Navy Planning To Build Laser Cannon In Four Years

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Navy Planning To Build Laser Cannon In Four Years

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday April 1, 2012 @04:50AM from the sea-the-future dept.

CowboyRobot writes "The US Navy is months away from requesting bids from contractors to construct a laser weapon for its ships, now that the technology is feasible. 'The key point came last April, when the Navy put a test laser firing a (relatively weak) 15-kilowatt beam aboard a decommissioned destroyer... the Martime Laser Demonstrator cut through choppy California waters, an overcast sky and salty sea air to burn through the outboard engine of a moving motorboat a mile away.'"

195 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And attach it to sharks' heads by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 04:53 · Score: 0

Oblig. Austin Powers
1. Re:And attach it to sharks' heads by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-04-01 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Only if Linus can get his source code
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Hmm by girlintraining · 2012-04-01 04:54 · Score: 2, Funny

So Navy's of tomorrow will have their ships covered in mirrors. Now, someone tell me why this won't work... because it seems like a really obvious way to divert a laser beam.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Hmm by houstonbofh · 2012-04-01 04:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  High power lasers will smoke a typical mirror. There are reflective surfaces that could work, but you have to keep them perfectly clean. Not happening at sea for long... However, a laser will be easier to track back than a tracer round...
2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  I think the mirrors would melt before they could even reflect... Unless the speed of light has something to do with this being plausible.
3. Re:Hmm by KnightMB · 2012-04-01 04:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So Navy's of tomorrow will have their ships covered in mirrors. Now, someone tell me why this won't work... because it seems like a really obvious way to divert a laser beam.
  Because a mirror does not reflect 100% of the energy, some will be absorbed, thus the laser will eventually burn through it. Super efficient mirrors are easy counter anyway, just lob some "buckshot" at the target to shatter the mirrors, then burn the ship up with the laser :-)
4. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Mirrors are not perfect, especially those exposed to the elements. Even a 99.9% reflective mirror (which would be impossible on a ship) would heat up quickly and discolour, and then all bets are off. Also lasers can use a wide range of frequencies outside of visible light which adds to the difficulty.
5. Re:Hmm by Joce640k · 2012-04-01 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  So Navy's of tomorrow will have their ships covered in mirrors..
  Nah, they'll be covered in hi-tech retro-reflective coatings. The great thing about laser beams is they have no inertial mass...
  
  --
  No sig today...
6. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  High power lasers will smoke a typical mirror. There are reflective surfaces that could work, but you have to keep them perfectly clean. Not happening at sea for long... However, a laser will be easier to track back than a tracer round...
  
  Maybe, maybe not.
  If the laser light doesn't scatter much, the only one who can track it back to its source is the target.
  But only AFTER getting blasted.
  Of course, you could look out for the fricken' shark in the first place... ;-)
7. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If this stays as a (relatively) short range weapon, which is likely given the way lasers work in the atmosphere, then I doubt that being able to trace the beam back to its source will matter much. A modern US destroyer is over 500 ft long. Based on the one mile range listed in the summary, it would be clearly visible, even to the naked eye.
8. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Because the navy values stealth over the ability to shoot lasers at stuff, they'd lose their passive radar countermeasures and pretty much be way more reflective to most of the relevant electromagnetic spectrum including what people can see.
9. Re:Hmm by HybridST · 2012-04-01 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  "The great thing about laser beams is
  they have no inertial mass..."
  And yet photons have momentum. Perhaps a resident lasergeek could calculate the momentum transferred through beam reflection... Need way more coffee before i try mathing things up on a Sunday!
  
  --
  Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
10. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  You got it all wrong.
  It's "laser's" and "surface's", just as much as the plural of navy is navy's.
11. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Oblig xkcd
12. Re:Hmm by Nidi62 · 2012-04-01 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So Navy's of tomorrow will have their ships covered in mirrors. Now, someone tell me why this won't work... because it seems like a really obvious way to divert a laser beam.
  Because the navies of tomorrow (or at least ours will) will also be armed with rail guns. Mirrors won't do much to stop that, and even if there's conventional armor underneath, the rail gun projectile, if it hits, will make them all but useless against a laser.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
13. Re:Hmm by wisnoskij · 2012-04-01 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Well they should be able to cover the special mirrors in a easily flammable clean burning layer so that every surface that gets hit instantly melts/vaporises away and is 100% clean.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
14. Re:Hmm by geo3rge · 2012-04-01 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you really understand the difference between plurals and possessives. Navy's is the *possessive* of Navy. Navies is the *plural* of Navy. Similarly, the plural of surface is surfaces. The possessive of surface is surface's. Check with any grammar book. Of course, you could just mean this as an April Fool Joke. If so, you need to look up the meaning of 'joke'
15. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 06:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's quite simple.
  Let F be the force, E the energy of a single photon, p the momentum of a single photon, P the power of the laser, f the number of photons per time
  For photons,
  E = hc/lambda, p = h/lambda -> p = E / c
  For each photon reflected, the mirror receives twice the impulse of the photon:
  p_received = 2 * E / c
  The number of photons per time is:
  f = P/E
  The force to the mirror is the impulse received per photon times the number of photons per time:
  F = N * p_received / t = 2 * f * E / c = 2 * P / c
  For a 15-kilowatt LASER, the force would be 1.0e-4 newtons.
16. Re:Hmm by DaneM · 2012-04-01 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Who says they have to use visible light? A UV laser would be especially nasty, both because you can't see it, and because even the non-focused "bleed off" will be deadly to living organisms (depending on the type of UV, presumably). I don't know whether this is an ideal frequency for avoiding refraction, etc., but just going to wickedlasers.com will demonstrate that higher-frequency lasers can be darned powerful. Of course, if high-frequency isn't the way to go, you could go infra-red, instead.
  This could be "traced" by specially-designed sensor hardware (i.e. that can see outside the human-visible spectrum), but you'd still have to have these sensors pointed in every conceivable direction of incoming attack in order for them to be truly effective. Of course, anything sensitive enough to trace such a laser without being directly hit will get utterly fried if a hit does happen nearby (even if it's not a hit to the sensors, themselves).
  Overall, I think that with a little cleverness, it'll be highly impractical to trace a laser "blast" much better than one traces phosphorous-burning bullets now.
17. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  you need to look up the meaning of 'joke'
  You could have told him to look in the mirror.
18. Re:Hmm by FiloEleven · 2012-04-01 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  How quickly? More quickly than a computer-controlled mirror could be rotated to reflect the laser back at its source? If a surface could reflect 60% of the energy and angle it back at the source, I could see that causing problems. But I'm just typing as I think, and I doubt the potential benefit of protection against laser weapons outweighs the costs (monetary and strategic) of outfitting a ship with such a system.
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
19. Re:Hmm by hey! · 2012-04-01 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  High power lasers will smoke a typical mirror. There are reflective surfaces that could work, but you have to keep them perfectly clean. Not happening at sea for long...
  Perfect defense against the laser isn't really the point. There's a range of conditions under which a laser of a given power can work fast enough to be effective against a quick moving target. Even painting something white would tend to narrow those conditions. Tests done in the 50s with nuclear heat flash showed that structures painted white survived while adjacent unpainted structures burst into flame.
  Look at the the video in TFA. Note especially the cut in the editing; it would appear that it took some time for one of the black outboard engines of a stationary boat bursts into flames. The laser they're talking about building is only 7x as powerful as the one used in the demonstration. It's questionable whether such a laser could have that particular effect against a fast moving boat, much less something like a missile.
  According to TFA, the point of the program is to get useful lasers onto ships earlier, but I question whether that's the right objective. What does the space, money, and manpower needed to mount such a weapon on a ship displace? Might it make more sense to spend that on something else while we continue research into lasers in a power range that would actually confer some kind of advantage when installed on a ship?
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
20. Re:Hmm by jovius · 2012-04-01 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't the obvious solution be to create ships which absorb incoming energy and re-use it for their own use?
21. Re:Hmm by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-04-01 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  More importantly: the moment the mirror surface warps or burns, it stops reflecting. So after the initial laser hit, there's a sudden spike in energy adsorption as the reflective material fails.
  Any practical reflective material is also going to be polished metal, so this would happen pretty quickly.
22. Re:Hmm by busyqth · 2012-04-01 06:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  That would be a devastating defense.
  I'm sure the Navy will remember it next time they're up against a borg cube.
23. Re:Hmm by Tyrannosaur · 2012-04-01 06:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wouldn't the obvious solution be to create ships which absorb incoming energy and re-use it for their own use?
  If I extend that "obvious solution" to apply to how to counter, say, nuclear weapons, you'll see why that won't work.
24. Re:Hmm by DurnikBob · 2012-04-01 07:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Do you mean "your remaining eye"?
25. Re:Hmm by Phanatic1a · 2012-04-01 07:02 · Score: 2
  
  I wish people would cut this out.
  Have you ever seen a high-energy mirror? It's not something you pick up at Bed, Bath & Beyond. They are expensive, they are fragile, they must be kept completely clean. The reflective surface has to be on the *front* of the mirror, not the rear, because there aren't materials transparent enough to pass high-energy laser light through without absorbing enough of it to react unpleasantly and spoil the reflection. So if there's something like a fingerprint, or a dust speck, on the reflective surface, that bit of crud absorbs the incident light, heats up/explodes, and damages the mirror coating. Which means it's not reflective anymore, which means that area of mirror coating now heats up/explodes and damages adjacent areas, leading to catastrophic failure of the mirror.
  You are not going to put mirrors on your greasy *boats* that go bouncing around the surface of the *ocean* and have them remain clean enough to offer protection against a multi-kilowatt laser beam.
26. Re:Hmm by demachina · 2012-04-01 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Infrared isn't a very good choice for a marine environment. Infrared doesn't travel well through clouds, fog or any other form of water vapor.
  
  --
  @de_machina
27. Re:Hmm by icebike · 2012-04-01 08:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If this stays as a (relatively) short range weapon, which is likely given the way lasers work in the atmosphere, then I doubt that being able to trace the beam back to its source will matter much. A modern US destroyer is over 500 ft long. Based on the one mile range listed in the summary, it would be clearly visible, even to the naked eye.
  Further, something big enough to take out an outboard motor, even scaled up, is at best, a point defense weapon (cruise missiles, very small surface craft, close in helicopters, etc.) Even something 10 times as powerful does not completely disable a frigate sized surface vessel before it can return fire with missiles, guns, and torpedo.
  However, looking at the video, the time it takes to burn thru a thin-skinned outboard motor, on a boat that was barely moving, and making no effort to avoid the engagement, suggests that there is a long way to go before this could be a missile defense.
  So the use case shrinks even further.
  Most anti-ship missiles tend to cluster around a speed of 1000 km/h, which means they cover that last km in .27 seconds. And some US missiles arrive at over 4000 km/h.
  Unless a massively scaled up version can track an incoming missile traveling that fast, and engage it, burn it, or blind it in that .27 seconds, its use as fleet CIWS seems limited at best. The only saving grace is the last km is usually (but not always) a head on straight in attack, making tracking easier.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
28. Re:Hmm by icebike · 2012-04-01 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Look at the the video in TFA. Note especially the cut in the editing; it would appear that it took some time for one of the black outboard engines of a stationary boat bursts into flames. The laser they're talking about building is only 7x as powerful as the one used in the demonstration. It's questionable whether such a laser could have that particular effect against a fast moving boat, much less something like a missile.
  Exactly my thoughts.
  It seems to me that the use case for burning thru hull plating (to take out inboard engines) seems pretty unlikely.
  Optically guided missiles might succumb to having their sensors fried at well beyond the range that a burn-through could happen. Interdiction use (coast guard) might make more sense, making the bridge of a running vessel a pretty inhospitable place to be without using naval gunfire and risking the lives of all on board.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
29. Re:Hmm by Alan+R+Light · 2012-04-01 08:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  A simpler solution is for navies to go underwater. In fact, all warfare is about to change: the future will involve few if any manned ships or airplanes, or indeed - manned combat.
  Just as sailing ships gave way to steamships, and battleships gave way to carriers, the navies of the future will be quite different from the navies of today. I imagine that most naval vessels of the future will spend almost all of their time beneath the surface, and only occasionally surface to launch multitudes of small flying drones as needed. They will not need to surface at all to launch small swimming drones - and the ships themselves may not be manned.
30. Re:Hmm by tqk · 2012-04-01 09:14 · Score: 2
  
  High power lasers will smoke a typical mirror.
  Maybe, maybe not.
  If the laser light doesn't scatter much, the only one who can track it back to its source is the target.
  I'm not so sure either of these are correct. First, all you need to do is deflect the beam, not reflect it. "Point that thing at me, and one of your satellites is going to burn up!" Or, if you can split the beam into smaller pieces with multiple mirrors arranged around a cone pointed at the beam, you're done.
  As for the second, I'd expect to see a plasma trail along the length of the beam consisting of steam and fried dust. That ought to be easily detectable.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
31. Re:Hmm by LordLucless · 2012-04-01 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yes. And the obvious defence against a torpedo is "just don't blow up".
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
32. Re:Hmm by c0lo · 2012-04-01 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  High power lasers will smoke a typical mirror. There are reflective surfaces that could work, but you have to keep them perfectly clean. Not happening at sea for long... However, a laser will be easier to track back than a tracer round...
  Water; plenty around. Heat capacity: 4.18 J/(g*K).
  1 kg of water at 25 C against 100kW => approx 3 secs to reach boiling point. I think I can pump a bit more than 1 kg of water (eventually mixed with some ink to absorb better) along the line of your incoming laser beam. Doesn't need to be totally aligned, just to intersect your beam for some length.
  Alternatively, use a jet of water mixed with a medium that's highly dispersive on your wavelength (I don't know, possibly just air bubbles).
  (it is said that soviet cosmonauts just used a pencil).
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
33. Re:Hmm by dwywit · 2012-04-01 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and what about salty seawater spray that gets deposited on the mirrors and then dries, leaving a reflective white crust ........oh, never mind.
  
  Didn't Larry Niven use a cloud of water vapour to attenuate laser energy - can't remember if it was a "Known Space" book, or Footfall.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
34. Re:Hmm by tibman · 2012-04-01 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Niven's Louis Wu used water vapor to diminish the available sunlight to Slaver Sunflowers. The nearby flowers would reflect light at an object (don't remember what it was, but it flew) that was wrapped in a superconductor line/fabric that extended down into a stream/lake. The flowers were creating the very cloud that would eventually kill them.
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
35. Re:Hmm by dwywit · 2012-04-01 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  That wasn't what I was thinking, but I've remembered it now - it was in one of the "Ringworld" PC games that one of the characters uses a spray-can of fog to defeat a security laser.
  
  The slaver sunflowers would toast anything that flew over them - mostly birds, but also the occasional Kzin.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
36. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  correct, this is a point defense weapon. Surface forces have no defense against missile attacks, making them useless in a real war (but good for projecting air power against third-world adversaries).
  Additionally, the nuclear carriers have always had an abundance of electricity, so the navy has been looking for ways to take advantage of that.
37. Re:Hmm by icebike · 2012-04-01 12:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Surface forces have no defense against missile attacks, making them useless in a real war
  
  Ah, not exactly true.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system
  http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/searam/
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
38. Re:Hmm by WindBourne · 2012-04-01 12:32 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, that thin-skinned outboard is MUCH thicker than ANY missiles framing. As far as the boat goes, if it was moving on the ocean at say 30 MPH or better and it hit it, then I am impressed. The reason is that with computer tracking, a laser, or several lasers, will be able to hit a missile in one or more spots and blast it quickly. And if the chip is fast enough, it will be able to take out supersonic missiles. Of course, add in heavy rain or a snow-storm, and suddenly, lasers may not be such a great single defense.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
39. Re:Hmm by WindBourne · 2012-04-01 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, by getting lasers on ships quickly, more R&D will be done. That will lead to a decent ABL and hopefully a tank/stryker mounted laser. Basically, once the demand is there, then companies will want to be the next one there with a better product. Hopefully, those companies will not sell it to China or to those nations that will sell this to China. As it is, our F-16 and other tech has been GIVEN to china by a 'friendly' nation.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
40. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  A simpler solution is for navies to go underwater. In fact, all warfare is about to change: the future will involve few if any manned ships or airplanes, or indeed - manned combat.
  Just as sailing ships gave way to steamships, and battleships gave way to carriers, the navies of the future will be quite different from the navies of today. I imagine that most naval vessels of the future will spend almost all of their time beneath the surface, and only occasionally surface to launch multitudes of small flying drones as needed. They will not need to surface at all to launch small swimming drones - and the ships themselves may not be manned.
  "In every battle, only one casualty matters."
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=favcOaksvxM
41. Re:Hmm by TheInternetGuy · 2012-04-01 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Oblig xkcd
  I am glad I don't have mod points, because I wouldn't know what to do with them. On one hand, you found an excellent xkcd, that I had not seen before. But on the other hand it is completely irrelevant unless the navy is trying to push the other boat out of the water.
  
  --
  If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
42. Re:Hmm by tibman · 2012-04-01 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  hahah, yeah
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
43. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 16:00 · Score: 0
  
  1000km/h *1/60^2 = 0.27778 km / second which means that it would take about 3.6 seconds to travel that last kilometer.
44. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  Please wait here whilst I go and invent this technology.
45. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 19:07 · Score: 0
  
  Those won't do anything against a fast, long-range missile screaming at a carrier. That type of thing is quite beyond the capabilities of the small, developing nations the US likes to fight, but it's well within the capability of the more powerful militaries.
46. Re:Hmm by icebike · 2012-04-01 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, yes they WlLL take out a fast missile coming at a carrier. That why they are on every carrier.
  I gave you the link, the least you could do is read them.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
47. Re:Hmm by Mattsson · 2012-04-01 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  One thing to consider about any weapon-grade laser is that, apart from deforming or vaporizing the target, it will probably also blind any military personnel, civilian or animal not wearing protective goggles in a rather wide area.
  Thus, I personally think that laser weapons (including defensive laser weapons) should be banned internationally with severe actions against any nation who use them.
  They should be treated the same way as biological and chemical weapons.
  
  --
  /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
48. Re:Hmm by icebike · 2012-04-01 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  Wide area?
  Surely you jest?
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
49. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  In my books, at 1000k/h you cover one kilometre in 3.6s.
50. Re:Hmm by FranktehReaver · 2012-04-02 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  He has talent points in his laser skill to make it area of effect. That or he changed out the lens cover to do the one of the naked lady to shine on the enemy ship.
51. Re:Hmm by Deep+Esophagus · 2012-04-02 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  My bigger concern is when, not if, the Bad Guys [tm] get hold of this technology. But hey, what are the odds of that happening?
52. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  In the late 1980's or early 1990's I went to a seminar in which the defense industry talked about a laser they demonstrated which could track an incoming or sideways missile and burn through it in a few milli-seconds. I doubt they have forgotten how to do this.
53. Re:Hmm by hicksw · 2012-04-02 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Most anti-ship missiles tend to cluster around a speed of 1000 km/h, which means they cover that last km in .27 seconds. And some US missiles arrive at over 4000 km/h.
  Arithmetic fault. At 1000 km/h, the missile covers 1 km in 1/1000 hr = 3.6 seconds. At 4000 km/h it reduces to 0.9 seconds.
  --
  On the Internet, everyone's an expert. Right?
54. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  Nitpick: at 1000km/h the last km is dealt with in 3.6 secs. Seeing an incoming missile has happend in the real world.
  "According to British sources, Peter Walpole, an officer on the deck of the destroyer Type 42 HMS Sheffield, who was trying to identify visually a radar contact reported by the Operations officer of the ship, Nick Batho, saw a little smoke trail and finally identified it as an Exocet, but he did it when the missile was at only 1 mile away from the destroyer. Four seconds later the missile hit the ship with tremendous strength. It was one of the war's ironies that one of the most modern ships of the Royal Navy had only shouts as a missile warning."
55. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Caution: Do not look directly at laser with remaining eye.
56. Re:Hmm by calmond · 2012-04-02 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, we could call it Corbonite
57. Re:Hmm by StikyPad · 2012-04-02 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. In fact, the Navy intends to replace the CIWS with lasers.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
58. Re:Hmm by icebike · 2012-04-02 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Not seen that mentioned, at least not any time soon.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Why China limitis rare earth exports by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 04:56 · Score: 0

"The Free Electron Laser, which uses magnets to generate its beam, will stay focused on getting up to a megawatt."
1. Re:Why China limitis rare earth exports by busyqth · 2012-04-01 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  That will be effective because the U.S. Military isn't willing to spend the money required to mine to the large amounts of rare earth elements in the U.S.
  Uhhhhh....
2. Re:Why China limitis rare earth exports by joe_frisch · 2012-04-01 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  FELs do usually use rare earth magnets, but the total amount of material isn't very large compared to disk drives and other commercial uses.
3. Re:Why China limitis rare earth exports by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  At least the cost is reasonable...I mean it's free...right?
4. Re:Why China limitis rare earth exports by fnj · 2012-04-01 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  "The Free Electron Laser, which uses magnets to generate its beam, will stay focused on getting up to a megawatt."
  For a second, not sure why, I read that as a "free election laser". Now THAT would be quite a weapon against tyranny,
5. Re:Why China limitis rare earth exports by fnj · 2012-04-01 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  FELs do usually use rare earth magnets, but the total amount of material isn't very large compared to disk drives and other commercial uses.
  Also, whether or not you can buy rare earth from China, you can buy all the rare earth magnets you want from China (for example, but not limited to, on ebay).
  If you can't get the exact size and shape magnets you want, you can always demagnetize them, grind them up, and turn them back into raw materials. Then you have that which supposedly China doesn't want to sell you, or is limiting the sale of. And, of course, using the material you can make your own magnets of whatever size and shape you want.
6. Re:Why China limitis rare earth exports by djdanlib · 2012-04-02 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Instant democracy! Just add laser!
  BZAAP!
I'm Confused.... by Catmeat · 2012-04-01 05:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

“Subsonic cruise missiles, aircraft, fast-moving boats, unmanned aerial vehicles” — Mike Deitchman, who oversees future weapons development for the Office of Naval Research, promises Danger Room that the Navy laser cannons just over the horizon will target them all.

I'm confused. Surely the one thing a laser canon can't do is target things from over the horizon.
1. Re:I'm Confused.... by busyqth · 2012-04-01 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  The Earth's gravity bends the laser beam so that it can shoot targets over the horizon.
  Haven't you ever hear of Einstein?! Duh!
  Gravity Lensing! Duh!!
2. Re:I'm Confused.... by MightyYar · 2012-04-01 05:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yup - the trick is just to design the laser so that the light slows down enough to get into a stable orbit... then you can just fire the laser and it will follow the contour of the earth. Things like mountains and hills can be overcome by firing it even more slowly in a ballistic trajectory.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
3. Re:I'm Confused.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  He's using "just over the horizon" as a figure of speech, in the sense of time; i.e., the laser cannons that will be built in the near future. It's a poorly written sentence though, so the confusion is understandable.
4. Re:I'm Confused.... by scream+at+the+sky · 2012-04-01 06:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  “Subsonic cruise missiles, aircraft, fast-moving boats, unmanned aerial vehicles” — Mike Deitchman, who oversees future weapons development for the Office of Naval Research, promises Danger Room that the Navy laser cannons just over the horizon will target them all. I'm confused. Surely the one thing a laser canon can't do is target things from over the horizon.
  I think he is using the word horizon as a metaphor for "coming soon" not a target on the literal horizon. Sloppy wording for sure, it took me a moment to process as well.
  
  --
  I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
5. Re:I'm Confused.... by busyqth · 2012-04-01 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand the confusion.
6. Re:I'm Confused.... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-04-01 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Things like mountains and hills can be overcome by firing it even more slowly in a ballistic trajectory.
  This is actually possible. All you need is a really, REALLY heavy object.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
7. Re:I'm Confused.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yup - the trick is just to design the laser so that the light slows down enough to get into a stable orbit... then you can just fire the laser and it will follow the contour of the earth. Things like mountains and hills can be overcome by firing it even more slowly in a ballistic trajectory.
  Today is the worst day in the year.
  It's dangerous to read science commentary on the first of April.
8. Re:I'm Confused.... by BitZtream · 2012-04-01 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  He doesn't mean just over the literal horizon on the ocean.
  He means in the future, just over the metaphorical horizon we can see in technology, we cant' see it yet, but we know its JUST out of view.
  Not sure how you got modded insightful not understanding a rather common term. Perhaps you should stop taking everything so literal.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
9. Re:I'm Confused.... by MightyYar · 2012-04-01 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  I can see the mission brief now, with the "black hole" icon positioned over the mountain range standing between the ship and the enemy emplacements. :)
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Battleship, Transformers. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:03 · Score: 0

Michael Bay is a VISIONARY !!!111
He even perfected cloning technology to bring the carrier battle-group from Pearl Harbor into Transformers.
Re:BAD by busyqth · 2012-04-01 05:05 · Score: 1

I agree! For our first act of civil disobedience aimed at bringing down the imperialists, howabout lets go stand in front of this laser to prevent its firing!
Or on second thought, you do that -- I'll go protest as close as I can get to the Pentagon.
Priorities. by Beelzebud · 2012-04-01 05:06 · Score: 0

I'm glad we have nothing else to spend money on besides toys for the military.
1. Re:Priorities. by busyqth · 2012-04-01 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  We have lots of other things we could spend the money on,
  But nothing as important
  
  We can't let the terrorists win...
2. Re:Priorities. by cold+fjord · 2012-04-01 05:18 · Score: 2
  
  I'm glad we have nothing else to spend money on besides toys for the military.
  See this chart: Defense's Share of the Federal Pie and Economy Has Been Declining , in this report.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
3. Re:Priorities. by busyqth · 2012-04-01 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's why this election is important.
  We can solve this problem!
4. Re:Priorities. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  What if USA would simply just stop terrorizing the world then, because terrorist never win?
  USA is simply terrorizing the whole world and they don't see that it is endless and they just burn money for stupid things.
  Learning that they can not control the world and that they are not the best country in world, but biggest religion nation what believes that God is on their side and God wants them to murder, rape, kidnap, assassin, torture and destroy whole cities and countries....
5. Re:Priorities. by RodBee · 2012-04-01 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  You should check your sarcasm sensors.
6. Re:Priorities. by busyqth · 2012-04-01 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  The USA isn't terrorizing the rest of the world.
  
  The rest of the world is terrorizing the USA.
  That's why we have to fight back.
7. Re:Priorities. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  Stay in your cesspool of a country and wait to be reamed by China. No one cares about what you think, anyway.
8. Re:Priorities. by Idarubicin · 2012-04-01 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you're going to quote that report, you could just as easily point to this figure.
  In inflation-adjusted dollars, defense spending has been higher in the last five budgets than at any other point in the last fifty. The last time the DOD was spending more money in terms of real buying power was World War 2.
  
  --
  ~Idarubicin
9. Re:Priorities. by wagnerrp · 2012-04-01 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  So in other words, Defense spending keeps getting progressively less and less of the federal budget, but the federal budget and GDP just keep growing to compensate.
10. Re:Priorities. by Beelzebud · 2012-04-03 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Numbers don't lie, but liars love to use numbers.
Too easy to defend against this by joe_frisch · 2012-04-01 05:11 · Score: 5, Informative

If the attacking boat has a corner cube reflector there is a good chance of blinding people on the defending ship. Since the system needs to be ready for use without warning, the crew would need to always wear laser goggles.
You can protect a missile with an ablative shield - the sort used for re-entry vehicles. This doesn't need to be high tech - wood works surprisingly well (used by the Chinese for spacecraft years ago).
You could use a more diffuse beam to blind the crew of an attacking boat, but I think that violates the Geneva convention.
I'm also very skeptical about the 1MW -> 20' of steel / second. At a kilometer away, you probably have a spot size of around a centimeter. (it depends on wavelength, optics, etc, but that is the right ball park. Iron vaporization energy is 300KJ/mole or about 6KJ/gm. A 1cm long by 10M piece of iron is 1000 cc's or ~10^4 grams. So that's 60MJ to vaporize, or a minute, not a second to burn through. Of course the plume of iron vapor will disrupt the incoming beam so it will take a lot longer. This also assumes you can keep the beam perfectly focused.
The is also the question of whether a complex device like an FEL can be kept always ready to fire within a second. The light is much faster, but its not clear that when you include the time to ready and aim the weapon that the time to hit the target is faster than for a high speed gun.
1. Re:Too easy to defend against this by busyqth · 2012-04-01 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing is more important than the segway.
  It completely revolutionized the way cities are designed, and the way we all live.
2. Re:Too easy to defend against this by joe_frisch · 2012-04-01 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Now if we could mount MW lasers on Segways we'd fix the problem of them running over old people.
3. Re:Too easy to defend against this by rubycodez · 2012-04-01 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  wrong, the gas jet ejects merely molten material, much less total energy required than to vaporize the mass of iron. also, since this is near range weapon, we just won't target any Edmond Scientific corner cube reflector the enemy happens to be holding or mounted
4. Re:Too easy to defend against this by rubycodez · 2012-04-01 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  and, coming from CAE/CAM background that happened to include laser cutting, I can tell you lasers in the mere hundreds of watts range eat wood like candy, totally different situation than heating missile shield by unit area by orders of magnitude.
5. Re:Too easy to defend against this by amiga3D · 2012-04-01 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  What the fuck is a segway? What does it have to do with laser weapons?
6. Re:Too easy to defend against this by DerekLyons · 2012-04-01 07:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If the attacking boat has a corner cube reflector there is a good chance of blinding people on the defending ship. Since the system needs to be ready for use without warning, the crew would need to always wear laser goggles.
  Assuming the corner cube reflector is a front surface mirror, and has no dirt or dust or scratches or flaws - yes. Otherwise, the mirror is going to get smoked. Equally, it takes about thirty seconds or less for the crew to get under cover or to at least look away... so, no need for the crew to ever wear laser goggles except for the handful that must look in the direction of the target. (And you can cut the time down even further if you just want them to look away.)
  
  You can protect a missile with an ablative shield - the sort used for re-entry vehicles. This doesn't need to be high tech - wood works surprisingly well (used by the Chinese for spacecraft years ago).
  Put an ablative shield around the missile - and you've taken a good chunk out of it's range and payload as the shield now occupies weight and volume formerly dedicated to those things. That, or you've increased the impact on the launching platform as the missile is now larger and heavier. (As well as somewhat more expensive.) Keep in mind the wooden heatshields used by the Chinese were impregnated with (modestly high tech) epoxy, they weren't bare wood as the char has almost no strength.
  
  The is also the question of whether a complex device like an FEL can be kept always ready to fire within a second. The light is much faster, but its not clear that when you include the time to ready and aim the weapon that the time to hit the target is faster than for a high speed gun.
  No need for a second, ten to fifteen will do. (And I'll note that the claim that it needs to be a second is yours, not TFA's or the Navy's.)
  
  (tl;dr version: Once again, the world doesn't work like most Slashdotters think it does, and Slashdotters haven't thought of something that actual knowledgeable people missed.)
7. Re:Too easy to defend against this by busyqth · 2012-04-01 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  "segway" is a synonym for "feral cat".
8. Re:Too easy to defend against this by joe_frisch · 2012-04-01 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Its a tricky problem to figure out how fast you can drill a hole. The energy is all absorbed at the surface. You are right that some material melts, but once the hole is much deeper than it is wide, it will be difficult for the molten material to get out. You could easily wind up with a jet of boiling metal exiting the hole, and probably blocking the input beam (I don't know if dense iron vapor is transparent, but I expect not). All this really is just an aside - the main application doesn't involve drilling through very think metal plates.
  Corner cubes - I'd need to work out how big a cube you would need to reflect a blinding beam back at the ship. It might take as little as the reflective paint that is used in some signs - but it might need larger reflectors. The cubes don't need to be very good - just 3 crossed pieces of metal - you don't need to reflect perfectly, just get a modest amount of the beam back.
  Of course you could use a low power guide beam to detect reflectors and then not fire the main beam - but that would increase the targeting time.
9. Re:Too easy to defend against this by joe_frisch · 2012-04-01 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. Do you have a feel for how much power drills how big a hole how fast? I would have thought that the wood would carborize and that would tend to protect the under layer, but I believe any actual data you have.
10. Re:Too easy to defend against this by joe_frisch · 2012-04-01 08:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You are right that the mirror will be destroyed pretty quickly, but for a short time it will be reflecting light back at the ship.
  The 1 second was my assumption. I was thinking that the main advantage of the FEL over a conventional gun was the faster travel time for use against nearby fast-moving targets. In that case I think you need a really fast response time. I guess it depends on whether we are talking about inbound missiles or boats. For a boat, I agree you have lots of time, but then I don't see an advantage of the laser over a chain gun. For a missile you probably don't have much reaction time - probably only a few seconds if its a low altitude cruise missile. If you do have time, then again it seems a chain gun would work.
  You are also right that adding ablative shielding to missiles will add weight. It would take some work to figure out how much is needed against a MW laser for a ~sonic speed missile.
  I help design and commission the world's largest FEL (SLAC / LCLS) - they are quite complex and finicky machines. The FELs the navy is considering are a different type of machine (most likely superconducting recirculating linacs like the TJNAL FEL) but they remain very complex machines (Operating a SC linac on a rolling ship sounds very difficult to me).
  Its not impossible to imagine one that could be kept ready for rapid use (1 or 30 seconds doesn't make a lot of difference), but it will be a LOT of work.
  I have a reasonable understanding of the technology, but freely admit that I know nothing about the military application.
11. Re:Too easy to defend against this by DerekLyons · 2012-04-01 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that the Navy has decades of experience in designing and operating complex machinery that must be ready to operate on a moments notice on a ship moving in a seaway... Consider that even SpaceX requires a few days to get one of their modestly complex rockets ready and launched - while the Navy can ripple off 24 missiles in less than half an hour from the order to fire to the last missile away... The first generation certainly won't be that fast, but the times will improve with each subsequent generation. Or consider the complexity of a carriers power plant, with two reactors, four turbines, gearboxes, and shafts (and all of the latter must be maintained in rigid alignment) and miles of water, pneumatic, and hydraulic piping. The Navy has the experience and the chops.
  The big advantage of a laser over a chain gun is that a laser doesn't have to be reloaded and the ship doesn't have to carry explosive ammunition.
  While I'm not familiar with the details of laser technology, I am with military and missile technology. (10 years in the Navy as a ballistic missile fire control operator, 30+ studying military and weapons technology.)
12. Re:Too easy to defend against this by BitZtream · 2012-04-01 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  The 'boiling metal' exiting the hole wouldn't be that dense, in fact, just like water drilling, the whole will evacuate itself rather nicely.
  The hole will not be perfectly cylindrical in the real world when firing from or at a moving target. The angle of incident would be changing constantly. A boat rolling in the waves, even a carrier is going to roll enough that you'll have a cone, not a hole at the entry point.
  Your corner cube, regardless of how effective, is going to be vaporized nearly instantly do to its own parasitic losses, just like a mirror would, probably much faster however. If you had something extremely efficient and sending back the laser without spreading it at all, then you're just going to have a tiny point that isn't really much of a threat to any individual person. If you spread the beam enough to make it a threat to be concerned about, its unlikely to have enough power to get back to the shooter, and even if it does, its probably not going to bother them.
  Its a line of sight weapon, you've probably been tracking the target for a while before its even in range of this device. The US Navy at least would have had you in the targeting system, friend or foe, well before you saw the ship.
  NOTE: I'm just talking out my ass like you are, but I'm fairly certain my logic trumps yours :)
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
13. Re:Too easy to defend against this by fnj · 2012-04-01 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  If the attacking boat has a corner cube reflector there is a good chance of blinding people on the defending ship. Since the system needs to be ready for use without warning, the crew would need to always wear laser goggles.
  First, an attacking small craft is NEVER going to appear on the high seas close to a major naval vessel like like an apparition, "without warning".
  More importantly, do you really think any people stand out on the deck on any major US Navy vessels (aircraft carriers aside) when combat is going on? Or that these ships have any portholes? Or that the few people on the bridge who are behind glass would not be wearing laser goggles when they need them? The old days of hundreds of people on the deck of a battleship doing lookout duty with binoculars and manning a hundred old fashioned triple-A guns are long past.
  An aircraft carrier would never be in the thick of it. There are pickets at some distance to deal with attacking small craft.
  Your point that lasers are questionable from a Geneva Convention point of view due to the certain knowledge that they would cause widespread blinding is well taken, but supposedly heavy 50 caliber machine guns are not to be used against personnel - yet they are so used all the time - as are 50 caliber sniper rifles, which are an even more clear violation.
14. Re:Too easy to defend against this by rubycodez · 2012-04-01 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  wood cutting is normally done with focused beams, though, so not a good gauge of unfocused applications. cutting 1" wood from both sides with 1300 W focused lasers proceeds at about 200 inches / minute. You can find engraving machines of 1/8 to 1/4" hardwoods, again focused, with tens of watts.
15. Re:Too easy to defend against this by joe_frisch · 2012-04-01 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  All good points, but then what is the value of the laser weapon over a conventional gun?
16. Re:Too easy to defend against this by fnj · 2012-04-01 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see any, but I'm not privy to all the classified facts. Presumably it shows enough promise to for development to at least be pursued on the chance it would be a worthwhile part of the weapons mix.
17. Re:Too easy to defend against this by dhanson865 · 2012-04-02 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  but then I don't see an advantage of the laser over a chain gun.
  How about no ammo rack explosions? OK I pulled that term from a game but ammo does explode no matter how it is stored (rack or otherwise). Assuming the power for the laser is deep within the ship and wires transmit power I'd wager it'll be safer than having ammo at various points on the ship.
18. Re:Too easy to defend against this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  This is exactly why the beams are pulsed so the vapor ejected clears the area before the next pulse hits.
  This is very old news; think 1980s SDI stuff.
And they will stop errant beams... how? by Freshly+Exhumed · 2012-04-01 05:14 · Score: 1

Oops, that cruise liner way off in the distance just got torched... sorry...

--
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
1. Re:And they will stop errant beams... how? by busyqth · 2012-04-01 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Collateral damage -- It happens.
Re:BAD by busyqth · 2012-04-01 05:17 · Score: 2

I tried to study Lenin, but I got arrested when I tried to break the glass surrounding his desiccated corpse.

Speaking of worker's revolution, you should have seen the call center after I told the drones that I was cutting them back to one bathroom break per eight hour shift. Well they were livid let me tell you! One guy even threatened to quit so I fired him for cause.
Now that was a revolution!
Just wait by frankmu · 2012-04-01 05:17 · Score: 2

Will the Wave Motion Gun be next?

--
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
1. Re:Just wait by busyqth · 2012-04-01 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that a football stadium weapon?
Firing range by wer32r · 2012-04-01 05:20 · Score: 1

Won't the range of such a weapon be limited by the horizon? If so, then of what use is such a weapon, when the enemy can fire *beyond* the horizon with traditional shells?
1. Re:Firing range by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  They've already thought ahead on this, and the solution turns out to involve a combination of airplanes, straps, and giant mirrors.
2. Re:Firing range by wer32r · 2012-04-01 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  I just came to think that it might be a counter-measure to the Iranian high-speed boats. iirc there was a discussion earlier on Slashdot about how difficult they might be to hit with traditional munitions.
3. Re:Firing range by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-04-01 05:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I strongly suspect that this laser is intended as a replacement for existing point-defense systems(Phalanx). For longer ranges the navy also has a railgun scheme going, along with existing missiles and aircraft.
  
  It isn't entirely clear that the lasers will work(the demo with the lower powered unit burning an outboard motor took a pitifully long time and that was just a normal outboard motor. No attempt at optical countermeasures, no ablative coatings, no tricks at all); but it should be possible to keep photons on target where it wouldn't be possible for an autocannon to deliver bullets. Also, the navy is in the position where they are pretty much forced to operate on the assumption that something must work and lasers are among the more plausible contenders...
  
  Basically, we have the world's largest investment in aircraft carriers, and stuff for them to carry, and they've been the navy's force-projecting pride and joy since approximately the point in WWII where it became clear that battleships were overpriced floating coffins against even fairly paltry aircraft. Now, if anti-ship missiles and the like cannot be intercepted by some sort of point defense system, it is the aircraft carrier's turn to go the way of the battleship. That would be 10s of billions of dollars worth of awkward(best case, HQ submits to the inevitable in time, the carriers are reduced to a mixture of rotting at the docks and punching defenseless little countries. Worst case, HQ doesn't submit to the inevitable, some scruffy band of militants with a budget so small that an American defense contractor wouldn't bother to steal it sinks something expensive and most of its crew).
4. Re:Firing range by realityimpaired · 2012-04-01 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  In order to be that fast, they need to be small. I'm fairly sure that a phalanx would have no problem hitting one, and because of their size, wouldn't have a hard time sinking them. Since phalanxes can already target sea-level cruise missiles like the exocet, it isn't much of a stretch to be able to sink such a high speed boat.
  It would certainly be difficult to hit with traditional artillery, or the big sea guns. Even smaller sea guns would have a hard time hitting something that was moving fast enough. But a 4500 round per minute gatling gun controlled by a radar system designed to hit *much* faster moving targets should make quick work of what's essentially a speedboat with a gun.
5. Re:Firing range by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  I figure once we perfect this kind of laser system, it wouldn't be too long before the Russians or Chinese figure out a counter. They'll probably use the supercavitating tech from the Shkval torpedos and make a cruise missile torpedo hybrid. Basically such a weapon would skim near the water surface and once within what would be considered visual range the hypercavitating device would activate and the missile would dive below the water on the rest of its way to the ship. Good luck keeping track on that and hitting it, particularly when the surface of the ocean is choppy and would randomly scatter a laserbeam.
6. Re:Firing range by wagnerrp · 2012-04-01 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  A supercavitating torpedo is completely blind, and very VERY track-able. It relies on the control wire from the submarine that launched it for guidance. All you have to do is maneuver somewhere other than where it predicts you to be, or deploy some form of depth charge in its path.
7. Re:Firing range by fnj · 2012-04-01 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Phalanx is not designed to fire against surface targets; it is a highly specialized, completely automatic anti cruise missile system. You press the ARM button, and it detects and eliminates threats as they occur without further human involvement until you press DISARM or it runs out of ammo (which happens DAMN fast). No one would design a surface engagement system like that.
  However, a 25mm chain gun would rip hell out of these matchboxes within seconds. Sayonara. Even 1920 era M2 50 caliber HMGs would murder them. The issue is how long their standoff range is, because both the Phalanx and these other weapons are limited to decidedly close range use.
8. Re:Firing range by sco08y · 2012-04-01 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  I strongly suspect that this laser is intended as a replacement for existing point-defense systems(Phalanx). For longer ranges the navy also has a railgun scheme going, along with existing missiles and aircraft.
  The Phalanx really is "the fart that was heard around the world." You're at least half right, because the way the guys who work on this stuff think, they are very much interested in what it can do rather than what it can't, and they're very good at finding people who can make use of something before it's fully Marine-proofed.
  
  Basically, we have the world's largest investment in aircraft carriers, and stuff for them to carry, and they've been the navy's force-projecting pride and joy since approximately the point in WWII where it became clear that battleships were overpriced floating coffins against even fairly paltry aircraft.
  No doubt, the brass worry way too much about looking bad, and that's an unfortunate fact that's built in to the way the officer corps manages promotions. And, I'm more familiar with the Army side of things, but the whole military has been pushing towards the faster, lighter concept. (The following isn't supposed to be a criticism or defense of the Bush admin, to be clear.) Rumsfeld was quite famously criticized for faster and lighter because he was a big supporter of it as the Sec. of Defense early during Bush's tenure. When the strategy in Iraq became one of occupation, it turned out that our more mobile force that had punched straight through to Baghdad was not prepared for the follow on mission. You'll recall the long debate about the lack of an "exit strategy." So this notion of a more mobile military has been put into actual practice and has had mixed results.
  Also, unless you're an officer or someone who has seen (let alone comprehended) the ridiculously complicated org charts that denote how the divisions and such are set up, you might not know that over the past 10 years, there's been a significant restructuring with all sorts of units being redrawn and reworked. When I got in in '04, people were being shuffled out of specific jobs into more general fields. And when I was getting out, they were getting ready to move the entire Armor school to Fort Benning, which basically put all the combat arms under one roof. There are new terms, brigades are out, "brigade combat teams" are in.
  So the military does change, though it's hard to see because it takes decades and, frankly, they don't want you to see it clearly. Part of understanding this stuff is that you have to judge the decisions they make against the wars we *don't* fight as well as the ones we do.
  It's a simple fact that 11 supercarriers enable us to project force globally. That means that, conventionally, going against us is a losing proposition, so it simply never becomes an issue. The dynamic that confuses people is that any adversaries are going to look at what we do and make strategic decisions based on that, and there are quite a few of them, many of whom identify as friends simply because they don't want an ass-kicking at the moment.
  That dynamic means that we're right to retain enough conventional power that no one wants to go to war with us, and it's also true that as a consequence we're vulnerable to unconventional means. Don't underestimate how important conventional war still is. It's how most war is still made. And if the numbers on global poverty are any indicator, our big, stupid conventional approach is still contributing to a world that is slowly but surely getting more prosperous and freer.
9. Re:Firing range by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  The Shipwreck SSN has been around a long time.
  Long range guided weapons haven't killed the carrier. Mostly because your point regarding fighting mostly defenceless nations. If it comes to a fight between the superpowers...
  Well I'd rather not get into that, but what happens to carriers is somewhat inconsequential.
10. Re:Firing range by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-04-01 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  The trouble, for us, is that the quality and availability of those are likely to increase, the cost and complexity to decrease. The greater the area of ocean where somebody could take a crack at you, just like that, and the longer the list of suspects, the less force projection you get to use your carriers for. As long as the rules are just "don't piss off russia", it's the same old game. If you have to start biting your nails about every last slightly-odd-looking building or tractor trailer within 100km of the coast, you'll really be set up to have a bad day. Whatever I think of military appropriations, I hope for the sailor's sake that the eventual move from carriers is gradual and voluntary(if embarrassing), rather than a sudden, dramatic, and involuntary conversion of the US fleet to the world's largest unmanned submarine navy...
11. Re:Firing range by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  >If it comes to a fight between the superpowers
  In this case, it has long been recognized that carrier battle groups (CBG) make slow and excellent targets for ICBMs. One MIRV'd POP and the whole group is pretty much disabled if not outright sunk. You can't hide a CBG, you can't move it very fast, and it has no defense against the EMP, blast, and radiation damage.
  So, pretty much the CBG is already obsolete unless you're bombing Assholistan: anybody who can loft an ICBM has your number.
It's not for defense against major attacks by Animats · 2012-04-01 05:22 · Score: 4, Informative

The Navy wants this so that, when they're dealing with a small boat that's causing a problem, they have an option between "ignore" and "blow them out of the water". Somalia pirates, smugglers, boats getting too close (see USS Cole) - things like that.
1. Re:It's not for defense against major attacks by joe_frisch · 2012-04-01 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see this as an intermediate option. Its very likely to blind the crews, and maybe kill them if the engines explode, this really isn't a non-lethal weapon. Isn't a warning shot followed by a conventional lethal attack better?
2. Re:It's not for defense against major attacks by busyqth · 2012-04-01 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well we could give them a warning laser blast followed by a conventional lethal attack.
3. Re:It's not for defense against major attacks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  In those cases then, with say small rubber boats or similar, sailing straight in, won't the laser first have to i deduce to reach the boats engine(s) at the back, be blocked by the crew in it? How long does it take to burn through a human? And if thats the most likely scenario, why not save the money and use convencional weapons?
4. Re:It's not for defense against major attacks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Never heard of a shot accross the bow?
5. Re:It's not for defense against major attacks by BitZtream · 2012-04-01 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hey how about a warning then a laser shot instead of a conventional lethal attack?
  You can still do all the stuff you did before, but now you don't HAVE to fire a gun that INTENDS to kill them and everything on them.
  This laser doesn't add a rule that says 'No warning shots, the laws of physics will cause the universe to implode if you fire a warning shot!'
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
6. Re:It's not for defense against major attacks by Rich0 · 2012-04-02 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  A laser the size of what they're doing here wouldn't be much of a warning shot.
  If fired at anything other than the boat it would probably be nearly invisible. If fired at a small boat, then, well, no more boat, and certainly no working eyeballs on the boat.
Alright, a big laser! by liquidweaver · 2012-04-01 05:22 · Score: 1

US DOD - "Fixing our economy one giant military expenditure at a time."

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
1. Re:Alright, a big laser! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds better than paying people to not work.
Re:BAD by MightyYar · 2012-04-01 05:23 · Score: 1

Given that lasers are line-of-sight, I would think this would mostly be used as a defensive weapon.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:BAD by cold+fjord · 2012-04-01 05:27 · Score: 1

What does liberal-pacifist-reformist-cretinism "civil disobedience" have to do with workers revolution? You are ignorant, go study Lenin and Trotsky.
Great! You'll be showing up for the march then?
April 1st is International Workers Fools Day

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Lemme guess by srussia · 2012-04-01 05:27 · Score: 1

"Lux eradico"

After that railgun motto nonsense, I would't be surprised if they went for: "icking-fray aser-lay"

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Absorb the energy and use it to get away by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:57 · Score: 0

I'll just have my solar-panel array suck up all that nice phonic power, drive the additional motors and away we go. Thanks Navy for the free boost!
1. Re:Absorb the energy and use it to get away by busyqth · 2012-04-01 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  I never knew solar panels absorb phonic power
  Learn something new every day...
2. Re:Absorb the energy and use it to get away by wagnerrp · 2012-04-01 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that what piezoelectrics are for?
Bad idea... by DaneM · 2012-04-01 06:08 · Score: 1

Don't put laser weapons on ships! That'll make them easy pickings for sharks who wish to arm themselves!
And as a positive side effect... by wisnoskij · 2012-04-01 06:12 · Score: 2

On a lower setting it can cook a perfect hotdog or marshmallow instantly.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1. Re:And as a positive side effect... by busyqth · 2012-04-01 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they can use it in the ship's mess to cook everyone's hotdogs all at once instantly.
2. Re:And as a positive side effect... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-04-01 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Another benefit is no one on board will need to carry a lighter.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
3. Re:And as a positive side effect... by djdanlib · 2012-04-02 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  And we can finally be rid of the riddle about the guy stuck on a boat, who needed to light a smoke.
This is for sort range tactical threats like boats by goombah99 · 2012-04-01 06:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is a precision weapon for neutralizing things like Iranian speed boats or Yemeny boat bombs. You don't know if they are threat or not and so rather than blow up everything you disable it and if you make mistake you don't cause death or accidental wars. A laser can't fire over the horizon so it's not useful ship to ship or even ship to airplane. it's even somewhat hard to burn a spinning missile, especially if it is trying to avoid being tracked. (though it might be useful for that if they have enough juice.)
They discontinued the airborne laser program which to me makes more sense. Planes can't carry a lot of bomb weight but they have enormous power plants. Their modern mission are becoming increasingly precision oriented. With a laser can loiter and fry things as long as their fuel hold out. Plus like ships they have lots of cooling available.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
seems like a bad weapon by slashmydots · 2012-04-01 06:15 · Score: 0

Assuming the enemy knew you were using it, couldn't they simply mirror coat/chrome their ship or warp the air around it with heat to misdirect the laser? It's a lot easier to stop light than a patriot missile.
how much power does a 1MW laser need? by hawguy · 2012-04-01 06:21 · Score: 1

The article says that one reason the ultimate goal of a 1MW laser is not feasible right now is because no ship can power it, and even a 100KW laser may stress the power systems on current ships.
However, you can fit 2MW worth of generating capacity in a single 48 foot 30 ton container (and I'm sure a 500' destroyer could find some place to stash this generator), so the power demands much be much greater than the delivered power of the laser suggests.
So, how much power does it take to drive a 1MW or 100KW laser?
1. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Well, a laser diode can have up to about 50% efficiency, but if you're talking solid-state lasers such as Nd:YAG or gas lasers such as CO2 it's more like from 1 to maybe 10% efficiency at most. Can't say about FEL.
2. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by drgould · 2012-04-01 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  The article says that one reason the ultimate goal of a 1MW laser is not feasible right now is because no ship can power it, and even a 100KW laser may stress the power systems on current ships.
  
  Which is why the Navy is funding Dr. Bussard's Polywell Fusion project.
3. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by joe_frisch · 2012-04-01 09:12 · Score: 2
  
  With a superconducting recirculating LINAC driven FEL, I expect you could get 10-25% wall plug efficiency, but the present systems are way below that because there has so far been no need to optimize efficiency. OTOH, a superconducting linac on a moving platform like a ship raises all sorts of technical issues (for example the cavities are typically suspended by wires.......).
  BTW: the above is a guess. Would take a real design study to get a solid number.
4. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by techno-vampire · 2012-04-01 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  and I'm sure a 500' destroyer could find some place to stash this generator
  
  I wouldn't be too sure of that. I served on a Knox Class Frigate back in '72, when they were still called Destrolyer Escorts. At 438' long, they're about the size you're talking about and there was very little of that space that wasn't already in use for something important.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
5. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by wagnerrp · 2012-04-01 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Simple. You run bleed lines off that boiler to a secondary turbine hooked up to a generator. On more modern ships, you pull shaft power straight off the gas turbines.
6. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by techno-vampire · 2012-04-01 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but what do you take out (or leave out, in new construction) to make room for that generator? Space is always at a premium in a warship because it's a waste of resources and money to make them any larger than they have to be.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
7. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by WindBourne · 2012-04-01 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Older ships are ideal for automating, leading to reduced crew requirements, which means less space required.
  
  To be honest, I am amazed that we are not doing nuke-powered destroyers. It actually makes sense to move to that. Not only gives us more range, but lowers costs, and can provide much more energy.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
8. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by techno-vampire · 2012-04-01 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Moving to nuke-powered destroyers would be a great idea for a number of reasons. Having ample power for laser-based weapons is just one of them. Not needing to refuel every few days is another one. And, of course, if you don't need the oil tanks, you've got lots more room for food and other supplies, meaning that ships can stay on station longer without having to worry about having enough to eat. I don't think automation's going to happen very much, however, because in the long run, you need people who can take over when the machine's get damaged in battle and can do emergency repairs. And, of course, if you've got that big a crew, you don't need most of the automation in the first place.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
9. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by WindBourne · 2012-04-01 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Look at the DDX. Loads of automation there. Likewise, china and Russia are doing that as well.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
10. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by techno-vampire · 2012-04-01 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting, but the key word here is "experimental." You need crew to keep the automation working, crew to repair it when the ship takes a hit and more crew to take care of the techs so that they have time to do their jobs. And, I'll believe that the DDX is practical if and when they go into service. Not that I think that the idea can't work, I'm just reserving judgement.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
11. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  Nuclear powered destroyers are only a bad idea because of one reason, but unfortunately it's a bit of a show-stopper.
12. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by captain_nifty · 2012-04-02 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  They already tried this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Beach_class_cruiser/ making a boat nuclear powered raises the maintenance costs through the roof, there's a reason only subs, where there is no other option for performance requirments, and carriers, where the scale makes it feasible, are the only types of nuclear boats still in service.
13. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by WindBourne · 2012-04-02 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I think that you mean the long beach cruiser (only one was built from the 50s) and this from the 60's designs and only 2 were built.
  
  The difference is that back then, nukes were only used for propulsion. Now, we have a need for loads of electricity for propulsion and weapons. As such, it makes good sense to re-look at this.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
14. Re:how much power does a 1MW laser need? by Rich0 · 2012-04-02 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the duty cycle. If you can run it off of supercapacitors and the duty cycle is fairly low then you can probably power it off of a 15A plug.
You see, they can be reasonable. by billcarson · 2012-04-01 06:34 · Score: 1

Continue with the operation; you may fire when ready.
not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 06:36 · Score: 0

USA will go bankrupt before we get to see any of their ships equipped with somthing like this.
1. Re:not gonna happen by busyqth · 2012-04-01 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Having possession of highly lethal weapons is a great hedge against bankruptcy.
Coast Guard needs it more by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 07:31 · Score: 0

the Martime Laser Demonstrator cut through choppy California waters, an overcast sky and salty sea air to burn through the outboard engine of a moving motorboat a mile away
Sounds like a perfect concept for the Coast Guard. It's typical that a government applies its latest marvels to the "flagship" fleet and ignores the economies of scale and security on the large scale. No wonder the efficiency of the government is questioned constantly.
I can't be the only one who feels like this by JosephTX · 2012-04-01 07:41 · Score: 1

I get that lasers and explosions are cool, but should we really be happy about spending $700 billion a year on ways for the rich and powerful to exert their influence in extravagant ways, while people are dying in this country every day because they can't afford to see a doctor for completely treatable diseases?
1. Re:I can't be the only one who feels like this by busyqth · 2012-04-01 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like you have misplaced priorities.
2. Re:I can't be the only one who feels like this by BitZtream · 2012-04-01 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  Really, what ER have you seen someone rejected from, and why did the cops throw them out of the ER cause thats the only time someone gets rejected for medical car of a life threatening illness in America. Not everyone gets to see the high priced doctor who demands 500/hr because you think you're special and deserve it, but you will get treatment. You may get budget treatment, but you won't be left to die.
  There really also isn't any excuse for any adult american without a certifiable handicap to not have money. There are jobs, ask all the illegal immigrants that are doing them. Perhaps if American's didn't think they were too good to do shitty jobs, they wouldn't be starving. Its not easy, but there are plenty of things to help take care of people like single moms as well, I know, I lived it. Octomom starving is her own damn fault, her kids don't deserve it, but she certain deserves far worse. If you make an effort, living in America is trivial, ask anyone who has come from a country where shit ACTUALLY SUCKS, you have no fucking idea.
  I'm so sick of people saying 'omg what about our poor helpless people in america, take care of them first!'
  FUCK THEM, they are in the position they are in because they choose to be there, not because anyone is holding them back. You're comments are fucking insulting to all the people who have come to America and actually dug themselves out of a hole.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
3. Re:I can't be the only one who feels like this by JosephTX · 2012-04-01 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  This is the big misunderstanding: Not everyone ends up in the ER. The average American visits the hospital less than once a year. It's all the preventable diseases that cause all those deaths. People who have various things wrong with them, but don't know it until it's too late to be treated. It's not a matter of them being rejected from the ER; it's that the ER can't save them at that stage.
4. Re:I can't be the only one who feels like this by The+Master+Control+P · 2012-04-01 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  Plenty of people in America have money before they get sick.
  
  Then if they're not like me and lucky enough to start a job with health coverage two months before appendicitis instead of two months after, they get handed a bill for $20000. Or if it's an actual serious illness, hundreds of thousands. Or millions. Or the private death panel finds out they once had acne when they were 16 and cuts them off because of a "pre existing condition."
  
  Every other developed nation on earth has some form of universal healthcare, and not one of those which has a life expectancy exceeding America's spends half what we do on it. Most of the rest are within a few years, and spend one quarter to one tenth as much. The American model of healthcare is a failure, it's bankrupting us, and it's crippling our economic competitiveness.
  
  That being said, the War on Poverty is probably the only thing that's failed more abysmally than the War on Some Drugs. In no small part because of the latter.
Also, as an added bonus! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 08:00 · Score: 0

permanently blinded all unprotected humans and wildlife in the area.
Watch out for meltdowns by Universal+Indicator · 2012-04-01 08:27 · Score: 1

Didn't anyone ever tell you to make sure your optics are clean?
1. Re:Watch out for meltdowns by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck you Kent!
Ablative paint is better by Kupfernigk · 2012-04-01 08:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

Some military equipment has long been covered in ablative paint. Laser strikes, creates cloud of of particles which diffuse the beam preventing further damage. The identification of materials with suitable oxides or nitrides is left as an exercise for the reader.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Navy eh? Interesting... by clickclickdrone · 2012-04-01 09:11 · Score: 1

Maybe 10-15 years ago I worked with an American (then working in the UK) who formally worked on a Boeing Stealth plane design that never came to fruition. He struck me as pretty much lacking any imagination so I couldn't imagine him making this up but here goes...

He said there were several planes, mainly on the Navy side that no one knew anything about (we had been discussing the Aurora i.e. did it exist or not). Bizarrely, he reckoned one was only armed with high energy weopons. He wouldn't say anything more than that though.

Just seemed curious that all those years ago someone reckoned it was the Navy playing with lasers and now this turns up.

(And yes, I know pretty much all the military has been playing with them but in this instance, there was allegedly something actually flying with them)

--
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
1. Re:Navy eh? Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  He said there were several planes, mainly on the Navy side that no one knew anything about (we had been discussing the Aurora i.e. did it exist or not). Bizarrely, he reckoned one was only armed with high energy weopons. He wouldn't say anything more than that though.
  DHS here, Mr .. Drone... please contact us at your earliest opportunity for some simple questions. (And by the way, check how you look in orange overalls...)
15 Killer wasps by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 09:17 · Score: 0

15-kilowatt is a pointless figure without knowing what surface area it is covering.
The sun is 1.3kW per meter squared.
RailGun by WindBourne · 2012-04-01 11:07 · Score: 1

While it is good to get lasers going, I think of far more value will be rail-guns. These not only shot further, but do a great deal more damage with less energy. The only downfall is that it requires ammunition, but they are small.

Regardless, the DOD should be looking at adding laser and railguns to their M1A1 or perhaps even a modified Styker.

At the same time, we need to get energy beaming going a distance. With that, it would allow a ship to help another ship, or a back-field carrier to help a forward laser/rail-gun.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:RailGun by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  Railguns are very high maintenance. Most experimental ones have to be rebuilt almost as often as they are reloaded. Complete replacement of the barrel every ten shots isn't unusual. It's not an easy problem to solve because the kind of current you shove through the rails is enough to arc-weld the ammunition to the rail if you're not careful, and the rails have to support massive forces too.
Perhaps. But how about these alternate counters.. by Salgak1 · 2012-04-01 12:04 · Score: 1

1. Sandcasters. (Yes, I played Traveler back in the day). Projectors that spout clouds of reflective/ablative substances to absorb a portion, if not all, of the energy of the beam.
2. Optical chaff. Similar to (1). but purely optical. And we already have RBOC launchers..
Because if we're developing offensive laser weapons, GUARANTEED we're working on countermeasures against the day that the Russians or Chinese or whoever deploy their own shipboard offensive lasers. . .
laser cannons are hard to scale by slew · 2012-04-01 12:15 · Score: 2

A professor that I took a class from once mentioned in a lecture the primary difficulty of scaling a laser cannon.
With standard munitions, you send something over to the other ship and it blows up and releases all of its energy over there.
With a laser cannon you blow something up in your own ship and send a light beam over there with whatever laser efficiency you have.
Today, laser efficiency is about 30%, the math isn't very favorable.
Good luck with that by WindBourne · 2012-04-01 12:28 · Score: 2

Salt water and dust on a mirror is pretty much guaranteeing that the laser is going to punch quickly through those mirrors.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:Good luck with that by FranktehReaver · 2012-04-02 01:52 · Score: 2
  
  Also, wouldn't the giant ship in the middle of the ocean be a good guess on where that blast came from? Speaking lasers have to fire in a line we wouldn't be planning any trajectories to shoot from where they cant see us to begin with.
We can't let these laser-equipped ships sink... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 14:03 · Score: 0

...just think what might happen if sharks ever get a hold of this technology.
Star Wreck by Maxo-Texas · 2012-04-01 16:33 · Score: 1

The Navyâ(TM)s surface ships donâ(TM)t yet have the power generation necessary for spooling up a megawatt-class laser â" or at least not if they donâ(TM)t want to potentially be dead in the water.
Reminds me of "Star Wreck".
Of course the weapon in general is Real Genius too.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I predict ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2012-04-02 02:35 · Score: 1

... a sharp increase in the popularity of chrome plating, among smugglers. Hey, it not just for your Chevy, any more.
Aim by hicksw · 2012-04-02 04:28 · Score: 1

With a laser light beam you don't need to lead the target.
--
Using sharkless lasers, can we finally win The War Against Abstract Nouns?
To put it into context by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-10 10:28 · Score: 0

This is what they'll mostly be dealing with: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e2_1333668975
I don't see the benefit over normal weaponry. I don't think it's a good idea to have the laser shoot autonomically... but on the other hand, I don't think the Navy would feel sorry for shooting some innocent-almoust-drowned-african-fishermen.