Slashdot Mirror
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."
They don't have to go all the way there, if they just target the environment, global warming will take care of the pirates.
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.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
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.
Afterthought: presumably the torpedo manufacturers aren't too worried, either.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
now where are the Sharks?
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...
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?
--
make install -not war
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.
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.
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
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.
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.
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.
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.
The enemy just said that their defense system is mostly smoke and mirrors!
No... wait...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
In fact very recently you wrote:
*Coughs*
Indeed it is, I am glad you can admit that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
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 :)
Rational thought is the only true freedom