Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the friggin-Ponce-with-friggin-laser-beams dept.

Ars Technica - US Navy approves first laser weapon for operation aboard Persian Gulf ship

On Wednesday the Office of Naval Research (ONR) announced that it would approve an experimental laser weapon for use on the USS Ponce in the Persian Gulf. The laser weapon system is part of a $40 million research program to test directed energy weapons, and it is the first to be officially deployed and operated on a naval vessel.

Although the laser weapon system is not as powerful as other weapons aboard the Ponce, Christopher Harmer, senior naval analyst with the Institute for the Study of War told The Wall Street Journal that the directed energy of the laser aimed at a target would “cause a chemical and physical disruption in the structural integrity of that target.” Harmer added that the advantage of the laser weapon system is that it can disable many oncoming targets without needing to reload ammunition: “as long as you've got adequate power supply and adequate cooling supply.”

Welcome to the future that Anime promised.

Related Stories

China Unveils Anti-Drone Laser Weapon able to Shoot Down 'Small Aircraft' within 5 Seconds 19 comments

A story from RT.com claims:

[...] that China has developed and successfully tested a highly accurate laser defense system against light drones. The homemade [sic] machine boasts a two-kilometer range and can down "various small aircraft" within five seconds of locating its target.

Boasting high speed, great precision and low noise, the system is aimed at destroying unmanned, small-scale drones flying under an altitude of 500 meters and at speeds below 50 meters per second, the official Xinhua news agency reported, citing a statement by one of the developers, the China Academy of Engineering Physics (CAEP).

A recent test saw the machine successfully bring down over 30 drones - a 100-percent success rate, according to the statement. The laser system is expected to play a key role in ensuring security during major events in urban areas.

The statement is hardly surprising - we reported yesterday that the US Navy is deploying a weapon with a similar role to the Persian Gulf on board the US Ponce.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Tork on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:37PM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:37PM (#125267)
    Just think, if this were Slashdot, we'd have 75 modded up jokes about frickin laser beams, 20 comments pointing out obvious problems that the Navy has already addressed, and 5 comments about hosts files. Not one person would have noticed the article talked about the laser looking nothing like 'photon torpedoes'.
    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by ikanreed on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:44PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:44PM (#125269) Journal

      References are clearly the same thing as jokes. As evidence I present everything ever submitted to /r/funny.

      • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:15PM

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:15PM (#125278) Journal

        Fake propaganda laser weapon. Ineffective and ridiculously expensive.

        Just like ABM shields and Patriot missiles - rigged tests, false statistics and puff-piece technophillic "journalism".

        --
        You're betting on the pantomime horse...
        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday December 12 2014, @03:12PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday December 12 2014, @03:12PM (#125476) Homepage Journal

          I really doubt that. With a nuclear generator, which many Navy ships have, there is plenty of power for a laser that will melt steel, and keeping the beam on an exact spot was a solved problem long ago; how do you think they do LASIK?

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
          • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday December 12 2014, @05:35PM

            by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Friday December 12 2014, @05:35PM (#125529) Journal

            With Lasik, you hold your head still in a brace, and you triangulate at a distance if 2 inches. :-)

             

            I have boiled water with a magnifying glass, that doesn't mean I can burn the wings off of houseflies.

             

            --
            You're betting on the pantomime horse...
            • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday December 13 2014, @03:21PM

              by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday December 13 2014, @03:21PM (#125764) Homepage Journal

              Your eyeball itself moves. To slice the cornea that precisely takes an incredible amount of following the target. I don't think you've contemplated just how precise it has to be.

              --
              mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday December 12 2014, @03:38PM

        by metamonkey (3174) on Friday December 12 2014, @03:38PM (#125485)

        My wife wanted to try using reddit. The first thing I told her was "unsubscribe from /r/funny and /r/AdviceAnimals."

        --
        Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by karmawhore on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:56PM

      by karmawhore (1635) on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:56PM (#125271)
      Nothing about the name of the ship?
      --
      =kw= lurkin' to please
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:20PM (#125279)

      Man, that whole sharks with lasers thing REALLY sticks in your craw, doesn't it?

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:43PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:43PM (#125289)
        What made you jump to that conclusion? ;)
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 2) by SGT CAPSLOCK on Friday December 12 2014, @07:41AM

      by SGT CAPSLOCK (118) on Friday December 12 2014, @07:41AM (#125403) Journal

      I'm thinking about stepping up to take up the role as Soylent's hosts file guy, unless anyone else wants the position more than me.

      There are a lot of things we can't live without.

      One of those things is a properly configured hosts file.

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday December 12 2014, @03:09PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday December 12 2014, @03:09PM (#125474) Homepage Journal

      You'll hate my new book (not yet out).

      The computer replied “All doors have been locked for the last five minutes. Sealing doorways.” I was really sleepy... and scared.
              “What good will that do, dumbass?” Tammy asked. “You might as well lock the doors against a herd of elephants that are holding sharks with friggin' lasers!”
              “Huh?” I said.
              Destiny laughed. “We haven't watched that one yet, Tammy. What are you thinking, John?”
              I said “I'm thinking Tammy knows drug addicted whores but I know my boat and its computers. Now shush, both of you. I know what I'm doing.

      Someone further down mentioned not knowing the name of the boat; it's obviously nuclear-powered whatever its name.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by dx3bydt3 on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:59PM

    by dx3bydt3 (82) on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:59PM (#125273)

    The linked article didn't state the power output, I found a figure of 30kW along with some more details here. [dailymail.co.uk]

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:08PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:08PM (#125275) Homepage

      I read the article a day or two ago, and from what details I saw there the laser wasn't very impressive compared to typical Sci-Fi expectations. It basically said that the laser is effective against things like quadcopters and RPGs but only "overheated" (rather than exploded) the motor of a Zodiac-like [patriot3.com] watercraft.

      Although it is integrated into the CIWS system, I'm wondering if it is more effective pound-for-pound than a typical CIWS minigun.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:27PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:27PM (#125282)

        > I'm wondering if it is more effective pound-for-pound than a typical CIWS minigun.

        At the rate they show it moving, you'd better hope your Phalanx gets the missiles.
        This is pretty good against drones, but the canon turret that most ships have will take care of boats a lot faster (until it runs out of ammo).

        If it's really a lot faster than they show, and the durability is there (that price doesn't include anything but the electrical current, what's the real maintenance cost?), then it's a great additional CIWS layer.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:23PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:23PM (#125300)

          This is pretty good against drones, but the canon turret that most ships have will take care of boats a lot faster (until it runs out of ammo).

          Because I'm sure a frickin' laster beam has a power supply that lasts a long time. It's probably solar-powered in real time.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday December 12 2014, @03:14PM

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday December 12 2014, @03:14PM (#125477) Homepage Journal

            You're not going to get enough power from solar, at least on a boat, to run a high-powered laser. These would be mounted on nuclear powered ships.

            --
            mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by nwf on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:29PM

        by nwf (1469) on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:29PM (#125284)

        If you had a zodiac of pirates coming towards you, it would be handy. Maybe for a bird attack if you get too close to a fishing vessel.

        First weapons in a class aren't usually all that impressive compared to what comes next.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheLink on Friday December 12 2014, @08:01AM

        by TheLink (332) on Friday December 12 2014, @08:01AM (#125405) Journal

        Is overheating a boat's motor and permanently blinding everyone on board as collateral damage allowed? Seems to be according to Article 3:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons#Protocol_text [wikipedia.org]

        FWIW the USA consented to be bound by it: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-2-a&chapter=26&lang=en [un.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12 2014, @02:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12 2014, @02:05PM (#125446)

          Is overheating a boat's motor ...

          I predict that mirrored/chromed or polished aluminum housings for Zodiac motors are about to become a popular option in the Middle East.

  • (Score: 1) by cngn on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:03PM

    by cngn (1609) on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:03PM (#125274)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:31PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:31PM (#125285)

    > from non-lethal measures such as optical “dazzling”

    Because the US signed a piece of paper about "blinding" enemy soldiers, and "dazzling" sounds like a lot better time anyway. (Keep it gay, keep it gay...)

    Sure, it's only "dazzling" enemy optical systems... with a moving 30kW laser a mile away.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:13PM (#125297)

      Wait till they turn it up to 11.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by gman003 on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:32PM

      by gman003 (4155) on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:32PM (#125303)

      That treaty (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Protocol IV) bans weapons primarily designed to blind. It rigidly defines that in Article 4. It also contains exceptions for targeting optical systems - it would be perfectly legal to shoot a laser at someone using binoculars, blinding them, as long as the laser is not able to blind someone not using optics.

      The treaty is incredibly short, so I'll just post it here since nobody actually clicks links.

      Article 1
              It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.

      Article 2
              In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.

      Article 3
              Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.

      Article 4
              For the purpose of this protocol "permanent blindness" means irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery. Serious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:51PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:51PM (#125307)

        Thank you.

        I'm pretty sure that "used against optical equipment" should not be a "legitimate" use for a 30kW laser. I've had to take enough Laser Safety Trainings when playing with 10mW lasers to know that you can't call the guy next to your target "incidental or collateral effect" when a ppm reflection is over the safe limit.
        It's a nice cope-out written right into the treaty. Most first-world soldiers will carry cameras in 10 years or less, making them legitimate targets...

        • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Friday December 12 2014, @12:03AM

          by gman003 (4155) on Friday December 12 2014, @12:03AM (#125313)

          Well, the system is primarily designed to kill, not blind or dazzle. Just having the "dazzle" mode at all is probably a net win in the end, since the alternative is to always use deadly force.

      • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday December 12 2014, @05:09AM

        by mhajicek (51) on Friday December 12 2014, @05:09AM (#125379)

        That "uncorrectable" bit will negate the whole thing soon, when eyes can be replaced wholesale.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12 2014, @03:21AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12 2014, @03:21AM (#125368)

      30kW laser can do a lot more than blind you from 1 mile away. The purpose of this thing is to burn things more than a mile away.

      Now they want 100 and 150kW versions. Why not just combine an array of 5 of the 30kW versions and you have 150kW. It's not like it would be difficult to adjust their aim for distance.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12 2014, @11:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12 2014, @11:30AM (#125427)

      Here we are, nearly 70 years into the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Age [wikipedia.org] and thankfully haven't used them more than twice [wikipedia.org] in war. [wikipedia.org]

      The thing is, the military wants more powerful conventional weapons at their disposal.

      So it looks like this floating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Star [wikipedia.org] -to-be is the start of another arms race in the field of directed high-energy beam weapons.

      When will this madness end?...

  • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Friday December 12 2014, @05:15AM

    by rts008 (3001) on Friday December 12 2014, @05:15AM (#125380)

    It's not real news until the Navy is mounting frickin' lasers on sharks, now is it?

    Where's my flying car, turn that crap down, and GET OFF MY LAWN!

    *end meme hyperbole and mis-use*