Navy Unveils First Active Laser Weapon In Persian Gulf (cnn.com) 370
schwit1 shares a report from CNN: In the sometimes hostile waters of the Persian Gulf looms the U.S. Navy's first -- in fact, the world's first -- active laser weapon. The LaWS, an acronym for Laser Weapons System, is not science fiction. It is not experimental. It is deployed on board the USS Ponce amphibious transport ship, ready to be fired at targets today and every day by Capt. Christopher Wells and his crew. It costs "about a dollar a shot" to fire, said Lt. Cale Hughes, laser weapons system officer. LaWS begins with an advantage no other weapon ever invented comes even close to matching. It moves, by definition, at the speed of light. For comparison, that is 50,000 times the speed of an incoming ICBM. For the test, the USS Ponce crew launched the target -- a drone aircraft, a weapon in increasing use by Iran, North Korea, China, Russia and other adversaries. In an instant, the drone's wing lit up, heated to a temperature of thousands of degrees, lethally damaging the aircraft and sending it hurtling down to the sea. "It operates in an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum so you don't see the beam, it doesn't make any sound, it's completely silent and it's incredibly effective at what it does," said Hughes.
But... (Score:2)
t doesn't make any sound, it's completely silent and it's incredibly effective at what it does,"
But does it make popcorn?
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Hi Kent. Have you been touching yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
USS Ponce? (Score:5, Funny)
Who the hell named that ship?! Are the sister ships the USS Wanker and USS Berk?
Re:USS Ponce? (Score:5, Funny)
The colonials won't understand what the hell you're talking about.
Re:USS Ponce? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should have told Puerto Rico that before they named a Ponce, the same city the boat is named after
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Puerto Rico is a United States territory - so yes, Ponce is an American city.
Here's the relevant section of that Wikipedia page you linked to:
"Ponce is the only ship of the United States Navy that is named for Ponce in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which in turn was named after the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de León, the first governor of Puerto Rico and the European discoverer of Florida."
Re:USS Ponce? (Score:5, Informative)
Ponce is the only ship of the United States Navy that is named for Ponce in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which in turn was named after the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de León, the first governor of Puerto Rico and the European discoverer of Florida.
Re: (Score:3)
There are more dialects of English than just American.
BWEEM (Score:5, Interesting)
> "It operates in an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum so you don't see the beam, it doesn't make any sound...
Hopefully, future versions will come in a variety of badass colors, and will make a BWEEM noise.
Defending American shores (Score:3)
High energy lasers are the only effective way to block incoming Ballistic Missiles from hitting American cities, so the Pentagon should install (high energy lasers) around the edges of North America instead of spending all that money on the Kinetic Interceptor missiles.
Re:Defending American shores (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have there been any tests on blocking ballistic missiles with high energy lasers? A ballistic missile is basically a falling rock, so it's not easy to stop.
That's why you want to stop it when it's a delicate, rising rock.
Re: (Score:2)
It was called "Star Wars", though the idea was to set off a satellite based nuke which would pump a set of X-ray laser emitters.
Re: (Score:3)
If you detonate the warhead it's falling dust. You can overcome the range in air issue by using more power, and that is easily done if land based. Also a home based system doesn't need long range, the missiles are coming towards you. You can overcome the rate of fire issue if you build multiple lasers, and that is easily done if land based. Ships off-shore can be sunk by submarines and sea mines. Aircraft are vulnerable to sub launched anti-aircraft missiles. Land bases are much harder to destroy. Pu
Re: (Score:2)
There are some good descriptions how a ballistic missile attack works - I recommend watching one (or reading about it).
Short version: stopping a ballistic missile is really hard except in the boost phase (when it places the bus in orbit). Attacking the bus before the projectiles separate is extremely hard for many reasons, attacking the projectiles after they have separated is harder still. A practical ballistic missile will have many fake projectiles plus other countermeasures and hitting even one projecti
Re:Defending American shores (Score:4, Informative)
Once a warhead is into its reentry phase, your goose is pretty much cooked. You could theoretically stop them with a kinetic kill, but the probability of intercept extremely low. Warheads also tend to be extremely rugged, dense objects (given the Uranium casing and all that), and so aren't a good candidate for LASER weapons.
Where a LASER really shines (if you'll pardon the pun) is destroying the launcher during the boost phase, or in the case of what's on the USS Ponce, also dealing with cruise missiles and the like. In order to maximize their throw weight (how big of a warhead and/or how far), missiles tend to be built as lightly as possible. During the boost phase of a ballistic missile, all you need to do is weaken its structure enough that the launch forces cause it to fall apart. You don't need to burn a hole through it, you don't need to melt it, you just need to weaken it enough that it buckles under the g-forces. It's a similar thing with the cruise missiles that would be affecting a warship, you just need to compromise them structurally.
The watered sprinkler (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're joking, but the laser would just burn a hole through the mirror. Even if your mirror was 99% efficient (which most aren't), the mirror would be absorbing 300W within a few square inches, which would cause it to heat up rapidly, becoming less reflective, and very quickly you have a hole in it.
Show of strength (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They've been working on these for a long time. Still have kinks on them.
Initially the work in the 1980s was with chemical lasers but because those are hard to handle, now they're using solid state fiber lasers. Why didn't they use those before? Poor efficiency meant a regular ship couldn't power one with any decent output. Even here notice they're talking about drones.
I remember hearing years ago that you need at least a 100 kW laser to have something approaching battlefield capability and 1 MW would be bet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To quote Dr Strangelove: "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH? "
Keeping the existence and capabilities of your weapon systems a secret doesn't work very well to deter your enemies. By letting your enemies know you have it, you force them to spend significant resources countering your own system.
When it all comes down to it, war is kinetic economics.
Moves at the speed of light? (Score:2)
The laser beam itself, yes ... But what about the tracking/aiming system latency and mount system? The gimbal has to track the trajectory precisely and slew with it. And that gets more complicated if the target is wobbling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't mirages/refraction confound that?
ISIS ... (Score:2)
Translated: "I fought the LaWS and the LaWS won."
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Questionable comments by the Naval Lt. (Score:5, Interesting)
"...we don't worry about range..." The energy of the "shot" delivered should drop with the square of the distance from the target. If the laser's target is moving away from the laser device as it heads towards some destination, it's possible that the energy delivered might not be enough to destroy it.
"All the $40 million system needs to operate is a supply of electricity, which is derived from its own small generator, and has a crew of three. No multi-million-dollar missile, no ammunition at all." and "It's about a dollar a shot" I don't know if the $40 million is the cost per device or the development cost. The three operators also get paid whether they're using the device or sleeping, though they will likely have other duties. Nevertheless, this one shot cost at least $40 million +. The second will result in a cost of $20 million per shot. And, what's the lifetime of the hardware, replacement of end-of-life parts costs and other maintenance costs? It'll take many more than 40 million shots to get down to $1 per shot.
"I can aim that at any particular spot on a target, and disable and destroy as necessary" Moving targets can take a circuitous and rapidly change directions. The aiming system, presumably RADAR or some such, must be able to follow such a target and likely uses a mechanical motor driven gear system for that. Can the aiming system follow that spot during the target's travels?
The article doesn't say whether this uses a pulse laser or a continuous laser. If pulsed, what's the recycle time? A fast moving target may reach its target during the recycle time if that's the case.
How does this system work on targets obscured during rain, fog, cloudy weather or dusty conditions? Light beams become scattered under these conditions and the ability to deliver a destructive energy blast could be hampered.
Of course, the effectiveness of this device will be determined while used under combat conditions with simultaneous multiple, fast moving offensive weapons approaching the laser device. Likely the navy will have several redundant defenses on its valuable targets.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Questionable comments by the Naval Lt. (Score:5, Informative)
Why are you targeting retreating forces? Isn't there something in the Geneva convention about that?
Until the beam diverges to a larger area than the target, the only thing attenuating the power delivered to the target is the atmosphere.
They've tested this on moving boats and UAV's, so I'd assume the answer to "can they target moving objects?" is "yes"
The laser is continuous, it's made from modified 6 welding lasers that all focus on the target.
It's designed to compliment traditional weapons, not replace them. If the conditions are too bad for it to work, they're going use a gun or missile. Which is going to be much worse for the bad guys.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org... [icrc.org]
The Geneva protocol does not prohibit attacking retreating forces, quite the opposite.
Retreat shows an intention to continue combat from another location.
The Geneva protocol prohibits attacking persons that are hors de combat (wounded, unconscious, shipwreck)
It prohibits attacking forces that clearly are attempting to surrender and are not attempting to escape.
Re: (Score:3)
Good to know
To be honest, everything I know about the Geneva Convention, I learnt from Hogan's Heros
old news (Score:2)
Sharks (Score:2)
Now we just need a few sharks with the lasers.
When I get my hands on those laser-sharks, my fortress will finally be complete!
Re:It's a matter of time... (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason to ban nuclear weapons is the dangers they pose to places and times far away from and long after the battle. Lasers are as ecologically clean as a weapon can be. They are also precise, unlike nukes. Why should they be banned?
Re:It's a matter of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. I don't quite understand how you could classify a laser weapon along side nukes. Nukes are indiscriminate, tend to cause a lot of collateral civilian damage, and as you say, the fallout can have effects far from the point of the nuclear detonation, not to mention long-term effects in the area of the detonation.
A laser weapon, on the other hand, is more like a bullet in that it is aimed at a specific target, so short of the target crashing to the ground and taking people out, the level of collateral damage is going to generally be low. Since this is on a ship, the target is most likely going to fall into the water, so unless we've suddenly decided the death of sea gulls and krill is a crime against humanity, I'd say we'd be better off seeing more laser weapons and less nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they are still not quite safe. If the target has a reflective surface, there is the possibility of witnesses being blinded. This thing does use light outside the visible spectrum, so you would not even get any warning of being blinded.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:It's a matter of time... (Score:5, Informative)
I think there's a certain amount of urban legend in that whole reflective surface defense strategy. First off, the surface would have to be nearly perfectly reflective. If there are any imperfections at all it seems like they would rapidly heat up, creating larger imperfections, and the runaway effect would quickly destroy any reflectivity. Granted, if it's a 50kw laser then it doesn't need to reflect very much for very long to damage someone looking right into the reflected beam, but I still think the usefulness and practicality of actually fielding a target with reflective armor which a laser would fire at is vastly overstated. It seems kind of silly to go through the trouble to coat a drone, boat, or missile in reflective material when it's probably only going to buy the target another second of life before the laser destroys the reflective coating.
Re: (Score:2)
There are several ways of doing it. Remember that a reentering spacecraft also needs to withstand a lot of friction and heating. The reflective surface does not need to reflect the entire spectrum just the wavelength(s) of the laser. If it's a liquid fueled rocket (the Russians have some of those like the R-36) you can store propellant under the skin of the vehicle and push the heated propellant out through the exhaust. You can also add an ablative coating to the missile similar to a reentry TPS.
Re:It's a matter of time... (Score:5, Interesting)
The reflective surface does not need to reflect the entire spectrum just the wavelength(s) of the laser.
I understand that, but it needs to reflect the vast majority of the incoming energy or else the imperfections in the surface are going to be fatal flaws. I'm not an astrophysicist, but from what I understand engineering a surface that is both highly reflective with no imperfections, and also sturdy enough to withstand use in wartime, tends to be difficult and/or expensive. It's not like the knee-jerk jokes we get every time there's a laser story where someone suggests that someone just needs to hold up a mirror they bought at a drug store and, voila, the laser destroys itself.
You can also add an ablative coating to the missile similar to a reentry TPS.
How much weight is that going to add to the missile? Then, how much fuel do you need to add to compensate for the additional weight of the coating? Then how much fuel do you need to add to compensate for the weight of the additional fuel? It sounds like you're redesigning a missile. If we force enemy forces to redesign their weapons every time we come up with something new, good. At least we're at the front of the arms race instead of trying to catch up.
I'm sure that you could surround a missile or warhead with ceramic tiles and get some pretty great insulation from a laser, but we're talking about several hundred pounds of additional payload here. At a minimum that means your warheads are smaller, which by itself is a pretty great effect of fielding a laser weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
So I have no idea if this would work, but I imagine that if I was told to build a drone capable of thwarting this laser attack, I'd deploy a simple lightweight mirror on a retractable arm that would track the location of the ship and position the mirror such that from the ship's perspective, all that is visible is the mirror.
Re:It's a matter of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
> First off, the surface would have to be nearly perfectly reflective
Completely incorrect. You can find ample information on the topic from now-public documents of the former SDI program.
Lasers do not have infinite energy. In order to apply the effect you want (whatever that is), you need to leave it on the target for a characteristic "dwell time". That is normally on the order of 1 to 10 seconds. Mirroring the surface of the target can increase this about 1 to 3 times. Adding an aerosol fog can do that again. The idea is not to completely defeat the laser, but make it take so long to work that the target beside it remains untouched simply because you run out of time.
The other thing to note is that the tracking systems pointing the laser are far from perfect and the beam tends to "wander" over the target. Generally, only some part of the target receives continual energy. In that case, the mirrored portions will reflect enough energy to eliminate any effect, as they will cool off when the beam moves off that spot again. While the main target area doesn't have this advantage, it might mean the hole you punch is too small to be useful.
And finally, there is the movement of the target itself. This is gross movement, like spinning the rocket booster of an ICBM or turning your boat back and forth across the path to the target. This only works if the dwell time is fairly long, otherwise, the laser will do its damage while you're still maneuvering. Adding mirroring can stretch that time enough to make such gross movements practical.
Combining these techniques, mirroring, aerosols and spinning, it was pretty obvious any sort of space-based chemical laser would not work against ICBMs. Against boats is another matter, but given the extremely low power of this device, and the obviously faked tests I've seen, I suspect it is essentially useless for anything other than drones, which can't really combine these effects usefully. It remains to be seen how effective it will be in that role.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's assume for a moment that we're not going to replace all of our weapons with lasers. Your mirrored rotating fog-encased vehicle looks like a pretty attractive radar cross-section to the missiles and tracking systems we still have, and which are still going to be developed.
Let's also assume that laser development does not stop at the first version. You've got the systems necessary to defeat our 50kw red laser? Congratulations, let's try it out against this 150kw green laser. Don't spend too much tim
Re: (Score:3)
Congratulations, your super-advanced million dollar rotating reflecting laser-defeating aircraft just got shot down by a $165k Sea Sparrow missile from the 70s because your aircraft has the most fabulous radar cross-section the ship has ever seen.
Re: It's a matter of time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: It's a matter of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck man, where were you years ago when the military was developing this? You could have saved the country so much money! They clearly never considered the impact of rain or fog, if only you were there to clue them in. I mean, shit, in the Persian Gulf where this system is deployed an analysis showed that Bushehr, where Iran has its nuclear plant, gets a mean of 6.8 days *EVERY YEAR* with precipitation of more than 10mm! That's each and every year, man! That means that on *any given day* there's like a
Re: (Score:3)
Since this is on a ship, the target is most likely going to fall into the water, so unless we've suddenly decided the death of sea gulls and krill is a crime against humanity,
If you do nothing and let your ship be sunk, instead of shooting down the missile, that'll probably kill way more seagulls and krill. Burning ships are ecological disasters.
Re:It's a matter of time... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't classify all laser weapons equally. Some laser weapons (like this one) are exactly like the bullets you are talking about.
Others (like every other one anyone has come up with so far) are effective only at blinding large populations without killing and are banned according to Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Re:It's a matter of time... (Score:4, Funny)
They should be banned for two simple reasons:
1. "Lasers"
2. Sharks
Enough said.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason to ban nuclear weapons is the dangers they pose to places and times far away from and long after the battle.
Another reason that NW could be banned is that a ban could actually be enforceable. Nukes require a lot of infrastructure and emit detectable radiation. With these $1 per shot lasers, there is no way a ban could be enforced. They are dual-use technology, so it would be easy to disguise a weapons program as an industrial or scientific project.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if you miss? A laser beam is very coherent and will keep traveling until it hits something.
What if you hit your target but it has a highly reflective surface?
What if another nation has these weapons and decides to use them against us?
The beams are invisible and effectively instantaneous, with the potential for extreme range. Air travel would be a no-go if certain nations had these things.
And at a buck per kill, even North Korea can afford to cause some actual trouble if they manage to get their hands
Re: (Score:2)
What if you miss?
The ship is generally lower than the target, and the earth is a sphere. So a miss will exit the atmosphere and dissipate in space.
Air travel would be a no-go if certain nations had these things.
Commercial aviation tends to avoid war zones. But the risk is infinitesimal anyway. During WW2, 50,000 anti-aircraft rounds were fired for every downed enemy aircraft. These were actually aimed at the aircraft, and many of them had proximity fuses and were area weapons. Even in the extremely unlikely even that this laser hits a commercial aircraft, it needs to be held on tar
Re:It's a matter of time... (Score:5, Informative)
> During WW2, 50,000 anti-aircraft rounds were fired for every downed enemy aircraft
Completely incorrect.
At the beginning of the war, the number was about 40,000. Using nothing but basic statistics, changes to the battery layout and firing instructions reduced this to about 5,000. The introduction of the first range-only radars like GL Mk, I reduced this to 4,000. Adding range-and-laying radars like GL Mk. III and SR584 reduced this to 2,500. The proximity fused halved this, at least.
At the end of the war the V-1, a small target flying at high speeds very close to the ground where radar was hard to use and tracking angles were very fast required about 4,000 rounds. Against bombers at higher altitudes, the effect of late-war AAA was so devastating that such operations against UK targets were basically suicidal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, a well placed round out of a .50 rifle will stop any vehicle quite effectively, without targeting the occupants. Just put it through the engine block.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but if you just destroy some poor bastard's eyes then another poor bastard will just jump in and continue moving the weapon. Makes more sense to disable the weapon than the operator.
Re: (Score:2)
But it only costs $1 per enemy soldier to do it, you can easily outspend any army. We could win even the largest wars for less than a billion dollars.
Re:Don't shoot until you see the whites of their e (Score:4, Funny)
Good point. All we need to do is target a truck driver, and sit back and watch while every other member of the army drags the bodies out of the way to keep that truck moving.
Re: (Score:2)
So you'd rather ban lasers and force armies to stick with bullets, so instead of the chance someone might get blinded, we'll just make sure to kill them entirely?
How the hell does that make sense?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you suggesting we violate The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons?
Re: (Score:2)
Explicitly not, since the word was "chance", in other words it's not designed to blind nor is that a combat function.
Re: (Score:2)
Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness. The parties to the protocol also agree to not transfer such weapons to any state or non-state entity.[2] The protocol does not prohibit laser systems where blinding is an incidental or collateral effect, but parties that agree to it must take all feasible precautions to avoid such effects.[11][12]
-Wikipedia
So, it would seem that if we target the engine or wheels and someone is blinded as a collateral action there is no issue, similarly if we target the soldier long enough to raise their temperature thousands of degrees and kill them there is no issue...
Re: (Score:2)
to be clear, Grishnakh put words in my mouth earlier in this thread, so I returned the favor.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, but it seems that the easy way to avoid breaking the treaty is to apply the laser long enough to kill... an interesting side effect of the law; that death is more acceptable than blinding.
Re: (Score:3)
Fair enough, but it seems that the easy way to avoid breaking the treaty is to apply the laser long enough to kill... an interesting side effect of the law; that death is more acceptable than blinding.
It is the intent of the law. In normal warfare, it is preferable to seriously wound an enemy soldier rather than kill them. Your enemy only loses 1 soldier if you kill them, but if you wound a soldier the enemy additionally has to expend resources to take care of them. It's way too easy to do this with laser weapons so it's better for all sides to just agree not to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting we violate The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons?
Looks to me like you are the one suggesting we do that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Article 3
Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
But since when does the US obey protocols? They signed the Protocol on Child Soldiers [ohchr.org], and then violated it with Omar Khadr.
Article 6
3. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons within their jurisdiction recruited or used in hostilities contrary to the present Protocol are demobilized or otherwise released from service. States Parties shall, when necessary, accord to such persons all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration.
Putting a 15-year-old into Gitmo and torturing him is a clear violation of the protocol. Considering he was dragged from his home in Canada to Afghanistan at the age of 10, what outcome did anyone expect when he was captured at 15?
Re: (Score:3)
So you'd rather ban lasers and force armies to stick with bullets,
Throughout history, people have claimed that new more efficient weapons would lead to less killing. Prior to WW1, some people claimed that a future war would have few casualties since a single machine gun could replace 20 soldiers with rifles. It didn't turn out that way.
The best way to keep the peace is to insure that the dominant enforcer of the current world order remains dominant. In 1914, that was Britain, and the challenger was Germany. Today, it is America, and the future challenger may be China.
Re:Don't shoot until you see the whites of their e (Score:4, Insightful)
The best way to keep the peace is to insure that the dominant enforcer of the current world order remains dominant.
That only keeps the peace for the people back home... in the land of the dominant enforcer. Everyone else has to deal with war on their doorstep.
Re: (Score:3)
That only keeps the peace for the people back home... in the land of the dominant enforcer. Everyone else has to deal with war on their doorstep.
It keeps the peace for everyone who accepts the current world order. Today, that is most of the world, which is more peaceful than ever before in history. Even most muslim countries accept American hegemony. The only real challenges to the Pax Americana are in a few Shiite countries (Iran, Syria) and a few non-state entities (ISIS, Hezbollah, the Houthi tribe in Yemen). China may challenge America in the future, but their current activities in the SCS don't amount to much, and are not a direct threat to
Re: (Score:3)
The best way to keep the peace is to insure that the major powers do enough trade that they don't particularly want to piss off their clients/suppliers.
Mutually Assured Destruction has also worked pretty well. Unless either China or the US can stop the other from completely devastating the other if push came to shove, neither dares to take serious military action against the other. We both have militaries just to kick around undeveloped nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's a matter of time... (Score:2)
You seem to think typing up a document that says "henceforthwith hereby big ass lasers are banned" and getting it signed at the UN somehow prevents people from building one.
When you havw a moment of clarity and logical thoughts, ask yourself "How do you enforce this ban without the use of banned weapons?"
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I don't know... Could be true as long as you totally zero out the "R&D", "Labor" and "Fuel costs" lines in the spread sheet.
Re: (Score:2)
I think more importantly here is the fact that it doesn't cost millions of dollars per shot. Interceptors like patriot missiles and more complex ones are stupid expensive to shoot. A laser emplacement doesn't really use fuel (excepting chem lasers, but this one isn't one) so "per shot" it uses however much the power cost to create. So likely fairly cheap or even negligible when put on a nuke ship with basically "free" excess energy to use.
Re: (Score:2)
They mean the extra cost it will be now to fire another shot as opposed to not firing a shot. You know like it would in normal english.
Re: (Score:2)
What are your own calculations on the cost of generating 15-50kw of power on a ship which displaces over 16,000 tons and can move at 20 knots, how much power do you think it can generate? Now let's assume that the laser also has its own generator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like I was trying to make that point.
Re: (Score:2)
30kW for 2 seconds... 60kJ of energy. That's the same amount of energy stored in 1.4 grams of crude oil
I don't know what they run their ships on, but more refined oil has a higher energy density. Even if their generators are only 20% efficient, that's 7g of oil per shot
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, it's bullshit. It costs 59c per shot.
Comparison (Score:3)
Even factoring in maintenance, I bet it's still quite a bit cheaper than a thousand round burst of 20mm Vulcan cannon fire.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
20mm shells aren't stopped by fog or mirrors.
So why not sell a new defense system, and call it "smoke and mirrors"? Ought to be worth a billion just for the name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A dollar a shot my ass (Score:4, Informative)
Only if you fire it for an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
I would tend to agree. If it's 30kW at full power, and assuming $0.10 per kWh, then it's at least $3.00.
You should probably check your assumptions there. Your numbers are only true if you have to run the laser at 30 kW for a whole hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A dollar a shot my ass (Score:4, Funny)
The "dollar a shot" plan is included with your $35m/month premium.
Re: (Score:3)
OP's mom offers a "dollar a shot" plan. Oooooh, sick burn.
Re: (Score:2)
When you say "this marine clearly knows nothing", are you referring to yourself, or the person quoted in the article and pictured in the video clearly wearing Navy lieutenant insignia?
Re: (Score:2)
You assume mostly incorrectly and technically correctly.
Laser beams are designed to not diverge and thus not suffer loss with distance that other things do.
Get a shitty $5 laser pointer and point it at the wall from 1 inch away, 2 inches away, and 20 feet away. Compare the size of the dot on the wall.
Do the same with a flashlight.
At distances of many miles, a halfway coherent laser beam will suffer most of its loss due to the atmosphere, not divergence.
However, we're probably safe from instantaneous, space
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/vjFG-4Ge668?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Your link does not say what you claim it says. It says the Soviets were trying to develop " radio frequency weapon that could debilitate troops’ central nervous systems and an electromagnetic pulse weapon that could confuse radars, radios and missile guidance systems." Neither of which is a laser, and neither of which shows any evidence of actually having been developed to a working prototype, much less deployed. In fact, it says "there was no evidence that the Soviets had got to the production stage
Re: (Score:2)
Did you manage to not read far enough to reach " there was no evidence that the Soviets had got to the production stage for the weapons".
"country X has declared and demonstrated it has Y" is significantly different from "country Z thinks country X might have Y, but probably doesn't".
Re: (Score:2)