Could lasers make anti ship missles obsolete?

>>32983559
And if there are 20+?

Legitimately curios.

>>32983559
Not if your missile is made of mirrors

File: sky953lrg-1.jpg (2MB, 2600x2600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2600x2600px

>>32983559
>Not turning your missiles into disco balls.
>Not laughing maniacally while the enemy cuts their ship into a thousand pieces before your missile even gets close enough to finish them off.

Checkmate laser fags.

>>32983574
Idk just add more lasers I guess? If you got a bunch of them on a destroyer or any other naval ship and they're powerful enough to generate enough heat to destroy any incoming missiles in a near instant then it could work quite well

File: P-270 Missile.jpg (113KB, 800x1133px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x1133px

>>32983559
the real question is whether lasers will be able to handle ASM spam launched from standoff ranges. I highly doubt that they will be able to handle a group of Sunburns, especially if anti-laser countermeasures are developed.

>>32983559
>But range doesn't matter when using lasers,
Yes it does. Lasers don't go out to infinity, they get weaker as the energy diffuses and separates as it travels through the atmosphere. Current and near future lasers are going to be short ranged. This alone provides good reason for keeping missiles around for the job. The missiles will be able to engage these targets from much farther away, and can be launched at rates faster than you're going to be achieving kills with your laser. Best solution? Have both. Lasers give you depth of magazine that missiles lack.

>>32983663
Would ships even get close enough to do that? I always thought that with things like radar, air patrol, satellite imagery etc. naval ships would just try to throw missiles at each other from extrememly long distances and not bother getting close to use any other guns

Lasers aren't powerful enough yet.

>>32983739
I'm talking about like a few decades into the future

all this high tech shit never works reliably

File: rock applause.gif (2MB, 357x296px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 357x296px

>>32983599
>> disco ball warhead
>> using a ship's defensive laser against itself

>>32983749
>>32983739

Its here already, just not in the old weapon space. Differences: many to one defense, low and slow defense, civilian areas etc. This video is a good explanation:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV3jfR-FUFc

>>32983559
I see practical lasers just being an incremental development in anti-missile defense systems, rather than something totally revolutionary. Range isn't totally a non-issue, sure the beam arrives on target almost immediately, but for a given lateral displacement of an evading missile, you have to traverse the laser more to keep it on target. Not to mention missiles generally have more freedom to maneuver the further they are from the target - when they get real close they can't maneuver much without missing the target. Also lasers wouldn't be particularly effective against missiles going fast enough to do damage through kinetic energy - you might "destroy" the missile and cause it to break up, but the remnants will likely still have enough momentum to keep going and do some damage.

>>32983663
sunburns are fairly high altitude, the engagment window is measured in mintutes for laser defense against a high altitude supersonic.

It's the harder to detect low altitude missiles that stay below the engagement horizon for longer that are going to be trouble against directed energy countermeasures like a laser antimissile defense.

File: 1ca7d1b297c84674e38ecd86d6caa40e5b36541198af836d5e1bdc2f4b7bd234_1.jpg (24KB, 700x545px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 700x545px

>>32983559
I bet they will put lasers on their missiles so that the photons will cancel out.

Another reason hypersonic missiles, that are practically cooking themselves to death to begin with, are the wrong way to go. Slow stealth missiles are the future.

>>32986394
>not wanting to btfo everything with 100lb lumps of tungsten moving at mach 5+
You gay, son?

>>32986003
>but the remnants will likely still have enough momentum to keep going and do some damage.
Which is why you start putting armor on ships again. [spoiler]battleships[/spoiler]

>>32986003
>you might "destroy" the missile and cause it to break up, but the remnants will likely still have enough momentum to keep going and do some damage.
how do you expect it to keep its trajectory after breaking apart?
Are you retarded or do you imagine this as some anime film where the laser shoots the thing 300m away from the ship with a flashy green laser?

>>32986003
>Range isn't totally a non-issue, sure the beam arrives on target almost immediately,
you forgot about the inverse square law

File: ss.png (2MB, 1920x1684px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1684px

>>32983590
Mirrors won't withstand that mach 10 speed on the only missiles capable of having even sliver of a chance at actually hitting any ship.

>>32983559
You're still limited by a few things and vulnerable to saturation attacks, even with a very robust system (which we're not quite at yet), like:
>targets engaged per minute
Lasers require a lot of power, and must be held on target for a period of time to burn through and disable them. All this requires vast amounts of stored power, which means capacitor banks. This in turn means volume especially but also mass in the hull. You won't be running an all-up CIWS laser setup just on constant produced power. Think of it like a ships magazine, and your firing rate will be limited by that magazine.

>range
You mentioned "range doesn't matter" when using lasers, but it very much does. First you have the visual horizon, which at sea from a 100' height is only 20.99 nmi against a target 50' off the deck (practically wave skimming in AShM terms). That's a very short engagement window if someone's sent 30 AShMs at you coming in groups on different bearings. Also, atmospheric diffraction, cloud cover and terrain all directly affect how far out targets can be engaged and how much power is required to damage them at that range.

Just these two considerations alone make a mature laser/DEW CIWS a very potent but not ultimate defense tool. You still want those layers of defense going out a couple hundred nmi to give you time to identify, track and engage the targets with maximum amount of time and various kill modes from missile, EW, decoy to AAA/DEW options.

>>32983590
Mirrors still absorb a fraction of the EM energy they reflect. Any laser powerful enough to engage and destroy incoming missiles would first carbon score and then melt a mirror in short order. You'd do much better with an ablative coating.

>>32987429
This. The other consideration in targets engaged per minute is how long it takes to burn through each missile - that right there is a hard limit on how large a swarm your laser defense system can handle. It's also easily derived from your laser output power, which means any enemy would set a minimum launch salvo maybe 10% over that number and without other defenses you're fucked.

>>32987429
>You won't be running an all-up CIWS laser setup just on constant produced power. Think of it like a ships magazine, and your firing rate will be limited by that magazine.
No, but you could go for quite a long while with a ship that is 50% nuclear reactors and 50% laser arrays. After that it will pay for itself because all other countries would bankrupt themselves overnight if they launch enough missiles to overwhelm a well prepared naval fleet with laser defenses.

>First you have the visual horizon, which at sea from a 100' height is only 20.99 nmi against a target 50' off the deck (practically wave skimming in AShM terms).
UAV spotters, aircraft lasers, put some lasers on a blimp that is attached to the ship by power cable, etc etc.

>>32983559
>Cost and energy requirements aside-
Nah, you don't get to do that. That's like asking if, reloading and reliability difficulties aside, strapping several hundred Colt Single Action Army pistols to a frame would work as an area denial weapon. You don't get to disregard the main difficulties facing the weapon system.

>But range doesn't matter when using lasers-
Thermal blooming, bitchboy. Ever seen air get kinda wavy above a hot surface? That's destabilization caused by unequal heating. Lasers deal with the same problem writ massive. After a certain distance you diffuse the beam so much that it becomes practically useless.

>All the ship will need to do is just point the laser at the missiles, track it long enough if needed and destroy it.

All a battleship has to do to kill a carrier is put the carrier within the range of its guns without being sunk by the carrier's air complement or escort. That still does not make bbfags correct.

>Modern naval ships already have an array of systems to protect themselves against missiles threats but even so theres still a chance for a ship to get destroyed/crippled by a missile-

And as long as missiles are cheaper than ships and still take a non-zero amount of time to destroy, then it is completely within the realm of possibility that a ship's defenses could be overwhelmed by sheer volume.

TL;DR: No, there are inherent difficulties that make it highly unlikely.

But this fucker >>32983590 is a faggot too, so you're not completely wrong.

>>32987498
>UAV spotters, aircraft lasers, put some lasers on a blimp that is attached to the ship by power cable, etc etc.
Again, you're completely missing the power draw issues here. Just to lift the 500' cable with a gauge large enough to transmit that much power continuously without melting, you'd need an enormous blimp. Even then, your horizon only gets out to 38.8nmi (600' over the water against a 50' target), which is still knife fighting range in AShM terms. There are no feasible aircraft lasers which can generate or store the required power to engage a meaningful AShM swarm.

>No, but you could go for quite a long while with a ship that is 50% nuclear reactors and 50% laser arrays.
Anon, the piddly little DEW in OP's pic (LaWS) is 50kW and barely downs paper skinned drones over tens of seconds of hold on target. The eventual systems being looked at are 300kW output. Assume a 50% slope efficiency on that laser (power input/output efficiency, and a very generous assumption as most high end optical lasers are in the 40-45% slope range), and that's 600kW required input power per laser. So, a single laser eats up roughly 2/3 MW including power transmission loss.

So, the 40 laser ship you envision which would carry enough lasers to handle just about any salvo size would require 26.67MW continuous power just for laser output. That's a shit ton of power output. And then your enemy starts cutting the warhead payload on their missiles to install ablative or thermal ceramic nosecones, and you're fucked because now they can put up salvos which can saturate.

Like I said, best to keep the entire onion style defense in depth in place for the foreseeable future.

Going to be less relevant for anti-ship missiles, because AShM's are faster and much bigger, and they hug the ground leaving on a few seconds to engage them

Land based lasers are going to make ATGM's/PGM's irrelevant

>>32987429
>You won't be running an all-up CIWS laser setup just on constant produced power.
Why do you believe that? These massive turbines produce huge amounts of power
This isn't a railgun which needs all power dumped instantly, this is a constant steady drain of power

> First you have the visual horizon, which at sea from a 100' height is only 20.99 nmi against a target 50' off the deck
Which is way further than any effective range of a laser at sea level, so thats no biggie

>That's a very short engagement window if someone's sent 30 AShMs at you coming in groups on different bearings.

What sort of fantasy scenario is this? Most of those AShM's will miss, shoot down the 1-2 that are on target, then shoot down the rest .

>>32987530
>You don't get to disregard the main difficulties facing the weapon system.
The main difficulty is that the lasers are not robust and powerful enough quite yet

Also if they are seeing rapid yearly improvement, its madness to deploy lasers on every ship that would be obsolete in 5 years

>>32987742
>Why do you believe that? These massive turbines produce huge amounts of power
>This isn't a railgun which needs all power dumped instantly, this is a constant steady drain of power
Total available power for a Nimitz class CVN (including power devoted to SHP, or moving the ship, which is over 90% of the generated power) is 194MW. See >>32987612 for some napkin math on a ballpark "invulnerable" DEW ship.

So that ship is using 26.67MW (14% of the total output of the most productive power plant the USN has ever commissioned in a warship) to cover a 20.9nmi radius of ocean against sea skimming AShMs, and it can't shoot through the ships it's escorting even though it would need to be very close to them. Think about how much that is in sunk resources against return. The Perry class only needed 31MW of installed power to push 4,100 tons of ship at 29 knots, for instance.

DEW CIWS setups will be very, very useful in the future for air and surface defense on ships, but they are by no means the end all be all of AA fleet defense. You still need 200+ nmi OTH engagement options to deal with a serious saturation swarm no matter what.

>>32987742
>Which is way further than any effective range of a laser at sea level, so thats no biggie
You're completely missing the basic point with lasers that they require dwell time on target to burn through and disable whatever they're shooting at. The closer the max range on them, the fewer total targets they can engage. That's a big fucking deal with an incoming swarm of missiles.

>What sort of fantasy scenario is this? Most of those AShM's will miss, shoot down the 1-2 that are on target, then shoot down the rest .
Anon... Jesus. You hope for the best and plan for the worst. What if an enemy gets solid intel on your ship-based EW systems and upgrades their AShM targeting? You can't count on the enemy having an effective hit rate of 6.7%. That's just fucking retarded.

>>32983559
They make planes obsolete too.

What ever rises above the horizon is in range.

This begins taking down antiship missiles at the horizon for the low sea skimming types at 3 miles....... if you were standing on the waters surface that begins engagement . The CIWS on big ships is up on the superstructure and the radar up higher. Moving the laser systems up higher on the super structure pushes the engagement range 10 or 15 miles.

Will it replace the CIWS and Rolling Airframe missiles? No. It will leave significantly less of them to engage though.

Then with ship board power and megawatt lasers enemy drones, AWACS, and fighters are going to be picked off. This even takes the fuck huge chinese carrier killer missile into question.

Lasers are game changing.

>>32983619
The simple answer wins.

An Iowa had four CIWS around the superstructure.

File: R41526.png (52KB, 902x669px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 902x669px

>>32987859
Just to expand a bit more, fiber SSL's like LaWS are expected to reach several hundred kWs at ~25% efficiency. Future slab SSL's are expected to range between 400 and 600 kWs at 20-25% efficiency. FEL's which could exceed 1 MW would have ~10% efficiency.

>>32983663
I put my money on the laser.

What counter missiles could you mount that wont sacrifice missile speed or warhead weight?

The laser moves at the speed of light?

Rapid jinking burns fuel, increases flight time, and increases the radar signature.

Fire the 8-10 a ship could carry and one might get down to the rolling air frame missiles of CIWS.

Unfortunately, no way to aim your ASM from beyond line of sight...... Anything that flies above the horizon will be killed by the laser.

Build a big enough laser and satellites will get killed. The U.S. Navy is already in the latter stages of anti satellite missiles for Aegis equipped ships to deny enemy intelligence.

>>32987987
>What ever rises above the horizon is in range.
see >>32987429
>Also, atmospheric diffraction, cloud cover and terrain all directly affect how far out targets can be engaged and how much power is required to damage them at that range.
>>32987530
>Thermal blooming, bitchboy. Ever seen air get kinda wavy above a hot surface? That's destabilization caused by unequal heating. Lasers deal with the same problem writ massive. After a certain distance you diffuse the beam so much that it becomes practically useless.
You should probably read and understand a little bit about atmospheric effects on high energy EM discharges before posting declarative statements about DEW systems.

>This begins taking down antiship missiles at the horizon for the low sea skimming types at 3 miles....... if you were standing on the waters surface that begins engagement . The CIWS on big ships is up on the superstructure and the radar up higher. Moving the laser systems up higher on the super structure pushes the engagement range 10 or 15 miles.
It's 20.9nmi from the bow CIWS station on a Burke. And that's still incredibly close range for engaging an entire swarm of AShMs travelling even at high transonic much less mach 2+.

>>32988016
God damn. That's even worse news on slope efficiency than I had hoped for. That means the near-future 300kW output lasers would each require 1.2MW apiece to operate. Building a ship with those as a primary armament would be insanely expensive. My 40 laser ship example above would require 48MW continuous power. A Burke class clocks in at 9,800 tons, does 30+ knots and only has a power budget of 78 total MW including propulsion. Mind boggling.

These lasers would be very useful as part of the whole defensive shell in numbers of 4 or less, but insane as a massed laser arsenal concept.

>>32988087
Anon. Stop posting. Go read a basic high school physics book. Shit like this:
>Build a big enough laser and satellites will get killed.
just makes you look completely retarded.

>>32986710
I'm glad someone else said it first.

The laser cancels out missiles and aircraft.

That means armor and big dumb shells.

>>32983590
Big b8 m8

>>32988177
>That means armor and big dumb shells.

Armor buys you some protection, but distributed redundancy and damage control will get you further than plate.

>>32987612
>So, the 40 laser ship you envision which would carry enough lasers to handle just about any salvo size
That's an unreasonable use case. The dedicated laser ship would be the centerpieces of a fleet's defense but every ship from then on should have their own lasers to contribute as well.

>And then your enemy starts cutting the warhead payload on their missiles
And then armored ships make a return to counter these. Armor is a bit easier to retrofit onto existing ships than laser systems as well.

>best to keep the entire onion style defense
The point of the laser discussion is that they are the top of the line in terms of defensive options and that they will add such a huge amount to the total equation that most anti ship missile designs and strategies will become obsolete. This was OP's argument.

My own suggestions were how to optimize and further add more layers to this "onion". I think that some things like anti-missile-missiles will be phased out in favor of more lasers and/or capacitors because they won't contribute as thick of an onion slice, but go ahead and keep them on ships until the remaining stocks collect too much rust.

>>32988226
>The dedicated laser ship would be the centerpieces of a fleet's defense
How do you figure that, when it's only got a 20.9 nmi range against incoming sea skimming threats? And not that much more than that against higher altitude threats?

A laser ship will never be built. It's an impractical and stupid use of an entire hull.

Each ship will receive 2-4 CIWS DEW setups and they'll still have their rotary wing aviation, VLS and everything else.

>And then armored ships make a return to counter these.
God damned if you aren't one retarded bugger.
YOU CAN'T ARMOR RADAR T/R MODULES, YOU STUPID BUGGER, AND WITHOUT RADAR A MODERN SHIP IS USELESS IN A FIGHT.
There is no world where WWII-style armored ships ever make a comeback. None. Zero.

