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.

(Fox News)   The US Navy has developed a real, honest-to-God laser gun, mounted it on a ship, and is about to begin live-testing it with the Fifth Fleet. Next step: sharks   (foxnews.com) divider line 225
    More: Cool, Fifth Fleet, U.S. Navy, laser guns, psychological testing, Buck Rogers, airborne lasers  
•       •       •

14736 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2013 at 6:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-08 02:14:31 PM  
Finally we can get CHA written on the moon.
 
2013-04-08 02:34:50 PM  
This is fantastic!  Lasers work great.  Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.
 
2013-04-08 02:37:46 PM  
Because we have all this extra money just laying around.
 
2013-04-08 03:13:31 PM  
this isn't new. THEL/MTHEL has been around for a while, with some being mounted in planes. Although the official THEL program was killed a few years ago, some of the research lives on in other projects.

There are also lots of other laser based defense projects in various stages of research.
 
2013-04-08 03:40:36 PM  
Might be a better missile defense than what is currently used on ships.
 
2013-04-08 05:42:46 PM  
Old news. These guns were mounted on Arnold Schwarzenegger years ago.

i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-08 06:12:04 PM  
whycome not korea?
 
2013-04-08 06:14:23 PM  
I give it 4 decades after it's first use against ground based targets before it's banned for use against ground personnel, much like the flame thrower finally was banned in 2008.
 
2013-04-08 06:14:59 PM  

FishyFred: Old news. These guns were mounted on Arnold Schwarzenegger years ago.


Schwarzenegger's lasers mounted Mildred Patricia Baena fifteen years ago.
 
2013-04-08 06:15:11 PM  
Well, that ought to toast Jong-Un's biscuits.
 
2013-04-08 06:19:08 PM  
Had em' in concept since the 80s, in practice since the 90s, and in play since the mid 2000s
 
2013-04-08 06:19:42 PM  

FishyFred: Old news. These guns were mounted on Arnold Schwarzenegger years ago.

[i47.tinypic.com image 480x292]


point of order, those are coil guns.
 
2013-04-08 06:20:58 PM  

meat0918: I give it 4 decades after it's first use against ground based targets before it's banned for use against ground personnel, much like the flame thrower finally was banned in 2008.


If only they'd get around to that pesky apostrophe. In its 484 years it's destroyed more sentences than flames ever did.
 
2013-04-08 06:21:35 PM  

utah dude: FishyFred: Old news. These guns were mounted on Arnold Schwarzenegger years ago.

Schwarzenegger's lasers mounted Mildred Patricia Baena fifteen years ago.


OH SNAP!
 
2013-04-08 06:21:37 PM  
But can it pop popcorn?
 
2013-04-08 06:23:08 PM  
My cat will love this
 
2013-04-08 06:23:55 PM  
Running a-puck: This is fantastic! Lasers work great. Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.

With the amount of power they're talking about pumping, wouldn't it just burn through the mist.

It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-08 06:24:07 PM  
Sharks? Come on, they won't put up much of a fight against a naval ship armed with a laser.
 
2013-04-08 06:25:17 PM  
Good for air/missiles, not so much on ground based targets... damn you curvature of the earth!
 
2013-04-08 06:25:19 PM  
Not impressed.

withfriendship.com
 
2013-04-08 06:25:29 PM  

lordargent: Running a-puck: This is fantastic! Lasers work great. Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.

With the amount of power they're talking about pumping, wouldn't it just burn through the mist.

It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x218]


Oh sweet! I love Dragon Ball Z screenshots!
 
2013-04-08 06:26:10 PM  

FishyFred: Old news. These guns were mounted on Arnold Schwarzenegger years ago.

[i47.tinypic.com image 480x292]


Those were gauss rifles / rail guns, you noob.
 
2013-04-08 06:26:23 PM  

lordargent: It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.


I would think the problem would be refraction.  Lasers are still light.  I'd also wonder if heat haze interfered with lasers.
 
2013-04-08 06:27:32 PM  
5th Fleet you say?

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-04-08 06:27:46 PM  

Aarontology: Because we have all this extra money just laying around.


Yea, lets do nothing and just wait for the shiat to hit the fan.  Schadenfreude is so much more entertaining that way.
 
2013-04-08 06:28:05 PM  

hardinparamedic: lordargent: Running a-puck: This is fantastic! Lasers work great. Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.

With the amount of power they're talking about pumping, wouldn't it just burn through the mist.

It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x218]

Oh sweet! I love Dragon Ball Z screenshots!


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-08 06:28:22 PM  

hardinparamedic: lordargent: Running a-puck: This is fantastic! Lasers work great. Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.

With the amount of power they're talking about pumping, wouldn't it just burn through the mist.

It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x218]

Oh sweet! I love Dragon Ball Z screenshots!


5/10, you might catch someone unawares

/TETSUO!!!
//KANEDA!!!
 
2013-04-08 06:28:28 PM  
"Soylent green is peoZZZZZZZZZTTZZZZZTTTTZZZZZZZZT!"........Mmmm, bacon!
 
2013-04-08 06:28:40 PM  
Yay!  Popcorn for everyone!

farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2013-04-08 06:30:25 PM  

mpopowich: Yay!  Popcorn for everyone!


It goes from God, to Jerry, to the Navy.
 
2013-04-08 06:30:25 PM  
"It operates much like a blowtorch ... with an unlimited magazine," one official said.
I'd like to meet this "official". I'm selling stock in my perpetual motion machine company.
 
2013-04-08 06:32:24 PM  

Counter_Intelligent: lordargent: It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.

I would think the problem would be refraction.  Lasers are still light.  I'd also wonder if heat haze interfered with lasers.




It will shorten the range, but the beams can be adjusted to overcome this.
Considering this is a close range weapon system, it will be perfectly lethal at the distances they are concerned about.
 
2013-04-08 06:34:27 PM  

way south: Counter_Intelligent: lordargent: It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.

I would think the problem would be refraction.  Lasers are still light.  I'd also wonder if heat haze interfered with lasers.

It will shorten the range, but the beams can be adjusted to overcome this.
Considering this is a close range weapon system, it will be perfectly lethal at the distances they are concerned about.


Laser light is all the same wavelength, so the diffraction is minimal, and equal across the beam.  the light does not bend when crossing from water to air/air into water
 
2013-04-08 06:34:27 PM  
On the PONCE? Seriously, Navy? You're going to put it on the oldest, shiattiest gator in service? The rest of its class was dismantled or sold to Spain YEARS ago. Its decommissioning has been postponed THREE TIMES. It doesn't have dedicated berthing spaces, PEOPLE SLEEP IN THE P-WAYS!

WTF, Navy? WTF are you thinking?
 
2013-04-08 06:34:42 PM  

Aarontology: Because we have all this extra money just laying around.


Actually lasers will probably save quite a bit of money in the long run since they can replace missiles in some capacities.  It's much, much cheaper to simply fire a laser cannon then to manufacture and transport a missile complete with a sophisticated guidance system only for the whole thing to explode the first time you use it.  Laser cannons, unless something goes disastrously wrong, do not explode upon their first use.

Plus the fact I can use the worlds "laser cannon" when referencing actual military hardware fills me with geeky glee.
 
2013-04-08 06:34:53 PM  
www.omnigatherum.com
 
2013-04-08 06:35:03 PM  

Rhino_man: On the PONCE? Seriously, Navy? You're going to put it on the oldest, shiattiest gator in service? The rest of its class was dismantled or sold to Spain YEARS ago. Its decommissioning has been postponed THREE TIMES. It doesn't have dedicated berthing spaces, PEOPLE SLEEP IN THE P-WAYS!

WTF, Navy? WTF are you thinking?


If it goes boom, no loss
 
2013-04-08 06:35:19 PM  

lordargent: Running a-puck: This is fantastic! Lasers work great. Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.

With the amount of power they're talking about pumping, wouldn't it just burn through the mist.

It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x218]



It depends on a few factors, such as the specific wavelength of light being used, as some wavelengths are more readily absorbed by atmospheric dust or moisture better than others. Adaptive optics can help as well, as with them the firing computer can automatically adjust the beam to counteract the scattering effect of fog and dust to some degree. Adaptive optics were something they were developing for the Airborne Laser Program, and I would be very surprised if that technology was ignored when they designed this particular laser.

Laser technology IS one of the weapons technologies we'll be employing going forward for quite a while, there's no doubt. Like ANY weapons technology the capabilities at first will be limited, and as time and research marches on will get better for sure.
 
2013-04-08 06:36:26 PM  
One more point about the Ponce: It has THE VIETNMAN CAMPAIGN RIBBON ON ITS AWARDS RACK. Also, the mess decks are tiny, and smell like rancid fish half the time... even on days when they don't serve fish.

OK, so that was two more points.

Why yes, I *have* served aboard that pile of shiat, why do you ask?
 
2013-04-08 06:37:08 PM  
Next step: Fatty's head
 
2013-04-08 06:38:04 PM  
I believe you mean, "BEGIN LASER IGNITIOOOON!"
 
2013-04-08 06:39:38 PM  

meat0918: I give it 4 decades after it's first use against ground based targets before it's banned for use against ground personnel, much like the flame thrower finally was banned in 2008.


Was that really a thing? Man, I would have LOVED to hear the legal debates about whether or not soldiers could fire flame-throwers at the enemy!
 
2013-04-08 06:39:56 PM  

Rhino_man: On the PONCE? Seriously, Navy? You're going to put it on the oldest, shiattiest gator in service? The rest of its class was dismantled or sold to Spain YEARS ago. Its decommissioning has been postponed THREE TIMES. It doesn't have dedicated berthing spaces, PEOPLE SLEEP IN THE P-WAYS!

WTF, Navy? WTF are you thinking?


Oldest ? Thats the Denver ....
 
2013-04-08 06:41:46 PM  
Mmmmhm, seems familiar....

www.armchairempire.com
t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-08 06:42:18 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: meat0918: I give it 4 decades after it's first use against ground based targets before it's banned for use against ground personnel, much like the flame thrower finally was banned in 2008.

Was that really a thing? Man, I would have LOVED to hear the legal debates about whether or not soldiers could fire flame-throwers at the enemy!


The US stopped using them in the 70s, but didn't actually ban them by treaty until 2008.
 
2013-04-08 06:43:07 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: meat0918: I give it 4 decades after it's first use against ground based targets before it's banned for use against ground personnel, much like the flame thrower finally was banned in 2008.

Was that really a thing? Man, I would have LOVED to hear the legal debates about whether or not soldiers could fire flame-throwers at the enemy!


The argument was that there was no better way of accomplishing the task that would be as safe for the assaulters.  (Think caves)
 
2013-04-08 06:45:28 PM  
Fantastic! Hopefully we will be able to see it in action sometime within the next 200 years when Cylons will be our biggest threat and enemy, and not some rogue nations funding a bunch of guys with AK rifles and bombs across their backs.
 
2013-04-08 06:45:42 PM  
As I understand it, the only thing holding back laser infantry rifles is a reliable and portable power source that won't vaporize or severely poison or injure everyone in the immediate area, should it be shot or otherwise damaged.
The white paper I read a few years back was really promising, so I can only imagine what sort of progress has been made since then..
 
2013-04-08 06:46:47 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Might be a better missile defense than what is currently used on ships.


O RLY?

media.defenceindustrydaily.com
 
2013-04-08 06:47:59 PM  

Rhino_man: One more point about the Ponce: It has THE VIETNMAN CAMPAIGN RIBBON ON ITS AWARDS RACK. Also, the mess decks are tiny, and smell like rancid fish half the time... even on days when they don't serve fish.

OK, so that was two more points.

Why yes, I *have* served aboard that pile of shiat, why do you ask?


It's better to use an old ship as a test bed than take a more useful ship from frontline service just
to modified for use as a test platform for new stuff.
 
2013-04-08 06:48:20 PM  
"It operates much like a blowtorch ... with an unlimited magazine," one official said.
I'd like to meet this "official". I'm selling stock in my perpetual motion machine company.

He means that you're not limited to a discrete number of ammo rounds like you are with guns/missiles. As long as the ship has fuel, it can generate power for many laser shots until ship's fuel runs out.

We're working on electric ship technology that features multiple power generators scattered around the ship, electric propulsion, electric catapults, electric weapons, and switching technologies for routing power between propulsion and weapons as needed. I like working for the Navy. We do cool stuff.

/except Thursday.
//Spent Thursday curled up on a cargo pallet in the Helo hangar on the USS Ft. Worth with a nasty cold while the ship ripped along at 40 kts doing steep turns.
//got up only to do my test events
 
2013-04-08 06:48:22 PM  

meat0918: The US stopped using them in the 70s, but didn't actually ban them by treaty until 2008.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-08 06:48:38 PM  
Hurr. Whar my second amendment right to own civilian model?
/I only want it to hunt deer with, really.
//cook 'em on the hoof.
///Slashies for the military budget that is hurting so bad it brings us this.
 
2013-04-08 06:48:47 PM  
I for one am glad to see that my small contribution to our $700 billion/yr defence budget is bearing fruition in next generation military weaponry!
Imagine if we increase our defence budget to $1 trillion/yr we will have X-Wing class fighter after the Raptors.
 
2013-04-08 06:48:52 PM  

fusillade762: Because People in power are Stupid: Might be a better missile defense than what is currently used on ships.

O RLY?

[media.defenceindustrydaily.com image 800x570]


I'd have to agree with you there. With lasers all you have to do is make the missile spin and distribute the energy from the laser evenly over the surface, which would significantly reduce the likelihood of it being shot down, whereas a bullet from that thing will dot he job, spinning missile or no.
 
2013-04-08 06:49:42 PM  
www.lolsaints.com
 
2013-04-08 06:51:05 PM  

Rhino_man: One more point about the Ponce: It has THE VIETNMAN CAMPAIGN RIBBON ON ITS AWARDS RACK. Also, the mess decks are tiny, and smell like rancid fish half the time... even on days when they don't serve fish.

OK, so that was two more points.

Why yes, I *have* served aboard that pile of shiat, why do you ask?


Fellow proud lion here. I was surprised to learn it was still floating let alone capable of being the test ship for this new system.
 
2013-04-08 06:51:20 PM  
Now they just need a really big cat to tease.
 
2013-04-08 06:51:40 PM  

Running a-puck: This is fantastic!  Lasers work great.  Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.


Or over the horizon which NEVER happens in modern warfare either!
 
2013-04-08 06:52:19 PM  
"FIRE PHASERS!"
"Um, sir. It's a laser, not a phaser."
"WHATEVER!"
 
2013-04-08 06:52:54 PM  

Turbo Cojones: Running a-puck: This is fantastic!  Lasers work great.  Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.

Or over the horizon which NEVER happens in modern warfare either!


That's what the rail gun is for, these are point defense weapons
 
2013-04-08 06:53:27 PM  

fusillade762: Because People in power are Stupid: Might be a better missile defense than what is currently used on ships.

O RLY?

[media.defenceindustrydaily.com image 800x570]


R2 never breaks!
 
2013-04-08 06:53:32 PM  

Rhino_man: On the PONCE? Seriously, Navy? You're going to put it on the oldest, shiattiest gator in service? The rest of its class was dismantled or sold to Spain YEARS ago. Its decommissioning has been postponed THREE TIMES. It doesn't have dedicated berthing spaces, PEOPLE SLEEP IN THE P-WAYS!

WTF, Navy? WTF are you thinking?


its on the
USS Dewey - DDG 105
either you cant read, or someone corrected a typo.
 
2013-04-08 06:54:26 PM  

Scott_Free: mpopowich: Yay!  Popcorn for everyone!

It goes from God, to Jerry, to the Navy.


<img src="http://i.imgur.com/pyc3Bw3.jpg">
"Look, it was hot and I was hungry, okay?"
 
2013-04-08 06:55:02 PM  

grokca: Finally we can get CHA written on the moon.


We all know where THAT leads. We try to fix it, some dude takes a bite...
 
2013-04-08 06:55:39 PM  
But do they have it in the 40 watt range?

/Hey, just what you see, pal!
 
Rie
2013-04-08 06:56:01 PM  
"Navy to deploys lasers"

Excellent proof-reading there, Fox.
 
2013-04-08 06:56:08 PM  
Guess I'll try again

i.imgur.com
"Look, it was hot and I was hungry, okay?"
 
2013-04-08 06:56:33 PM  

Running a-puck: This is fantastic!  Lasers work great.  Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.


dont forget how rain makes the steal bombers totally visible and makes them ineffective.   And GPS bombs.. easily totally defeatable
 
2013-04-08 06:57:24 PM  

angrymacface: "FIRE PHASERS!"
"Um, sir. It's a laser, not a phaser."
"WHATEVER!"


"SET LASERS ON BURN!"
 
2013-04-08 06:57:49 PM  
The dirty secret of lasers is the effect on personnel. At longer ranges these powerful lasers can permanently blind people. The horrors of war are to include a weapon that can cause wholesale blindness among soldiers and affected noncombatants.
I felt the article was avoiding this issue with this quote "of obliterating small boats and unmanned aerial vehicles."  Sooner or later, blinding is going to be a major issue with these weapons.
 
2013-04-08 06:57:51 PM  
Because People in power are Stupid: Might be a better missile defense than what is currently used on ships.

O RLY?

[media.defenceindustrydaily.com image 800x570]


R2 never breaks!

Actually the fleet used to say CIWS stood for "Christ It Won't Shoot!"

/Jesus Christ this text editor is farked up!
 
2013-04-08 06:58:01 PM  

Aarontology: Because we have all this extra money just laying around.


There is nothing wrong with spending money to make something.  What is worthless is handing money out to do nothing.  That's good for getting votes, I guess.
 
2013-04-08 07:00:00 PM  

meat0918: I give it 4 decades after it's first use against ground based targets before it's banned for use against ground personnel, much like the flame thrower finally was banned in 2008.


This is another one of those things. One of those "war crimes."

If you're going to ban the use of chemical weapons, hollowpoints, and flame throwers, why fark around? Ban the use of rifles and grenades. Ban bombs. Just make war illegal.
 
2013-04-08 07:01:37 PM  

ProudBoiler: Rhino_man: One more point about the Ponce: It has THE VIETNMAN CAMPAIGN RIBBON ON ITS AWARDS RACK. Also, the mess decks are tiny, and smell like rancid fish half the time... even on days when they don't serve fish.

OK, so that was two more points.

Why yes, I *have* served aboard that pile of shiat, why do you ask?

Fellow proud lion here. I was surprised to learn it was still floating let alone capable of being the test ship for this new system.


Well, I suspect that they are going to have to rip the crud out of the interior spaces to add in more generators and a giant capacitor bank, so probably an old ship is best for a test bed since they are going to wreck it. Next time they build one they will know what to plan for, but now they don't exactly.
 
2013-04-08 07:06:34 PM  
Will cuomo pass a ban on me owning an assault laser rifle?
 
2013-04-08 07:07:46 PM  
That pic makes it look like they blasted a Star Destroyer.
 
2013-04-08 07:09:35 PM  

Yogimus: Laser light is all the same wavelength, so the diffraction is minimal, and equal across the beam. the light does not bend when crossing from water to air/air into water


Sure it does. There won't be much of a beam-spreading prism-like effect, but it will still refract.
 
2013-04-08 07:11:40 PM  

jigger: This is another one of those things. One of those "war crimes."

If you're going to ban the use of chemical weapons, hollowpoints, and flame throwers, why fark around? Ban the use of rifles and grenades. Ban bombs. Just make war illegal.


Insert joke about war free zones here.

Personally, I think it'd be farking awesome if wars were decided by gigantic paintball matches.
 
2013-04-08 07:14:04 PM  

mark12A: We're working on electric ship technology that features multiple power generators scattered around the ship, electric propulsion, electric catapults, electric weapons, and switching technologies for routing power between propulsion and weapons as needed. I like working for the Navy. We do cool stuff.


We're also building new nuclear powered ships to generate 4 times they need to run every bit of electrical equipment on the current ones, in anticipation of shiat like this. So yeah- pretty much unlimited.

angrymacface: "FIRE PHASERS!"
"Um, sir. It's a laser, not a phaser."
"WHATEVER!"


Hmm- a college degree makes me eligible to be an officer, right?
 
2013-04-08 07:14:21 PM  

KarmicDisaster: ProudBoiler: Rhino_man: One more point about the Ponce: It has THE VIETNMAN CAMPAIGN RIBBON ON ITS AWARDS RACK. Also, the mess decks are tiny, and smell like rancid fish half the time... even on days when they don't serve fish.

OK, so that was two more points.

Why yes, I *have* served aboard that pile of shiat, why do you ask?

Fellow proud lion here. I was surprised to learn it was still floating let alone capable of being the test ship for this new system.

Well, I suspect that they are going to have to rip the crud out of the interior spaces to add in more generators and a giant capacitor bank, so probably an old ship is best for a test bed since they are going to wreck it. Next time they build one they will know what to plan for, but now they don't exactly.


The Ponce has been retrofitted to serve as an afloat forward operating base in the Persian Gulf, where it will be in the crosshairs of all kinds of Iranian cruise missiles if things go bad there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ponce_(LPD-15)#Afloat_Forward_Stagi ng _Base.2C_Interim_.28AFSB-I.29

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-27/world/35441366_1_somal i- pirates-mothership-commando
 
2013-04-08 07:14:57 PM  

fusillade762: Because People in power are Stupid: Might be a better missile defense than what is currently used on ships.

O RLY?

[media.defenceindustrydaily.com image 800x570]


I don't know, it did rather poorly against those porcupine aliens in Hawaii
 
2013-04-08 07:15:21 PM  

Running a-puck: This is fantastic!  Lasers work great.  Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.


LUDDITE!

fusillade762: Because People in power are Stupid: Might be a better missile defense than what is currently used on ships.

O RLY?

[media.defenceindustrydaily.com image 800x570]


LUDDITE! (Uh oh, your guns are threatened!)

lordargent: It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.


But of course. This is why industrial cutting lasers work from across the room and not, say, 0.1mm from the surface with super powerful vacuum around it. It's not like the material being vaporized creates a cloud in front of the laser, which has been finely tuned to be absorbed by the material in question.

Speaking of finely tuned, anyone follow the pork on this?
 
2013-04-08 07:16:29 PM  

utah dude: whycome not korea?


Damn, beat me to it.
 
2013-04-08 07:17:24 PM  
First of all, you don't "burn" mist. The problem with lasers is that they are light and are subject to refraction and diffusion. More moisture = more dissipation of the beam. This also limits the effectiveness of lasers in ANY atmosphere (even a dry one) The effectiveness of this weapon over a distance will not be cost effective to achieve. A more reasonable development for energy weapons is in directed particle cannons that fundamentally turn the air into a superconductor and then electrify it, frying directional computers and possibly igniting warheads.

Think of the idea that missiles will become obsolete as directed energy defenses become the situational norm, their trump being magnetic rail sabots. Directed energy will be unlikely to stop a tungsten rod flung with little heat signature from miles and miles away.

Though, lasers would definitely be useful in space. Nothing's gonna help us if we start laser-shredding up eachother's satellites in orbit. Imagine a giant whirling hellstorm of fractured nearly forever in orbit that rips everything we send up there to ribbons, effectively blocking us from meaningful use of space. Freaky eh?
 
2013-04-08 07:17:25 PM  
Well, on the plus side, the Navy now has a superb tool for shooting down slow-moving drones inexpensively.

On the downside, the Navy just wasted god-only knows how much developing a weapon that only shoots down something nobody was ever using to attack them -- and it's planning to spend another US$32 million a pop on deploying it.
 
2013-04-08 07:18:22 PM  

cptjeff: Hmm- a college degree makes me eligible to be an officer, right?


It worked for FLYNAVY
 
2013-04-08 07:18:42 PM  

LordOfThePings: [www.lolsaints.com image 480x360]


Not sure why I laughed so hard at this.  But I did.
 
2013-04-08 07:19:32 PM  

Sanguine Dawn: Though, lasers would definitely be useful in space. Nothing's gonna help us if we start laser-shredding up eachother's satellites in orbit. Imagine a giant whirling hellstorm of fractured nearly forever in orbit that rips everything we send up there to ribbons, effectively blocking us from meaningful use of space. Freaky eh?


I think that's quantum apostrophes dream, us no longer poluttin space like that, and just staying on out little mudball
 
2013-04-08 07:21:25 PM  

loonatic112358: I think that's quantum apostrophes dream, us no longer poluttin space like that, and just staying on out little mudball


Oh no, our little mud ball! You retard.

Sanguine Dawn: Nothing's gonna help us if we start laser-shredding up eachother's satellites in orbit. Imagine a giant whirling hellstorm of fractured nearly forever in orbit that rips everything we send up there to ribbons, effectively blocking us from meaningful use of space. Freaky eh?


Put down the comic books, son.
 
2013-04-08 07:21:39 PM  
I thought the coolest part of the video was the fact we have flying wing drones.
 
2013-04-08 07:23:05 PM  

whither_apophis: I thought the coolest part of the video was the fact we have flying wing drones.


So do the French.

www.airforce-technology.com
 
2013-04-08 07:23:55 PM  

hardinparamedic: jigger: This is another one of those things. One of those "war crimes."

If you're going to ban the use of chemical weapons, hollowpoints, and flame throwers, why fark around? Ban the use of rifles and grenades. Ban bombs. Just make war illegal.

Insert joke about war free zones here.

Personally, I think it'd be farking awesome if wars were decided by gigantic paintball matches.


Then send the losers to the disintegration machines!
 
2013-04-08 07:24:09 PM  
Sanguine Dawn: Though, lasers would definitely be useful in space. Nothing's gonna help us if we start laser-shredding up eachother's satellites in orbit. Imagine a giant whirling hellstorm of fractured nearly forever in orbit that rips everything we send up there to ribbons, effectively blocking us from meaningful use of space. Freaky eh?

I think that's quantum apostrophes dream, us no longer poluttin space like that, and just staying on out little mudball


I think I got that idea from the RIFTS PnP RPG universe. I believe all the decayed junk in orbit after a series of apocalyptic, xenodimensional disasters rendered orbit and space inaccessible.
 
2013-04-08 07:24:43 PM  

gweilo8888: On the downside, the Navy just wasted god-only knows how much developing a weapon that only shoots down something nobody was ever using to attack them -- and it's planning to spend another US$32 million a pop on deploying it.


I think the article also mentioned its use against small boats, and it sounds like this would be useful against unmanned aerial vehicles and other slower moving aircraft.

Power requirements must be ungodly though, so I will be a little pessimistic until I can learn more than is mentioned in the article.
 
2013-04-08 07:24:51 PM  
d3gtl9l2a4fn1j.cloudfront.net
Do you have any idea what a laser like that could do?

global.fncstatic.com
Oh, you do? Okay then, carry on.
 
2013-04-08 07:24:56 PM  

Yogimus: Rhino_man: On the PONCE? Seriously, Navy? You're going to put it on the oldest, shiattiest gator in service? The rest of its class was dismantled or sold to Spain YEARS ago. Its decommissioning has been postponed THREE TIMES. It doesn't have dedicated berthing spaces, PEOPLE SLEEP IN THE P-WAYS!

WTF, Navy? WTF are you thinking?

If it goes boom, no loss


Or...when they provoke a small incident to "test" its effectiveness, should it fail and the ship be lost...well its one they wanted to get rid of anyways.
 
2013-04-08 07:26:12 PM  

Running a-puck: This is fantastic!  Lasers work great.  Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.


Yogimus: Good for air/missiles, not so much on ground based targets... damn you curvature of the earth!


That's what the 16/50's are for...
www.history.navy.mil

/for when something on the other side of the horizon has pissed you off...
 
2013-04-08 07:26:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: cptjeff: Hmm- a college degree makes me eligible to be an officer, right?

It worked for FLYNAVY


I actually just got professionally recommended for OCS with a bachelors last month, still waiting on a final selection letter.

Been wary of saying anything because of FLYNAVY, and also because I haven't done shiat yet.
 
2013-04-08 07:27:52 PM  

Theeng: hardinparamedic: cptjeff: Hmm- a college degree makes me eligible to be an officer, right?

It worked for FLYNAVY

I actually just got professionally recommended for OCS with a bachelors last month, still waiting on a final selection letter.

Been wary of saying anything because of FLYNAVY, and also because I haven't done shiat yet.


congratulations and good luck
 
2013-04-08 07:28:10 PM  
That whole "banned against ground targets" thing is going right out the window the first time it's really needed.
 
2013-04-08 07:29:03 PM  

Theeng: hardinparamedic: cptjeff: Hmm- a college degree makes me eligible to be an officer, right?

It worked for FLYNAVY

I actually just got professionally recommended for OCS with a bachelors last month, still waiting on a final selection letter.

Been wary of saying anything because of FLYNAVY, and also because I haven't done shiat yet.


Bravo, Sir. I wish you luck in your career.

My knee failed me in Army Basic, so I got 4-F'd out. (Well, ELS in today's language. Had to outprocess with some real freaking sociopaths. -.- ). I've decided I'm going to finish my BSN, and then direct commission with either ARmy Medical as a nurse, or go Public Health Corps route. My lack of cartilage in my knee won't stop me there.
 
2013-04-08 07:29:08 PM  

Aarontology: Because we have all this extra money just laying around.


It was actually much cheaper to develop than a missile system, and if it can take even some of the role of missiles it will save quite a bit of money. And it has non-lethal uses too.
 
2013-04-08 07:29:15 PM  

DreamSnipers: The dirty secret of lasers is the effect on personnel. At longer ranges these powerful lasers can permanently blind people. The horrors of war are to include a weapon that can cause wholesale blindness among soldiers and affected noncombatants.
I felt the article was avoiding this issue with this quote "of obliterating small boats and unmanned aerial vehicles."  Sooner or later, blinding is going to be a major issue with these weapons.


If you're being targeted with a high powered laser like this, its intent is to take out you or the transportation you're using.  Currently, that's done by shooting projectiles out of a gun/cannon, or by rocket/missile.  With those, you have a high chance of being torn through by the projectile, or by being blown up.  And if the intended target is missed, then noncombatants have a good chance of being directly or indirectly hit.

So I really don't see what the difference is.  Blind or blown up.
 
2013-04-08 07:31:56 PM  
The SS Shoop da woop

memberfiles.freewebs.com
 
2013-04-08 07:35:30 PM  
The Ponce has been retrofitted to serve as an afloat forward operating base in the Persian Gulf, where it will be in the crosshairs of all kinds of Iranian cruise missiles if things go bad there.

I did some work on the Ponce cargo handling systems last year, and they were doing everything short of buying billboard space to advertise what they intend to do in the gulf with the ship. The situation kinda smells. I recommended they re-name the ship to "USS Tonkin Gulf"
 
2013-04-08 07:35:45 PM  

Rhino_man: On the PONCE? Seriously, Navy? You're going to put it on the oldest, shiattiest gator in service? The rest of its class was dismantled or sold to Spain YEARS ago. Its decommissioning has been postponed THREE TIMES. It doesn't have dedicated berthing spaces, PEOPLE SLEEP IN THE P-WAYS!

WTF, Navy? WTF are you thinking?


The laser gun and associated generators and machinery emit "comparatively safe" levels of radiation.  Nobody remembers the Ponce or its godforsaken crew, so when the glowing, crewless hulk is discovered in 6 months it can simply be scuttled with no one the wiser.

/I read about it in a magazine
 
2013-04-08 07:43:38 PM  
Just point the lasers aft of the ship. Propulsion by laser. Or point them off the prow and get sucked along from evaporated ocean. Or...
 
2013-04-08 07:44:39 PM  

hardinparamedic: FishyFred: Old news. These guns were mounted on Arnold Schwarzenegger years ago.

[i47.tinypic.com image 480x292]

point of order, those are coil guns.


Except they're not. They're rail guns.
 
2013-04-08 07:44:43 PM  

Doubleodoug: But can it pop popcorn?


Was wondering if anyone would see the Real Genius in this.
Well done.
 
2013-04-08 07:47:43 PM  
Anybody remember the Reagan Star Wars program? If I remember correctly, one of it's key assets was a very powerful x-ray laser. It's one shot deal because the damn thing was actually powered by a small nuke.

Yea, you got that right. Reagan wanted to hang small nukes over our heads, in geosynchronous orbit, just waiting to go off.
Imagine that scenario as one of them crashes through the city park trees, on it's way to exploding and wiping out a random decidedly non military local ground level target.
Or It could be Skynet really starts...
 
2013-04-08 07:48:44 PM  
In other news, the new "ultra-shiny mirror finish" for sea and aircraft has become increasingly popular among militaries around the world.
 
2013-04-08 07:50:31 PM  
Wouldn't technically have to be a hellstorm. Just enough junk to make orbit treacherous.
 
2013-04-08 07:50:47 PM  

lostcat: In other news, the new "ultra-shiny mirror finish" for sea and aircraft has become increasingly popular among militaries around the world.


Mirrors aren't Omani-directional, and may actually cause an even worse failure depending on how the light reflects out.
 
2013-04-08 07:51:19 PM  

hardinparamedic: Personally, I think it'd be farking awesome if wars were decided by gigantic paintball matches.


Rock-paper-scissors.
 
2013-04-08 07:51:48 PM  

ShadowKamui: lostcat: In other news, the new "ultra-shiny mirror finish" for sea and aircraft has become increasingly popular among militaries around the world.

Mirrors aren't Omani-directional, and may actually cause an even worse failure depending on how the light reflects out.


That was a joke.
 
2013-04-08 07:54:14 PM  
Fark lasers.  I want a phaser-maser-taser-blazer-laser.
 
2013-04-08 07:55:21 PM  

Yogimus: TheOtherMisterP: meat0918: I give it 4 decades after it's first use against ground based targets before it's banned for use against ground personnel, much like the flame thrower finally was banned in 2008.

Was that really a thing? Man, I would have LOVED to hear the legal debates about whether or not soldiers could fire flame-throwers at the enemy!

The argument was that there was no better way of accomplishing the task that would be as safe for the assaulters.  (Think caves)


Thermal grenades pretty much do the same thing.
 
2013-04-08 07:55:26 PM  

Click Click D'oh: 5th Fleet you say?

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 512x256]


Glad I'm not the only one.
 
2013-04-08 07:56:17 PM  

ShadowKamui: lostcat: In other news, the new "ultra-shiny mirror finish" for sea and aircraft has become increasingly popular among militaries around the world.

Mirrors aren't Omani-directional, and may actually cause an even worse failure depending on how the light reflects out.


lol...well played

/on purpose or not
 
2013-04-08 08:01:58 PM  
spectacularopticalcorp.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-08 08:03:27 PM  

meat0918: I give it 4 decades after it's first use against ground based targets before it's banned for use against ground personnel, much like the flame thrower finally was banned in 2008.


No one uses them any more.  The US quit using them in the late 70s.   They might as well have banned spiked maces, too.
 
2013-04-08 08:05:14 PM  

Mock26: Fark lasers.  I want a phaser-maser-taser-blazer-laser.


What you really need is a Quad laser.

/jumping is useless!
 
2013-04-08 08:07:10 PM  

snake_beater: Click Click D'oh: 5th Fleet you say?

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 512x256]

Glad I'm not the only one.


Hack it out, you two.
 
2013-04-08 08:11:51 PM  

Sanguine Dawn: First of all, you don't "burn" mist. The problem with lasers is that they are light and are subject to refraction and diffusion. More moisture = more dissipation of the beam. This also limits the effectiveness of lasers in ANY atmosphere (even a dry one) The effectiveness of this weapon over a distance will not be cost effective to achieve. A more reasonable development for energy weapons is in directed particle cannons that fundamentally turn the air into a superconductor and then electrify it, frying directional computers and possibly igniting warheads.

Think of the idea that missiles will become obsolete as directed energy defenses become the situational norm, their trump being magnetic rail sabots. Directed energy will be unlikely to stop a tungsten rod flung with little heat signature from miles and miles away.

Though, lasers would definitely be useful in space. Nothing's gonna help us if we start laser-shredding up eachother's satellites in orbit. Imagine a giant whirling hellstorm of fractured nearly forever in orbit that rips everything we send up there to ribbons, effectively blocking us from meaningful use of space. Freaky eh?


Indeed. If I were a rogue state/non-state actor, that would be some nasty terrorism. Set up some kind of energy weapon (or recoiless rifle) in space, cut down national and commercial satellites (or just nudge them out of orbit), and watch the debris clouds fly. Bad news for the longevity of what's up there, unless you want to start armoring satellites at ludicrous cost.

/at least until someone invents kinetic barriers
 
2013-04-08 08:11:54 PM  

fusillade762: What you really need is a Quad laser.


This post descent-approved..
 
2013-04-08 08:14:54 PM  
I WANT ONE!!!
 
2013-04-08 08:16:56 PM  
Iran, you suck at Photoshop:

US, you suck at After Effects and Premiere.
 
2013-04-08 08:17:30 PM  

hardinparamedic: FishyFred: Old news. These guns were mounted on Arnold Schwarzenegger years ago.

[i47.tinypic.com image 480x292]

point of order, those are coil guns.


I think you meant rail guns
 
2013-04-08 08:19:05 PM  

lostcat: ShadowKamui: lostcat: In other news, the new "ultra-shiny mirror finish" for sea and aircraft has become increasingly popular among militaries around the world.

Mirrors aren't Omani-directional, and may actually cause an even worse failure depending on how the light reflects out.

That was a joke.


Why a joke? I'd think that a mirror (tuned to relevant frequencies; here in the IR gold film on mylar might be good) would be an inexpensive and moderately effective defense. As Larry Niven advises, "Never fire a laser at a mirror"
 
2013-04-08 08:22:10 PM  

Rhino_man: One more point about the Ponce: It has THE VIETNMAN CAMPAIGN RIBBON ON ITS AWARDS RACK. Also, the mess decks are tiny, and smell like rancid fish half the time... even on days when they don't serve fish.

OK, so that was two more points.

Why yes, I *have* served aboard that pile of shiat, why do you ask?


What years & Division?  The reason I ask is one of my former shipmates, transferred to the Ponce in '89.

/former USS Portland engineer
 
2013-04-08 08:25:16 PM  
Not impressed.

Nice!
 
2013-04-08 08:26:25 PM  
You know, if anything, this should scare the shiat out of Iran and North Korea for more then any of our military deployments.  They're still playing with sticks and stones and 30+ year old air craft / tank technology, etc, and we're PUTTING farkING LASERS ON SHIPS.
 
2013-04-08 08:29:12 PM  

DreamSnipers: The dirty secret of lasers is the effect on personnel. At longer ranges these powerful lasers can permanently blind people. The horrors of war are to include a weapon that can cause wholesale blindness among soldiers and affected noncombatants.
I felt the article was avoiding this issue with this quote "of obliterating small boats and unmanned aerial vehicles."  Sooner or later, blinding is going to be a major issue with these weapons.


Should we ban stone burners too?
 
2013-04-08 08:30:58 PM  

AndreMA: lostcat: ShadowKamui: lostcat: In other news, the new "ultra-shiny mirror finish" for sea and aircraft has become increasingly popular among militaries around the world.

Mirrors aren't Omani-directional, and may actually cause an even worse failure depending on how the light reflects out.

That was a joke.

Why a joke? I'd think that a mirror (tuned to relevant frequencies; here in the IR gold film on mylar might be good) would be an inexpensive and moderately effective defense. As Larry Niven advises, "Never fire a laser at a mirror"


and if you're firing it at something the same color as the laser, be patient
 
2013-04-08 08:32:56 PM  

mark12A: "It operates much like a blowtorch ... with an unlimited magazine," one official said.I'd like to meet this "official". I'm selling stock in my perpetual motion machine company.

He means that you're not limited to a discrete number of ammo rounds like you are with guns/missiles. As long as the ship has fuel, it can generate power for many laser shots until ship's fuel runs out.

We're working on electric ship technology that features multiple power generators scattered around the ship, electric propulsion, electric catapults, electric weapons, and switching technologies for routing power between propulsion and weapons as needed. I like working for the Navy. We do cool stuff.

/except Thursday.
//Spent Thursday curled up on a cargo pallet in the Helo hangar on the USS Ft. Worth with a nasty cold while the ship ripped along at 40 kts doing steep turns.
//got up only to do my test events


aww...

and don't forget the nuclear power

nuclear

power

.
 
2013-04-08 08:35:00 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: dont forget how rain makes the steal bombers totally visible and makes them ineffective.


Nothing is more ineffective than stolen bombers.
 
2013-04-08 08:39:30 PM  
Geneva Convention 2.0 anyone?

/in B4 military-minded jack-wipes that are incapable of furthering humankind?
// nope, late to party
///enjoy your paycheck/my taxes
////and your mallcop job whenever you get off the government dole
 
2013-04-08 08:42:12 PM  
johnny_vegas:

congratulations and good luck

hardinparamedic:
Bravo, Sir. I wish you luck in your career.

My knee failed me in Army Basic, so I got 4-F'd out. (Well, ELS in today's language. Had to outprocess with some real freaking sociopaths. -.- ). I've decided I'm going to finish my BSN, and then direct commission with either ARmy Medical as a nurse, or go Public Health Corps route. My lack of cartilage in my knee won't stop me there.



Thanks guys, and that sounds like a plan hardin.

Oh forgot to say it's navy OCS, trying for SWO.
 
2013-04-08 08:42:38 PM  
Your move gun nuts that will take on the government.

/Go on, tell me how you're thirty round clip will defend you from fikkin' lasers.
 
2013-04-08 08:43:03 PM  

DreamSnipers: The dirty secret of lasers is the effect on personnel. At longer ranges these powerful lasers can permanently blind people. The horrors of war are to include a weapon that can cause wholesale blindness among soldiers and affected n.
I felt the article was avoiding this issue with this quote "of obliterating small boats and unmanned aerial vehicles."  Sooner or later, blinding is going to be a major issue with these weapons.


I dunno about this. Infrared lasers don't cause a photochemical reaction in the eye, so nerve damage isn't possible from "overloading" in the same way it would be with a visible light laser. The real danger from infrared lasers is that they will heat the liquid inside your eye and you won't even realize it because the beam is invisible. However, unlike scientific and industrial lasers, this laser is not used at close range and atmospheric effects are naturally going to de-collimate the beam. Thus, you're probably getting hit with a beam something like a foot in diameter, so you're just as likely to have your face melted as you are to sustain laser eye damage.

Your retinas do focus near-infrared laser energy though, so the real question is whether the laser is powerful enough to blind you instantly but not face-melt you, or if it's going to melt your face anyway.
 
2013-04-08 08:43:42 PM  

violentsalvation: Aarontology: Because we have all this extra money just laying around.

It was actually much cheaper to develop than a missile system, and if it can take even some of the role of missiles it will save quite a bit of money. And it has non-lethal uses too.


Yeah, I hear that if you synchronize it to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" album, and hand out a little free herbage, you'll finally achieve lasting peace in the Middle East.
 
2013-04-08 08:46:54 PM  

chuggernaught: Your move gun nuts that will take on the government.

/Go on, tell me how you're thirty round clip will defend you from fikkin' lasers.


Shoot the guy working the laser. Duh.
 
2013-04-08 08:52:30 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Running a-puck: This is fantastic!  Lasers work great.  Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.

dont forget how rain makes the steal bombers totally visible and makes them ineffective.   And GPS bombs.. easily totally defeatable


[citation needed]
 
2013-04-08 08:55:27 PM  

Somaticasual: Had em' in concept since the 80s, in practice since the 90s, and in play since the mid 2000s


Did you rtfa?

The air-mounted lasers cost 1.5 billion each, and were expensive to operate, and were eventually cancelled.

These cost 32 million each, and cost $1 per "round" of power, and are going into service in 2014.

Its not so much the overall technology - its that it is now realistically affordable, and accurate (12 for 12 anyway)
 
2013-04-08 08:58:01 PM  

alienated: Rhino_man: On the PONCE? Seriously, Navy? You're going to put it on the oldest, shiattiest gator in service? The rest of its class was dismantled or sold to Spain YEARS ago. Its decommissioning has been postponed THREE TIMES. It doesn't have dedicated berthing spaces, PEOPLE SLEEP IN THE P-WAYS!

WTF, Navy? WTF are you thinking?

Oldest ? Thats the Denver ....


The constitution (1797) is still in service...
 
2013-04-08 08:59:05 PM  

chuggernaught: Your move gun nuts that will take on the government.

/Go on, tell me how you're thirty round clip will defend you from fikkin' lasers.




After the events of Cambodia, Bosnia, Somalia, etc... I've always wondered why people think big ticket military hardware (which they don't control) protects them from their neighbors.
 
2013-04-08 08:59:50 PM  

Treetop1000: Anybody remember the Reagan Star Wars program? If I remember correctly, one of it's key assets was a very powerful x-ray laser. It's one shot deal because the damn thing was actually powered by a small nuke.

Yea, you got that right. Reagan wanted to hang small nukes over our heads, in geosynchronous orbit, just waiting to go off.
Imagine that scenario as one of them crashes through the city park trees, on it's way to exploding and wiping out a random decidedly non military local ground level target.
Or It could be Skynet really starts...



Star wars was a bluff intended to bankrupt and demoralize the Soviet Union. We didn't have the technology to do any of it, in fact we still don't.

It was quite interesting in the 1970's you had the B-1 and the tomahawk cruise missile which both specialize in slipping under radar at low levels. Soviet Union spent billions upgrading their Air defense to specifically counter this threat. And then as soon as they were done America sprang the B-2 stealth bomber on them which made their fancy new air defense system obsolete. Then Reagan announces SDI which would make Soviet ICBM's useless. The soviets couldn't match this but what they didn't know is we couldn't do it either. America didn't have to build it they only had to convince the Soviet's that they could and would build it. This along with cheap Saudi oil depressing the value of Russia's oil exports bankrupted the Soviet Union and ended the cold war.
 
2013-04-08 09:01:40 PM  

way south: chuggernaught: Your move gun nuts that will take on the government.

/Go on, tell me how you're thirty round clip will defend you from fikkin' lasers.

After the events of Cambodia, Bosnia, Somalia, etc... I've always wondered why people think big ticket military hardware (which they don't control) protects them from their neighbors.


Those aren't our neighbors. The big ticket military hardware is there to protect us from our truly evil neighbors. The Canadians.
 
2013-04-08 09:10:55 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: violentsalvation: Aarontology: Because we have all this extra money just laying around.

It was actually much cheaper to develop than a missile system, and if it can take even some of the role of missiles it will save quite a bit of money. And it has non-lethal uses too.

Yeah, I hear that if you synchronize it to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" album, and hand out a little free herbage, you'll finally achieve lasting peace in the Middle East.


Well, lets say some Iraqi boat is making hostile movements (like they were a few months ago) - we don't want to shoot them. But we can set the laser on low - say150 degrees (F) - and heat them them until they leave. Or we just burn their flag off their mast, for grins. Non-lethal, cheap, and lulzy.

Heck, we could even write graffiti on the side of their boat. Not that I would condone it, but writing "Justin Beiber is totally hot!" on the side of an Iraqi warship would be entertaining.

This is the beauty of using lasers. You can dial them down more than you can a bullet/missile, while simultaneously hit a remote target much farther away with greater accuracy.
 
2013-04-08 09:22:41 PM  
Preparations A through G were complete failures, but it appears they now have a working prototype.
 
2013-04-08 09:22:51 PM  
Forget sharks. Dinosaurs are where it's at!
 
2013-04-08 09:23:40 PM  

Khell: DreamSnipers: The dirty secret of lasers is the effect on personnel. At longer ranges these powerful lasers can permanently blind people. The horrors of war are to include a weapon that can cause wholesale blindness among soldiers and affected noncombatants.
I felt the article was avoiding this issue with this quote "of obliterating small boats and unmanned aerial vehicles."  Sooner or later, blinding is going to be a major issue with these weapons.

If you're being targeted with a high powered laser like this, its intent is to take out you or the transportation you're using.  Currently, that's done by shooting projectiles out of a gun/cannon, or by rocket/missile.  With those, you have a high chance of being torn through by the projectile, or by being blown up.  And if the intended target is missed, then noncombatants have a good chance of being directly or indirectly hit.

So I really don't see what the difference is.  Blind or blown up.


The difference is there will be no attempt to blow up.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Turning+a+blind+eye+to+inhumane+weapon s. -a016684100
In the end they will be used simply as a weapon to blind.
 
2013-04-08 09:28:41 PM  

ISO15693: Well, lets say some Iraqi boat is making hostile movements (like they were a few months ago) - we don't want to shoot them. But we can set the laser on low - say150 degrees (F) - and heat them them until they leave. Or we just burn their flag off their mast, for grins. Non-lethal, cheap, and lulzy.


Warning shots are for TV and Hollywood. In real life, you shoot to kill or you don't shoot at all. In the case of a laser weapon you're going to burn/blind/maim people.
 
2013-04-08 09:30:09 PM  

AndreMA: Why a joke? I'd think that a mirror (tuned to relevant frequencies; here in the IR gold film on mylar might be good) would be an inexpensive and moderately effective defense. As Larry Niven advises, "Never fire a laser at a mirror"


To answer your question honestly, it is moderately effective, but only for a couple of seconds. Mirrors in general are good reflectors, but not good enough.

http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys514/modules/module3/electromagneti c_ waves.htm

In the "Plane waves at boundaries" section, you'll see approximate boundary conditions for incident E&M energy onto a good conductor (e.g., a metal surface). The first and fourth equations in those two columns are basically telling you that incident energy is going to cause current flow on the surface of the reflective conductor. For normal mirrors at ambient light, this current is very small and you don't have much to worry about. If you start getting into 10s of kilowatts of energy though, even the mirror will start getting pretty hot pretty fast; especially for a semi-continuous-beam laser. And the thing is, those boundary conditions don't require a mirrored surface. The mirrored surface just reflects light (mostly) in one direction. Any metal surface that simply scatters light is vulnerable to the same heating effects.

And once that starts happening, stuff like this starts happening.

3.bp.blogspot.com

Obviously motorcycle exhaust pipes take more than a few seconds to discolor, but a simple mirrored surface at high temperature will begin to "discolor" (react/oxidize/whatever) pretty quickly. That, in turn, will cause it's reflectivity to drop pretty quickly, and it all goes downhill from there. Designing optics for high power systems must be done very carefully or you'll burn up your own system. That's one thing Real Genius got completely right. I have no doubt that richer countries would be able to develop a laser-resistant finish, but it would probably be impractical to deploy on every missile, boat, drone, etc.

If I were to try to defend against this weapon (and if I were a financially able country) I'd probably try coating my missiles with a light ceramic ablative material and hope that the laser doesn't burn off enough to screw up my guidance controls before it can hit its target. Wouldn't even bother with the planes and boats; just have one chuck a missile over the horizon and then turn around and run like a biatch.
 
2013-04-08 09:33:06 PM  

Flt209er: If I were to try to defend against this weapon (and if I were a financially able country) I'd probably try coating my missiles with a light ceramic ablative material and hope that the laser doesn't burn off enough to screw up my guidance controls before it can hit its target.


Impart a spin to the rocket.
 
2013-04-08 09:35:49 PM  

ISO15693: Somaticasual: Had em' in concept since the 80s, in practice since the 90s, and in play since the mid 2000s

Did you rtfa?

The air-mounted lasers cost 1.5 billion each, and were expensive to operate, and were eventually cancelled.

These cost 32 million each, and cost $1 per "round" of power, and are going into service in 2014.

Its not so much the overall technology - its that it is now realistically affordable, and accurate (12 for 12 anyway)


And what the article failed to mention is that cost of the entire ABL program only cost 5 billion including all the development, the targets, the LASER, and the cost of the plane (A heavily modified 747).

If you are going to claim each ABL cost a billion dollars to deploy while including the cost of the aircraft it is mounted in then I want to see the cost of deploying these naval LASERs with the cost of the ship included. Lets skew things even further and include the personnel cost for putting a crew on each aircraft vs each ship. That should make things interesting.
 
2013-04-08 09:36:41 PM  

Fubini: ISO15693: Well, lets say some Iraqi boat is making hostile movements (like they were a few months ago) - we don't want to shoot them. But we can set the laser on low - say150 degrees (F) - and heat them them until they leave. Or we just burn their flag off their mast, for grins. Non-lethal, cheap, and lulzy.

Warning shots are for TV and Hollywood. In real life, you shoot to kill or you don't shoot at all. In the case of a laser weapon you're going to burn/blind/maim people.


Is that worse than Murder/Death/Kill? Still sounds better than every restaurant being Taco Bell.
 
2013-04-08 09:41:48 PM  

grokca: Finally we can get CHA written on the moon.


Boobies wins one internets.
 
2013-04-08 09:46:18 PM  

Yogimus: Flt209er: If I were to try to defend against this weapon (and if I were a financially able country) I'd probably try coating my missiles with a light ceramic ablative material and hope that the laser doesn't burn off enough to screw up my guidance controls before it can hit its target.

Impart a spin to the rocket.


Also effective, as long as the nose of the rocket isn't targeted, but very hard to guide. You'd essentially need line of sight to the target before you can impart spin. Good against stationary or very slow targets though, and you could spin up the rocket pretty quickly. I'd suspect, however, most people would just use the old fire-30-and-see-how-many-make-it-though approach.
 
2013-04-08 09:48:21 PM  

Flt209er: Yogimus: Flt209er: If I were to try to defend against this weapon (and if I were a financially able country) I'd probably try coating my missiles with a light ceramic ablative material and hope that the laser doesn't burn off enough to screw up my guidance controls before it can hit its target.

Impart a spin to the rocket.

Also effective, as long as the nose of the rocket isn't targeted, but very hard to guide. You'd essentially need line of sight to the target before you can impart spin. Good against stationary or very slow targets though, and you could spin up the rocket pretty quickly. I'd suspect, however, most people would just use the old fire-30-and-see-how-many-make-it-though approach



Agreed. Also, reflective surfaces are pointless when the laser is in the XRAY ranges.
 
2013-04-08 09:53:51 PM  

Fubini: Warning shots are for TV and Hollywood.


Personally, I shoot at my TV to kill. Same with Hollywood.
 
2013-04-08 09:54:53 PM  
Not a good cost effective system due to the curvature of the earth.  Much better weapon paradigms and much more effective.  Your tax dollars wasted.  Cool though.
 
Kiz
2013-04-08 09:56:37 PM  

loonatic112358: AndreMA: lostcat: ShadowKamui: lostcat: In other news, the new "ultra-shiny mirror finish" for sea and aircraft has become increasingly popular among militaries around the world.

Mirrors aren't Omani-directional, and may actually cause an even worse failure depending on how the light reflects out.

That was a joke.

Why a joke? I'd think that a mirror (tuned to relevant frequencies; here in the IR gold film on mylar might be good) would be an inexpensive and moderately effective defense. As Larry Niven advises, "Never fire a laser at a mirror"

and if you're firing it at something the same color as the laser, be patient


That's why the beam of this new laser is bright pink.

Sure, you can paint your ships bright fluorescent pink, but then it's easy for us to see you coming.
 
2013-04-08 10:02:24 PM  

Yogimus: Agreed. Also, reflective surfaces are pointless when the laser is in the XRAY ranges.


Also true. Or if they ever do get this thing into 100sKW or megawatt ranges.
 
2013-04-08 10:03:11 PM  

Kiz: loonatic112358: AndreMA: lostcat: ShadowKamui: lostcat: In other news, the new "ultra-shiny mirror finish" for sea and aircraft has become increasingly popular among militaries around the world.

Mirrors aren't Omani-directional, and may actually cause an even worse failure depending on how the light reflects out.

That was a joke.

Why a joke? I'd think that a mirror (tuned to relevant frequencies; here in the IR gold film on mylar might be good) would be an inexpensive and moderately effective defense. As Larry Niven advises, "Never fire a laser at a mirror"

and if you're firing it at something the same color as the laser, be patient

That's why the beam of this new laser is bright pink.

Sure, you can paint your ships bright fluorescent pink, but then it's easy for us to see you coming.


Cary Grant and Tony Curtis approve.
 
2013-04-08 10:04:07 PM  

Sanguine Dawn: First of all, you don't "burn" mist. The problem with lasers is that they are light and are subject to refraction and diffusion. More moisture = more dissipation of the beam. This also limits the effectiveness of lasers in ANY atmosphere (even a dry one) The effectiveness of this weapon over a distance will not be cost effective to achieve. A more reasonable development for energy weapons is in directed particle cannons that fundamentally turn the air into a superconductor and then electrify it, frying directional computers and possibly igniting warheads.


Well then we just need to ramp up our x-ray laser tech.
 
2013-04-08 10:36:51 PM  
aurorous

It's good to see the mythos of St. Ronnie alive and well. I believe Gorbachev had a very piquant quote about reducing complexities to either/or propositions.
 
2013-04-08 10:37:36 PM  

mark12A: Because People in power are Stupid: Might be a better missile defense than what is currently used on ships.

O RLY?

[media.defenceindustrydaily.com image 800x570]

R2 never breaks!

Actually the fleet used to say CIWS stood for "Christ It Won't Shoot!"

/Jesus Christ this text editor is farked up!


nteresting tidbit... In the usa we call it R2D2, while the British it is called a Dalek.

/Exterminate!!!
 
2013-04-08 10:38:13 PM  
They wont use it on manned aircraft just like seatbelt laws wont be used to pull you over and get a ticket.
 
2013-04-08 10:50:04 PM  
this is not cool.

it's an admission.
 
2013-04-08 10:57:18 PM  

Flt209er: AndreMA: Why a joke? I'd think that a mirror (tuned to relevant frequencies; here in the IR gold film on mylar might be good) would be an inexpensive and moderately effective defense. As Larry Niven advises, "Never fire a laser at a mirror"

To answer your question honestly, it is moderately effective, but only for a couple of seconds. Mirrors in general are good reflectors, but not good enough.


It's okay, they only need a few seconds.  It worked fine in Superman II.
 
2013-04-08 11:20:47 PM  

Rhino_man: On the PONCE? Seriously, Navy? You're going to put it on the oldest, shiattiest gator in service? The rest of its class was dismantled or sold to Spain YEARS ago. Its decommissioning has been postponed THREE TIMES. It doesn't have dedicated berthing spaces, PEOPLE SLEEP IN THE P-WAYS!

WTF, Navy? WTF are you thinking?


They're thinking if something goes wrong, they're not out a couple hundred million dollars in the ship alone.

That, if it can work on that boat, it can work on any other boat of the same size and displacement and up.
 
2013-04-08 11:26:04 PM  

DreamSnipers: The dirty secret of lasers is the effect on personnel. At longer ranges these powerful lasers can permanently blind people. The horrors of war are to include a weapon that can cause wholesale blindness among soldiers and affected noncombatants.
I felt the article was avoiding this issue with this quote "of obliterating small boats and unmanned aerial vehicles."  Sooner or later, blinding is going to be a major issue with these weapons.


This weapon works in the infrared range. You will have a lot more than worry about than blindness.

Namely, burning.
 
2013-04-08 11:31:00 PM  

Smoking GNU: I'd have to agree with you there. With lasers all you have to do is make the missile spin and distribute the energy from the laser evenly over the surface, which would significantly reduce the likelihood of it being shot down, whereas a bullet from that thing will dot he job, spinning missile or no.


Spinning a missile to prevent high-power laser damage is like telling a ballerina to pirouette in front of a shotgun.  The energy is still going into the target, and at that level, it will be causing all kinds of fancy plasma ablation effects on the missile.
 
2013-04-08 11:33:07 PM  
Oh great. Gun nuts will be wanting to carry these now. That'll work out well.
 
2013-04-08 11:39:00 PM  

Rent Party: No one uses them any more.  The US quit using them in the late 70s.


On the contrary, I used a flamethrower in Iraq in 2009 for counter vegitation missions.

I was also issued a bayonet.  (I mostly the bayonett to cook things)

Rah!
 
2013-04-08 11:44:22 PM  
Just don't shoot it at a mirror.

i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-09 12:00:22 AM  
Things that easily fark up a laser: Fog, Rain, Smoke, Dust, etc.

I used to be a laser technician, scientific and industrial.  The industrial were way more fun.
 
2013-04-09 12:00:24 AM  
Why haven't we heard from Admiral Hackett?

Fifth fleet out.
 
2013-04-09 12:01:01 AM  

Doom MD: Will cuomo pass a ban on me owning an assault laser rifle?


Not if its magazine holds 7 photons or less
 
2013-04-09 12:04:07 AM  

Yogimus: way south: Counter_Intelligent: lordargent: It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.

I would think the problem would be refraction.  Lasers are still light.  I'd also wonder if heat haze interfered with lasers.

It will shorten the range, but the beams can be adjusted to overcome this.
Considering this is a close range weapon system, it will be perfectly lethal at the distances they are concerned about.

Laser light is all the same wavelength, so the diffraction is minimal, and equal across the beam.  the light does not bend when crossing from water to air/air into water


Refractors (aka, laser mirrors) have to be tuned to the frequency of the laser.  With something that powerful, the laser would probably melt the refractor rather quickly.
 
2013-04-09 12:04:29 AM  

SonOfSpam: Just don't shoot it at a mirror.

[i49.tinypic.com image 600x146]


Is that... vintage Jonny Quest?
 
2013-04-09 12:06:22 AM  

mrbach: Oh great. Gun nuts will be wanting to carry these now. That'll work out well.


Anyone strong enough to carry one of those is going to do whatever the hell he wants, anyway.
 
2013-04-09 12:16:52 AM  

EvilVanMan: grokca: Finally we can get CHA written on the moon.

Boobies wins one internets.


Boobies always win the internets.
 
2013-04-09 12:17:10 AM  

The WindowLicker: Rent Party: No one uses them any more.  The US quit using them in the late 70s.

On the contrary, I used a flamethrower in Iraq in 2009 for counter vegitation missions.


You must really hate to eat your broccoli.
 
2013-04-09 12:29:32 AM  
The USS Han shot first?
 
2013-04-09 12:45:27 AM  
It's okay, they only need a few seconds. It worked fine in Superman II.Well, can't argue with that.
 
2013-04-09 12:50:08 AM  
OgreMagi:

Refractors (aka, laser mirrors) have to be tuned to the frequency of the laser. With something that powerful, the laser would probably melt the refractor rather quickly.

I feel very smart right now, because I read your post and thought... "something like this has to exist..."

Turns out I guessed right: Plasma mirrors. And I'm obviously not the first to guess they could be used for intense lasers.

/ I am so SMRT! :P
 
2013-04-09 12:56:39 AM  

Counter_Intelligent: lordargent: It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.

I would think the problem would be refraction.  Lasers are still light.  I'd also wonder if heat haze interfered with lasers.


That's exactly it. It's not shooting a beam of fire or something, the light itself isn't hot. The light just heats up whatever surface absorbs it, so if the light is reflected it won't work.
 
2013-04-09 12:56:42 AM  

Maul555: Rhino_man: On the PONCE? Seriously, Navy? You're going to put it on the oldest, shiattiest gator in service? The rest of its class was dismantled or sold to Spain YEARS ago. Its decommissioning has been postponed THREE TIMES. It doesn't have dedicated berthing spaces, PEOPLE SLEEP IN THE P-WAYS!

WTF, Navy? WTF are you thinking?

its on the
USS Dewey - DDG 105
either you cant read, or someone corrected a typo.


FTFA:"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."

Either you can't read, or someone corrected a typo.

alienated:Oldest ? Thats the Denver ....

Right you are.

Mr. Shabooboo: It's better to use an old ship as a test bed than take a more useful ship from frontline service just
to modified for use as a test platform for new stuff.


Good point.  I hadn't thought of that.

PluckYew: What years & Division?  The reason I ask is one of my former shipmates, transferred to the Ponce in '89.

/former USS Portland engineer


22nd MEU, 2009.  Did some of my workups and part of my deployment on the Ponce, but most of the deployment was on the Bataan.

Archae hippy: The constitution (1797) is still in service...


I said gator, that means an amphib.  The Constitution is a Frigate.
 
2013-04-09 01:06:13 AM  
ThreadSinger:

Sanguine Dawn: First of all, you don't "burn" mist. The problem with lasers is that they are light and are subject to refraction and diffusion. More moisture = more dissipation of the beam. This also limits the effectiveness of lasers in ANY atmosphere (even a dry one) The effectiveness of this weapon over a distance will not be cost effective to achieve. A more reasonable development for energy weapons is in directed particle cannons that fundamentally turn the air into a superconductor and then electrify it, frying directional computers and possibly igniting warheads.

Think of the idea that missiles will become obsolete as directed energy defenses become the situational norm, their trump being magnetic rail sabots. Directed energy will be unlikely to stop a tungsten rod flung with little heat signature from miles and miles away.

Though, lasers would definitely be useful in space. Nothing's gonna help us if we start laser-shredding up eachother's satellites in orbit. Imagine a giant whirling hellstorm of fractured nearly forever in orbit that rips everything we send up there to ribbons, effectively blocking us from meaningful use of space. Freaky eh?

Indeed. If I were a rogue state/non-state actor, that would be some nasty terrorism. Set up some kind of energy weapon (or recoiless rifle) in space, cut down national and commercial satellites (or just nudge them out of orbit), and watch the debris clouds fly. Bad news for the longevity of what's up there, unless you want to start armoring satellites at ludicrous cost.


You don't need lasers for that. This is one of the more worrisome things about countries like China and Iran getting orbital capability.

The US, and more specifically it's military are very dependent on satellites ranging from low level spy satellites to GPS. Militarily we're actually VERY dependent on them.

So our abilities could be degraded (in milspeak) by anyone who can get a rocket into the right orbit traveling in the opposite direction carrying nothing more than a stick of dynamite and a barrel of sand. BOOM! 10,000,000 "kinetic kill vehicles." Even if nothing happens for a while, you can't know when something you depend on will get hit, so you can't rely on them.

If *your* military doesn't depend on satellites, then it's worth your while to research how to deny orbits to potential enemies who *do*.
 
2013-04-09 01:13:17 AM  

ISO15693: Danger Avoid Death: violentsalvation: Aarontology: Because we have all this extra money just laying around.

It was actually much cheaper to develop than a missile system, and if it can take even some of the role of missiles it will save quite a bit of money. And it has non-lethal uses too.

Yeah, I hear that if you synchronize it to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" album, and hand out a little free herbage, you'll finally achieve lasting peace in the Middle East.

Well, lets say some Iraqi boat is making hostile movements (like they were a few months ago) - we don't want to shoot them. But we can set the laser on low - say150 degrees (F) - and heat them them until they leave. Or we just burn their flag off their mast, for grins. Non-lethal, cheap, and lulzy.

Heck, we could even write graffiti on the side of their boat. Not that I would condone it, but writing "Justin Beiber is totally hot!" on the side of an Iraqi warship would be entertaining.

This is the beauty of using lasers. You can dial them down more than you can a bullet/missile, while simultaneously hit a remote target much farther away with greater accuracy.


Wrong.
 
2013-04-09 01:20:27 AM  

Fubini: ISO15693: Well, lets say some Iraqi boat is making hostile movements (like they were a few months ago) - we don't want to shoot them. But we can set the laser on low - say150 degrees (F) - and heat them them until they leave. Or we just burn their flag off their mast, for grins. Non-lethal, cheap, and lulzy.

Warning shots are for TV and Hollywood. In real life, you shoot to kill or you don't shoot at all. In the case of a laser weapon you're going to burn/blind/maim people.


Bullsh*t. You might want to tell that to South Korea. I seem to remember something about warning shots from the recent past--like within the last year or so...

Warning shots.
 
2013-04-09 01:23:09 AM  

hardinparamedic: jigger: This is another one of those things. One of those "war crimes."

If you're going to ban the use of chemical weapons, hollowpoints, and flame throwers, why fark around? Ban the use of rifles and grenades. Ban bombs. Just make war illegal.

Insert joke about war free zones here.

Personally, I think it'd be farking awesome if wars were decided by gigantic paintball matches.


My vote is for politicians armed with hammers.
 
2013-04-09 02:11:58 AM  

LoneVVolf: Running a-puck: This is fantastic!  Lasers work great.  Well, unless the air is misty or even really humid, thank Poseidon that never happens on the ocean.

Yogimus: Good for air/missiles, not so much on ground based targets... damn you curvature of the earth!

That's what the 16/50's are for...
[www.history.navy.mil image 740x605]

/for when something on the other side of the horizon has pissed you off...


MY GOD THAT IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT!
 
2013-04-09 02:52:13 AM  

PsyLord: SonOfSpam: Just don't shoot it at a mirror.

[i49.tinypic.com image 600x146]

Is that... vintage Jonny Quest?


the internet says so.
FYI, did you know google lets you do a reverse search for an image? You open up google, go to images
and then you drag a picture from where ever. Google searches for that and similar images.
Not snark, if you didn't know, now you do.
Try it yourself! It's super cool
 
2013-04-09 02:56:49 AM  
Holy crap this story is everywhere.

Could we be any more obvious in saying "Hey. Hey! HEY!!! North Korea!  We have farking lasers on our ships now.  LASERS!!!!! PEW PEW PYONGYANG PYONG-GONE! So knock it off, 'kay?
 
2013-04-09 03:06:02 AM  
What I wanna know is what kind of sound does it make when it fires.  Is it just silent? Would have to pay an additional million to get fun sound effects on trigger pull?
 
2013-04-09 03:07:54 AM  

maxheck: OgreMagi:

Refractors (aka, laser mirrors) have to be tuned to the frequency of the laser. With something that powerful, the laser would probably melt the refractor rather quickly.

I feel very smart right now, because I read your post and thought... "something like this has to exist..."

Turns out I guessed right: Plasma mirrors. And I'm obviously not the first to guess they could be used for intense lasers.

/ I am so SMRT! :P


Very cool.  I've been out of the laser business a very long time and that was not something we had, as far as I know.  I did that in the 80's when artificial ruby rod lasers were cutting edge.
 
2013-04-09 03:09:04 AM  

Caluth: What I wanna know is what kind of sound does it make when it fires.  Is it just silent? Would have to pay an additional million to get fun sound effects on trigger pull?


I heard from Top men that it plays la cucaracha. It's pretty bad ass.

\Top Men.
 
2013-04-09 03:09:23 AM  

lordargent: It's supposed to burn through metal at a distance, I don't think a little bit of mist is going to stop it.


Mist scatters light.  If the laser beam is scattered then it loses intensity.  If a laser beam doesn't have enough intensity then it doesn't burn through metal at a distance.
 
drp
2013-04-09 03:13:33 AM  
But I thought lasers could't even penetrate navigation shields.
 
2013-04-09 03:15:39 AM  

Caluth: What I wanna know is what kind of sound does it make when it fires.  Is it just silent? Would have to pay an additional million to get fun sound effects on trigger pull?


cdn.instructables.com
This plus a cardboard tube equals a blaster shot. So, I HOPE it don't cost a million bucks.
 
2013-04-09 03:53:43 AM  

OgreMagi: I've been out of the laser business a very long time and that was not something we had, as far as I know. I did that in the 80's when artificial ruby rod lasers were cutting edge.


1.bp.blogspot.com

Don't tell Ruby Rod he's not cutting edge any more unless you want a galactic hissy-fit.
 
2013-04-09 04:03:57 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: OgreMagi: I've been out of the laser business a very long time and that was not something we had, as far as I know. I did that in the 80's when artificial ruby rod lasers were cutting edge.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 266x199]

Don't tell Ruby Rod he's not cutting edge any more unless you want a galactic hissy-fit.


Just calling him artificial would be bad enough.
 
2013-04-09 04:06:17 AM  

Fano: This plus a cardboard tube equals a blaster shot. So, I HOPE it don't cost a million bucks.


What? In which franchise? Ben Burtt didn't use no stinking Slinky!
 
2013-04-09 04:07:43 AM  
OgreMagi:

maxheck: OgreMagi:

Refractors (aka, laser mirrors) have to be tuned to the frequency of the laser. With something that powerful, the laser would probably melt the refractor rather quickly.

I feel very smart right now, because I read your post and thought... "something like this has to exist..."

Turns out I guessed right: Plasma mirrors. And I'm obviously not the first to guess they could be used for intense lasers.

/ I am so SMRT! :P

Very cool. I've been out of the laser business a very long time and that was not something we had, as far as I know. I did that in the 80's when artificial ruby rod lasers were cutting edge.


I'm a mere Fark Physicist who read a lot of Scientific American articles before it went pop-science, but my thinking was along the lines of "so how do you make a mirror that doesn't burn away, AND you can steer it a zillion times faster than a cannon turret?"

Plasma. You can do all sorts of optical effects with it, and with enough power you can shape it with nothing more than scaled-up television coils. The same sort of people who make ginormous lasers work at the same labs where people know this stuff, with a lot of overlap. I looked it up on Google, and ta-daah! It is an effect used with powerful lasers.

There's not a lot of information available on the phenomenon, I'm not so smart as to understand most of it and the publicly available info all seems to be all about in the very, VERY short jigga-watt laser pulse range so perhaps it can't deliver useful power, but then again, not everything is publicly available. I'd bet a cookie there are plasma mirrors involved in anything that could productively be used as a weapon.
 
2013-04-09 04:16:25 AM  

IWood: Fano: This plus a cardboard tube equals a blaster shot. So, I HOPE it don't cost a million bucks.

What? In which franchise? Ben Burtt didn't use no stinking Slinky!




Here I link the most poncy Brit to overexplain how to do it... who thinks a slinky can really recreate it. /a>
 
2013-04-09 04:22:43 AM  
Fano:

Wood: Fano: This plus a cardboard tube equals a blaster shot. So, I HOPE it don't cost a million bucks.

What? In which franchise? Ben Burtt didn't use no stinking Slinky!

Here I link the most poncy Brit to overexplain how to do it... who thinks a slinky can really recreate it


Could be worse. The sound of the Tardis taking off and landing was basically scraping the wires in a piano.

And no, I am not a featured partner.
 
2013-04-09 04:39:45 AM  

maxheck: Fano:

Wood: Fano: This plus a cardboard tube equals a blaster shot. So, I HOPE it don't cost a million bucks.

What? In which franchise? Ben Burtt didn't use no stinking Slinky!

Here I link the most poncy Brit to overexplain how to do it... who thinks a slinky can really recreate it

Could be worse. The sound of the Tardis taking off and landing was basically scraping the wires in a piano.

And no, I am not a featured partner.


I see nothing wrong with linking Cracked as a source of proof. I miss the old days of watching "making of" documentaries that didn't involve "so, we used our extensive library of sounds" to do whichever. Seeing what Foley artists have to do to make things sound "natural" or "otherwordly" to me make me appreciate what I hear.
 
2013-04-09 06:00:16 AM  
The LASER is ineffective going through smoke and rain and gloom of night.
 
2013-04-09 06:48:21 AM  

mark12A: "It operates much like a blowtorch ... with an unlimited magazine," one official said.I'd like to meet this "official". I'm selling stock in my perpetual motion machine company.

He means that you're not limited to a discrete number of ammo rounds like you are with guns/missiles. As long as the ship has fuel, it can generate power for many laser shots until ship's fuel runs out.

We're working on electric ship technology that features multiple power generators scattered around the ship, electric propulsion, electric catapults, electric weapons, and switching technologies for routing power between propulsion and weapons as needed. I like working for the Navy. We do cool stuff.

/except Thursday.
//Spent Thursday curled up on a cargo pallet in the Helo hangar on the USS Ft. Worth with a nasty cold while the ship ripped along at 40 kts doing steep turns.
//got up only to do my test events


We should swap notes. My company is working on that ship's Total Ship Survivabilty Trials (TSST). We have a complete model of the ship with every component, cable, pipe, and bulkhead. And the crew. I mostly work on the crew.
 
2013-04-09 06:51:50 AM  

Smoking GNU: fusillade762: Because People in power are Stupid: Might be a better missile defense than what is currently used on ships.

O RLY?

[media.defenceindustrydaily.com image 800x570]

I'd have to agree with you there. With lasers all you have to do is make the missile spin and distribute the energy from the laser evenly over the surface, which would significantly reduce the likelihood of it being shot down, whereas a bullet from that thing will dot he job, spinning missile or no.


Would a ballerina spinning deflect a shotgun blast? No. Same principle, energy is energy.

Besides, spinning most anti-ship missiles would really fark with their targeting systems. They use radar or an IR camera.
 
2013-04-09 06:59:13 AM  

DreamSnipers: The dirty secret of lasers is the effect on personnel. At longer ranges these powerful lasers can permanently blind people. The horrors of war are to include a weapon that can cause wholesale blindness among soldiers and affected noncombatants.
I felt the article was avoiding this issue with this quote "of obliterating small boats and unmanned aerial vehicles."  Sooner or later, blinding is going to be a major issue with these weapons.


I'm not sure if it's DOD policy of international treaty, but when using Laser weapons you have to publish the frequency of light the laser will be operating at. This would allow all combatants to prepare protective eyewear ahead of time.
 
2013-04-09 07:15:11 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Would a ballerina spinning deflect a shotgun blast?


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-09 07:26:10 AM  

The WindowLicker: Smoking GNU: I'd have to agree with you there. With lasers all you have to do is make the missile spin and distribute the energy from the laser evenly over the surface, which would significantly reduce the likelihood of it being shot down, whereas a bullet from that thing will dot he job, spinning missile or no.

Spinning a missile to prevent high-power laser damage is like telling a ballerina to pirouette in front of a shotgun.  The energy is still going into the target, and at that level, it will be causing all kinds of fancy plasma ablation effects on the missile.


Finally got to your post. Lemme guess, Tom Clancy fan too?
 
2013-04-09 07:26:16 AM  

Deep Contact: The LASER is ineffective going through smoke and rain and gloom of night.


Darkness foils lasers? Huh. Never would've thought...
 
2013-04-09 08:21:47 AM  
How big are these laser systems anyway? I know missile defense is one of their proposed uses, but the distance factor is a problem. I was wondering how effective it might conceivably be to mount the laser on a drone, and have the drone get close to a missile and try to shoot it down. That would cut down on the power requirements and diffusion problem.
 
2013-04-09 08:22:19 AM  

The Snow Dog: Deep Contact: The LASER is ineffective going through smoke and rain and gloom of night.

Darkness foils lasers? Huh. Never would've thought...


No, just the gloom.
 
2013-04-09 12:43:27 PM  

The Snow Dog: Deep Contact: The LASER is ineffective going through smoke and rain and gloom of night.

Darkness foils lasers? Huh. Never would've thought...


The things you learn from fark experts...
 
2013-04-09 03:39:53 PM  
maxheck:

Speaking of using sand as a kinetic-kill vehicle, you ever read the Legacy Trilogy by Ian Douglas?

At one point, humans strike back against an extraterrestrial foe by accelerating thousands of tons of martian sand to near-lightspeed and detonating the containers prior to arrival to the hostile world...

I thought it was neat.
 
2013-04-09 04:55:06 PM  
 
2013-04-10 11:46:30 PM  

Doubleodoug: But can it pop popcorn?


Will it blend?
 
2013-04-11 02:33:15 AM  

another cultural observer: The laser gun and associated generators and machinery emit "comparatively safe" levels of radiation.  Nobody remembers the Ponce or its godforsaken crew, so when the glowing, crewless hulk is discovered in 6 months it can simply be scuttled with no one the wiser.


There's a significant and not exactly subtle difference between electromagnetic radiation and ionizing radiation you're not comprehending.
 
Displayed 225 of 225 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report