Navy: We’re 4 Years Away From Laser Guns on Ships

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The Office of Naval Research spokesman has told Wired that the next generation of naval weaponry is definitely on its way. The next-gen tech is of course the long awaited laser canons. The Navy will start taking bids within the next several months from defense contractors. Do you think this will help boost the Navy’s recruitment program or what? :D

The Navy may be set on a smaller fleet, but apparently it wants that fleet making pew-pew-pew noises.
Click to expand...
 
I think the navy is trying to secure more funding. No way in hell we're 4 years from pew-pew action... while yeah we have powerful lasers, while yeah they're large, and yeah they could fit on ships, they are in no way useful enough to be worth what the navy thinks (or imagines) they can do
 
Looking forward to this happening. :D

I'm a Navy GS, so I'm a bit biased. :)
 
sfsuphysics said:
I think the navy is trying to secure more funding. No way in hell we're 4 years from pew-pew action... while yeah we have powerful lasers, while yeah they're large, and yeah they could fit on ships, they are in no way useful enough to be worth what the navy thinks (or imagines) they can do
Click to expand...

I dunno it seems like things are getting very powerful very quickly with the free electron lasers.
 
It actually looks like they're not that far off from lasers in the MW range.
 
@ sfsuphysics:
Do you think the government is that far away from having this type of laser ? , do you actually think they are going to release to the public about the advancement they have actually made on this sort of weapon? if so you are sadly mistaken.
 
Maybe on a nuclear-powered vessel or something, otherwise I don't see anything being able to generate enough energy to use an effective laser weapon.
 
For what purpose? Anti-missile?

Lasers against other ships or ground targets - the majority of naval warfare for the last 60 years - doesn't seem practical with a weapon that can only fire in a flat trajectory. Anything beyond the horizon is off limits.
 
Remember, the Navy is part of the federal government. So in reality, fours years to us is eight years in government years.
 
PaperclipGod said:
For what purpose? Anti-missile?

Lasers against other ships or ground targets - the majority of naval warfare for the last 60 years - doesn't seem practical with a weapon that can only fire in a flat trajectory. Anything beyond the horizon is off limits.
Click to expand...

Surface to surface missiles are probably the navy's greatest fear to their carrier task forces.
 
Pretty curious really as lasers have significant problems when there is a lot of water vapor present. Given that we are talking about the Navy it is fair to assume that they are talking about ship-based lasers (cba to click through to read the article) which would then imply that they worked out how to counter the water vapor (probably by just pushing more energy).
 
PaperclipGod said:
For what purpose? Anti-missile?

Lasers against other ships or ground targets - the majority of naval warfare for the last 60 years - doesn't seem practical with a weapon that can only fire in a flat trajectory. Anything beyond the horizon is off limits.
Click to expand...
Mirrors in space, brah.
 
yes, let's cut our budget on space exploration but we need lasers on warships.

USSA makes me sick.
 
So this means China is only 4 years away from stealing the technology... and putting laser guns on their ships. If they put the kind of effort into network security that they put into the weapons, the potential military advantage of superior weaponry might actually be realized.
 
CrazyLarvae said:
So this means China is only 4 years away from stealing the technology... and putting laser guns on their ships. If they put the kind of effort into network security that they put into the weapons, the potential military advantage of superior weaponry might actually be realized.
Click to expand...

4 years from stealing the tech. 10 years from making it so it doesn't blow up in their faces.
 
sfsuphysics said:
I think the navy is trying to secure more funding. No way in hell we're 4 years from pew-pew action... while yeah we have powerful lasers, while yeah they're large, and yeah they could fit on ships, they are in no way useful enough to be worth what the navy thinks (or imagines) they can do
Click to expand...

just what makes you more credible than the office of naval research??
 
Seithennin said:
@ sfsuphysics:
Do you think the government is that far away from having this type of laser ? , do you actually think they are going to release to the public about the advancement they have actually made on this sort of weapon? if so you are sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...
See that's where people are mistaken, these types of projects are not ones that are done in secrecy at Area 51 or the like, but are done by universities (with healthy grant money from the gov't), and yeah ok some at the national lab level. But hardly top secret stuff. We already have petawatt lasers (granted pulsed). The big thing with lasers is they do lose their efficacy over large distances just because of the air they're shooting through (more so when we have high energy lasers). Its not that I don't think we have lasers that can't punch through a steel plate, I just don't think they're going to be THAT useful. Maybe a replacement Phalanx CIWS for air defense, but I think railguns probably are more likely in 4 years than lasers for "main weapons"
 
Have you any idea how hard it is to blast a laser through seawater? Oh, you must mean targets. Silly Navy.

Seriously, any idea how much the Navy spends in just shooting off anti-missile guns/missiles for practice and testing? I suspect that some generation of lasers would be considerably cheaper (won't believe it for this one). I just really don't know what type of money (other than DoD money which magically multiplies cost everytime you look at it) involved.
 
PaperclipGod said:
Lasers against other ships or ground targets - the majority of naval warfare for the last 60 years - doesn't seem practical with a weapon that can only fire in a flat trajectory. Anything beyond the horizon is off limits.
Click to expand...

Maybe bounce it off a satellite? I dunno.
 
Chances are they are WAY ahead of us and this technology is more than perfected. But they're 4 years away from using it in "public" so to speak. What they tell us they have/will have, and what they actually have is two different things. The US military/government actually has a division specific to fending off alien attacks (no, really) just in case it ever would happen. One of the prime weapons is such a laser. It is figured that if some form of life has the technology to actually come on this planet and fight, chances are any of our guns/misles would do much any good as their armor would of had to be able to survive the journey. Was watching a show on discovery about that, it was actually pretty interesting. Lot of it was "if" scenarios but the general idea was that yes, there is a plan. Lot of it is top secret, but they did mention the laser. pew pew pew!
 
sfsuphysics said:
See that's where people are mistaken, these types of projects are not ones that are done in secrecy at Area 51 or the like, but are done by universities (with healthy grant money from the gov't), and yeah ok some at the national lab level. But hardly top secret stuff. We already have petawatt lasers (granted pulsed). The big thing with lasers is they do lose their efficacy over large distances just because of the air they're shooting through (more so when we have high energy lasers). Its not that I don't think we have lasers that can't punch through a steel plate, I just don't think they're going to be THAT useful. Maybe a replacement Phalanx CIWS for air defense, but I think railguns probably are more likely in 4 years than lasers for "main weapons"
Click to expand...

Lasers primary use isn't for offensive action; because of the horizon problem and a high energy kinetic weapon like a rail gun or high explosive is better at destroying targets. This will be used to shoot down incoming missiles, shells, aircraft and the like. The advantage isn't the power it's the accuracy and near instant nature of lasers. Hell in 20 years time you could probably put them on the coast and use them to shoot down ICBM's while they're still in LEO. This is primarily a defensive weapon. You can completely control the airspace from the horizon to orbit anywhere you have one of these things with a big enough power source and accurate enough targeting system.
 
Navy ships with lasers and rail guns are going to be awesome. They will eventually have anti gravity drive systems as well. Pretty soon we will have real versions of scifi.
 
Haven't the Russians been developing heavy anti-laster shields for their missles? (i.e. plating)
 
Laser weapons can intercept missiles and knock planes out of the sky, as well as destroy surface vessels. Horizon limits it to line-of-sight, but a megawatt laser that can drill through an enemy ship in less than a second is going to be a serious threat to any sea-faring vessel.

Consider how naval warfare works. You only have a few ways to sink a ship: Ship-mounted guns, missiles, air power, or submarines. First you have to know where the ship is, which means you have to see the ship. Not too many countries have satellites, and unless you're using a satellite that means a spotter plane if you're over the horizon, or else you're already line-of-sight to the ship. With the laser that means you're already screwed. Your spotter plane will be shot down by the laser, or your ship sunk by the laser. A missile can be launched over the horizon and lock on after launch, but again, the laser can easily knock down the missile. If you have an aircraft carrier you can use planes to attack the ship from over the horizon, but again, the laser can hit the planes before they can be in range to even get a single shot off. That leaves a submarine as the only viable option, and you can bet any ship carrying this laser will have at least one attack sub under it to counter any submarine threats.

Sorry to disappoint the naysayers, but the FEL is an absolute game changer. Combine that system with the railgun for over-the-horizon work and you have a very difficult to defeat weapons platform.
 
PaperclipGod said:
For what purpose? Anti-missile?

Lasers against other ships or ground targets - the majority of naval warfare for the last 60 years - doesn't seem practical with a weapon that can only fire in a flat trajectory. Anything beyond the horizon is off limits.
Click to expand...

three words: mirrors in space.
 
Lasers are so easily defeated as weapons though by using reflective surfaces.

Granted your household mirror is only designed to reflect a certain spectrum, and so a properly calibrated laser could cut it, but there are multi-layer mirror materials that reflect a very wide range of lasers.

Since the military can't afford nor can adjust the wavelength of its mirrors constantly, once the lasers become commonplace they are quickly and easily defeated, making the investment asinine.
 
Phoenix333 said:
A megawatt laser that can drill through an enemy ship in less than a second is going to be a serious threat to any sea-faring vessel.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, if you look at the most powerful lasers they have out now, it requires prolonged contact to impart enough thermal energy to damage steel of even moderate thickness.

If the laser cannot be held perfectly steady on the object, it is also dissapating the heat over a wider and wider area, like trying to burn a leaf with a magnifying glass when you're not holding it steady.

Also, the when the laser does make a hole, it is creating a very tiny hole, and not imparting area wide damage like an explosive charge nor creating any shrapnel like a kinetic munition. The only reason these are useful for taking out rockets is that the rockets themselves are so very fragile, and blow themselves up when punctured due to the explosive fuel. Punching tiny holes in an enemy ship though isn't likely to have much of any effect at all.

Lastly, it can only burn through the surface if that surface is efficient at absorbing the energy efficiently. Just like a black painted car is hotter to the touch than a white one under the sun, it would be relatively inexpensive to simply use a spray adhesive to coat the surfaces in a thin flexible multi-layer reflective material. If the defense against a weapon is much lighter and much cheaper than the weapon itself, the weapon is a failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top