26 pm

Not only has that technology been used in spy satellites, but it's routinely used by ground-based astronomical observatories, especially those with adaptive optics (Keck, etc.) to adjust on-the-fly for atmospheric disruptions.

Reply

Davis April 8, 2013 at 7:12 pm

Destroying drones and fast boats is nice but its real worth comes if it can destroy a DF-21 anti-carrier ballistic missile. That'll be a real game changer!

Reply

Josh April 8, 2013 at 8:30 pm

Lockheed Martin is already working on it and already successfully destroyed a wired missiles with a IR laser;

Reply

ronaldo April 8, 2013 at 11:31 pm

What is a "wired missile" ?

Reply

Vaporhead April 9, 2013 at 7:30 am

One that is tethered to a thin communications wire back to the computer. I've seen them on some of those shoulder or vehicle mounted systems.

Reply

tmb2 April 9, 2013 at 1:43 pm

A TOW missile.

Reply

Ben April 8, 2013 at 9:44 pm

You'd need every ship in the carrier group to be equipped with a laser powerful enough to take one down for it to be an effective DF-21 defense.

… I feel like people get it in their heads that the enemy will only fire one or a few missiles at a time. If they want to take down a carrier, the single most expensive and powerful asset on the sea (note the "single" part), they'll throw at least a dozen at it all at once. The cost of those missiles is nothing compared to a fully loaded carrier. It's easy to overwhelm. And that's where we need to wake up.

Reply

Andrew April 9, 2013 at 12:33 am

Absolutely. It's way to easy for a potential enemy to overwhelm the defenses of our ships.

Reply

Brian April 9, 2013 at 12:48 pm

It can still be effective without that. We just have to keep an eye on large concentrations of carrier killer missiles. Be ready to take those out with a B-2 if needed.

Reply

blight_ April 9, 2013 at 1:39 pm

Which means the Navy only parks offshore once the Air Force has already won the war? Hmm, that sounds good during the fight for fiscal dollars. Douhet's skull is grinning.

Reply

Brian April 9, 2013 at 4:25 pm

Brian April 9, 2013 at 4:30 pm

Kdubya April 9, 2013 at 10:11 pm

When this system is actually deployed it will be able to shoot down a DF-21 by itself. The DF-21 isn't that special anyway the real dangerous anti-ship missiles are the ones you can't target…

Reply

wpnexp April 10, 2013 at 8:14 pm

Try to think for a minute how a laser will burn through a warhead designed to fly through the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds generating hundreds if not thousands of degrees of heat. Then imagine the laser tracking a single point on the warhead accurately enough to burn through this heat sheild as it is buffetted coming through the atmosphere. And your question was? Hit to kill using a guided railgun round would be a better prospect.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 11, 2013 at 10:08 pm

Well, a warhead's outer casing would be weakened from an atmospheric flight. Also, a laser could, theoretically, burn harder and hotter than atmospheric re-entry.

Reply

Prodozul April 8, 2013 at 8:53 pm

Don't we already have a laser on some of these ships?

Reply

Jim Gomez April 8, 2013 at 10:52 pm

what type of Laser? What power? Who make it? Will it operate when it is rainy?
I assume is a 100 kW fiber laser
We need one Mega Watt laser (there is an US Patent by MA Stuart from Oakland, Ca?.
Is there any one building this MW Laser? Can it be used for peaceful works?
Thank you

Reply

Davis April 9, 2013 at 3:04 pm

Rather than just posting a bunch of questions why not try using this thing called google.com and answering them youself you lazy a**! And do a search on proper english grammar while your at it!

Reply

SkipSigPi April 10, 2013 at 6:23 pm
robert April 13, 2013 at 10:52 am

I checked out the USPTO site and can't find the System you claim exist as being patented by anyone .
What is the patent number? All I find on the topic are pointing and medical devices listed under Stuart.

Reply

USSHelm April 8, 2013 at 11:16 pm

Why on the Ponce? Last I heard it was being used by SOCOM as a seabase.

