Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why cant directed energy weapons be used on surface combatants?
jessmo_24    3/10/2010 7:36:14 AM
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/index.html Wouldnt you have alot more space in a surface ship? This would be the ultimate fleet defense ship. You could probably remove a few VLS from an Aegis cruiser, and stuff the laser equipment in there! Or make 2 Mission modules In the new LCS into ship borne lasers Am I off base? are there techinical hurdles?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
colangus    good overall article about the project   3/20/2010 12:25:54 AM

 here

 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       3/21/2010 4:50:31 AM
in the early 80s the RN operated a short range laser defensive system, The aim of which was Dazzle (read blind if you like) pilots.
 
It was removed (i believe) as it was felt it may contravene new articles in the geneva convention regarding the use of lasers, namely cannot be used/designed to cause permanent eye damage.
 
a moot point i felt at 30 feet above the deck if the laser did cause permanent damage it would only be until you hit the water.
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID       4/5/2010 9:49:16 PM

Let's see...



The required R&D to achieve the MW level is well understood. So let's say we aim to build a 1 MW FEL to put on a ship. Now I don't know if this amount is sufficient to engage a target, but we'll assume it is for now. In the .pdf I linked above, it says:

 

"Production of the one MW of laser optical power requires 3.0MW of electrical power with a requirement of 2.0 MW of cooling."

 

The Burkes can generate 75MW of power from their GE gas turbines. So to answer your question:  probably very easily. Though I'm not sure how much juice the AEGIS and SPY-1 needs.

 

Another good question would be if it could actually fit. This system apparently would weigh 90 tons which I'm sure the ship could handle as bulk cargo; but as an additional intigrated weapon system? Maybe not.

 

Feel free to correct me if I got something wrong.


A technical point: The USN GTG provides 2500kW, which is 2.5MW of power, with 3 GTGs on a DDG.
 
Quote    Reply

Juramentado       6/29/2010 3:52:35 PM

You also have to look at the operational aspects of laser use. Is it reliable in terms of component MTBF to be considered hardy enough to put to sea? The weapon mount will be subjected to significant temperature changes, moisture and seawater corrosion. Does it put out enough rate of fire (remembering weapon dwell time - you need to keep the beam on target for x amount in order to achieve burnthrough or at least a mission kill)? The USN is experimenting with a point-defense laser system, but we're a couple of generations away from actually substituting it for a major fires asset like SM-3.

 
Quote    Reply

C2       6/30/2010 10:29:09 AM
Just a friendly piece of advice to the poster, the term 'combatant' typically denotes a platform for which a weapon system can be deployed, but more often than not it refers to a single operator as in an infantryman or vehicle that is operating as part of or in conjunction with an armed force, hence why combat journalists and civilians alike are often referred to as non-combatants by the armed forces.

As for lasers, I believe they are absolutely necessary to replace our current CIWS and potentially even deprecate the SM-3/2 series systems to a large extent once a suitably powerful FEL can be developed and tested it will almost certainly free up more missiles for other missions.

Having said that a laser CIWS isn't the be all end all of current gen Anti-Ship weapons, as a hyper-sonic horizon skimming all-kinetic ballistic missile would be hard to stop, by anything, but that would have to be deployed as part of a system and we would exploit that system, so there are always means and ways...
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID       6/30/2010 4:38:10 PM

Just a friendly piece of advice to the poster, the term 'combatant' typically denotes a platform for which a weapon system can be deployed, but more often than not it refers to a single operator as in an infantryman or vehicle that is operating as part of or in conjunction with an armed force, hence why combat journalists and civilians alike are often referred to as non-combatants by the armed forces.

"Surface combatant" is pretty well established lingo for warships that are shooters. I doubt anybody was really confused as to what he meant.

Having said that a laser CIWS isn't the be all end all of current gen Anti-Ship weapons, as a hyper-sonic horizon skimming all-kinetic ballistic missile would be hard to stop, by anything, but that would have to be deployed as part of a system and we would exploit that system, so there are always means and ways...
 
How does a horizon skimming ballistic missile work? 

 
Quote    Reply

C2       7/1/2010 1:16:44 AM




Just a friendly piece of advice to the poster, the term 'combatant' typically denotes a platform for which a weapon system can be deployed, but more often than not it refers to a single operator as in an infantryman or vehicle that is operating as part of or in conjunction with an armed force, hence why combat journalists and civilians alike are often referred to as non-combatants by the armed forces.



"Surface combatant" is pretty well established lingo for warships that are shooters. I doubt anybody was really confused as to what he meant.




