US Navy Laser

>>158425

>CNN witnessed that speed and power firsthand.
>For the test, the USS Ponce crew launched the target -- a drone aircraft, a weapon in increasing use by Iran, North Korea, >China, Russia and other adversaries.
>Immediately, the weapons team zeroed in. "We don't have to lead a target," Hughes explained. "We're doing that engagement at the speed of light so it really is a point and shoot -- we see it, we focus on it, and we can negate that target."
>In an instant, the drone's wing lit up, heated to a temperature of thousands of degrees, lethally damaging the aircraft and sending it hurtling down to the sea.
>The strike comes silently and invisibly. "It operates in an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum so you don't see the beam, it doesn't make any sound, it's completely silent and it's incredibly effective at what it does," said Hughes.
It is remarkably precise, which the Navy says could limit collateral damage in wartime.
>"I can aim that at any particular spot on a target, and disable and destroy as necessary," said Wells. "It reduces collateral damage -- I no longer have to worry about rounds that may go beyond the target and potentially hurt or damage things that I don't want to hurt or damage."
>All the $40 million system needs to operate is a supply of electricity, which is derived from its own small generator, and has a crew of three. No multi-million-dollar missile, no ammunition at all.
>The cost per use? "It's about a dollar a shot," said Hughes.
>Today, the laser is intended primarily to disable or destroy aircraft and small boats. "It's designed with the intent of being able to counter airborne and surface-based threats," said Hughes. "And it's been able to prove itself over the last three years as being incredibly effective at that."
>However, the Navy is developing more powerful, second-generation systems which would bring more significant targets into its crosshairs: missiles.

>>158426

>Those missions remain classified. However, the commander and crew are very much aware of the potential capabilities. When we asked Wells if the current LaWS could shoot down a missile, he said simply "maybe" and smiled.

soon laser drones will be vaporizing dissenters in an instant leaving only ashes of indiscernible origin

Consumer model when?

>>158425
>power upgrades
>lasers
>electromagnetic catapult
aren't those the included in the recipe for railguns?

>>158435
God lefties are intolerable. If you run around "protesting" and setting cars on fire then yeah I hope you do fry.

>>158452
How did you get that from that post? Seek help you weird queer.

The rise of emps and subs

>>158425
aaaaand it's immediately fucked by BraHmos missile. Or the chinese variant. Carriers were king of the seas from 40's-90's but modern missile technology makes these giant targets totally obsolete.

But you gotta give those american ship/nuclearreactor/laserweapons/fightercraft builders jobs with your tax dollars! Gotta keep all this going.

First real war all the carriers will be instantly fucked by missiles.

>>158425
and don't give me that CWIS shit, modern anti-ship missiles are fucking insane and come in rediculous speed skirting just above the waterline.

What happens when they start mirror-coating the drones? Does the laser reflect back like in video games?

>>158425
>we don't worry about anything else.

except clouds. This is the dumbest shit ever. All you have to do to protect against it is throw up a smoke screen. It's only useful as a defensive weapon against incoming missiles.

>>160384
Seriously?
An indian short ranged missile?
The primary function of these new lasers is close range anti air.

>>160510
https://www.dutchsinse.com/9092014-new-mobile-laser-shoots-through-fog-clouds-rain/

>>160501

At these power levels, your mirror must be flawlessly reflective or there will be sufficient thermal transfer to melt the mirror. Even if you could produce such a mirror, in order to reflect it directly back you would need to make sure the laser hits exactly perpendicular, which would then compromise the flight profile of the aircraft/missile.

It must also be incredibly clean or the smallest speck of dust will heat up and melt the mirror. Basically mirrors are only a good defense against low power laser pointers.

>>160514
damn, that was slow as fuck.

>>160510

This is an incredibly stupid argument and was just as valid against the use of radar back in when it was introduced.

>>158453
How did you get the idea of laser firing drones evaporating dissidents from this article?

>>160514
Holy fuck who made this video, atrocious.

>>160607

Because that's common sense.

I'm not the guy you're replying to. There will, in fact, be that exact use of this weapon by someone against someone for that reason in the future. The only possible way it could not is if an even better weapon is invented and becomes widespread very quickly.

Being concerned about it is common sense. It's just as common sense as being concerned the landmines affect civilians more than military targets. That's not a political talking point, that's somebody's real life.

>>160605
What if our enemies were to cover their missiles in mirrors? Checkmate, defense shills.

>>160620
Shoot anti-mirror sound waves at the missiles and then follow up with an immediate laser strike before the mirrors' self-healing technology sets in.

It only takes one crack.

>>160384
>First real war all the carriers will be instantly fucked by missiles.
You're probably right. The US has 10 big fat high-value targets that power maybe 70% of its dynamic air superiority capability and can all be easily tracked, and even if those carriers got railguns that could take down hypersonic missiles, they couldn't take down a volley of missiles.

But history since WW2 showed the military that the next "real war" will be entirely different from what we expect. Vietnam showed that the notion that interceptor jets with long-range air-to-air missiles, which in theory would have established air superiority early and made dogfighting a thing of the past, were insufficient when RoE were so complex as the fog of war was so thick in the air, what with Russians flying among the Vietnamese. Afghanistan shows how much damage an enemy can do when it has few open targets and lots of good intel on your supply lines. And now Russia has just introduced an entirely new kind of PsyOps.

The last "real war" was probably Iran-Iraq, and they found themselves using WW1 tactics. The next one may not be for decades.

>>158427
Ach! It's now only a matter of time when they turn it on civilians.

>>160543
make it rotate also.

>>160501
Yes actually, I have a PhD Shoop da Whoop>>160692
>they couldn't take down a volley of missiles.
Yes they could. The carrier should be surrounded by hundreds of guns.

>>160513
>close range anti air.
wouldn't something like a CIWS be more useful for that?
slinging lots and lots of lead downrange at a heli or jet would probably have a much better effect than a toasting beam that packs no ballistic punch what so ever.

>>158445
Yea, but I don't know why you'd have railguns on a carrier. The lasers are good at targeting small boats and inflatables, which are a considerable threat to carriers.

I do hope railguns and lasers will bring back nuclear powered cruisers, though.

>>161181
Lasers don't have the kinetic punch, but planes/missiles/small boats are pretty soft targets.

Lasers also don't require ammo, and the beam travels a hell of a lot faster (light speed) than a lead projectile, making it more accurate.

>>160384
Nigger what

The various countermeasures we employ operate off of a cost ratio. The experimental railguns, for example, have many times the range (making missile salvos engagable at a far larger distance) and cost maybe a few thousand per round. BraHmos cost millions. Even one failed attack would be strategically catastrophic.

The laser system 'fires' much faster than the railguns, and the only related cost is energy usage. Nevermind that every carrier is surrounded by a flotilla of several vehicles, all armed with various countermeasures. The amount of missiles it would take to damage even a minor flotilla ship would be nothing short of a huge waste.

>>160384
kill-chain of long-range ASCMs is too long.

first you must detect the ship, then it must enter range, then it must remain mostly immobile while it flies into the upper atmosphere, then it's five-stage re-entry must go perfectly, then it must enter it's WEZ basket so it's sensors will be useful, then it must detect the target with the sensor(s) onboard which can be decoyed, then it must survive interception, then it must physically impact the target.

this is noticeably longer than most weapons that have a relatively low PK%, like A-A missiles.

furthermore, the actual ASCM TELs are relatively vulnerable themselves, the ammunition and launcher units are decidedly limited, and the actual long-range recce capability that will actually enable the ASCM operator to gain the SA necessary to point his missiles with any hope of killing anything is decidedly lacking.

tl;dr hard to target the missiles when the target is 1000 nautical away and all of your reconnaissance assets were blasted by SM-6