Utopia Talk / Politics / US Navy unveils 150 KW laser weapon

Habebe Member	Sat May 23 07:27:58 http://www...laser-intl-hnk-scli/index.html Stay Updated on Developing Stories VIEW IN APP Live TV The US successfully tested a laser weapon that can destroy aircraft mid-flight By Brad Lendon, CNN Updated 11:08 PM EDT, Fri May 22, 2020 The amphibious transport dock ship USS Portland conducts a high-energy laser weapon test in the Pacifc Ocean on May 16, 2020. Hong Kong(CNN)A US Navy warship has successfully tested a new high-energy laser weapon that can destroy aircraft mid-flight, the Navy's Pacific Fleet said in a statement Friday. Images and videos provided by the Navy show the amphibious transport dock ship USS Portland executing "the first system-level implementation of a high-energy class solid-state laser" to disable an aerial drone aircraft, the statement said. The images show the laser emanating from the deck of the warship. Short video clips show what appears to be the drone burning. The Navy did not give a specific location of the laser weapons system demonstrator (LWSD) test, saying only that it occurred in the Pacific on May 16. The power of the weapon was not disclosed, but a 2018 report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies said it was expected to be a 150-kilowatt laser. "By conducting advanced at sea tests against UAVs and small crafts, we will gain valuable information on the capabilities of the Solid State Laser Weapons System Demonstrator against potential threats," Capt. Karrey Sanders, commanding officer of Portland, said in the statement. "With this new advanced capability, we are redefining war at sea for the Navy." The Navy says lasers, which it calls directed energy weapons (DEW), can be effective defenses against drones or armed small boats. "The Navy's development of DEWs like the LWSD provide immediate warfighter benefits and provide the commander increased decision space and response options," the statement said. In 2017, CNN witnessed a live-fire exercise of a 30-kilowatt laser weapon aboard the amphibious transport ship USS Ponce in the Persian Gulf. At the time, Lt. Cale Hughes, a laser weapons system officer, described how they work. "It is throwing massive amounts of photons at an incoming object," Hughes said. "We don't worry about wind, we don't worry about range, we don't worry about anything else. We're able to engage the targets at the speed of light."
Habebe Member	Sat May 23 07:33:50 Trumps gonna have sharks, with tricking laser beams on there heads. We need mike Meyers to SNL that skit.
jergul large member	Sat May 23 07:56:48 habebe The limpet fish would need to carry the capacitors (batteries) for the shark idea to work. Navalized lasers are functionally a spin-off from electromagnetic aircraft catapults. Those need a huge amount of power on demand, so fast discharge batteries are required. The batteries will loiter most of the time (like 98% of the time under combat operations), so may as well use their capacity for something else. CIWS lasers fits the ticket. Assuming unlimited energy supply in the first place to charge the batteries = nuclear power. I am quite fond of the Navy's energy efficiency schemes to better use reactor capacity. They are also looking into producing synthetic aviation fuel onboard using redundant nuclear power.
Habebe Member	Sat May 23 08:08:58 http://youtu.be/Bh7bYNAHXxw
jergul large member	Sat May 23 08:24:56 I got the reference :).
Habebe Member	Sat May 23 08:32:16 I figured this doesnt need its own thread but interesting. http://www...s-nuclear-test-since-1992/amp/ The US may be testing Nukes again.
jergul large member	Sat May 23 08:37:02 Its Trump doing stuff because he has to do stuff to win in November. Its not going to force China and Russia to negotiate as they both have more need of nuclear testing. There are some interesting miniature and dialable nuke designs over there that need hands on tests to validate proof of concepts.
Habebe Member	Sat May 23 09:58:10 Yeah, tbh I dont think Trump wants the US to habenits hands tied in that respwcr either.
jergul large member	Sat May 23 10:04:00 Hands have never been tied for as long as the US is ok with other countries testing nukes too.
jergul large member	Sat May 23 10:20:27 Its not really a 0-sum game. Most countries simply think that the advantage they gain from testing nukes is buried under the disadvantages of every other nuclear power also testing nukes. Trump obviously does not think that way because his team is calculating that withdrawing from treaties will somehow help him win a 2nd term. Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we will do it.
jergul large member	Sat May 23 10:23:14 I sort of wish he understood the advantage of pulling up the drawbridge. Do something until you can do it really well, then stop everyone else from doing it poorly and slowly learning the ropes.
Seb Member	Sun May 24 04:17:41 Jergul: Not really. EM catapult and lasers are more a consequence of the drive for all electric ships, which in turn are about reducing mechanical systems and gaining flexibility. Much the same as for electric drive trains in cars.
jergul large member	Sun May 24 04:27:50 Seb You are looking at it upside down. All-electric ships are easier to do with less systems drawing on the electrical power system. Its not a case of justifying electrical vessels by having more electrical stuff. Catapults and lasers are not similar at all to electric drives. Their peak power use is insane, but only for durations lasting seconds at most. Hence mechanical capacitors. Now, I am not saying the USN will avoid stupid things like diesel generators charging mechanical capacitors so it can use lasers on conventionally powered ships. I am saying I like how the USN is trying to draw more effeciency out of twin reactors on nuclear vessels by increasing scale and use of electrical output. Synthetic aviation fuel production is an important part of that (when not using lasers or catapults, produce synthetic fuel).
jergul large member	Sun May 24 04:31:52 The measures combined just stink of naval engineers being autistic about stuff. Autism is often good in the field of engineering (though you get stuff like perfectly designed gaschamber doors because of the autism. Engineers involved probably did not spend a second thinking "wait a moment - what the fuck are these going to be used for? Do I want to be part of that?").
Seb Member	Sun May 24 16:06:59 Jergul: Most of the ships these are aimed to be put on don't have nuclear reactors.
Forwyn Member	Sun May 24 16:48:27 http://uto...hread=85718&time=1590225324950 Yeah, like in Black Ops 3, TC
jergul large member	Sun May 24 18:34:46 Seb *Shrug*. That would be silly. Doubling the weight of close in weapon systems and adding to their complexity for 0 improvements in kill chances. The concept is best suited for nuclear carriers with electromagnetic catapults.
Seb Member	Mon May 25 02:38:33 Jergul: I think it's a far superior weapon against done swarms then any thing else on an DD.
jergul large member	Mon May 25 04:59:26 Navalizing something that might be of marginal use in defence of fixed installations? You are just throwing in buzz words here Seb. I cannot even imagine drone swarm specifications that would amount to even the smallest of threats against DD+ sized vessels at sea. If a country or groups has drone swarm capability, then is has far better target selection criteria than sending swarms off to sea and hoping for the best.
McKobb Member	Mon May 25 05:22:34 This shit ain't new. Nice poser points tho.
Seb Member	Mon May 25 14:35:26 "Navalizing something that might be of marginal use in defence of fixed installations?" Biggest threat to ships is a swarm of cheap drones or missiles at the moment. Including boars. Saturates CIWS. You want to save RAM and Phallanx bullets for the bigger missiles, not have them exhausted on glorified chaff. Specs do not have to be great at all.
Habebe Member	Mon May 25 15:08:14 "Biggest threat to ships is a swarm of cheap drones or missiles at the moment" This was a big issue in regards to Iran.
jergul large member	Mon May 25 15:29:50 Seb How? Plan an attack against a naval carrier group with a swarm of drones. First spec would be able to overtake 30 knots in a timely way. So 80 knots speed or something. 2nd would have to be electronic hardening to defeat jamming and what exactly is going to be the terminal guidance system? Things that meet the specs are called "missiles".
jergul large member	Mon May 25 15:31:41 I hate it when you pretend to know stuff.
jergul large member	Mon May 25 15:38:04 In sum. Any condition where you might consider using a laser, you would be better off using a lighter and better proven CIWS module.
jergul large member	Mon May 25 15:47:08 Except on nuclear carriers or any other vessel set up with electromagnetic catapults. They make sense there. Lasers on carriers also have about 4 times the range as an equivalent laser on a DD (assuming sea skimming targets).
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: