34 ms·

US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time

74 points by Varcht 13y ago

spiritplumber 13y ago
Wow, the shark must be under a lot of pressure.
deletes 13y ago
With a laser operating on about 30 kilowatts of electricity - and possibly three times that in the future - the cost amounts to a few dollars per shot, Thompson said. The important part. Power is plentiful on a ship. No need to pay for and carry ammunition. The cost for a single rocket or cannon volley is usually in the thousands of dollars.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- prestadige 13y ago
  Indeed, and although the US Navy has plenty of power already, I'm interested to know how the polywell prototype fusor that they've been sponsoring is coming along. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
  - sp332 13y ago
    I'm having trouble finding any more documents than are listed in that article, but I did find more grants for development https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?desc=Y&sortBy=SIGNED_DATE&s=FPDSNG.COM&q=energy%2Fmatter+VENDOR_FULL_NAME%3A%22ENERGY%2FMATTER+CONVERSION+CORPORATION%22&indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4.3 https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?desc=Y&sortBy=SIGNED... so it's probably still going strong. It would be nice if someone could update their website with something more recent than 2006. http://www.emc2fusion.org/ http://www.emc2fusion.org/
  - drjesusphd 13y ago
    I reckon it's going quite well for Polywell... It's classified. No need to take it seriously as real science without real peer review.
- Trufa 13y ago
  A tomahawk is around $569,000 per unit! http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2 http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1...
bluedino 13y ago
I can't decide which I'm more excited about, railguns or lasers. Do the Navy's railgun prototypes take a special type of ammunition or are they just launching precision machined blanks of common metal?
- Varcht 13y ago
  They were looking at GPS guided projectiles http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/guided-supersonic-bullets/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/guided-supersonic-bu...
- adolgert 13y ago
  It's not common metal. The design of the slug is much of the work in creating a railgun because the electromagnetic push comes from generating back-currents within the slug itself. It has to be good at being pushed, then good at flying, all without melting.
  - mnw21cam 13y ago
    Another very serious design problem with high power railguns is making a gun where firing it doesn't destroy the rails after five shots.
- Consultant32452 13y ago
  According to the internet the slugs are mostly aluminum and/or copper. I'm sure it's more complex than that, but that's the ELI5 answer I guess.
  - bluedino 13y ago
    According to a quick internet search, $25,000 a round. That sounds insanely expensive but cruise missiles are half a million dollars each, not sure what an LRAP costs or what 'traditional' artillery shells used on ships cost.
    - TeMPOraL 13y ago
uberloafy 13y ago
pew pew
IgorPartola 13y ago
I know this is completely off topic, reddit-ish, and I will get downvoted into the oblivion, but... Frau: Fire the laSER!
- sp332 13y ago
  At the NYC Resistor hackspace, one is required to yell "Fire the laser!" before starting up the laser cutter. https://secure.flickr.com/photos/65613494@N00/2932584280 https://secure.flickr.com/photos/65613494@N00/2932584280
stevo111 13y ago
how does that help against torpedoes again?
Varcht 13y ago
It will be interesting to see what counter measures can be deployed against the lasers. Mirrors, heat shields?
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  Simply don't move into direct line of sight of an American ship and fire over-the-horizon weapons at it? Or torpedos. Or supersonic aircraft firing supersonic anti-ship weapons (e.g. the Indian BrahMos). Lasers, unlike SAMs, have a very limited spear of effect.
  - adventured 13y ago
    Yeah, a mere 300 to 600 km range. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
    - UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
      Nope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon
      - adventured 13y ago
        Yep. Depends on where the laser is fired from, and it depends on the target. Lasers can absolutely fire 300 to 600 km.
        UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
        The article and my post are about deploying lasers to ships. You're talking about aircraft. Ships are limited to the horizon.
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        That's not much help if you're in a ship, where a) you'll be close to sea level and b) incoming missiles etc. will be flying low to avoid radar, rather than high up in the air where they can be convenient targets. Lasers can fire all the way to the moon, and it might be a great idea to put military ones on top of mountains one day, depending on the weather, but if we're talking about lasers on ships...the USS Nimitz (the largest aircraft carrier class) has a height of about 36m above the waterline, so the distance to the horizon is something like 20km or ~13 miles.
UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
This seems misleading: > Both costs pennies on the dollar compared with missiles and smart bombs A laser weapon is not an over-the-horizon weapon, so its spear of effect is quite a bit smaller than a "missile and smart bomb." It might be able to displace a Mark 45 gun or the Phalanx CIWS point defence system, but neither of which are missiles or smart bombs, and both fire relatively inexpensive (but heavy) ammunition. It could not replace weapon systems like the Harpoon, Tomahawk, or Trident. You could, in theory, get rid of SAMs and replace them with this laser system. But you better be damn confident in the laser system's ability to automatically target and destroy incoming projectiles as the laser has to wait a lot longer to fire than a SAM system does just due to line of sight (which is damn scary if the attackers are in supersonic aircraft, as it is reasonable to expect them to be). Now you might say: "It is computer controlled! It will be like Robocop!" But if you look at the Phalanx CIWS which is also computer controlled, it is damn terrible at targeting pretty much anything unless it is someone approaching in a trawler going 8 knots (and maybe even then you might miss a few times).
- Havoc 13y ago
  >A laser weapon is not an over-the-horizon weapon I'd imagine the long term plan is to roll both lasers and rail guns. The combo seems ideal. Cheat laser shots to swat missiles and drones out of the surroundings whilst bombarding everything further away with the railgun. I bet with a bit of clever tech you can pull off some insane over-the-horizon railgun shots. >Phalanx CIWS which is also computer controlled, it is damn terrible at targeting pretty much anything Laser having +- zero flight time should solve most of that.
  - UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
    > I bet with a bit of clever tech you can pull off some insane over-the-horizon railgun shots. The projectiles would only have the force of gravity/terminal velocity behind them unless they have been able to create an explosive railgun projectile (that doesn't explode on the launchpad due to the extremely high temperatures and other shock railguns apply to their projectiles). > Laser having +- zero flight time should solve most of that. I think "most of that" is a little overly optimistic. Target tracking is a complex problem, particularly in a war-like scenario where the target might very well be supersonic and in less than ideal weather conditions. Anti-ship missiles can and are designed to travel below radar range, so trying to get a good sense of depth against a blue sea and white/blue horizon is far from trivial even for a computer. The laser still might be the "least bad" defensive weapon against anti-ship missiles, but the whole thing is far from full-proof. We haven't really seen a full on naval conflict between two modern navies, so we kind of forget just how amazing most of the weapons are these days.
chalst 13y ago
> The Navy plans to deploy its first laser on a ship later this year I seem to recall the Navy deployed lasers intended to blind enemy pilots in the mid 80s. Postscript The UK Royal Navy deployed laser dazzlers in 1982, in the Falklands - http://www.gizmag.com/falklands-laser/28574/ http://www.gizmag.com/falklands-laser/28574/
anigbrowl 13y ago
Some video of a prototype shooting down a drone here, although it's not very exciting to look at because it's not a movie. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/laser-warfare-system/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/laser-warfare-system...
lutusp 13y ago
> For the Navy, it's not so much about the whiz-bang technology as it is about the economics of such armaments. Both costs pennies on the dollar compared with missiles and smart bombs, and the weapons can be fired continuously, unlike missiles and bombs, which eventually run out. Why is no one mentioning what seems an obvious side effect of this class of weapon -- all the people who will be blinded by it once it goes into service? If this system goes into service and sees actual battlefield service, the opposing army will be quickly divided into two groups -- those wearing protective goggles, and those who can no longer make out their hands. My conspiracy theory (isn't there always one of those?) is that laser weapons are a sneaky plot by the Braille publishing industry to spring back from their present near-irrelevance.
- spingsprong 13y ago
  Weapons that are designed to blind have been illegal for a long time. And these types of lasers are so powerful that if one hit you in the face, you'd probably lose more than just your eyesight.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Yes, but as the range increases, the chance of death declines, but the chance of blinding continues out to a much greater range. If there's really an international law against weapons that blind, it's about the be seriously violated.
    - spingsprong 13y ago
      There's laws against weapons designed to blind, but weapons that occasionally blind as an accidental side effect, are legal. I mean, bullets and shrapnel can and has blinded people, yet bullets and bombs remain legal.
rthomas6 13y ago
It's amazing all the cool defenses we get with all the money we pour into the military. I heard terrorists are in the process of killing billions of people by making them age until they die -- we ought to divert some defenses toward this huge and imminent threat. Also I think there might be some terrorists in the Alpha Centauri system. We need an intergalactic defense system just in case.
fredgrott 13y ago
It will be interesting to see how they handle the friendly in cone of firing problem

74 points by Varcht 13y ago

Wow, the shark must be under a lot of pressure.

With a laser operating on about 30 kilowatts of electricity - and possibly three times that in the future - the cost amounts to a few dollars per shot, Thompson said. The important part. Power is plentiful on a ship. No need to pay for and carry ammunition. The cost for a single rocket or cannon volley is usually in the thousands of dollars.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
prestadige 13y ago
Indeed, and although the US Navy has plenty of power already, I'm interested to know how the polywell prototype fusor that they've been sponsoring is coming along. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
- sp332 13y ago
  I'm having trouble finding any more documents than are listed in that article, but I did find more grants for development https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?desc=Y&sortBy=SIGNED_DATE&s=FPDSNG.COM&q=energy%2Fmatter+VENDOR_FULL_NAME%3A%22ENERGY%2FMATTER+CONVERSION+CORPORATION%22&indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4.3 https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?desc=Y&sortBy=SIGNED... so it's probably still going strong. It would be nice if someone could update their website with something more recent than 2006. http://www.emc2fusion.org/ http://www.emc2fusion.org/
- drjesusphd 13y ago
  I reckon it's going quite well for Polywell... It's classified. No need to take it seriously as real science without real peer review.
Trufa 13y ago
A tomahawk is around $569,000 per unit! http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2 http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1...

bluedino 13y ago

I can't decide which I'm more excited about, railguns or lasers. Do the Navy's railgun prototypes take a special type of ammunition or are they just launching precision machined blanks of common metal?

Varcht 13y ago
They were looking at GPS guided projectiles http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/guided-supersonic-bullets/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/guided-supersonic-bu...
adolgert 13y ago
It's not common metal. The design of the slug is much of the work in creating a railgun because the electromagnetic push comes from generating back-currents within the slug itself. It has to be good at being pushed, then good at flying, all without melting.
- mnw21cam 13y ago
  Another very serious design problem with high power railguns is making a gun where firing it doesn't destroy the rails after five shots.
Consultant32452 13y ago
According to the internet the slugs are mostly aluminum and/or copper. I'm sure it's more complex than that, but that's the ELI5 answer I guess.
- bluedino 13y ago
  According to a quick internet search, $25,000 a round. That sounds insanely expensive but cruise missiles are half a million dollars each, not sure what an LRAP costs or what 'traditional' artillery shells used on ships cost.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago

uberloafy 13y ago

pew pew

IgorPartola 13y ago

I know this is completely off topic, reddit-ish, and I will get downvoted into the oblivion, but... Frau: Fire the laSER!

sp332 13y ago
At the NYC Resistor hackspace, one is required to yell "Fire the laser!" before starting up the laser cutter. https://secure.flickr.com/photos/65613494@N00/2932584280 https://secure.flickr.com/photos/65613494@N00/2932584280

stevo111 13y ago

how does that help against torpedoes again?

Varcht 13y ago

It will be interesting to see what counter measures can be deployed against the lasers. Mirrors, heat shields?

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
Simply don't move into direct line of sight of an American ship and fire over-the-horizon weapons at it? Or torpedos. Or supersonic aircraft firing supersonic anti-ship weapons (e.g. the Indian BrahMos). Lasers, unlike SAMs, have a very limited spear of effect.
- adventured 13y ago
  Yeah, a mere 300 to 600 km range. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
  - UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
    Nope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon
    - adventured 13y ago
      Yep. Depends on where the laser is fired from, and it depends on the target. Lasers can absolutely fire 300 to 600 km.
      - UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
        The article and my post are about deploying lasers to ships. You're talking about aircraft. Ships are limited to the horizon.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        That's not much help if you're in a ship, where a) you'll be close to sea level and b) incoming missiles etc. will be flying low to avoid radar, rather than high up in the air where they can be convenient targets. Lasers can fire all the way to the moon, and it might be a great idea to put military ones on top of mountains one day, depending on the weather, but if we're talking about lasers on ships...the USS Nimitz (the largest aircraft carrier class) has a height of about 36m above the waterline, so the distance to the horizon is something like 20km or ~13 miles.

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago

This seems misleading: > Both costs pennies on the dollar compared with missiles and smart bombs A laser weapon is not an over-the-horizon weapon, so its spear of effect is quite a bit smaller than a "missile and smart bomb." It might be able to displace a Mark 45 gun or the Phalanx CIWS point defence system, but neither of which are missiles or smart bombs, and both fire relatively inexpensive (but heavy) ammunition. It could not replace weapon systems like the Harpoon, Tomahawk, or Trident. You could, in theory, get rid of SAMs and replace them with this laser system. But you better be damn confident in the laser system's ability to automatically target and destroy incoming projectiles as the laser has to wait a lot longer to fire than a SAM system does just due to line of sight (which is damn scary if the attackers are in supersonic aircraft, as it is reasonable to expect them to be). Now you might say: "It is computer controlled! It will be like Robocop!" But if you look at the Phalanx CIWS which is also computer controlled, it is damn terrible at targeting pretty much anything unless it is someone approaching in a trawler going 8 knots (and maybe even then you might miss a few times).

Havoc 13y ago
>A laser weapon is not an over-the-horizon weapon I'd imagine the long term plan is to roll both lasers and rail guns. The combo seems ideal. Cheat laser shots to swat missiles and drones out of the surroundings whilst bombarding everything further away with the railgun. I bet with a bit of clever tech you can pull off some insane over-the-horizon railgun shots. >Phalanx CIWS which is also computer controlled, it is damn terrible at targeting pretty much anything Laser having +- zero flight time should solve most of that.
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  > I bet with a bit of clever tech you can pull off some insane over-the-horizon railgun shots. The projectiles would only have the force of gravity/terminal velocity behind them unless they have been able to create an explosive railgun projectile (that doesn't explode on the launchpad due to the extremely high temperatures and other shock railguns apply to their projectiles). > Laser having +- zero flight time should solve most of that. I think "most of that" is a little overly optimistic. Target tracking is a complex problem, particularly in a war-like scenario where the target might very well be supersonic and in less than ideal weather conditions. Anti-ship missiles can and are designed to travel below radar range, so trying to get a good sense of depth against a blue sea and white/blue horizon is far from trivial even for a computer. The laser still might be the "least bad" defensive weapon against anti-ship missiles, but the whole thing is far from full-proof. We haven't really seen a full on naval conflict between two modern navies, so we kind of forget just how amazing most of the weapons are these days.

chalst 13y ago

> The Navy plans to deploy its first laser on a ship later this year I seem to recall the Navy deployed lasers intended to blind enemy pilots in the mid 80s. Postscript The UK Royal Navy deployed laser dazzlers in 1982, in the Falklands - http://www.gizmag.com/falklands-laser/28574/ http://www.gizmag.com/falklands-laser/28574/

anigbrowl 13y ago

Some video of a prototype shooting down a drone here, although it's not very exciting to look at because it's not a movie. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/laser-warfare-system/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/laser-warfare-system...

lutusp 13y ago

> For the Navy, it's not so much about the whiz-bang technology as it is about the economics of such armaments. Both costs pennies on the dollar compared with missiles and smart bombs, and the weapons can be fired continuously, unlike missiles and bombs, which eventually run out. Why is no one mentioning what seems an obvious side effect of this class of weapon -- all the people who will be blinded by it once it goes into service? If this system goes into service and sees actual battlefield service, the opposing army will be quickly divided into two groups -- those wearing protective goggles, and those who can no longer make out their hands. My conspiracy theory (isn't there always one of those?) is that laser weapons are a sneaky plot by the Braille publishing industry to spring back from their present near-irrelevance.

spingsprong 13y ago
Weapons that are designed to blind have been illegal for a long time. And these types of lasers are so powerful that if one hit you in the face, you'd probably lose more than just your eyesight.
- lutusp 13y ago
  Yes, but as the range increases, the chance of death declines, but the chance of blinding continues out to a much greater range. If there's really an international law against weapons that blind, it's about the be seriously violated.
  - spingsprong 13y ago
    There's laws against weapons designed to blind, but weapons that occasionally blind as an accidental side effect, are legal. I mean, bullets and shrapnel can and has blinded people, yet bullets and bombs remain legal.

rthomas6 13y ago

It's amazing all the cool defenses we get with all the money we pour into the military. I heard terrorists are in the process of killing billions of people by making them age until they die -- we ought to divert some defenses toward this huge and imminent threat. Also I think there might be some terrorists in the Alpha Centauri system. We need an intergalactic defense system just in case.

fredgrott 13y ago

It will be interesting to see how they handle the friendly in cone of firing problem