US Navy Close To On-Ship Laser Cannons

An anonymous reader writes "The Office of Naval Research and industry partner Northrop Grumman said they successfully tested for the first time an on-board laser defense system known as the Maritime Laser Demonstrator (MLD), using it to destroy a small target vessel. The test actually accomplished several other benchmarks, including integrating MLD with a ship's radar and navigation system, and firing an electric laser weapon from a moving platform at-sea in a humid environment."

Comments

Cool way to kill people

[DeBattell]

Killing people is OK as long as you use cool technology to do it.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[poity]

Well if you actually RTFA, it's for ship defense against small boats, i.e. suicide speedboat swarms that countries like Iran have shown to be willing to deploy. My guess is that the typical 20mm cannons are too slow or too short ranged to react to more than a handful of these agile targets before they close in and the laser system is developed to address this weakness.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Flopy]

They don't have to go all the way there, if they just target the environment, global warming will take care of the pirates.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative is to shoot them with a big gun or a missile. Lasers are much more precise and reduce collateral damage significantly. Of course, if civilian casualties aren't important to you this is a waste of time and money.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[RsG]

Eh, it's the bloody navy. Who exactly are they going to vaporize?

You can complain about cool technology "killing people" in the context of, say, dropping bombs on cities. In that case you've got a clear argument that the weapon in question can and will be used in a way that will leave innocent civilians dead, since it's not like shrapnel knows the difference between the barracks and the orphanage. However, a weapon useful only against military targets, for instance a laser to slag warships, missiles and aircraft, isn't very useful for carrying out war crimes, and isn't likely to mistake a bus-full of nuns for an enemy aircraft carrier.

Bottom line, if the people being killed are hostile armed forces in a time of war, not killing them gives them the opportunity to kill you instead.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

Pointless. A simple 40mm bofors (cheap as hell) or a properly set up AA Gatling will do the job far, FAR better against boat swarms. At the same time they are far cheaper, integrate into system with self-auto corrective targeting based on radar signature of gun's own shells, do not require a heavy supply of energy and have significantly fewer points of failure.

This is essentially a theoretical "possible future weapon" exercise - it has nothing to do with actual, realistic modern combat. AT ALL. In the current material technology levels, a laser that would be at least on par with a modern (actually never mind, let's talk on par with a WW2-aged so we don't get too depressed) kinetic gun is at least as far away as commercial fusion.

In other words, it's a huge waste of taxpayers money, that is validated because people that know nothing of actual weapon technology and how it needs to work go "woo, laser cannons, I saw that in the movies!".
Sad really.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[alostpacket]

Clearly you've never actually encountered a bus full of nuns. They can be quite dangerous. Or sexy, depending on where you download the video from.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[dave420]

Nun soup?

Re:Cool way to kill people

[blackbeak]

and isn't likely to mistake a bus-full of nuns for an enemy aircraft carrier..

You mean that actual nun incident you reference was just an identification error? The one that caused protesters to chant "Washington Guns Killed American Nuns" during Alexander Haig's commencement speech at Syracuse?

Those nuns were targeted, and should it suit someone in the right position to send a laser blast into a bus full of nuns, you can bet they will do it with no qualms at all.

The clear argument that weapons will be used improperly is that historically use of weapons is primarily at the sole discretion and behest of extremely self interested parties and serves only their own greed.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[dougmc]

This is essentially a theoretical "possible future weapon" exercise - it has nothing to do with actual, realistic modern combat.

To be fair, there was a time that the machine gun, submarine and airplane fell into this category too.

Though I do have to admit ... the current guns and firearms and such do seem hard to beat.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[RsG]

The 299 people that were on Iran Air 655 might disagree with you on that.

"Isn't very useful for carrying out war crimes" I said. Not "cannot be used".

And anyway, that wasn't either a deliberate act of murder, or an malfunction of the weapon system; that was a combination of bad judgment and misidentification. It wouldn't have made any difference what weapon system the ship had. Any weapon can kill the wrong people if it's aimed the wrong way.

And a navy is absolutely useful for defence, go ask the Brits. Force projection beyond coastal waters is a key aspect of a sound defensive strategy.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[RsG]

People have been using "bus load of nuns" as a shorthand for "group of innocent people" since long before 1980. Nuns rank right alongside orphans as obvious innocents.

So no, I was not referencing "that actual nun incident". This is the first I've run into that particular case, though I might well have seen it before and simply forgotten it.

I'm not even going to try and untangle the run on sentence at the end of your post. Other than to remark that you clearly need to check the soles of your shoes for soapboxes.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Arker]

"Isn't very useful for carrying out war crimes" I said. Not "cannot be used".

But for the price, it isnt useful for anything else either. Unless you consider enriching "defense" contractors useful of course.

And anyway, that wasn't either a deliberate act of murder, or an malfunction of the weapon system; that was a combination of bad judgment and misidentification

I didnt say it was anything but an accident. However it was the sort of accident that could only happen because we poured enormous amounts of resources into building a massive Navy which we certainly didnt need for defense, and then sent it halfway around the globe to bully other nations.

Here's the thing, if you go across town packing weapons intending, for example, to extort money from someone, and in the process you accidentally wind up killing the neighbor kid, it's still considered murder, even though you had no intention whatsoever of killing the kid and it was just a tragic accident. Because it's a tragic accident that would never have happened, if you hadnt been engaged in another felony at the time.

And a navy is absolutely useful for defence, go ask the Brits.

When have the Brits found their Navy useful for defending Britain, in proportion to its cost? The Spanish Armada, perhaps? That was another time entirely, and even then it's clear that the British Navy was primarily a tool for acquiring, controlling, and defending their vast overseas Empire, not their homeland.

The last time they were under attack, back in WWII, they held clear naval superiority over the Germans, but it helped little if any. The Battle of Britain was fought almost exclusively by land-based forces. No doubt their Navy would have been quite useful had the Germans tried to launch an amphibious invasion, and we can even speculate that the Germans might have been more likely to have tried that had the UK not had an impressive Navy, but it's still a fact that the funds that went to build that Navy could have built far more cost-effective land-based defenses instead, if defending their homeland had been the goal, rather than "force projection" which is not a defensive goal but an explicitly aggressive one.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[RsG]

But for the price, it isnt useful for anything else either. Unless you consider enriching "defense" contractors useful of course.

That's another discussion, and one better left elsewhere in the thread. I (kinda) agree with you in that I think it's a bit, uh, "porky" not unlike many other military R&D projects.

However it was the sort of accident that could only happen because we poured enormous amounts of resources into building a massive Navy which we certainly didnt need for defense, and then sent it halfway around the globe to bully other nations.

Which is neither here nor there in respect to my argument.

GP alleges that the tech is bad because it will be used to kill people (with a sarcastic "killing people is okay as long as cool tech is involved" remark).

I responded that, as the tech will be used to defend soldiers from other soldiers, in a kill or be killed scenario, this is hardly a bad thing; the dead are not unwitting civilians who had the bad fortune to call a warzone home. This was my argument, clearly spelled out.

It is not therefor a refutation on your part to discuss the evils of military overspending or American imperialism. You're not addressing the point being raised, you're going off on your own someplace.

Also, you badly need to reexamine the role of British naval supremacy in the second world war. The channel is neither wide enough, nor difficult enough, to pose much of a barrier to landing troops, and fixed coastal fortifications are not adequate in and of themselves. Having a powerful navy made damn sure the war stayed on the continent or in the air. Granted, times have changed, but not nearly enough to write off the defensive value of naval forces.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[oliverthered]

not like there are any coastal cities anywhere in the world, no sir that's for sure.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[oliverthered]

I have never met a single person who actually wanted to kill anyone, and that include people in the armed forces. (YMMV).
Most people seem to want world peace, others seem to want world peace so long it's not in their back garden.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Arker]

I responded that, as the tech will be used to defend soldiers from other soldiers, in a kill or be killed scenario, this is hardly a bad thing; the dead are not unwitting civilians who had the bad fortune to call a warzone home. This was my argument, clearly spelled out.

It is not therefor a refutation on your part to discuss the evils of military overspending or American imperialism. You're not addressing the point being raised, you're going off on your own someplace.

Actually I did address your points head on. You seem to be having trouble understanding me, so I will rephrase a bit to help you.

You allege that this weapon will only be used to kill "other soldiers" not civilians. This is naÃve at best, and to illustrate this I referred to the civilian airliner shot down a few years ago by the US Navy. The laser is no more going to magically distinguish between civilian airliners and incoming hostile attack craft than the missiles used in that incident will.

Beyond that, I also pointed out that this is a Navy project, and the Navy is an inherently aggressive structure. To the extent there is such a thing as a defensive Navy, we call it the Coast Guard, it is far less expensive, and far less likely to kill innocent civilians, by accident or otherwise.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[rally2xs]

" The only time you really need a Navy is if you want, not to defend yourself, but to sail around the world attacking or threatening to attack other people in their own homes."

Exactly. The best defense is a D good offense.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[RsG]

You allege that this weapon will only be used to kill "other soldiers" not civilians.

Nowhere do I allege that. I instead allege that the weapon's nature is defensive, rather than offensive, and that a weapon designed to defend a ship from armed attack is a poor choice for going on the offensive with. I think I specifically said it was a "poor choice" for committing war crimes with, not that it was an impossible choice.

Perhaps an example will help. If a destroyer has cruise missiles, SAMs, and this new laser, and is tasked with destroying a building, it will use cruise missiles. And perhaps innocents will die in the explosion. Tasked with shooting down a high flying aircraft it will use SAMs. And perhaps they'll mistake a jetliner for a bomber, and innocents will die. The destroyer is quite capable of collateral damage.

Conversely, if tasked with defending itself from short range fast moving threats (small armed boats are TFA's example, but let's assume missiles would be another possibility), it will use the laser. The ship is just as capable of killing civilians (which is the action here you're concerned about) without the laser as it is with, and the laser does not aid it in this task.

You brought up the example of the destruction of flight 655 but that was carried out by missile; what we're talking about here is more akin to a CWIS. You cannot find an example of a CWIS system being used offensively, because, frankly, they'd be a terrible choice for the job. It's not a moral thing, it's a practical one.

(None of this has anything to do with the question of whether the laser is worth spending this much money on. I think it's an over-engineered solution, but that's just my opinion. See my previous post where I called the project "pork".)

Beyond that, I also pointed out that this is a Navy project, and the Navy is an inherently aggressive structure

"Inherently aggressive"? What does that even mean?

If you mean "armed", then I fail to see what the big deal is. They are a branch of the armed forces.

Are you alleging their only role is offence? Because I already raised the defence of Britain in WWII as a counterpoint to that - a case where the use of naval force was both necessary and defensive.

You seem to be having trouble understanding me

I take that to be a thinly veiled insult, and, frankly, rude. I have no trouble understanding you, I just don't agree with you.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[IDK]

If some improvements are made this could be made into something that intercepts incoming missiles and bullets, thus rendering the current guns and firearms almost useless.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[TheLink]

Lasers are much more precise and reduce collateral damage significantly.

Wouldn't there still be a high potential of causing blindness? Given enough power, even diffuse reflections can blind people permanently.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[blackbeak]

Funny you should mention that -- the floor of my house is made of soapboxes!

My point is that it is merely a matter of time before any weapon is used against innocents. And that's quite an assumption you're making about the navy. They will shoot whatever they are told to shoot without asking questions. There can be no argument to prove laser weaponry will be useful only against legitimate military targets.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[rgbatduke]

Um, you're confusing cause and effect, here. If they use sharks with frickin' laser cannons to kill the Somali pirates, the world's total number of pirates will likely decrease. This in turn will reduce the average global temperature. Pirates cause warming, not the other way around.

In fact, there is some evidence that this is already happening. Qaddafi is hiring Somalian mercenaries for $1000/day to fight in Libya, which is doubtless attracting some fine young men away from the life of piracy at sea. If one examines the current UAH Global Temperature Anomaly for March, it is at -0.1 C (compared to the running mean since 1979 when the measure began). Global Warming is already Global Cooling, at least on a 30 year running average basis. Coincidence? I don't think so.

rgb

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Arker]

Nowhere do I allege that.

In fact very recently you wrote:

I responded that, as the tech will be used to defend soldiers from other soldiers, in a kill or be killed scenario, this is hardly a bad thing; the dead are not unwitting civilians who had the bad fortune to call a warzone home. This was my argument, clearly spelled out.

*Coughs*

Perhaps an example will help. If a destroyer has cruise missiles, SAMs, and this new laser, and is tasked with destroying a building, it will use cruise missiles. And perhaps innocents will die in the explosion. Tasked with shooting down a high flying aircraft it will use SAMs. And perhaps they'll mistake a jetliner for a bomber, and innocents will die. The destroyer is quite capable of collateral damage.

Indeed it is, I am glad you can admit that.

"Inherently aggressive"? What does that even mean?

That means by it's very nature it implies aggression. Sure, like most weapons, it isnt impossible to imagine it being used in defense, but it's defensive applications dont even come close to justifying its expense relative to other options, so it doesnt make sense to build and maintain such a weapon unless you intend aggression with it. Simple as that.

If we were really focused on defense, we could build, stock, and maintain a chain of airbases along every coast and border for the cost of our Carrier fleets and have plenty left over. An airbase is superior to a Carrier in every way except one - the airbase can't steam across the oceans looking for trouble, it has to sit in place and wait for someone to at least get somewhat near to us.

If you mean "armed", then I fail to see what the big deal is. They are a branch of the armed forces.

Not at all. I am all in favour of armed, I'd rather see us more armed than less. Just with weapons suited to defending ourselves, rather than weapons designed to "project power" into other peoples lands, that's the difference.

Are you alleging their only role is offence? Because I already raised the defence of Britain in WWII as a counterpoint to that - a case where the use of naval force was both necessary and defensive.

You raised it but it doesnt stand up. Britains defense in WWII was overwhelmingly from land-based airfields, which produced much better results at much lower cost. I certainly never claimed that a Navy cannot be used defensively, simply that it makes no sense to build one for that purpose, given the options and the costs involved.

I take that to be a thinly veiled insult, and, frankly, rude. I have no trouble understanding you, I just don't agree with you.

Touchy much? Believe me, if I feel like insulting someone I dont use veils to do it. You may believe you are understanding me, but at points your responses are clearly inconsistent with that belief. It is not rude to point that out.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[mangu]

The only time you really need a Navy is if you want, not to defend yourself, but to sail around the world attacking or threatening to attack other people in their own homes.

The people of Great Britain beg to disagree.

If it weren't for the closely fought battle over importation of raw materials from the USA, Hitler would have invaded England.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[angel'o'sphere]

A simple 40mm bofors (cheap as hell) or a properly set up AA Gatling will do the job far, FAR better against boat swarms. At the same time they are far cheaper, integrate into system with self-auto corrective targeting based on radar signature of gun's own shells, do not require a heavy supply of energy and have significantly fewer points of failure.

How would such a weapon track the speed boats? (Assuming you want to automat it).
How many of those weapons would you need to have if you plan to man them? I would say, 4 to 5 on each side of the ship, or at good positions on top of the ship.
So the attacker with a boat swarm would try too attack from a dead angle.
I really doubt you thought about all implications, but enlighten me ;D
angel'o'sphere

Re:Cool way to kill people

[angel'o'sphere]

However, a weapon useful only against military targets, for instance a laser to slag warships, missiles and aircraft, isn't very useful for carrying out war crimes,

You underestimate the imagination of people who liek to commit war crimes.
E.g. shoot fisher mens huts at the coastline, go close or into a harbour and fire on the town ... endless possibilities to easy cause massacres amoung civilians.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Americano]

Given that the majority of long-range transportation & shipping during World War II was by sea, rather than by air, it's naive at best to suggest that having a large and powerful navy to defend supply & troop movement lines from U-Boats wasn't a factor in the defense of Britain.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[angel'o'sphere]

Well,

considering that this laser is used to destroy small vessels, I assume the crew of such a vessel has more serious issues to worry about.

After all the beam will set more or less half of the ship on fire, and ofc everyone in that beam as well.

It would be interesting to know how wide the beam is on impact. Perhaps it is only a few inches and then you are right, "only" the reflections would be harmfull, but strong enough to cause blindness.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Cool way to kill people

[gtall]

It depends on the size of the ship you intend to protect against. Outfitting a carrier with Bofors or Gatlings (and you'll be wanting to use a lot of them since carriers are big) makes no sense and would actually cost a lot more since now you must cart the ammo around whereas the nuclear generators have power to space. Also, it is safer, ammo can explode if the ship is hit, lasers tend not to.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[wagnerrp]

The laser is no more going to magically distinguish between civilian airliners and incoming hostile attack craft than the missiles used in that incident will.

Oh it absolutely is. A missile can be launched against an unknown blip on the radar, and seek to a kill on its own. A laser must be targeted at a specific weak point, and must remain on target for extended duration. The trial they did caused the outboard motors on the target ship to catch on fire. To take down an airliner, you would have to target the engine long enough for something to weaken and fail, or target the wing long enough to breach a fuel tank. You would need clear visual lock to do it, and you would be able to visually tell "That's an A300, not an F-14".

Re:Cool way to kill people

[vertinox]

Pointless. A simple 40mm bofors (cheap as hell) or a properly set up AA Gatling will do the job far, FAR better against boat swarms. At the same time they are far cheaper, integrate into system with self-auto corrective targeting based on radar signature of gun's own shells, do not require a heavy supply of energy and have significantly fewer points of failure.

Technically, using wooden hull ships with broadsides iron cast muzzle loaded cannons are cheaper even still, but you don't see modern navies using them.

The key threat the US navy is thinking about is either:

A. Missiles
B. Suicide boats

AND

All while in "friendly" harbors.

Using a Gatling gun in such an environment would cause problems so to say if someone fired a missile and they had to shoot it down over civilians because not all the bullets hit the target.

A laser would be far much more accurate without worrying about hitting anything else that happens to be nearby.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

Bullets become significantly more deadly if they are molten. Laser does not usurp kinetic energy of projectile. Anti-ship missiles are far better to be intercepted outside laser/kinetic gun/other close range AA range, where they usually are in terminal guidance mode and are running at mach3+ with jammers going all out.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

Actually, not only have I "thought about it", I'm actually something of an armchair expert in the subject.

1. Tracking is done either automatically with a radar, or manually by a gunner. Radar guidance generally scans surface, locks on, does calibrated targeting (i.e. points gun in the general direction of the target) and starts firing. Then it radar tracks the relation of shells' trajectory to targets location and auto-corrects.

This is why pretty much all of the ship-based close range AA is usually an autonomous system of a short range radar paired with a gatling, that "just works". You activate it, tell it to engage anything that isn't sending IFF signal, and woe is anything in range that isn't.

2. Normal ships carry two anti-air close range weapons, typically either in elevated spots in front and read, or left and right. Larger ships that cannot position these guns like that, like aircraft carriers, carry them in nests on sides of the ship with meaningful vertical clearance.

3. There are no "dead angles" on a properly built military ship that's a corvette or heavier class. If there are, it's a really bad ship design or a ship not designed for close range combat (i.e. some supply ships). In general, 2 properly positioned anti aircraft cannons can attack anything in 360(horisontal)/200ish(vertical) with only dead spots being in close proximity of the ship covered from gun by ship's hull.
Remember that close range AAA is designed as a last step anti-air measure and as such covers all approach angles in both panes (i.e. missiles that come hugging the water as well as those that "pop-up" and hit the ship vertically in terminal phase.

Finally most ships designed for skirmishes carry similarily configured close range guns (like aforementioned 40mm bofors, which while being a WW2 design is an excellent autocannon still in wide use on anything from spectre gunships to ship perimeter defense).

Relevant search terms: naval anti-air gun, kashtan, goalkeeper, phalanx. If you wish to specifically search for non-AA specified perimeter defence guns, then 40mm bofors alone has so many various naval turret + guidance configurations that you'd have to pick up a brochure just to get a list.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

Outfitting carrier with a laser system makes a whole lot less sense. Besides the obvious energy feed problems, carrier is not a ship that is designed to defend itself from a direct attack, and as such typically carries only small set of anti-air weaponry (with really crappy field of view due to lack of elevated spots to place them into).

If your carrier has any contact with "swarming boats", that means your perimeter defense ships are dead or totally overwhelmed. Carrier shooting back is akin to general having to go for his pistol.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

First of all, with laser you have MORE rather then less worries of hitting something else, as your guidance will be horribly slow (no shells to track and auto-correct), and most harbours are in warm climates with updrafts causing optical disturbances in the air wreaking unpredictable havoc on your laser's trajectory.

Laser is not only not a solution, it adds a host of new problems to such scenario while not solving a single problem (except potential deniability, since you just vaporise potential victims).

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Nutria]

Laser does not usurp kinetic energy of projectile.

True, but it distorts the shape of the projectile, causing it to tumble and go off course.

Anyway, who cares about bullets being shot at a ship?

It's the missiles (both guided and "ballistic") that are packed with explosives and electronics that are really vulnerable to lasers.

Anti-ship missiles are far better

Except that ships have a fixed (and not very large) supply of missiles, but do have lots and lots of electricity for lasers.

close range

Who says you lase it at close range? Burn that bastard as soon as it comes over the horizon.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[angel'o'sphere]

1. Tracking is done either automatically with a radar, or manually by a gunner. Radar guidance generally scans surface, locks on, does calibrated targeting (i.e. points gun in the general direction of the target) and starts firing. Then it radar tracks the relation of shells' trajectory to targets location and auto-corrects.

Thats why i asked, I assumed radar does not work really good against rubber boats.

Or did you miss the point that this system is mainly designed against fast moving rubber speed boats?

360(horisontal)/200ish(vertical)

Regarding dead angels I have no idea, but looking at a modern ship I doubt you are right. How should it be possible with e.g. a gun in front of the boat to have a 360 degrees angel? Somewhere is the tower of your ship ... oki, if you have very well placed gun nests. Then perhaps you get 300 degrees, or a bit more.

Ofc your explanations under point 2 make sense (more or less I knew that, still the main question is: can you track a rubber boat (yes, I know it has an engine, and other metal stuff) reliable with radar? I had assumed a heat seeking or even a visual guidance system would be better)

angel'o'sphere

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

Laser does not usurp kinetic energy of projectile.

True, but it distorts the shape of the projectile, causing it to tumble and go off course.

Anyway, who cares about bullets being shot at a ship?

It's the missiles (both guided and "ballistic") that are packed with explosives and electronics that are really vulnerable to lasers.

Anti-ship missiles are far better

Except that ships have a fixed (and not very large) supply of missiles, but do have lots and lots of electricity for lasers.

Very famous legend among those that are unfamiliar with modern naval military. Ships have EXTREMELY limited supply of elictricity in combat, so low that US Navy toyed with idea of supplying zumwalt-class with a nuke power plant. In fact, one of the major issues with zumwalt has been supplying it with enough electricity in combat, as their new SPY-3 radar on full power used too much power to keep all other ship systems powered at the same time in the initial design (according to very persistent rumors and jane's analysts in their weekly).

Why? Modern fire control radar eats several megawatts each ALONE and that is going up as their capabilities keep on increasing. There was a nice article on the issue on navy's own .mil website (you can probably find link to it by browsing my post history, I had to bring it up when same system was "successful" at shooting down a drone and we had a similar discussion on slashdot. It's about a year old.)

Long story short, every megawatt counts even on a cruiser. Destroyers, or even corvettes? Forget about even thinking of installing high energy weapon systems, they barely have enough to power all of their low energy kinetic and missile weapons and their support systems when radars are in full power mode in a combat situation.

Who says you lase it at close range? Burn that bastard as soon as it comes over the horizon.

Horizon isn't that far away, and sea water with its everpresent vapour will dissipate a whole lot of laser energy. Not to even mention that your laser is countered by simply installing a high-albedo nose on a missile. Or that nasty weather condition called "rain". Or fog. Or any other atmospheric effect that causes optical distortions.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[cyn1c77]

Pointless. A simple 40mm bofors (cheap as hell) or a properly set up AA Gatling will do the job far, FAR better against boat swarms. At the same time they are far cheaper, integrate into system with self-auto corrective targeting based on radar signature of gun's own shells, do not require a heavy supply of energy and have significantly fewer points of failure.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Every single branch of the U.S. military dearly wants guided lasers to be able to disable incoming mortar rounds, missiles, aircraft, boats and enemy personnel. They have been actively testing these devices for the past several years by removing the guns off of their radar-guided mounts and replacing them with these high-energy lasers.

The lasers are appealing because they make it easier to hit the target. With conventional ballistics, you have to consider both the target's trajectory and that of your interceptor. Additionally, your interceptor has a finite size, so you not only need to line up its path with that of the target, but you also need to coordinate the arrival times of both objects at that point in space. With a light-speed weapon, you just point at where the target is currently. Additionally, if you miss in a populated area, you do not have to worry about your interceptor causing collateral damage. The military currently uses self-deflagrating rounds to address this issue, so that they will burn up before they hit the ground. If you have ever watched a mortar defense system in action, you'll notice it takes A LOT of rounds to hit the mortar.

Finally, your concerns about tracking and auto-correcting are unfounded. These systems use an IR laser and an IR camera to guide it. The system can see the target, the laser beam (due to scattered light), and the hit-region illuminated by the laser. There is no longer any radar needed.

You may not be excited about this system, but the US soldiers deployed overseas are.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[mjwx]

This is essentially a theoretical "possible future weapon" exercise - it has nothing to do with actual, realistic modern combat.

To be fair, there was a time that the machine gun, submarine and airplane fell into this category too.

Though I do have to admit ... the current guns and firearms and such do seem hard to beat.

During the Napoleonic war, the British army actively fought against the introduction of rifles. Favouring the proper and well tested Musket, despite the greater range and firepower of rifled guns. Rifle units were set apart and even dressed differently to regular troops (green coats rather then red coats).

Conservatism is nothing new to armed forces, resistance to new ideas has always been great. The old saying "generals are equipped to fight the last war" exists for a reason.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Skywolfblue]

Fault of the user, not fault of the tool that was used incorrectly.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[MJMullinII]

Except that ships have a fixed (and not very large) supply of missiles, but do have lots and lots of electricity for lasers.

Very famous legend among those that are unfamiliar with modern naval military. Ships have EXTREMELY limited supply of elictricity in combat, so low that US Navy toyed with idea of supplying zumwalt-class with a nuke power plant. In fact, one of the major issues with zumwalt has been supplying it with enough electricity in combat, as their new SPY-3 radar on full power used too much power to keep all other ship systems powered at the same time in the initial design (according to very persistent rumors and jane's analysts in their weekly).

Why? Modern fire control radar eats several megawatts each ALONE and that is going up as their capabilities keep on increasing. There was a nice article on the issue on navy's own .mil website (you can probably find link to it by browsing my post history, I had to bring it up when same system was "successful" at shooting down a drone and we had a similar discussion on slashdot. It's about a year old.)

Long story short, every megawatt counts even on a cruiser. Destroyers, or even corvettes? Forget about even thinking of installing high energy weapon systems, they barely have enough to power all of their low energy kinetic and missile weapons and their support systems when radars are in full power mode in a combat situation.

If you don't mind me jumping in to this discussion, I've been following research on a completely different subject that, coincidentally, might tie directly into your ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell#Recent_US_Navy_funded_work

Re:Cool way to kill people

[RespekMyAthorati]

Also, the target ship could create a cheap, simple defensive shield by spraying water into the air around the hull. That way, the energy of the billion-dollar friken laser would be dissipated in a cloud of steam, with little if any harm to the target.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[DarenN]

You're not entirely correct - there was resistance, but it was because of firing rates - the rifles traded speed for accuracy and the (very successful) British tactical doctrine at the time emphasized speed of firing. So they used the rifles for their skirmishers, and dressed them green because they were mostly in front of the redcoats and needed to be less conspicuous.

It was Napoleon who regarded the rifle as a toy and refused, point blank, to allow them to be used.

You're correct about conservatism in the armed forces, but I was wearing my nerd hat and had to respond :)

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Talderas]

Regarding dead angels I have no idea, but looking at a modern ship I doubt you are right. How should it be possible with e.g. a gun in front of the boat to have a 360 degrees angel? Somewhere is the tower of your ship ... oki, if you have very well placed gun nests. Then perhaps you get 300 degrees, or a bit more.

The citadel is the largest problem for anti-air guns. This is why there are two anti-air guns. 40mm bofors may not be able to cover right next to the ship, but that's not what they're designed to cover. Depending on how far from the citadel a bofor is placed, it could have about 340-350 degrees coverage on the horizontal, but 360 coverage once it clears the citadel. The same would apply for both the bow and stern gun. The guns would have double coverage most of the sky with a very limited single coverage corridor from the bow or the stern. This is fine since you're better off attacking the port or starboard than trying to attack a ship from the bow or stern.

The 16" guns on the Iowa classes had a 300 degree angle of fire which let them fire over the beam. The issue they had with gaining more rotation was barrel length running into another turret or superstructure of the ship.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Talderas]

Hell. Ask the Germans and the Tirpitz. The fucking Tirpitz while sitting in harbors had portions of the British navy tied up just to deal with her if she was to sortie.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[mjwx]

You're correct about conservatism in the armed forces, but I was wearing my nerd hat and had to respond :)

Fair enough, I dont mind being corrected and you did it politely.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[AmiMoJo]

Exactly right. In addition to ballistic projectiles modern missiles perform evasive manoeuvres to make shooting them down extremely hard (basically it's luck if you hit one). For the foreseeable future nothing can dodge light.

Imagine in 20-30 years time soldiers with a "sentry" automatic laser cannon that can shoot down incoming bullets in flight. It would need one hell of a battery but they would be damn effective. Before then I expect tanks and then APCs and Hummers will get them.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[ceoyoyo]

Sure, the speedboat thing is a red herring. A laser on a ship is MUCH more useful for shooting down anti-ship missiles.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[radtea]

The Battle of Britain was fought almost exclusively by land-based forces

Unlike the Battle of the Atlantic, which was fought to keep Britain supplied during the Battle of Britain, and wasn't won until some years later.

I'm not defending deadweight loss military spending (which is what all military spending is). People who hate free markets, hate productivity and hate creativity are all doing more than enough of that. I'm just saying that once you accept the "logic" of war it is unfortunately possible to justify all kinds of crazy.

So my observation does not invalidate your point. Once you recognize war as an economically irrational activity that is nothing but mate competition carried out by other means you can step back from the emotionally-driven, undisciplined, unreflective thinking of the miliary and realize that anyone arguing from within the frame of "the war model" of human conflict resolution is so far off the real axis they need to be approached at right angles to all conventional thinking, or their dementia will suck you in.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[ceoyoyo]

Most wars before WWI were contests between monarchs. The actual people couldn't care less who won - it's not like their lives would get any better. War was supposed to be fought by honourable opponents armed with more or less the same weapons.

Bows and arrows, firearms, airplanes, submarines, all were seen as dishonourable killing-at-a-distance weapons when they were introduced, reflecting the Homeric influence on our military tradition.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[mjwx]

Most wars before WWI were contests between monarchs. The actual people couldn't care less who won - it's not like their lives would get any better. War was supposed to be fought by honourable opponents armed with more or less the same weapons.

That was the romanticised history. Medieval and pre-medieval warfare was littered with people trying to get unfair advantages over their enemies. From compisite bows to crossbows, at one time the nobility of Europe attempted to get the crossbow outlawed because it could take out an armoured knight. This didn't work because the minute someone needed a peasant militia to go up against armoured knights, they made crossbows. Every king, lord and emperor wanted better trebuchets, would launch disease laden corpse into castles. Bigger ships, faster frigates, heavier guns on the decks. War has been pretty much the only aspect of history which has never stopped advancing.

In the middle ages, honour had little to do with it, the victors would write that they were honourable, they were superior and they were chosen by god after the fact, but they all still fought dirty. Much like today.

Bows and arrows, firearms, airplanes, submarines, all were seen as dishonourable killing-at-a-distance weapons when they were introduced, reflecting the Homeric influence on our military tradition.

Actually, the British put quite a bit of stock into killing from a distance and it paid off more then once. The battle of Agincourt, a force largely combined of English longbowmen defeated a superior force of armoured french knights. 5/6 of the force were said to be bowmen. At one stage, all other sports except Archery were banned on a Sunday so all Britons would practice with the bow.

Sir Francis Drake used the superior range and accuracy of English warships to harass the numerically superior Spanish armada, although the British fleet out gunned the Spanish, guns were useless when the ships entered grappling range. Even in the battle of gravelines, Drake tried to keep the fleet 100 yards from the Spanish ships to avoid being boarded as they needed to close to that distance to do real damage to the Spanish ships.

Then we come to artillery, the final argument of kings, that which bought dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl but was responsible for maiming and killing more men in the Napoleonic war then all the muskets combined.

The "honour" of war is a fairy tale.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[ceoyoyo]

I didn't say warfighting technology didn't advance. If you read carefully, I said new technology was seen as dishonourable when it was introduced. It was resisted, and took much longer to catch on than it might otherwise have.

Gunpowder took a thousand years to catch on in Europe as a weapon. When the Japanese ended up with some muskets they went nuts producing them, fought a horrible war, then banned them from their islands. You pointed out yourself how the church (not the nobility directly) tried to ban crossbows. Nobody wanted to believe battleships were essentially helpless before aircraft until Billy Mitchell's demonstration, and even then there was resistance to shifting to carrier-centred navies.

The GGP's quote "generals are equipped to fight the last war" is true not because generals are a bunch of incompetents, but rather because if they have to fight again they WANT to fight the last war, not a new, bloodier kind.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[mldi]

Man, you could sell tons of books making these correlations to mindless masses.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

1. No ammunition limit
Heat dissipation limits fire rate. Energy is limited by generators. Modern proximity and AA guns have essentially unlimited ammo (enough for long engagements with extreme ease of resupply).

2. No ammunition to blow up inside the ship (capacitors, but these can be left in a discharged state as needed)
Heatsinks melting, entire installation melting through the ship, lenses going out of focus and burning the installation as well as the ship, power supply problems, energy spikes damaging other ship systems...

3.Instant impact / no flight time or costly tracking systems that blow up with the munition
Tracking systems melt with the installation, useless in bad weather, useless in hot climate, useless during any atmospheric condition that distorts light, extreme cost of installation itself with added costs of all the power cabling, capacitors and cooling systems necessary. Essentially necessitates a nuclear power plant that adds massive cost to all lighter-then-cruiser ships, often doubling or more with the smaller ships.

4. No off-gases from a rocket motor or gun barrel
Heat emitted by installation. Laser diode efficiency is still in lower 20 percentile at best, and powerful lasers are below 10%. You will need to dissipate over 90% of laser's energy on target on installation itself.

5. No corrosion of the barrel or launcher.
Corrosion of all systems. Dirt and salt water accumulating on lenses dangerous to extreme. Lens cleaning is nightmarish due to extreme accuracy demands.

6. So there are cost savings involved.
Upgrades to ship systems to maintain massive energy spikes caused by this kind of system alone puts you well into negative. Cost of the system itself is astronomical compared to a comparable output kinetic system. Upgrade to ship's power generation systems necessary to supply the laser system dwarfs all of above costs.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

Notably, zero missing. 4. should say "dissipate 900% on installation".

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

Apparently my initial post got lost somewhere. There is a really nice pic of a modern AEGIS destroyer (modern meaning about 30 year old design), that shows positions of two Phalanx CIWS that together cover 360/200ish. Take a look:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/USS_Arleigh_Burke_Mediterranean.jpg

The white cylindrical radomes with spheric top are Phalanx CIWS units. They sit in nests that are elevated and pulled out of the superstructure, and have overlapping fields of fire in horizontal pane to ensure 360 degree horizontal coverage. Note that in spite of picture being taken from significant angle, we can still clearly see the rear gun, and while it probably wouldn't be able to fire at photographer's position, photographer would only need to move a few more degrees to be in firing range of both guns.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

On your point about rubber boats, navy ships are usually attacked by RIBs (rigid inflatable boat) which is essentially a metal hull with an inflatable "necklace" on top. This design is very seaworthy and extremely fast in comparison to pure rubber boat which is highly unstable and significantly slower.

And rigid parts of RIB have a decent radar cross section.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[angel'o'sphere]

Ah, I think I get it, you mean they get elevated before usage?
They are not supposed to fire from the point where they seem mounted on that picture?

angel'o'sphere

Re:Cool way to kill people

[angel'o'sphere]

That makes sense, thank you ... if you read inflatable as a noob as I am you always think it is only rubber + an engine ;D

angel'o'sphere

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

It's worth noting that gunpowder was weaponised quite fast, problem was the state of metallurgy. Essentially people of that age simply didn't have methods to forge steel strong enough to withstand gunpowder-powered firearm.

First cannons were used around 13th century (same century as when Europeans gained knowledge of gunpowder), but they usually had only about the same range as catapults, lighter payload and only withstood a few shots before becoming useless due to explosive expansion warping the metal beyond repair.

The problem with current generation lasers is similar - our material knowledge is simply insufficient to build a laser simple and efficient enough. Same with building a sustainable fusion that generates energy. We need material breakthroughs similar to what happened through middle ages up to modern times.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[Luckyo]

Not quite. The point is that even sitting in the nests that they're shown to be in, they have 360 horisontal and over 180 vertical clearance together.

Think of the picture linked above. Imagine that photographer is a speedboat or a low flying missile. You are currently in the front gun's field of fire. If you move to the left, you will eventually enter rear gun's field of fire, while still remaining in the front gun's. If you keep going to the left, you'll eventually exit front gun's field of fire, but remain in the rear gun's.

Together, in those nests they cover all approach paths to the ship.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[angel'o'sphere]

Oh WTF, what a misunderstanding, lol.

OFC all guns together have a 360 degree angel, or it would be complete fail. I assumed you wanted to tell me every singel gun has a 360 degree fire angel.

Likely my fault, at least I got that from your first post regarding this, lol.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Cool way to kill people

[mjwx]

If you read carefully, I said new technology was seen as dishonourable when it was introduced.

I did read what you said. I said the honourable part was a historical fabrication.

Gunpowder took a thousand years to catch on in Europe as a weapon.

What you should have said was metallurgy took a long time to advance to the point where gunpowder became a viable weapon.

Nobody wanted to believe battleships were essentially helpless before aircraft until Billy Mitchell's demonstration

Billy Mitchell's demonstration was a failure despite Mitchell being right (mostly right). Mitchell's bombers failed to sink a stationary battleship with no AA guns. It was Naval arms limitation treaties in the 30's that saw the popularity of carriers and WWII that saw the end of the battleship.

Mitchell was only partially right, rather then heavy bombers, light fighter/bombers would sink battleships.

It was resisted, and took much longer to catch on than it might otherwise have.

What I meant when I said "generals are prepared to fight the last war" I was referring to tactics, not technology. Generals like Westmorland went to the Vietnam war with new technologies but the mindset of a WWII general fighting the Nazi army.

New technology has always been, historically very quickly accepted during conflict, from Romans adopting elephants after the Carthaginian invaded to the advent of steel lined warships. HMS Dreadnought was the first all big gun battleship, yet less then 10 years later, every major navy in the world had multiple all big gun battleships.

The kind of conservatism we were talking about is that HMS Dreadnought was launched with 2 masts for sails, despite having a coal powered engine. Masts that were never used for sailing. British naval doctrine did not consider sails obsolete in 1906 on their most advanced warship.

Re:Cool way to kill people

[smithmc]

Pointless. A simple 40mm bofors (cheap as hell) or a properly set up AA Gatling will do the job far, FAR better against boat swarms. At the same time they are far cheaper, integrate into system with self-auto corrective targeting based on radar signature of gun's own shells, do not require a heavy supply of energy and have significantly fewer points of failure.

This is essentially a theoretical "possible future weapon" exercise - it has nothing to do with actual, realistic modern combat. AT ALL. In the current material technology levels, a laser that would be at least on par with a modern (actually never mind, let's talk on par with a WW2-aged so we don't get too depressed) kinetic gun is at least as far away as commercial fusion.

A laser weapon is infinitely more precise, has zero trajectory, and the weapon itself can be used as a sight. One shot, one hit. A Bofors or Gatling is fine if you want to blow the boat out of the water. With this thing, you can disable the boat without destroying it or killing the people on board. I think that's a worthwhile goal.

Gilligan!

[gtvr]

Get away from that Navy ship... Gilligan!!!!

Re:Counter-measures

[kvezach]

Sure, if he can find a perfectly reflective mirror. Even if it's 99.9% reflective, the 0.1% will destroy the mirror in short order.

Goatse

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning: Don't click that link.

(Posting anon to avoid claims of karma whoring)

Uninformative

[Timmmm]

Well that was an uninformative article.

How does the laser work? What is its power? Efficiency? Frequency? Hell it doesn't even say what happened when they tested it.

Re:Uninformative

[Motard]

It set the the outboard motors on fire. You can see a video here... http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/

Re:Uninformative

[cultiv8]

The above link is just to a list of articles. Here's the actual link to the video: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/04/video-navy-laser-sets-ship-on-fire, which demonstrates the frickin laser beam setting an inflatable motorboat on fire a mile away.

Re:Uninformative

[Anubis IV]

Thanks for the link. And that's not really very impressive. Looked like they had to maintain the laser for several seconds before they managed to do any serious damage. Seems like it would have been easier, more effective, and probably cheaper just to fire at it with a traditional ballistic weapon. After all, you can't very easily fire over the horizon with lasers, and their strength is affected (oftentimes negatively) by numerous weather conditions coupled with distance. Compare that to a ballistic round, which will pretty much always hit a target with enough force to do damage, for any distance within its range.

Using lasers for short range defense systems makes a lot of sense to me, but this sort of thing? Not so much.

Re:Uninformative

[HangingChad]

>How does the laser work?

Who cares? How awesome would it be to be the first Captain to call down to the combat center and say, "Scotty, I need that laser cannon!"

Re:Uninformative

[tyrione]

Well that was an uninformative article.

How does the laser work? What is its power? Efficiency? Frequency? Hell it doesn't even say what happened when they tested it.

What? You think the US Navy is going to detail the specifics of a top-secret project? You can't be serious.

Re:Uninformative

[Timmmm]

Yes. They normally say at least the power and the laser technology used.

Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your guns

[petes_PoV]

A line of sight weapon is only useful if you can see the enema. If they happen to be distant enough that the earth gets in the way, you've got nothing. Meanwhile, they can still fire shells at you which follow a nice, ballistic trajectory. Whether of not the laser weapon is accurate enough, powerful enough or lucky enough to hit a small, supersonic target will be an interesting experiment. I await the results with a non-zero (barely), positive interest.

Afterthought: presumably the torpedo manufacturers aren't too worried, either.

Just reflect the beam with a mirror

[markus_baertschi]

I alway think defending against such lasers is quite easy and low-cost: Just put up a good-quality mirror and the beam gets reflected. If you aim well, you could even attack the ship with its own laser-beam.

Markus

Re:Just reflect the beam with a mirror

[grouchomarxist]

This has discussed before in other articles about lasers. The problem with mirrors is that they old reflect a % of the energy of the laser and are soon damaged to the point where they no longer reflect at all.

Re:Just reflect the beam with a mirror

[Doc Ruby]

Reflective chaff is cheap and plentiful. Just use more chaff and the target is safe. The cost of chaff per laser power is an asymmetric defense that renders these lasers just another way to bankrupt the US. Which has been the defensive strategy of our enemies in the field for at least a decade now. And it's totally worked, while they remain in the same condition they started in, or better.

Re:Just reflect the beam with a mirror

[Kral_Blbec]

You would have to have enough chaff to keep ejecting the entire time you are in motion, which would quickly mean you have no room for weapons. If you don't move, you get pegged easily with a rocket, and if you do move you just leave your protective bubble. It wouldn't work.

Re:Just reflect the beam with a mirror

[moogied]

It doesn't work like that.... what are you going to do? Cover your entire boat in mirrors? No? Then I guess they'll just melt a hole through whatever the hell isn't covered in mirrors. Even if you do cover the ship in mirrors and they magically are strong enough to not break your boat the laser will still melt through it, albeit slightly slower.

Re:Just reflect the beam with a mirror

[peragrin]

Chaff only makes sense when your not moving or when your moving AWAY from the weapon.

Chaff is defense against rear attacks. if your on a speed boat heading toward a ship that is shooting at you chaff is worthless.

think before you speak.

Re:Just reflect the beam with a mirror

[shoes58]

If you aim well, you could even attack the ship with its own laser-beam.

Markus

Hey, why not? It worked on Jonny Quest, didn't it?

Re:Just reflect the beam with a mirror

[gtall]

One word: wind.

How much chaff do you have, feel lucky, cowboy?

Re:Just reflect the beam with a mirror

[Doc Ruby]

Your point has already been refuted by several others posting in this thread before you posted.

Since you're not capable of either reading or being nice, shut your fool mouth

Re:Just reflect the beam with a mirror

[Doc Ruby]

I bet there's a way to plow up water ahead of the target boat that's effective chaff against these lasers.

In the navy....

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

In the navy,
Yes, you can sail the seven seas!
In the navy,
Yes, you can fire MLDs!

Re:In the navy....

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Of course, now, it is only a matter of time before our enemies have ship-mounted lasers. Which means soon we'll get roped into paying for deflector shields.

Shit! They always get you with the add-ons...

Re:In the navy....

[ThunderBird89]

Does hitting five targets in a row entitle me to growl "IMPRESSIVE!" over the P.A.?

Re:In the navy....

[polymath69]

In the navy,
Yes, you can fire MLDs!

What I want to know is, who decided to call these MLDs instead of photon torpedoes?

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[imsabbel]

Yawn.

First, if you see your enema, better go to a better doctor.

Second, its not a replacement for artillery (thats going to be the job of railguns), but of phalanx systems. Operational range would only be a few km, so plenty in line of sight.

Obligatory

[MonsterTrimble]

The laser was mounted onto the deck of the Navy’s self-defense test ship, former USS Paul Foster (DD 964).

Too bad the ship wasn't called Sea Bass

Re:Counter-measures

[RsG]

Also, lasers don't bounce back at the attacker they way they do in fiction. A mirror is essentially armour against lasers, but unless you can aim the beam back in the time it takes for the mirror to melt, it isn't a weapon reflector.

And so what if the target can be armoured against laser fire? It can also be armoured against conventional weapons, and yet I don't see battleships making a comeback anytime soon. Armour, like all design decisions, is about trade offs, often weighed against cost and mobility.

now where are the Sharks?

[Joe The Dragon]

now where are the Sharks?

Re:now where are the Sharks?

[Xyrus]

"now where are the Sharks?"

In the water.

Re:now where are the Sharks?

[xs650]

The frikin' laser needs to be frikin' miniaturized before it can be out on the frikin' sharks frikin' heads.

Re:now where are the Sharks?

[turbidostato]

"The frikin' laser needs to be frikin' miniaturized before it can be out on the frikin' sharks frikin' heads."

C'mon! you can't be a real terror demigod aiming at world domination if you can't think big.

You feed your shark army in the radiactive seaside near Fukushima so they grow Godzilla-like ("frikin' Sharkzillas"?) then you won't have any problem to mount navy-size lasers on their frikin' heads.

Re:now where are the Sharks?

[PPH]

Rumbling with the Jets. Where else?

Re:now where are the Sharks?

[martin-boundary]

The sharks are the new Soviets. First, they had lasers on their frickin' heads. Now the Navy wants its own lasers on their frickin' bulkheads. Pretty soon one day we'll wake up in the middle of the night looking at the moon and say "wait a minute, that's no moon..."

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[circletimessquare]

i'm looking at 'A' and 'Y' on my keyboard. nope. maybe a mistake like enemu or enemt. but you had to write enema on purpose. which is odd, as your post seems serious

Re:Patently useless

[vadim_t]

I'm pretty sure it's the first. It's really ideal for such a role. Also:

There doesn't have to be a capacitor that needs charging if the ship can provide enough power. There's probably a capacitor in there somewhere, but it most likely doesn't work like a camera flash. It's probably more limited by heating.

There's no reason for it to miss, given that it's a laser and unlike in Star Wars, in reality those move at the speed of light. All it needs is a positioning system capable of keeping up.

It's also most likely can probably keep going for at least a few seconds. The aim can be adjusted while it keeps lasing, so an initial miss isn't necessarily a problem.

Re:Patently useless

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

My impression is that the (eventual) use case, aside from giving our valued contractors something to bill for, is intercepting missiles and possibly nearby aircraft.

A fair number of navy vessels, especially the pricey, strategically important ones, do have a nuclear reactor to power it. They are also subject to some concern about the ability of today's minigun-based CIWS defenses to deal with some contemporary and upcoming anti-ship missiles. An anti-boat test is a serious lowball, compared to the eventual task; but I assume somebody had a 'milestone' that needed to be ticked.

For other ships, and coastal targets, the navy has also been showing considerable interest in railguns...

What about rain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like foul weather would make this useless.

I could not help but

[cyberfin]

... hear in my head: (airquotes) "lheezur"!

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[mijelh]

The article says the laser is a defensive weapon to be used against small boats, and they actually say that its going to work together with, and not as a substitution to "kinetic energy weapon systems". I don't think you need to defend yourself against a small boat which is too far to be seen, if nothing else because there is probably no way to know if they are hostile or not.

So Expensive

[Doc Ruby]

I'm glad we didn't cut a penny from the 2011 military budget. Then we wouldn't have these extra boat lasers around that we don't need, along with all the thousands of other defense contractor welfare projects we've run up $TRILLIONS in debt to pay for.

Instead we cut 1% of the Federal budget, from women, children and the poor. Why protect them with social programmes when we can defend them with extra weapons that kill other people, or sit unused, instead?

Re:So Expensive

[Bai jie]

The Chinese. Since they spent only 1/10000 of the money on espionage and stole the laser tech form us and installed it on their ships for 1/1000 the cost since their labor is cheap.

Re:So Expensive

[yodleboy]

so why is this a troll? seriously, cry baby politicians in DC are looking for pennies under the couch and arguing ideology when there are piles of wasted money in pet projects.

On another note, is the navy seriously suggesting that current close-in weapons systems are so useless that we need lasers? I mean the idea is cool, but come on. Small vessels getting close enough to do serious damage seems more of a failure of procedure than a failure of weapons. Unless you're willing to shoot any old fishing boat that gets too close, it doesn't really matter what weapon you have. The time spent making a decision is more of a problem than blowing them up.

Re:So Expensive

[Dails]

Dealing with hostile small boats is a nightmare. In order to shoot one while not in a hot war, you have to establish hostile intent, which is pretty hard to do. Compounding this further is that our enemies know what our rules of engagement are, and constantly ride the line of them. When you transit the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian small boats constantly charge your ship and turn away at the last minute. If you ask them to stop, they say they're "conducting training in international waters," which is true per the UN Convention on Law of the Sea. Chinese small boats do the same thing. When transiting through the Strait of Taiwan, PRC fishing vessels will frequently drive in front of your ship and stop, sometimes a hundred yards or less in front of you. Guess whose fault it is if you hit them?

You contradict yourself in your own post by recognizing that the RoE is the biggest problem, but still saying that it's a failure of procedure when a small boat gets too close. Which is it?

Re:So Expensive

[yodleboy]

No contradiction, the RoE is a procedure that must be followed. My main point was that lasers are neat, but the neatest weapons system in the world makes no difference if you can't or won't use it. Current close-in systems are just as effective as lasers if you use them.

Re:So Expensive

[Doc Ruby]

The laser is powered by vast quantities of fuel. Ballistics and rockets can be made and stored anywhere, but the fuel for lasers has to come from long global oil supply lines. Kevlar bags of water could multiply a ballistic (or rocket) arsenal without reloading from a land depot or supply ship.

And these are all expensive solutions to problems we don't really have. Certainly not the kinds of urgent (long overdue), important (essential) problems that we're cutting funding to elsewhere in the Federal budget, while protecting these fancy toys. Protecting them literally at all costs.

The point is not the value of these lasers. It's their value compared to the other stuff we're cutting instead of them. The lasers' value is lower, but we're still paying top dollar for them. Top dollar we don't have.

Re:So Expensive

[Doc Ruby]

I'm not an "armchair quarterback". I'm a taxpayer. These lasers aren't armoring anyone. In fact they're stealing money from the armor budget you Republicans left unfunded for years, killing so many of our soldiers in the wars you insisted on starting, losing and never ending.

You sound more like a freeloader. A bloodthirsty one. The kind of Republican who refused to properly armor our troops after lying them into war in Iraq for 10 years, driving us to bankruptcy.

You are already as sick as possible without any help from me.

Re:So Expensive

[mrmeval]

So get rid of both Then you won't breed cretinous weapons or people.

Re:So Expensive

[Dails]

Ok, then I agree with you mostly. A really neat weapon system would be one that's less than lethal and would allow for more room in RoE, but it's still the hardest part of initiating combat.

Re:So Expensive

[Doc Ruby]

So what you mean is we've been spending money on this project for years. For something we don't need as much as old people need medicine. Yet we cut the medicine, and nothing that could even delay this laser system a year.

That is not warranted.

Re:So Expensive

[Doc Ruby]

You make it sound like the US military budget is the only element involving wasteful spending.

No I did not. I made it sound like the US military budget is the only one we are not cutting, while we are cutting budgets that directly protected women, children and old people.

You are arguing a straw man. Or nonsense. But since you're citing the Teabagger website, I'd expect nothing else. Meanwhile women, children and old people are left unprotected, and we have a new laser demo. Congratulations.

Re:So Expensive

[Doc Ruby]

You're an Anonymous Coward. You will not put your name to your confession that the US military budget is nothing but an expensive jobs programme. Next time someone tells you that, you'll deny it. Republican.

Meanwhile it creates vastly fewer jobs than most social programmes. Social programmes support people close to poverty, while military contracts go to rich defense contractors.

Re:So Expensive

[Doc Ruby]

The Federal budget is not 100% welfare from which 1% was just cut. The military budget is much closer to 100% welfare, yet nothing is cut.

You Teabaggers are the worst Republicans ever.

Re:So Expensive

[Doc Ruby]

No, the money spent on military contractors is much more likely to be spent on foreign imported products and labor, rather than spent immediately in the economy on groceries and local sales clerks as social programmes are.

As has been demonstrated by you Republicans for generation after generation, cutting money to poor people is more certain to create a recession than is cutting military spending. That's why we're in the worst recession ever, despite the most spending on military programmes ever. Even the most overwhelming evidence cannot convince you Anonymous Teabagger Cowards to talk straight.

BTW, "programme" is a proper English spelling, that's distinguishable from the "program" that means "software". But I guess it's too "French" for you Teabaggers or something.

Re:So Expensive

[ChucktheMan]

The laser would allows to drill a little, innocent hole in the Iranian's boat that would leave it disabled. The host nation could then save em or not as they see fit. I imagine our navy would be happy to give them a lift, after they prove they do not have a bomb in their undies.

Re:So Expensive

[argStyopa]

You do understand the tactic of "when people want to cut the budget, make sure that the cuts come from police, firemen, and other universally-agreed programs so that it generates as much political cost for the cutters as possible" right?

By the way, perhaps you didn't realize - this "war" that bankrupted us?
Cost $20 billion LESS than that spent on education in the same period, and less than 1/4 that spend on Medicaid.

(http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html)

The wars were pocket change compared to the ongoing SOCIAL spending - which gives us NOTHING but more dependence - hell, at least we're USING the weapons.

Re:So Expensive

[gmhowell]

No. The energy for the laser probably comes from a nuke plant on board ship. In most cases, there is excess energy, so why not power up a few lasers? It's why the navy is moving from steam cats to magnetic ones.

Re:So Expensive

[Charliemopps]

While I agree with you that the military budget should be cut... an ammo-less weapon is probably going to be something that saves money in the end. The normal way the navy would conduct such an operation would be with a $100k+ missile.

Re:So Expensive

[rally2xs]

What prompted this was the US Navy loss in a war game a few years ago when the "enemy commander" overwhelmed our ships with an attack from many small boats. We don't have a really good defense for that. This is that. We _do_ need it, or your Father/Mother/Brother/Sister/Son/Daughter may be coming home in a box like the sailors on the Cole did when 1 such small boat blew a great big hole in its side.

Re:So Expensive

[Dravik]

They cut 2 billion from the DOD budget.

Re:So Expensive

[rally2xs]

Hey, we're the "world police." Don't want to do it? Fine, but then someone else will have to do it, maybe the Chinese. Want to deal with Chinese troops on your world-traveling vacation? I didn't think so...

Re:So Expensive

[Jarik_Tentsu]

While I'm not completely disagreeing with you, to some extent, as the nation in the world that pretty much every other Western nation in the world looks to for military protection, they do to some extent, have to "prepare for the worst", as unlikely as it is that the "worst" is gonna happen.

Nits for the pickin'

[gregor-e]

Like salmon, cannon is its own plural. Oh, and in electrical terms, it's antennas, not "antennae", in case you were wondering.

Re:Counter-measures

[postbigbang]

The whole stealth aircraft program works on the principle of radar diffusion. Coat your craft accordingly, and the effectiveness goes way down. Seems like most of the bad guys don't have enough money for the reseach that it would take to do it. So the weapon works for a few years until a rational defense is found and can be afforded.

The whole thing goes to hell if the enemy uses the techniques found in those drug-carrying subs-- kevlar instead of steel, and therefore, tough to detect.

Re:Patently useless

[Adayse]

If you are defending against the US you wont have any ships or planes so you attach your weapons to hydrogen balloons and let them drift. Lasers could be useful against such a cloud.

Re:Patently useless

[vadim_t]

It's not really a new concept it looks like this. It's just not very practical.

From what I heard the problem with this kind of thing is that it takes two trucks worth of equipment to setup, lots of power, cooling and chemicals (since it's a dye laser). Now on a ship that's a lot less of a problem.

From what I understand, the kind of mirror used in a laser is extremely efficient, tuned to the laser's frequency, sealed in a chamber that doesn't have a spec of dust in it, and has an active cooling system. This can be done in a special environment like inside an enclosed mechanism, but a missile isn't going to be able to have this kind of thing on its surface.

Summary correction

[pongo000]

From the summary:

using it to destroy a small target vessel

From the article:

disabled a small target vessel

Big difference between "disable" and "destroy."

Re:Summary correction

[rossdee]

If the target vessel is a speedboat packed with explosives, or an incoming anti-ship missile (which are probably the types of threats the laser would be designed to stop) then maybe the disabling would lead to the destruction of the target, and prevent the destruction of the navy ship it was defending.

Remember the USS Cole, and the HMS Sheffield, these days the biggest threat to a ship is a small suicide boat or a missile.

Re:Patently useless

[Anonymous Coward]

"The only tech that can discharge enough energy fast enough (GW of power, even if briefly) is some kind of capacitor."

As usual, Doc, your stunning ignorance of even historical levels of technology is blatantly obvious.

So, how are your space-based aerogel-insulated windows coming along? Got a big market yet?

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[SunTzuWarmaster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout

Hate to break it to you cowboy, but out of over 60 keyboard layouts the only ones with a and y anywhere near each other are the Bulgarian and Ukrainian. Given the incredible meaning differences in the words and unconventionality of use (rules out non-native speaker issues), and the unlikeliness of the layout, it is incredibly unlikely that this mistake is made by anything other than: a) intentional, or b) force of habit.

Both of those conclusions are... odd.

Retroreflectors

[mangu]

Also, lasers don't bounce back at the attacker they way they do in fiction. A mirror is essentially armour against lasers, but unless you can aim the beam back in the time it takes for the mirror to melt, it isn't a weapon reflector.

Would you believe TWO mirrors? Well, actually six mirrors, because it's 3d, but you get the idea.

Re:Retroreflectors

[Zorpheus]

It's just 3 mirrors for 3d, in the form of the corner of a cube.

Re:Patently useless

[drinkypoo]

If you can eliminate all the other weapons systems on the boat it will never run out of ammo so long as it does not run out of fuel. For a nuclear military vessel (which is maintained at someone else's expense) running out of fuel in the middle of combat is essentially a non-issue.

Big military vessels don't need indirect fire if they have air cover... which they generally do at all times.

enema + dvork

[decora]

i think the internet has officially acheived its original purpose.

to create a discussion thread that goes from laser weapons, to enemas, to dvorak keyboard arguments, without any intervening replies.

absolutely unbelievable. bravo to you, sirs. bravo.

