Laser destroys four attacking UAVs in-flight today

[Ninja]

Today the US Navy tested the new laser Phalanx Close-in Weapon System on drones approaching the ship. The laser destroyed all four attacking UAVs in-flight for the first time. The new Phalanx combines six solid-state lasers that simultaneously focused on the moving targets in the test to destroy them in seconds, outperforming previous tests that focused on stationary targets. Raytheon said it would still be several years before the system could be deployed on ships. The current Phalanx system utilizes a Gatling gun shooting 100's of rounds per second at incoming targets. Navy ships are equipped with several Phalanx systems for close in protection. Star Wars battlefield here we come!

 

[AnAppleSnail]

Star Wars battlefield here we come!

Pshaw. Star Wars doesn't use lasers - they use blasters, a particle cannon. Lasers are neat, but two lines indicates a major weakness of current and near-future lasers:
"LaWS is made up of six industrial-use lasers that simultaneously focus on the target."
and
"The tests, conducted in May and June, show the LaWS illuminating and then heating the underside of a drone aircraft shortly before it goes up in flames and loses trajectory."

It takes 6 of these lasers a few seconds to damage the UAV. The step forward here is that they are solid-state lasers, involving no nasty chemicals and allowing smaller sizes. Also, we've seen what happens every year with solid-state things. Consider what 2 GB of ram used to cost; last week my dear got 2 GB for her laptop for a week's lunch money.

Lasers in general are weak in humid environments, especially shooting at long range. Imagine trying to use this in fog! Once they get it small it'll be nice. There are some really awful things you can do with lasers and targeting systems.

In short, Lawrence's quote of "The Raytheon-Navy team is moving directed energy solutions toward utility in the battlespace to provide warfighters with speed-of-light protection," is currently misleading, but won't be for long. For the next decade we'll only have speed-of-shouting-"There-it-is!" BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Boom!" protection. The lasers at least don't involve hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammunition landing somewhere inconvenient later. Go Raytheon, make better lasers now!

 

[matt304]

Here is the problem. A laser is just producing heat. So it should be incredibly easy for enemies to defend themselves with anti-laser protection in the future. Some ceramic tiles in a few critical areas, and now that laser may not even work.

I don't think there is any replacement for the current R2D2--or Phalanx system currently being used with those kinetic projectiles. It will always remain pretty hard to defeat a barrage of 20mm HEAP projectiles headed your way!

 

[alpg88]

those were drones, slow, moving along the surface, when they kill a missile coming down from above at 3M and more, they they could brag

 

[Raccoon]

Lasers are banned from warfare. If you can blow up a drone, you can easily blind a person. Geneva convention states that weapons cannot be blinding people, intentionally or collaterally.

 

[alpg88]

Lasers are banned from warfare. If you can blow up a drone, you can easily blind a person. Geneva convention states that weapons cannot be blinding people, intentionally or collaterally.

blinding is no no, but killing is ok, lol what a good convention

 

[Raccoon]

It really is a good convention. Blinding can be politically justified as a "non-lethal humane tactic" and used indiscriminately against "enemy combatants" (including civilians and school children in the vicinity) while telling the public that "nobody died, see!"

If the introduction of the Police Taser is any indicator of how politics skews human-rights violations, I am fervently against use of Lasers in warfare.

Don't laze me bro'!

 

[matt304]

Yet...

They must use full-metal jacket bullets in combat, and cannot use soft points or hollow points, because of that convention.

Which means they suffer a long, agonizing death, as they bleed out from a small hole which could have just killed them in 20 seconds if the bullet would have merely expanded.

 

[cheapbastard]

Geneva convention

lol

Conventions, laws and treaties don't mean poop when people start killing people

 

[calebra]

Lasers are banned from warfare. If you can blow up a drone, you can easily blind a person. Geneva convention states that weapons cannot be blinding people, intentionally or collaterally.

that has to be the most ludicrous thing i have heard in a long time, not having a crack at u but at the convention, its outdated to say the least

 

[AnAppleSnail]

that has to be the most ludicrous thing i have heard in a long time, not having a crack at u but at the convention, its outdated to say the least

If this hits a reflective surface on something in the air, it will shine eye-searing light in random patterns onto the ground. Don't look up! You'll regret it in the dark...

If I were a nasty person trying to use a laser most efficiently to incapacitate people, I would design an aiming system that fired IR lasers in the 500-1000 mW range at reflective curved surfaces. Sure it'd often hit things that weren't eyes, but it doesn't take long to damage the cornea. There'd be hundreds of young men blinded for life. That's nothing I would like to see on a battlefield. The Geneva conventions could be outdated but there are some good ideas in them.

If lasers get powerful enough then very little will really defend against it. Even a 99% reflective surface will let some light through - and such reflective surfaces are easily damaged. The space shuttle tiles work by radiating heat when they get hot, but they're extremely heavy.

Laser wars might become a sort of physics battle, where you have to hope that you'll overheat or damage your target before your laser gets hot enough to have to shut down. It might come down to "The laser-firing weapon system with one end planted in the ground wins one-on-one" just from heat dissipation alone.

 

[calebra]

If this hits a reflective surface on something in the air, it will shine eye-searing light in random patterns onto the ground. Don't look up! You'll regret it in the dark...

If I were a nasty person trying to use a laser most efficiently to incapacitate people, I would design an aiming system that fired IR lasers in the 500-1000 mW range at reflective curved surfaces. Sure it'd often hit things that weren't eyes, but it doesn't take long to damage the cornea. There'd be hundreds of young men blinded for life. That's nothing I would like to see on a battlefield. The Geneva conventions could be outdated but there are some good ideas in them.

If lasers get powerful enough then very little will really defend against it. Even a 99% reflective surface will let some light through - and such reflective surfaces are easily damaged. The space shuttle tiles work by radiating heat when they get hot, but they're extremely heavy.

Laser wars might become a sort of physics battle, where you have to hope that you'll overheat or damage your target before your laser gets hot enough to have to shut down. It might come down to "The laser-firing weapon system with one end planted in the ground wins one-on-one" just from heat dissipation alone.

Having 12 years behind me in a very active defense force, i have to say i have seen everything that can be done to man, done to man. Being whacked by a lazer causing blindness has its ramifications, but a walk in the park compared to the rest...now where are my safety goggles

 

[RyanA]

The blindness thing is really way off point. Going down that road we could just ban all implements of war from the battlefield since they have the potential (however remote) to accidentally blind a person rather than flat out killing them. It seems this is neither designed or intended for use against ground troops, and will likely never see such a use. Lasers are used quite frequently in warfare, just not to cause permanent blindness. If someone were to design a device specifically designed to blind combatants (such as the one Apple Snail described) then it might be an issue.

 

[baterija]

Lasers are banned from warfare. If you can blow up a drone, you can easily blind a person. Geneva convention states that weapons cannot be blinding people, intentionally or collaterally.

That's not actually the gist of the protocol. According to the protocol on blinding laser weapons, lasers can't be designed to intentionally blind unenhanced vision. You have to take feasible precautions to prevent blinding which can include non-technical methods such as training/rules of engagement. In fact blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of legitimate use is specifically listed as not prohibited.

I'd be surprised if this system was prohibited given the mounting on large surface ships and likely fire control systems; feasible precautions to prevent engaging and blinding troops. I'm not a military lawyer though.

 

[SemiMan]

The very best reflectors (real world) are perhaps 97% reflective and that it only on the surface. A high powered laser system would ablate off any reflective coating very quickly.

"Solid State" applied to laser's does not mean diode laser ...

Semiman