Navy To Deploy Lasers On Ship In 2014 402
Velcroman1 writes "The Pentagon has plans to deploy its first ever ship-mounted laser next year, a disruptive, cutting-edge weapon capable of obliterating small boats and unmanned aerial vehicles with a blast of infrared energy. Navy officials announced Monday that in early 2014, a solid-state laser prototype will be mounted to the fantail of the USS Ponce and sent to the 5th fleet region in the Middle East for real-world experience. 'It operates much like a blowtorch ... with an unlimited magazine,' one official said."
Re:Safety (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:blowtorch has magazines? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, we have a congresscritter who thinks that magazines are the things that come out of the end of the gun, so you're ahead of the curve.
Re:Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
War is about murdering the other people and breaking their equipment before they use their equipment to murder you.
No it isn't, you nitwit. War is about achieving specific objectives by force. The force doesn't have to be lethal, and very often it isn't. As even Sun Tzu wrote, "Preserving the enemies army is best, destroying it second best." Your myopic, sociopathic way of looking at war is disturbing in the extreme. Thankfully, the modern military has no use for poorly-adjusted rambos like yourself.
If you're using a laser, or a bullet, or a missile, or any of a myriad of weapons against a boat or an airplane, then it had damn well better pose enough of a threat to you that you are perfectly okay with everyone on it dying, and perhaps maybe even want to kill them.
Terrorists have just taken control of an oil tanker in San Francisco's bay. They have over a hundred hostages and have threatened to blow holes in the hull and scuttle the ship, causing a massive environmental disaster, unless a dozen of their copatriots from Guantanamo Bay are released. You have twenty four hours to comply. Do you:
a) Blow up the tanker with your orbital ion cannon because war is about murdering other people, and thus causing a massive ecological disaster and billions of dollars in economic damages, or;
b) Sneak a small team of Navy SEALS on board, neutralize the terrorists, and retake the ship with minimal casualties.
As anyone who doesn't have a serious screw loose in their brain can see, there are military options that don't involve going all murder-happy... because, you know, the military, unlike you, doesn't have some deep-seated anger management issues.
If you don't think something's important enough to kill anyone who gets in the way of it, it's not worth going to war over, since that's what war is.
What disturbs me about your logic here is that murdering people is 'Plan A' in your world, and 'Plan B' isn't. The military isn't some gun-ho institution where people get to freely kill others. There are rules of engagement and a whole host of other things designed specifically to limit the loss of life whenever possible. And despite us having nuclear weapons, for example, we still rely on less damaging weapons all the way down to rubber bullets and tear gas. The military wouldn't need any of these options if it didn't make saving lives a priority. That's ultimately what our soldiers do: They don't take lives, they save them. Ours, to be precise. War is often about protecting what we value most, not just kicking sand in other people's faces.
Re:Not unexpected (Score:2, Insightful)
see, Tom Clancy - Red Storm Rising - Chapter "Dance of the vampires". A bit dated, yes, but the concept still stands.
This is a tech demo, a version 0.0.1 effort at something useful in the future. In the future, the navy has rather ambitious, but reasonable plans for their ships. The venerable 5 inch deck gun is to be eventually replaced by some sort of mass driver, be it a rail gun, or other electromagnetic cannon. To supplement that in the CIWS arena will be highly responsive directed energy weapons, similar in concept to this laser. I can imagine two different types, one that's designed to deliver rapid, high energy bursts to a target with a very small focal point and limited range. This is the eventual successor to the RAM, which replaced the Phalanx system. Then, a slightly larger system that has greater range, delivers it's energy in a rather longer, and slightly less focused fashion. This would be the replacement for the 25mm bushmaster/Typhoon cannon/mount based systems to cover the area immediately around the ship from small craft, helicopters, and attack aircraft on shallow attack profiles. This combination would not entirely eliminate the need for missiles on ships. You still need to be able to get at things that are beyond line of sight, things that are evasive, things that have a high deltaV or comparativeV with your vessel. However, having a successful suite of these other systems means that your ships are more survivable, can remain on station longer when under modest attack, and are devastatingly effective in the litoral/line-of-sight arena. If you can see it, you can either melt small holes in it, melt big holes in it, or hit it with enough kinetic energy to vaporize most or all of it.
Re:with frickin' lasers! (Score:2, Insightful)
Next up, sharks.
Why is this moderated as +5 Funny ?
Are there people out there who, after all these years of the same stale tired old joke, still find this genuinely funny?
Really? Seriously?
Yeah, I thought not.
Re:Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists have just taken control of an oil tanker in San Francisco's bay. They have over a hundred hostages and have threatened to blow holes in the hull and scuttle the ship, causing a massive environmental disaster, unless a dozen of their copatriots from Guantanamo Bay are released. You have twenty four hours to comply.
Do you understand that this isn't an example of war? Unless you agree with Bush's definition of the "War on Terror."
Re:with frickin' lasers! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Small Boats (Score:5, Insightful)
spray of water? too much effort.
smoke. much more effective, easier to generate, longer lasting.
lasers will see the return of smoke screens.