Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1747
    Points : 1787
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:55 am

    rrob wrote:You have first-hand knowledge of range power and condition limitations How?  Your few seconds of shining the light on the target and water vapor is 1970s tech problem likely solved or it would not be deployed don't you think?  That aside, of course, the US military including the navy" entire battle group structure will be sleeping and simply let your ships waltz into a thousand mile range and wait for your platform to sink them?  Even without an energy beam system, hypersonic missiles are easily tracked and intercepted as no matter their speed a vectoring sam will be going in a  head-on impact far from the platform and not sitting in the magazine while it closes the range even at 2 miles a second it would be tracked for over two minutes plenty of time for multiple solutions to intercept as not do a stern chase. Try getting in close in wartime conditions to a carrier? Ain't going to be like peacetime approaches and flybys.   I'm sure the Russian navy will not have the tens of thousands of missiles necessary to fend off the multiple attacks and round the clock sorties that will be thrown against them by a vastly numerical platform fleet that includes Los Angeles,  Seawolf's and Virginia's along with the entire air wings of the likely 4 to six nuclear carriers without possibility of replenishment not to mention all the surface escorts drones, long-range B1s, and B 2s standoff weapons etc etc. that will not just wave to your limited amount of  ships as they pass by., But keep fooling yourself into saying it ain't possible because you don't like the implications that your pet toys might be obsolete and the Russian naval power might just not be the biggest swinging d=ck on the high seas compared to the biggest blue water navy in the business.. Simple fact, whatever amount of ships the Russian navy can concentrate on one area of ocean, the US Navy has far more depth and resources to draw on, to negate it, and no offense is meant here just stating facts. That'we can't lose because I know everything is the kind of thinking that got the French in trouble and caught with their pants down a while ago with their impregnable Maginot Line.  Maybe you should consider that they are deploying and not testing this expensive toy because the damn thing might actually work? Who knows eh,  after all they might have something your limited information source has not found out everything out there yet.  And that does not mean I'm right by any stretch here, but prudence says it at least deserves serious consideration and not out of hand dismissal in the event it is true, so that measures can be taken to negate or diminish its effect less people have to pay because your "no way possible" stance so were caught with your pants down like the French

    Well if laser is soo good why US ships didn't dismantle all rocket missiles? LAsers are a challenge but same as rail guns.  If thsi is overcome then why not ot use on eemp exlosion beyond lasers range. Do you think all US fleet is safe form EMP? then bunch of armored missiles which are maneuvering is next - try to focus enough long on 10-12 salvo? enough if 1 gets thru....


    Russian fleet is not designed to kill 3rd world presidents and populations force into reservations so Russia can take over the and and resources. Russia fleet is designed to one purpose. To fight US one... Thus missiles for sure were designed with thsi in mind.



    Here you got
    a) sunny weather
    b) they didn't show the distance. The power of laser beam is ~1/(distance)2 if I am correct
    c) what was show is not armored or covered with thermal layer cheap tiny drone. Neither sea skimming nor fast.
    d) it took 3 seconds to accomplish the task
    c) one shot - so we do not know how fast it can be repeated (just to pump material) is this CO2 continous action? then you need to heat it.






    rrob

    Posts : 38
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2017-10-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  rrob on Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:43 am

    S


    Last edited by rrob on Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:33 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3255
    Points : 3378
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  kvs on Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:08 am

    rrob wrote:So, you show everyone including potential enemies all your cards when you play poker? The phrase deliberate disinformation comes to mind here. Many a foe has fallen from grace because they believe they have all the aces. only to be surprised their opponent has a royal flush.  Do you not see the ramifications if you are wrong?  That's why people buy life insurance for the just in case.
    Sorry, web link is blocked because of me being a newbie will try another time to post it.
    Just saying who really knows what actual capability is.
    Aloha

    At the end of the day the energy of laser beams is low since it requires a material (e.g. crystal) to generate the population
    inversion and collimate the photons via reflection. Any flux that would evapourate this material defeats the purpose of the
    device. Teller's X-ray/gamma-ray laser from a nuclear explosion is the only real high energy design proposed. The best
    design for conventional lasers offered up so far that would allow higher energy density is lumping together a very large number of
    fiber optic lasers but the energy cost for this system is not low and neither is the weight. Boeing wants to deploy a 50 kW laser
    to shoot down aerial targets. The problem is that the target has to be basically within a line of sight radius (less than 100 km) and even lasers
    disperse with distance so that a 50 kW beam is less than 10 kW at reasonable distance and simple changes in the target paint
    can totally defeat the laser. The target is also moving fast and Boeing's wunderwaffe has to be able to focus on the same point
    on the target's surface for long enough to cause damage. The paint job does not even have to be perfect, it just needs to
    increase the damage time long enough to make the whole attack concept impractical.

    Shooting down missiles with lasers is sci-fi BS. Stick to missile interceptors and Gatling guns.

    rrob

    Posts : 38
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2017-10-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  rrob on Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:25 am

    B


    Last edited by rrob on Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:33 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1747
    Points : 1787
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:02 pm

    rrob wrote:So, you show everyone including potential enemies all your cards when you play poker? The phrase deliberate disinformation comes to mind here. Many a foe has fallen from grace because they believe they have all the aces. only to be surprised their opponent has a royal flush.  Do you not see the ramifications if you are wrong?  That's why people buy life insurance for the just in case.
    Sorry, web link is blocked because of me being a newbie will try another time to post it.
    Just saying who really knows what actual capability is.
    Aloha


    This is an advert video so I guess they'd show what this is capable of if it really were. /they showed Abrams fighting with export obsolete version of T-72 without problems. But never Abrams vs. AGTM Malutka Smile

    Same with simple question why Lasers are not going to replace AAD missiles if this is so cheap and good?


    Also I wonder why is no laser weaponry for combating ICMBs? LAnd based lasers could have been connected to power plants. But somehow thsi is nto even lanned.
    Now you have ask yourself why...

    rrob

    Posts : 38
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2017-10-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  rrob on Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:14 am

    T


    Last edited by rrob on Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:34 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:02 am

    Lasers have potential but for the moment they are an immature and expensive technology at a time when mature systems using missiles exist.

    Invest but don't put all your eggs in that basket.

    The fact that they are putting them on their aircraft carriers means very little actually... they don't usually give their carriers very heavy anti aircraft armament.... mostly just CIWS, which suggests these lasers are at about that stage...

    Laser technology has improved dramatically but still has serious weaknesses.

    During surgery a laser will penetrate the muscle outer wall of a human heart but does not penetrate blood. A procedure to help heart patients by increasing the internal volume of the heart involves directing a laser from the outside to the inside of the heart... the heart muscle is penetrated easily and the outer surface cauterises but the inner walls remain stretched open. The laser does not penetrate right through because the laser energy is used up heating the blood.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    rrob

    Posts : 38
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2017-10-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  rrob on Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:19 am

    Carriers have up to 4 CIWS, 2 Rim 116 launchers, and 2 Rim 162 ESSM missile launcher systems in addition to an entire battle group dedicated to it's survival in addition to the in question new laser system being deployed.  Not exactly defenseless but still leaves the question about the new system.
    Aloha
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 535
    Points : 531
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:22 am

    rrob wrote:The fact that the U.S. Navy is putting this system aboard the most complex and expensive warships in the world (Ford Class) should at the very least make others take pause and not be so dismissive that you cannot be wrong and have all the answers. Ask yourself would you risk a 15 billion dollar warship(not counting air wing) and 6000 men on a system that did not work when there are many fine SAM systems out there?   So just take moment and imagine if it does work, and all those billions spent on missiles and chemical propelled projectiles just goes right down the drain because of stubborn inflexible people but all their bets on one horse because they absolutely believed it was just not possible.  Prudence says to exercise caution here, as solutions do happen. Remember when it was thought unequivocably that the sound barrier could not be exceeded by any man mad aircraft? Again, not trying to praise America and put down Russia here, just trying to say that maybe some study, a little caution here, is in order.   As for me personally, I don't like when the scales are unbalanced, as that is the time when opportunistic adventurist war mongers tend to push the envelope and threaten the peace. Like most fathers, I would like a decent world for my children to live and enjoy life in and not hand them a legacy of war ruin, rubble, and a radioactive wasteland as my generation's legacy to them.  What about you?

    I think it is wrong logic.

    The normal CIV hasn't got significant chance against Granits, and anything faster than that will penetrate them.

    The only thing that can give at least same minimum level against very fast rockes is the laser.

    However the water vapour drastically restricting its effectiveness, and simple paint can make it as effective as a laser pointer.

    But they don't have any better ....
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 863
    Points : 881
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Big_Gazza on Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:35 am

    I don't see lasers as being much use against hypersonics as such weapons will have inherent heat-resistance due to the need to overcome friction heating, and the speed of attack makes both tracking of the missile and targeting of the beam very difficult. You need to concentrate the laser onto the incoming missile and keep it steady for long enough for the heat to burn thru the missiles ablative coatings. Can you do this effectively enough to kill a maneuvering kill vehicle before it closes in? Supersonic missiles would be easier to intercept, but fitting ablative coatings to missile nose and control surfaces remains an effective countermeasure.

    Additionally, a laser can only usefully engage a single target at any one time. Conceivably a weapon could include a beam splitter to feed multiple targeting mirrors, but only at the expense of diluting beam power, which kinda defeats the purpose.

    Finally, laser packages are heavy, weighing many dozens of tons, and require fuel tanks for the chemical consumables. They are likely only suitable for large vessels, and including them will result in a proportional reduction of conventional weapon inventory.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3255
    Points : 3378
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  kvs on Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:42 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:I don't see lasers as being much use against hypersonics as such weapons will have inherent heat-resistance due to the need to overcome friction heating, and the speed of attack makes both tracking of the missile and targeting of the beam very difficult.  You need to concentrate the laser onto the incoming missile and keep it steady for long enough for the heat to burn thru the missiles ablative coatings.  Can you do this effectively enough to kill a maneuvering kill vehicle before it closes in?   Supersonic missiles would be easier to intercept, but fitting ablative coatings to missile nose and control surfaces remains an effective countermeasure.

    Additionally, a laser can only usefully engage a single target at any one time.  Conceivably a weapon could include a beam splitter to feed multiple targeting mirrors, but only at the expense of diluting beam power, which kinda defeats the purpose.

    Finally, laser packages are heavy, weighing many dozens of tons, and require fuel tanks for the chemical consumables.  They are likely only suitable for large vessels, and including them will result in a proportional reduction of conventional weapon inventory.

    It appears that chemical laser systems have been abandoned in favour of clumped fiber lasers since they are lighter and less messy. But
    there is no free lunch, and they need hard core electrical power. Basically a large power laser requires its own power plant. I guess ships
    could equip and additional nuclear reactor (which would help operating rail guns as well).

    Maneuverable missiles are superior to lasers and rail guns.

    rrob

    Posts : 38
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2017-10-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  rrob on Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:30 am

    Na


    Last edited by rrob on Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:34 am; edited 1 time in total

    Azi

    Posts : 168
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Azi on Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:39 am

    Hi rrob

    First of all...I'm not Russian. I'm half German and half Serbian. So I'm not pro-russian from origin! And by the way, my english is not the best Wink

    I'm scientist (chemist), so I know a bit about Lasers and all the future stuff Wink

    The Lasers shown on US-Navy ships are not that bad. They have a few advantages and also disadvantages. First of all the advantages...

    The adavantage of Lasersystems is the high level of precision. One example was shown in the video posted by Papa Dragon! It's possible to take out a speed boat without destroying it or damaging it too much. This is simply impossible with projectile weapons or missiles! A salvo or projectiles will make simply swiss cheese of the target.

    The disadvantges are...the System is limited to weather conditions. Most "weapon lasers" works in infrared spectra, because the dependance on good wheather condition is reduced, but thick fog means the laser is useless! This is a physical restriction to the used wavelengths. The laser simply works in visible light spectra to infrared and only a small percentage of the light is converted into heat, so the surface of the target is important. With the right surface it's possible to reflect nearly all of the incoming light.
    Second disadvantages is the restriction to the line of sight, where missiles can be used to far greater ranges.
    Third big disadvantage is the need of big capacitors. Yes, the nuclear core of a Ford class ship produce enough power, but you need high voltage in short time and what's why big capacitors are needed. So the consumption of space onboard the ship is massive.

    Why lasers? The system is not bad at all, but it's not a mature technology. Now we come to the difference between russian weapons und US-systems. In Russia the armament corporations are held by the country itself, in USA the PRIVATE companies need to sell the stuff to make profit. So in USA the companies need innovations to sell, to make advertisment and laser systems simply sounds good. Most politicians simply know nothing about the technology and about military! Russia is limited to effectiveness, so will not see star trek technology in russian army, but technology that works and is CHEAP!

    Don't forget rrob tat the laser systems was introduced in the time of asymmetric conflicts and the example of taking out speed boats without killing the crew! The system don't work for missiles and for fighters or bombers! In a asymmetric conflict they work well, but in a symmetric conflict with a opponent on same level they will simply not work. How should this Laser system work against a salvo of 12 Kalibr missiles incoming with supersonic speed? If the missiles are in line of sight the laser system is not able to take all. And I doubt it's possible to take out simply one missile (personal opinion). So US-forces should better focus on mature and effective technology.

    Kinetic systems are still better than any laser system will ever be! The degree of energy that can be effective used is a few times higher than for any energy weapons and no restriction to wheather.


    Last edited by Azi on Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:42 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:34 am

    Front on a granit is a 7 ton lump of metal with a radar in the nose and a titanium armour plate behind that protects the warhead.

    The easiest way to shoot down a missile is to detonate its warhead... that is why Russian and soviet CIWS cannon use 30mm HE rounds intended to detonate the warhead of the incoming threat. The 20mm phalanx uses subcalibre 12.7mm DU penetrators to damage the structure of an incoming target.

    Even if you blow the wings off a Granit it will continue forward for quite some distance because of momentum.

    Case in point look at Ominous Squids signature picture to see what happens to a supersonic missile when it hits the front of a ship... note the bits exiting the rear and other end of the ship seconds later?

    A laser directed at a Granit would melt the nosecone and melt through the radar but I doubt it would penetrate the titanium shield there to deflect Phalanx rounds in time to stop the missile from hitting the ship.

    During tests a MiG-31 has shop down a Granit but it took two R-33s to do it.... what would be the kinetic force of a mach 4 missile with a 50kg HE warhead hitting a Granit... and why would that not be enough and require another hit?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 863
    Points : 881
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Big_Gazza on Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:32 pm

    Azi wrote:The adavantage of Lasersystems is the high level of precision. One example was shown in the video posted by Papa Dragon! It's possible to take out a speed boat without destroying it or damaging it too much. This is simply impossible with projectile weapons or missiles! A salvo or projectiles will make simply swiss cheese of the target

    Not sure why anyone would want such a weapon?  Why does the USN think it needs to disable speed boats without sinking them?  Surely if the target is hostile, efficiently turning it into scrap metal resting on the seabed is the desired outcome?

    As for "precision", you are partly correct that lasers are precise, but only from the point of view that they will go where their targeting optics direct them.  The thing to consider is that no targeting system requiring the ultra-accurate positioning of a mirror (within fractions of seconds of arc - see below*) will ever be 100% accurate, and movements of vessel and calibration drift will invariably introduce error.  Rapid-fire projectile weapons will have a spread that allows chance for a hit even if targeting is sub-optimal, but a laser cannot do this. Beam dispersion at distance isn't an effective equivalent as it results in reduced beam power density on the target.

    * As an example, at a range of 10km, an error of just 0.36 arc-seconds in mirror angular position will result in the beam missing the target by 1.0m. To put this in perspective, that's less that 1/5000 of the apparent angular size of the moon. To complicate matters, the mirror position needs to be controlled in 2 dimensions, so errors compound.  Now add the fact that ships are not a stationary platform but are of course subject to hull movements, especially in heavy weather. Finally,  a missile travelling at M5 (1715 m/s) will cover that 10km in just 5.9 seconds.  Given the minuscule engagement time available, its not practical to hold off the shot until it gets closer (to lessen the targeting issues) as the beam needs time to achieve burn-through.

    Now, hands up all those that think that a practical weapon system can be built to harness a multi-MW laser beam, and direct it accurately enough to heat an incoming hypersonic missile (defeating its intrinsic thermal protection) to the point of destruction within 6 seconds or so, and to do so in all weather conditions and sea states on anything less than a 100,000T hull with a 100MW class power supply system?  ....    scratch

    (note - the above does not consider the issues involved in tracking an incoming hypersonic vehicle with sufficient accuracy and computing speed to provide a PRECISE targeting solution for a line-of-sight defense system. Yet another complexity to consider...)
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 535
    Points : 531
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:17 pm

    rrob wrote:Not trying to pick a fight here but only pose a question to all that strange things like hypersonic missiles and supersonic drones were once thought to be only "Buck Rogers" stuff with no basis for reality.  One final thought, a Ford Class Aircraft Carrier can safely generate 700 megawatts plus of continuous power no sweat. Imagine an extra large energy storage device continuously charged by such a power source like this and able to discharge it at will that might be able to give multiple burst of say 3 gigawatts of power?  Might that fact not make you pause and at least consider that there might be something to this system that might be different and work in areas and exceed parameters not previously considered possible just like the once Buck Rogers flying missiles systems are now a reality today.  I seem to remember a well known atomic scientist once saying: "The hard part is doing it the first time, the second time is childsplay because the impossible has now been shown to be possible".
    Aloha

    The ford reactors has 700 MW THERMAL capacity (together) , and the ship can generate from it 160 MW ELECTRICAL power (with four generator.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 535
    Points : 531
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:Front on a granit is a 7 ton lump of metal with a radar in the nose and a titanium armour plate behind that protects the warhead.

    The easiest way to shoot down a missile is to detonate its warhead... that is why Russian and soviet CIWS cannon use 30mm HE rounds intended to detonate the warhead of the incoming threat. The 20mm phalanx uses subcalibre 12.7mm DU penetrators to damage the structure of an incoming target.

    Even if you blow the wings off a Granit it will continue forward for quite some distance because of momentum.

    Case in point look at Ominous Squids signature picture to see what happens to a supersonic missile when it hits the front of a ship... note the bits exiting the rear and other end of the ship seconds later?

    A laser directed at a Granit would melt the nosecone and melt through the radar but I doubt it would penetrate the titanium shield there to deflect Phalanx rounds in time to stop the missile from hitting the ship.

    During tests a MiG-31 has shop down a Granit but it took two R-33s to do it.... what would be the kinetic force of a mach 4 missile with a 50kg HE warhead hitting a Granit... and why would that not be enough and require another hit?

    I don't think that the granit posses titanium armour.

    It was in the same picture that said it has turbine engine.

    rrob

    Posts : 38
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2017-10-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  rrob on Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:44 pm

    A.


    Last edited by rrob on Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:35 am; edited 1 time in total

    Teshub

    Posts : 40
    Points : 43
    Join date : 2015-02-16

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Teshub on Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:50 am

    rrob wrote:Appreciate the intelligent and to the point replies and well thought of and expressed opinions. Also the lack of sarcasm and namecalling, thanks to all.  We learn as we go. Sure seems like a long way to go to put an expensive laser system on a carrier when a couple of cheap 40 mm rofors or a few penguins or harpoons would obliterate any speedboat for a lot less trouble.
    I was going to put together a comprehensive post as to why lasers are currently sub-standard defences (and a rather wasteful investment in consideration of current hardware and tactics), but between them Azi, Garry and Big Gazza have covered all the bases. Except that there's a few more liabilities in terms of:

    1) waste heat generated (lasers are not that energy efficient) which you either radiate to air, making your vessel glow like a bonfire of flares to infrared targeting systems, or you can dump into the sea via the hull, generating your own fog cloud with its own problems, especially if the vapour reduces the transmission of your own beam.

    2) Large numbers of capacitors & batteries. Whilst replacing bunkers of explosive munitions is one of the stated advantages of a laser system, the mass of power storage and rapid dumping electronics required by high power lasers is just as risky and may actually take up a larger proportion of the ship. If a capacitor or battery bank is damaged, the entire system turns into a conflagration risk of epic proportions, probably soft-killing the vessel via slagging and toxic smoke rather than an explosive chain reaction.

    Azi

    Posts : 168
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Azi on Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:28 am

    I wrote not that Laser Systems are complete bullshit! They will have maybe their time, when capacitors becomes smaller and much more effective!? So in future it's possible that Laser Systems are small and light, better than carrying tons of ammo. We speak here about 50 or 100 years. But today there is nothing more effective than pure kinetic power!

    The Laser System on US Navy ships is a bit show of force and show of technological superiority. I see nothing more, because if bad weather disables your defense system...the system is simply not for war! A good mature system MUST work under all conditions...bad weather, burning ship, EMP and whatever.

    But on other side it's not bad that US Navy test the systems to receive more information for future systems. A system can't be mature if it's not tested under real conditions outside. In Laser Weapons USA is leading at moment.

    The funny thing...Russia is also going for "Buck Rogers" stuff, like rrob called it. But the concept is different. The systems work in microwave and radar spectra and are intended to damage sensors with huge amount of energy. This is similar to normal jamming, but with much more and directed energy. It's possible to have a short circuit like an EMP on target hardware. One example and not the most sophisticated is Krasukha-4. Russia tries to minimize the system and to maximize the output, so that the systems can be carried by aircraft. It's still a long way to reduce the size of systems, but the pace is good. In EW equiptment Russia is leading. In some way it's similar to US laser technology, microwave lasers are called masers by the way Very Happy Sounds really sexy for future Wink

    Russia, Russia, Russia...and Russia again! I know! I know! But it's the "RUSSIAN DEFENCE FORUM"! russia cheers What did you expected rrob? lol!

    We know that some US Systems are very good and some are superior to every system worldwide. What we don't like is typical western stereotpe and bashing, like "everything from Russia is crap"! So some here arguing the same way towards USA, knowing that's not fair. But you will get here normally a fair discussion. I wrote this about Laser Systems not because it's a US System, i wrote this because I think the technology is not mature now. Even if the Laser would be a Russian system it would be not mature. That's it!

    Azi

    Posts : 168
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Azi on Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:14 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:Not sure why anyone would want such a weapon?  Why does the USN think it needs to disable speed boats without sinking them?  Surely if the target is hostile, efficiently turning it into scrap metal resting on the seabed is the desired outcome?

    As for "precision", you are partly correct that lasers are precise, but only from the point of view that they will go where their targeting optics direct them.  The thing to consider is that no targeting system requiring the ultra-accurate positioning of a mirror (within fractions of seconds of arc - see below*) will ever be 100% accurate, and movements of vessel and calibration drift will invariably introduce error.  Rapid-fire projectile weapons will have a spread that allows chance for a hit even if targeting is sub-optimal, but a laser cannot do this. Beam dispersion at distance isn't an effective equivalent as it results in reduced beam power density on the target.
    Other question...why not? lol!

    Ok, ok...I would simply destroy a hostile speed boat! Why talking to them if they try to kill you?

    With second passage you are right! And there is nothing more to write about it! Targeting optic is A and O.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1747
    Points : 1787
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:30 am

    Azi wrote:I wrote not that Laser Systems are complete bullshit! They will have maybe their time, when capacitors becomes smaller and much more effective!? So in future it's possible that Laser Systems are small and light, better than carrying tons of ammo. We speak here about 50 or 100 years. But today there is nothing more effective than pure kinetic power!

    The Laser System on US Navy ships is a bit show of force and show of technological superiority. I see nothing more, because if bad weather disables your defense system...the system is simply not for war! A good mature system MUST work under all conditions...bad weather, burning ship, EMP and whatever.

    But on other side it's not bad that US Navy test the systems to receive more information for future systems. A system can't be mature if it's not tested under real conditions outside. In Laser Weapons USA is leading at moment.

    I second that.   IMHO this is like Technology readiness levels (TRL)  7 and they try to test-modify-prove more as tech demonstrator than product.  As for guns to I am pretty confident that missiles and artillery, inclusive 76mm will be pretty effective in foreseeable future.  120 rounds per second and hundreds of tungsten balls in each creates simply a wall of tungsten where even maneuvering missile has to be hit.  The faster it flies the harder it gets...


    As for lasers - since you cannot modify physical property of laser beam then other way is to increase energy right? with particle rays you can transmit more energy than with ligh tif I am correct.


    Azi wrote:

    The funny thing...Russia is also going for "Buck Rogers" stuff, like rrob called it. But the concept is different. The systems work in microwave and radar spectra and are intended to damage sensors with huge amount of energy. This is similar to normal jamming, but with much more and directed energy. It's possible to have a short circuit like an EMP on target hardware. One example and not the most sophisticated is Krasukha-4. Russia tries to minimize the system and to maximize the output, so that the systems can be carried by aircraft. It's still a long way to reduce the size of systems, but the pace is good. In EW equiptment Russia is leading. In some way it's similar to US laser technology, microwave lasers are called masers by the way Very Happy Sounds really sexy for future Wink

    Like you heard very recent gen Bondaryev interview Smile





    rrob wrote:Appreciate the intelligent and to the point replies and well thought of and expressed opinions. Also the lack of sarcasm and namecalling, thanks to all.  We learn as we go. Sure seems like a long way to go to put an expensive laser system on a carrier when a couple of cheap 40 mm bofors or a few penguins or harpoons would obliterate any speedboat for a lot less trouble.

    As above mentioned. Technology must mature first. Besides propaganda dimension is also important. We are most advanced and invulnerable. For a nation run by warmongers with brain tumors where some folks still believe in Marvel heroes there must be some showcases. Even if no Samule L. Jackson is on this ship Smile

    rrob

    Posts : 38
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2017-10-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  rrob on Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:34 am

    h)


    Last edited by rrob on Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:36 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 965
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:07 pm

    rrob wrote:Yea, yea, all Americans are warmongers, selfish, conniving always stealing filthy pigs, etc. yada yada.  Tell me, any B52s buzz your west coast neighborhood lately? Lots of nuclear fallout where you live?  Perhaps you would not hate the US so much if you lived here in highly desired tropical paradise and had a fabulous 7 figure home sitting of 5 private acres with 8 figure assets all your children professionals with 6 and 7 figure incomes, a 51-foot fishing boat parked in a private slip in Kona 6 cars, jet skis, atvs, 4 horses travel where and when for as long as you want etc. etc. you might be singing God bless America too! Just how you look at things from where you standing I guess.
    Aloha No

    Most of americans are poor actually and those who are not poor will spend most of their live pay their universities because they invest billions in stupid american football. No other contry wants your system. Those who have adopted your system where those who you invaded ...

    And no one is believing in the American dream anymore hahahaha you can keep your boats and your villas, we will keep our dignity.

    rrob

    Posts : 38
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2017-10-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  rrob on Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:25 pm

    M


    Last edited by rrob on Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:36 am; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:32 am