It reminds me of a project we had at the university. Some halfwits wanted to investigate the use of a laser to cut weft yarn. The laser system costed more than a brand new loom and only did a marginally better job than a simple scissor costing a few dollars only. The yarn ends of synthetic yarns were nicely cauterized admittedly.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
US Navy to Deploy Laser weapon on ship in 2014
Molinaro
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 4,781
You didn't read the article did you?
Estimated cost to fire the laser: $1
Compared to anywhere from 10s to 100s of thousands per intercept missile.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Not to mention that there are other costs associated with other systems. Take the CIWS guns. They're high-speed, automated gatlings. That means a lot of moving parts, whihc means wear and tear on components and regular maintenece needed. While I'm sure there's maintence on a laser system as well, it will have fewer moving parts. A general rule of thumb is fewer moving parts=cheaper maintenence.
Additionally, a CIWS gun is a high-speed gun, meaing even a short burst to intercept a missile is using hundreds of rounds (the US Phalanxx fires 4500 rounds/minute, so even a tenth of a second burst, which is probably about right for a single intercept, is going through 7 or 8 rounds). And it fires 20mm shells, which aren't cheap.
Additionally, gun systems have ammunition limitations: The Phalanx holds 1550 rounds. While one would hole that 230 intercept shots is sufficient, it may not always be. A laser that doesn't require ammunition opens up space in ammo storage areas for other munitions, and doesn't suffer as much from problems of re-supply (easier to get just fuel for the power plant than fuel and ammunition).
Now, does this mean it will be cheaper and more effective in the long run? Well, that's hard to say. Which is why the Navy is testing it out. I can see the advantages to it: higher accuracy for what is effectively an instantaneous line-of-sight weapon (for all practical intent at the ranges considered). Relatively unlimited ammo. Fewer moving parts.
My best guess is that the Navy wil end up moving to a combined system, a mix of traditional intercept missiles, Phalanx guns, and laser systems. Each offers advantages the others lack, and each has disadvantages. This gives ships a flexibility to use the best system for the particular conditions.
ETA: Not to mention I've experienced the land-based version of the Phalanx, the C-RAM. THere are issues of noise and vibration, as well. The things are LOUD. So saving half your crew from ringing ears (immediately) and hearing loss(long-term) isn't to be overlooked, either.
Additionally, a CIWS gun is a high-speed gun, meaing even a short burst to intercept a missile is using hundreds of rounds (the US Phalanxx fires 4500 rounds/minute, so even a tenth of a second burst, which is probably about right for a single intercept, is going through 7 or 8 rounds). And it fires 20mm shells, which aren't cheap.
Additionally, gun systems have ammunition limitations: The Phalanx holds 1550 rounds. While one would hole that 230 intercept shots is sufficient, it may not always be. A laser that doesn't require ammunition opens up space in ammo storage areas for other munitions, and doesn't suffer as much from problems of re-supply (easier to get just fuel for the power plant than fuel and ammunition).
Now, does this mean it will be cheaper and more effective in the long run? Well, that's hard to say. Which is why the Navy is testing it out. I can see the advantages to it: higher accuracy for what is effectively an instantaneous line-of-sight weapon (for all practical intent at the ranges considered). Relatively unlimited ammo. Fewer moving parts.
My best guess is that the Navy wil end up moving to a combined system, a mix of traditional intercept missiles, Phalanx guns, and laser systems. Each offers advantages the others lack, and each has disadvantages. This gives ships a flexibility to use the best system for the particular conditions.
ETA: Not to mention I've experienced the land-based version of the Phalanx, the C-RAM. THere are issues of noise and vibration, as well. The things are LOUD. So saving half your crew from ringing ears (immediately) and hearing loss(long-term) isn't to be overlooked, either.
Last edited:
Moon-Spinner
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
- Messages
- 1,581
Now we just need Val Kilmer, a house, and a huge packet of jiffy pop....
And the song "Everybody Wants To Rule The World" by Tears For Fears playing in the background...
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,499
Another thing to keep in mind is that this unit is very much a testbed. For instance, one of the big questions is likely to be whether the optics can be kept clean enough under operational conditions not to cause them to self-destruct during engagements. If the LAWS works well enough in this setting, more capable versions will be produced.
As well, the power available is not enough for many targets. Notice that the drone in the video requires about 5 seconds of continuous engagement before it loses stability. That's not likely a problem if you're interested in stopping a zodiac (as in the case of the USS Cole), but those are likely to be easy meat for any conventional weapons system, anyways.
As well, the power available is not enough for many targets. Notice that the drone in the video requires about 5 seconds of continuous engagement before it loses stability. That's not likely a problem if you're interested in stopping a zodiac (as in the case of the USS Cole), but those are likely to be easy meat for any conventional weapons system, anyways.
Not an expert at all on on the matter, but it seems to me that the optics issue could be a big one on a naval vessel. What would be the effect of water droplets or condensation be on the lens of this?
rcfieldz
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 1,189
Makes sense that rain, fog, etc would lessen its effectiveness. I didn't phrase my question very well, I was trying to ask about the effect of drops or condensation directly on the lens its self. I wasn't sure if it would be there long enough to effect the targeting of the system (through refraction if I am thinking about it correctly) or not.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
There are things that can be done to mitigate those effects. Keeping the lens warm should prevent condensation, sufficient baffles could keep most rain and splash off. Ships have had optical rangefinders for over a century, so this isn't a new problem.
The lens on the laser itself could have a protective shutter that was opened only briefly while the laser was fired.
Not saying that these won't be 'interesting' technical issues, but I suspect that they're manageable.
Again, makes sense. I figureded there'd be a shutter for the lens, but hadn't thought as far as warming the lens to reduce condensation. Turned out to be a good way to learn a bit more about lasers beyond my experience with the key chain one I used to have my neice chase around...
You didn't read the thread, did you? I can still fire 3100 missiles at 10000 dollar per missile if the friggin laser costs 31 million dollar. That's probably two orders of magnitude more than is currently on board any such ship. Not to mention if you'd start comparing with an anti aircraft turret or the likes.You didn't read the article did you?
Estimated cost to fire the laser: $1
Compared to anywhere from 10s to 100s of thousands per intercept missile.
Last edited:
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
Are you factoring all the costs associated with the missile system? Launchers, armour and fire protection for the magazines and the increase in vessel size associated with their storage, computers and radars and resupply costs?
Not having explosives and propellants stored all over the ship can only be good from a damage control perspective.
Molinaro
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 4,781
Contrary to what they think, I have read the thread and notice how obvious it is that they refuse to address anything along the lines of your reasonable attempt at discussion.
Simon666 seems to have decided that it's a waste of money and they do not appear to have any intention of letting the reality of the situation change that opinion.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
10000 per missile? This seems unlikely.
GodMark2
Master Poster
Phalanx CWIS: $35 million per block
The gun itself is only about $5 million of that
Automated and integrated target acquisition, tracking, prioritization and termination costs money, and lots of it.
Last edited:
Toontown
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 6,595
Simon666 wasn't born yesterday. He knows the navy is very stupid. That's why it's lost nearly every battle it's fought, except for a couple of flukes like Midway and Leyte Gulf.
Well, they may have gotten lucky a couple of other times. But the point is, any internet hack can see it is utterly stupid to be putting 30-million-dollar laser guns on ships. They can't possibly have any idea what they're doing.
Simon666 should be installed immediately as secretary of the navy, and get the bozo boat brought around before it's too late.
