PDA

View Full Version : Is Star Wars here?



Charlie Two Tracks
04-09-2013, 06:58 AM
Is Star wars here? I guess I should have looked at the title before I posted it.............

I just saw on the news that we are deploying a navy ship with a laser on it that is capable of shooting down a drone. If it can shoot down a drone, it should be able to do a lot of other things they are not telling us about. I guess the future is closer than I thought. I don't think that Captain Kirk's phaser looks as good as one of my revolvers though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/world/navy-deploying-laser-weapon-prototype-in-persian-gulf.html?_r=0

10-x
04-09-2013, 07:41 AM
Gee, I thought Ber Rabbit and Ber Fox were at it again...........

Bulldogger
04-09-2013, 07:42 AM
The USN has been working on directed energy weapons for over 20 years. Dahlgren has a rail gun that has been featured on here before, I thought that one was cool.
While I have moderate faith in the 400Hz targeting and train systems on Naval guns and missile fire control systems, I am skeptic about the accuracy of a laser.

We'll see how it goes.

Bulldogger

Wayne Smith
04-09-2013, 07:50 AM
I'm less skeptical about accuracy, it is line of sight after all, but atmospheric scatter. I hope they have effectively dealt with that one, but I guess it is unlikely the USN will be using it in a sandstorm!

41 mag fan
04-09-2013, 09:22 AM
I'm waiting for the one thats attached to a satellite, and while the enemy is sitting in their palaces drinking wine on the patio, the laser gets ramped up, and they become a vapor mist.
Then you'll truly know we're in the space age.

x101airborne
04-09-2013, 09:31 AM
I used to work on the HAWK, MLRS, Javeline, etc. missil systems and was at Redstone Arsenal for over a year working on the NASA side of the base. They had been taking some of our ordinance and removing the fun parts for testing that laser for years. I never saw them test it, but I was there watching the trucks load. The OIC told me what they were used for (we all had to have top secret security clearances to work there) and I have no reason to doubt him.

My parent MOS was 35Y. Integrated Family of Test Equipment Operators.
Jokingly, we were called "In Flight Missile Technicians. Use once and destroy".

Doc Highwall
04-09-2013, 09:55 AM
The lasers may shoot straight But I saw a lot of poor marksmanship with they in Star Wars, I guess they need more range time

popper
04-09-2013, 10:27 AM
AF said they were giving up on chemical airborne laser, it kind of worked but took a 747 to hold the equipment. I worked on a space born laser (star wars era) supposed to ride on the Challenger. Targeting fast moving objects is the major problem.

runfiverun
04-09-2013, 10:49 AM
that's not what that state trooper told me when he was writing my ticket.

wallenba
04-09-2013, 10:52 AM
It should be in western sea of Japan instead. If it can kill a drone, can't it kill a missle in low launch?

M-Tecs
04-09-2013, 11:06 AM
that's not what that state trooper told me when he was writing my ticket.

+1 to that. It's been 15 years since the last one but they got me last Friday:oops:

beagle
04-09-2013, 11:21 AM
Lasers are very darn accurate as I have messed with laser bore sighting systems under development. They do have drawbacks such as smoke, fog and mist but the end result on some steel plates I have seen in other laser tests was very impressive. How about a laser "shotgun" with some good AA wads for airborne targets./beagle

oldred
04-09-2013, 11:30 AM
A question for you guys who know about lasers, what happens if the target such as an aircraft is covered with a reflective surface? I basically have just a passing knowledge of lasers but it seems to me that the major problem is the huge power source required (all that energy has to come from somewhere) and having a target that will absorb this energy. For example what happens when a laser is focused on a mirror?

Phoenix
04-09-2013, 11:53 AM
a laser of significant power will burn through a mirror. The reflective surface cannot withstand even the 2% absorbtion. The problem is it may make it take a few fractions of a second longer to be effective. on a moving target this could be enough to make it ineffective. A space weapon is usually targeting a stationary object so it wouldn't have any effect. on something moving mach+ it would take an immense amount of energy to destroy a target in a few milliseconds, and reflective technology could make the difference when a few milliseconds counts. That is assuming the object will be damaged beyond repair with a small hole in it. Moving objects get sliced at varying depths based on speed. The key is for the weapons system to be able to track the target perfectly to give the laser time to do its damage, and that is the real challenge. Lasers really don't make good weapons against fast objects. Now pulse weapons are another story, but that is another thing entirely.

jcwit
04-09-2013, 12:07 PM
If it can shoot down a drone, it should be able to do a lot of other things they are not telling us about.

You got that right. I was assigned to DASA, that was what was the Manhatten Project morphed into, way back in the mid 60's, we out here have no idea what is on the planning tables. Nor should we.

oldred
04-09-2013, 12:08 PM
a laser of significant power will burn through a mirror. The reflective surface cannot withstand even the 2% absorbtion. The problem is it may make it take a few fractions of a second longer to be effective. on a moving target this could be enough to make it ineffective.

That makes sense, I had assumed the engineers and weapons designers had not simply overlooked something so obvious but I could not see why a reflective surface would not make a viable defense, so then I guess maybe it does and don't at the same time. Maybe a helpful defense in some situations and useless for (most?) others.

jcwit
04-09-2013, 12:13 PM
A question for you guys who know about lasers, what happens if the target such as an aircraft is covered with a reflective surface? I basically have just a passing knowledge of lasers but it seems to me that the major problem is the huge power source required (all that energy has to come from somewhere) and having a target that will absorb this energy. For example what happens when a laser is focused on a mirror?

Navy Officer on the news last night claimed it'll cost a dollar, one ($1) to destroy a flying drone. Pretty cost effective IMO.

Case Stuffer
04-09-2013, 12:23 PM
Power is cheap when the weapons platform has its' own nuculear power plant onboard.

oldred
04-09-2013, 01:15 PM
Power is cheap when the weapons platform has its' own nuculear power plant onboard.


Sounds good BUT,

"Took a 747 to hold the equipment."

Not saying lighter more compact equipment is not possible but as of now a nuclear power source that can generate that kind of power is a hefty piece of equipment, the shielding alone is a heck of a lot of the of weight.

These kinds of weapons are probably going to exist eventually but I would be willing to bet it will be many years before the technical problems are overcome, most notably a compact and light enough power source.

popper
04-09-2013, 03:28 PM
Lasers destroy things by converting light to heat, which burns through the target. A missile or warhead is made pretty thick, aircraft & less so. Calculate the joules to melt a lead CB, apply that to steel or aluminum and see how long you have to be on target to do any damage. The chemical laser on the 747 was partially successful, as it was a test bed only. As to reflecting the laser beam with a mirror, a laser is constructed with a cavity and mirrors, so yes it can be reflected.

Phoenix
04-09-2013, 04:18 PM
As to reflecting the laser beam with a mirror, a laser is constructed with a cavity and mirrors, so yes it can be reflected.

A high power focused laser cannot be reflected. (well maybe for a very short period before it dulls the reflective surface and starts to burn in). The key word is focused. The mirrors in a laser are for before it is focused. I used to work on CO2 lasers in the military (medical lasers) which were a tiny fraction as powerful as these. but way more powerful than normal people get to mess with. they would burn through clear glass, mirrors never stood a chance. and co2 lasers are invisible (very dangerous)

Case Stuffer
04-10-2013, 10:39 PM
Sounds good BUT,

"Took a 747 to hold the equipment."

Not saying lighter more compact equipment is not possible but as of now a nuclear power source that can generate that kind of power is a hefty piece of equipment, the shielding alone is a heck of a lot of the of weight.

These kinds of weapons are probably going to exist eventually but I would be willing to bet it will be many years before the technical problems are overcome, most notably a compact and light enough power source.

Really? Perhaps you failed to notice that I was replying to post just prior to mine which was in referince to $1 per Drone quoted by a Navy Officer. Navy ships tend to be Nuculer powered. Sure looked like a ship in the original story linked to.

FYI there are Nucular power plants small enough to indivual households . Now logic says that due to cost and Gov. regulations we may never see them available but they are real not Sc Fi.

popper
04-10-2013, 11:06 PM
Yup,lots of small nuke power plants used to power space vehicles. Actually the AF 747 laser is parabolic mirror steered, as are most. Most laser beams are dangerous to eye sight, red being the least as the iris will respond before the aquius boils.

Swamp Man
04-10-2013, 11:45 PM
So what's the big deal about shooting down drones? We already have weapons that can do that not to mention most drones are owned by the U.S. government. Why not test the lasers on muslim aircraft? I see this as just another way to try to justify spending tax payer dollars.

Love Life
04-10-2013, 11:51 PM
:groner: ^^^

Oreo
04-10-2013, 11:57 PM
It is insufficient to just say "mirror" when talking about reflecting a laser. A typical silver mirror will in fact burn through with infrared lasers like CO2, but that's not to say those lasers can't be reflected. It takes special materials that will reflect a high enough percentage of the energy at those infrared wave lengths. Thus, "special" mirrors are used inside a CO2 laser to make it function. Likewise for x-ray lasers, etc.

Taking this concept to aircraft where "stealth" is seemingly mutually exclusive to laser reflectivity and there you have your answer for why its not being done.

Whiterabbit
04-11-2013, 12:16 AM
I don't think that Captain Kirk's phaser looks as good as one of my revolvers though.

why did this just give me a neat idea for a muzzleloader?

fouronesix
04-11-2013, 12:55 AM
a laser of significant power will burn through a mirror. The reflective surface cannot withstand even the 2% absorbtion. The problem is it may make it take a few fractions of a second longer to be effective. on a moving target this could be enough to make it ineffective. A space weapon is usually targeting a stationary object so it wouldn't have any effect. on something moving mach+ it would take an immense amount of energy to destroy a target in a few milliseconds, and reflective technology could make the difference when a few milliseconds counts. That is assuming the object will be damaged beyond repair with a small hole in it. Moving objects get sliced at varying depths based on speed. The key is for the weapons system to be able to track the target perfectly to give the laser time to do its damage, and that is the real challenge. Lasers really don't make good weapons against fast objects. Now pulse weapons are another story, but that is another thing entirely.

That is basically correct I think.
From what little knowledge I have and have seen, at a facility for testing just that, the ground based systems have no problem tracking a missile in flight and cutting a hole in it long enough to destroy it given decent conditions. A much slower "drone" of some sort would seem to be a relatively easy target. The tracking only has to be precise enough to keep the beam (even if the beam is moving relative to the target) on most any part and indeed the analysis shows it's not a single hole but kind of a zig zag or ragged slicing hole. Even at stationary, ground-based targets at long range, with the source laser stationary, the holes are not pin point but a zig zag pattern around the center point of aim. Atmospheric conditions probably account for the wandering around the center of the POA.

oldred
04-11-2013, 08:38 AM
Really? Perhaps you failed to notice that I was replying to post just prior to mine which was in referince to $1 per Drone quoted by a Navy Officer. Navy ships tend to be Nuculer powered. Sure looked like a ship in the original story linked to.

FYI there are Nucular power plants small enough to indivual households . Now logic says that due to cost and Gov. regulations we may never see them available but they are real not Sc Fi.

A Navy ship obviously can carry a rather large reactor, larger than a 747 could carry so what does a ship's reactor prove? Sure there are small reactors that are used to power spacecraft (Russian I think, the US gets kind of upset about launching highly radioactive materials although they have done it) but just how much power can one of these things produce? I am sure it can produce a lot of power over time but can it produce the huge amounts of power on demand that a powerful laser would need? If such compact equipment does exist then please explain just why a 747 was needed to carry it?


Maybe there is a misunderstanding here, somewhere I got the idea we were talking about aircraft/satellite borne laser weapons? Obviously a ship carried reactor could supply enough power and that is not at all what I meant when I referred to compact equipment.

GabbyM
04-11-2013, 12:54 PM
Only navy ships that are nuclear are the subs and Attack carriers. Assault carriers and other gator navy ships are mostly diesel. The ship in this article with laser installed is a hybrid diesel and gas turbine. Our Aegis cruisers and destroyers. Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burk classes. Have four propulsion gas turbines and three smaller generation turbines. All the engines have a generator connected for electrical power. Usually only two of the propulsion turbines run at one time. One on each shaft. The Arliegh Burks are extremely fast ships. There phased array radars have the capacity to consume and emit enormous amounts of power. There’s enough electrical generation already built into these ships to power a laser with ease.

Most of you probably don’t know that our new Amphibious Assault Ships. (small Carriers). Are being built with defensive weapons mounted. This is due to the reduce size of the navy resulting in fewer escort vessels theoretically available.

When I saw this new lazer my impression was it was to fill the same roll as the Phalanx CIWS 20mm cannon. Which btw is being phased out in favor of a missile system. Main problems with the sea whiz was short ammo supply and relatively short range. Even the missiles have a limited number of shots. Easily bum rushed in these days of model airplanes with bombs inboard. Cruise missiles and such.

Back in the Vietnam era we were able to deal with the Chinese built Silkworm cruise missiles with ease. As they were routinely launched from coastal positions at destroyers making gun runs and operating radar picket along the NV coast. It mostly took a set of brass ones to run up and down the North Vietnamese coast. One thing the USN has rarely been short on is brass balls. But to win consistently you still need a better weapon than your enemy.

GabbyM
04-11-2013, 01:21 PM
PS
Major reason for gas turbines over diesel on our combat ships is stealth. Diesels send a strong acoustic signal through the water.

Steam turbines burn fuel like a pig. Only steam turbines left in the US navy are cooked with nukes. Most if not all foreign navies run there frigates and destroyers on diesel in peace time with gas turbines installed for war use and when they want to show off. The USN has a motto any poor American sailor knows well. Never Forget. Referring to Pearl Harbor where we were caught operating in a peace time mode only to find ourselves with our buts kicked on day one of a big war. Since then it’s been pretty much battle stations 24/7.

Or politicians keep making this harder to achieve. Case in point. USS Coal in the Yemen attack. Our ship should of never been in that port. Only reason it was is the great US Congress cut the very simple and inexpensive fuel tankers from our fleet. Forcing our combat ships costing billions. Actually just millions but with the weapons they are billions. Into a foreign port. Raise chant here “remember Pearl Harbor”. “Never Again”. That’s Navy Motto not the US Congress.

Big question is what the Zumwalt class destroyer will be armed with. All I know is it better be good. If they fall short. Our fleet will be destroyed. Then our enemies will be at our gates.

Case Stuffer
04-11-2013, 01:22 PM
most drones are owned by the U.S. government.

That depends on your defination of a Drone.

A Drone used to be a radio controled aircraft used to tow an ariel target for surface to air gunnery practice.

These days they are more commonly First Person Video Rado (remote) Controlled aircraft and my guess is that most are owned by civilians. RC Aircraft has been a hobby of mine for 50 years and during the past 5 to 10 years technology has reached the level and cost effectiveness that it no longer cost thousands of dollars to build (assemble) such an aircraft. Many hobbiest routinely fly thier First Person Video aircraft . Most are equiped with auto in flight stabilization,GPS tracking,live in flight video downlink feed ,some have automatic return to home capabilities and ssome can be programed to fly to one or more GPS Way points.

Big brother has became so concered about these hobbiest FPV aircraft that the Academy of Model Aeronautics has been extremly active in meetings with the FFA , HLS and other Big Brother powers to try and keep them from being outlawed much the same as with our firearms .

GabbyM
04-11-2013, 02:07 PM
I’m a former RC aircraft and SEL pilot myself. Give me and a few of my close friends a million dollars and we could make a cruise missile. Then have 900,000 left over for beer and dancing girls.

We have many auto production plants in the USA. Many can build one thousand cars in a 24 hour day. Think about that a while. Maybe Iran should of gone into the auto/small plane building shell game. Instead of nukes.

This little tid bit is why we should never give up our ability to totally destroy with nukes any region of this globe.
MAD does work on occasion. Then if it doesn't. Well ****-em.

Whiterabbit
04-11-2013, 02:27 PM
Noone linked this yet?

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cosplay-starwars-stormtrooper-civil-war-reenactment.jpg

HangFireW8
04-11-2013, 03:47 PM
Lasers have an advantage over anti-drone missiles in that they do not show up on radar or trigger strategic missile launch alerts.

