Slashdot Mirror
Warships May Get Lasers For Close-In Defense
King Louie writes "Raytheon and the US Navy have successfully tested a ship-borne laser capable of shooting down aircraft. Video at the link shows the 32-kilowatt solid-state laser shooting down an unmanned aerial vehicle. The technology is apparently mature enough to be deployed as part of ships' short-range missile defenses, a role currently filled by the Basic Point Defense Missile System (based on the Sea Sparrow missile) and the Close-In Weapons System (based on a 20mm Gatling gun)."
Is it shark-mountable?
Does the price include the shark handlers?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
no robo sharks!
Yeah. Too bad, though, since dropping gravity bombs from planes had its heyday during 1935 to 1955.
Nobody's tried doing that for a long long time.
What you do is stand off 20 miles and shoot a missile at the ship.
So an anti-plane laser is not all that useful. And what if it's a cloudy day?
The best part is the Siemens Wind Energy Advertisment before the video. Apparently a with a few Windmills and a laser. Pew, Pew, Pew, we can finally have a green war!
The article says kilowatts.
32 kW, not MW, thats kilowatt, not megawatt.
Fricken ships! With Frickin laser beams!
Pointing lasers at aircraft might get the navy arrested.
Is this thing single use? Could we string 10 of these together and use it for laser launch vehicles out in the middle of the pacific?
There are numerous advantages to using lasers instead of traditional weapons:
*) Longer range
*) Better accuracy
*) Unlimited ammunition
*) No pollution from spent weapons
Man the laser-harpoons!
Seems like they had to hold the laser on the target for a long time until it worked. If you can keep a laser beam on target that long, you might as well use the laser to guide an effective, high explosive round to it.
As a military contractor, I encourage the addition of new systems onto NATO ships.
As a Mechwarrior fan, I say bring on the Clan-LAMS. 1d6 heat?
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
How long was I asleep? TFS sounds like it could be properly used to discuss weapons systems of interstellar fighters.
...shows the 32-megawatt solid-state laser...
From TFA:
...which is made up of six solid-state lasers with an output of 32 kilowatts that simultaneously focus on a target.
As my stat mech professor once said, "but hey, what's a few orders of magnitude between friends?"
Wouldn't fog refract the laser beam and make this useless? It's foggy often at sea.
All I can picture is one of the only good parts of Star Wars Episode 3: the opening battle where star destroyers and CIS ships are broadsiding each other with lasers.
Nice. So, we don't have money for the unemployed, for the ill, or even for veterans benefits, but we can afford laser systems to shoot down planes for imaginary invasions.
Seventy percent of the defense industry is a private set of corporations whose economic incentive is to discover (or invent) threats, and then sell the government the contract to fight this imaginary enemy. Sounds like a nice recipe for solutions that exacerbate the underlying problems, and not by accident.
I don't know much about lasers so perhaps someone can answer this:
If I were to make a missile/plane/uav with a chrome coating, something mirror-like and reflective, would the laser still work?
~Syberz
Red lasers on one side, blue lasers on the other. I keep forgetting which is which...
Eh, megawatt, kilowatt, what's an order of magnitude or 3? We're talking lasers here.
FTFY
- it takes 10 to 30 seconds to burn a hole,
- can't handle more then one aircraft at the same time (if they had more power on board they would have way more then 32kW beam),
- easy to target - follow the light to the slow moving ship,
- you need atomic energy on board to drive it.
If they have to defend against Anti-Ship Missles; perhaps lasers can do a better job of defending against 20 missiles coming in at mach 2.5.
Can it make popcorn?
I see a great need for a UAV-mounted Jiffy Pop module.
It is a moral imperative.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Oh well, so use lightweight ablative coating. With the typical times of flybys / warning before missile hit, that shouldn't be much of a problem. For some bonus points, make the coating release a barrier (in whatever form - aerosol, plasma, who cares as long as it works)
Real bonus points: add retroreflectors; they might work only for a short time and reflect only a small part of incoming radiation...but there's bound to be something delicate on the other end. For that matter - how hard millions of toy balloons with small retro- and ordinary reflectors scattered in the area can be?..."99 Luftabaloons" might have been prophetic, in a way ;)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Chinese have developed and are testing the Dong Feng 21D missile, capable of accurately targeting and hitting a moving navy Aircraft Carrier from 2000 miles away. US experts are scared. Since capabilities of this missile are not fully known to US Navy, their strategy to combat it currently is SM-3 interceptor rockets launched from Aegis destroyers and cruisers that escort Aircraft Carriers.
Problem with that is that the reloading capacity of these Aegis equipped ships isn't fast enough to protect against a volley of Dong Feng 21Ds. So they are pretty much screwed. Currently Aircraft Carriers are the most effective way of projecting current US air superiority anywhere in the world. Imagine the implications of a bunch of US carriers being sunk.
This laser defense system may be Navy's answer to this new missile threat.
...for protective eyewear.
Also:
"We have enemy contact, everybody put on your shadesss..."
I am assuming the sensor package on the missile will be pointed toward the ship it is supposed to attack. So painting a mirrored surface on the missile may not help the missile's sensor package.
In addition the laser doesn't need to destroy the missile. It only needs to destroy enough of the missile so that it falls out of the sky.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
Mods, do you so easily fall for broken window fallacy?
Hey, I've got an idea, let's just give money to groups who say that what they do will get rid of the probem of unemployed / undesirables. One calling their product "Soylent Green" seems legit.
One that hath name thou can not otter
This might be useful against drone attacks in small numbers, but the recharge rate between firings may limit it to very small numbers on days when the attacking missile, drone, or converted suicide Chinese aircraft (Taiwan says they have many hundreds of thousands aimed at them) are flying in a straight pattern on a clear day where you have clear line of sight.
In other words, most of the time it won't work against a large-scale planned assault mixed in with planes piloted by humans, or even human-operated drones (pretty cheap).
But it might be useful against terrorist attacks and small rogue nations like Burma.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If it takes 15 seconds to knock down an unhardened target in perfect conditions, then nice science project, but you guys have still got work to do.
Off the top of my head,
a) Reflective surfaces
b) dispersing reflective particles from the aircraft as soon as a laser is detected
c) ditto, thick smoke
d) attack when it's raining
Add any of these, and it might take 1 minutes to bring down a bad guy,
How far will a missile travel in 1 minute at (how fast is a ship to ship missile any how ?)
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
In other news, there appears to be a curious increase in the density of sharks near US Navy based locations. It is unknown whether the sharks are being coerced to these hot spots, or whether they are gathering from their own free will, but some of the sharks appear to exhibit some kind of a 'metal saddle' (for want of a better description) over their backs, almost like as if something were meant to, y'know, be attached to it. A spokesman was not available for further comment.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Having success against targeting drone is one thing, but up against the living?
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
Really? do they really think we all believe the Navy/Raytheon has the same video capability as say, 1957?
Black and white splotchy jerky dropped frames....really, are the lemmings really that gullible?
Come on now, my phone takes better video then that....
Why am I betting dollars to doughnuts that was highly doctored to fuzz out details, considering camera tech these days, it would be exceedingly difficult to make a video that bad with out significant digital intervention.
Tweet, tweet, all id10t's out of the gene pool, open swim is over.
Now we just need a forward-firing wave motion gun...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Excellent point - just like this?
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
All you'd need is a big spinning mirror and you could vaporize a human target from space.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Next, as a former soldier myself, I can tell you that we are very appreciative of the best equipment money can buy. You know, because it saves our lives and all. I figure that paying for that is very least I and the rest of the tax payers can do for those that are willing to lay down their lives so you can complain about it freely.
First of all, I'm not trying to denigrate anyone's service. I know many people feel that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified, and I blame myself as much as I blame the politicians and businessmen who exploit our armed forces for their own goals and benefits.
But what if you had been asked to perform your duty to your country by educating poor children (in foreign lands or at home), or to help build roads or work with communities to reduce drug problems, mentor troubled teens, or become a surgeon and work for a lower wage in a government hospital?
It seems odd to me that the same people who think using force and violence to impose our will on foreign nationals - and putting their own life at risk in the process - is patriotic, while any of the previous paragraph gets relabeled as communism or some other misnomer. A battlefield medic is a hero, while a government paid surgeon would be considered incompetent, even though they are the same thing. The whole thing seems nonsensical to me.
Looked mroe like someone holding a magnifying glass on a model airplane. Where's the red flash of light? Where's the cool explosion in slow motion??
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Actually, I was thinking that reason for deploying such a system would be the lack of down-range damage from falling 20mm shells. As all that lead needs to come down somewhere, coastal towns and nearby ships could easily be damaged by it.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
I guess they better hope its not raining when war breaks out...
...a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range myself.
Wasn't the Rolling Airframe Missle supposed to replace the Phalanx? It's sidewinder based, can work in the same physical constraints as Phalanx, has over twice the engagement range, has a much higher probability of first shot kill, and given the ammo limits of the phalanx system, the larger magazined RAM systems can engage more targets in sequence than Phalanx before needing to be reloaded. Reloading them is also, supposedly, a faster procedure.
At present, the typical USN cruiser/destroyer has a three ring defensive system
Long range) SM-3 multi-purpose SAMs capable of intercepting aircraft, missles and large drones
Medium range) Radar directed deck gun fire (inaccurate, but not useless), phalanx, or RAM
Short) Blooming chaff launchers and jamming systems
If this laser can cycle targets at least as fast as phalanx, and can kill a target at least as fast as phalanx, it's an improvement over what we've got already. I suspect that they'll increase the strength of the laser over time, at least doubling or quadrupling it before the final version is deployed. If they increase the efficiency over time as well, it won't be a huge power hog either.
Phalanx was great for it's day. It was the perfect answer to the large supersonic and regular subsonic ASMs that our enemies were deploying at the time. It had it's limitations as any CIWS will in that it consumed lots of ammo, and couldn't actively engage targets for very long before it needed to be reloaded. Then, ASMs became evasive and somewhat smart as well as picking up more speed. This neccessitated engaging them at a more distant range. That precipitated the develpment of the RAM. IT has about twice the effective range of Phalanx. It's payload is more lethal. It can correct it's course mid flight. This makes it much more likely to hit on the first shot.
to me, for this to be useful for this role, it needs to better the RAM in every way.
Another thing to consider is that there IS a virtually unlimited pollution free (sort-of) power source on some of the Navy's larger vessels. It is of course the nuclear reactors on the big carriers (and maybe some of the cruisers?). I can't imagine that the power source capable of pushing a close to 100,000 ton ship through the ocean at 40 knots is going to have trouble powering a few measly lasers (either Kw or Mw). Even if it causes the ship to slow down a bit, that would hardly seem to make a difference to a missile coming in at Mach 5.
I believe that this is one of the justifications the Navy has used to making more "electric" ships where even in smaller vessels the propeller is not driven directly by the engine. Instead there is a gas turbine that runs a generator which then powers electric motors. In addition to thus being able to use the propulsive power to run electrically powered weapons (not just lasers, think rail guns), the power is also storable in batteries allowing for surges and the ability to run more quietly. There is even the possibility of more exotic propulsion systems being used (magnetohydrodynamics? the "crawler" in the movie "The Hunt for Red October"). Another benefit is that this power train, like a hybrid car, is more energy efficient (although it might be more picky about fuel). There are other applications made possible if boats are electrically powered (such as being possible electric generators for temporary onshore encampments much as like you can use a hybrid to light your house during a black-out) but you get the picture.
So, if in fact, the Navy will be using electrically powered lasers (free-electron?) the infrastructure should already be in place. In fact, one other intriguing possibly is the placement of such weapons on the (nuclear powered) fast attack submarines defending each carrier group. Not only could they provide another "picket line" defense that the enemy could not observe; they might be able to fire their lasers while remaining largely submerged by using the optics already present in the periscope. Finally, if these are free-electron lasers and thus tunable to blue-green wavelengths; they could conceivably be used as u
nderwater defensive weapons eithe-r by directly detonating $@incoming torpedos (or even Russia's rumored underwater supercavitating "rockets") or -(,by "jamming" the hom
ing sonar by $@/disrupting the acoustic environment through cavitation (boiling) and other effects. Of course if any of these more spec:@"'vulative ideas had an
y credence to them, it is highly unli!?.kely that this information would be allowe:);d to be posted on the Inter...
You got the Mirror Shield! You can now deflect enemy projectiles and LASERS. Link wins.
By coincidence, this is the same as the food energy in two Big Macs.
The McPhalanx Happy Meal?
Would you like the target fried with that? *arms LASER*
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
32kW is well within the capability of relatively small diesel generators. Any reasonably sized military vessel could mount several of these if desired.
They are STILL using sea sparrows? omg. Back in 1982 we fired 5 sea sparrows and of the 5 2 did not launch, 2 want completely off course and the other one missed. NOT exactly a working tech. Plus in 82 we were firing missles from the 60's. Well they do not work. We were then fitted with a Phalanx system which is a R2D2 looking thing that is totally awesome. But this was what, 28 years ago and they are STILL using sea sparrows? Wow I feel sorry for the squids on those boats if they ever need them.
Isn't this laser going to produce lots of instant retina frying reflections from the target that are going to play randomly over anything nearby? If a 250mw laser is a serious blinding hazard a 32kw laser must be a much more serious problem even after the reflections have bounced off several reflective surfaces.
Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
While energy weapons are gosh-wow sexy, their effects depend on maintaining the beam on the incoming missile for some undetermined length of time, until it either ignites the fuel or destroys the guidance systems. As modern ship-killer missiles tend to be supersonic, keeping the beam focused on a particular spot on an incoming missile is far from trivial, and of course will vary from missie to missile, so the defensive sytems have even more variables to account for. Phalanx and other gun systems use radar to track the incoming missile as well as the stream of outgoing rounds, and adjusts the aim until the tracks intersect.
Another problem is that destroying the missile's guidance system alone won't cut it. If it's already locked in the terminal phase chances are it will be blind, but still hit the target. This is the major reason that CIWS tend to use multi-barrel cannon with extremely high rates of fire (20mm/6,000 rounds per minute in the case of Phalanx, 30mm/4,000 rpm in the Dutch Goalkeeper system, which is built around the gun used in the A-10 aircraft). The intention is to cause as much structural damage to the incoming missile as possible, either destroying it or rendering it incapable of remaining on course, and with a missile like the SS-N-19 Shipwreck, which masses 7,000 kg and travels at Mach 2.5, even if the guidance systems and warhead are nullified, impact, even from large fragments, can still cause catastrophic damage to the defending vessel.
Then there's the energy requirements of a powerful laser, along with the transmission and control systems, massive cabling, fire-suppression, safety etc., versus self-contained units like Phalanx or Goalkeeper which basically just plug into a hole in the deck (oversimplification of course, but not by much). I am not a weapons expert, but personally I don't see the advantage of energy weapons over traditional gun systems for close-in defense.
I for one worship our new warship overlords.
Can it be controlled by a linux OS?
ordnance is completely different than ordinance.. just saying
Bullets and lasers deliver this energy differently
Completely true but there are other factors to consider, the most important of which is actually hitting the target. The most important advantage lasers have is target tracking. With bullets you have to consider two trajectories (the bullet and the target) neither of which is likely to be perfectly straight. With lasers you simply aim directly at the target which is a much simpler tracking problem to solve, especially with modern sensors and vision systems. No need to consider the effects of wind, gravity, aerodynamics, bullet speed, etc. This doesn't make it a trivial problem to solve but it does have advantages.
I think the speed of targeting will be especially interesting and important against hypersonic cruise missiles. I'm curious how long it would take to destroy a missile approaching at 2000 m/s (mach 6). From the time the missile appears on the horizon a close in defense system would have 3-8 seconds to destroy a missile traveling at those speeds depending on how high it was mounted.
Not to say that bullets/shells don't have advantages too. Tricks like proximity fuses obviously aren't possible with lasers.
Of course, the Phalanx shoots 50-75 rounds a second , for a total muzzle energy/second of firing of a whopping 2269kJ.
Only relevant if all the bullets all hit, which they pretty much never do.
can't afford an HD color camera.
...are woefully uninformed about the status of the Iranian armed forces. For one, they have the super-sunburn anti ship missile, designed primarily to kill aircraft carriers or other large ships, like tankers, etc. A lesser version near sunk an Israeli warship with the best protection Israel has during the Lebanon war. got right through state of the art defenses. The "super" version (technically unverified but believed to exist) is a full generation better quality. It's considered one of the best in the world by *any* defense analyst. Mach 3 or better, 15 feet off the waves. Good luck with that, phalanx or no phalanx. They have numerous more advanced fighters than "two old cold war era" fighters, have intermediate range ballistic missiles, and so on. They are not even close to being as unprepared or unarmed as Iraq was. Iraq was bombed almost daily for more than ten freaking years, after being half wiped out in the first iraq war, before the invasion in 2003, they had not much left to counter airpower. Iran has been building up for a long time now, unmolested but *pissed off* because saddam was the US patsy for an invasion he tried against the Iranians (or do you remember when we armed Iraq?). They have a bona fide legit beef against the US now, they suffered one million troops lost in that US sponsored proxy war. They might not triumph in an all out non nuclear match against the US, but the US WILL suffer a lot more damage from the Iranians than from the Iraqis, plus, the Iranian backed militias in Iraq, who have been held back, will be turned completely loose simultaneously with the first notice of an attack on Iran. Iraq and Iran is like an annoying fly as opposed to a hornet nest, just no comparison. And if the US and zionist forces hammer Iran real hard, and it compromises the oil supply out of the straits of hormuz, then they will have seriously annoyed both china and japan, who receive a lot of oil through there.
Feeling lucky? Now you want to go nuke? Think russia and china will stand back while the US and Israel start popping off nukes? You think Turkey would appreciate all sorts of radioactive nonsense on their borders, plus loss of all that trade with their number one trading partner?
Only a coked up drunk hallucinating steroid hopped complete redneck drooling moron, like the typical rah rah rah war is just like football! cretin would attack Iran today, the ramifications of a large scale attack are off the charts geopolitically.
Ignoring the theoretical issues, which have been addressed above, I'd like to point out that US warships have defense-in-depth. Anything with a chrome, or other reflective coating is going to be extremely easy to detect and track using radar at long range, and therefore be engaged by the warship's surface to air missiles long before point-defense lasers like this are going to be useful.
Now they just need to add fusion reactors and make them hover so they can move 16 hexes in a turn! If you do that you can also use your maglev rails and move them across the continent in one turn! How cool is that?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Highly reflective planes
Surely it must be cheaper to make aircraft and missiles reflect the energy ?
What if the missile is really shiny?
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I watched the video. To me, it isn't completely clear what is being shot down. The craft could be made of wood or paper (or something even more flammable) for all I know. On the one hand it looks impressive and powerful. On the other hand, it's very unclear what we are actually watching.
Will it blend?
Theres a typo in the summary. Phasers is spelled with a "ph", not an "L," and these are pointless until the ships also are equipped with photon torpedoes.
They have numerous more advanced fighters than "two old cold war era" fighters, have intermediate range ballistic missiles, and so on.
Before the first gulf war, Iraq had an army of over half a million, 4500 tanks, over 600 jet fighters and among those was a fair amount of pretty modern weaponry. On paper Iraq was pretty tough. In reality not so much. Iran would be a more dangerous foe I think but if the US military decided to attack Iran I think I know which side I'd bet on. Yes Iran has a few (emphasis FEW) state of the art weapons systems. If I was the commander of CENTCOM I wouldn't exactly be shaking in my boots. I have no confidence of the US policy AFTER the US military finishes wiping the floor with Iran's military but I wouldn't doubt the outcome of the fight.