Having said that a laser CIWS isn't the be all end all of current gen Anti-Ship weapons, as a hyper-sonic horizon skimming all-kinetic ballistic missile would be hard to stop, by anything, but that would have to be deployed as part of a system and we would exploit that system, so there are always means and ways...

 

How does a horizon skimming ballistic missile work? 

 
 
 




1) The grammar he used did not facilitate the meaning you describe, "Why cant directed energy weapons be used on surface combatants?" implies that the weapon is going to be used on a surface combatant its use being it implementation, not its deployment, which is clearly not what this article is about, so I though he was calling an incoming missile a surface combatant but now after more sleep I realise it was just confusing grammar...

2) A horizon skimming ASBM is theoretically a missile who's ballistic trajectory when launched at a typically long range keeps it under the targets 'radar horizon' ( at what ever altitude is necessary, not sea skimming ) until the last possible moment at which point it progresses into the radar horizon and then rapidly turns in too the target but not on the deck, but due to its ballistic approach it has a massive final stage entry speed coupled with a guide to target system and an all kinetic warhead equals one unstoppable mofo, don't ask for links this is a theory I stumbled over during a series on discussions, i would be happy for it to be disproved... 
 
Quote    Reply

Juramentado       7/1/2010 2:31:09 PM


2) A horizon skimming ASBM is theoretically a missile who's ballistic trajectory when launched at a typically long range keeps it under the targets 'radar horizon' ( at what ever altitude is necessary, not sea skimming ) until the last possible moment at which point it progresses into the radar horizon and then rapidly turns in too the target but not on the deck, but due to its ballistic approach it has a massive final stage entry speed coupled with a guide to target system and an all kinetic warhead equals one unstoppable mofo, don't ask for links this is a theory I stumbled over during a series on discussions, i would be happy for it to be disproved...

By popping up at a given point where a conventional ASM is still skimming in guidance phase, you are giving not only the point defenses more shooting opportunities, but some of the intermediate AAW weapons as well (think a layered defense suite like ESSM and Phalanx/Goalkeeper).  The target's escorts get a chance to nail the inbound depending upon the threat axis. The physics also work against the weapon - in order to accelerate so quickly from level flight to a velocity such that it grants the ballistic portion a tremendous entry speed, you'd need to have dedicated booster stages. Using a single-stage you'd never be guaranteed that you had enough fuel at the terminal phase to give the RV the "oomph" it needs, especially if you're engaging targets at near or maximum ranges. Booster stages implies a very large target, which can only help detection, classification and engagement. The missile would also have to balance fuel load versus warhead size versus maneuverability. Something big carrying a lot of fuel (even solid) doesn't react well to large velocity changes. So semi-autonomous guidance will be a challenge. 
 
The big threats are still weapons like the Brahmos that can traverse the engagement zone fast enough to minimize the exposure to the target's defenses but pack a very large punch. China's DF-21C is still not proven, although it will be interesting to know what open intelligence comes out of the test off their coastline this month of the missile.
 
I submit that the really scary development should it really come to fruition, is true self-designating munitions. Imagine firing an intial volley of weapons in the vicinity of a suspected CSG. They get a general fix on the task force, then pass that information back to follow-on waves. Each successive wave gets even more accurate targeting data from the last wave and can start to vary threat axes and split the defenses using a hi-lo approach. True Terminator stuff - robotic and remorseless. 
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID       7/1/2010 3:31:43 PM

2) A horizon skimming ASBM is theoretically a missile who's ballistic trajectory when launched at a typically long range keeps it under the targets 'radar horizon' ( at what ever altitude is necessary, not sea skimming ) until the last possible moment at which point it progresses into the radar horizon and then rapidly turns in too the target but not on the deck, but due to its ballistic approach it has a massive final stage entry speed coupled with a guide to target system and an all kinetic warhead equals one unstoppable mofo, don't ask for links this is a theory I stumbled over during a series on discussions, i would be happy for it to be disproved... 
The only ballistic trajectory that is "horizon skimming" essentially requires orbital velocity.
 
How does a missile travel that fast for a sustained distance through the atmosphere, overcoming the tremendous drag it would encounter using that trajectory?
 
Orbital velocity for Low Earth Orbit is  ~27000km/hr. Mach 1 at sea level is only ~1300km/hr.
 
Not to mention the guidance challenges that would arise for something traveling that fast. 
 
Quote    Reply

C2    Not quite...   7/2/2010 2:18:19 PM
I never offered links or sources, I am not willing to discuss or encourage discussion of future systems that may endanger service men's and women's lives, if i lose credibility because of this i am ok with that as well, i was under the impression that ideas expressed had been discussed in other mediums. 

 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics