Laser warfare takes to the high seas

By | March 27, 2010, 7:13pm PDT

A new type of laser weapon system touted as the holy grail of military lasers took a step closer to reality last week when Boeing Directed Energy Systems announced the successful completion of the initial design of the U.S. Navy’s Free Electron Laser (FEL).

Credit: John Adams Institute

The shipboard FEL will focus a lethal 100-kilowatt beam at surface and air threats, future anti-ship cruise missiles or a swarm of small boats.  FELs are electrically generated so can draw on the power of the ship to provide a virtually unlimited magazine with speed-of light delivery for a wide range of missions. In this way, it will provide U.S. ships with a more powerful means of self-defense.

“The successful completion of this preliminary design review is an important milestone in developing a weapon system that will transform naval warfare,” said Gary Fitzmire, vice president and program director of Boeing Directed Energy Systems.

For it to become real, however, will require several milestones. The Navy’s design approval is a key step toward building an FEL prototype for realistic tests at sea. The next step is for Boeing to detail the design and build the system, which is expected to cost $163 million.  Future considerations include ship integration and beam control. As Wired puts it;  “the future Navy will need a fleet of futuristic, fully electric ships that generate enough power for these next-generation weapons.”

There is no date pegged for when it will appear in active service.

What is a Free Electron Laser?

FELs have the widest frequency range of any laser type and provide intense beams that can be tuned to a precise wavelength, a capability not shared with conventional lasers. This is because conventional lasers are limited in the wavelength of light they emit by the source of the electrons (such as a gas or crystal) used within the laser. In the FEL, electrons are stripped from their atoms and then whipped up to high energies by a linear accelerator. The lasing medium moves freely through a magnetic structure, hence the term free electrons. And the wavelength of the light emitted can be readily tuned by adjusting the energy of the electron beam or the magnetic field strength of the undulators.

Here is the vision from the Office of Naval Research:

This revolutionary technology allows for multiple payoffs to the war fighter. The ability to control the strength of the beam provides for graduated lethality, and the use of light vice, an explosive munition, provides for low per engagement and life cycle costs. In fact, it provides an effective alternative to using expensive missiles against low value targets. Not worrying about propulsion and working at the speed of light allows for precise engagement and the resulting low collateral damage. Speed-of-light engagement also allows for a rapid reaction to moving and/or swarming time critical and swarming targets.

Related reading:

Star Wars laser successfully destroys ballistic missile

Report: Acts of space warfare likely by 2025

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Christopher Jablonski is a freelance technology writer.

Disclosure

Chris Jablonski

Christopher Jablonski has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Chris Jablonski

Christopher Jablonski is a freelance technology writer. Previously, he held research analyst positions in the IT industry and was the manager of marketing editorial at CBS Interactive. He's been contributing to ZDNet since 2003.

Christopher received a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign. With over 12 years in IT, he's an expert on transformational technologies, particularly those influential in B2B.

52
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Laser warefare takes to the high seas
somnathpawar@... 10th Jul 2010
Laser warfare fundas based on concentrating electrons energy to an object, The same effect happens in human syco systems.A human with high concetrating power can destroy or cure by his wish.If we all pray with hearlty with full concentration for welfare of all in the universe,definately peace,love ,non-violance appear in the world.All warfare will become useless.We all are part of that mighty conceusness called as God, Allah , yeshu,Bhudha etc
0 Votes
+ -
Laser weapons are the future
randall.shimizu@... 27th Mar 2010
This a really great advancement for today's navy. Developing new ships should not be to great a problem since nuclear power has been around on aircraft carriers and subs for generations. Deploying free electron lasers on aircraft carriers should not be to much of a problem. This gives them the ability to defend against China's anti-ship missile.

High power solid state lasers are advancing quickly as well. Recently a prototype 100 KW laser diode was tested.
0 Votes
+ -
The future is almost here
kenosha77a 28th Mar 2010
The design of the next generation of US Navy Aircraft carriers (after the
Nimitz class) that are being built now incorporates three nuclear
reactors. The Nimitz class only has two.

The only reason a third nuclear reactor is required is for additional
electrical power above and beyond what is required today.

Guess how the Navy will utilize that additional electricity? One guess is
all you get.
0 Votes
+ -
Star wars laser battles
reyonlines 27th Mar 2010
Some of the best new breakthroughs in history have started
with big machinery ( look at our computers happy ) and then have
reduced their size to be used by common people. Through
nano technology we are getting closer to have our own
personal laser guns (no bullets). Is this getting to be a bit like
Star Wars laser guns or lightsaber? hehehe this should be cool
to see...
0 Votes
+ -
Lasers?
gtvr 29th Mar 2010
A crude weapon from a less civilized age

grin
0 Votes
+ -
Can you put one on a shark?
hill60 27th Mar 2010
Fricking laser headed sharks...

...cool!
0 Votes
+ -
LOL! (nt)
John Zern 29th Mar 2010
happy
0 Votes
+ -
Best post in the history of ZDnet
MAKsystems 29th Mar 2010
"laser headed sharks"

'nuff said.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Laser warefare takes to the high seas
Sarah Sarai 28th Mar 2010
"touted as the holy grail of military lasers"
Hmmmm. So as long as something is top line, it can be compared to the grail, a story I thought kind of acknowledged Jesus was most admired for kindness to the poor and our neighbors--and for humility.
A holy grail of easy death. Maybe you got it off a Pentagon psa but come on...surely you can do better than that.
of taking on the sins of mankind and redeeming them from hell. After he
took a whip and purged the temple.

It's our current culture of love=permissiveness that has tossed out those
particular "uncomfortable" aspects of Jesus.
0 Votes
+ -
Cautions
Rick_R 28th Mar 2010
1) If they're stripping massive numbers of electrons from atoms, what do they expect to do with all the remaining protons? They can't just store them, and large numbers of charged particles will eventually eat through pretty much anything.

2) Regarding countermeasures, it seems mirrors would be pretty effective and low cost. I'd hate to fire a 100kw laser at someone and find out they were packing mirrors!

3) One major problem for laser weapons on a battle field is smoke!

4) A lot of these futuristic weapons sound great in theory but they're not practical. During the Gulf War they made it sound like Patriot missiles worked great. They pointed out that they had been developing them since the Fifties. After the war it eventually came out that they had only managed to knock down a handful of missiles and even after more than three decades of development in most cases in real-world use they missed their targets.
0 Votes
+ -
Science lesson
frgough 29th Mar 2010
1. They aren't stripping the electrons from hydrogen atoms, but
various easily ionized compounds, so you have free electrons and
ionized atoms. Both easily containable with magnetic fields. When you
turn off the laser, the electrons recombine with the ions to produce
neutral atoms.

2. Mirrors reflect over a pretty narrow band of wavelengths. Shine a
targeting laser and tune the frequency until you're outside the mirror's
range, then let go with your full blast.

3. Smoke is not opaque to all frequencies of light. Again, tune the
laser.

Finally, if the navy can make a FEL fire pulses instead of a continuous
beam, you will have a truly destructive weapon on your hands.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree - The pulsed laser
Donald.Nagy@... 29th Mar 2010
I agree with you - the idea of using a pulsed
laser would really increase the 'punch capability'
of the laser.

BTW: good explanation.
High energy charged particles form a plasma:

http://www.plasmas.org/what-are-plasmas.htm

Charged particles accelerated in a magnetic field produce an electrical field. That is the basis of an electric motor:

http://www.solarbotics.net/starting/200111_dcmotor/200111_dcmotor2.html

In this case, the system design passes high-energy elctrons through a magnetic field to produce high-energy light emissions:

http://cas.web.cern.ch/cas/Pruhonice/PDF/Renieri.pdf


2) No mirror is perfect. Every mirror reflects part of any radiation hitting it and absorbs the rest. Extremely reflective surfaces are confined to relatively small objects - such as mirrors for astronomomy - and are extremely expensive to produce. Polishing the entire surface of an anti-ship ballistic or cruise missile as a countermeasure for lasers is not cost-effective. The goal of ballistic and cruise anti-ship missile defense does not even need to be destruction of the missile airframe. Jamming or damaging the guidance system is sufficient.


3) Smoke is not a factor in anti-ship ballistic and cruise missile defense.


4) The Patriot missile system began development in 1964 and entered production in 1972. The early Patriot systems had a serious system flaw in the weapons control system that accumulated a timing error the longer the system operated. The timing error resulted in incorrect calculations of the range gate, resulting in the radar looking for targets in the wrong place. That was fixed with new software in 1991.

The Patriot missiles themselves went through Pac-2, Pac-2 GEM, and PAC-2 GEM+ versions. Each successive version brought improvements in missile intercept capabilities, though there isn't any doubt that the earlier PAC-2 versions had limitations. The newest version is PAC-3 and is much more capable than its predecessors.

The Patriot is an Army system. The Navy has Aegis with Standard II and Enhanced Sea Sparrow missiles.

The problem of successfully prosecuting a missile intercept with a target and missile closing at Mach 5 to Mach 6 is extremely challenging. The US Army would probably have received a better system had they started with the same company the Navy used.
0 Votes
+ -
Austin Powers
TxM2xTx 29th Mar 2010
So Austin Powers' bad guys were way ahead of his time. Testing it on sharks. Groovy!
0 Votes
+ -
fully electrically powered ships unrealistic
sparkle farkle 29th Mar 2010
EMP from nuclear explosions plays havoc with electricity.
it's an important difference. The interesting thing is, it's very easy to
shield against EMP. Enclose your delicate stuff in a faraday cage.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes and no.
Letophoro Updated - 29th Mar 2010
EMP from nuclear explosions plays havoc with electricity.

What it really wreaks havoc on is electrical generation and distribution equipment such as generators and switching circuits. The currents induced by EMP fry circuits because the current is moving in directions and/or at voltages that the circuitry is not designed to handle.

The destruction can be mitigated and/or avoided by 'hardening' the gear. That is, the equipment can be made to handle the possibility of currents flowing in directions or at voltages other than those under which the equipment operates normally. Or as frgouh pointed out, you can surround your gear in a Faraday cage. The skin of a ship makes a pretty good Faraday cage, but it isn't perfect as it most likely is also the ground for most gear.

The US Navy hardens their vessels against EMP precisely because they might actually face an EMP attack.

Of course that hardening can be overcome by making the EMP even larger. But if you're going to do that, the thermal and blast effects will probably be of more concern.
0 Votes
+ -
Not true
DevGuy_z 5th Apr 2010
It would have no affect at all on many of the electrical power circuits in a ship. Electronics can be affected but a frough points out it is possible to shield them with a faraday cage and/or harden the circuits themselves. And the hull of most large ships would make a pretty good shield.

The affects of EMP can be two fold:
1) temporary - in this case the circuit is not damaged and may or may not be reset. This makes the affects of EMP only temporary for a short time making EMP impractical.

2) permanent in that actual damage is done to the circuit. I think for many military applications this would require a extremely strong EMP and again shielding could mitigate it.
0 Votes
+ -
This Is An Example Why
Cardhu 11th Apr 2010
Basic physics needs to be taught in high school.

The other replies to the above post soundly refute it.
0 Votes
+ -
Awesome !
gtatransam@... 29th Mar 2010
I Hope we use it against the Muslims.
0 Votes
+ -
Ignorance is ignorant
use_what_works_4_U 29th Mar 2010
Bliss has nothing to do with it.

For your information, Muslims revere the God of
Abraham, just as I (an Anglican) do.
Muslims are a peace loving people.
The radical Muslims who enrage us do not
represent the greater Muslim Faith.
I hope you are not as ignorant as you appear or
you are no better than the terrorists who
attack innocents.
0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely Agreed
Cardhu 11th Apr 2010
Many people simply do not begin to understand the nature of the radical fundamental Islamic threat facing the world now.

The radical fundamentals are not part of mainstream Islam at all. They are a lunatic fringe that declares war on moderate Islamists and all none-Islamists equally.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Laser warefare takes to the high seas
EdRutherford 29th Mar 2010
The current Administration has cut funding for Future Weapons programs such as this..
0 Votes
+ -
This would be a great addition to the Navy's arsenal, but let's not forget about torpedo attacks. I doubt if this weapon would be useful for that type of attack.
0 Votes
+ -
torpedo attacks...what a "Hoot"
michael.tindall@... 1st Apr 2010
Another good point. Torpedo attacks are potentially a lot scarier now than back in WWII. Besides being guided, some torpedos now have capabilities unheard back then...the most interesting of which supercavitation.

A supercavitating torpedo is essentially a ROCKET-POWERED MISSILE which FLYS UNDERWATER. Instead of swimming under propeller power at fast boat speeds, hypercavitating torpedos use a specially shaped nosecone to create a "bubble" (or more accurately a void) in the water around it, through which the torpedo FLYS at speeds of 200+ Knots. This is NOT a misprint...I calculated the kinetic impact of one of these weapons to be in excess of 500000 foot/pounds, EVEN IF IT FAILS TO EXPLODE. This impact occurs (obviously) below the waterline....not good.

Four nations currently have these weapons in their inventories: Russia has the VA-111 Shkval, which they sold to China, Iran has the HOOT (based on the VA-111), and West Germany is working on the Barracuda, which reportedly exceeds the speed of sound underwater and is steerable.

