Navy's New Laser Weapon: Hype Or Reality?

Lasrick writes: MIT's Subrata Ghoshroy deconstructs the Navy's recent claim of successful testing with the Laser Weapon System. It seems the test videos released to the press in December were nothing more than a dog-and-pony show with scaled-down expectations so as to appear successful: "When they couldn't get a laser lightweight enough to fit on a ship while still being powerful enough to burn through the metal skin of an incoming nuclear missile, they simply changed their goal to something akin to puncturing the side of an Iranian rubber dinghy." Ghoshroy is an entertaining writer and an old hand in the laser research industry. He gives a explanation here of the history of laser weapons, and how the search for combat-ready tech continues: 'At the end of the day, good beam quality and good SWAP—size, weight and power—still determine the success or failure of a given laser weapon, and we're just not anywhere near meeting all those requirements simultaneously.'

Comments

The goal hasn't changed.

[Mr D from 63]

I don't think the goal has changed, only the writer of the article is saying that. This test is basically a status report, which tells us they still have a long way to go. The real question is how much $$ and effort should they keep putting in?

Re:The goal hasn't changed.

[Shakrai]

The technology to keep a low powered laser designator aimed at a moving target is no different than the technology needed to keep a high powered laser weapon aimed at a moving target.

In WW2 we had analog computers that could aim guns at moving targets from moving platforms. This is actually a harder proposition than aiming a laser; bullets don't move at the speed of light and you've got to compute lead. They did it without electronic computers. There's nothing that's particularly impressive about keeping a laser on target in 2015.