Navy Puts Lazer on flight III Burkes

I don't get it. You can't burns thing when surrounded by bodies of water!

Based.
As a United States net positive tax contributor, I approve this message.

How are they powering this shit? Nuclear reactors or has the military mastered cold fusion?

>How are they powering this shit? Nuclear reactors

Are you a retard (rhetorical statement)? It's a 60 kilowatt laser with a capacitor bank.

A Burke has quad turbines outputting >19 megawatts each.

>Are you a retard
ye

Vril, obviously.

Attached: vlcsnap-2019-03-21-04h29m09s180.png (853x480, 612K)

So this is an indirect proof that the Earth is flat. Good to know.
Always figured the round thing is bs.

HWAT IF IT REINS?

Attached: real earth.gif (482x482, 1.11M)

It's a common misconception that lasers require a tremendous amount of electrical energy. In truth modern laser weapons draw, at most, a megawatt of power to power the laser and cooling systems, with most requiring only a hindered kilowatts or less. This can be provided by gas turbine that weighs less then a thousand pounds.

How does firing at flying things on your side of the horizon prove the earth is flat?

the US is nearly invincible.

>lasers that are actually useful
>stealth fighter drones
>stealth bombers that can fly them selves
>flying drone carriers

Belkan technology at its finest

>Ignores that the other powers are doing the same shit too.

Based on what?
Also don't forget that it is 60kw at the source, not on the target

Three gas turbine generators, 3000 kw each.
Allison 501k-34 and it's support systems weight quite a bit more than that.

You're right, lasers are hot and water beats fire. Makes you think.

>name fag
What were you expecting a quality post? But its not like china will actually successfully develop good lasers. And russialand doesn't care about lasers.

>real earth
>laughs in Mercator

The Russians are developing lasers too. Everybody is working on this.

Attached: peresvet-laser-system.jpg (771x576, 51K)

The previous version on the USS ponce was able to fry missiles, and it had a similar output.

Not the guy you were replying to, but in terms of laser tech the US by far the most ahead and the closes to getting them in mainline service. This is because the US has done the most with laser tech and has invested in it extensively.

Although I'd hesitate to say "invincible" but they do have the edge here.

This is the content I come for

You mean a IIA Burke, which will also start getting SPY-6 AESA.

defensenews.com/naval/2019/03/21/with-an-eye-to-china-and-russia-the-us-navy-plans-a-lethal-upgrade-to-its-destroyers/

God damn, I remember when this shit was only theorized about, Now its practically here.
Fuck.

I recall that years ago they were developing plasma weapon to fry missiles. Looks like they do laser now.

RMAs really are fucking sweet. All future USN ships will be using basically the same radar, just with different numbers of RMAs and face configurations.

>drone laser is already hitting service
>next prototype that can fry lasers is supposed to be produced in 2020-21
>probably gonna get in service pretty soon after
So ship to ship combat with the burgers is about to become next to impossible.
What the fuck, why do they get the cool stuff?

We'll just see missiles develop with thick frontal plating. That'll impact range and speed somewhat though.

China probably already stole the plans over a decade ago.

The sides and shit would still be vunreable though, and seeing as how the burgers almost never sail alone, other ships could still fuck the missile up.

Doubtful, even materials highly resilient to thermal shocking will be of only limited use against pulsed lasers, ablative drilling is easiest to build against when you can simply put enormous volumes of material between the laser and vital components. Missiles obviously don't have very much in the way of spare volume, both because they need to be held and because extra volume means extra weight which as you correctly surmise impacts range and speed. It will be easier to build a laser with a bigger power supply and larger aperture and focusing optic than to build a missile sufficiently sturdy to arrive functional on a laser equipped target. That's especially true for ships since their power supplies are so enormous.

So that's further off then expected, good to know. :^)

So did the US. The tech wasnt there yet. And things like plasma stealth are technically possible but not there yet.

HUNTER KILLER DRONE ACTIVE

The US researched the potential for nuclear pumped x-ray lasers to fry missiles back in Reagan's years. The results showed that the tech wasnt there yet.

>tech isn't there yet
This.
This whole program is another MIC boondoggle that's going to fuck up proven systems like the CWIS with a non-functional expensive mess that doesn't work.

Soviets tested laser tanks. They could only blind sensors, though.

Attached: Self-propelled_laser_system_1K17_Szhatie.jpg (2250x1425, 2.01M)

the tech has advanced since then
CIWS is useless too

Did you even read the post?

>yfw you still wait for the point defence lazers from C&C Generals.
>feels bad man

Attached: 93A8CF1E-C381-41B5-B5B7-EE86C7566535.png (1450x1549, 455K)

well the strait of (((hormuz))) is a dangerous place
who's to say what could happen?

Attached: 4324d6f379ef74540e036e48e126283a7bad8bdd9c1d54884236a55335d7b35e.jpg (500x500, 100K)

>Nuclear reactors
What the fuck do you think powers these boats?

About fucking time.

Not sure, but it involves the jews somehow

The tech wasn't there for orbital nuclear pumped gamma lasers, shipboard point defense lasers are whole different matter

I promise you service members will do that. We used to try to blind dogs (they were savages btw and would attack anyone) with the range finder on the GBOSS all the time.

You are BLATANTLY incorrect and the US Navy doesn't agree with you in the fucking slightest. Stop pulling numbers out of your ass and source an argument. Oh wait, you don't have one. Countering ASCMs is going to require at least 150 KW realistically. No, the LaWS on the Ponce couldn't do it. Fuck off.

news.usni.org/2018/10/31/report-navy-laser-railgun-gun-launched-guided-projectiles

Attached: c9PufCR.png (1022x1088, 515K)

Are those birds?

The good thing is that with computer aiming you can put several hardpoints onto a single target, it shouldn't be hard at all for a ship with 5-10 laser turrets to roast multiple incoming targets by focusing any number of it's turrets on single targets, ranging from just a few to all of them at once. Double the aperture and focusing mirror sizes and give each turret a 250kW power supply, put at least ten on every ship. Don't forget that the HELIOS is basically just six un-optimized welding lasers bundled together into a turret mount which is probably just about the shittiest setup you could have for a laser weapon.

You'd be better putting the output of several laser systems though a single telescope, as your damage is mostly determined by luminous flux on a single point. Putting 50kW on 4 square centimeters is better then splashing 400kW across 300 square centimeters.

This is acutely how the LaWS works, wiring a bunch of what amount to optical welding units though a single computer-controlled telescope to focus it on a target.

Yes obviously, I'm saying they should be working with more powerful units, either several significantly more powerful units or one very powerful unit, obviously focusing optics aren't optional either way. The weapon should be putting hundreds of kW onto a couple square cm, not just 50-60.

Personally, I doubt that's anywhere in the near term. HELIOS is a stepping stone on the way to viable lasers, but we're not going to see truly destructive ones for another few years still. I bet we'll see a ~150 kW laser on a ship in maybe 6 to 8 years, but not before, and even then it will likely be a prototype still.

So you are using a multi-billion dollar laser to counter 100 dollar drones?

That's retarded, this is just SRBM defense, dubious in effectiveness and still a tool that only will be great in a realm of hypotheticals with no real power other than psychological deterrence.

Attached: slide_4.jpg (960x720, 72K)

100 dollar drones can still damage million dollar equipment

the reason they invest in an anti-drone laser is because lasers are actually relatively cheap to fire once installed
they are also relatively quiet, take up little real estate, and can be used for alternative purposes like range finding or non-lethal boat disabling

since drones are very small yet cheap
using something like a vulcan gun or bofors to shoot them down is akin to using a sledgehammer on a mosquito
costing more to fire the gun than the cost of the target destroyed

Solar panels

>So you are using a multi-billion dollar laser
They only cost like $0.60 to fire
>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SEQ-3_Laser_Weapon_System

Why do you think China is investing into railguns? They have the techbase to start reaching for it, so they try.

If you can't get through a perfectly accurate missile defense then your next best strategy is to overwhelm it. However, firing many missiles is too big of a potential money sink, thus we have to look at cannons for such a spam strategy. Problem with conventional cannons is range, so then the final step is to use alternative methods of launching projectiles for more range, hence railguns.