The intent initially was as a last ditch "up yours" weapon for otherwise outclassed Eastern Bloc submarines; when a torpedo is launched at you, you launch one of these back. The supercavitating torpedo WILL arrive first, quite possibly disrupting the initial attack and maybe allowing the Eastern sub "to live to fight another day". Live fire tests show the power of the Shkval, breaking a target vessel in half.

US strategy doesn't allow for even the CONSIDERATION of the loss of an aircraft supercarrier. ONE of these put to use in the Persian Gulf could alter US stategy and policy forever, as the sinking of an American supercarrier is essentially like destroying a small city; ie an unmitigated disaster.

A laser-armed vessel would have no real defense against this system, besides engaging surface attackers beyond Shkval range, and submarines are obviously immune. Then again, NO vessel has any real defense against these weapons, besides not allowing themselves to be attacked.
0 Votes
+ -
Navy's not worried
jpdemers@... 2nd Apr 2010
You have to get within 5 miles of a US carrier to launch one of these things ... that's not easy to do.
0 Votes
+ -
True
DevGuy_z 5th Apr 2010
For every soviet or chinese sub there is probably a US sub shadowing it. What they are really worried about is air strikes.
0 Votes
+ -
Is anti-ship attacks from ballist and high-speed maneuverable cruise missiles.
0 Votes
+ -
Phased Plasma LASER or
Sodbuster41 29th Mar 2010
Phaser for short. They can even "modulate the frequency" cool! wink
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Laser warefare takes to the high seas
michael.tindall@... 29th Mar 2010
If a nuclear weapon is detonated near a naval vessel, they have bigger problems to worry about than wondering if the shipboard electronics still work.

Otherwise, laser-based air defenses might finally tip the scales BACK in favor of the surface fleet when dealing with air attack. Having lightspeed direct fire capability, with a hemispherical field of fire and nearly unlimited range is a tremendous asset, and will (eventually) reduce operating costs, but will fundamentally change the game. DETECTION and TRACKING now become the operative issues; the laser can still only destroy that which it can target. Note that within about 5 years, US forces WILL have to contend with stealthy aggressor aircraft, most notably Russia's new Sukhoi VT-50 (an apparent F-22 knock-off). Also, sea-skimming anti-ship missiles remain a powerful and relatively cheap threat; These weapons are widely deployed, and actual STOPPING power can be crucial when dealing with them. Hitting a missile with a laser may NOT detonate it in the air, and even after being damaged in-flight, the missile's own inertia can easily carry it to target in the terminal phase. Mirrored or stealthy cruise missiles, kamikaze UAV's (including stealthy ones), and small boat attacks, including suicide-bomb boats, underwater demolitions/other sabotage, and pirates armed with small arms in fast-boats, will remain serious assymetrical threats. Meanwhile, our main CONVENTIONAL naval threat will likely be a conflict with the Chinese navy and air force over the issue of Taiwanese independance, likely around the year 2018 (the target date for the current program of Chinese military modernization...of course when is military modernization EVER complete?). This is a threat ideally suited to laser-based air defences, as there will likely be planes and helicopters thick as flies between Taiwan and the mainland needing to be swatted down, while the Chinese navy (in new,stealthy, deepwater fast ships) try to interdict and delay the US Fleet long enough to make their invasion (which they will call a police action, or perhaps a counter-revolution) a fait-accompli. Once in place, the US Fleet could sweep the world's oceans of pretty much ALL opposition. The trick will be to have at least one laser-based air defense cruiser (equivalent to or better than AEGIS) on station at the advent of hostilities...or timing the invasion for when there is limited-to-no US naval presence, or pre-emptively sinking/blinding/confusing/cyber attacking it, depending on one's point of view.
0 Votes
+ -
Limits
drayner 29th Mar 2010
While a Laser like this would make a good additions to
the traditional ship armaments it can never replace them.
There are too many limitations to beam weapons to completely rely on them.

1. Line of sight only
2. quickly attenuated through fog/rain/clouds

probably more that others can think of as well.
0 Votes
+ -
Who will build...
Narg 29th Mar 2010
So, who's going to build the little packs they need to put on the targets, so they know when they've been hit and need to play dead?
0 Votes
+ -
Lasers used to blind the enemy
kellycarter 29th Mar 2010
This is a little off-topic, but Google for the old news stories that suggest there have been some experiments in years past between the US and Soviets using a laser to blind pilots. I remember a story of a US pilot who claims to have received serious eye damage from a Soviet ship-based laser, but his complaints fell on deaf ears--allegedy because the US didn't want to admit to having done the same to the Soviets.
0 Votes
+ -
lasers to blind.
michael.tindall@... 29th Mar 2010
Good point. It is no longer be necessary to destroy certain targets...especially when simply being able to blind them will suffice. Lasers will be used to blind satellites and sensors, moreso than people. Especially now, in the days of UAV's, where the cost of a SAM to shoot down a drone may exceed the cost of the drone itself, and in an operational theatre where turning on air defense radar is a suicidal act, even a low-power laser may find wartime use(or almost war-time; the line between peace and war is getting blurry).

When I was growing up, my father was a base commander on the Distant Early Warning (DEW) system line, and during wargames, the base found itself being jammed by a Wild-Weasel (IE electronic warfare/defense suppression aircraft). They "spotlighted" the enemy, which is to say that they locked on the radar beam and turned it up to full radiant output, and apparently, fried (or at least got credit for frying) the aggressor aircraft's electronics.

Remember that FEL is tunable, giving a range of response. "Spotlighting" targets to let their pilots know they're in peril of immediate destruction might become the new game of chicken for the militaries of the 21st century.
0 Votes
+ -
lasers to blind someone
dhays 29th Mar 2010
There have been instances where someone with a handheld laser shining it into commercial airliners at pilots has caused problems for the pilots, as afar as I know, no one has been blinded by the low power devices.
0 Votes
+ -
Missile Attacks
FiOS-Dave 30th Mar 2010
The problem is not blinding. What they are concerned with is that it might be a targeting laser for a ground based missile launcher!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Laser warefare takes to the high seas
dhays Updated - 29th Mar 2010
It seems to me the sonic weapon already used, would be a pretty good item in any arsenal, epecially against the Somali Pirates, for instance.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, Jesus is admired (and worshiped) for both his teaching and his sacrifice, both which are essential to who he is, a fact frequently ignored, depending on the agenda of the person commenting.
The problem with implimenting these lasers on sea faring battleships is a sheer lack of available power. The nuclear reactors on todays battleships are barely enough to keep the ship itself operational. Many larger vessles have multiple reactors to keep up with demand.

This is because nuclear power, as it currently is, is incredibly inefficient. I'm not sure of the typical efficieny stats. But if you break it down, it looks like this; usable power is generated by electric turbines, fed from boiled water, which is the coolant for the reactors. Now, if we could find a way to turn the massive heat relased by these reactors directly into electricity, or better yet, turn the nuclear reaction itself into usable electricity, instead of stepping energy transfer like this, they would be far more efficient.

As they currently are, navel vessels would have to undergo at the least a major overhaul and redesign of the electrical system, and most likely add another reactor, let alone the metalurgy required for such upgrades. Without an extra reactor and/or electrical redesign, most of the ship's systems would blackout just before fireing. You could always have a slow charge, fast release electrical capacitor array to power the laser(s), but your "magazine" would be limited to how much power you can store before you need to draw power directly from the mains, blacking out the ship.

Most naval vessels have very big power requirements, and the easiest way to impliment weapons like this would be to design the ship from the hull up for this purpose. The tipical US supercarrier takes about 8 years to build, and could be considered floating cities with enormous power requirements. They won't see energy weapon use anytime soon. Destroyers take much less time, so were most likely to see them implimented on destroyers first. But even they would need to be redesigned to house and power these weapons.

This is all just pure conjecture on my part though...
0 Votes
+ -
You don't know all that much
RyanHelme 30th Mar 2010
Your self admittance of pure conjecture is all
I needed to see before I decided to respond.
After all I served as a Nuke ET for many years,
so many that maxing out ones pay grade is
considered something of a rarity in that field.
I may not be an officer but I am a Master Chief
and I know what I am talking about.

In some regards your post is correct, and in
some regards you are so far off its crazy
ignorant. There is no known way to harness
nuclear energy directly period except to blow
stuff up. So there is that extra step of the
cooling system to spin the turbine, but this is
actually much more efficient than you can wrap
your brain around. Have you ever wondered why
Locomotives have Diesel engines, yet use
electric motors to move??? In your eyes the efficiency is lost because of the extra
conversion, but what you miss is that the
electric motor puts out max torque at 1 RPM and
has a flat peak all the way to max RPM. Thats
how come a train can pull such a huge load is
that those engines provide power for the motors
to provide the torque to haul the material...
otherwise, you would see your efficiency go out
the door...

Back to the subject. Currently most ships and
subs are designed with Power plants that meet
and exceed their output by a classified
percent. Its safe to say that there is plenty
of head room if we need extra power from the
reactor.

Now most ships still wouldn't probably have
enough power to run this weapon even if we ran
the reactor at true max, so that part is true,
but don't think it would take long or be hard
to fit in a compact unit to power just this
weapon alone. Today's carrier's are floating
cities, and in that respect the powerplants on
those ships are but a small small corner taking
up minimal space while driving the whole ship.
They could add plenty of power to current
carrier and battleships to deploy the weapon
quickly if needed.

The actual problem right now is retaining
personal.... I sacrificed major jobs to put my
20+ in that would have paid me so much more....
but I sacrificed in more ways that one for my
country.

But don't let your conjecture and your overall
views of inefficiency fool you... They are far
more efficient than you think, if you need
proof.... I will give you one word.....
"France"
0 Votes
+ -
Facts To Clear Away Conjecture
Cardhu 11th Apr 2010
US Navy reactors are based on the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) design. Go here:

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Pressurized%20Water%20Reactors.pdf

and refer to Figures 3 and 8.

Or go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor

and scroll down to "Design."

Or here:

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/39402/53362716.pdf?sequence=1

Refer to p. 31 /94 in the section entitled "Brief Description of the PWR Design."

All three sources show three distinct and separate phases of cooling:

- The primary loop composed of water pressurized to over 2000 psi which removes core heat and transfers it to the secondary loop;

- The secondary loop, where water is turned into superheated steam in a steam generator and then routed through a steam turbine;

- The condenser, where condenser cooling water cools the secondary loop steam and hot water into feed water to be returned to the steam generator.

Navy nuclear reactors are just implementations of a Rankine heat engine with a fission reactor and a primary loop in place of a coal or oil boiler. The thermodynamics have not changed in the entire life of steam power.

Condenser coolant is supplied by an ambient water supply such as a reservoir, a natural water feature, or cooling towers. Naval vessels with steam propulsion use their surrounding water for condenser cooling water.

The only Navy vessels today powered by nuclear reactors are aircraft carriers and nearly all submarines. We had nuclear cruisers back in the late '70s and '80s. We easily could do so again. A nuclear cruiser would be well-suited as a Naval platform such a weapon.
0 Votes
+ -
The very thing that would make this system possible (unlimited size power from a ship on the sea) also will leave it in a position to be counteracted from a ship to ship perspective,that is Water, which if a way is found to put up a dense fog like defence screen will disperse the power of the beam, in the same way that a laser light show will not work correctly in foggy or heavy rain conditions.so back to the drawing board (cad..?) before It even starts.
Ron angel
Design Eng Elect
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Laser warefare takes to the high seas
Noprisoners 30th Mar 2010
I feel this type of weapon would be easier to implement if it was pulsed-based, If megawatt devices are to be considered? the power source would have to be pretty huge for any other than short bursts?

Steve
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Laser warefare takes to the high seas
michael.tindall@... 31st Mar 2010
As for finding space for additional reactors and/or capacitor arrays, think of all the space in the MAGAZINE and FEED SYSTEM that will be freed up by an energy weapon, and how much SAFER and CHEAPER it will be to:

a. not carry tons of munitions aboard ship
b. not have to transport said munitions (by other ships) to be loaded upon said air defense ship
c. Not have to handle said munitions,
d. not have to store said munitions.
e. not have to purchase said munitions, and ultimately,
f. not have to manufacture said munitions in the first place.

No longer restricted by ammunition or power, this ship could stay on station for as long as the crew has food, and would be much more difficult to overwhelm by mass attack. (in the Falkland Island campaign, it was found that 5 or more aircraft could overwhelm fleet air defenses, and the British Harrier was NOT the best suited aircraft for fleet defense...and as a result, the Brits lost 6 ships, and had 2 others badly damaged. More losses would have been incured had Argentine bombs been fuzed properly.)

A ship with minimal explosive munitions will be MUCH more survivable if it is hit, and FAR less prone to accidental discharge (as occurred to the USS Forrestal during the Vietnam War).

It would certainly allow the existing munitions to be better distributed amongst OTHER vessels.