Re:enema + dvork

[El Torico]

I agree, that was an amazing turn of discussion points. Better yet, it didn't involve Godwin's Law. Adding "cowboy" in there just put it over the top; I give it a 9.9!

Re:Patently useless

[pyalot]

Geeze you're clueless. It doesn't matter if you're powering a flywheel or charging a more conventional capacitator. After you discharge that thing, the energy's gone, and you have to put new energy in. The usual way to use it is to accumulate energy into it over a longer time, in order to quickly discharge it. You usually do that if you have an energy application that requires more power then you can produce in-situ per unit of time. The reagan star-wars programme had at least the advantage of being able to hook up directly to the power grid, you know, where several large-scale nuclear reactors pump energy in. On a ship however, the level best you're going to get is a naval reactor, and while powerful, it's no technomiracle, it's power-output is strictly limited. And I guarantee you, powering a laser able to punch trough reflectively painted tungsten steel across dozens or hundreds of kilometers of atmosphere, is way beyond even the power output capabilities of a naval nuclear reactor.

What about missles?

[X-Gamer]

Small boats threat? It makes more sense as a defence against anti-ship missles. Modern anti-ship missles are programmed to approach in an erratic trajectory that makes it very difficult for CIWS to track and take out since they have to compensate for the flight time and distance of the projectiles. A laser will CIWS will most certainly be more effective.

Re:Patently useless

[Kral_Blbec]

Summary: Random slashdotter smarter than everyone else actually working on a project. News at 11.

Re:Patently useless

[Kral_Blbec]

Chaff is stupid. A target approaching a ship is going to go right through it (and destroy its own engines if it has any) and appear on the other side. Chaff is only useful as an escape where it remains in line of sight between both parties.

Uses of a Navy

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> The only time you really need a Navy is if you want, not to defend yourself, but to sail around the world attacking or threatening to attack other people in their own homes.

They can also be useful for defending or threatening to defend other people or supply lines. Keeping oil flowing into our economy, for example. Keeping industrial output flowing.

Power is most effective when one does not have to use it. A US carrier group is a massive military threat to almost any country in the world. It is more useful as a deterrent than as an offensive weapon. Moving a carrier group is sometimes as much a political as a military exercise.

A navy is also useful (though financially inefficient if that were their only mission) for giving humanitarian aid. We have a lot of hospital beds on those ships, and in the wake of natural disasters they can be quite helpful.

Finally, they are useful for projecting large amounts of power far from your own shores--when you are surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean that someone must cross to get to you, that is useful even defensively.

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[Briareos]

Hate to break it to you cowboy, but out of over 60 keyboard layouts the only ones with a and y anywhere near each other are the Bulgarian and Ukrainian.

I also hate to break it to you but there's keyboard layouts beyond QWERTY out there, like QWERTZ - German, Hungarian, Swiss, Bosnian, Croatian and Slovene layouts make mistyping an A for a Y a breeze...

np: Battles - IPT-2 (EP C/B EP)

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[xehonk]

> Hate to break it to you cowboy, but out of over 60 keyboard layouts the only ones with a and y anywhere near each other are the Bulgarian and Ukrainian.

Nice try, but there is an entire category with keyboards where the Y and Z keys are swapped in the article you linked:

4.2 QWERTZ

Re:Counter-measures

[geobeck]

Also, lasers don't bounce back at the attacker they way they do in fiction.

The most effective reflective armor wouldn't attempt to bounce the beam back (the Wobbuffet defense). If you had highly reflective armor placed at a very low angle, the beam would strike a much larger area, reducing the concentration of energy in addition to reflecting it away.

Of course, the problem would be that you now have a powerful laser beam aimed at an angle into the air--less concentrated than it was, but still enough to damage any of your planes that may be in the area.

Ha! We win!

[Opportunist]

The enemy just said that their defense system is mostly smoke and mirrors!

No... wait...

pics

[DSS11Q13]

or it didn't happen

Re:Counter-measures

[Cyberax]

"Also, lasers don't bounce back at the attacker they way they do in fiction. A mirror is essentially armour against lasers, but unless you can aim the beam back in the time it takes for the mirror to melt, it isn't a weapon reflector."

Not a problem. Just use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector

Re:Patently useless

[PPH]

You put your weapons in shipping containers labeled 'iPhone 5, Made in China' and wait until the eager crowds descend upon the waterfront.

Re:Patently useless

[peragrin]

um they aren't shooting missiles they are shooting a laser, an d what chaff does is to create a second radar target behind the first one to enable premature detonation.

You can't send chaff out in front of you , and if you toss it to the side they will simply adjust the aim to the second target.

Chaff is only good when your running away from something. When your running towards it chaff isn't good as the second target is behind you and the missile or laser has to go through you to get to it.

A Treatment for Fecal Impaction?

[Frosty Piss]

A line of sight weapon is only useful if you can see the enema.

A fecal impaction is a large mass of dry, hard shit that can develop in the rectum due to chronic constipation. A laser treatment might very well be a productive treatment to get the stools flowing...

A Navy is essential for defense and trade

[perpenso]

Navies aren't really all that useful for defending the country. Sure, they can be parked off our coast and used for that, but the same effect can be had for a fraction of the cost with ground bases.

History shows otherwise, both early American (1812) and more recent (WW2). Your idea of being safe behind fixed immobile defenses has been shown to be a failed strategy for millennia.

The only time you really need a Navy is if you want, not to defend yourself, but to sail around the world attacking or threatening to attack other people in their own homes.

Wrong. If you have international trade and commerce you need a Navy to defend the trade routes. Either your Navy or someone else's friendly Navy.

Re:A Navy is essential for defense and trade

[Arker]

History shows otherwise, both early American (1812) and more recent (WW2). Your idea of being safe behind fixed immobile defenses has been shown to be a failed strategy for millennia.

I said nothing about being safe behind immobile defenses first off, that's sheer fabrication.

Land-based aircraft are hardly immobile. Littoral vessels are hardly immobile. Hunter-killer submarines are not immobile, and confining them to the vicinity of your coast rather than stationing them all around the world does not make them so. Land based missile launchers are not normally immobile either, and there are plenty of other options.

Drawing lessons from the War of 1812 as if the technologies involved havent radically changed the situation is laughable on its own, but you are drawing the wrong lessons from it to boot! The British had absolute superiority on the sea, the worlds premiere Navy with over 600 military vessels, something the US was not able to even begin to compete with. And yet they did not win. Their Navy alone cost them far more than we even had to spend, we could not even dream of challenging it on the high seas, and yet we defended ourselves and won. Think about it.

Re:A Navy is essential for defense and trade

[perpenso]

History shows otherwise, both early American (1812) and more recent (WW2). Your idea of being safe behind fixed immobile defenses has been shown to be a failed strategy for millennia.

I said nothing about being safe behind immobile defenses first off, that's sheer fabrication.

"... but the same effect can be had for a fraction of the cost with ground bases ..." Ground bases are immobile.

Land-based aircraft are hardly immobile.

However they have historically failed at naval defense. Regarding "immobile", aircraft need infrastructure, lots of it. And in a land base that infrastructure is immobile, ie a target. Witness the plethora of decades old weapons systems that crater runways or bust bunkers protecting aircraft, munitions, fuel, etc. For thirty plus years we've have been watching gun/missile camera footage of land based aircraft being ripped apart, in part, by naval aircraft and missiles.

Littoral vessels are hardly immobile. Hunter-killer submarines are not immobile, and confining them to the vicinity of your coast rather than stationing them all around the world does not make them so.

However that surrenders the initiative to the enemy. Something that from Mahan to Clausewitz to Sun Tzu has been taught to be a losing strategy.

Additionally, it allows you to be strangled economically. England controlled its coastal waters during WW2 for instance, yet there was a danger of starvation and long range naval forces (surface and air) were necessary to break the blockade through convoy escort. Winston Churchill said:
"The Battle of the Atlantic was the dominating factor all through the war. Never for one moment could we forget that everything happening elsewhere, on land, at sea or in the air depended ultimately on its outcome."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic_(1939–1945)

Land based missile launchers are not normally immobile either, and there are plenty of other options. Drawing lessons from the War of 1812 as if the technologies involved havent radically changed the situation is laughable on its own, but you are drawing the wrong lessons from it to boot!

Actually what is laughable is to think that tactical technology somehow invalidates thousands of years of proven strategic thinking and history.

The British had absolute superiority on the sea, the worlds premiere Navy with over 600 military vessels, something the US was not able to even begin to compete with. And yet they did not win. Their Navy alone cost them far more than we even had to spend, we could not even dream of challenging it on the high seas, and yet we defended ourselves and won. Think about it.

Yet a seaborne force was able to land and take the capital Washington DC and burn various buildings including the White House. You consider that a successful defense? I consider that evidence of the failure of the Jeffersonian ideal of a shallow water navy.

Re:A Navy is essential for defense and trade

[Xaositecte]

[quote]I said nothing about being safe behind immobile defenses first off, that's sheer fabrication.[/quote]

Yes, you did. You just don't know what the words you're using mean.

[quote]Land-based aircraft are hardly immobile. Littoral vessels are hardly immobile. Hunter-killer submarines are not immobile, and confining them to the vicinity of your coast rather than stationing them all around the world does not make them so. Land based missile launchers are not normally immobile either, and there are plenty of other options.[/quote]

Why are you recommending these things when you think merely a coast guard is good enough?

You're calling for a Navy that just happens to stay near our shores, the coast guard is smaller and cheaper because it doesn't use the fancy expensive toys like the Navy does.

Re:A Navy is essential for defense and trade

[Arker]

However they have historically failed at naval defense.

Citation needed.

In fact land-based aircraft have every advantage in an engagement with a naval aggressor, assuming anything like parity in technology and funding it's not even a contest.

When you consider that the US is the only power on Earth still floating full Carrier vessels the argument is even more absurd. The Kuznetsov and their like are not really comparable to our Aircraft Carriers, fielding smaller numbers of less capable aircraft with lighter loadouts using ski-jumps to take off.

No potential enemy has or is close to obtaining the ability to field a Navy inside the operational range of the US Air Force operating from ground-bases without losing it very quickly. The US Navy, with a much larger budget than the US Air Force, would be very hard pressed to challenge the US Air Force today, and no one else on Earth could even come close.

Regarding "immobile", aircraft need infrastructure, lots of it.

They sure do, that's the point! Stationing them in an ocean doesnt obviate the need for infrastructure in the slightest, it only makes that infrastructure vastly more expensive to provide and maintain, and vastly more vulnerable to attack.

And in a land base that infrastructure is immobile, ie a target.

And an Aircraft Carrier is NOT a target? Hello?

It's a very large, very expensive target that doesnt dare move without a full task force to screen and defend it.

A strike on an airbase that temporarily disables one runway is a strike that likely would sink a Carrier entirely. And even if the Carrier survives, it's temporarily out of action entirely (it only HAS one runway) and repairing it will take much longer and cost much more than patching up an airbase would.

Witness the plethora of decades old weapons systems that crater runways or bust bunkers protecting aircraft, munitions, fuel, etc. For thirty plus years we've have been watching gun/missile camera footage of land based aircraft being ripped apart, in part, by naval aircraft and missiles.

Sure, you are watching footage of Naval aircraft and missiles from the most technically advanced Navy on earth, maintained at a cost so astronomical it's hard to even imagine, blowing up bases in third-world countries outfitted with ancient technology which is often nonfunctional as a result of lack of funding and/or skilled personnel. Drawing the conclusion that Naval forces somehow have an advantage over land-based Air Force based on that is like watching Vladimir Klitchko beat the crap out of some random junior-flyweight with a green belt from the local Jujitsu school and concluding that Boxing is obviously vastly superior to Jujitsu.

However that surrenders the initiative to the enemy. Something that from Mahan to Clausewitz to Sun Tzu has been taught to be a losing strategy.

You need to reread your strategy if you really think any of those names serve to endorse such a simplistic reading.

Yet a seaborne force was able to land and take the capital Washington DC and burn various buildings including the White House. You consider that a successful defense? I consider that evidence of the failure of the Jeffersonian ideal of a shallow water navy.

Again, given the funding disparity between the two combatants it should surprise no one that the larger and vastly better funded party won some battles. But the British were not defending their homeland, now were they? No, they were sending vast numbers of troops and ships across the Atlantic to attack a foe that had nowhere near the economic or military resources they did, and they still lost. Our "shallow water navy" performed admirably, gaining superiority in the great lakes region which led to strategically vital parts of Canada falling to U

Re:A Navy is essential for defense and trade

[Arker]

You're calling for a Navy that just happens to stay near our shores, the coast guard is smaller and cheaper because it doesn't use the fancy expensive toys like the Navy does.

No, what I am "calling for" would be a US Military that is designed and positioned to defend the US at a reasonable price, rather than one that is designed and positioned to "project power" around the world with a correspondingly staggering cost, both monetary and otherwise.

Re:A Navy is essential for defense and trade

[perpenso]

However they [land based air] have historically failed at naval defense.

Citation needed.

Pearl Harbor, Philippines, Truk, ... (only bothering to mention cases with enemies of comparable capability)

In fact land-based aircraft have every advantage in an engagement with a naval aggressor, assuming anything like parity in technology and funding it's not even a contest.

I suppose it is your turn to offer a citation of successful land based air defense against naval forces between comparable opponents.

When you consider that the US is the only power on Earth still floating full Carrier vessels the argument is even more absurd.

No, the aircraft carrier has two goals. Defense of the sea and the ability to project power inland from unpredictable avenues. You seem to be ignoring the later. With the concentration of people and infrastructure near the coast aircraft carriers can have an immense influence.

The Kuznetsov and their like are not really comparable to our Aircraft Carriers, fielding smaller numbers of less capable aircraft with lighter loadouts using ski-jumps to take off.

No potential enemy has or is close to obtaining the ability to field a Navy inside the operational range of the US Air Force operating from ground-bases without losing it very quickly.

Seriously? Imperial Japan destroyed the the US land based forces in Hawaii and the Philippines on the ground. The B17 bombers that promised exactly the type of defense you propose failed miserably.

The US Navy, with a much larger budget than the US Air Force, would be very hard pressed to challenge the US Air Force today, and no one else on Earth could even come close.

Seriously? With mobility and unpredictability Navy subs could launch cruise missiles with a flight time of a few minutes against runways cratering them or littering them with submunitions (mines) rendering the runways inoperable. As demonstrated at Pearl Harbor a long range naval capability gives a country mobility and initiative, the ability to initiate hostilities at the time and place of its choosing.

Regarding "immobile", aircraft need infrastructure, lots of it ... And in a land base that infrastructure is immobile, ie a target.

They sure do, that's the point! Stationing them in an ocean doesnt obviate the need for infrastructure in the slightest, it only makes that infrastructure vastly more expensive to provide and maintain, and vastly more vulnerable to attack ... And an Aircraft Carrier is NOT a target? Hello?

It's a very large, very expensive target that doesnt dare move without a full task force to screen and defend it.

Actually the point is that mobility makes one a less vulnerable target. When Imperial Japanese naval forces countered the US invasion of Guadalcanal the US Navy and Marine aircraft on Henderson Field were under frequent attack while those aboard aircraft carriers were safer as the carriers withdrew from the immediate vicinity of the battle.

A strike on an airbase that temporarily disables one runway is a strike that likely would sink a Carrier entirely. And even if the Carrier survives, it's temporarily out of action entirely (it only HAS one runway) and repairing it will take much longer and cost much more than patching up an airbase would.

When an airbase loses its runway it also tends to lose its aircraft minutes later. Furthermore these runways also have a habit of changing hands. Henderson Field on Guadalcanal was taken by the US, Wake Island's airfield was lost by the US, etc. Incidentally, Wake Island's air power was useless since it was not supported by long range naval forces and was simply blockaded and starved.

Also, once again, Britain was nea

Re:A Navy is essential for defense and trade

[perpenso]

No, what I am "calling for" would be a US Military that is designed and positioned to defend the US at a reasonable price, rather than one that is designed and positioned to "project power" around the world with a correspondingly staggering cost, both monetary and otherwise.

Again, if a nation requires international trade for vital supplies or for economic vitality then it must be able to defend its merchant fleet. A Jeffersonian shallow water navy was tried in the US and the people of its day considered it a failure and decided that a deep water navy was a necessity *and* this was at a time in US history where the country was still isolationist in nature and believed in avoiding foreign entanglements.

Re:A Navy is essential for defense and trade

[radtea]

However that surrenders the initiative to the enemy. Something that from Mahan to Clausewitz to Sun Tzu has been taught to be a losing strategy.

Yeah, man, look at Solidarity in Poland, or Gandhi's movement in India! They left the enemy all kinds of initiative, and look how badly that ended for them.

Whereas the Palestinians and Israelis are both working every day to take the initiative, so the war will end in their favour any day now for sure! And the Tamils took the initiative in Sri Lanka, too, and the IRA in Ireland and the ETA in Spain. Clearly a totally successful strategy, all done with the approval of some dead theorists who barely knew the Earth was round, much less the role evolutionary pyschology plays in the entirely irrational act of war-making.

Re:A Navy is essential for defense and trade

[perpenso]

However that surrenders the initiative to the enemy. Something that from Mahan to Clausewitz to Sun Tzu has been taught to be a losing strategy.

Yeah, man, look at Solidarity in Poland, or Gandhi's movement in India! They left the enemy all kinds of initiative, and look how badly that ended for them.

Actually Solidarity and Gandhi had the initiative. Initiative of action is not necessarily expressed as combat.

Psh, not impressed.

[scubamage]

Give me a call when they perfect the wave motion gun.

cookies if you get the reference

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[circletimessquare]

that's the culprit, autocomplete

the clash is not between keyboard layouts, but between desktop culture and mobile keyboardless culture

however, autocomplete uses past word usage as an indicator of intent. since enemy is more frequent than enema in normal use, we can conclude the author of the original post uses the word "enema" a lot, to trick autocomplete into thinking that is his intended word

(snicker)

Gosh, someone should WARN the navy

[SmallFurryCreature]

QUICK, someone call the navy! They MUST know this! A random dweed on slashdot has pointed out a fatal flaw in their decade long research! Save the nation, we can prevent a second Pearl Harbor if only we can this information to the right people!

Either this or, thank you for point out the bloody obvious and that a close range defensive weapon designed to take out small attacking ships does not need over the horizon capabilities. Layers of defence, read up on it.

Re:Patently useless

[Cederic]

What if the weapon is, I don't know, a radar guided one.

Ooh, look! Your pretty laser just cooked a small school of herring. Meanwhile my small boat is either completing its attack run or getting the hell out of there. Either way I've lived a fuck of a lot longer than if I'd had no chaff.

What, you're going to aim the laser manually? Sure.

Oh good, we got a volunteer

[SmallFurryCreature]

Sir, we got a volunteer. Private Turbidostato has volunteered to not just take a large high power electric device into salt water but to strap it, unarmed and naked (we are the navy after all) to our specially grown giant sized sharks whose increase in size thanks to their constant submergance in radiated water is only outmatched by their increase in ferocity.

Might I suggest sir, that you put in the request for his medal (posthumous), now? It would save time.

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[Beardo the Bearded]

Modern warships are basically floating generators powering the communications equipment.

They also have missiles, helicopters, and torpedoes. Usually for target engagement, you fire a missile off in the wrong direction, have it fly away for a bit, turn, and then correct course towards the target. The target is not aware of your correct location.

Now if you can see your target that's usually an intelligence failure or you're investigating without engaging. For example, if a Spanish fishing trawler is illegally catching fish off the Grand Banks and you decide to fire a warning shot when they don't pull over.

So where do lasers come in?

1. For defence, or incoming ballistics neutralization. The Phalanx (R2D2 / Dalek) can destroy most incoming ballistics BUT it goes through ammo like Charlie Sheen goes through hookers and Coke! (It fires 50 cal at 3000 RPM) so it's expensive to fire. Replace that with a laser and suddenly it's costing a gallon of fuel instead of $40k with of bullets. The target acquisition time with modern equipment is enough to destroy almost anything, and even better you can now destroy incoming shells with the lasers. You normally wouldn't be able to acquire / waste ammo on the smaller shells. Now you can.

2. For close-in target neutralization. If you can see the target, you can CUT OFF HER MASTS and then the ship is dark. There's no radar, no radio, and no way of acquiring targets without going outside and opening up a sextant and graph paper. And that's a warship. A civilian ship would be dead in the water.

3. Interdiction of small vessels. When the Cole was hit, even if they'd known that there was a threat there was a good chance they couldn't have repelled it. Warships are designed to hit warships, not two guys in a rowboat. They best they could have done was go down to the small arms locker and try to pick them off with machine gun fire. It wasn't until a few years later that they tried, and with remarkable success, using the Phalanx to hit small incoming craft. Again, that's a waste of money and ammo. With a laser, you can just cut them in half and throw the survivors a Kisby ring, OR switch carrier to a MASER and knock them out with the pain.

Re:Patently useless

[Dails]

You should probably go back and read my post to see why all the things you said are wrong.

Chaff stays in the air for a very short time

[sean.peters]

And it would be very difficult to store enough chaff rounds onboard to do a continuous barrage, especially if you were a small vessel. And current chaff launchers would melt down if you tried to fire them this regularly. And small boats (the intended targets for this thing) mostly don't have room for even the chaff launcher, much less the ammo.

Chaff is not a practical countermeasure to this.

Oh, please

[sean.peters]

Here's a hint: the utility of putting a laser weapon on a ship: not exactly a secret, and hasn't been since, well, lasers were invented. I don't think we're really giving away the farm here.

Re:Patently useless

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Big military vessels don't need indirect fire if they have air cover... which they generally do at all times.

Assuming that the local aircraft carrier isn't pursuing an exciting second career as a submarine at the time, which is presumably why the US is investing in stuff like this(along with their continued emphasis on in-air refueling abilities). The US is in the somewhat tricky position that most hypothetical 'force projection' scenarios that don't simply involve asymmetric beating on dusty hellholes full of irregulars(dubiously winnable; but not a blue-water threat) tend to involve having to move very, very expensive carriers within the potential range of hostile land based missiles.

When do we raise the Yamato?

[ALeader71]

Just think, we'll be ready for the first alien invasion as the first planet bombs hit the Earth.

link

What a boondoggle

[bmo]

Ok, so this is for at range and close-in defense?

Fine.

Just attack the ship in a fog. Laser efficiency and focus goes out the window. Ask any land surveyor who's tried to work in a fog and can't get a beam to make a 10 meter round-trip. Not happening.

Yes it's more powerful than the laser in a total-station but condensed water vapor (fog, driving rain) is going to make your beam useless. Please note they tested this in a "high humidity environment" and not fog. There's a difference, and the difference is utter failure in fog. You can't defeat physics.

This is pants-on-head retarded.

--
BMO

Re:What a boondoggle

[angel'o'sphere]

Well,
last years (decades?) the US Navy did not engage in foggy areas, or?

Also one could assume if there is fog, the enemy wont attack with weapons against which that laser is designed, or?

angel'o'sphere

Re:What a boondoggle

[bmo]

You also missed where I said "driving rain" too. I don't know how effective a light sprinkle will dissipate one of these laser beams, but a good solid rain, with all those lenses of water are going to make the beam dissipate before it reaches 500 meters.

As for weather, it's not sunny all the time, even in the middle-east. They do have hurricanes in the Persian Gulf.

--
BMO

Re:What a boondoggle

[angel'o'sphere]

I did not say you don't have a point.
However bad weather can be bad for any weapon system ... just depending on what system you are trying to use.

Don't forget that there where already decades ago experiments regarding laser systems. The idea was to have a punshing laser that creates a tunnel of hot air/near vacuum, and let the main laser zap through that tunnel.

However reading through the article it seems to be a "steady beam" laser which needs to be aimed pretty long on the target. So the question is: is it able to keep up a tunnel for itself?

Just speculating ofc, your point is valid, but well, what do you want to say with it? The laser is useful when the weather is fine, so it is still useful ...

angel'o'sphere

Re:What a boondoggle

[bmo]

Well, let me put my evil dictator hat on for a second.

If I was Ahmadinejad, I wouldn't bother with a nuke.

I'd be building anti-ship missiles in my secret underground lair. To be launched in days of inclement weather.

