So, uh, the Navy has a 2014-style death ray?
Missles travel pretty fast. I’m thinking a few seconds of protection would probably be enough to give the missle a pretty fair shot at hitting its target. Especially if you combine this with the aforementioned “hypersonic” missles.
Also, I’ve read stories that Russia (and probably the US too) have been working on developing torpedoes that use cavitation to travel much faster than old-school torpedoes. The ultimate goal would be to develop torpedoes that are quite literally an underwater missle, in terms of speed as well as impact. Even the most powerful laser on earth would be totally useless against that.
I’m thinking more that any missile that can absorb the heat of traveling Mach 10 through the atmosphere can survive a gentle warming with a 100kW laser.
I dunno - seems to me a missile designed and built to survive temperature X does not necessarily survive temperature (X + 100) or even (X + 20).
The bad guys might start modifying their missiles, but that’s just like any other arms race where offensive & defensive considerations change as technology does - no more a reason to not build laser weapons than it was a reason to not build dreadnoughts 100 years ago or nuclear submarines 60 years ago.
You say that, but the CPO directing the laser was using something awfully close to an Xbox controller.
I assume missiles are designed with some fairly high tolerances. There’s a pretty strong desire for them not to blow up where they aren’t supposed to.
Plus, again, the original question is not “can the laser destroy a missile” but "can it destroy a missile nearly instantaneously, so that it can move on to destroy all the missiles in the ‘swarm’ ". I think the answer to the latter question is pretty clearly “no”, and I’m pretty sceptical the system could destroy a missile at all.
I think if the weapon is expensive, and the modifications necessary to defeat it are trivial, the weapon should indeed not be built. In this case, I’m not sure any modifications would even be necessary. I don’t think the weapon, even the future scaled up one, will be able to destroy a swarm of oncoming missiles, even if those missiles are built without defeating lasers in mind.
Maybe a very large, multi-megawatt laser would work. But since such a thing would need its own powerplant/cooling systems/etc. I think rather than defending a ship, it would basically be the ship.
How high? seems to be the relevant question. Aircraft and missiles are vulnerable to weight tradeoffs - if you build them out of tougher materials or with more redundancy, they tend to weigh more and perform more poorly on metrics like speed and altitude or payload. There’s no such thing as a free missile lunch.
In addition, the Navy destroyed drones with the laser you can see the laser used against a surface and an aerial target here - I suppose the possibilities are that those drones were weakened somehow deliberately for the test? Not sure if I buy that, but it’s possible.
I’m not sure the system is currently used for missile defense - even if it can’t destroy a missile, it can destroy aircraft and boats, which is still something the Navy needs to do. Just because dreadnoughts of the early 1900s couldn’t destroy lots of land fortifications wasn’t sufficient argument to deter the building of those weapons, because they had other useful roles.
Perhaps a future version of the laser weapon will be effective against high-speed missiles, perhaps not. But just because a weapon does not do everything does not mean it doesn’t do something useful. We still fly A-10s even though they’re no good at shooting down Russian T-50s, because even though the A-10 doesn’t do everything, it still does something useful.
Stories? In this case, the future is not now - it was almost 40 years ago: VA-111.
Err…you just reposted the video from the OP. That’s what we’re discussing.
It can destroy drones, if it can be trained on it for ~1 sec. I don’t think it could shoot down an aircraft, for similar reasons as with the missile. (the boat in the video was pretty far from destroyed, they blew up a piece of black plastic above it.) But the navy already seems to have a pretty wide range of weapons for destroying boats and drones. Hence my original question, what’s the use case for this thing? The answers I see in news articles seem fairly fanciful (and in many cases, are contradicted by caveats further down in the same article).
Hence my original question. What’s “the something useful” here? One poster suggested swarms of boats and or missiles, hence the discussion of those two things.
Add to that the fact that it costs about a buck a shot, and it’s win/win for Uncle Sam.
Push a button and see nothing happen but a target immediately burning. That has to be a new high for a fighter pilot. (assuming it get added to aircraft)
I can almost hear it:
“Engineering, boost operational power by 80% on this pass…”
"This is Chief Engineering Officer Early… that’ll exceeds Operational Specs by 10%…’
“Chief, I’m The Man from Saipan & I GIVE THE TAN!!! Do it on MY Authority…”
“Aye-aye, Sir…”
“Roast 'Em…!”
Well, the Navy doesn’t intend to use this for missile protection. According to what I’ve read (including in the linked article), this system is aimed by the phalanx gun system, but isn’t going to be used in lieu of it. Small boats and aircraft appear to be its intended target, which it seems to do fine against. It’s advantage over the phalanx gun and the usual deck guns is the aforementioned $1/shot. That’s around the price of a single .30-06 round.
And it appears to do much more damage than a rifle round. The targets in the video appear to be fairly substantial, and all but the drone disintegrate explosively. I’d guess a .30-06 would just have poked a hole in them. The wiki entry claims it’s six solid-state welding lasers aimed to converge on a point. That’s quite a lot of instantaneous energy, and I would imagine it could be scaled easily. I’m guessing the explosion may be from a phase transition, which may be happening because they chose a specific material tuned to the laser for their demonstration, but it may be happening because it’s causing such a temperature difference on a small spot in a hard material.
ETA: Bwahahahahah “I GIVE THE TAN!!!” Count Blucher tell me that’s original!
Heh… yeah. Almost all day, almost every day.
I have my favorites that I quote from, but generally speaking, I can give out some bad-ass original sound bites at will.
I should make a production company called “Smooth Lines, LLC”, but noone would ever believe me…
Just try not to use, “Well, Mr. Checkov… looks like we won’t be burning our way out of this one…” (Someday, I’d actually like to see that one used on film. 
)
Just another talent I can’t earn a dime at in America. Use it and have Fun!
Somedays, I feel like that character in the Bradbury novel who was a homeless castaway/stowaway & calculates the retro burns & timing to land a ship on Mars in his head…
Isn’t a drone a type of aircraft? …But I think you’re saying that manned aircraft are larger than the drones, and therefore less likely to be destroyed by this laser?
I’m certain the devil is in the details here - i.e. how much damage can the laser do to a target over a given time period, and if the people who have expertise in actual design and use of weaponry are actively testing it, I’m likely to believe them.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, Simplicio, but I am skeptical of taking the advice of a pseudonymous poster on a message board about the usefulness of a laser weapon over the advice of the people who appear to be working with and testing that weapon.
Can you give me a reason, other than your personal belief, to agree with you that this laser can’t destroy aircraft?
How many small boats and drones is the US Navy shooting down every year that the 1$ per shot (vs what, 2-3$? for a high calibre round) represents meaningful savings? How many will they have to shoot down before the system saves more money than it costs to develop/install/maintain?
I’m pretty sure its just one target, they just repeat the footage from several angles. And the instantaneous energy input is zero, the energy input over time is 30kw/sec, which is the equivalent of one .57 cal round every second, except the impulse is considerably less (since it takes the full second, instead of a bullet which really does deliver its energy more or less instantaneously). And the material they’re targeting seems to be some sort of honeycombed plastic, which I suspect was chosen for the reason you suggest, low thermal conductivity, low reflectivity, and so explodes instead of adjusting to the heat (note the drone, which is presumably made of more conventional material, just sets on fire, more or less like you’d expect).
Sounds like a great technology that will invariably improve and I see no reason to not start using it now, and gaining more experience with it.
I don’t think the people who’re involved really contradict what I’m saying. I’m not saying it can’t shoot down a drone or disable a small boat (though I suspect the boat would have to have an outboard motor they could target), I’m just trying to understand why its better than the already existing methods the navy has for doing such things.
The reason I originally said I was sceptical is because the quotes from the people involved in the actual project always seem so wishy-washy as to what its actually for.
Pretty much just the physics reasons I’ve already given. The energy output is small, the impulse is smaller and the materials planes tend to be made of have high thermal conductivity (i.e. metals). Its less effective than a single bullet, and non-drone planes aren’t particularly vulnerable to single bullets.
But my original question wasn’t rhetorical. I’m hardly an expert in naval weaponry, so I was honestly interested if someone has a better idea on what the weapon is actually good for.
Is it time to raise the Yamamoto and go after the Cosmic DNA?
But you just said two posts ago that the laser would set things on fire. Fires are a major threat to boats and aircraft. If you’re on a boat or aircraft, and it catches fire, suddenly you are at severe risk and you life depends on putting out that fire.
For that matter, couldn’t the laser be a more effective weapon than a bullet of similar cost/energy simply because it sets things on fire? (and bullets usually don’t)
You made a few mistakes.
- You assumed that gunners only fire one shot. More likely 100 or more for each “kill.” Let alone practice firing, and training.
- It will replace missiles in some instances, which cost more than 2 or 3 dollars.
- It doesn’t have a shelf life.
- It won’t explode in the ammo bunker.
- You never run out of shots in the middle of a battle.
You beginning to see that the cost is quickly recovered?