Obviously a laser-only ship would have some serious deficits, and would NOT be well balanced as a fighting craft...to have the laser as a primary weapon, along with a multi-purpose missile launcher (capable of firing surface to air, surface to surface, and anti-submarine missiles), a rapid fire dual-purpose cannon (5 inch), and an armed helicopter would make for a MUCH more realistic and well-balanced package. Remember also that this is primarily an air defense weapon, and to have a DEDICATED Air Defense Cruiser is NOTHING new for the navy; see the AEGIS system. As part of an INTEGRATED fleet, the lack of antisubmarine or anti-surface capability becomes much less crucial; Regardless of size, this would be a capital ship, and as such would most certainly have escorts. This ship could also defeat ballistic missiles (probably a major role if deployed to defend Taiwan), though FOCUSING the beam (or pulse) long enough ON THE SAME SPOT on a super-fast target long enough to destroy it would be the challenge.
0 Votes
+ -
Some Counterpoints
Cardhu 11th Apr 2010
US Naval design today emphasizes multi-mission capability for cruiser and destroyer combatants. Aegis cruisers and destroyers are not anti-air platforms, they are multi-mission platforms par excellence.

The US Navy regards undersea warfare and surface warface - especially the small boat swarm attack - as serious threats not to be overlooked. The Navy would not neglect these warfare areas to adopt a laser capability into the Fleet structure.

The Navy's concerns for ballistic missile defense are not land defense, they are for defending against anti-ship missiles.

The USS Forrestal fire was primarily caused by design flaws in the Zuni rocket launcher and improper munitions handling procedures:

http://pbma.nasa.gov/docs/public/pbma/images/msm/forrestal_sfcs.pdf

The US Navy has much better and longer-ranged area defense capabilities in its battle force structure than any other navy has at all, much less compared to what the Royal Navy was capable of fielding in the Battle for the Falklands. The US Navy combat aircraft is the Super Hornet, not the Harrier. The Harrier is completely inapplicable for comparison.

The US Navy last tried specialized anti-air warfare (AAW) cruisers from 1962-1964 with the Leahy and Bainbridge double-ended cruiser classes. The last of these cruiser classes was retired in 1995. Operational use showed that such vessels required surface escorts - such as a Knox class frigate - to provide adequate protection from surface threats. This was operationally limiting. All cruiser and destroyer designs since have been strictly multi-mission.
0 Votes
+ -
agreed.
michael.tindall@... 15th Apr 2010
Points well taken. In the case of the Forrestal I was attempting to simplify to show the general point, and regarding Harriers vs F-18's as fleet defenders, the point was that a LARGE and DETERMINED force might be able to overwhelm fleet air defenses by sheer force of numbers. For example, I would NOT be in any hurry to deploy a US fleet within range of land-based Chinese planes in the event of a war over Taiwan...how many HUNDREDS of sorties and THOUSANDS of missiles might they launch, in hopes to score ONE hit, which might end US's involvement in the war? US strategy doesn't allow for even the CONSIDERATION of the loss of a US supercarrier. Western air doctrine tends to PRE-SUPPOSE air supremacy(or now, dominance) provided by fighter cover, and suffers badly when we don't have it. Meanwhile, Eastern-Bloc equipped forces tend to rely heavily on ground/surface based air defenses. A laser based air defense adds a capability otherwise lacking in the US arsena; to be able to engage an unlimited number of targets, within a 360' arc, at almost unlimited range, in a very short period of time.

Earlier I mention that this platform would most likely have a mixed, balanced armament. It's almost unfortunate, since one of the greatest advantages of going all-electric is being able to forgo the weight, danger, expense, and physical volume that would otherwise be dictated by the launchers, ordinance, and ammunition handling systems. Furthermore, the lasers, batteries, optics/mirrors, stabilisers, capacitors, and other weapon related gear will be extremely expensive, delicate, possibly quite large, and will CERTAINLY be the main FOCUS of the ship.

I have my doubts regarding use of lasers for ship to ship defense against small boats....This weapon is NOT optimal for engaging such craft under ANY circumstances (as in: "Ooooohhhhh, you burned a quarter-sized hole sideways (which doesnt even necessarily leak) through my little boat...gee, WHATEVER will I do, besides continue trying to crash my explosive laden boat into your multi billion (or trillion) dollar ship? Allah Akbar!"), and by the time the standards of our own own rules of engagement have been met in determining that a given small boat target is indeed "hot", it might be TOO CLOSE to engage by laser, depending on turret design, placement, and how LOW it can aim in defilade. The SOFTWARE that controls the weapon system would also have to be capable of recognizing and engaging these small targets, and might involve COMPLETELY different systems for surface vs aerial engagement. A small boat attack could even happen when the ship is docked, or in a narrow channel, making it even MORE vulnerable. This will be a LARGE and effectively PRICELESS asset that lacks both the MANOEVERABILITY and the EXPENDABILITY enjoyed by small boats attackers. Preventing such an attempt in the first place MUST be a large part of the solution, but a determined attacker WILL get through. Remember that the mighty superbattleship TIRPITZ was severely damaged and nearly sunk by 2 men in a midget sub, while in a heavily defended harbor, in a fjord deep within enemy territory, on the other side of anti-submarine nets that were being actively patrolled, during wartime. Our ships have to "show the flag" in hostile waters, without backup, in what is supposed to be peacetime, and yet they are attacked, ala the USS COLE. As for ASW, the helicopter, dual-use missile launcher and escorts (if any) will HAVE to be the primary defense. The laser is obviously of little use, except perhaps for intercepting sub-launched missiles.

Against small boat attack, helicopters (preferrably...why let them get anywhere NEAR the ship?), dual-purpose guns, automatic cannon, heavy machine guns, or even small arms fire from deck or separate motor launches will be MUCH more effective than using the laser, and not too expensive. Once again, we see that HI-TECH weapons are best deployed against HI-TECH targets.

Later in this thread, someone mentions mirrors as a defence. As for the idea of protecting air targets by mirroring them, I think this is a non-starter for several reasons.

1. The current name of the game is STEALTH, ie, NOT having a bright radar signature. A STEALTHY target has a better change of surviving than a shiney one, much less a target CALCULATED to reflect STRAIGHT back to the source.

2. The power of the laser. A mirror would have to be VERY shiney (like 100% reflective)and VERY resistant to heat to not be marred and burned through by the laser, pretty much instantly, and the fact that the laser is tunable further negates the defensive benefit.

3. The stress of flight and reentry. Whatever material the warhead is coated with, its polish and reflectivity must remain intact after a flight cycle that includes launch, high-speed flight, and possibly atmospheric reentry, across just about its ENTIRE surface. Good luck with that.

If anything, a big mirror might be more helpful to the small boat attacker, if only to get them into the safe minimum firing distance. Furthermore, a carefully angled mirror mounted on the bow of a low slung motorboat might be WONDERFUL camoflage at night...all a watchman might see is the reflection of the sky or water, until it's too late...you Navy radar folks tell me, how visible is a small wood or fiberglass boat on radar?

I think such a vessel has a DEFINITE niche within the modern navy, especially for air and missle defense. In the theatre and role where it can do the MOST good, it may even become a primary target, the same way that Iraqi air defenses where the US's FIRST objective during both the first and second Persian Gulf wars. It will be of the MOST service against a HI-TECH foe who can field aircraft, missiles, and UAV's (like China or North Korea), and will be MOST VULNERABLE to low-tech asymmetric attacks, like we might find most prevalent in the Middle East.
0 Votes
+ -
Looks defensive to me
Altotus 2nd Apr 2010
Looks like a defense system for missiles to me. A good one at that.
0 Votes
+ -
I worked with an engineer who's job was to sit around
thinking up new weapons systems for the US Navy.
Keeping in mind this was back in the '70's. I mentioned the
archetype of scifi weapons for an orbital weapons system:
a laser. He laughed at the thought and after he recovered
his composure noted that in a vacuum, orbital environment
to counter a laser all you need do is cover your craft with
'corner reflectors'...like the lenses you find in your brake
lights. Whatever angle the beam hits it is instantly reflected
back to the source of the energy resulting in its own
destruction. Now, again, it was 70's tech with ruby lasers.
I'm presuming pulsed, tuned lasers would easily overcome
this defense, it was still an interesting idea. Oh, one of the
best space craft to space craft weapons? A pistol. Think
about it.
0 Votes
+ -
I Dispute This Casual Assumption
Cardhu Updated - 12th Apr 2010
First, the intended targets are sub- and non-orbital anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles, not exo-atmospheric intercontinental ballistic missiles being targeted by space-based weapons lasers.

Second, the assumption that "corner reflectors" would be adequate to protect an entire platform does not stand up to reason. The reflectors would only reflect a tiny fraction of incident radiation to a direction that would not be at the firing laser. The laser targeting uses adaptive optics to compensate for atmospheric diffraction and place the laser beam on target. A reflected signal would be affected by atmospheric diffraction to go anywhere but back at the firing platform.

The conjecture ignores the environmental physics of a Naval laser.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Laser warefare takes to the high seas
somnathpawar@... 10th Jul 2010
Laser warfare fundas based on concentrating electrons energy to an object, The same effect happens in human syco systems.A human with high concetrating power can destroy or cure by his wish.If we all pray with hearlty with full concentration for welfare of all in the universe,definately peace,love ,non-violance appear in the world.All warfare will become useless.We all are part of that mighty conceusness called as God, Allah , yeshu,Bhudha etc

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix