U.S. Navy fries ship with a laser

[Penguin]

In a demonstration near California’s San Nicholas Island last Wednesday, scientists with the U.S. Navy tested a laser weapon aboard the USS Paul Foster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS%20Paul%20F.%20Foster%20%28DD-964%29) by shooting a 15-kilowatt beam at an inflatable boat from a mile away, causing the outboard engines to burst into flames. It was the world’s first successful water-test of a high-energy laser. “I spent my life at sea,” Rear Adm. Nevin Carr told Wired (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/11/navy-laser-sets-ship-on-fire), “and I never thought we’d see this kind of progress this quickly, where we’re approaching a decision of when we can put laser weapons on ships.”Source with video here: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/11/navy-laser-sets-ship-on-fire

This could be a cool less-lethal anti-piracy weapon - or a new method of distance-cooking.
If it really was this fast as the video suggests, then I am impressed.
It seems that they follow in the footsteps of good ole Archimedes: http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www//experiments/deathray/10_ArchimedesResult.html

[Reece]

Imagine if it struck your eyes, reflections etc!!:o:dead:

[the_tyrant]

Placing mirrors on one of these might be a good idea:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/K32_HMS_Helsingborg_Anchored-of-Gotska-Sandoen_cropped.jpg/300px-K32_HMS_Helsingborg_Anchored-of-Gotska-Sandoen_cropped.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

Placing mirrors on one of these might be a good idea:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/K32_HMS_Helsingborg_Anchored-of-Gotska-Sandoen_cropped.jpg/300px-K32_HMS_Helsingborg_Anchored-of-Gotska-Sandoen_cropped.jpg

That would work for about an 1/8th of a second, after that the surface of the mirror would be vaporized and not work. They would be better off placing layers of carbon or steel armor on the ship. :03:

[Tribesman]

More importantly, when will they fry chips with lasers.
That would be progress in the war against lardarses

[frau kaleun]

Source with video here: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/11/navy-laser-sets-ship-on-fire

This could be a cool less-lethal anti-piracy weapon - or a new method of distance-cooking.
If it really was this fast as the video suggests, then I am impressed.
It seems that they follow in the footsteps of good ole Archimedes: http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www//experiments/deathray/10_ArchimedesResult.html

http://citifield.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/dr_evil.jpg

I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Don't expect replacement of missiles etc with lasers very soon. Laser is (at the moment) good weather weapon. Sandstorm, snow or just rain have nasty effects on usefullness.

[Growler]

Don't expect replacement of missiles etc with lasers very soon. Laser is (at the moment) good weather weapon. Sandstorm, snow or just rain have nasty effects on usefullness.

Beat me to it. I was just about to suggest that, instead of mirrors or more armor, a good cloud of seawater mist projected around the ship should do nicely to break up the laser's cohesion.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Remarkable, isn't it? In a little less than a scant century-and-a-half, we've gone from muzzle-loading cannons with maximum ranges of but a few hundred yards that needed to be fired en-masse to sink a wooden ship, to massive 16-inch battleship cannons that could lob a shell the size of a Volkswagen twenty miles and gouge a crater as wide as a football field, to lethal cruise missiles that can guide themselves onto a target hundreds of miles away, to a multimillion-dollar laser that can ignite an inflatable motorboat, but only if it's within line-of-sight. Now that's progress!:yeah:

[Feuer Frei!]

The big test here was to see if they could hit a moving target, whilst moving.
Previous testing has been stationary targets, whilst stationary.
Other than that it isn't ground-breaking.

[mookiemookie]

http://citifield.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/dr_evil.jpg

I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2010/12/14/1292346840-dr-evil-laser1-1.jpg

I would imagine that the range of this device would be naturally limited by the curvature of the Earth, unless they could work out some way to make it into an arc?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I would imagine that the range of this device would be naturally limited by the curvature of the Earth, unless they could work out some way to make it into an arc?

A black-hole generator, maybe? Of course, if we had such a thing, we wouldn't need lasers.

I imagine the most practical application for this sort of thing would be air and missile defense. IIRC the article mentions that. Even so, as FF! points out, the groundbreaking bit was that they hit a moving target from a moving platform. One would not imagine that to be difficult with a laser, but apparently it is. If our technology is so limited that we consider the above to be groundbreaking, I humbly suggest that we invest our resources into something a little more practical, like screen doors for submarines.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I would imagine that the range of this device would be naturally limited by the curvature of the Earth, unless they could work out some way to make it into an arc?
Yes and another little thing is atmosphere itself. Air contains a lot small dust particles and water which naturally limits range. Ofcourse you can compensate by increasing power to shoot to longer range but before or later question of feasibility sneaks in from shadows.

[GoldenRivet]

While interesting, i would like to point out a few of things.

1. this is a very early test

2. the laser really takes about a full minute to do any significant damage

3. the target boat was more or less a stationary target. (it was doing what... 2 knots?)

in reality, you would be trying to carefully aim this weapon at a moving ship in pitching and rolling seas.

Im sure this was a very early proof of concept test.

[TLAM Strike]

While interesting, i would like to point out a few of things.

1. this is a very early test

2. the laser really takes about a full minute to do any significant damage

3. the target boat was more or less a stationary target. (it was doing what... 2 knots?)

in reality, you would be trying to carefully aim this weapon at a moving ship in pitching and rolling seas.

Im sure this was a very early proof of concept test.Well the Wright Flyer was not very impressive, but in 15 years cities were being bombed from the air.



I would imagine that the range of this device would be naturally limited by the curvature of the Earth, unless they could work out some way to make it into an arc? If we start getting in to particle beam weapons than mabye. Other than that a mirrior in space or high up could be used to reflect a properly configured beam (configured as to not damage the mirrior).

Beat me to it. I was just about to suggest that, instead of mirrors or more armor, a good cloud of seawater mist projected around the ship should do nicely to break up the laser's cohesion. possably one of the worst things someone could do. The laser would vaporise the water in to steam and then send it back twoards the target.

[Onkel Neal]

Don't expect replacement of missiles etc with lasers very soon. Laser is (at the moment) good weather weapon. Sandstorm, snow or just rain have nasty effects on usefullness.

No worries, we also have new weather control satellites.:D

[GoldenRivet]

Well the Wright Flyer was not very impressive, but in 15 years cities were being bombed from the air.

Correct, and im not downplaying the Navy Laser by any means.

and the wright flyer was more or less a proof of concept machine as well.

What i am saying - when i first saw the headline for this a few days ago it was similar to the thread title

"US Navy Laser destroys target ship"

what it should have read:

"US Navy laser starts small fire aboard target skiff in early test"

of course it didnt say that.

so when i clicked for video, needless to say i was disappointed when I saw THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z12GYoYnktI)instead of THIS (http://www.classicglastron.com/phpbb/download/file.php?id=210&t=1&sid=9d6590275e4e901576b02facbf7ae8c6). (not that i really expected the latter)

its as much of a big deal as it isnt - if that makes sense.

now... when we can upgrade the Arleigh Burkes with a laser that can split an aircraft carrier in half within 90 seconds - that would be awesome.

[Growler]

possably one of the worst things someone could do. The laser would vaporise the water in to steam and then send it back twoards the target.

How do you figure? Temperature and pressure would seem to indicate that as the water temperature rose, so too would the local pressure. In an open environment, that higher pressure will move towards areas of lower pressure to equalize in nature. In this case, the area of lower pressure would be up. Steam - as does heat - is going to go up, not laterally - as the molecules evaporate (and thereby expand), they're going to move towards lower pressure - up. If the generation of mist is constant (as it would need to be if the ship is moving), you'd be replacing what was evaporating continually.

Understand, I'm not talking about a "layer" of mist a few inches think; think instead of a series of fire-fighting mist/fog nozzles siphoning seawater through pumps and continually projecting this cloud out for several feet, or more.

Further, the transmission of heat from the laser to the water mist will serve to scatter the laser's focus and dissipate the amount of delivered heat. I don't have to neutralize the weapon - I only have to diminish its capability to inflict irreparable/fatal damage/harm.

[TLAM Strike]

How do you figure? Temperature and pressure would seem to indicate that as the water temperature rose, so too would the local pressure. In an open environment, that higher pressure will move towards areas of lower pressure to equalize in nature. In this case, the area of lower pressure would be up. Steam - as does heat - is going to go up, not laterally - as the molecules evaporate (and thereby expand), they're going to move towards lower pressure - up. If the generation of mist is constant (as it would need to be if the ship is moving), you'd be replacing what was evaporating continually.

Understand, I'm not talking about a "layer" of mist a few inches think; think instead of a series of fire-fighting mist/fog nozzles siphoning seawater through pumps and continually projecting this cloud out for several feet, or more.

Further, the transmission of heat from the laser to the water mist will serve to scatter the laser's focus and dissipate the amount of delivered heat. I don't have to neutralize the weapon - I only have to diminish its capability to inflict irreparable/fatal damage/harm. When a laser excites the water molecules they are converted in to kinetic energy, also photos do carry momentum. :03:

[Marcantilan]

A laser system (DEC Laser Dazzler) was used in South Atlantic War 1982 to try to blind Argentine pilots.

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/rn/frigates/t22/

http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=...0laser&f=false (http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=l-DzknmTgDUC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=%22hms+argonaut%22+laser&source=bl&ots=2rgOAXtcJh&sig=rWD9mBU2-ugDqLclG1WMorKqmp8&hl=es&ei=h_RmS7jsHM-vtgfIzPmuBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22hms%20argonaut%22%20laser&f=false)

US Navy is trying that kind of use for lasers, or is "Star Wars style or burst"?

Regards!

[Oberon]

http://images.wikia.com/acecombat/images/a/a7/Excalibur.jpg

[Growler]

When a laser excites the water molecules they are converted in to kinetic energy, also photos do carry momentum. :03:

Which, as they penetrate the successive layers of mist/vapor, are further subject to forces that will scatter/dissipate the laser's energy.:)

[Schroeder]

I actually fail to see what this test was supposed to proof.:hmmm:
Tanks have been hitting moving targets with cannons while moving themselves for decades. I believe they even use lasers to stay on target with their guns. So why should a laser on a ship not be able to stay on target?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

No worries, we also have new weather control satellites.:D
Yes, yes I know. Just tell me whe Houston, TX humidity control knob is...

:D

[MaddogK]

For some odd reason I'm craving popcorn...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3uMeF4Wfy4&feature=player_detailpage#t=26s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3uMeF4Wfy4&feature=player_detailpage#t=36s)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3uMeF4Wfy4&feature=player_detailpage#t=70s)

[TLAM Strike]

Which, as they penetrate the successive layers of mist/vapor, are further subject to forces that will scatter/dissipate the laser's energy.:)

At which point it becomes a question of saturation. If a target's Watercaster "Laser Defense System" (LDS) is in operation a target's own anti-missile lasers can't be used and its own radar system (for traditional missile defenses) will be degraded at the same time making a huge radar target of its self (big spray of H2O = Not stealthy). Plus I doubt it will be able to fire its own SAMs while shooting a huge spray of water around it.

If its LDS goes up its time for the attacker to fire a missile or two, the target then either "Drops its shields" to shoot back and eats the laser or takes its vampires like a man.

[UnderseaLcpl]

also photos do carry momentum. :03:
Very true. I've seen a few pictures that have really moved me:arrgh!:

[TLAM Strike]

Very true. I've seen a few pictures that have really moved me:arrgh!:
I would have figured it would be Dowly who would have brought up Porn in a discussion about directed energy weapons... :hmmm:

:O:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I would have figured it would be Dowly who would have brought up Porn in a discussion about directed energy weapons... :hmmm:

:O:

What? Wait.....no, that wasn't what I meant.......

I would never compare directed-energy weapons to porn, because they're about a hundredtimes more awesome:rock: I would give up all sexually-related activities for the rest of my life for just one chance to fire a 1500Mw particle cannon at a suitable target. Not such a stretch, considering that the radiation from the beam would likely likely render me sterile anyways and I'd die of radiation-poisoning in a few hours.

[TLAM Strike]

Not such a stretch, considering that the radiation from the beam would likely likely render me sterile anyways and I'd die of radiation-poisoning in a few hours. I see someone has been reading ProjectRho... :03:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I see someone has been reading ProjectRho... :03:
So have you, Mr. mirrors-won't-stop-lasers.:O: I've read that everything on that site at least three times now. I just wish I could understand all the physics crap and equations.

[Growler]

At which point it becomes a question of saturation. If a target's Watercaster "Laser Defense System" (LDS) is in operation a target's own anti-missile lasers can't be used and its own radar system (for traditional missile defenses) will be degraded at the same time making a huge radar target of its self (big spray of H2O = Not stealthy). Plus I doubt it will be able to fire its own SAMs while shooting a huge spray of water around it.

If its LDS goes up its time for the attacker to fire a missile or two, the target then either "Drops its shields" to shoot back and eats the laser or takes its vampires like a man.

LOL... I think between the two of us, we just defined the psychology of every arms race in history, while simultaneously proving that the only way for a defender to win reliably is to take the initiative away from the attacker. :D

Now, that said... do ships not fire defensive weapons in the rain? I'd think that heavy rainfall'd be a higher saturation level than the defensive system would be.