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
[...] 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.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Tork on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:37PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by ikanreed on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:44PM
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
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
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
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
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 Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday December 13 2014, @05:07PM
Well, I have a little.... That's why I wear contacts! ;-)
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday December 12 2014, @03:38PM
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
=kw= lurkin' to please
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:20PM
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
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by SGT CAPSLOCK on Friday December 12 2014, @07:41AM
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
You'll hate my new book (not yet out).
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
http://www.gizmag.com/us-navy-laser-weapon/35147/ [gizmag.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:31PM
> 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
Wait till they turn it up to 11.
(Score: 3, Informative) by gman003 on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:32PM
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.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:51PM
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
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 bob_super on Friday December 12 2014, @12:26AM
Incapacitating fighters is preferable to killing them, as it has a higher impact on enemy logistics and morale.
That's why so many landmines only maim. But who would want to be on the list of countries that didn't sign the Ottawa treaty? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday December 12 2014, @05:09AM
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
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
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
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*