Can someone give me a quick rundown on this thing...

>Though, laser beams do becaome weaker with distance because of scattering due to particles, water droplets, etc, in the air. Bad weather? Laser no workie.
according to their sea trials, fog or sand too thick to fire their laser was also too thick to use most equipment

So you're saying we need to mount laser CIWS systems on Starship and start commissioning Starships into the navy before the Space Corps ruins glorious navy-in-space traditions for everyone

I don’t think most spacecraft have the power generation capabilities necessary to use lasers like this. Kinetic interceptors are gonna continue to be better for that sort of thing for the foreseeable future.

Current spacecraft don't because they don't need it. Military spacecraft would simply bring the power they need. The biggest problem is radiating the heat.

Great AA\point defense weapon but you ain't sinken no warships.

>if the laser is powerful enough to cook an engine or fry a drone then it is also strong enough to give the crew severe burns, perhaps even lethal ones.
Yeah a bridge is going to get lased in the future. I guarantee it. I bet it will be the Chinese doing it to a US battle group. With a nuclear reactor powering the laser and good aiming technology, one could probably knock out every bridge in a couple seconds.

I'm just being stupid right? Our warships have blast shutters they can instantly close over the glass, right?

No shit, it can't fire over the horizon. You're well within gun range before you're within laser range. The cool factor comes from it's use as point defense.

If the Chinese lased the bridge of an American warship I'm 99% sure that the Americans would return fire with actual weapons. Blinding a dozen American crewmen and dazzling any sensors near the bridge is no less serious than putting a shell through the bridge.

I’d argue it’s a bit less serious, but still clearly an attack.

I am pretty sure every bridge going mysteriously silent in a battle group in under 30 seconds would cause complete chaos. It would be one hell of an ambush.

>? Our warships have blast shutters they can instantly close over the glass, right?

It all depends on what the wavelength of the laser is. Don't assume that just because humans can see throught it that means that a laser can pass through it. A wise ship designer would spec materials that block IR and UV light, particularly those wavelengths used by common lasers.

There exist materials which reflect IR but not visible light and vice-versa. Same with UV. Google "hot mirror" and "cold mirror" for example.

Also, an attack like that could hurt people on the bridge, but it would be very unlikely that it would affect the entire crew present, not to mention the attacking ship would have to be quite close to pull off such an attack.

>Ambush
The Chink ships would need to be well within even gun range to pull it off, because lasers can't fire over the horizon.

I hope lasers become so advanced missiles are rendered useless and we need to return to good old fashioned guns

THE IOWA WILL SAIL THE SEAS AGAIN

Why would laser CIWS achieve that if Phalanx hasn't? The only use for Iowa would be Battlestar Galactica style flak walls. And those don't actually work.

That said, I strongly believe in upgunning the Burke to at least a pair of 6" guns, if not 8" guns.

How close can a Chinese warship get in international waters before we take action?

And once again, we score a win on the naming front.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-tests-warship-power-systems-for-dragonfire-laser-weapon/

>Why would laser CIWS achieve that if Phalanx hasn't?
main advantages are light speed muzzle velocity, less effect from wind or gravity, and pinpoint accuracy
a laser capable of stopping, say, a missile would do so better than a weapon with the same stopping power

its also far cheaper per shot than all other alternatives, allowing it to engage targets other weapons wouldn't be cost effective against, like drones, IEDs, or UAVs
lack of noise also allows it to be fired near residential areas without bothering anyone
its also very surgical, it can melt objects on vehicle without damaging the surroundings

and of course its a multi use tool, capable of acting as a laser range finder in addition to its role as a weapon

Laser weapons also don't have any recoil, so it's theoretically possible to build a much smaller turret. There's also no running out of ammo with a laser, whereas a CIWS requires a lot of space and weight taken up by its ammo, and it has a limited amount.

>laser range finder

Or a target designator. Just imagine having a laser burning into your aircraft that makes the missiles track even more effectively.

Here is proven technology from the 70s:

youtu.be/msXtgTVMcuA

Here is proven technology from the 50s:

youtu.be/cRpe6i5k57s

The series of bush wars of the last 5 decades have given people a very warped view of potentials in warfare. Technological advancements only "win" wars in history books and product brochures. Real wars are won by attrition and determination to forestall an existential threat.

The next major conflict will be three hours of hitech doodads, 1000 milliseconds of kinetic cyber warfare, then three weeks of bloody chaos utilizing increasingly older, non-networked technology. Whichever society(s) that still wants to exist after that, despite losses and hardship, will come out on top.

A few people know about the Millennium Challenge war game. They erroneously believe that a low tech, smaller country can beat a higher tech, larger country. The real lesson from MC was that, like climate change, you cannot model reality.

actually, this is just the first phase of a more powerful laser. IOC of the ones that can shoot down missiles could come around the mid to late 2020s

Have you heard of right angles? Do some research before you say ur bullshit. There are ways to make sure you get the "right angle" with right angles so that any angle works.

well, how quickly can a missile fire from the time the fire button is pressed?

>american education

Attached: 2eb.jpg (480x360, 22K)

>can a mirror deflect it and send it back to the ship ?
More likely you're going to blind some poor fellow tens of kilometers away

Attached: 67__.jpg (568x465, 129K)

>Technological advancements only "win" wars in history books and product brochures. Real wars are won by attrition and determination to forestall an existential threat.
Iron vs Bronze would like to have a word with you

hey dummy, one advancement doesnt win a war, but many advancements in all fields do.

Consider how many years that comparison encompasses, and reread what I said, but sound out the words. All real conflict is more about attrition and methodology than tools used. The T34 "won" the Eastern Front at a loss rate of 12:1 Russian Tanks:German tanks.

>Reading comprehension
The most important advancements in the 20th century (and we both know that is where your limited grasp of history resides) where machine tools, supply chain infrastructure, and job specialization. The US+Russia+England could have won the war with flintlock rifles, it just would have cost more blood and taken 10+ more years.

Attached: 317.png (500x501, 80K)

What version of CoD are you researching these days, zoomer?

Attached: Screenshot_20181024-125517~2.png (1065x857, 662K)

>if the laser is powerful enough to cook an engine or fry a drone then it is also strong enough to give the crew severe burns, perhaps even lethal ones.
Severe burns? This is a 15kw laser vs steel, even accounting for atmosphere and window losses a 50kw weapon is probably going to be like sticking your face under this laser cutter. It will probably burn several cm deep into peoples skull and body every second. youtube.com/watch?v=cRo9xEO0z2o

High energy lasers can shoot bullets out of the air, destroy rockets, artillery, bombs and missiles and disable or destroy aircraft. A high energy laser with a good telescope can pretty much wreck anything that isn't covered in thick refractory armor or under the horizon. A laser can also work as it's own tracking and targeting sensor by operating at sub-destructive energy as a lidar system.

In built up urban areas they have the advantage of not coming back down. Shooting a missile at another missile has a small problem that if your interceptor misses and goes on to kill someone it's damn embarrassing. Lasers that miss don't bother anyone but the world's unluckiest bird.

Humans don't react to being hit by a laser like that.

It's weirder.

Humans are, I'm sure you know, mostly water. Water in liquid state. Hit by a laser this water heats up and expands quite a bit, creating pressure. The result is laser ablation of the surface and expanding steam and combusting organic material that diffuses and dissipates the energy of the beam.

Think a very small, localized and shallow wound and an agonizingly painful steam explosion. A powerful enough beam could blow a person apart by heating more water.

How is permanently blinding Americans less serious?

If I recall Russians use laser on their Gorshkov frigate to blind IIR missiles. Said to induce hallucinations or some shit by some British tabloid

>Not reflecting with a disco ball to get everyone in visual range