US Navy to Deploy Laser weapon on ship in 2014

Molinaro

Illuminator
Molinaro
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
4,781
The US Navy will be deploying a laser weapon system on the USS Ponce, in 2014. The laser is capable of destroying drones and small boats.

Interesting times ahead.

CNN article
 
Molinaro said:
The US Navy will be deploying a laser weapon system on the USS Ponce, in 2014. The laser is capable of destroying drones and small boats.

Interesting times ahead.

CNN article
Click to expand...

Thanks Molinaro,

I had seen the headline for the article this morning but didn’t get a chance to read it. I had intended to do so and perhaps start a tread later (which of course, later, I forgot all about).

[satirical mode] Great now all they need is a mirror to knock out a 31 million dollar weapon system.[/satirical mode]

[bad joke mode] Should make the next Pink Floyd cover band laser light show all that much better.[/bad joke mode]
 
Molinaro said:
The US Navy will be deploying a laser weapon system on the USS Ponce, in 2014. The laser is capable of destroying drones and small boats.

Interesting times ahead.

CNN article
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who can only imagine this being spoken by Dr Evil while he air quotes the word "laser"?
 
Trust the military to be always inventive in new ways to waste money.
 
Here's hoping it isn't foggy when they try and deploy it, or that the targets are shiny or that they learn that a smokescreen works against this weapon.
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
USS Ponce? srsly? Who allowed that name?
Click to expand...

According to wiki:

USS Ponce (AFSB(I)-15), an Austin-class amphibious transport dock, is the only ship of the United States Navy that is named for Ponce in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which in turn was named after the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon, the first governor of Puerto Rico and European discoverer of Florida.
Click to expand...

But to British ears it is quite funny, what next, HMS Pimp ?
 
The Don said:
Here's hoping it isn't foggy when they try and deploy it, or that the targets are shiny or that they learn that a smokescreen works against this weapon.
Click to expand...

To be fair, when you're talking about these kinds of power levels, "shiny" doesn't do much to mitigate the damage. Even a glass mirror is only about 95% reflective, IIRC, meaning a laser would still transfer enough energy to it to destroy it in milliseconds. Even stronger materials would quickly loose their shininess as the material was degraded.

Similar things with smoke and fog...there needs to be a lot of it, and thick.

The difference in power between weapons-grade lasers and smaller devices is something like the difference between a BB gun and a high powered rifle. Yeah, the BB gun is likely to be stopped or deflected by shooting through foliage. The rifle...not so much.
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
To be fair, when you're talking about these kinds of power levels, "shiny" doesn't do much to mitigate the damage. Even a glass mirror is only about 95% reflective, IIRC, meaning a laser would still transfer enough energy to it to destroy it in milliseconds. Even stronger materials would quickly loose their shininess as the material was degraded.
Click to expand...

Very much this. Shoot a high power laser at a mirror and the mirror will vaporise well before any significant amount of energy is reflected.

Similar things with smoke and fog...there needs to be a lot of it, and thick.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, not so much this. Smoke and fog greatly degrade the range of lasers. Even clear air can do so depending on the conditions, which is why telescopes need to use adaptive optics.

Simon666 said:
Trust the military to be always inventive in new ways to waste money.
Click to expand...

Except that the whole point is that this would be several orders of magnitude cheaper than using missiles. Reading articles before commenting on them is often a good idea.
 
Cuddles said:
On the other hand, not so much this. Smoke and fog greatly degrade the range of lasers. Even clear air can do so depending on the conditions, which is why telescopes need to use adaptive optics.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does degrade it, I was just trying to counter the common idea that popping a smoke grenade would provide effective protection against something like this. It takes more than a bit of smoke or fog...you need a good amount between target and firer (either a long range of light fog/smoke or a shorter distance of thick stuff). You're talking about something that will vaporize the smoke particles and/or water droplets as it goes through; it needs enough material to degrade the beam sufficiently.

Of course, IANAE, so there could well be some additional effect I'm missing :)
 
Cuddles said:
Except that the whole point is that this would be several orders of magnitude cheaper than using missiles. Reading articles before commenting on them is often a good idea.
Click to expand...
Pretty much anything is cheaper than missiles. If they'd compare the price to bullets of an anti aircraft gun or ship turret, it might be a bit different. And while the energy to the laser may be dirt cheap, the laser itself and associated cooling systems and optics aren't exactly dirt cheap eh? Using false metrics for comparison is a standard sales pitch. Reading articles before commenting here is indeed a good idea. Did you read the part "the first official estimated the cost at roughly $31 million" or did you only read "our conservative data tells us a shot of directed energy costs under $1"?
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
Yes, it does degrade it, I was just trying to counter the common idea that popping a smoke grenade would provide effective protection against something like this.
Click to expand...

True, and even if a smoke grenade was effective, there are a lot targets for which that wouldn't be practical. Would an incoming cruise missile need to deploy a string of smoke grenades ahead of itself?

It takes more than a bit of smoke or fog...you need a good amount between target and firer (either a long range of light fog/smoke or a shorter distance of thick stuff). You're talking about something that will vaporize the smoke particles and/or water droplets as it goes through; it needs enough material to degrade the beam sufficiently.
Click to expand...

I'd be more concerned about the smoke/fog being sufficent to interfere with optical tracking of the target. I'm not sure that radar tracking is sufficiently accurate for laser targeting.

Of course, IANAE, so there could well be some additional effect I'm missing :)
Click to expand...

The 'additional effect,' IMO, is that there is no single naval weapon that works against every threat and is immune to countermeasures, so we shouldn't hold the laser to that standard. Deck guns are useless against submerged subs, torpedoes are ineffective against aircraft, cruise missiles are ineffective against TBMs, etc.

So, sure, there are targets for which the laser will be ineffective, and sure there are countermeasures or environmental effects that will reduce its effectiveness. But will the laser be effective often enough to justify the cost, or would the ship be more effective if it had, for example, another CIWS* mounted instead of the laser?

I don't know. I strongly suspect that the USN doesn't know, either, and that there are intelligent people on both sides arguing that this will or won't be very useful. If that's the case, then it certainly seems reasonable to do a limited deployment of the thing and see how it works out.

*FWIW, I have no idea whether the laser system takes comparable space, weight, etc, to a CIWS installation.
 
dasmiller said:
True, and even if a smoke grenade was effective, there are a lot targets for which that wouldn't be practical. Would an incoming cruise missile need to deploy a string of smoke grenades ahead of itself?
Click to expand...
For the current power of this specific system, engagement time being low might mean nothing needs to be deployed by an incoming cruise missile. That's why they describe the system as having been used against "drones", probably not incoming, and "fast moving" boats. Not to say higher power levels could not change this in the future, but still.


dasmiller said:
*FWIW, I have no idea whether the laser system takes comparable space, weight, etc, to a CIWS installation.
Click to expand...
From the pics I saw at up-ship.com, space seems considerable.
 
dasmiller said:
True, and even if a smoke grenade was effective, there are a lot targets for which that wouldn't be practical. Would an incoming cruise missile need to deploy a string of smoke grenades ahead of itself?



I'd be more concerned about the smoke/fog being sufficent to interfere with optical tracking of the target. I'm not sure that radar tracking is sufficiently accurate for laser targeting.



The 'additional effect,' IMO, is that there is no single naval weapon that works against every threat and is immune to countermeasures, so we shouldn't hold the laser to that standard. Deck guns are useless against submerged subs, torpedoes are ineffective against aircraft, cruise missiles are ineffective against TBMs, etc.

So, sure, there are targets for which the laser will be ineffective, and sure there are countermeasures or environmental effects that will reduce its effectiveness. But will the laser be effective often enough to justify the cost, or would the ship be more effective if it had, for example, another CIWS* mounted instead of the laser?

I don't know. I strongly suspect that the USN doesn't know, either, and that there are intelligent people on both sides arguing that this will or won't be very useful. If that's the case, then it certainly seems reasonable to do a limited deployment of the thing and see how it works out.

*FWIW, I have no idea whether the laser system takes comparable space, weight, etc, to a CIWS installation.
Click to expand...

I unreservedly agree with your comments. Excellent analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom