9 ms·
U.S. Navy Deploys First Laser Weapon in Persian Gulf
- Kenji 12y agoI doubt that this will be more effective than conventional projectile-based weapons. Also, lasers that need this kind of power usually require and release chemicals that are very damaging to the environment. It'd make a lot more sense to install this on a ship with a nuclear reactor as a power source. But then again, I guess it'd be unlikely that the laser is used because those ships usually aren't at the front line.
- sgdread 12y agoIt depends on target. Lasers will work much better against optical sensors (on drones, missiles, etc.).
- aaronem 12y agoThe press release explicitly excludes that use: "Those efforts are separate from military laser designators to guide precision munitions, non-lethal crowd control devices or discontinued instruments intended to blind enemy electro- optical sensors."
- mpyne 12y agoWell, just because the laser wasn't obtained from an acquisition program intended to defeat enemy EO sensors doesn't mean that it won't be useful for that purpose, either by destroying the EO sensor's platform or getting a lucky shot and hitting the sensor itself.
- njharman 12y agoEffective has many parameters. It's already more effective in that it doesn't require ammo logistics and it has multiple modes from warning to lethal. I bet it sucks in the rain and has no over the horizon capability. But systems are trade offs and it is rare for one to be best in every way / situation. Also comparing results of hundreds of years of engineering (modern naval gun) to 1st gen / prototype is disingenuous.
- Someone1234 12y ago> Also comparing results of hundreds of years of engineering (modern naval gun) to 1st gen / prototype is disingenuous. Disingenuous? It is the logical thing to do. You don't compare electric cars to golf carts, you compare them to other cars trying to compete in the same market segment. The same is true here. You compare this new laser gun to the thing it hopes to replace (which in this case are projectile based weapons). Maybe, just maybe, an argument could be made that it would be unfair to compare a prototype to a production gun. But this laser is now production ready, so that complaint is now moot.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoWho says that laser is meant to replace projectile weapons? It's an additional weapons system that may replace or augment one of many others already installed. Kinetic energy weapons have some clear military advantages over rayguns, so total switch won't happen soon, if ever.
- icegreentea 12y agoThe press release says that this particular system is basically just 6 welding lasers focused on a single point. Welding lasers are usually solid state or gas lasers (not chemical lasers). In general, while the Airborne Laser used chemical lasers, and some mobile land lasers also use chemical lasers, those applications have a clear limitation on power generation. It's hard to get all the electricity to power a big solid state laser on a plane, or on a truck. But its a lot easier on a ship.
- trhway 12y ago>Also, lasers that need this kind of power usually require and release chemicals that are very damaging to the environment. welcome to solid state laser revolution. No chemicals and very high (compare to previous generations of lasers) efficiency - >20%. These military lasers are in 50Kw range - can be driven from a small (Navy notion of "small" :) generator. (more precisely - banks of high efficiency solid state semiconductor lasers pump one or few large crystals like Nd:YAG)
- ganzuul 12y agoThere is no need to release the hydrogen fluoride into the environment. It can be neutralized in for example calcium.
- semmem1 12y agoone step closer to light sabers!
- anigbrowl 12y agoThe ever-excellent Congressional Research Service report has all the pew-pew detail that you could possibly ask for: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41526.pdf http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41526.pdf
- vt240 12y agoNeat, Boeing has a 'Directed Energy Systems' division.
- civilian 12y agoNice. The article said that the range is classified, but the reports says about it: """ Department of Defense (DOD) development work on high-energy military lasers, which has been underway for decades, has reached the point where lasers capable of countering certain surface and air targets at ranges of about a mile could be made ready for installation on Navy surface ships over the next few years. More powerful shipboard lasers, which could become ready for installation in subsequent years, could provide Navy surface ships with an ability to counter a wider range of surface and air targets at ranges of up to about 10 miles. """ A mile? 10 miles? Freaking sweet.
- kissickas 12y agoWhen I was in Malaysia earlier this year, one of the more popular conspiracy theories about the downing of MH-370 was that it was an accident brought about by testing of these laser weapons by the US Navy. I wonder how likely it is that a missed target would lead to a mistake on that scale, inadvertently, ten miles away?
- amckenna 12y agoEven at its full range of 10 miles it would have a tough time hitting a commercial plane. 10 miles is 52,800 feet so the warship would have to be very close to the plane to hit it (almost under it), and within visual range for sure, meaning it wouldn't happen by accident. A ballistic missile on the other hand can travel 1-3,000 miles to hit a target.
- abruzzi 12y agoI'd like to see a test fire video of this. The question I have is how long is a damaging shot? In rough seas the boat can rock and pitch. If the shot has to continue for several second, you would probably need to stabilize the assemble since a small change in position could mean moving from the target to well off the target.
- ams6110 12y agoI would expect that most naval weapons have included autocompensation for pitch and roll for quite some time.
- dpeck 12y agoFor the split second it takes a round to leave the barrel, thats why GP was asking about the length of time that stabilization would be required. EDIT: Adding to that though, the reality is that ships large enough to be the platform for something like this don't get affected much by normal seas. Seems like it would have to be some really rough seas, and ones that wouldn't have targets flying over them due to storms anyway, to cause much pitching/yawing?
- icegreentea 12y agoWell, I would think that the gun barrel is continuously stabilized as: 1) That's how tank guns work 2) To enable manual single shot capability, the barrel must always be correctly oriented (as much as possible), since a computer cannot predict when the operator will actually say fire 3) Many naval guns have quite high rates of fire. Even outside of low caliber close in defense weapons (like the Phalanx), even larger weapons (~76mm) can fire more than once a second. At these rates of fire, you're basically continuously stabilizing anyways.
- stoolpigeon 12y agoI lived and worked on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. We were always pitching and rolling. It made some parts of my job interesting as it doesn't take long for your body to get used to it and filter the sensation out. Outside there are visual cues built into the horizon and inside I usually use a glass with some water in it to help me know which way we were leaning.
- Animats 12y agoThe U.S. Navy has been looking for some option to use against small boats short of blowing them out of the water. US Navy ships have at times swamped suspected pirate boats with the wake from a warship, but it took a few tries before the boat gave up. A moderately powerful laser weapon is a useful option for that. The Navy can start with "dazzle" and crank up the power to "punch holes in boat" if they don't surrender.
- aaronem 12y agoOr it could start with "spotlight and loud hailer", and crank up the power to "a few rounds from a Browning M2" if they don't surrender, and get pretty much exactly the same effectiveness in the operational context at hand -- specifically, that of needing to be able to keep a swarm of small kamikaze boats from getting close enough to blow a hole in a warship. If an M2 doesn't do the job, a few shells from a 20mm Oerlikon certainly will, and neither requires the development of delicate and expensive boondoggles. (Oh, and don't buy that "this has nothing to do with Iran" nonsense, either. On the one hand, you can scare pirates into surrendering easily enough with real guns too; on the other, it's no accident when you get a phrase like "the Arabian Gulf", which couldn't be better calculated to piss off any Persian who hears it, in press release like this one.)
- TeMPOraL 12y agoWell, lasers are multi-purpose, and their device covers nicely small boats, UAVs, anti-ship missiles and other types of projectiles at the same time. Also shots are dirt cheap ([0] says cents to a dollar) and well suited for warships that have abundant electricity anyways. [0] - http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41526.pdf http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41526.pdf
- dingaling 12y ago> The Navy can start with "dazzle" Best not. The use of blinding weapons is prohibited by Protocol 4 of the 1980 Geneva Accords. https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=570 https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewSt... It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices.
- beambot 12y agoThe best part? They're using commercial welding lasers: > The prototype focuses the light from six solid-state commercial welding lasers on a single spot, according to a July 31 Congressional Research Service report.
- IndianAstronaut 12y agoWhat I find interesting is how the laser wasn't even considered useful when it was first being developed. http://www.economist.com/node/4031227 http://www.economist.com/node/4031227
- tsotha 12y agoIs it useful now? I don't see much in the way of benefit over a .50 cal, and a lot of drawbacks.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoThe LASER as a technology was considered useless when scientists were first working on it back in the old days.
- ganzuul 12y agoWhen do you think those old days were, exactly?
- CapitalistCartr 12y agoWhen I was a kid, darn it! The laser was called "a solution in search of a problem."
- kbutler 12y agohttp://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/284158_townes.html http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/284158_townes.htm... 1960. When the first laser appeared, scientists and engineers were not really prepared for it. Many people said to me—partly as a joke but also as a challenge—that the laser was "a solution looking for a problem."
- trhway 12y agowell, given that cheap drones (glorified RC planes, google North Korea drones for how cheap and glorified it can get:) are being actively developed and started being used by everybody (including Iran), the laser is one of the best (price/performance-wise, not that anybody counts money here, yet using full fledged anti-aircraft missile against a much cheaper drone - you can just run out of the missiles :) tools for the job. Not sure about that specific laser, yet US has also tested a truck mounted laser able to hit various projectiles like mortars and unguided missiles (and probably artillery shells with some success) - the targets that classical navy CIWS systems may have some troubles with.
- afarrell 12y agoHopefully we don't shoot down any more passenger jets with it. :/
- afarrell 12y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 For those who don't know the relevant history.
- junto 12y agoInteresting. Thanks for sharing. What surprised me was this section: The United States government did not formally apologize to Iran.[14] In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...".[15] As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. Is the refusal to accept responsibility policy, monetary or simply down to arrogance?
- afarrell 12y ago
- bcheung 12y agoAnyone else think of popcorn and Real Genius when they read the title?
- mindseye2 12y agoCan you say Tesla Death Ray technology? Too bad he wasn't given the credit he deserved.
- spiritplumber 12y agoTesla's "teleforce beam" was intended to be a particle accelerator, not something that shoots out photons! Shameless plug: That said, if you want a $200 laser cutter, I sell them: http://igg.me/at/minilaser/ http://igg.me/at/minilaser/
- fudged71 12y agoBe careful not to fire that in the rain ;) atmospheric effects on this weapon would be very interesting to read about
- Deprogrammer9 12y agoThey have had this technology since the 70's
- anovio 12y agoWhich debuted with Operation Sky Pebbles. Treat this as a military declassification.