Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower

From that article, "...a prototype of the Army's XM1299 tracked self-propelled 155mm howitzer shot down a BQM-167 target drone standing in for a subsonic cruise missile using an HVP".

A government defence representative no less say's, "Just for the record, [a] tank shooting down cruise missiles. That’s just awesome," Will Roper, then the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, said after that test, referring to the self-propelled howitzer's successful intercept of the BQM-167".

Just where do they get people like that in positions of influence? I know reporters have less attention span than a Goldfish and have no tolerance for them either but for an assistant secretary for a defence department.......
 
Foo Fighter said:
From that article, "...a prototype of the Army's XM1299 tracked self-propelled 155mm howitzer shot down a BQM-167 target drone standing in for a subsonic cruise missile using an HVP".

A government defence representative no less say's, "Just for the record, [a] tank shooting down cruise missiles. That’s just awesome," Will Roper, then the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, said after that test, referring to the self-propelled howitzer's successful intercept of the BQM-167".

Just where do they get people like that in positions of influence? I know reporters have less attention span than a Goldfish and have no tolerance for them either but for an assistant secretary for a defence department.......
Click to expand...

Air Force. They don't care what all those ground crawly things are as long as they get to play with the flying toys instead.

More seriously, Roper seems to be a serious person, but his expertise is on missiles and space (specifically BMD). I don't think it matters for his (former) job if he knows a tank from an SP howitzer.
 
Last edited:
news.lockheedmartin.com

Lockheed Martin Delivers Integrated Multi-Mission Laser Weapon System to the Navy

Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) delivered to the U.S. Navy a 60+ kW-class high energy laser with integrated optical-dazzler and surveillance (HELIOS), the first tactical laser weapon system to be integrated ...
news.lockheedmartin.com news.lockheedmartin.com
www.navalnews.com

Lockheed Martin Delivers HELIOS Laser Weapon System to U.S. Navy - Naval News

Lockheed Martin delivered to the U.S. Navy a 60+ kW-class high energy laser with integrated optical-dazzler and surveillance (HELIOS), the first tactical laser weapon system to be integrated into existing ships and provide directed energy capability to the fleet.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
sferrin said:
60 kW is not "high energy" in this context. Wake me when they're delivering over 1 MW.
Click to expand...

The technical definition of high-energy laser seems to be >1kw.

The services seem to think that something from 120 kW to 600kW is enough to credibly perform cruise missile defense tasks. Obviously HELIOS isn't there yet, but it's powerful enough to kinetically engage a pretty wide range of drones and has a growth path to the bottom end of that CMD range.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
60 kW is not "high energy" in this context. Wake me when they're delivering over 1 MW.
Click to expand...

The technical definition of high-energy laser seems to be >1kw.

The services seem to think that something from 120 kW to 600kW is enough to credibly perform cruise missile defense tasks. Obviously HELIOS isn't there yet, but it's powerful enough to kinetically engage a pretty wide range of drones and has a growth path to the bottom end of that CMD range.
Click to expand...
"In this context." I don't care what's considered "high energy" for welding sheet metal. MIRACL was a megawatt class laser back in the 80s. Yes, we know it was a chemical laser. So? I'd be curious to see what their rational is for thinking a 60 kW laser is useful for anything other than blinding IIR seekers. The dwell time and range limitations mean you aren't going to engage many targets at all before they're on you at those lower power levels.
 
sferrin said:
"In this context." I don't care what's considered "high energy" for welding sheet metal. MIRACL was a megawatt class laser back in the 80s. Yes, we know it was a chemical laser. So? I'd be curious to see what their rational is for thinking a 60 kW laser is useful for anything other than blinding IIR seekers. The dwell time and range limitations mean you aren't going to engage many targets at all before they're on you at those lower power levels.
Click to expand...
I read a navy study suggesting that 1MW is good for 10km. So based on a sqrt relationship with range, 60kW should be good for 2.5km.

sferrin said:
Forest Green said:
sferrin said:
60 kW is not "high energy" in this context. Wake me when they're delivering over 1 MW.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

MIRACL - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

What sferrin pictures in his head when 'high energy laser' is mentioned.

View attachment 682852
Click to expand...
Now you're talking! MIRACL was able to shoot down Vandal cruise missiles and not have to dwell for five minutes to do it. (Vandal is basically a Brahmos/Yakhont analog.)
Click to expand...
I wonder what the range was?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7drp8hp2Kto&t=190s
 
MIRACL was great, if you don't mind toting tons of nitrogen trifluoride and significant amounts of deuterium and helium around on a warship at sea.

I get that the outputs of current solid-state lasers seem disappointing but you can't magically jump to extremely high power levels without actually building the intermediary steps. And less potent weapons like HELIOS are still operationally useful even if they aren't CIWS replacements.
 
No to mention, an AB doesn't have the juice to run anything in the neighborhood of a MW laser, or even a 500kw, unless you're willing to wait a good long time between shots recharging the capacitor banks.
 
Moose said:
No to mention, an AB doesn't have the juice to run anything in the neighborhood of a MW laser, or even a 500kw, unless you're willing to wait a good long time between shots recharging the capacitor banks.
Click to expand...
That's maybe an argument for nuclear-powered destroyers.
 
Forest Green said:
Moose said:
No to mention, an AB doesn't have the juice to run anything in the neighborhood of a MW laser, or even a 500kw, unless you're willing to wait a good long time between shots recharging the capacitor banks.
Click to expand...
That's maybe an argument for nuclear-powered destroyers.
Click to expand...

Not really. The main propulsion turbines of a DDG-51 produce ample power. But they can't turn that power into electricity; that comes only from the much smaller ship service generators. Nuke power does not inherently change this; nuke plants usually send most of their power to the shafts and only a fraction to ship service turbogenerators.

Switching to integrated electric power and propulsion is the actual solution, whether the power source is nuclear or gas turbine. The main power source drive generators instead of going straight into the shafts, potentially making all of the ship's power usable for weapons.
 
TomS said:
Not really. The main propulsion turbines of a DDG-51 produce ample power. But they can't turn that power into electricity; that comes only from the much smaller ship service generators. Nuke power does not inherently change this; nuke plants usually send most of their power to the shafts and only a fraction to ship service turbogenerators.

Switching to integrated electric power and propulsion is the actual solution, whether the power source is nuclear or gas turbine. The main power source drive generators instead of going straight into the shafts, potentially making all of the ship's power usable for weapons.
Click to expand...
I heard the Nimitz carriers can provide electrical power to a small city in emergencies or something.
 
From what I understand Nimitz design is basically at capacity now with little additional reserve power. The Ford however apparently has a lot of excess power budgeted in for future sensors and weapons.
 
Forest Green said:
TomS said:
Not really. The main propulsion turbines of a DDG-51 produce ample power. But they can't turn that power into electricity; that comes only from the much smaller ship service generators. Nuke power does not inherently change this; nuke plants usually send most of their power to the shafts and only a fraction to ship service turbogenerators.

Switching to integrated electric power and propulsion is the actual solution, whether the power source is nuclear or gas turbine. The main power source drive generators instead of going straight into the shafts, potentially making all of the ship's power usable for weapons.
Click to expand...
I heard the Nimitz carriers can provide electrical power to a small city in emergencies or something.
Click to expand...

They can provide reverse shore power. But the turbogenerators are still only taking a fraction of the total power output of the plant (less than a third). The rest can only be extracted via the propulsion turbines to the propellers.
 
"MIRACL was a megawatt class laser back in the 80s"

I want that atop SLS or Starship.
 
indicisivedivide said:
Why don't they put them on carriers. They need them more so than destroyers.
Click to expand...
Space basically.

The Burkes have a empty mount that they can just drop it in and call it a day.

A Carrier, well unless it a Ford, doesn't have the area to put it unless they want to take it off the line and put on a new sponson basically with all that implies.

While the Ford also has the issue that its testing like 80 other things, getting alot of bad press, and really don't need the additional publicity of a fault happening with its new lasers. Plus even she needs a good moment in dry dock to slap it in.

Also they want to test these things.

You can drive a Burke into a far more dangerous waters then you can a carrier. And if something goes wrong with the system? Well you got like 10 other weapons to fall back on that we know work. Plus we have 60 PLUS Burkes and 10 carriers, which one do you think the navy feel better losing if something goes terrible wrong somehow?

The Burkes are basically the SAFE bet.
 
Please, alert me when/if they ever take an openly properly reported and documented test shot.
 
Interesting article discussing DARPA's Super High Efficiency Diode Sources program:



This follows Alfalight's successful completion of Phase I in which Alfalight developed working diode lasers that surpassed the targeted 65% efficiency (see Laser Focus World, March 2005, p. 59). Phase II will enable Alfalight to continue making fundamental improvements to the power-conversion efficiency (PCE) of pump laser diodes and to develop high-efficiency, high-power diode-laser stacks. High-PCE laser diodes are a key enabling component for high-power laser systems, amplifiers, and industrial lasers by allowing higher output power with less waste heat.
Click to expand...

Alfalight demonstrated 71% efficiency in a 970-nm, 55-W laser bar at 25ºC in November 2004, and was certified by NIST in March 2005 to have met the Phase I program objectives. Phase II of the program has a target of 80% PCE in a 480-W stacked array at 50ºC. Alfalight will focus on efficiency enhancement by further reducing the optical- and electrical-loss mechanisms of current designs, and by creating fundamentally more efficient diode laser structures using quantum dots and unique epitaxial growth methods.
Click to expand...
 
Ugh. HELIOS isn't an anti-missile laser. It might be able to dazzle an IR seeker, or fry an enthusiast's drone, but it's not taking down YJ-12s.
 
sferrin said:
Ugh. HELIOS isn't an anti-missile laser. It might be able to dazzle an IR seeker,
Click to expand...

Hey, that's anti-some missiles... :)

But yeah, this is a step on the pathway to actual hard-kill lasers, but not there yet but a long shot.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom