Navy’s Move to Put Laser Weapons on Ships Worst Thing Possible

[Weatherman2020]

The Navy Plans to Put HELIOS Laser Weapon on Destroyer by 2021

I have experience with lasers. The one thing laser light hates is water vapor. And what’s the ocean surface full of? It scatters the light. Laser energy is only as good as how well concentrated it is at impact point.

I foresee a time when all of our ships will have such systems and <insert nation here> simply attacks our ships at night, in fog and storms. It’ll make Pearl Harbor look like a picnic.

 

[toobfreak]

The Navy Plans to Put HELIOS Laser Weapon on Destroyer by 2021

I have experience with lasers. The one thing laser light hates is water vapor. And what’s the ocean surface full of? It scatters the light. Laser energy is only as good as how well concentrated it is at impact point.

I foresee a time when all of our ships will have such systems and <insert nation here> simply attacks our ships at night, in fog and storms. It’ll make Pearl Harbor look like a picnic.

Yep. Every droplet of water vapor in the air acts like a singlet double convex lens slighting dispersing (decollimating) the light. Final effect will depend on strength of beam, amount of water and angle of beam to surface of ocean. Could be offset to a large degree if they first pass the light through a collimation lens to add an equal but opposite degree of refraction, sort of like the way they pass a laser into the sky to test the seeing of the atmosphere for a big telescope to offset the effects of the changing air on the clarity of the astro-image.

 

[peach174]

Pretty cool weapon.
Takes out the target without destroying the whole area.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Pretty cool weapon.
Takes out the target without destroying the whole area.
how doez the new lazer weopon on ships work with water vapor - Bing video

During optimum conditions.

Better weapon is a rail gun. No explosives required to launch a high velocity projectile. And you can stack every nook on the ship with projectiles with no concern of exploding.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Don't think it's meant to replace any current kit, it's an ad on.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just think, the F-35A is progged to get it's own in either 2021 or 2022. First the Ships, then the Bombers and then the Fighters. Will it be affective? If it's not effective on the ships, you can bet it'll be a bust on the fighters. But the Bombers are well on their way to having a useful system. It seems the AF has been working on that the longest.

 

[DrainBamage]

I have experience with lasers. The one thing laser light hates is water vapor. And what’s the ocean surface full of? It scatters the light. Laser energy is only as good as how well concentrated it is at impact point.

They've had a laser weapon deployed for years on USS Ponce. It was thoroughly tested in all sea conditions and proved capable of addressing it's intended target set of aerial drones and small watercraft. This version will between 2-5x more powerful, so I'm a bit skeptical you've come up with some fatal program flaw here. Just as with laser and IR targeting the maximum effective range will be dependent on conditions but it doesn't just magically drop to zero because of sea mist.

Better weapon is a rail gun. No explosives required to launch a high velocity projectile. And you can stack every nook on the ship with projectiles with no concern of exploding.

It's not "better" it's useful for different things and comes with it's own advantages and disadvantages. For example it takes up a hell of a lot more space, has a much slower rate of fire than a laser which is pretty much contiguous, the projectiles cost far more than operating a laser, and currently barrel wear is unacceptable for actual operational deployment.

For putting a laser on a combat ship that can actually contribute to the mission it's no contest, since there is no rail gun that could be deployed in 2020.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have experience with lasers. The one thing laser light hates is water vapor. And what’s the ocean surface full of? It scatters the light. Laser energy is only as good as how well concentrated it is at impact point.

They've had a laser weapon deployed for years on USS Ponce. It was thoroughly tested in all sea conditions and proved capable of addressing it's intended target set of aerial drones and small watercraft. This version will between 2-5x more powerful, so I'm a bit skeptical you've come up with some fatal program flaw here. Just as with laser and IR targeting the maximum effective range will be dependent on conditions but it doesn't just magically drop to zero because of sea mist.

Better weapon is a rail gun. No explosives required to launch a high velocity projectile. And you can stack every nook on the ship with projectiles with no concern of exploding.

It's not "better" it's useful for different things and comes with it's own advantages and disadvantages. For example it takes up a hell of a lot more space, has a much slower rate of fire than a laser which is pretty much contiguous, the projectiles cost far more than operating a laser, and currently barrel wear is unacceptable for actual operational deployment.

For putting a laser on a combat ship that can actually contribute to the mission it's no contest, since there is no rail gun that could be deployed in 2020.

The Laser needs a lot of juice to operate. Otherwise, you are spending way too much time recharging the capacitors. A Capital Ship has power to burn so it can recharge almost instantly. A Bomber can do this as well. Both will use Lasers in the very near future. And in the Pacific, on a clear day (most days are clear) a Laser will be extremely affective line of sight.

 

[whitehall]

All these doomsday weapons ain't worth shit if the Military doesn't have the will or permission to use them. A WW1 vintage .50 cal machine gun might have saved Sailors on the USS Cole.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I have experience with lasers. The one thing laser light hates is water vapor. And what’s the ocean surface full of? It scatters the light. Laser energy is only as good as how well concentrated it is at impact point.

They've had a laser weapon deployed for years on USS Ponce. It was thoroughly tested in all sea conditions and proved capable of addressing it's intended target set of aerial drones and small watercraft. This version will between 2-5x more powerful, so I'm a bit skeptical you've come up with some fatal program flaw here. Just as with laser and IR targeting the maximum effective range will be dependent on conditions but it doesn't just magically drop to zero because of sea mist.

Better weapon is a rail gun. No explosives required to launch a high velocity projectile. And you can stack every nook on the ship with projectiles with no concern of exploding.

It's not "better" it's useful for different things and comes with it's own advantages and disadvantages. For example it takes up a hell of a lot more space, has a much slower rate of fire than a laser which is pretty much contiguous, the projectiles cost far more than operating a laser, and currently barrel wear is unacceptable for actual operational deployment.

For putting a laser on a combat ship that can actually contribute to the mission it's no contest, since there is no rail gun that could be deployed in 2020.

The Laser needs a lot of juice to operate. Otherwise, you are spending way too much time recharging the capacitors. A Capital Ship has power to burn so it can recharge almost instantly. A Bomber can do this as well. Both will use Lasers in the very near future. And in the Pacific, on a clear day (most days are clear) a Laser will be extremely affective line of sight.

A ton of power to operate. A rail gun can strike over the horizon line, not a laser even in perfect weather.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

All these doomsday weapons ain't worth shit if the Military doesn't have the will or permission to use them. A WW1 vintage .50 cal machine gun might have saved Sailors on the USS Cole.

Hate to break it to you but it has two 25mm M242 Bushmaster canons. It really doesn't need a 12.7mm canon of any kind with those two for point blank defense. It's the same canon that is used on various Light and Heavy Armor like the Bradley. On the Burke, there is one on each side so their field of fire is pretty good. So having a 50 cal or 12.7 mm canon or gun wouldn't have changed a thing.

 

[DrainBamage]

A ton of power to operate. A rail gun can strike over the horizon line, not a laser even in perfect weather.

They both need a ton of power to operate.

Who cares if a laser can strike over the horizon line, that's like complaining a torpedo can't hit an airplane. A laser isn't designed for over the horizon strike, it's a defensive weapon against aircraft, drones, and small boats. It's not a one or the other decision here, I'm sure someday navy ships will have a combination of rail guns, lasers, and missiles all with different roles.

 

[DrainBamage]

All these doomsday weapons ain't worth shit if the Military doesn't have the will or permission to use them. A WW1 vintage .50 cal machine gun might have saved Sailors on the USS Cole.

Interestingly this is where having a laser would be quite useful since it can focus non-lethal deterrence on small water craft well before a decision needs to be made to light them up with a machine gun or cannon.

 

[SandSquid]

A ton of power to operate. A rail gun can strike over the horizon line, not a laser even in perfect weather.

They both need a ton of power to operate.

Who cares if a laser can strike over the horizon line, that's like complaining a torpedo can't hit an airplane. A laser isn't designed for over the horizon strike, it's a defensive weapon against aircraft, drones, and small boats. It's not a one or the other decision here, I'm sure someday navy ships will have a combination of rail guns, lasers, and missiles all with different roles.

One big difference is maintenance and logistics. One of the biggest detractors for the railgun testing is how complex it is with so many moving parts. Then off course add in the loading and ammunition storage as well.

With new laser tech breakthroughs and the difficulties with the electronic railgun it makes sense why they are moving more towards the lasers.

Both make sense.. new zumwalt class destroyer can make 78 megawatts of power. Needs 20 to run. And the nuke carriers can. Run a city with their excess power.

 

[DrainBamage]

Another push towards lasers instead of railguns (at least in the near term) is the development of hyper velocity projectile ammunition, which gets you some of the benefits of rail guns without the need for a brand new gun and all the technical challenges that come with it. They can fire HVP rounds from naval 5" guns, the Zumwalt's 155s, and future rail guns.

It's also something that could be fielded in the near future on existing destroyers without spending billions to upgrade power plants and replace deck guns. USN recently tested HVPs from a Burke destroyer: The U.S. Navy Quietly Tested Mach 3 Heavy Gun Shells That Could Revolutionize Surface Warfare
The U.S. Navy, without fanfare or notice, tested a new weapon last summer that could revolutionize surface warfare. The hyper velocity projectile (HVP) is a Mach 3 shell fired from existing guns on cruisers and destroyers. A guided projectile, HVP can drop high explosives on enemies on the ground up to three times as far as conventional ship gun ammo with a high rate of precision. It can also intercept incoming anti-ship missiles, providing an economical alternative to increasingly expensive anti-missile interceptors.
According to USNI News, the guided missile destroyer USS Dewey fired 20 new HVP projectiles during the 2018 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises. Although the test was unclassified, it was not reported at the time by the U.S. Navy. It was the first known use of HVPs at sea by a warship.

Granted that's still using gunpowder so it's more evolutionary than revolutionary, but I think it's a big reason true rail guns won't be seen on US Navy ships for some time.