The Future is Now: First operational Naval Laser Weapon

[robert_columbia]

@Chimera

…
“Klunder said the laser performed so well that the commander of the Ponce is now authorized to use it in defense of the vessel, according to a report from the U.S. Naval Institute.”…

Iran shot first.

[scabpicker]

@Simplicio

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?

Except it actually seems to be doing the damage of the higher caliber round, not the $1 one, and it’s more accurate over the laser’s effective range.

@Simplicio

I’m pretty sure its just one target, they just repeat the footage from several angles.

Well, you’re not watching very closely. It’s obviously one target towed behind the boat, one sitting on top of the boat, and an aerial drone.

@Simplicio

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).

I was meaning instantaneous in that the laser doesn’t take a long time to ramp up its power, like some lasers. Also, there’s no travel time to target.

I’m not sure comparing the relative energies is a good way to compare the two weapons. Materials react very different to being hit by a laser than they do when struk by kinetic energy. On top of that, the bullet delivers its power instantaneously after expending some of its energy to get to the target, and then often just goes on delivering its remaining energy displacing air on the other side of the target.

@Simplicio

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).

The target looks like iron pipe to me in one instance, and sheet metal in the other. Since you couldn’t tell the difference between the two targets, I’ll go with my wild ass speculation instead of yours.

[El_Kabong]

Wikipedia has a rather extensive description of this weapon, which, I believe, answers most of the question raised here.

While it would certainly make a fairly nasty anti-personnel device (for exposed persons), apparently it is indeed intended for attacking small boats and drones. Effective range is classified, but appears to be less than five miles in its current form. Versions with double or triple the current power are supposedly in development, as well as a lower-powered version for mounting on Humvee-sized land vehicles.

It’s actually pretty ingenious; up to six solid-state lasers originally intended for industrial use, ganged to pulse simultaneously while focusing on a designated point. Basing it on commercial hardware apparently made it highly economical as military projects go: total development costs so far are in the 40 million dollar range.

The flip side is that other countries could develop similar weapons in a relatively short time. If this thing truly does work as advertised, I expect this could become a fairly common and standardized weapon in only a decade or so.

[kanicbird]

@Simplicio

…

Hyper-sonic missiles make a little more sense. But even there, while it might take essentially zero time for the laser to hit the missile, it presumably has to track it for however many miliseconds it takes to heat the thing up to high enough temperatures to destroy it (in the video it takes almost a second for even the flimsy drone to get knocked out). …

What is the effect of ablating the surface of the missile, effectively adding a ‘thruster’, to hypersonic flight?

[dba_Fred]

<1MC> “This is the Captain speaking. Secure from General Quarters. Personnel scheduled for LASIK eye surgery lay to the gun deck, followed by mole removal at 1400. That is all.” <1MC>

[Machine_Elf]

@Simplicio

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?

The Gau-8 Avenger fires 30-mm rounds. IIRC, the typical belt load is a mix of tracers, armor-piercing rounds, and high-explosive/incendiary rounds. 30mm is a damn big bullet; picture here.. According to this discussion, each round costs about $26. As Morgenstern noted, you might fire a few hundred rounds before achieving a kill. I’ll leave the math up to you.

[wevets]

@El_Kabong

Wikipedia has a rather extensive description of this weapon, which, I believe, answers most of the question raised here.

While the wikipedia article provides a useful summary, I’m guessing (let me know, Simplicio, I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that since the sources for the wikipedia article are CNN, CNET, ABC, Russia Today, etc. the elements that make it into the wikipedia article might be subject to a bias in favor of the weapon since those sources may uncritically rely on information provided by official military press releases, which have an incentive to make themselves look good (for example, by choosing test materials and targets to emphasize the weapon’s best attributes over its shortcomings.)

Is that about the gist of it?

[msmith537]

@Machine_Elf

The Gau-8 Avenger fires 30-mm rounds. IIRC, the typical belt load is a mix of tracers, armor-piercing rounds, and high-explosive/incendiary rounds. 30mm is a damn big bullet; picture here.. According to this discussion, each round costs about $26. As Morgenstern noted, you might fire a few hundred rounds before achieving a kill. I’ll leave the math up to you.

You forgot to mention that it fires 70 rounds or $1,680 per second!

Shit, you might be better off just buying what you are shooting at and then destroy it at your leisure.

[msmith537]

@Morgenstern

You made a few mistakes.

1. You assumed that gunners only fire one shot. More likely 100 or more for each “kill.” Let alone practice firing, and training.
2. It will replace missiles in some instances, which cost more than 2 or 3 dollars.
3. It doesn’t have a shelf life.
4. It won’t explode in the ammo bunker.
5. You never run out of shots in the middle of a battle.

You beginning to see that the cost is quickly recovered?

6. It’s a freakin LASER!

[Chimera]

Let’s not forget that this doesn’t exist in isolation. Existing weapons systems will be around for quite a while and we will also see Rail Guns installed on ships, which will cover the ‘over the horizon’ and impact weapon needs.

Sure, maybe the laser won’t take out a hardened missile. How about a high velocity slug of aluminum. Will that do the job? Yes? Then we’re covered.

And then ultimately, we will have mostly solved the ‘The Final Countdown’ problem, where a ship would rapidly run out of missiles and components and be rendered largely useless after traveling back in time.

[Simplicio]

@Morgenstern

You made a few mistakes.

1. You assumed that gunners only fire one shot.

No I said one shot would have as much or less impact as one bullet. They might need to more than one bullet to do damage, but than they’d probably need more than one shot of the laser in the same

Let alone practice firing, and training.

Are they not going to practice firing the laser?

2. It will replace missiles in some instances, which cost more than 2 or 3 dollars.

What instances? That was sort of my question. I’m skeptical there are many cases where a missile can be replaced by a 30kw laser.

3. It doesn’t have a shelf life.

Maybe, though I doubt the system is maintence free. The articles don’t mention this as a potential savings in anycase.

5. You never run out of shots in the middle of a battle.

I’m sceptical the US Navy engages in enough exchanges with small boats or drones that this is ever an issue. Plus the wiki article isn’t super clear, but I think it says there’s a 40 minute cool down after two minutes of use, which would seem to be a bigger issue than ammo supply.

You beginning to see that the cost is quickly recovered?

I don’t

@mssmith

6. It’s a freakin LASER!

I think this is closer to the actual reason for its existence.

[carnivorousplant]

@Simplicio

I’m sceptical the US Navy engages in enough exchanges with small boats or drones that this is ever an issue. Plus the wiki article isn’t super clear, but I think it says there’s a 40 minute cool down after two minutes of use, which would seem to be a bigger issue than ammo supply.

It seems that you ought to be able to cool it with all that seawater lying around.