Reply

FormerDirtDart April 9, 2013 at 1:32 am

USS Ponce has be controlling counter-mine and patrol forces and operations in the Fifth Fleet AO since last summer. It is not a SOCOM staging base. The Ponce is a relatively good choice as a test platform as it has ample free deck space to stage the Laser unit, and it's associated equipment which took up the entire flight deck of the USS Dewey. As can be seen in the attached link. http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8004/7706897760_c99

Reply

Art April 11, 2013 at 1:54 pm

After Obama leaves, nobody dislikes him enough to bother…

Reply

Rob April 9, 2013 at 12:41 am

Hopefully they put these on the White house roof & defense points.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 11, 2013 at 10:09 pm

Knowing the government, who knows whats up there? Heck, I would imagine particle accelerator.

Reply

Big-Dean April 9, 2013 at 12:44 am

For those worried about the Chinese DF-21, let me put it into perspective. Do you really think the Navy and the chain of command, would assume that a ballistic missile heading toward a CSG is anything but a nuclear tipped missile? No they wouldn't. You have to assume all ballistic missiles have nuclear warheads thus you prepare retaliation accordingly and you simply tell the Chinese (through back channels) that all ballistic missile fired will be assumed to be nuclear tipped and we will respond by targeting your country with our nuclear warheads-but we won't send just one, we'll flatten their country with one of our SSBNs that is patrolling in the western pacific.

Reply

Ben April 9, 2013 at 1:01 am

Either way, I don't see our carrier groups testing the waters.

Reply

joe April 9, 2013 at 3:38 am

Agreed. This is exactly what killed off the idea of 'conventional tridents' for prompt global strike – "don't worry, it's not a nuke, honest…."

Reply

oblatt1 April 10, 2013 at 4:01 am

Yea and after the nuclear war China will still have won.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 11, 2013 at 10:10 pm

Just no man. If needed, the US nuclear arsenal would initiate MAD pretty quickly. US has a WAY larger nuke stockpile.

Reply

Don Reynerson April 10, 2013 at 11:25 pm

Amen…….MAD……….still operable…….

Reply

William_C1 April 9, 2013 at 3:30 am

Is it soon to be mounted on sharks? We cannot have a laser-shark capability gap.

Reply

cpip April 9, 2013 at 7:42 am

Well, for now we have a frickin' gator with a frickin' laser on its deck. That's something to ask.

Reply

joe April 9, 2013 at 3:39 am

“One round of directed energy is equivalent to one U.S. dollar. This is real data for real performance,” Klunder said.

Excellent. What are the maintenance/component costs like?

Reply

blight_ April 9, 2013 at 9:17 am

Probably cheaper than letting a CIWS rip.

Reply

Tim D April 16, 2013 at 8:42 pm

Yes, but nothing is cooler than sending 4,500 20mm rounds (Phalanx) a minute down range.

Reply

riceball April 9, 2013 at 11:57 am

The other question is, how many "rounds" does it take to take down a target?

Reply

blight_ April 9, 2013 at 1:40 pm

The last laser-related deftech blog suggested a few seconds of laser on target was required, but wasn't specific. If the laser is solid-state and has a relatively high number of uses, it would outlast a CIWS during a sustained fight.

Reply

Mark April 9, 2013 at 8:06 am

Mr. Wharf, arm the forward Phazers!

Reply

blight_ April 9, 2013 at 9:17 am

sed 's/Wharf/Worf/' | sed 's/Phazers/Phasers/'

Reply

willirm April 10, 2013 at 10:24 pm

Mark – it's Mr. Worf, and the weapon is a Phaser.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 11, 2013 at 10:11 pm

Rather take the photon torpedoes…

Reply

blight_ April 12, 2013 at 8:56 pm

Quantum torps and tricobalt for me…!

Reply

top dog April 9, 2013 at 8:30 am

The next thing you know, we'll have Quantum Torpedoes. I can't help but remember that Old saying, "Sooner or later, everybody will wan't one"…..The way I figure, it'll take about ten years before somebody else build one, and it won't mater if they are friend or foe. Perhaps the Navy should not have talked so much about this…..

