| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Lasers On USN Ships Within 2 Years? |
| 2012-10-24 |
| ARLINGTON, Va. -- Expect to see the Navy using lasers on "We're well past physics," Klunder told the magazine. "We're just going through the integration efforts. Hopefully, that tells you we're well mature, and we're ready to put these on naval ships." Klunder added that tests have been "very successful," telling Wired that lasers were recently able to shoot down drones. On top of lasers, the Office of Naval Research is also working on drone subs that they hope can go underwater for 60 days at a time. A prototype of the drone sub is expected to be ready by 2016. "The propulsion systems that I think you're going to see within a year are going to [give] a (unmanned underwater vehicle) with over 30 days of endurance," Klunder explained to the magazine. That's ahead of schedule of what we told the secretary of the Navy a year ago." |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 See also WAFF > [StrategyPage] BARACK AND MITT: THE WAR FOR THE US NAVY HAS JUST BEGUN. and * DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > BOEING HAS TESTED [new Cruise] MISSLE THAT DESTROYS ELECTRONICS [+ Computers] ONLY LEAVING EVERYTHING | BOEING PERFECTED A MISSLE THAT WIPES OUT ELECTRONICS AND LEAVES EVERYTHING ELSE INTACT | BOEING'S COUNTER-ELECTRONICS HIGH-POWER MICROWAVE ADVANCED MISSLE PROJECT - BUSINESS INSIDER. versus * WORLD NEWS > [Asia Times] ITS THE WORLD OR NOTHING FOR CHINA. * SAME > CHINA STEPS UP RHETORIC AGZ US MISSLE DEFENSE, as per US-led GMD-TMD in East Asia includ NE Asia + new "Pivot" Asia strategy. * TOPIX > RUSSIA WARNS OF "TECHNICAL" RESPONSE [ + other]TO US MISSLE SHIELD. ZOOOMG, everybody panic! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-10-24 23:49 |
| #15 Rambler, I had not realized the nuclear guided missile cruisers were all scrapped; didn't even last 20 years. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-10-24 22:34 |
| #14 As per FREEREPUBLIC Artics, looks like the Bammer's "horses and bayonets" debate gaffe has re-started controversy oer the size of the post-2014 Navy + DOD in a troubled US, Global economy. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-10-24 21:50 |
| #13 Lasers also don't work as well in rain or fog - yes, they work, but the signal is degraded. Also, controlling the laser and keeping it on target is a major challenge in heavy weather when the ship is rocking and rolling. This is not as much of a challenge for aircraft carriers, since a six degree roll is considered a major disturbance. By the way, the only surface nuc ships these days are aircraft carriers. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2012-10-24 21:34 |
| #12 I don't think you'd need as large a portion of the ship as you think if you've got a nuclear powered ship you could use that power source. Line of site works as close-in-defense. Much more accurate than any kind of projectile and it woudln't take much to knock a missile out of its path. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2012-10-24 14:40 |
| #11 Line-of-sight weapons are of limited value. Especially when they require a large portion of a ships power to charge. |
| Posted by: mojo 2012-10-24 12:46 |
| #10 ..or a Chronosphere. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-10-24 10:14 |
| #9 And despite what you see in movies lasers are invisible so i can see lots of fun misuse. |
| Posted by: Rjschwarz 2012-10-24 09:52 |
| #8 These are pretty cool actually. They replace the phalanx systems and have longer range, can fire faster and farther and have no ammo limit. They aren't going to take down swarms of small boats (that is what the Ma-duce is for), but it makes it a lot harder to kill our ships with swarms of missiles from swarms of boats. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2012-10-24 09:11 |
| #7 Will they be able to lase swarms of small boats? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2012-10-24 08:29 |
| #6 ...and rail guns! Don't forget the rail guns! |
| Posted by: tu3031 2012-10-24 00:42 |
| #5 Or at least on very annoying trout. |
| Posted by: Steven 2012-10-24 00:25 |
| #4 Yawn. Call me when they get the trans-warp drive worked out... |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2012-10-24 00:24 |
| #3 The lasers go on sharks. Everyone knows that. |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2012-10-24 00:16 |
| #2 Yup, should have thought of that angle. How many frickin' lasers will we need anyways? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2012-10-24 00:14 |
| #1 But we won't need to many, since not only do we have the smallest number since a long time ago, but we cannot count those that we land airplanes on, called aircraft carriers or submarines that go under the water when we count the ships.... BO said so and i b'lieve him (spit) |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2012-10-24 00:08 |