HF

MtGun44
04-11-2013, 03:55 PM
The issue is the atmosphere. This is a practical weapon, but short range only. Shooting down ballistic
missiles is generally a long range proposal and so far the wobbly air (look at a target with a spotting scope
on a sunny day!) keeps the image from remaining perfectly focused, so the energy is not all put in a
tight spot, so no long range capability.

Adaptive optics are coming, testing is working. Basically, a weak laser is used to measure the instantaneous
wobbling in the air, the optics adjust their own shape instantly so that the send a anti-wobbly image that the
air then 'corrects' as it passes through, and you get a tight focus at the target. Not quite worked out yet, but
they are working on it.

Bill

firefly1957
04-11-2013, 05:43 PM
That laser is only a entrance level weapon with use and research they will get more powerful and effective. Did you see how long it took to take out that outboard motor? Really the best place for lasers is in space to damage other things in space without causing a lot of fragments like a kinetic energy weapon (bullet).

GabbyM
04-11-2013, 06:10 PM
The issue is the atmosphere. This is a practical weapon, but short range only. Shooting down ballistic
missiles is generally a long range proposal and so far the wobbly air (look at a target with a spotting scope
on a sunny day!) keeps the image from remaining perfectly focused, so the energy is not all put in a
tight spot, so no long range capability.

Adaptive optics are coming, testing is working. Basically, a weak laser is used to measure the instantaneous
wobbling in the air, the optics adjust their own shape instantly so that the send a anti-wobbly image that the
air then 'corrects' as it passes through, and you get a tight focus at the target. Not quite worked out yet, but
they are working on it.

Bill

I'd assume the USN pretty much has that figured into the battle plan.

Let us compare the laser to a 20mm cannon instead of a Sparrow missile. Which BTW the ships have on board.

MtGun44
04-11-2013, 06:18 PM
This is Phase 1, I am sure. The Navy will do well with this, no doubt. One
biggie is that if the Iranian "navy" sends out swarms of small boats, this
one can fry them for cheap and no need to reload and cannot run out
of bullets or missiles.

Lasers will be the weapons of the future, for sure. In space,
they will surely dominate, no air to disperse the beam.

Bill

popper
04-12-2013, 03:09 PM
Only navy ships that are nuclear are the subs and Attack carriers - NOT correct. Bainbridge was the first DDL nuke I think. White rabbit, I like that one. It's pretty hard to hit a low level crossing target @ Mach 1 with a 5", much less a laser.

GabbyM
04-12-2013, 04:05 PM
Only navy ships that are nuclear are the subs and Attack carriers - NOT correct. Bainbridge was the first DDL nuke I think. White rabbit, I like that one. It's pretty hard to hit a low level crossing target @ Mach 1 with a 5", much less a laser.

The Nuclear powered Bainbridge CGN 25 (formerly DLGN 25) was decommissioned in 1996.
Current USN ship sailing under Admiral Bainbridge’s name is an Arleigh Burk class destroyer. (DDG 96).
Can be confusing. I of course had to look that up.

Carriers and subs as far as I know.

firefly1957
04-12-2013, 07:54 PM
If the target is crossing at mach 1 it is not a threat to the laser armed ship. These lasers are probably meant for incoming and little else.

Harter66
04-12-2013, 11:33 PM
fwiw China lake had a running laser burning half inch hole in 4x4x2 fire bricks 5 at a time in 1972 . The problem w/it then was not the power supply nor the 50-55 foot focus to burn the 1/4-1/2 inch holes it was cooling. They would run 35 seconds and boil 10,000 gallons of 70-80 degree water. My Dad was a pipefitter on 1 of the jobs where an engineer outsmarted himself. If I remember the story right the electric thermally opened valves ran to slow. With all the valves open and full flow they could run just over a minute before it boiled the 10,000 gallons of water . 3000 ft MSL = 3 degrees/1000 ft = raising 10,000 gallons of water 120-130 degrees in 35 seconds . 85,000 lbs of water. 106,250,000 btu's in 35 seconds. There fellows is an energy number most of us can touch anyway. The average gas home water heater puts out 30,000 btu/hour,my turkey burner is a paltry 100,000 btu/hr.