"I am become Death, The Detroyer of Worlds"

Reply

Musson April 9, 2013 at 8:48 am

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong – but I believe it is against the Geneva convention to use lasers to blind enemy combatants. So, if the Ponce is attacked by a swarm of Iranian motor boats – they must destroy/disable the boats without hitting the drivers.

Seems pretty backassed to me.

Reply

blight_ April 9, 2013 at 9:16 am

It also prohibits the use of WP: that doesn't stop us from using it as part of illum and incendiaries.

We'll fire it to kill, and if you get blinded instead of dead consider it a war crime that you were allowed to live.

Reply

Aeedwards April 9, 2013 at 10:00 am

Like they used to say back in basic training…it's against the Geneva Convention to use the M2 against enemy soldiers so aim at their pistol belts!!!

Reply

Infidel4LIFE April 9, 2013 at 11:31 am

All that goes out the window in reality. Wish we could still use nape those hadji would be roasted. Drench a mountain with it, and my bet is no survivors and no probs. All is fair in love and war..?

Reply

blight_ April 9, 2013 at 1:43 pm

If you wanted to commit genocide against the Iraqis after occupying the place, then it would've been ~200k Americans trying to escape a country of 25M angry people, Sunni and Shia.

Sure, the casualty exchange rate would be incredible, but 200k Americans trying to extract out of that mess would suffer incredible casualties in days or weeks. You don't wantonly kill civilians on land you expect to occupy: unless you are ready to trade casualties and exterminate the women and children as thoroughly as possible. And the whole "an American life isn't worth a foreigners" crowd is often unwilling to "invest" American blood on genocidal ventures.

Reply

NativeSon April 9, 2013 at 7:40 pm

Well put, blight_

jhm April 9, 2013 at 11:42 pm

There's a reason why the American "empire" is a little different from that of the ancient ones. I don't think our troops in general will get a kick out of entering cities and laying waste to them raping, pillaging, plundering and etc after a successful campaign.

Reply

cg23sailor April 9, 2013 at 9:14 pm

"I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong – but I believe it is against the Geneva convention to use lasers to blind enemy combatants."

You're wrong.
The last convention was 1947. They didn't have blinding lasers back then, now did they?

Now the 1947 convention has been modified by three protocols since then.
Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
Protocol III (2005) relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem.

Nope… no mention of blinding by lasers.

Reply

Guest April 10, 2013 at 2:46 am

It's not the Geneva Convention, it's UN "Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding

Seems that it's OK to kill, but it's an outrage if you blind 'em with a laser.

Reply

Pat in New Orleans April 12, 2013 at 11:06 am

I saw some videos on this system. They were targeting the outboard motors. The beam is electronically guided. It targets the same spot, even in choppy water. It is invisible too. So the bad guy doesn't know that they have been targeted, until his motor catches fire.

This is just the beta version. It will be very interesting to see what this will mature into after say, ten years.

Reply

fyrftr April 12, 2013 at 7:49 pm

You can kill them though, and with anything besides gas or germs!

Reply

blindside April 13, 2013 at 4:44 pm

You cannot target personnel but you can target their equipment even if they decide to get in the way.

Reply

Grayskull April 9, 2013 at 11:25 am
Infidel4LIFE April 9, 2013 at 11:27 am

What happened to the laser system that was mounted on a jumbo jet? Cancelled? It sits in a warehouse s/where with all the equipment needed but I guess its $$ that killed it. So wat gives? The Ponce? I also read SOCOM platform, but a change of mind perhaps?

Reply

blight_ April 9, 2013 at 1:44 pm

The ABL was an older chemical laser. I suppose if they mature the technology, it may find its way back onto an aircraft.

Reply

Big-Dean April 9, 2013 at 4:03 pm

it didn't work, so they cancelled it, secondly, it was very expensive

Reply

wpnexp April 10, 2013 at 8:39 pm

Yes, but we learned a lot from the experience. Never count out the learning process. That is something that can be brought forward to newer systems.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 11, 2013 at 10:12 pm

Well, it wasn't so much it didn't work. It worked, as it shot down missiles. But FUNDING. Sad.

Reply

Guest April 10, 2013 at 2:30 am

It was basically a flying superfund (toxic chemical) site after shooting its chemical laser wad. Just another SDI pipedream.

The Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) mounted on C-130's looks way cooler.

Reply

Shawn McFadden April 9, 2013 at 5:35 pm

First they retire the Ponce, then they give it to MSC, now they’re gonna outfit it with a laser. What’s next?

Reply

TERR April 9, 2013 at 6:36 pm

Why WAIT till next year ??? We need that NOW as North Korea is Threatening War
so
WHY WAIT ??? It is already Operational so begin the LASER BEAM now.

T L Van Akin

Reply

jhm April 9, 2013 at 11:43 pm

Were you born yesterday? N Koreans will be N Koreans.

Reply

Kirk April 9, 2013 at 7:08 pm

Beam me up, Scotty.

Raytheon is notorious for overstating their product capabilities and doing so with enormous cost overruns. This would be more believable had the "drone" been a hydrogen filled dirigible.

Reply

earlbob April 9, 2013 at 8:57 pm

Would they work on enemy communication satellites? Now that would be a defense weapon. Amp up!

Reply

Kdubya April 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm

We can already shoot down satellites: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/20/satellit

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 11, 2013 at 10:13 pm

F-15 accomplished that a while back, so yeah.

Reply

orgaridgE April 10, 2013 at 12:00 am
Christinesty April 10, 2013 at 12:02 am
Anbagseljj April 10, 2013 at 12:07 am
hahjkkdkad April 10, 2013 at 12:10 am
hyetrusdfg April 10, 2013 at 12:17 am
Jerry Wilson April 10, 2013 at 12:18 am

Can I get one of these rigged-up to my 9mm Semi-automatic hand gun? I am putting in my order now; before the "o" Bans them…

Reply

Buck Farack April 18, 2013 at 7:33 am

Jerry,

It's 0bama . . . with a zero!

Reply

gdhrhjhshh April 10, 2013 at 12:21 am
Indendbyncdix April 10, 2013 at 12:23 am
ArremnSuhhini April 10, 2013 at 12:24 am
JRW April 10, 2013 at 12:25 am

Can I get one of these to play with the cat??? She'd love it!

Reply

ohwilleke April 10, 2013 at 12:28 am

I wonder how much one costs to build and install. The story mentions a $40 million development cost (which seems stunningly low for a new weapons system) and I agree with others that the maintenance cost and durability should be good compared to kinetic systems with more moving parts, but the story does not mention a per unit cost to build and install one. Low "per round" costs only matter if the system used to fire the round isn't too expensive (e.g. there is no cost efficiency in a rifle that costs $100,000 even if it fires 1 cent bullets).

There have been efforts, rather successful to develop anti-ordinance lasers, but this doesn't seem to be what is at work here.

Reply

FepeanyInsant April 10, 2013 at 12:32 am
oblatt1 April 10, 2013 at 4:03 am

Another operationally worthless system simply deployed to secure contractor money.

Reply

DirtBike April 10, 2013 at 8:55 am

Nothing like aid & comfort to the enemy. This is some pretty cool gee-whiz stuff for the nintendo gen gizmo fans but stories and discussions like this are EXACTLY WHY several of the promising IED interdiction devices never made it to the field. So let's tell the bad guys all about this new system and help them guess at how to defeat it. Bunch of questionable loyalty dipwads. Shut the F up about things like this. Whether it really does what underinformed people think, it is a stepping stone. A lot of the star trek stuff has and will become reality thanks to DARPA & brilliant contractors.

Reply

Ed C April 10, 2013 at 9:58 am

I doubt this article tells us all of the capabilities of the system.

Reply

Ed C April 10, 2013 at 10:01 am

When I read that the captain can chose between setting it for lethal and non-lethal power, did anyone think of setting their phasers on "stun"? Welcome to the 21st century. This seems like one of the biggest bangs for the buck. I mean 40M to develop this? That's one vacation trip for the president and his family.

Reply

D. Cheney April 10, 2013 at 10:30 am

No kidding. The Bush's took more vacations than any President… bet that added up to at least a submarine or two…

Reply

blight_ April 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm

He went to Texas a lot. At which point they could've ditched the 747's for a much smaller jet to take him to Crawford and back.

