It will be interesting to see what counter measures can be deployed against the lasers. Mirrors, heat shields?
Rotation is another one.
US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time
31–40 of 79 posts
Re: US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time
#32It will be interesting to see what counter measures can be deployed against the lasers. Mirrors, heat shields?
Simply don't move into direct line of sight of an American ship and fire over-the-horizon weapons at it? Or torpedos. Or supersonic aircraft firing supersonic anti-ship weapons (e.g. the Indian BrahMos). Lasers, unlike SAMs, have a very limited spear of effect.
Yeah, a mere 300 to 600 km range.
Re: US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time
#33It will be interesting to see what counter measures can be deployed against the lasers. Mirrors, heat shields?
Gas and smoke probably.
High powered lasers 15 to 30 years from now won't be powerful enough to burn through gas and smoke nearly instantly? Wouldn't the laser just destroy the smoke particulate?
Re: US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simply don't move into direct line of sight of an American ship and fire over-the-horizon weapons at it? Or torpedos. Or supersonic aircraft firing supersonic anti-ship weapons (e.g. the Indian BrahMos). Lasers, unlike SAMs, have a very limited spear of effect.
Yeah, a mere 300 to 600 km range. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
Re: US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A laser weapon is not an over-the-horizon weapon I'd imagine the long term plan is to roll both lasers and rail guns. The combo seems ideal. Cheat laser shots to swat missiles and drones out of the surroundings whilst bombarding everything further away with the railgun. I bet with a bit of clever tech you can pull off some insane over-the-horizon railgun shots. >Phalanx CIWS which is also computer controlled, it is…
> I bet with a bit of clever tech you can pull off some insane over-the-horizon railgun shots. The projectiles would only have the force of gravity/terminal velocity behind them unless they have been able to create an explosive railgun projectile (that doesn't explode on the launchpad due to the extremely high temperatures and other shock railguns apply to their projectiles). > Laser having +- zero flight time should…
>I think "most of that" is a little overly optimistic. Target tracking is a complex problem
I disagree. The current complexity of target tracking comes mostly from that fact that you need to work out firstly where the thing is, secondly where its heading (in 3 dimensions & in real time) and third how fast. Having a +- zero flight time means you only need to do the first step. You can always rinse & repeat if its a laser pulse.
Essentially its the difference between hitting a moving car with a tennis ball and hitting a stationary car with a tennis ball. Thats why I think it would solve "most of that".
Obviously if the laser isn't a pulse(s) then you're back to square one.
Re: US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, a mere 300 to 600 km range. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
Nope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon
Yep. Depends on where the laser is fired from, and it depends on the target. Lasers can absolutely fire 300 to 600 km.
Re: US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon
Yep. Depends on where the laser is fired from, and it depends on the target. Lasers can absolutely fire 300 to 600 km.
The article and my post are about deploying lasers to ships. You're talking about aircraft.
Ships are limited to the horizon.
Re: US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I bet with a bit of clever tech you can pull off some insane over-the-horizon railgun shots. The projectiles would only have the force of gravity/terminal velocity behind them unless they have been able to create an explosive railgun projectile (that doesn't explode on the launchpad due to the extremely high temperatures and other shock railguns apply to their projectiles). > Laser having +- zero flight time should…
>I think "most of that" is a little overly optimistic. Target tracking is a complex problem I disagree. The current complexity of target tracking comes mostly from that fact that you need to work out firstly where the thing is, secondly where its heading (in 3 dimensions & in real time) and third how fast. Having a +- zero flight time means you only need to do the first step. You can always rinse & repeat if its a la…
That assumes that aiming the laser is instantaneous, too. I have no idea if that is the case or not.
Re: US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time
#39> The Navy plans to deploy its first laser on a ship later this year
I seem to recall the Navy deployed lasers intended to blind enemy pilots in the mid 80s.
Postscript The UK Royal Navy deployed laser dazzlers in 1982, in the Falklands - http://www.gizmag.com/falklands-laser/28574/
Re: US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time
#40With a laser operating on about 30 kilowatts of electricity - and possibly three times that in the future - the cost amounts to a few dollars per shot, Thompson said. The important part. Power is plentiful on a ship. No need to pay for and carry ammunition. The cost for a single rocket or cannon volley is usually in the thousands of dollars.
A tomahawk is around $569,000 per unit! http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1...