Skip to content
 
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.

(US Naval Institute)   U.S. Navy releases video of a ship downing a drone with its frickin' laser beam during the first at-sea test. Pew pew!   (news.usni.org) divider line
    More: Murica, United States Navy, laser weapon, Laser, sea test of the Navy, high-energy laser weapon system, Amphibious ship USS Portland, greater power-generation capabilities, SSL-TM  
•       •       •

6982 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 23 May 2020 at 1:05 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-05-23 3:39:21 PM  

This text is now purple: KodosZardoz: Meh. Let me know when we have Laser Chimps. LASER CHIMPS!

We are laser chimps.


In my head, it sounded like you were introducing your band right before they start playing their first song.
 
2020-05-23 3:40:25 PM  

madgonad: This weapon costs under $20 per shot. Can fire repeatedly and for long periods of time. It can target a variety of targets - aircraft, incoming missiles, small vessels. It is better in every conceivable way.


If you have lots of targets, maybe. If you have zero or one target, they might have problems with the cost of the first shot because that one requires building and installing the laser.
 
2020-05-23 3:46:13 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Space Squid: but as your comment illustrated, none have succeeded in accomplishing too awful much; again, because of new technologies like these).

Not counting the Taliban, ISIS, Afghanistan in general, Al Qaeda, Slobodan Milosovic's gang, and a few others like Boko Haram.

You've not fought a modern military because you're in NATO.


The original topic I was replying to involved navies, not land warfare.  And was concerning other militaries attacking us, not us invading them.

Also, the US' military structure is larger than what, the next upteen countries' militaries put together.  So it's not because we're in NATO.  It's because we're in NATO.  (Meaning no disrespect to our NATO allied countries.)
 
2020-05-23 3:51:54 PM  

valenumr: indy_kid: If you could see the enemy ship, you could blind the bridge crew in an instant.

Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half, and put that money into infrastructure and health care.  What's the point of spending $800B a year to defend a "shiathole" country?

Okay zoomer. Good to know you appreciate the liberty and security you were born into.


upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size

pbs.twimg.comView Full Size


America isn't a bad country to live in, but if military spending is meant to buy quality of life, well, America's investment strategy really isn't getting a great ROI.
 
2020-05-23 3:58:14 PM  

Space Squid: Bennie Crabtree: Space Squid: but as your comment illustrated, none have succeeded in accomplishing too awful much; again, because of new technologies like these).

Not counting the Taliban, ISIS, Afghanistan in general, Al Qaeda, Slobodan Milosovic's gang, and a few others like Boko Haram.

You've not fought a modern military because you're in NATO.

The original topic I was replying to involved navies, not land warfare.  And was concerning other militaries attacking us, not us invading them.

Also, the US' military structure is larger than what, the next upteen countries' militaries put together.  So it's not because we're in NATO.  It's because we're in NATO.  (Meaning no disrespect to our NATO allied countries.)


Well, both. America didn't create NATO as a benevolent gift to the downtrodden and helpless Euros; it created NATO because it recognised that its own security objectives are furthered by tethering a bunch of other rich, influential, diplomatically connected and well-armed countries to its foreign policy. NATO means that confrontation with America also effectively means confrontation with the EU, which doubles the economic and diplomatic pressure America can apply even before considering the armed forces of NATO allies.

/At least before the international populist right started dismantling the network of alliances linking the world's liberal democracies together, at any rate
 
2020-05-23 4:08:29 PM  

pkjun: valenumr: indy_kid: If you could see the enemy ship, you could blind the bridge crew in an instant.

Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half, and put that money into infrastructure and health care.  What's the point of spending $800B a year to defend a "shiathole" country?

Okay zoomer. Good to know you appreciate the liberty and security you were born into.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 722x599]
[pbs.twimg.com image 850x515]

America isn't a bad country to live in, but if military spending is meant to buy quality of life, well, America's investment strategy really isn't getting a great ROI.


I think a lot of those countries would disagree and say the US expenditure has absolutely contributed to their quality of life both in a "world cop" sense and in they being able to build up their own social services because they don't have to invest as heavily in the their own military.
 
2020-05-23 4:10:53 PM  

indy_kid: Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half,


Step one is to get the US out of its worldwide treaties and mutual defense agreements that are one of the drivers for military force structure.
 
2020-05-23 4:17:18 PM  

bsmz: madgonad: This weapon costs under $20 per shot. Can fire repeatedly and for long periods of time. It can target a variety of targets - aircraft, incoming missiles, small vessels. It is better in every conceivable way.

If you have lots of targets, maybe. If you have zero or one target, they might have problems with the cost of the first shot because that one requires building and installing the laser.


This is true for any weapons platform.  A laser might be much more expensive to build and install but it's cost per use is much lower.
For a missile platform, there's still cost to building and installing.  But you have to buy all the ammo up front, so they money is spent whether the missile is used or not.  If used you have to buy another.

So the question is, if used once, is the laser more expensive than a 20 missile battery, where only one is used?

Maybe, but they are never used once.  They have to conduct training and exercises.  So before going into battle, your laser is already making up the cost.
 
2020-05-23 4:19:27 PM  

fragMasterFlash: The elevation on that beam didn't look very steep. How much airspace are they turning into a no-go zone in order to get a clear shot?


For exactly that reason, the amount of red tape required to perform a test like this is huge.
 
2020-05-23 4:21:50 PM  

valenumr: indy_kid: If you could see the enemy ship, you could blind the bridge crew in an instant.

Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half, and put that money into infrastructure and health care.  What's the point of spending $800B a year to defend a "shiathole" country?

Okay zoomer. Good to know you appreciate the liberty and security you were born into.


The Soviets lost the cold war by trying to outspend the US on military, and we're falling into the same trap. China have a small amount of nukes and some anti ship missiles, but we're spending a hell of a lot more to counter them than they spend.

What happens when we don't have enough college graduates to come up with better designs? Military is important but domestic improvements are the real battle. We're going to have the best military and still fail when the dollar is too untrustworthy to be the reserve currency, or when the US is universally seen as a backwater shiathole
 
2020-05-23 4:22:34 PM  

johnny_vegas: pkjun: valenumr: indy_kid: If you could see the enemy ship, you could blind the bridge crew in an instant.

Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half, and put that money into infrastructure and health care.  What's the point of spending $800B a year to defend a "shiathole" country?

Okay zoomer. Good to know you appreciate the liberty and security you were born into.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 722x599]
[pbs.twimg.com image 850x515]

America isn't a bad country to live in, but if military spending is meant to buy quality of life, well, America's investment strategy really isn't getting a great ROI.

I think a lot of those countries would disagree and say the US expenditure has absolutely contributed to their quality of life both in a "world cop" sense and in they being able to build up their own social services because they don't have to invest as heavily in the their own military.


commondreams.orgView Full Size

i.ytimg.comView Full Size


pewresearch.orgView Full Size

pewresearch.orgView Full Size

pewresearch.orgView Full Size


For some weird reason, the country with more weapons than every other major power put together and a habit of starting wars for no particular reason and then forgetting about them when it gets bored does not make most of the world feel particularly at ease.
 
2020-05-23 4:27:24 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-23 4:27:43 PM  

pkjun: johnny_vegas: pkjun: valenumr: indy_kid: If you could see the enemy ship, you could blind the bridge crew in an instant.

Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half, and put that money into infrastructure and health care.  What's the point of spending $800B a year to defend a "shiathole" country?

Okay zoomer. Good to know you appreciate the liberty and security you were born into.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 722x599]
[pbs.twimg.com image 850x515]

America isn't a bad country to live in, but if military spending is meant to buy quality of life, well, America's investment strategy really isn't getting a great ROI.

I think a lot of those countries would disagree and say the US expenditure has absolutely contributed to their quality of life both in a "world cop" sense and in they being able to build up their own social services because they don't have to invest as heavily in the their own military.

[commondreams.org image 464x560]
[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

[pewresearch.org image 638x510]
[pewresearch.org image 740x740]
[pewresearch.org image 740x604]

For some weird reason, the country with more weapons than every other major power put together and a habit of starting wars for no particular reason and then forgetting about them when it gets bored does not make most of the world feel particularly at ease.


Which does not invalidate my point whatsoever.
 
2020-05-23 4:27:59 PM  

johnny_vegas: indy_kid: Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half,

Step one is to get the US out of its worldwide treaties and mutual defense agreements that are one of the drivers for military force structure.


Alliances decrease rather than increase our military expenditure. You're thinking about it the wrong way around.

We don't have military obligations in South Korea and Japan because we have an alliance with them. We have an alliance with them because we have a security interest in controlling the West Pacific, and our alliance with those countries helps us enforce that interest by supplementing American forces with local ones.

We don't have military obligations in Europe because of NATO. NATO exists because we have security interests in controlling Europe, and NATO countries help us extend our hegemony with local forces.

If we scrap those deals, it's not like those countries will continue to do our bidding in exchange for nothing. It just means that all of our global interests become too expensive for us to enforce! And that of course doesn't mean we get to spend less on security -- it just means that the same amount of security spending buys us much less security.
 
2020-05-23 4:30:44 PM  

pkjun: johnny_vegas: indy_kid: Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half,

Step one is to get the US out of its worldwide treaties and mutual defense agreements that are one of the drivers for military force structure.

Alliances decrease rather than increase our military expenditure. You're thinking about it the wrong way around.

We don't have military obligations in South Korea and Japan because we have an alliance with them. We have an alliance with them because we have a security interest in controlling the West Pacific, and our alliance with those countries helps us enforce that interest by supplementing American forces with local ones.

We don't have military obligations in Europe because of NATO. NATO exists because we have security interests in controlling Europe, and NATO countries help us extend our hegemony with local forces.

If we scrap those deals, it's not like those countries will continue to do our bidding in exchange for nothing. It just means that all of our global interests become too expensive for us to enforce! And that of course doesn't mean we get to spend less on security -- it just means that the same amount of security spending buys us much less security.


You are partially right, to effectively decrease the military would mean accepting risk by adopting a policy of non- interventionism thereby making those treaties moot.
 
2020-05-23 4:33:05 PM  

pkjun: johnny_vegas: pkjun: valenumr: indy_kid: If you could see the enemy ship, you could blind the bridge crew in an instant.

Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half, and put that money into infrastructure and health care.  What's the point of spending $800B a year to defend a "shiathole" country?

Okay zoomer. Good to know you appreciate the liberty and security you were born into.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 722x599]
[pbs.twimg.com image 850x515]

America isn't a bad country to live in, but if military spending is meant to buy quality of life, well, America's investment strategy really isn't getting a great ROI.

I think a lot of those countries would disagree and say the US expenditure has absolutely contributed to their quality of life both in a "world cop" sense and in they being able to build up their own social services because they don't have to invest as heavily in the their own military.

[commondreams.org image 464x560]
[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

[pewresearch.org image 638x510]
[pewresearch.org image 740x740]
[pewresearch.org image 740x604]

For some weird reason, the country with more weapons than every other major power put together and a habit of starting wars for no particular reason and then forgetting about them when it gets bored does not make most of the world feel particularly at ease.


Though I do appreciate you not having mentioned what a horrible run-on sentence I wrote.
 
2020-05-23 4:36:38 PM  

johnny_vegas: pkjun: johnny_vegas: pkjun: valenumr: indy_kid: If you could see the enemy ship, you could blind the bridge crew in an instant.

Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half, and put that money into infrastructure and health care.  What's the point of spending $800B a year to defend a "shiathole" country?

Okay zoomer. Good to know you appreciate the liberty and security you were born into.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 722x599]
[pbs.twimg.com image 850x515]

America isn't a bad country to live in, but if military spending is meant to buy quality of life, well, America's investment strategy really isn't getting a great ROI.

I think a lot of those countries would disagree and say the US expenditure has absolutely contributed to their quality of life both in a "world cop" sense and in they being able to build up their own social services because they don't have to invest as heavily in the their own military.

[commondreams.org image 464x560]
[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

[pewresearch.org image 638x510]
[pewresearch.org image 740x740]
[pewresearch.org image 740x604]

For some weird reason, the country with more weapons than every other major power put together and a habit of starting wars for no particular reason and then forgetting about them when it gets bored does not make most of the world feel particularly at ease.

Which does not invalidate my point whatsoever.


It wasn't valid to begin with. America doesn't spend billions because it wants to let Denmark and Germany have better health care systems than we do by "protecting" them from nonexistent threats. It spends billions because it is beneficial to the US to have European countries as clients. If America withdraws its umbrella, that doesn't mean Europe needs to spend more; it means Europe establishes new economic and foreign policies that face East rather than facing West.

Which might be a good thing, perhaps. Certainly China has a more successful history of playing global hegemon than America does! But that is very different matter than pretending that American hegemony is a benevolent gift.
 
2020-05-23 4:41:57 PM  

pkjun: johnny_vegas: pkjun: johnny_vegas: pkjun: valenumr: indy_kid: If you could see the enemy ship, you could blind the bridge crew in an instant.

Still, we could (and should) cut the Pentagon's budget in half, and put that money into infrastructure and health care.  What's the point of spending $800B a year to defend a "shiathole" country?

Okay zoomer. Good to know you appreciate the liberty and security you were born into.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 722x599]
[pbs.twimg.com image 850x515]

America isn't a bad country to live in, but if military spending is meant to buy quality of life, well, America's investment strategy really isn't getting a great ROI.

I think a lot of those countries would disagree and say the US expenditure has absolutely contributed to their quality of life both in a "world cop" sense and in they being able to build up their own social services because they don't have to invest as heavily in the their own military.

[commondreams.org image 464x560]
[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

[pewresearch.org image 638x510]
[pewresearch.org image 740x740]
[pewresearch.org image 740x604]

For some weird reason, the country with more weapons than every other major power put together and a habit of starting wars for no particular reason and then forgetting about them when it gets bored does not make most of the world feel particularly at ease.

Which does not invalidate my point whatsoever.

It wasn't valid to begin with. America doesn't spend billions because it wants to let Denmark and Germany have better health care systems than we do by "protecting" them from nonexistent threats. It spends billions because it is beneficial to the US to have European countries as clients. If America withdraws its umbrella, that doesn't mean Europe needs to spend more; it means Europe establishes new economic and foreign policies that face East rather than facing West.

Which might be a good thing, perhaps. Certainly China has a more successful history of playing global hegemon than America does! But that is very different matter than pretending that American hegemony is a benevolent gift.


Here are some pretty good data points and ways of looking at the issue:

https://ourworldindata.org/military-s​p​ending
 
2020-05-23 5:29:18 PM  

pkjun: Well, both. America didn't create NATO as a benevolent gift to the downtrodden and helpless Euros; it created NATO because it recognised that its own security objectives are furthered by tethering a bunch of other rich, influential, diplomatically connected and well-armed countries to its foreign policy. NATO means that confrontation with America also effectively means confrontation with the EU, which doubles the economic and diplomatic pressure America can apply even before considering the armed forces of NATO allies.

/At least before the international populist right started dismantling the network of alliances linking the world's liberal democracies together, at any rate


Yeah, I can't argue with that about the creation of NATO.  But that was when we were waist deep in the Cold War and hadn't quite yet built a military complex capable of taking on practically the rest of the whole world simultaneously.  Although, I'm sure getting a large quantity of the big powers in the world to join NATO meant we could put  money into building our military into insanely huge sizes instead of having to spend money on actually using them in battle.

We took Theodore Roosevelt's idiom, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" quite to heart.  Then, later we threw out the "speak softly" part and replaced it with, "loudly brag and proclaim about how awesome we are while drunkenly vomiting all over everyone".  Or, as I like to call it, "How to have a world empire in the 20th century."

It's the American way!
 
2020-05-23 5:44:06 PM  

Pernicious Q. Varmint: Thank god our enemies have yet to master the technology of shiny things.


If the shiny thing isn't designed for the right frequency spectrum, the laser will burn right through it.  I saw that happen in a laser lab.  That was almost 40 years ago and laser technology has been advanced considerably since then.  As with every weapon ever created since the first cave man picked up a rock, with every new weapon, there will be counter measures created.  It never stops.
 
2020-05-23 5:46:30 PM  

pkjun: America isn't a bad country to live in, but if military spending is meant to buy quality of life, well, America's investment strategy really isn't getting a great ROI.


American military spending is also improving the quality of life of most of those countries higher up on the list.  They don't have to spend as much on defense because they know we have their back.  Basically, American taxpayers are funding their social programs.
 
2020-05-23 7:58:57 PM  

way south: s are far cheaper than the countermeasures that could be deployed to stop them.  You'd be spending thou ...


THOSE ARE TIE FIGHTERS those are farking TIE fighters

and yet you guys still ask if you're the baddies
 
2020-05-23 8:04:07 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: way south: s are far cheaper than the countermeasures that could be deployed to stop them.  You'd be spending thou ...

THOSE ARE TIE FIGHTERS those are farking TIE fighters

and yet you guys still ask if you're the baddies


I don't think they're canon

i.redd.itView Full Size
 
2020-05-23 9:00:16 PM  

valenumr: Mister Peejay: tricycleracer: AirForceVet: Neat trick. Now let's try a jet-powered drone simulating a cruise middle. Then follow that with a ballistic missile intercept.

Telephone pole-sized rods of tungsten dropped from orbit

A telephone pole sized rod of tungsten would be so expensive to get into orbit, along with enough fuel to de-orbit it hard enough that it can't be seen or avoided days in advance, that it would be much cheaper and easier to just buy the country that has the target.

It doesn't need to be the size of a telephone pole. Look at the energy of a basic tungsten sabot round. It is basically a freight train going throw gh a square in hole, and the penetrator is roughly 3/4" x 16".


It's something like over Mach 3, the kinetic energy of something is higher than its weight in explosives.
 
2020-05-23 10:27:45 PM  
While lasers are great and way past due, what happened to microwave beams to burn out a big swath of these swarms?
 
2020-05-23 10:30:42 PM  
And this is going to come off as Alex Jones stuff but why are we responding to this stuff? Why don't i ever see articles on how swarms it's US robot laser dolphins created an impregnable barrier around Taiwan
 
2020-05-23 11:48:47 PM  
I mean really if nothing else we should have had drone swarms way before the oil refinery hit, that's a pretty huge failing on the one thing we're supposed to be best at. What's up with that?
 
2020-05-24 12:59:14 AM  
It would have been more exciting if they had used a super-duper laser beam.
 
2020-05-24 1:51:23 AM  

fehk: And this is going to come off as Alex Jones stuff but why are we responding to this stuff? Why don't i ever see articles on how swarms it's US robot laser dolphins created an impregnable barrier around Taiwan


Because PeTA.  Doesn't matter if they're robots.  The answer is still PeTA.  =P
 
2020-05-24 2:00:10 AM  

fehk: While lasers are great and way past due, what happened to microwave beams to burn out a big swath of these swarms?


We don't show off all of our toys...

My understanding of the issue with microwave beam technology is the danger to us fleshy things.  Even focused beams of microwave are a danger to the transmission near-area outside the beam.  I worked near a microwave transmission tower that sent data between buildings a couple miles apart.  When the tower was actively transmitting, no one could be within 60 feet of the tower, even if completely perpendicular to the beam path, or they could get TV Diner'ed.

One guy was too close when someone didn't follow procedures to make sure the area was cleared.  He got cooked a bit.  But I'm afraid I don't know if he was okay or not.
 
2020-05-24 2:51:25 AM  

Space Squid: fehk: While lasers are great and way past due, what happened to microwave beams to burn out a big swath of these swarms?

We don't show off all of our toys...

My understanding of the issue with microwave beam technology is the danger to us fleshy things.  Even focused beams of microwave are a danger to the transmission near-area outside the beam.  I worked near a microwave transmission tower that sent data between buildings a couple miles apart.  When the tower was actively transmitting, no one could be within 60 feet of the tower, even if completely perpendicular to the beam path, or they could get TV Diner'ed.

One guy was too close when someone didn't follow procedures to make sure the area was cleared.  He got cooked a bit.  But I'm afraid I don't know if he was okay or not.


Dang it Space Squid of fark.com, you're right. If we did have drone swarms, and that seems a pretty obvious target, we wouldn't have had a reason to use them, and if did we did advertise our laser dolphins that would just be an invitation for people to find ways to distract them with kippered snacks and whatnot. I'm at a loss, hopefully that guy didn't get too microwaved
 
2020-05-24 4:31:01 AM  

fehk: Space Squid: fehk: While lasers are great and way past due, what happened to microwave beams to burn out a big swath of these swarms?

We don't show off all of our toys...

My understanding of the issue with microwave beam technology is the danger to us fleshy things.  Even focused beams of microwave are a danger to the transmission near-area outside the beam.  I worked near a microwave transmission tower that sent data between buildings a couple miles apart.  When the tower was actively transmitting, no one could be within 60 feet of the tower, even if completely perpendicular to the beam path, or they could get TV Diner'ed.

One guy was too close when someone didn't follow procedures to make sure the area was cleared.  He got cooked a bit.  But I'm afraid I don't know if he was okay or not.

Dang it Space Squid of fark.com, you're right. If we did have drone swarms, and that seems a pretty obvious target, we wouldn't have had a reason to use them, and if did we did advertise our laser dolphins that would just be an invitation for people to find ways to distract them with kippered snacks and whatnot. I'm at a loss, hopefully that guy didn't get too microwaved


Sorry Space Squid, that fark.com bit was unnecessary, i was just trying to be cool. Not to worry, I'll wake up tomorrow feeling bad for the original message and this response
 
2020-05-24 7:50:35 AM  

fehk: Dang it Space Squid of fark.com, you're right. If we did have drone swarms, and that seems a pretty obvious target, we wouldn't have had a reason to use them, and if did we did advertise our laser dolphins that would just be an invitation for people to find ways to distract them with kippered snacks and whatnot. I'm at a loss, hopefully that guy didn't get too microwaved

Sorry Space Squid, that fark.com bit was unnecessary, i was just trying to be cool. Not to worry, I'll wake up tomorrow feeling bad for the original message and this response


Not at all, my friend.  You made me LOL.  Have yourself a wonderful night!
 
Displayed 33 of 133 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





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.