Reply

Tiger April 15, 2013 at 5:12 pm
grim3per April 10, 2013 at 12:00 pm

this probably explains the rash of commercial aircraft crashes out of JFK in '98….suspicious electrical fires my ass

Reply

Tribulationtime April 10, 2013 at 4:38 pm

How cost (Right now that all we know about this laser) put a "Blue" laser detector, and switch off the FLIR?. Tiny manouvers keep the laser out of focus so it can´t bring enough power on the target. Chinese engineers had make a lot of research about to "blind" IIR guided bombs and seems there is many details to fix. Second, I ´m very suspicious about open sources defense news; i think it became a pawn in a wider chess board.

Reply

blight_ April 10, 2013 at 5:12 pm

I imagine the rangefinder uses a CCD, and I suppose it could be photobleached with another laser. Of course, if the ship is using radar to acquire and track it might not be a big deal.

Reply

paul April 10, 2013 at 11:25 pm

i gotta say it, drones? lets see who couldn't hit one. but like the man said, why tell somebody you got a bigger gun. let'em find out the hard way. but if you let the cat out of the bag, ya better hit something a little faster than a drone.
i also like what someone said about raytheon. so true.

Reply

John April 10, 2013 at 11:29 pm

Will this thing work in heavy weather or sea spray ? Heavy rain or snow will degrade a concentrated light beam over a short distance. How will you over come that ? Where seconds count; will it knock down a fast moving target, especially one that is skimming the sea surface ?

Reply

Ray April 11, 2013 at 2:20 am

NOTHING CREATES SLAVERY LIKE THE THOUGHT OF FREEDOM AND ITS MAINTENANCE, IN ORDER TO FREE YOURSELF FROM YOUR OWN CREATED FEARS YOU ARM YOURSELF TO DEFEND YOURSELF FROM THE OBJECT OF THE FEAR YOU CREATED. NOW YOU ARE BOTH THE SLAVE OF YOUR FEARS AND THE DEFENSIVE SYSTEM YOU CREATED PLUS THE WORTHLESS GOVERNMENT THAT WAS DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE YOUR FEARS. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW BIG AND POWERFUL YOUR GOVERNMENT IS AND HOW MANY OR HOW BIG YOUR WEAPONS ARE, THEY WILL NEVER BE POWERFUL ENOUGH TO PREVENT YOU FROM CREATING BIGGER AND BETTER FEARS. AND IF YOU DON'T CREATE YOUR PERSONAL FEARS, THE GOVERNMENT WILL CREATE THEM FOR YOU AND ISSUE YOU GOVERNMENT CREATED, GOVERNMENT INSPECTED FEARS. I"TS CALLED THE AMERICAN WAY.

Reply

Andy K April 11, 2013 at 2:52 am

What about multiple high speed targets? No talk of a demo…only the "capability".

Reply

tm1charlie April 11, 2013 at 8:29 am

I hope there are plans to adapt these lasers to be mounted on sharks for sneak attacks.

Reply

Stan Zirkelbach April 11, 2013 at 9:12 am

Imagine that on the USS Ponce! I was stationed on the USS Ponce LPD 15 many years ago, in the eighties. Love that ship.

Reply

Jim Wheeler April 11, 2013 at 9:59 am

Sounds good, but:
Range? Weather limitations? Dwell time required for destruction? Tracking adequate for a violently maneuvering target? Can it be countered with mirrors or mirrored surfaces or paint? Does it blind personnel on the target? Maintenance reliability?

Reply

Rev April 11, 2013 at 10:36 am

Why doesn't it go Pew Pew? My childhood dreams are ruined!

Reply

Dave April 11, 2013 at 6:13 pm

I think you can buy a better and cheaper version at Walmart. Made in China

Reply

ron salatrik April 11, 2013 at 9:36 pm

This is the greatest since Grandma's apple pie.

Ron S.

Reply

Dennis April 12, 2013 at 2:12 am

Next it will be the Battlestar Galactica with a fleet of Colonial Vipers.

Reply

Lemuel April 12, 2013 at 9:51 pm
USS Challenger April 16, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Why is the emphesis placed on lasers rather than rail-type guns? I heard that the weekness of lasers is that the targeted object could be coated with a reflective material to counter the laser, while on the other hand, a small projectile from a rail gun is nearly impossible to counter (until someone does that's the way things go anyway). I tried to look for some pratical explanation fot this but nada. anyone has any insight

Reply

blight_ April 16, 2013 at 5:11 pm

A powerful laser will superheat the glass, then burn through the aluminum under your laser. You can use a laser to cut glass or metal, depending on the application.
http://www.glassonweb.com/articles/article/20/

Or a ehow that describes laser engraving and mirrors. Mirrors aren't end-all to lasers:
http://www.ehow.com/facts_7930293_laser-power-set

"When a laser engraves glass objects, such as mirrors, it is referred to as micro chipping. Heat from the laser causes the glass to flake and fall off. The correct power settings are important to avoid chipping off large flakes…" but frankly, if we're killing people, large flakes are fine too.

Railguns depend on rapid discharge of a fair amount of energy. Either a capacitor or compulsator.
http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/IEEE/PR 43 Werst Publications.pdf

Reply

assomiamots April 19, 2013 at 12:02 am
Reodsgell April 19, 2013 at 12:03 am
Reodsgell April 19, 2013 at 12:04 am
Reodsgell April 19, 2013 at 12:04 am
obserbari April 19, 2013 at 12:05 am
obserbari April 19, 2013 at 12:05 am
obserbari April 19, 2013 at 12:06 am
Allan Oines May 4, 2013 at 2:08 am

Nothing like beating the war drums

Reply

Attapanny May 10, 2013 at 1:13 pm
Attapanny May 10, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Attapanny May 10, 2013 at 3:49 pm
pepownewota May 12, 2013 at 3:33 am
yoni May 12, 2013 at 10:35 am

and there ends the 20th century dominance of small craft and aircraft carriers.

put 30 of these on a 70,000 ton nuclear battleship with 16/50 2600 lbs shells and watch the money burn as planes try to sink it with rockets while it approaches the fleet. (and add a couple of iron domes for good measure, plus a couple of antiaircraft weapons)

without such weapons and some serious flaws the yamato absorbed perhaps 40 thousand pounds of explosives before being disabled and remained afloat for over a day (IIRC) Old WW1 battleships couldn't be sunk using aerial burst 25 kt nuclear bombs. The only reason that they were defeated was the ability of a carrier to overwhelm them and the expense of loosing them.

Reply

B Bose November 1, 2013 at 1:07 am

Everybody is talking of the total cost of 40 mil ,has anyone calculated what a burst of say 10000 fluenc will cost and the damage it can cause to the enemy target. This calculation will be good enough to keep the diplomats quite to justify the cost .

Reply

FormerDirtDart April 9, 2013 at 7:55 pm

And here it says it is not, from the very same site, only 3 days later: http://defensetech.org/2012/01/31/ponce-not-quite

If you wish for further sources, here are the result from a simple google search for : USS Ponce mine warfare http://goo.gl/Yh0Eq

Reply

blight_ April 9, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Fair enough. The question is: what is the range of these IRBMs? If you can hit an ocean target from the heartland, then you don't need to mass the missiles. If they're short-ranged, it should be more obvious when missiles have to be pushed to the coastline.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 11, 2013 at 10:06 pm

Exactly. US satellites, I think, would notice trucks with missiles on their backs just sorta pulling up to the beach. Also, strike missions flown by F-15Es supported by *sooner or later (probably later)* the F-35 could take out launchers, like -15s did back in the First Gulf War and the Scud business. But honestly, all this is for nothing. China won't fight the US.

Reply

crackedlenses April 10, 2013 at 1:49 am

Actually trying to hurl anything lethal at the White House (or Congress for that matter) before 2016 would be a waste of effort.

Reply

FormerDirtDart April 10, 2013 at 8:58 am

Did you even read the article?
This is the laser tested on the USS Dewey, and it is not a permanent installation on the USS Ponce.

Reply

Air Jordan Femme May 2, 2013 at 11:37 pm

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: