Read the forum code of contact
By: - 25th May 2002 at 21:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
This will be a technical enterprise, using lasers as weapons need a very stable platform, and a submarine es even more unstable than a normal ship.
Ummm, don´t make you remember the Philadelphia Experiment?
By: - 26th May 2002 at 09:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
Subs are very stable, well under the surface anyway!
As for the P.E., I think you're getting of the track abit there.
Leave no-one behind!
By: - 26th May 2002 at 15:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
The US military has almost given up on laser weapons as currently microwave weapons have better performance's within the atmosphere.
By: - 27th May 2002 at 06:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
huh? where you hear that the US has given up on energy weapons, at least not from what i hear
By: - 27th May 2002 at 12:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 27-05-02 AT 12:12 PM (GMT)]I meant that they had given up on Laser weapons to focus on Microwave weapons. I read it on a USN white paper. I found it on one of the USN websites.
It focused on a laser weapon that was built for the navy in the late 1980's (its now currently called the TALID, that one thats based in Israel). It stated that with current tech levels it difficult to build a directed energy weapon small enough to fit on board a USN super carrier (even though there like the biggest military ships ever built) due to the size & mass of the weapon & its power generator. Plus laser weapons don't propagate within atmosphere very well which is why there focusing on microwave weapons to a greater extent that laser's. It said that they expect the USN to deploy an operation directed energy weapon onboard a carrier by 2020.
By: - 27th May 2002 at 13:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
No offence but I think you guys have been watching too many Star Trek Episodes. Next you'll be saying the USAF is planing to cloak its fighters and planning on becoming fluent in Klingon!!! :7
By: - 27th May 2002 at 16:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
>No offence but I think you guys have been watching too many
>Star Trek Episodes. Next you'll be saying the USAF is
>planing to cloak its fighters and planning on becoming
>fluent in Klingon!!! :7
Alas for all non-belivers goto this site :)
http://www.trw.com/marketplace/main/0,1151,39_1541_135_210^4^210^210,FF.html
(I got the name wrong its called the THEL i was thinking of something else sorry).
By: - 27th May 2002 at 21:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
THEL was the US-Israeli name, but it did originate from another US program. THEL was more of a demonstrator that the Israelis want to use as a basis for their system to protect against short ranged SSMs, but the US is using that simply to see feasibility for a even more compact and better system. As to not fitting on a supercarrier, humm...last time i've heard, a supercarrier isn't smaller than a 747. Wait, not even a Frigate is smaller than a 747. What haven't been demonstrated is against highly manuevering targets and high rate shots. The ABL uses CO2 lasers which i believe is on the orders of tens of microns in wavelength, basically IR lasers. As it turns out the world's first X-ASER was microwave based called MASER, so i think it has more to do with confusing jargons than the USN giving up "directed" energy weapons. I mean, simply put, what is "directed" energy weapons. A magnifying glass burning an ant is directed energy even though it's not purely a "LASER". so what's all this? It should be under a broad category of using focused EM wave as weapons. Philadelphia project, true or not, is a shield not a dagger.
By: - 27th May 2002 at 22:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 27-05-02 AT 11:13 PM (GMT)]>THEL was the US-Israeli name, but it did originate from
>another US program. THEL was more of a demonstrator that
>the Israelis want to use as a basis for their system to
>protect against short ranged SSMs, but the US is using that
>simply to see feasibility for a even more compact and better
>system. As to not fitting on a supercarrier, humm...last
>time i've heard, a supercarrier isn't smaller than a 747.
>Wait, not even a Frigate is smaller than a 747. What
>haven't been demonstrated is against highly manuevering
>targets and high rate shots. The ABL uses CO2 lasers which
>i believe is on the orders of tens of microns in wavelength,
>basically IR lasers. As it turns out the world's first
>X-ASER was microwave based called MASER, so i think it has
>more to do with confusing jargons than the USN giving up
>"directed" energy weapons. I mean, simply put, what is
>"directed" energy weapons. A magnifying glass burning an
>ant is directed energy even though it's not purely a
>"LASER". so what's all this? It should be under a broad
>category of using focused EM wave as weapons. Philadelphia
>project, true or not, is a shield not a dagger.
X-rays and microwaves are two completely different things and operate at different area's of the electromagnetic spectrum. If i remember my GCSE physics correctly. An x-ray laser is (i think) not possible with our current technology. We've barely been able to produce blue wavelength lasers (there is a reason why the most common laser you see is coloured red :) )
Wavelengths (i think) determine how far the beam will travel within an atmosphere (vertically not horonzionatly). However the wavelength attained is made 3 times more difficult (the need to correctly produce stimulated emission) the progressivly the shorter the wavelength. As microwaves have a much longer wavelength (i think) there easier to produce (for some reason). So a red laser would travel a smaller distance than a green based laser for the same power output. As microwaves don't have this atmospheric problem they should produce better results than would lasers given our current technology.
A chemical based laser weapon (the ABL laser) is (probably) a lot less powerful due to the need for having a chemical that produces enough energy to sustain the laser proergration whilist being safe enough (im guessing now) so that it doesn't blow up. It also probably results in a weaker beam than would a static laser (one which uses a electrical power continuellly) which would in the carriers case be fed by its nuclear power plant. All you really need to create a laser beam is power. Better quality materials will produce a more efficent laser but just to create a stimulated emmission you need power and lots of it.
Assuming that the "not being able to build one on a CVN" story is true it is because there is not enough power outputed from even a nuclear powerplant to sustain a battlefield grade weapon.
By: - 28th May 2002 at 06:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 28-05-02 AT 06:09 AM (GMT)]Not really, more problems on your assumptions there. First of all, "red" lasers, or most likely HeliumNeons are easy and cheap to make...that's why it's the favorite laboratory/acadmeic laser demonstrator. I believe you've remembered wrong as to the Laser wavelengths. Getting something like 200nm is rather easy today, and as you know that's way beyond "blue", that's UV. In fact, even someone not too proficient in lasers like me knows that there are lasers in use that's in the 100nm range. But, getting a "Solid State" laser, or laser "diodes" in the "blue" spectrum is not yet attainable, that's true. Blue laser DIODES are only available in laboratory settings. Those UV lasers mentioned above use 3rd or 4th or maybe even higher harmonics. As to the ABL, it's CO2 laser in the MegaWatt range. I don't think it's straight forwardly the powersupply problem. The powersupply problem can be fixed by using energy storage methods...ie batteries, capacitors, and inductors. These are used in fusion drives, Tokahmaks (spelling?), so shouldn't be a problem there. So, in my opinion, the powersupply is a minor problem. Others such as Optics for that kind of power and wavelength is probably the most problemsome.
By: - 28th May 2002 at 19:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
what are you talking about Garry...are you taking weeds now? }> Three are no clouds up there for ABL. It was meant to track and attack missiles that just break cloud cover. It's also meant to be used with air superiority in mind and still not really in enemy territory unless when necessary, just like when tankers are sometimes required to venture into enemy air spaces. Please, it's going to hurt your credibility when you talk like that. If you have reasonable critiques, fine, but monsoon season? You sure you can fire SSMs during monsoon reason, theoretically yes, but i haven't heard any tests being done during a storm on purpose. The next thing that might happen is the controls getting overpowered by gust. A naval ABL system would be ideal for point defense anti-air or high altitude attacks. Maybe even shore bombardment much later into the future. It obviously can't bend around the curvature.
By: - 30th May 2002 at 07:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
Air superiority in mind, meaning the US fighters can achieve air superiority where the ABL is flying, isn't it obvious i mean that? Didn't i said earlier that it wasn't proven that the ABL can destroy manuevering targets. I thought that was obvious.(however, i don't think there's a problem there, it's 1MW of radiation man! After seeing people punching through tungstin with a much much lower power laser, somehow i think that's pretty scarry). As to salt sprays? Huh? you don't mean salt sprays, but the evaporation of water vapour with heavy salt concentration (not spray, but evaporation) would create a unstable layer of varying density. But, just like ABL, there are ways of getting around that. As to clouds? humm...i've never noticed clouds above the 747-400 on trans pacific flights...infact, clouds are way way down there.
By: - 31st May 2002 at 01:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 31-05-02 AT 01:56 AM (GMT)]You are really really losing me Garry, salt sprays of an approaching sea skimming SSM? wakes are behind, not in front of incoming targets. As to diverting flights due to storm...yes, when landing or judging whether to takeoff or land. On trans Pacific flights, you pretty much fly the shortest possible route. And at that altitude, you don't see storms. Even if you see clouds, it's very very rare. I've forgot the exact altitude where cloudes really don't exist, but i've always thought major storm clouds have very low altitude. I don't know why you're so stubborn on this one, why don't you go search on the internet and tell me exactly when you wouldn't expect clouds 99% of the time. As to range. So, you've forgot the air superiority senario i've kept on mentioning. For example, instead of your hypotheticals, a simple use in historical wars, the Gulf War II versus Iraq, had the US have the ABL ready in service, with the kind of air superiority, not many of the Scuds launched would be able to reach their range. Simply put, the ABL is still a tactical weapon, so it's risks should be taken to be similar to a B-52 or a B-1B doing bombing runs. Now, given the same senario as to NK, you are suggesting that there won't be heavy bomber missions also? For example, had the Talibans some working SCUDs, the ABL again would've been the ideal option to counter that threat. Very effective as you said during the boost phase is the weakest phase of any ballistic missile. Oh, by the way, NK is evil...which country would starve huge percentage of it's own citizens to that extend while still have a luxurious elite class. Just ask any defectors in embassies across China at a alarming high rate, and you stop your ignorant US bashing simply for the sake of criticizing the US. About Iran as Evil, that's certainly debatable, but NK? Come on, use Iran as your future examples, not NK. Again, the ruling elites is evil, no-one ever make reference to the suffering populous as evil.
By: - 31st May 2002 at 11:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
As usual these days have little time to join in I'm afraid, but, I can completely concur with Garry's argument here. A laser CIWS is a real non-starter in the naval environment. Beam attentuation would be tremendous in the boundary layer and I have serious concerns about how clean laser optics would remain if exposed even to a very few seconds of sea spray.
Doubtless the adaptive optics, developed to remove that atmoshperic star-twinkling someone mentioned, could overcome a percentage of the environmental attentuation but, for me, the idea of have to maintain a system, at sea, containing literally thousands of micro-actuators whose operation must be accurate to a very high degree sounds nightmarish and impractical at least. I mean...what kind of hammer would one hit such a thing with to make it work???! :D
Far more promising noises are coming from the directed EMP weapons that several nations are developing. Quite how these would work aboard ship engaging inbounds without toasting every IC onboard I've frankly no idea, but, it sounds eminently more sensible than trying to take potshots with lasers!
Regards,
Steve
By: - 31st May 2002 at 18:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
Garry was talking about sea sprays, not boundary layers. That's what i'm trying to tell him, varying density boundary layers are there 100% of the time, while salt sprays are not. So, the first problem to solve would naturally be against something that's there all the time. But, as to directed EMP. My earlier points are, what exactly is a "direct" energy weapon? It's a family of focused EM beams. As such, lasers and directed EMPs and other what nots using focused EM waves falls under such a broad catagory. Lasers can be UV, Visible, or IR...while there are others with microwave, that's why i called it X-ASERS.
As to ABL, humm...i've always thought it's for protecting allies, which as you can see it almost always is used against SRBMs. It's a tactical asset as my definition of Strategic would be weapons used for an all out nuke war with the US. There are holes in the IR spectrum through the atmosphere, and no doubt these are the same wavelength that the ABL will use.
As to food. Take care of your own country first before anybody else. The US can take care of themselves, yet NK with all this huge amount of aid from South Korea, Japan, and yes the US, seems to redirect them to the military and the ruling elites. There are consistent reports coming out of these huge surge of defectors. If the US is so bad, why some of them insists on coming here? I haven't hear one that wants to go to NZ. (Garry, why don't you tell me how much of your Kiwi tax dollars is used to help these people before preaching about it, as far as i know, they got a share of my tax dollars).
Posts: 6,208
By: Ja Worsley - 25th May 2002 at 15:18
As part of its drive to explore potential 'transformational'
technologies, the
US Navy (USN) is rekindling efforts to develop and field
directed-energy weapons
(DEW) at sea - including the possible deployment of high-energy laser
(HEL)
weapons aboard submarines.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Star Wars Episode Two was finally released, the timing is a little too scarey :/
Leave no-one behind!