US Navy Authorizes Use of Laser In Combat

mi writes The U.S. Navy has declared an experimental laser weapon on its Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) in the Persian Gulf an operational asset and U.S. Central Command has given permission for the commander of the ship to defend itself with the weapon. The 30 kilowatt Laser Weapon System (LaWS) was installed aboard USS Ponce this summer as part of a $40 million research and development effort from ONR and Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) to test the viability of directed energy weapons in an operational environment. No word yet on a smaller, shark-mounted version.

Comments

Re:in other news...

[BitZtream]

No mirror exposed to the open ocean will be clean enough to not explode fairly quickly when a 30kw laser beam hits it.

Honestly, I'm surprised the laser itself doesn't have issues with its own optics in that sort of environment. One tiny spec of dust on the lens would be disastrous.

This might alienate anti-ISI* Muslims.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

One of the religious prohibitions in Islam is making war with fire.

If this is used it will be interesting to see the effects on recruiting by the Islamic State and other anti-US organizations among those Muslims who are currently either opposed to them or unaligned.

Also: How do you keep a 30 kW laser, at any frequency, from blinding everybody in the general direction of the target? The last I heard, weapons that blind are banned by the current "laws of war" as recognized by the western powers - and that's been the major impeidment so far to deploying laser (and other directed energy) weapons. Has something changed? Or did the current administration just decide to play with the new toy despite past promises to the other kids?

Re:This might alienate anti-ISI* Muslims.

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of war is to shatter a social system that is harming our species and make space for something better. If your war is moral, the cruelty of your weapons is immaterial.

Oh please.

"War is diplomacy by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz

There's nothing moral or immoral about waging war. It is one of many methods in which a country pursues it's strategic objectives in opposition to another country or organized group. The conduct by which war is fought is moral or immoral however, which includes the cruelty of your weapons. Weapons such as chemical weapons were banned specifically because they were indiscriminate and horrific in their effects. The exact opposite of what you just said is true.

Re:This might alienate anti-ISI* Muslims.

[mjwx]

The purpose of war is to shatter a social system that is harming our species and make space for something better.

This is about the silliest thing I've read all year... And it has a lot of competition.

The purpose of war is to gain land, money or power. Ultimately it comes down to power as money and land are just methods to get it. Even the enforcement of an ideology is to get more power for those who control or benefit from that ideology being enforced. No religious war has ever been waged to benefit god, men have always been the primary and intended beneficiaries.

If your war is moral, the cruelty of your weapons is immaterial.

OK, now this is the silliest thing I've read all year. At least your consistent.

When men decide that all means are necessary to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.

You're essentially saying that any method can be defended by the outcome. The wholesale slaughter of civilians with chemical and biological weapons is just and moral?

Sorry, but the people who were exposed to such things long ago decided that in order for a conflict to remain moral, such weapons and tactics should not be permitted. What makes a side in a conflict moral is not just why the conflict is fought, but how it is fought. You cannot keep moral intentions if your actions are immoral.

Re:USS Ponce?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ponce is the only ship of the United States Navy that is named for Ponce in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which in turn was named after the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de León, the first governor of Puerto Rico and European discoverer of Florida.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ponce_(LPD-15)

Re:End of flight as we know it

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

What remains to be seen is whether jets and missiles can shrug off (either through brute-force thickening or more sophisticated ablative armor or actively deployed particulates that effectively scatter incoming light) the relatively tepid amounts of energy that lasers (especially anything that dodges the rather nasty requirements of chemical lasers) are good for, particularly at range, under optically sub-optimal conditions (never have those at sea!).

Even under the ideal and closely controlled conditions of industrial laser cutters, lasers are abundantly unsafe for ocular exposure; but by no means the speediest remover of bulk material. In an atmosphere, range is going to be constrained by thermal distortion if nothing else, so the ease of keeping photons on target won't be quite as dramatic as it would be in space, and against close-in non-aircraft, there'll be a lot of cheap 'n nasty (but probably embarrassingly effective) countermeasures involving coating things with mud, spraying them with seawater, and generally making a 3rd world nuisance of yourself.

(By way of comparison, assuming that this 30Kw laser delivers 100% of energy to target, it'll take 2/3 of a second of continuous exposure to deliver the same number of joules to the target as a .50 BMG. Now, if you can't put a bullet on target, that's irrelevant; but in terms of expected stopping power the finest in combat laser technology is...distinctly middling... compared to guns that date back to the period between the world wars. Obviously the fire control system has evolved out of sight; but given how long it'll have to stay on target, you'd hope so.)