4 ms·

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.

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.