>Armor is a bit easier to retrofit onto existing ships than laser systems as well.
Holy shit. Stop posting now, because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Retrofitting a ship for a DEW is at least possible. If you want to armor an entire ship, you're gonna need an entirely new hull. Fuck. Are you 12 years old? Have you ever even been on a ship before?

>The point of the laser discussion is that they are the top of the line in terms of defensive options and that they will add such a huge amount to the total equation that most anti ship missile designs and strategies will become obsolete.
You are still completely ignoring the three primary and inescapable issues: targets engaged per minute, power requirements and LOS/thermal bloom/atmospheric effect range limitations.

>>32987464
Missiles are not armored. That is a 1/16th inch of sheet metal.

Add on armor takes away from speed or warhead.

That's why it only takes one 20mm out of the 6000 spammed from a CIWS to wreck one missile.

Besides there are two other things to consider.

Layered defense on one ship..... You have counter measures, chaff, and smoke to obscure your ship. Lasers at 25 nmi, missiles at 10 nmi, 76mm cannon at 5 nmi, then CIWS at 1 nmi.

Next, U.S. ships are mutually supporting by computer networked defense systems.

The missiles are not engaged by one ship. The sensor data is processed and EVERY ship with systems is tasked with select missiles. The missile threat is divided up and ships are not wasting ammunition firing on one missile and letting 10 others go untouched.

Currently it is the Carrier with the computing power and that is going down in size as the systems get smarter more functional.

The Carrier controls the ECM and antimissile systems of the fleet. This way a destroyer with only ECM and chaff with a single CIWS isn't fight alone against soviet missile spam of 20 anti ship missiles. All the ships target the 20 anti ship missiles and begin taking them out at longest range working their way down. The targeted ship can even turn into the missiles, bow on, reducing their size, and not be cutting their own counter missile capability to near nothing.

>>32988160
LOL.

HELSTF at White Sands Missile Range, NM has already done so.

Checkmate, second year physics student.

>>32988197
Which should be built in from the start.

Armor, plus compartmentization, plus dedicated DC personell, and DC systems with redundancy is never a bad idea.

>>32988347
>Add on armor takes away from speed or warhead.
Not necessarily. Are you not aware how ridiculously light the space shuttle ceramic tiles are? Build your missile nose cones out of them and any enemy DEW power has to increase geometrically to get through it in the same amount of time.

>You have counter measures, chaff, and smoke to obscure your ship. Lasers at 25 nmi, missiles at 10 nmi, 76mm cannon at 5 nmi, then CIWS at 1 nmi.
Anon. You can do better than this with fucking ten minutes on Wiki. Jesus.
>SM-6 at 250+ nmi
>SM-2ER at 100+ nmi
>ESSM at 27+ nmi
>Laser/DEW CIWS at 20.9 nmi
>Mk 45 5"/54 deck gun at 13 nmi
>SeaRAM at 4.87 nmi
>Phalanx CIWS at 1.9 nmi
Plus EW/decoys/chaff/etc.

As you can see, best case DEW CIWS range against a sea skimmer would be less than 1/10th max engagement range for systems we already have and use. That's a shit ton of defense in depth to just give up.

>The Carrier controls the ECM and antimissile systems of the fleet.
No, anon, it does not. Fleet defense command in the USN is in the Tico, away from all the other intricate command shit that has to happen in the carrier from CSG command, fleet air wing command, carrier command, logistics command, etc.

In the Tico, fleet defense get their own facilities and dedicated uplink and processing bandwidth directly into the heart of the Aegis system, which isn't even equipped on CVNs.

Why are you posting when you don't even understand fleet defense basics?

>>32988443
What a load of horseshit. You literally posted the following: >>32988087
>Anything that flies above the horizon will be killed by the laser.
About a laser. As if atmospheric effects simply don't fucking exist in your world. Get the fuck out of here with your LARPing bullshit.

>>32987813
Unlike mechanical guns that have to deal with recoil and feeding shells, a laser system just needs a hole in the deck for a power cable and somewhere to mount the emitter. Replacing and upgrading shipborne units would be trivial even if you do it every 5 years.

>>32988581
Actually, this isn't quite true. Plopping a gun inside a given space is easy if it fits. The problem with lasers is twofold: Power generation and power storage. To be frank, most current ships are producing as much power as they reasonably can. This is part of the reason why the Zumwalt was such a big thing- it'd have so much more power available. Sadly, the order was truncated at 3. Because of increasing power requirements in normal systems, let alone future DEWs, the Arleigh Burke Flight III ships will be having massive changes to the ship's architecture as a whole to fit in more power generation. And once you generate that power, you need a place to store it. If you want to have a lot of shots available, you need a lot of battery space. Giant capacitors are needed to store the energy generated in order to actually shoot the lasers. You need a lot of them to make lasers operationally relevant. To be frank, existing Burkes will be hard pressed to find room for significant laser weaponry and the systems needed to support them.

So yes, it's actually a pretty big fucking deal.

>>32988503
Ceramic nose cones. Ok. Assuming that the systems engaging the missile are all fired down the same azimuth at the same height.
Which they are not. The fact that the squadron and fleet systems are integrated has already been established. That means the missile is engaged from multiple azimuths making a pumice stone snowflake nose cap irrelevant.

Why do I need to spend my time on a Wiki when a triggered aspie will do it all for me for free. Which further illustrate my point that a laser is one system in a whole mixed bag of systems. The system with a bottomless magazine to boot. Thanks Aspie!

I don't know of one person stating that these systems would be emplaced at 6 feet above the water line. Anyone? So that means it is in the superstructure like other anti ship missile systems. Pushing that engagement range out and out and out. So what are you frothing at the mouth about? You simply retold what I said in a needlessly more complex post. *hand clapping*

Give up defense? Where did I say that all systems would be dropped for a single do all laser system? That's the voices in your head, Aspie. I am a proponent of adding these to all future hull builds with a radical increase in ship power to accommodate future power requirements.

You seem to hear and see what you want to hear and see. How terrible for you.

Anything that comes above the horizon is in range and will die. That may not be true this day in 2017, but I don't think we are even ten years away from that being true.

I welcome your next froth spitting, wild eyed, cave hermit rebuttal.

Why not invest in more advanced computing systems so you can just launch a projectile to collide with the missile rather than bothering with lasers?

>>32988680
>Why not invest in more advanced computing systems so you can just launch a projectile to collide with the missile rather than bothering with lasers?

Because missile designers have been planning for this and have been developing missiles that can maneuver for the full duration of flight.

>>32988651
>I welcome your next froth spitting, wild eyed, cave hermit rebuttal.
The rest of you ITT, I recognize this asshole from a thread the other day. Likes to throw the word "luddite" around, and is allergic to basic reality and facts.

Don't even bother.

>>32988651
>all that goalpost moving
Jesus Christ, anon. You do realize the shit you wrote 30 minutes ago is still right there in this thread, right?

Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>32988680
That's HVP and DARPA's MAD-FIRES.

Lasers are just more reliable ciws.

The counter will be to make the anti ship missile faster and fire more.

>>32988764
Nope. Not that guy. Point me that way because I am genuinely curious now.

>>32988821
Bullshit. Get fucked with a cactus.

>>32988636
Sounds like a job for a reactor

>>32988774
LOL..... Which goal posts?

You are so genuinely angry at everyone that you lump them all together.

I did say that
1) lasers will kill everything that clears the horizon
2)lasers will be game changing.
3)lasers will be part of an already integrated ships defence
3)that ships will coordinate their integrated ship defences into combined squadron / fleet defense.
4)Will is not the same as now. The laser on the Ponce de Leon is simply a prototype with a very promising future.
5)active and passive systems still must compliment and overlap.

So maybe you confuse me with someone else?
Maybe your so desperate for an argument that lash out in all directions?

Wipe the froth off your keyboard and start again.

>>32988318
>YOU CAN'T ARMOR RADAR T/R MODULES
Fast retractable modules or armor.

>>32988836
Now you are jumping at shadows.

Besides a luddite is anti technology.
Why would I be pro laser and a luddite at the same time? Why would I be arguing that people are luddites in a technology thread about weapons integration?

Really, anon? You can't be serious.

>>32988837
If that was what you got from that, you're fucking retarded.

>>32988875
Fucking armored shipfag again.

Why do you suck so fucking much, /k/?

>>32988784
>The counter will be to make the anti ship missile faster
Fast AShM's are shit

> and fire more.
lol, using what platforms? Using what targetting data? What country has hundreds of AShM's to blind fire over the horizon?

>>32988895
my turn to try, we need better capacitor technology.

>>32988636
>Giant capacitors are needed to store the energy generated in order to actually shoot the lasers.
Why do you keep saying this? Jesus christ
You don't need capacitors for lasers
Ships produce megawatts of power

And if they weren't idiots, they wouldn't have been building these Burke Flight III's.

>>32988900
Excuse me... China, I need to place and order.

how many AshMs to target one acre of sea water and can I get a discount for 640 acres of water targeted?

;)

File: GSGS.png (81KB, 1126x461px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1126x461px

>>32988866
Not him, but I agree with points 2,3,3,5
For point 1, nothing is absolute. see>>32988016, if you want to kill everything you'd need multiple +1MW FEL's and FEL's are 2035+ project and there's still debate as to whether even carriers will be able to handle the power and cooling required.
For 4, LaWS is promising for drone and small surface craft defense. Very limited anti-missile capabilities.

>>32988503
would be easier and less riskier to go for coatings instead of tiles
b) in pic related shows an estimate for a 0.1mm polished gold coating on a ballistic missile

>>32988906
We need better capacitors and more power generation combined.

>>32988920
>You don't need capacitors for lasers
Yes you fucking do. If you had insane power generation such that you can power your lasers AND everything else on the ship at full capacity 100% of the time, you wouldn't need them. I'm sorry, but that's not realistic. That's why they're building more power generation into the Flight III Burkes. As it turns out, EW and Radar alone take a hell of a lot of energy just in pure output, nevermind how much goes into it, nor how much goes into powering the processors. And lets say you did have enough power generation to do that. I'd ask you: why? To do so is to provide an extremely expensive capability that frankly you don't need. Capacitors are cheaper for providing enough power to get you through what you need without providing useless excess. Never mind the problem with what happens if your power generation is reduced for whatever reason. Suddenly, you're no longer able to fire your lasers. Brilliant job.

>And if they weren't idiots, they wouldn't have been building these Burke Flight III's.
What do you suggest, then? The Zumwalt's got massive capacitors as well.

>>32988999
Okay.

I admit point one is hyperbole. Though not by much. Armor on aircraft is wrapped around the crew and some aircraft the engines. That leave large portions unarmored because of weight considerations.

Truly, the only thing really unstoppable is dropping rocks from space and we are a few hundred years from that as a means of homicide.

>>32983559
so ignoring cost and energy requirement, with tech we have today? they wouldn't make ASMs obsolete.

the issue isn't with the laser itself (rolling with the "energy ain't no thang" idea) its with targeting. so let's go worst case when we're talking a single ASM: you're looking at a sea skimmer going in excess of mach 3 that you don't know is coming. which means with the current system which we have for close in engagements (phalanx for the USN) it's got from when the missile pops over the horizon (~13 or so NM, depending on your duct height and mount placement, but i'll be generous and give you 20 NM) to ID the missile as a threat, generate a fire control solution, and position the mount to fire accurately at the inbound threat. let's assume this missile is flying an even keel mach 3, about 2300 mph. so you've got about 31 seconds to drop that missile. sounds like plenty of time right? if you're looking at a large RCS, straight flight path and have some prior warning to an inbound missile you'd be absolutely right. small RCS? tack on 10 seconds for an accurate solution. swerving missile? standby while new input data comes in, hold off on fire until you're sure it's inbound. no prior warning? anywhere from an additional 10 seconds to a minute to tag and ID the new track.

>>32983599
There are no mirrors in the spectrum used by FEL.

>>32989204
I think if you have high energy anti-missile laser systems you can also afford to keep at least a drone airborne for early warning.

Second: You don't need a 3d targeting solution for a laser anti-missile system. A 2D track from electro-optical or IRST systems would take a microsecond. Give a whole half second to interrogate IFF, then the slowest part of the loop: Waiting for a human operator to hit the LASER DEFENSE FIRE RELEASE button while the computer says VAMPIRE over and over.

You can always spam missiles made of easily disintegrating metals and create a cloud of metal to reduce the laser effectiveness

JUST LIKE IN MY CHINESE CARTOONS

>>32987391
>Mirrors won't withstand
you do realize that you can make mirrors out of other stuff than glass, right? you could polish a piece of goddamn osmium and you'd have a mirror.

>>32983559
What we should really use is laser-induced plasma channels.

Use the fucking power of Zeus to bitchslap missiles, planes, torpedos, and other ships.

>>32989532
Incredibly short ranged. Essentially useless against incoming vampires.

>>32983559
How do anti-missile lasers work in the underwater context? In other words, would a better countermeasure against airborne missiles cause enemies to prioritize submarine-launched or underwater missiles?

File: Image-Metal-reflectance.png (9KB, 480x363px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x363px

>>32989341
sure about that?

>>32989546
Then we should load werewolves into railguns and launch them as early as possible.

Mirrors don't reflect 100% of beams, you uneducated American retard.
No mirror will reflect enough power to avoid rocket being overheated.

Now that we have multi million dollar missiles I can see lasers taking over most of their duties really quick.

>>32989653
ICBWs when?

>>32989722
>reflect >90%
>active cooling and ablation do the rest
they don't have to reflect all, they just have to reflect enough to send the missile home in conjunction with other countermeasures.

>>32983559
Yes, they could. After quite a few decades of development and if during all this time the missiles will remain as they are now without any development. Then yes. Otherwise, laserfags belong to /toy.

File: HELlaseronatruck.jpg (51KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x424px

They already have a land based system in the works, sure the navel equivalent isn't far behind

>>32989825
The problem is not if the naval equivalent is behind the land-based one, the problem is that they are both decades behind of destroying even the most simplistic missiles.

>>32989825
The laser on a truck is for anti-drone work, specifically for Class I and II drones, which are tiny things which fly low. For example, one of those tiny RC quadcopters would be considered a Class I UAV. They are by no means "CIWS" level yet.

>>32989831
?
the fuck are you talking about
They have working lasers right now mounted in vehicles/ships

>>32989838
Neither of which can handle a target harder than a plastic boat, cardboart UAV or a small mortar round from about a mile or so.

>>32989838
And there's a working laser in my place of work. Doesn't mean it can shoot down missiles in any effective way.

>>32989851
normal UAV, normal mortar round. See >>32985564

>>32989895
See>>32989837
Group I and II UAVs are tiny as fuck. They're weak as fuck. They're not Predators or nothing like that.

>>32989895
Tiny UAV and tiny mortar round.

>>32989475
not him but it still won't withstand it. Any tiny dings or dust from handling would absorb heat, moisture from the air, seawater splash, smoke from the rocket propellant burning on launch. Any little bit of anything on the surface will absorb the laser, that deforms or chars the reflective surface around it, which then absorbs heat, etc and it snowballs.

>>32983559
Gonna need a shit ton of lasers. It's still a point defence weapon. How's 1 gonna solve a salvo?

>>32989929
doesn't have to hold indefinitely.

>>32989977
It has to hold more than 1/4 second

>>32989977
it won't hold at all is what I'm saying. Any contaminates will heat up almost instantly, ruining the reflective surface around it, and that will cascade.

What about particle beam weapons?

>>32990086
if all countermeasures combined keep a hypersonic missile intact for a split second that's already enough.

>>32990351
Except your missile is still fucking blind from all this junk/plasma in front of it
How do you expect to hit a target

>>32989341
FEL's would be adjusted to the wavelength best suited for the atmospheric conditions which is typically ~1.045e-6m (infrared).

>>32983663
ASMs take up space and is only good once.

Just like Stealth is meant to degrade radar, not negate it, so too would an anti laser counter measure only degrade, not eliminate.

The faster a missile goes the more paramount aerodynamics and weight reduction are. Any laser counter measure hurts fuel and agility.

Also the next step of lasers are free electron and then free particle lasers, which are really sub atomic components being flung at a fraction of the speed of light, so there are kinetics involved.

I think in the near future it will be a tight race, but then energy weapons are pulling ahead.

>>32987612
So you're saying ship defense is like an ogre?

>>32990390
inertial guidance for the final approach.

You defend against lasers with ablative armor not mirrored surfaces that degrade in a split second against high powered lasers.

>>32990351

Even hypersonics have to last a good 15-20 seconds from engagement to hit.

Going hypersonic though the atmo will fuck your mirror to bits.

>>32991694

The problem with ablative armors is you cant realistically have a terminal sensor to look though it.