Laser gun fired from US navy ship

[go west young man]

Source: BBC

The US Navy has fired a laser gun from one of its ships for the first time.

Researchers used the high-energy laser (HEL) to disable a boat by setting fire to its engines off the coast of California.

Similar systems had previously been tested on land, however moist sea air presented an extra challenge as it reduces a beam's power.

The navy said that ship-borne lasers could eventually be used to protect vessels from small attack boats.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13033437

---

This video is newsworthy to me because it actually shows how ridiculous our military is.
They release a video showing the test which shows a small twin engine boat with two Mercury
200 outboard motors being set alight by the laser. Couldn't they have taken one of the motors
off and conducted the same test? They essentially just flushed at least ten grand down the toilet.
Link here to motor price. http://www.boats.net/outboard_motor/Mercury/200HP/parts.html
We have great technology yet we are still fucking idiots

[NickB79]

1. It's a solution to a question no one asked

Lasers on ships are pointless compared to projectile weapons. CIWS guns that fire hundreds of rounds per second are just as effective as a laser on small targets, and a hell of a lot cheaper to boot. You can't replace large guns like those on old battleships with lasers because a lot of fire is over-the-horizon fire, which you can't accomplish with a laser (no arc of trajectory, just a straight line).

It really has no use except to look cool and futuristic.

[DRex]

2. Now we'll need a fleet of new choppers...

to dangle mirrors to deflect the laser over the horizon... Think of the meaty contract!

[Jester Messiah]

4. Sure, but the laser is more environmentally sound.

All those hundreds of rounds that the CIWS fires end up in the environment. That introduces lead or depleted uranium or whatever those rounds are made out of into the ecosystem where it can cause havoc. The laser is just light.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Which needs power: Chemical or Nuclear power.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. The nuclear power is already there.

it's a sunk overhead cost. The reactors are already on the ship and already outputting heat whether or not the crew uses the enrgy or not. All drawing more power does is divert more steam to generator turbines.

Hopefully they use a chemical reaction with products that can be converted to the original state and reused... or they could just use capacitor banks and the electrical power already generated.

[Arctic Dave]

35. Only aircraft carriers and the Long Beach are nuke for surface warfare vessels.

Unless they upgrade all the ships in the fleet, nuke energy is very limited.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

54. I assumed all modern DDG/Destroyer clas ships were also nuclear like the carriers & submarines.

I guess not...

Maybe they figure that carriers and subs are much less likely to be attacked and damaged or sunk so putting a reactor on board isn't a big risk.

[jmowreader]

59. DDG ships are gas turbine-powered

A Navy ship with boilers and steam turbines has a two-letter classification code--for a destroyer it would be DD although no DD ship is left in the fleet.

If there's three letters in the code, the third describes the propulsion system. "G" means "gas turbine"--a jet engine. "N" means nuclear.

[liberation]

20. Yeah, because the "soon to be part of the environment" targets being obliterated by those eco-lasers

are totally made of recycled materials and unicorn dreams.


;-)

[Jester Messiah]

50. Depends on the target, I'm sure.

Still, "exploded engine parts" is a better addition to the environment than "exploded engine parts and 1,000 rounds of machinegun ammo."

[liberation]

74. So targets that not have rounds of their own

well, thank goodness we're disposing of civilian targets in an environmental conscious manner. Otherwise it would be uncivilized!

[Jester Messiah]

83. Look at it this way

US foreign policy is not going to stop killing people any time soon. If there is any possible method whereby we can lessen the harm done along the way, shouldn't we?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. Could me more effective.

#1) Lasers can be modulated fo5r lower power or less-letahal effects. A laser may allow the navy to scale a response mroe appropriate to the level of threat... perhaps offering more humane options. Bullets pretty much destroy whatever they hit.

#2) For line of sight defense, a laser offers a zero-lead targeting solution. If you can see it, you can hit it instantly. No trajectories or other variables like speed and target maneuverability. This is especially helpful for targeting often supersonic antiship missles, aircrafts, or ASROCs.

So, sure, no one specifically asked for problems with guns to be addressed... but this technology could provide a more effective capability for line of sight defense or engagement. More likely defense since because, as you pointed out, tactical engagement and offensive action is typically handled using the superior standoff dinstances of BLOS (beyond line of sight) weapons.

[hack89]

9. I disagree

the obvious reason for shipboard lasers is anti-ship missile defense. We are quickly approaching the era of hypersonic sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles. A mach-6 or faster missile is will cover the distance from the radar horizon to the target in a blink of an eye. A laser will be the only real chance you have - bullets are too slow.

[stevenleser]

36. I also think this is great for use against pirate ships. n/t

[A Physicist]

48. As long as

all these times sum to less than the “blink of an eye” you might have chance to shoot that missile:

Time to detect to target
Time to acquire, track, and pick the proper aimpoint
Time to slew/point the laser to the target aimpoint
They probably need to clean-up the beam using adaptive optics so add that time
Time to dwell on the target to initiate destruction

More likely this is just another unjustified high-cost “gee wiz” defense wet dream of dubious return-on-investment.

In a word: Boondoggle.

Been there, done that.

[hack89]

53. OK - if you say so. nt

[tclambert]

55. For a missile faster than bullets, spray out a cloud of bullets, and let the missile run into them.

If the missile can really go from the radar horizon to the target in the blink of an eye, you can't aim a laser fast enough to do anything. You can't aim anything fast enough. An eye blinks in about 300 to 400 milliseconds (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100322202541AAgBYXy), or .3 to .4 seconds, about the same time it takes to push a button labelled "Fire Laser." (Whoops! Too late!)

Sound travels about 1 mile in 5 seconds. If your radar can detect a missile at 100 miles, then a missile that can cover that in a .4 second eyeblink would have to travel at 250 times the speed of sound. I would suggest the eyeblink fast missile is an exaggeration.

[hack89]

61. The radar horizon for a ship is about 12 miles

for a sea skimmer - the curvature of the earth is the problem.

I didn't mean a literal blink of an eye - a mach 6 missile would cover the distance in about 12 seconds.

[tclambert]

63. OK, 12 seconds gives you a little reaction time.

Maybe not enough to wake up the captain and explain the situation and ask for permission to fire. The OOD has to have authority to issue the fire order. But does 12 seconds give you enough time to distinguish a missile from a non-hostile aircraft?

12 miles is from the top of the radar mast, right? This is why it's nice to have someone flying cap, especially one of those nice AEW (Airborne Early Warning)aircraft. A couple of minutes of warning would be a lot better than 12 seconds.

[hack89]

70. It would have to be a fully automated system

there is no time for human decision making.

An E-2D with CEC would give you some more warning time. ESM would be your best tipper as it picks up the missile seeker.

[Roy Rolling]

31. Cooler yet...

sharks with laser beams attached to their heads. Even in "cool" the military cannot go the extra step to achieve "great." So if they really wanna impress somebody, sharks with laser beams attached to their heads are the way to go . . .

[go west young man]

39. I believe "Dr. Blowhole" from the Penguins of Madagascar

has already patented that tech.

[alfredo]

71. Laser Cats

[Recursion]

32. Disable a craft's engine without sinking the craft with a projectile weapon

They demonstrated a use case for it in the test.

[Paper Roses]

3. Oh good, another killing machine. Just what we need. n/t

[BeFree]

15. Empire

In order to survive it must stay at least one step ahead.

[yngdip]

7. so my tax dollars

go towards laser guns instead of NPR?

[liberation]

21. Don't think of them as "laser guns" but as a nice "laser show."

If you play Pink Floyd during maneuvers, you can get more entertainment bang (pun intended) for the buck than NPR ever provided.

Win-win, I think.

[buddysmellgood]

8. Seems like a rocket would have done a better job

[FLPanhandle]

11. This is really a test bed for developing speed of light weapons

For many threats rockets & bullets are too slow.

[liberation]

22. Yeah, we need to make sure we can neutralize those terrorist zodiacs moving at the speed of light...

... on water, you know a medium with almost no friction and resistance at all.

[buddysmellgood]

29. I did read about a Chinese rocket that can take out an aircraft carrier largely

because of its speed.

[A Physicist]

47. For many threats

What threats would that be?

[Ian David]

12. Now, we can cause thousands of dollars in damage to any boat that looks suspicious...

... without worrying that we've killed innocent people.

"Hey Captain! That boat way over there looks kinda sketchy. Can we blow the fuck out of their engine and then check them out? Not like we're gonna kill anyone if we do."

WARNING: Approaching a U.S. Navy Ship will void the warranty on your motor.

Also useful for drug interdiction and stopping illegal immigrants traveling by boat.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

13. If the laser can fry an engine ...

think it won't hurt any people it happens to illuminate?

I hear sizzling.

:hi:

[Ian David]

17. Sure, if they aim it at people, it could light them up like roman candles.

Although, IIRC, there are certain frequencies of laser light that can be tuned to only burn certain kinds of materials.

[Kolesar]

19. How is that different than blasting them with a naval deck gun?

Besides never running out of ammunition

[liberation]

23. "Never" is such a strong word...

[2banon]

14. so this is the so called "hel" fire weapon.

And I completely agree with your point on rediculous wasteful spending. I attempted to search news links in order to determine where exactly (or even approixmate location) off the coast this dangerous and wasteful idiocy took place. sheesh.

[Botany]

16. We have money for this happy horse shit but we have to ...

.... cut aid to education and the needy because of the size of the
debt. I think the figure is that we spend more than the all the
other countries in the world on defense combined.


:puke:

$12,000 to 20,000 per engine.

why not a couple of boxes of marshmallows?

[go west young man]

25. And to think of all the lives in America that money could have helped.

Ten to twenty thousand could have fed 100 homeless people for a couple of months.
It could have provided heating or air conditioning for an older person for their final years.
It could have provided an operation for a needy family's baby.

The argument could be made that our military is literally "killing" our citizens.
When we defund head start there are children who will take different roads in life that could
have been better. Some of those roads will lead to crime and murder. We could have prevented it
but we chose to keep feeding the military beast instead. What a fucking mess.

[LongTomH]

42. Think of President Eisenhower's "Cross of Iron" speech updated

A few excerpts from Ike's 1953 Cross of Iron speech given to the American Society of Newspaper Editors:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This could be updated. The cost of hospitals, homes, schools and wheat have gone up; but, I think the cost of thigh-tech weaponry has gone up much more steeply.

[go west young man]

46. Thank You.

[Recursion]

33. I'm sure quite a few grad students were sent through school by this project

Military spending may gall you, but it keeps people working and in school.

[go west young man]

40. I'm sure we could come up with better ways to educate and employ

our people. This huge military is taking away from all other areas of our social structure.
As I said before at this point our military spending is literally killing our own citizens.
Such a paradox. It's meant to protect us but instead it eats away our social structure which
leads to a deteriorating society and numerous problems whether they be health related,
education, living, homelessness, broken infrastructure, crumbling bridges and roads.
These conditions sometimes lead to fatalities. That is the state of the U.S.A. today.

[RSillsbee]

60. This from the guy

that was a failure as a Marine

[go west young man]

76. Ha! Your funny!

[MikeW]

73. earth to go west ... there arnt any engineering jobs in the US right now not many at all

[go west young man]

77. It's about priorities.

Of course a society needs engineers but why miltary engineers instead of civil ones?
Is that the best we can do?

[MikeW]

87. with the economy in the tank and no construction or manufacturing going on

Id say the answer to that is emphatically YES.

People are going to work where they can get a job and make money to feed their families.

[primavera]

72. The figure isn't quite that bad, but close

We spend more on military than anyone else and we spend as much on military as the next fifteen largest military budgets combined. What's especially amusing is that all but one (China) of those top 15 largest military budgets are allies.

[Kelvin Mace]

18. It will always be cheaper to kill things and people

with flying pieces of metal than energy weapons. Not that that will stop the people wasting trillions on this shit.

[bergie321]

24. How many teachers' salaries

Did this little test cost?

[Canuckistanian]

26. "Chinese deploy new ship-mounted mirrors"

Headline two months from now.

[Kolesar]

28. With lead in them...eom

[Jester Messiah]

52. "Aw, dammit." -Pentagon [nt]

[liberation]

75. New US computerized rock throwing mechanism breaks new records in cost

that will be the headline in half a year.

[Taverner]

27. To me, it looked like their "laser" was just a big magnifying glass

Like the kind we used to light paper on fire as a kid

[donco]

30. Somalia pirates best

bring a extra set of paddles with you.

[Auntie Bush]

34. Put that laser on OIL Tankers and stop the damn pirates. That works for me.

[LongTomH]

43. A couple of 50-calliber gun mounts would be just as effective against pirate boats.

Not to mention much cheaper.

[Hotler]

69. ding, ding, ding! n/t

[Arctic Dave]

37. How will it work if the boat is in motion?

The boat was idle in the water and not moving at 20 knots. Does it work in foul weather or fog?


Waste of money.

[Blue_Tires]

38. Nice to know there is never such a thing as 'recession' for the Pentagon

Every day is still Christmas morning for them...

[Javaman]

41. Queue the death star music. nt

[Vinee]

44. The idea of lasers on ships has merit IMO if they can defeat incoming anti-ship missiles.

The ability to counter incoming anti-ship missiles with 100% success would be a game changer. America needs a strong Navy. I support this.

[Nihil]

82. That depends on who launches the anti-ship missiles ...

e.g.,
Are they sea-skimming inbound at Mach 6 or stationary for 10 minutes or more?

Are they painted matt black for maximum absorption of laser energy?

Was the missile's exact trajectory programmed in to the "detection" module?

Have they been fitted with big "I AM HERE" beacons?

If not, you might not want to hold your breath for the "game-changer" ...

[makhno]

85. ASBM WH re-entry ...

... what would it be? Mach 10? Better hit that target before the air burst comes.

Good luck with wasting money on this crap. I guess the SM-3s aren't as good as they're made out to be. Then again, maybe the MIC is just looking out for us, staying multiple gratifying, budget-padding steps ahead of the Reds.

[One_Life_To_Give]

45. Motors probably have 750+ hrs on them

That looks like one of the surplus boats thats been going to auction. Typically those motors were used by Coast Guard or other government entity and there really isn't any life left in them. There is currently a pair of 300HP Yamaha's of newer vintage. Bid is at $3000 for the pair. http://gsaauctions.gov

[yellowcanine]

49. "Take that, ye scurvy pirate!"

[LetTimmySmoke]

51. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw

[tclambert]

56. I wish to lodge 3 objections to this test

which make me think it is another in a long line of ridiculously unrealistic tests of proposed weapons systems.

[tclambert]

57. 1) The target boat was obviously not moving.

No wake, no spray from the engines. Camera angle unchanging. Tell the truth, it was anchored, wasn't it?

[tclambert]

58. 2) The engines were painted black. What if they were white, or silver?

Less absorption of the light, possibly reflection of the light means no heating up to the combustion point. One poster suggested the Chinese would immediately start work on motors covered with mirrors. If you use right angle mirror material, like the stuff they paint on road signs, the light gets reflected straight back at the source. The point is, it's trivially easy to defend against laser weapons.

[tclambert]

62. 3) In the video, they shined the laser on one spot for about 10 seconds to achieve ignition.

You can't shoot the same spot on a real, live moving target for 10 seconds continuously. At the beginning of the video, they showed an attempt where the laser shined on one spot for about 4 seconds, and the fire went out. That's a FAIL.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

64. I wonder how many whales were harmed during the test(s)?

[fascisthunter]

65. Gee, don't you all feel safer....?

meanwhile Fukushima will have to be raised to a level 7. Seems to me, we need money for defense but not for keeping americans safe.

[underpants]

66. We've got frickin' lasers!

[fascisthunter]

67. lol...

I swear, I was thinking him right after I posted that.

[alfredo]

68. Seems like it would be quicker to set the crew on fire.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

79. Also you could hose the boat out and re-purpose it.

[alfredo]

80. I can see this becoming a horrific anti personnel weapon.

[daleo]

78. In the future, lasers can be used to set social security checks on fire

From long distance. In a way, that's all this sort of military gee-whiz stuff amounts to.

[Evasporque]

81. clunky and expensive the robotics required to keep the thing steady...

More largess for the MIC.

[makhno]

84. So this is going to help protect a carrier battle group how?

Cool technology and all, but is it cool enough to intercept multiple nuclear warheads heading towards a CVBG? Because by the time it's used, we're clearly dealing with an adversary that has more than conventional supersonic ASMs at its disposal.

Idiotic ABM dreams wasting my tax money again. Thinking about preventing war is so much cheaper than developing ways to conduct one. Perhaps that is the real problem as far as our oligarchs are concerned.

[Baclava]

86. I say The Navy is full of shit....put lasers on sharks, it would make more sense.

They think they're gonna blow up some motherships? Doesn't aiming lasers mean line-of-sight? Naval battles happen over-the-horizon nowadays. A Multi-billion dollar weapons system for a couple of fucking pirate dinghies?


The Navy wants their pork, they're just jealous of the AF.