What's new

Futuristic Laser Successfully Tested on Cruiser

Thomas

PROFESSIONAL
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,688
Reaction score
0
Navy Shows Off Powerful New Laser Weapon
By Jeremy A. Kaplan
Published April 08, 2011

Navy Shows Off Powerful New Laser Weapon - FoxNews.com


Navy%20Laser%20Defense%20Testing%202.jpg



One if by land … lasers if by sea.

A futuristic laser mounted on a speeding cruiser successfully blasted a bobbing, weaving boat from the waters of the Pacific Ocean -- the first test at sea of such a gun and a fresh milestone in the Navy's quest to reoutfit the fleet with a host of laser weapons, the Navy announced Friday.

"We were able to have a destructive effect on a high-speed cruising target," chief of Naval research Rear Adm. Nevin Carr told FoxNews.com.

The test occurred Wednesday near San Nicholas Island, off the coast of Central California in the Pacific Ocean test range, from a laser gun mounted onto the deck of the Navy’s self-defense test ship, former USS Paul Foster.

In a video of the event, the small boat can be seen catching fire and ultimately bursting into flames, a conflagration caused by the navy's distant gun. Some details of the event were classified, including the exact range of the shot, but Carr could provide some information: "We're talking miles, not yards," Carr said.

The Navy, Army and other armed forces have been working to incorporate so called "directed energy" laser weapons in a range of new guns, from tank-mounted blasters to guns on planes or unmanned balloons. But this marks the first test of a laser weapon at sea -- and proof that laser rifles are no mere Buck Rogers daydream.

“This is the first time a [high-energy-laser], at these power levels, has been put on a Navy ship, powered from that ship and used to defeat a target at-range in a maritime environment,” said Peter Morrison, program officer for the Office of Naval Research.

"The Navy is moving strongly towards directed energy," Carr told FoxNews.com.

The weapon, called the maritime laser demonstrator, was built in partnership with Northrop Grumman. It focused 15 kilowatts of energy by concentrating it through a solid medium -- hence the name.

"We call them solid state because they use a medium, usually something like a crystal," explained Quentin Saulter, the research office's program officer. It was used in Wednesday's demonstration against a small boat, but Carr told FoxNews.com that this and other types of laser weaponry could be equally effective against planes and even targets on shore.

"To begin to address a cruise missile threat, we'd need to get up to hundreds of kilowatts," Carr said.

The Navy is working on just such a gun of course.

Called the FEL -- for free-electron laser, which doesn't use a gain medium and is therefore more versatile -- it was tested in February consuming a blistering 500 kilovolts of energy, producing a supercharged electron beam that can burn through 20 feet of steel per second.

The FEL will easily get into the kilowatt power range. It can also be easily tuned as well, to adjust to environmental conditions, another reason it is more flexible than the fixed wavelength of solid-state laser. But the Navy doesn't expect to release megawatt-class FEL weapons until the 2020s; among the obstacles yet to be overcome, the incredible power requirements of the FEL weapons require careful consideration.

Also in the Navy's futuristic arsenal: a so-called "rail gun," which uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound.

Railguns are even further off in the distance, possibly by 2025, the Navy has said. But the demonstration of the maritime laser demonstrator this week proves that some laser weapons are just around the corner: Northrop Grumman experts aim to have the final product ready by June of 2014.

"One of the things that amazes me about this business is that the future is getting closer every day," Carr said.
 
. .
wonder what the powersupply is

It is a solid state laser that was tested. So the ships power plant is the power source. The navy has already made plans to increase the power output of it's future ships by a wide margin in anticipation of increased use of high energy weapons.
 
.
Unless other papers are wrong I don't think the range it was shot at was classified, it was about a mile. Max range could be classified though.

I've also read speculation on another forum that this was more to work out the kinks of integrating a DEW into a ship and basically making sure things run properly than actualyl testing of the weapon firepower itself.
 
.
The real game changer will be the FEL. It is not hindered by atmospheric distortion (fog, rain, snow, clouds, smoke, ECT.). The main problem right now is miniaturizing it's power source. It requires a particle accelerator small enough to fit on a ship and powerful enough to burn through other ships and missiles.
 
.
The laser gun is good for 'miles, not yards' as how Adm. Carr put it. One mile horizontal or vertical, it does not matter. So it looks like the Chinese can kiss their DF-21 supposedly 'anti-ship' ballistic missile bye-bye.
 
.
The laser gun is good for 'miles, not yards' as how Adm. Carr put it. One mile horizontal or vertical, it does not matter. So it looks like the Chinese can kiss their DF-21 supposedly 'anti-ship' ballistic missile bye-bye.

Seriously, how does small boat equal Mach 10 ballistic warhead ??
Please tell us. This is just a please don't cut my funding demonstration.

Even Yal-1 is boost phase against the thinner rocket skin, not warhead.
Real high energy weapons are 20+ years away. DF-21d is today.
 
.
Seriously, how does small boat equal Mach 10 ballistic warhead ??
Please tell us. This is just a please don't cut my funding demonstration.
Geeeezzz...And you expect me to believe that you actually worked for Lockheed...??? :rolleyes: This was not about making the small boat the equivalent of a descending ballistic warhead. The fact that this was a sea surface demo tells me that the test itself is more comprehensive and rigorous than the Navy let on. Sea surface clutter is detrimental to radar detection, plus, the viewing angle determine if the target is a contrast against or a blend-in into this chaotic clutter environment.

The analogy here is whether I am looking for a camouflaged soldier from the air or from the same horizontal plane as the soldier himself. If I am looking for the camouflaged soldier from the air, I am looking for a contrast such as his human outline against the grass or his ruck that could give him away. If I am on the ground looking horizontally it would be more difficult because now I must attempt to distinguish the camouflage pattern from the environment with a limited field-of-view. Hunters know this problem quite well.

If I am looking from above, I would be looking at only the sea surface, therefore I have to deal with only one type of background clutter. If I am looking horizontally, I am looking at the sea AND the sky. Two different and quite opposite clutter data processing requirements.

Radar detection of a small boat is quite difficult when the the seeker is also on the sea surface. That is why small boats install passive radar enhancers to make themselves more 'visible'...

Duckworks Magazine - Passive Radar Reflectors
Still, a radar reflector seems like a good idea. When I got my sailboat, the previous owner tossed in a 3-plate radar reflector (an “octahedral” reflector which was, by hindsight, too small at 4 ¾” to be at all effective), which I hung near the mast top.
A hostile small boat would not be so cooperative.

Do you know what is a 'Douglas sea state'?

Douglas Sea Scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Douglas Sea Scale is a scale which measures the height of the waves and also measures the swell of the sea. The scale is very simple to follow. The Douglas Sea Scale is expressed in one of 10 degrees.
A high sea state, approaching 10, will make the hostile small boat even more difficult to detect and when he is detected he may not stay 'visible' for long.

To a 'radar guy' like me, this test reveals a lot about the integration between EXISTING sensor technology and this new laser weapon in that the sensor is able to instruct/guide the gun to a briefly detected target in various sea states and the gun responded rapidly enough to render the target useless.

Even Yal-1 is boost phase against the thinner rocket skin, not warhead.
Real high energy weapons are 20+ years away. DF-21d is today.
Sorry...But until we see something more concrete than fanboy Photochopped crap, the DF-21 remain a possibility, not a reality.

But even if we are generous and say that the DF-21 is real, what make you think China could use it? Under what cause? Events leading up to a war usually take years to fester between two or more sides. If there are tensions between US and China that could lead to open warfare, you better bet that the Navy will receive as much funding as needed to develop and finalize this laser gun. So if we are realistic about the DF-21, at best the DF-21 will deploy roughly the same time as this new laser gun. But even if the DF-21 is deployed for real it will make it even more urgent for the US Congress to give the funds the Navy needs.

Face it...The DF-21 has just been rendered obsolete. Best to sell it on the market as a discount.
 
.
Geeeezzz...And you expect me to believe that you actually worked for Lockheed...??? :rolleyes: This was not about making the small boat the equivalent of a descending ballistic warhead. The fact that this was a sea surface demo tells me that the test itself is more comprehensive and rigorous than the Navy let on. Sea surface clutter is detrimental to radar detection, plus, the viewing angle determine if the target is a contrast against or a blend-in into this chaotic clutter environment.

The analogy here is whether I am looking for a camouflaged soldier from the air or from the same horizontal plane as the soldier himself. If I am looking for the camouflaged soldier from the air, I am looking for a contrast such as his human outline against the grass or his ruck that could give him away. If I am on the ground looking horizontally it would be more difficult because now I must attempt to distinguish the camouflage pattern from the environment with a limited field-of-view. Hunters know this problem quite well.

If I am looking from above, I would be looking at only the sea surface, therefore I have to deal with only one type of background clutter. If I am looking horizontally, I am looking at the sea AND the sky. Two different and quite opposite clutter data processing requirements.

Radar detection of a small boat is quite difficult when the the seeker is also on the sea surface. That is why small boats install passive radar enhancers to make themselves more 'visible'...

Duckworks Magazine - Passive Radar Reflectors

A hostile small boat would not be so cooperative.

Do you know what is a 'Douglas sea state'?

Douglas Sea Scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A high sea state, approaching 10, will make the hostile small boat even more difficult to detect and when he is detected he may not stay 'visible' for long.

To a 'radar guy' like me, this test reveals a lot about the integration between EXISTING sensor technology and this new laser weapon in that the sensor is able to instruct/guide the gun to a briefly detected target in various sea states and the gun responded rapidly enough to render the target useless.


Sorry...But until we see something more concrete than fanboy Photochopped crap, the DF-21 remain a possibility, not a reality.

But even if we are generous and say that the DF-21 is real, what make you think China could use it? Under what cause? Events leading up to a war usually take years to fester between two or more sides. If there are tensions between US and China that could lead to open warfare, you better bet that the Navy will receive as much funding as needed to develop and finalize this laser gun. So if we are realistic about the DF-21, at best the DF-21 will deploy roughly the same time as this new laser gun. But even if the DF-21 is deployed for real it will make it even more urgent for the US Congress to give the funds the Navy needs.

Face it...The DF-21 has just been rendered obsolete. Best to sell it on the market as a discount.

DF-21 was a game changer so it was obvious that US is going to come up with something..Anyways.. Pakistan might buy up DF-21
 
.
The laser gun is good for 'miles, not yards' as how Adm. Carr put it. One mile horizontal or vertical, it does not matter. So it looks like the Chinese can kiss their DF-21 supposedly 'anti-ship' ballistic missile bye-bye.

Now the real fan boy is talking.It is just the first stepping stone but considering it practical from now on is a lot naive.The target is also static in the video.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Gambit, you made the link between small static boat and Mach 10 ballistic warhead. Not I. See your own Post #6.

If you can't tell this is a "Please don't cut my funding demo' than I can't help you. The US Navy has been working on this for 40 years. They've got another 20 years if you think they can shoot down a Mach 10 manueverable ballistic warhead. By then the warhead will have anti-laser defenses too.

Yes, I worked for a unit of Lockheed Martin Federal Systems that was bought from Loral Federal Systems that was originally IBM Federal System. IBM Federal Systems made all the sonar and digital signal processing for every US submarine except Seawolf (GE won that contract). Who's the fanboy??
 
.
With current generation radar tracking and targeting systems. It is not hard to pinpoint a ballistic warhead. What was harder was getting counter fire precisely on target to hit it. High energy weapons eliminate that problem. And believe me if they can focus a beam of light on incoming mortar rounds and destroy them. Ballistic missile warheads are a piece of cake. and it doesn't matter if they travel at Mach 10. If anything the faster they travel the easier it is to make them break apart.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Now the real fan boy is talking.It is just the first stepping stone but considering it practical from now on is a lot naive.The target is also static in the video.


It's been confirmed the target was moving, not static.

DF-21d is today.

DF-21d hasn't even been tested in its intended environment. It's not operational, it's not today.

:edit: nvm off topic

In any case this is just a step in a series of steps towards real DEW capability. There are multiple programs towards this goal, most if not all with apparently working prototypes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
With current generation radar tracking and targeting systems. It is not hard to pinpoint a ballistic warhead. What was harder was getting counter fire precisely on target to hit it. High energy weapons eliminate that problem. And believe me if they can focus a beam of light on incoming mortar rounds and destroy them. Ballistic missile warheads are a piece of cake. and it doesn't matter if they travel at Mach 10. If anything the faster they travel the easier it is to make them break apart.


If you are claiming that a Mach 10 manueverable ballistic warhead is easier to shoot down than a mortar round than I disagree. A mortar round is more than 12 times slower and follows newton's laws of motion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
DF-21d hasn't even been tested in its intended environment. It's not operational, it's not today.

The biggest and most glaring problem with DF-21d, is that it is a ballistic missile with a conventional payload. Who would be dumb enough to fire a large batch of these and risk nuclear retaliation?

Some US Admiral claims DF-21d has gone IOC. I'm too lazy to Google.

As for your second argument on conventional ballistic warheads, look up prompt global strike. US is doing the same thing.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom