Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   The US Navy is just "two years away" from laser weapons like "they had in Star Trek," claims top admiral. No word where the bayonets will be mounted   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 128
    More: Cool, laser weapons, U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research, naval ship, energy weapon, lasers, Wired  
•       •       •

4243 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Oct 2012 at 10:40 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-24 09:43:22 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Tr0mBoNe: I'm sure though that it would have no effect against a steel hull or a really fast moving target so it will only be used in conjunction with preexisting CIWS.

Then it seems like a giant waste of money if they are going to keep Phalanx. I support them bringing the project to technical completion so we can learn more, but if it's just going to complement the current system that works quite well, what's the point?


Proof of concept, perhaps?

If it doesn't work, it'll just go the way of anti-mine dolphins, train-mounted artillery and other military technology that were only built because some generals assumed would work, simply because they sounded cool.

But if it does work, eventually (10, 15, 20 years? I dunno) a version of the tech small enough to be operated by a single infantryman will be made (perhaps small enough that the soldier can fix bayonet while on horseback). We'd have laser rifles replacing the M16/M4 platform and crew-served laser guns complimenting or replacing the M2 and Mk-19 platforms and anybody foolish enough to try to attack the best-trained military in the history of the world will be quickly EX-TER-MIN-A-TED!
 
2012-10-24 09:46:02 AM  

Farker Soze: Two years? If you hire a bunch of scientists to start you can get laser pistols in a couple weeks Max.


Or get some boing-boing/kickstarter-steampunk-arduino-maker chick to do it for the AW publicity for free.
 
2012-10-24 09:53:37 AM  
Well Subby, they obviously go on the bears.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-24 10:00:49 AM  

crab66: SVenus: Yeah, allies TODAY...
We need to prepare for the future wars.

Our aircraft carriers will blot out the sun?


Yep.

media.comicvine.com
 
2012-10-24 10:04:46 AM  
blog.fantasyheartbreaker.com

Pew pew...pew pew pew
 
2012-10-24 10:26:06 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: way south: Fact is the Navy just doesn't like littorals and it needs them now more than ever.

[www.ccs.neu.edu image 315x240]

"Huh huh huh..... littorals......"

/That word never fails to make the 12 year old in me giggle


That's okay - I still giggle when I hear the targeteers talking about "mensurated" coordinates.
 
2012-10-24 10:33:51 AM  

Yotto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: More to the point, that little display may have cost won him the election (I know, I know, I'm trollin')

My turn to troll :D


Ah, yes. Def: TROLL - anyone who disagrees with me, cause he obviously can't be serious about what he is saying, and therefore is simply saying it to get attention.

That about it, Poindexter?
 
2012-10-24 10:42:50 AM  
Jokes about accidentally starting intergalactic war aside, the range of laser weapons *can* be a problem.

Like any other weapon we've had before, practice firings will far outnumber firings in battle. And ship Captains get *really* nervous about accidentally hitting friendly/neutral targets during practice firings.

With something like a CIWS or a NATO Sea Sparrow Missile, the TAO can tell the Captain "If we make sure we're clear X miles in front of the ship, Y miles behind the ship and Z miles to the side, as well as W thousand feet above us, I can promise you that we won't hit anything by accident - the projectiles literally cannot go further than those ranges."

But what do you do with a high-powered laser that might still have damaging effects a hundred miles out (or more)? The strategy of "little laser/big ocean" or "little laser/big sky" will only work for so long - sooner or later you're going to hit something you didn't mean to.
 
2012-10-24 10:42:53 AM  

Mikey1969: No word where the bayonets will be mounted

They should combine them with the horses... They would be a kind of bad-ass unicorn. We could storm the beaches of Normandy with Bayoneticorns.


Nah, the Red Bull would shove them right back in the sea.
 
2012-10-24 10:44:05 AM  

fusillade762: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Mikey1969: shotglasss: No word where the bayonets will be mounted

Less than 24 hours and this one's already tired to death. I guess Obammster finally got that zinger in he so desperately wanted. Too bad Ambassador Stevens wasn't around to enjoy it.

Wow, it really hurt your feelings to see Romney talked to like the adolescent he is, didn't it? I've never seen Obama's 'Parent Face' before, you know the one where you are explaining to your teenager that he can't spend the night at his girlfriend's house even though her mother thinks it's OK? Yeah, he had the 'I can't believe that I had to explain THIS to an adult.' look.

More to the point, that little display may have cost him the election (I know, I know, I'm trollin')

The 1980s called, it wants its trolls back.


Ah, yes.

First, Def: TROLL - anyone who disagrees with me, cause he obviously can't be serious about what he is saying, and therefore is simply saying it to get attention.

Second, as an old Navy guy, I understand the need for more ships, particularly nuke carriers. Psychologically, a carrier off your coast projects force much better than something launched from 10,000 miles away.

And since carriers are, of course, sitting ducks without deep-ringed protection, we need that to protect them.
 
2012-10-24 10:52:41 AM  

0Icky0: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Didn't they use horses in the invasion of Afghanistan?

Yes. But today we have far fewer than we did in WWI. The same with bayonets.


The whole horses and bayonets thing was a straw man. Exceptionally UN-presidential. And a large segment of the audience saw it in exactly that way.

Someone here said that Obama and Romney came across as a stern parent and spoiled teenager. It was actually more of petulant and defensively sarcastic incumbent and Presidential-looking/sounding challenger.

I watched this debate on a big screen TV in the Common Room of a city community center. There were about 80 people there, about equally divided AFAICT between Obama and Romney supporters. A couple (1-3) on each side were obviously fanatics, the rest much more low key and thoughtful.

That one zinger hurt Obama.
 
2012-10-24 11:53:39 AM  
I'mma get my popcorn.

t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-10-24 11:53:45 AM  

Farker Soze: Two years? If you hire a bunch of scientists to start you can get laser pistols in a couple weeks Max.


You'll need a lot of weapons fragments for that.
 
2012-10-24 12:37:26 PM  

way south: Well these lasers are for warships, subby. So you should be asking if they still reinforce the prow like they did on old roman barges.

/The thought of an aircraft carrier Commander shouting "RAMMING SPEED!" does sound awesome...


To be fair, getting rammed by a carrier would surely do a lot of damage. No matter how well you've studied "How to Avoid Huge Ships".
 
2012-10-24 12:41:50 PM  

Cyno01: Mentat: We had better build more ships because the ocean isn't getting any smaller and China is investing heavily in lasers and anti-lasers.

Mirrors?


Mirrors aren't 100% reflective; hit one with a big enough laser and it absorbs enough energy to turn into charcoal.
 
2012-10-24 12:43:39 PM  

way south: Fact is the Navy just doesn't like littorals and it needs them now more than ever.
So far as the bayonets and horses quip, it made for fine entertainment. But once you move past that, it only shows that politicians don't understand military needs. Romney wants more boats, but he doesn't know what for. Obama wants fewer boats, and he's being told to buy the most useless kind by his advisers.

Technology has advanced but some things just haven't changed much in the last half century. You still need horses to reach difficult areas, and you still need knives as a last resort. You will always need a few guys on the water to carry out interdiction and security jobs.
Yes the military is evolving, but its evolving into something that's not very useful against the threats we know of... and in a rush to prove the emperor isn't naked, people are pretending the return of the battleship is a wise move.

I'm not against military spending or buying new tech, but cover the battlefield needs first.
Right now the soldiers could use pay raises and more appropriate equipment.


Don't know if anyone thanked you, but that helped to explain some of the military expenditures and that to me. Genuinely appreciative.
 
2012-10-24 02:02:54 PM  
Thats no moon
 
2012-10-24 04:04:15 PM  
Barack and Mitt: The War for the U.S. Navy Has Just Begun

"Capabilities matter. One modern U.S. destroyer, armed with "smart" missiles and sensors, arguably outclasses the anti-surface striking power of a World War II U.S. carrier and its escorts -- until the Lone Ranger super-ship all-too-quickly expends its pricey missiles. The destroyer's empty magazine moment is the trenchant instant we realize that former Bush and Obama Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had a point when he said (paraphrasing Josef Stalin), "Mass of numbers has a quality all of its own."

"Former British First Sea Lord Adm. Sir Jonathon Band understands the linkage: 95 percent of global trade passes through nine vulnerable maritime chokepoints. Jeremy Blackham and Gwyn Prins, in a 2010 issue of the Royal United Services Institute Journal, also credit Sir Jonathan with calling the sea the other "superhighway of the modern age."

"The 21st century's best-known "superhighway" is the Internet. Blackham and Prins note that the two superhighways confront maritime bottlenecks. "Ninety percent of global email traffic is conveyed via undersea fiber-optic cables. These cables bunch in several critical sea areas (off New York ... the English Channel, the South China Sea ... and off the west coast of Japan)."

"So everyone (not just Americans) who uses the Internet, and everyone (not just Americans) whose economy benefits from international trade, has an interest in securing maritime chokepoints."

It takes 10 years to build a new fleet. We agree no one trusts Iran at Hormuz. So, candidates, is it in America's interest to have a Navy that can patrol these distant chokepoints? To project power to defend these chokepoints? To project offensive power to open these chokepoints if a hostile force applies a chokehold?

Each of these missions requires more ships and more capabilities. Which means spending more money in an era when debt itself is a strategic threat. But if a critical maritime chokepoint closes, the economy takes a broadside. Barack, Mitt: Your foreign policy and economic revival debate, and the U.S. Navy's fundamental role in both, has now begun, in earnest."
 
2012-10-24 05:45:12 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Yotto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: More to the point, that little display may have cost won him the election (I know, I know, I'm trollin')

My turn to troll :D

Ah, yes. Def: TROLL - anyone who disagrees with me, cause he obviously can't be serious about what he is saying, and therefore is simply saying it to get attention.

That about it, Poindexter?


Sweet. I totally succeeded.

FTR I'm not actually a very good troll and I'm surprised that worked.
FT(further)R I'm going to be voting for Obama even though I don't think he's the best guy evar.
 
2012-10-24 07:31:31 PM  
media.giantbomb.com
nods approvingly
 
2012-10-24 11:22:46 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The whole horses and bayonets thing was a straw man. Exceptionally UN-presidential. And a large segment of the audience saw it in exactly that way.


What was un-Presidential was Romney's assertion that numbers from WWI have any relevance today. He sounded like he was giving a grade school book report.
 
2012-10-25 12:18:35 AM  

Yotto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Yotto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: More to the point, that little display may have cost won him the election (I know, I know, I'm trollin')

My turn to troll :D

Ah, yes. Def: TROLL - anyone who disagrees with me, cause he obviously can't be serious about what he is saying, and therefore is simply saying it to get attention.

That about it, Poindexter?

Sweet. I totally succeeded.

FTR I'm not actually a very good troll and I'm surprised that worked.
FT(further)R I'm going to be voting for Obama even though I don't think he's the best guy evar.


As am I.
 
2012-10-25 03:54:57 AM  

alienated: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Didn't they use horses in the invasion of Afghanistan?

The Marines are using mules to carry stuff Its an la times blog entry from 2009


Think they still train with mules to do that currently.
 
2012-10-25 04:09:42 AM  

way south: Fact is the Navy just doesn't like littorals and it needs them now more than ever.
So far as the bayonets and horses quip, it made for fine entertainment. But once you move past that, it only shows that politicians don't understand military needs. Romney wants more boats, but he doesn't know what for. Obama wants fewer boats, and he's being told to buy the most useless kind by his advisers.

Technology has advanced but some things just haven't changed much in the last half century. You still need horses to reach difficult areas, and you still need knives as a last resort. You will always need a few guys on the water to carry out interdiction and security jobs.
Yes the military is evolving, but its evolving into something that's not very useful against the threats we know of... and in a rush to prove the emperor isn't naked, people are pretending the return of the battleship is a wise move.

I'm not against military spending or buying new tech, but cover the battlefield needs first.
Right now the soldiers could use pay raises and more appropriate equipment.


Isn't it congress that decides ship funding though?
 
2012-10-25 04:41:25 AM  

Medic Zero: way south: Fact is the Navy just doesn't like littorals and it needs them now more than ever.
So far as the bayonets and horses quip, it made for fine entertainment. But once you move past that, it only shows that politicians don't understand military needs. Romney wants more boats, but he doesn't know what for. Obama wants fewer boats, and he's being told to buy the most useless kind by his advisers.

Technology has advanced but some things just haven't changed much in the last half century. You still need horses to reach difficult areas, and you still need knives as a last resort. You will always need a few guys on the water to carry out interdiction and security jobs.
Yes the military is evolving, but its evolving into something that's not very useful against the threats we know of... and in a rush to prove the emperor isn't naked, people are pretending the return of the battleship is a wise move.

I'm not against military spending or buying new tech, but cover the battlefield needs first.
Right now the soldiers could use pay raises and more appropriate equipment.

Isn't it congress that decides ship funding though?


Congress does indeed decide funding. That's part of the problem since funding a project usually means jobs in someones area. The conflict of interest between keeping their constiuents employed at these government funded jobs and safe by having an effective military generally means that in order to achieve the later, they pad the former. Sure that Fighter might be practically useless for our current and predicted future states, but by God we'll have 200 of them because that'll cover the gap!

Also, way south is (to pardon the pun) way south on his estimation of the candidates positions. Romney is just ignorant. Obama is just following the advice of the Joint Chiefs and other heads of respective service branches. By infering that they are just "advisors" and giving the wrong advise, he's basically saying that the military doesn't understand what they need. That's garbage.

Still, the real problem is that the legislative branch controls the funds. So they spend the money as they see fit, regardless of the actual needs of the military.
 
2012-10-25 05:29:56 AM  
Lasers? How quaint. Beam a photon torpedo onto their bridge.
 
2012-10-25 06:51:31 AM  

TwistedFark: By infering that they are just "advisors" and giving the wrong advise, he's basically saying that the military doesn't understand what they need. That's garbage.


This is what we are fighting.

dl.dropbox.com

This is what the military thinks they need.

dl.dropbox.com

...and they want it with lasers.

dl.dropbox.com

You be the judge on whether they are meeting the current threat with the proper tool.

I realize you're only defending the Iron triangle to defend Obama, but ...really?
I've been a long time proponent for having a large military and even this thing seems wasteful.

/Meanwhile the men need new armor, better rifles, and more benefits.
/The same group of deciders struggled on whether it could drop $30 mil for the XM-25.
/On one hand, a weapon that changes how gun battles are fought. On the other, a ship we probably wont use that costs a hundred times as much.
 
2012-10-25 05:37:50 PM  

way south: TwistedFark: By infering that they are just "advisors" and giving the wrong advise, he's basically saying that the military doesn't understand what they need. That's garbage.

This is what we are fighting.

[dl.dropbox.com image 500x307]

This is what the military thinks they need.

[dl.dropbox.com image 825x565]

...and they want it with lasers.

[dl.dropbox.com image 650x326]

You be the judge on whether they are meeting the current threat with the proper tool.

I realize you're only defending the Iron triangle to defend Obama, but ...really?
I've been a long time proponent for having a large military and even this thing seems wasteful.

/Meanwhile the men need new armor, better rifles, and more benefits.
/The same group of deciders struggled on whether it could drop $30 mil for the XM-25.
/On one hand, a weapon that changes how gun battles are fought. On the other, a ship we probably wont use that costs a hundred times as much.


You're cherry picking an argument.The military is in our country quite wide and vast. There are actually reported cases in the news media of the military asking for equipment like more UAV's to fight the war in Afghanistan and being denied, but given instead more funding for superiority fighters that they claim we don't need.

If you want to item by item say that all military expenditures should be going to fight terrorists, then that's a pretty foolish position.
 
Displayed 28 of 128 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report