4 ms·

The US Navy is putting a lot of research into directed energy weapons (DEW) for this purpose. The primary intent behind these is to offer a low-cost and "deep m

The US Navy is putting a lot of research into directed energy weapons (DEW) for this purpose. The primary intent behind these is to offer a low-cost and "deep magazine" for taking out missiles and drones. There's a few demonstrators out there on various ships with systems like these in the trial stage. One big advantage to DEW over interceptors which the Navy likes is that it isn't another magazine hit risk like conventional missiles and gun ammunition is. Another is that even if the ammo is cheap, it takes up space which is limited on a ship. This presents challenges when operating in areas like the South China Sea or Persian Gulf where countering attacks from land would be likely. Even if the interceptors are cheap, deeper magazines by an attacker on land can simply exhaust the supply on the naval ship. DEW has the potential to rectify this.

obmelvin 3y ago
Yes, they seem promising for ships assuming the output can be increased so it doesn't require tracking the target for multiple seconds. I'm a bit less knowledgeable wether the energy requirements can easily be met for other vehicles such as Humvees with vastly different engines & fuel capacities. That said, I'm all in for laser research and the trickle down effects of things like fiber lasers!
paganel 3y ago
You're not going to win that game with new and expensive tech, to the contrary, you need numbers, and that new and expensive tech doesn't bode well when it comes to numbers.
- ranger207 3y ago
  No. Lasers are going to be much more effective than missiles. Missiles in turn were much more effective than shells in WWII.
  - paganel 3y ago
    How are you going to sink/take out Houthi-like troops with lasers once you approach enemy shores? Taking those people out with missiles is already too expensive and a losing game going forward.
    - ranger207 3y ago
      You don't shoot them with lasers of course. You can use different tools for different jobs. But for intercepting missiles like this thread is about, new high-tech equipment is going to be more effective than the old stuff
      - malloryerik 3y ago
        Another question, how will ships protect against incoming lasers?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        nradov 3y ago
        By using long range missiles to knock out laser platforms before they can get close.
        obmelvin 3y ago
        I can't say that I've seen any proper physics analysis of this, but my small understanding would be that incoming lasers will not be effective against ships*. The lasers currently fielded for Navy tests require tracking a target for multiple continuous seconds - my understanding is that if the target rapidly changed heading and you lost tracking for a couple seconds, the air flow will cool the target and you'll basically have to start from scratch when the target is reacquired. This would obviously change for something hypersonic that has a plasma barrier around it :) For a ship, the hull itself is all metal to conduct the heat (relatively) evenly, and it's sitting in the ocean which is a huge heat sink. Obviously it's possible that laser research comes a long way, but my understanding is that you would have to hit the ship with a huge amount of energy, which requires even more energy generated for the laser due to laser divergence over distance etc. This is comparing apples to oranges, but seeing how the Navy recently stopped their Rail Gun research, I don't think it's a given that were just going to pour money into research and end up with mW lasers. * Dazzling sensors etc is another matter. I'm mostly referring to punching a hole in the side of a ship, which is what I interpreted your question as.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    > Missiles in turn were much more effective than shells in WWII. They were? I thought missiles were only really developed by the Germans towards the end of WW2 and were basically ineffective due to bad targeting caused by the British turning their spies. Also the missiles were horrifically expensive and contributed to the bankrupting of the war effort. Hitler couldn't let go of his new Wunderwaffe, but the cost/benefit analysis didn't make sense. Which is what the article is about. The most advanced weapons don't necessarily help, if you bankrupt yourself making them.

obmelvin 3y ago

Yes, they seem promising for ships assuming the output can be increased so it doesn't require tracking the target for multiple seconds. I'm a bit less knowledgeable wether the energy requirements can easily be met for other vehicles such as Humvees with vastly different engines & fuel capacities. That said, I'm all in for laser research and the trickle down effects of things like fiber lasers!

paganel 3y ago

You're not going to win that game with new and expensive tech, to the contrary, you need numbers, and that new and expensive tech doesn't bode well when it comes to numbers.

ranger207 3y ago
No. Lasers are going to be much more effective than missiles. Missiles in turn were much more effective than shells in WWII.
- paganel 3y ago
  How are you going to sink/take out Houthi-like troops with lasers once you approach enemy shores? Taking those people out with missiles is already too expensive and a losing game going forward.
  - ranger207 3y ago
    You don't shoot them with lasers of course. You can use different tools for different jobs. But for intercepting missiles like this thread is about, new high-tech equipment is going to be more effective than the old stuff
    - malloryerik 3y ago
      Another question, how will ships protect against incoming lasers?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - nradov 3y ago
        By using long range missiles to knock out laser platforms before they can get close.
      - obmelvin 3y ago
        I can't say that I've seen any proper physics analysis of this, but my small understanding would be that incoming lasers will not be effective against ships*. The lasers currently fielded for Navy tests require tracking a target for multiple continuous seconds - my understanding is that if the target rapidly changed heading and you lost tracking for a couple seconds, the air flow will cool the target and you'll basically have to start from scratch when the target is reacquired. This would obviously change for something hypersonic that has a plasma barrier around it :) For a ship, the hull itself is all metal to conduct the heat (relatively) evenly, and it's sitting in the ocean which is a huge heat sink. Obviously it's possible that laser research comes a long way, but my understanding is that you would have to hit the ship with a huge amount of energy, which requires even more energy generated for the laser due to laser divergence over distance etc. This is comparing apples to oranges, but seeing how the Navy recently stopped their Rail Gun research, I don't think it's a given that were just going to pour money into research and end up with mW lasers. * Dazzling sensors etc is another matter. I'm mostly referring to punching a hole in the side of a ship, which is what I interpreted your question as.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  > Missiles in turn were much more effective than shells in WWII. They were? I thought missiles were only really developed by the Germans towards the end of WW2 and were basically ineffective due to bad targeting caused by the British turning their spies. Also the missiles were horrifically expensive and contributed to the bankrupting of the war effort. Hitler couldn't let go of his new Wunderwaffe, but the cost/benefit analysis didn't make sense. Which is what the article is about. The most advanced weapons don't necessarily help, if you bankrupt yourself making them.