--
BMO

Re:What a boondoggle

[angel'o'sphere]

That is what I would do as well, and hoping the conventional defense system won't be good enough to kill all my speed boats in time ;D

In fact I really doubt you can do much against a clever attack ... but we don't need to give bad guys ideas here.

angel'o'sphere

Re:What a boondoggle

[rally2xs]

You won't even be able to FIND it in the fog...

Re:What a boondoggle

[gl4ss]

how do you find it in a fog? also the fog could just disperse on the lasers lenght, yes?

the point here is really accuracy and speed to target. and using just expensive coolants and electricity as the ammo. but hitting say remote controlled drones.. the laser is good for that. all the systems on a warship augment each other and the big warships are used in task forces anyways if there is threat, usually there isn't.

also.. I suppose, if the ship is in harbor they don't want to put up a wall of lead for every rowboat they encounter.....

Re:Patently useless

[Doc Ruby]

A target can fire bundles of chaff ahead of itself. Indeed there's probably a cheap way for the target to fire water scooped along the way out in front of itself, or just between the moving target and the stationary ship aiming its laser.

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[mousse-man]

And what if a potential attack consists of a missile that will seperate itself into multiple warheads before attacking the target? The overloading tactic would presumably also work against RAMs (Rolling Airframe Missiles) and conventional Phalanx guns.

Re:Military weapon advances.

[rally2xs]

Ain't EVER going to happen.

Re:Patently useless

[drinkypoo]

I completely agree that a laser is primarily useful as a defensive weapon. Being able to eliminate incoming missiles and aircraft would be a massive success for any naval vessel. I think any gamer appreciates the value of laser point defense :D

Countermeasures

[vac65]

This will open the gate to the best smoke generator in the other navies. And the mirrors, like Opportunist (166417).... Much more cheap... It's like the urban myth about the NASA pen and the soviet pencil.

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[gaiageek]

i'm looking at 'A' and 'Y' on my keyboard. nope. maybe a mistake like enemu or enemt. but you had to write enema on purpose. which is odd, as your post seems serious

On German keyboards the 'Y' is below the 'A'. Just a possible explanation.

Long range naval power foundation of everything

[perpenso]

Britains defense in WWII was overwhelmingly from land-based airfields, which produced much better results at much lower cost. I certainly never claimed that a Navy cannot be used defensively, simply that it makes no sense to build one for that purpose, given the options and the costs involved.

Winston Churchill seemed to think that long range naval power was the foundation for *everything* else that occurred during the war:
"The Battle of the Atlantic was the dominating factor all through the war. Never for one moment could we forget that everything happening elsewhere, on land, at sea or in the air depended ultimately on its outcome." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic_(1939–1945)

Re:Long range naval power foundation of everything

[Arker]

Winston Churchill was a smart man, but he was not one that limited his military ambitions to defense by any stretch of the imagination. He declared war against Germany, not the other way around, and his goal was to defeat her, not to defend and preserve Britannia. So naturally he would see it that way - but his viewpoint isnt very relevant to the defense of a Republic which "does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

Re:Long range naval power foundation of everything

[perpenso]

Winston Churchill was a smart man, but he was not one that limited his military ambitions to defense by any stretch of the imagination. He declared war against Germany, not the other way around, and his goal was to defeat her, not to defend and preserve Britannia. So naturally he would see it that way - but his viewpoint isnt very relevant to the defense of a Republic which "does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

That is quite the dodge. Hypothetical causes of the war are irrelevant to the point being made, not even tangential. The fact remains that Britain was under serious threat due to its loss of seaborne supplies. They could have quite literally been starved into submission had they only possessed a coastal defense.

Re:Long range naval power foundation of everything

[Arker]

"Hypothetical causes of the war?" There is nothing hypothetical about it, it's an easily verifiable fact, ffs.

At any rate, I think everyone that has replied in this thread is quite profoundly missing the point. By the logic I keep hearing, if there is any conceivable way that a weapon might ever be vaguely useful in something that vaguely resembles defense, regardless of its cost and regardless of the alternatives that exist, the relative effectiveness of those alternatives, and their cost, then we have to have it. I just dont agree with that, at all. It's the same sort of logic that you hear from people that think they need a tactical nuke, or at the very least a large-bore self-propelled artillery piece in their backyard, to defend themselves.

Now I am all in favour of self defense, and the second amendment is dear to my heart. But it's a simple fact that my Mossberg is much less expensive, and much more useful in the context of defending myself, my home, and my family, than an M110, let alone a nuke. Is there some outlandish but vaguely possible scenario someone could dream up where I will really need that M110? I am sure there are several actually, but so what? In reality it's an absurd expenditure to be motivated by defensive concerns. I could rig electric fences, perimeter surveillance, buy more small arms and ammo than I have storage space for, and hire armed guards to monitor the surveillance systems and patrol my property with the money that thing would cost me - and have plenty left over. If I choose to spend that money on an M110 instead, I will be less safe, not more safe - AND my neighbors may (rightfully) get very very suspicious of what I plan to do with the thing as well. And that's before I start driving it over fences and blowing up other peoples stuff with it...

Re:Long range naval power foundation of everything

[DarenN]

No, no, you've made it clear that you haven't read any history anywhere and don't understand that there are such things as aggressors.

On its own, your claim that

Winston Churchill was a smart man, but he was not one that limited his military ambitions to defense by any stretch of the imagination. He declared war against Germany, not the other way around, and his goal was to defeat her, not to defend and preserve Britannia. So naturally he would see it that way - but his viewpoint isnt very relevant to the defense of a Republic which "does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

is so shockingly inaccurate that it begs correction.

1. Winston Churchill didn't declare war on anyone. He became prime minister in 1940.
2. Germany was a threat to everyone on continental Europe. Given that the British Empire had spent a goodly portion of the preceding 200 years fighting expansionist continental empires (to be specific, France), wars which they would have lost without their Navy and undoubtedly would have led to their invasion, the Navy was a definitely a defensive must.
3. Defeating Germany WAS preserving Brittania in WWII (world war one is much murkier).
4. The unconditional defeat of Germany was a condition laid down by Stalin, who didn't trust the western allies not to make peace separately.
5. If you don't destroy the monsters abroad, historically they will generally end up on your doorstep. Appeasement doesn't work. Ask the Russians. And Chamberlain.

Re:Long range naval power foundation of everything

[radtea]

Hypothetical causes of the war are irrelevant... They could have quite literally been starved into submission had they only possessed a coastal defense.

Hypothetical outcomes are irrelevant to the point being made.

Re:Long range naval power foundation of everything

[perpenso]

Hypothetical causes of the war are irrelevant... They could have quite literally been starved into submission had they only possessed a coastal defense.

Hypothetical outcomes are irrelevant to the point being made.

There is nothing really hypothetical about it. It was the stated intent of Germany and the stated fear of the British at the time.

"At the start of World War II (1939), the United Kingdom imported 20 million tons of foodstuffs per year (70%), including more than 50% of its meat, 70% of its cheese and sugar, nearly 80% of fruits and about 70% of cereals and fats. The population would have been somewhere between 46 million (46,038 thousand as measured in the 1931 census) and 52 million (53,225 thousand as measured in the 1951 census).[3] It was one of the principal strategies of the Axis to attack shipping bound for the United Kingdom, restricting British industry and potentially starving the nation into submission."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps think about where the Y and A key are on non US keyboard layouts?

angel'o'sphere

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[angel'o'sphere]

What about german (austrian, swiz) keyboards?
Those 3 countries together have perhaps 50M internet uses, if not more.

If you would take a bit more time you likely find plenty more keyboard layouts with a and y close together.

And perhaps you could care to point out what the problem with "enema" is ... is that a swearword only some people know?

angel'o'sphere

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[swb]

It's 20mm @ 4500 RPM, but the magazines only hold 1550 rounds.

My sense is that a 5 second burst (or maybe 3 two second bursts) is all they really plan to fire at any single target -- anything more than that and you end up almost in a denial or service situation where the magazines are drained so fast the system is ineffective.

In many ways, I also think its a relatively inexpensive weapons system -- on a per-target basis, you're talking maybe a couple of hundred rounds of 20mm ammo. That's nothing, and I'm sure the military burns a 100k rounds of 20mm ammo in training alone in any given month.

Re:Counter-measures

[Americano]

And then a single conventional shell hits your perfectly-aligned, perfectly-reflective armor, doing one of the following: changing the precision of the angle it's mounted at, making it less useful as a protective layer; damaging the surface to make it much less reflective and thus absorbing much more of the laser's energy; or simply destroying the reflective armor and the vessel it's mounted on.

Navy - 1; Hypothetical perfectly reflective armor - 0;

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[afidel]

Over the horizon attacks are handled by the squadrons of aircraft based on the carrier.

the US just had massive budget cuts

[Dan667]

this unneeded laser program should have been one of the first things cut.

Re:the US just had massive budget cuts

[rally2xs]

You bonehead. We do need it, and it will save us money over other approaches to solve the same problem.

Re:the US just had massive budget cuts

[rally2xs]

I want to see your hairy a** out there floating around and 50 - 100 small boats each loaded with explosives coming after your ship while it is docked in some armpit like Yeman. See if you want a weapon that can take 'em all down.

Coming up next...

[soundscape]

Chinese reflective new "Mirror Ships" take out US Navy vessels with their own weapons.

For those of you that want to SEE it...

[subk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyTRhw8qmHE

LOL

[WindBourne]

This is designed to take out missiles that you can see, but are flying at mach 10 or less. This is ideal for what it was built for, and will likely do decently.

As far as hitting over the horizons, well, there is that rail gun being worked on. They already have a 32 MJ and are actively at work on a 64 MJ and in some circles, the claim is a 128 MJ. With a 32 MJ, the shell will traveled at Mach7+ and went over 100 miles. It is expected that the 64 MJ will travel in excess of 200 miles. Both are WELL over the horizon.
In addition, a rail gun pointed downwards, MIGHT be useful.

you can just say

[Asaf.Zamir]

"We are running out of ideas" Spend the money on medical research and stop invading countries that don't threat your land in any way.

Re:Patently useless

[DarenN]

It's a solid state laser built by Northrop Grumann. They're smaller units (15kW) that can be chained to create higher powered lasers, with 100kW being the (rather arbitrary) power at which lasers are considered combat effective. A chemical dye powered laser would make no sense in this case.

They've cut down on the size it seems, since mid 2009.
As this is slashdot, I'll point out that this is six months old news :)

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[Mattsson]

What I'm wondering about is what they do about scattered reflections? How far away would a laser of this magnitude permanently blind people just by reflections off the target and particles in the air?
If this was put into active use, would they require all the personnel on all the vehicles of the navy to constantly wear protective goggles?
What about civilians in the vicinity? Is blinding civilians an acceptable loss in a war zone where weapon-grade lasers is deployed?
I've never seen this mentioned in articles discussing potential laser-weapons and I've always wondered about this.

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[Caetel]

QWERTZ keyboard perhaps? In which case, 'a' would be above the 'y' key.

Yikes

[ThatsNotPudding]

A line of sight weapon is only useful if you can see the enema.

I don't know what would be worse: you in the navy, or you in a doctors' smock.

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[AmiMoJo]

What about torpedoes? Although a sub might be too deep to hit most torps travel just below the surface of the water at a relatively low speed. If the laser is powerful enough to take out a ship it shouldn't have too much trouble penetrating a few meters of water.

2 Guys in a rowboat

[DarthVain]

Excellent! The Canadian Navy is Indestructible!

Re:Just sail over the horizon _then_ fire your gun

[WastedMeat]

High intensity lasers change the optical properties of the air such that the effective refractive index becomes a slight function of the intensity. Asymmetric laser profiles, shaped in the just the right ways, can be constantly refracted as they travel and produce curved beams. Here is an example: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5924/229.full.

This approach is of course inefficient, impractical, and not used by the current weapon, because it ionizes the air along the way, but line of sight is not a fundamental problem with lasers in atmosphere.

more probably aim to missiles?

[Herve5]

I'd say, once you do have the laser working, all you need is a fast enough tracking mirror to aim at an incoming missile.
--and THIS would be a huge savings when compared to the current antimissile weapons, where each shot is @ 1 M$...
H.

Re:more probably aim to missiles?

[Herve5]

ah, I didn't see IDK post below that merely says the same thing :(