Navy Using Lasers?

seent it, impressive on a technical level, on a tactical level its aiight (for now)

>>34709876
Purely energy based weapon systems sound interesting.
Cheap to operate, silent, and not visible by to the naked eye.

I don't know much about lasers but I can make a few guesses at some its issues.
The weapon system destroys its target by transferring sufficient quantity of energy converted to heat on contact.
This takes time, the amount of time is dependant on various factors simplified to how efficiently the weapon system is capable of transferring the energy supplied to the target within a set time frame.

Several factors contribute to undesirable power loss.
I assume some of the energy would be transferred to the surrounding atmosphere. This loss would be proportional to the physical distance travelled and material properties of the medium in which it is travelling. This can be affected by environmental conditions (humidity, temperature and pressure of gas, etc...).

Another factor would be the temperature and material properties of the target, those can influence how efficient the energy transfer from beam to target would be.
One way to mitigate a laser would be to use a surface which can reflect a large portion of the beam's energy away from the target like a mirror or simply refract the beam through the target without absorbing a great deal of energy. Material properties and geometry of the target would influence the outcome.

Would be a great weapon in the vacuum of space at large ranges granted the energy drop off per square distance is negligible in vacuum, that I do not know.
All I know is that it would be exceedingly difficult for a target in vacuum to vent off excess heat quick enough in the form of Infrared.

>>34709876
It's the future.

>>34711064
>this takes time
they say it takes about no time (literally)

>>34711105
For the beam to make contact with the target it would take infinitesimal amount of time so small it would be negligible over combat ranges, yes.
Destroying a target however isn't a matter of the beam simply getting in contact with the target. You have to hold it on target long enough for it to heat up and fail.

Even in the videos posted that weapons system took in the order of a few seconds to convert enough energy supplied to heat in order to destroy a small drone target.
In its current state it doesn't seem practical for larger faster more resilient targets like jet aircraft and bombers at high altitudes.
More difficult for fast targets doing evasive manuevers since you have to stay on target for the duration of time required to destroy it, it is not delivering enough energy quick enough to be instantaneous at long ranges yet.

>>34711159
When energy technology matures though, you can erect literal walls of light to zap any pesky aircraft that attempt to navigate them, kind of like a modern barrage balloon.

>>34709876
>CNN

Literally Fake News.

>>34711216
go to bed Donald

>>34711205
I suppose a network of several beams converging on a single target could be devastating even at ranges that wouldn't be considered effective for a single weapon system. So there is that.

As far as a static wall of energy beams is concerned sounds wasteful.

File: IMG_0527.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>34711064
The problem with lasers in space is that they dissipate in focus at relatively short ranges relative to the size of space and require line if sight -- remember that orbit is where ships will fight not open space

Also, the lasers are beams now, but could be extremely high energy in the future. iE in the span of 1/2 millisecond one pulse ionizes the air, exploding it in a thunderclap, second pulse travels through vacuum, third pulse hits target forth is to detonated the cloud of smoke and a ablated material from surface, maybe a fourth to reclear the vacuum again, and then a final shit at now exposed internals for the kill