Iran has been building up for a long time now, unmolested but *pissed off* because saddam was the US patsy for an invasion he tried against the Iranians (or do you remember when we armed Iraq?).
Yeah, do you remember why we armed Iraq? Iran wasn't our friend before the Iran Iraq war. I'm old enough to remember it happening and why it happened and why we supported Iraq. Our problems with Iran go back further than that. Iran has legitimate disputes with the US but it's not just that the US attacked the innocent Iranians.
They have a bona fide legit beef against the US now, they suffered one million troops lost in that US sponsored proxy war.
They had a beef long before that. The Islamic revolution occurred before the Iran/Iraq war and prior to that the US sponsored the government of Iran which achieved power courtesy a coup supported by the US in the 1950s. That government abused its power which lead to the islamic revolution. You might recall some hostages during the Carter administration courtesy of that little carnival.
Only a coked up drunk hallucinating steroid hopped complete redneck drooling moron, like the typical rah rah rah war is just like football! cretin would attack Iran today...
I would have said the same thing prior to the US invasion of Iraq. We elected a "redneck drooling moron". Twice.
Yes attacking Iran would be stupid. Hopefully it will never become necessary as well.
You're going to have a pretty hard time doing any targeting at all in heavy rain/fog so that cuts down on the differences between a laser and a shell under those conditions.
You know that goes for the missile targeting the ship as well right? Radar doesn't magically work better for the attacker than for the defender. Granted the ship is an easier target being bigger and slower but missile can and have missed ships before.
Since the only Naval ships which are, currently, nuclear powered are aircraft carriers and submarines
Close but not correct. There have been nuclear powered cruisers in the US navy (since retired) and the Russian navy still operates them. There also are nuclear powered icebreakers operated by the Russians and there also is one nuclear powered merchant ship in operation as well.
Looked at the drone shootdown video. A considerable dwell time (seconds) was required between the first beam impingement and the first apparent indication of damage. During this time, the drone was flying straight and level, no maneuvering. This isn't a realistic test, IMHO. In a combat environment, with laser fire being an anticipated threat, there will be sensors aboard the target that will note impinging energy and either tell the pilot to jink or will execute an autonomous jink routine that will prevent the laser from getting a long enough dwell time to damage the target. As I understand it, this tech is CW, which means the beam really does have to sit on an aim point for a considerable time (in a combat event perspective) to do damage. Against a maneuvering target, it's not going to do much good. Two ways forward include brute force power scaleup (to first order will reduce the required dwell time in proportion to the power scaleup ratio) or go to pulsed mode, in which extremely high pulse power triggers nonlinear absorption of energy in the target material. For now, this is a demo of superb optical tracking of a nonmaneuvering target and slaving a scaled up laser pointer to the tracker. Real (i.e., intelligent) enemies won't be so easy to splash.
This is very important. As you said, aircraft carriers and big surface ships are where Battleships were during the inter-World War years. They are still here because there are no large naval battles to test them. The biggest threat to such large surface sips are the true capital ships of today, the nuclear submarines. Generally, an underwater hit is more fatal than a hit to the superstructure by "breaking the back" of the surface vessel. North Korea just sunk a South Korea vessel using a dinky outdated submarine. This is the writing on the wall for aircraft carriers.
they decided to attack during a fog or heavy precipitation?
You must be joking; this is Slashdot. :)
Obviously I didn't, and your explanation makes a great deal more sense than my mistaken conclusion that this was meant as a replacement for, rather than a complement to, existing systems. My one concern would be that attacking missiles could use some sort of ablative coating, like the tiles on the Space Shuttle, to mitigate the effects of energy weapons.
Thanks for your reply, by the way.
90% of carriers would be destroyed in hour. They would of course use stealth missiles
... but I think spitting out so much lead that nothing can survive is much more badass.