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: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
Hamilcar       3/13/2010 1:48:16 AM

link

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?
1. Not viable as to be effective at range, when you  need a solid state diode laser in the multi-megawatt class to engage the target set.
2. Heat. You waste almost 2/3 of the energy you pump into a laser as heat. The work you have to do to overcome atmospheric insulation effect is also prohibitive. The only laser that makes sense is a MASER or an IR laser in the atmosphere and that still suffers from heat bloom, and beam jitter. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       3/18/2010 5:42:44 PM



link




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?

1. Not viable as to be effective at range, when you  need a solid state diode laser in the multi-megawatt class to engage the target set.

2. Heat. You waste almost 2/3 of the energy you pump into a laser as heat. The work you have to do to overcome atmospheric insulation effect is also prohibitive. The only laser that makes sense is a MASER or an IR laser in the atmosphere and that still suffers from heat bloom, and beam jitter. 


 

 


 
How is it then that they are makign it work in the air but not on the surface?
 
Isnt there just as much jitter at 40k feet than at sea, I.E. turbulance?
anrtn then just as many atmospheric factors high up via clouds winds thunder lightenings?
Im not agreeing or disagreeing, it just seems like there would be alot more space on a ship.

 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       3/18/2010 5:48:32 PM
BTW Im not talking about using it to hit land targets, Im talkign about either  a CIWS or air defense ship either
 
A. Built around a Giant laser.
 
B. The laser is made to fit in 1 or 2 shipping sized containers for the LCS or able to be placed in the space that occupies 1 or Verticle launch stations on a U.S. cruiser.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       3/18/2010 6:26:34 PM







link









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?



1. Not viable as to be effective at range, when you  need a solid state diode laser in the multi-megawatt class to engage the target set.



2. Heat. You waste almost 2/3 of the energy you pump into a laser as heat. The work you have to do to overcome atmospheric insulation effect is also prohibitive. The only laser that makes sense is a MASER or an IR laser in the atmosphere and that still suffers from heat bloom, and beam jitter. 






 



 






 

How is it then that they are makign it work in the air but not on the surface?

 

Isnt there just as much jitter at 40k feet than at sea, I.E. turbulance?

anrtn then just as many atmospheric factors high up via clouds winds thunder lightenings?

Im not agreeing or disagreeing, it just seems like there would be alot more space on a ship.




When I discuss beam jitter, I am talking Planck, excuse me atomic, scales.  
 
At 7000 meters up you have a lot fewer nitrogen atoms in the way to disrupt the lockstep nature (collimation) of photons in a laser beam. The beam doesn't vibrate out of pure tune or spread from particle collisions as much, nor is there as much charge interference.
 
H.
 
 
Quote    Reply

colangus    Boeing thinks you can...   3/19/2010 5:18:10 AM
another laser weapon system from the guys in Seattle
 
 
Boeing Completes Preliminary Design of Free Electron Laser Weapon System
span.prnews_span { font-size:10pt; font-family:"Arial"; color:black; } span.prnews_wider { background-color:yellow; font-size:10pt; font-family:"courier new"; color:black; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; } a.prnews_a { color:blue; } li.prnews_li { font-size:10pt; font-family:"Arial"; color:black; } p.prnews_p { margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:10pt; font-family:"Arial"; color:black; }

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., March 18, 2010 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has successfully completed the preliminary design of the U.S. Navy's Free Electron Laser (FEL) weapon system, a key step toward building a FEL prototype for realistic tests at sea.

During the preliminary design review held March 9 to March 11 at a Boeing facility in Arlington, Va., the company presented its design to more than 30 U.S. government and National Laboratory representatives. This electric laser will operate by passing a beam of high-energy electrons through a series of powerful magnetic fields, generating an intense emission of laser light that can disable or destroy targets.

"The Free Electron Laser will use a ship's electrical power to create, in effect, unlimited ammunition and provide the ultra-precise, speed-of-light capability required to defend U.S. naval forces against emerging threats, such as hyper-velocity cruise missiles," said Gary Fitzmire, vice president and program director of Boeing Directed Energy Systems. "The successful completion of this preliminary design review is an important milestone in developing a weapon system that will transform naval warfare."

In April 2009, Boeing was awarded an Office of Naval Research contract valued at up to $163 million -- with an initial task order of $6.9 million -- to begin developing FEL. The Navy is expected to decide this summer whether to award additional task orders to Boeing to complete the FEL design and build and operate a laboratory demonstrator.

Boeing Missile Defense Systems' Directed Energy Systems unit in Albuquerque and the Boeing Research & Technology group in Seattle support the FEL program. The company has partnered with U.S. Department of Energy laboratories, academia and industry partners to design the laser.

Boeing is developing laser systems for a variety of defense applications. Besides FEL, these systems include the Airborne Laser Test Bed, the High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator, and Laser Avenger, among others.


 
Hamilcar, do you think having the option to "tune" the frequency of the FEL will give it the ability to travel through the atmosphere with enough force to disable said target sets? I ask this because my understanding is that this is why the FEL is superior to chemical lasers in this role.
 
Many thanks
 
PS another interesting read about FEL's...
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       3/19/2010 5:22:06 AM
Yes.
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

colangus       3/19/2010 5:37:30 AM
Thought so. That opens up several more options along the tech tree, I presume?
 
As a side note, is it just me or does anyone else think we are two decades back on the knowledge curve because of the (stupid) decision to cut SDI?
 
sigh...
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       3/19/2010 8:46:53 AM
I wonder if the Burkes can generate enough electricity to power the FEL if and when it becomes available. Or will this be possible only on the DDG-1000 ships?
 
Quote    Reply

colangus       3/19/2010 10:20:49 AM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       3/19/2010 6:33:10 PM
I cannot even begin to tell how mich volume a free electron laser uses in an installation.
 
This may give you some idea of what a small one does and how much space it takes up.
 

http://www.youtube.com/v/z7IA9-gSo_Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&"> http://www.youtube.com/v/z7IA9-gSo_Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385">
 
 
quote:
 
gettingbored (9 months ago) Show Hide
 0 F watch-comment-down="" title="Poor comment"> F watch-comment-up="" title="Good comment">
Marked as spam
Yeah, it does have weapons potential. I'm working on one for my internship (absolutely brilliant work) and it only takes up about 100 x 50 x 30 ft. (probly much less if you optimized your space properly). Which is reasonable enough to fit it onto a ship. Also, yes, they can get into the x-ray regions of light, I believe there is&O5279; one or two in Europe they are building specifically for that.
 

 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics