This is propaganda. Really this is to “protect” from skiffs and small arms fire? This is about killing anyone who opposses US power. We are the Rogue Nation.
I was wondering if ‘single kamikaze raft’ and ‘tiny RC plane’ were actual real world threats the regular weapons couldn’t handle very well, or just handy smallish targets to show the thing works. Talk about David and Goliath.
All I’m saying is if they gave me, say, six days and 20k of those sweet taxpayer dollars (0.05% of the budget) I’d gladly and personally shoot and edit a nicer video. With a guaranteed 100% less cheesy soundtrack. I’m not even joking.
1 Like
Well yeah, I know that, I listened to dubstep for a while.
Given the (comparatively trivial) energy levels at which the delicate-and-poorly-vascularized retina gives up and dies, I’d stay the hell away from the business end of a much weaker laser than that one. Even a few watts can ruin your day if the cards fall wrong. At 30Kw, I’d be wearing serious eye protection just out of concern for scattered reflections.
As for the Phalanx, it certainly appears to be the real-world implementation of my hypothetical benchmark(though, that said, the fact that the Phalanx is based on the rather-scarier-than-the-M2 M61 Vulcan suggests that, even with contemporary fire control, an M2 isn’t considered to cut it. The M2 uses a ~50g projectile at ~900m/s, while the M61 has a muzzle velocity north of 1,000m/s, and a 100+g projectile with either an explosive or incendiary charge, in addition to an alarmingly high peak rate of fire. That’s not messing around.
Of course, if that’s the state of the guns that people now want to replace, I’m even less convinced that a laser of currently-achievable power is going to cut it. In (wildly rough) numbers, .50BMG is supposed to be good for ~20,000 joules. If a joule is a watt*second, a 30Kw laser achieving perfect efficiency will need to focus on the target for ~2/3 of a second to impart the same energy as a single bullet, and contemporary defensive cannons don’t…exactly…linger that long between shots, as well as using rather punchier ammunition(and Phalanx is on the small side, 25, 30, and even 35mm cannons are not uncommon).
I can understand the appeal of using something as delightfully speedy and aimable as photons; but you need a pretty terrifyingly heroic laser to reach the power levels of thoroughly prosaic guns.
3 Likes
“Asymmetrical warfare is a type of strategy used to exploit an opponents weaknesses.” What? You mean that the third world country with no air force or modern weapons, or communications systems, or, you know, food, that you invade chooses this poverty as a strategy to exploit the Hyperpower’s weakness?
Puh-leeeze.
No word on when it will be available in GooglePlay or the AppStore
Thank god the US of A only attacks enemies it’s own size.
I know, right?
If that is the only effective strategy one is able to front, choosing it sounds like a good idea.
USS Ponce? Is there also a ship called the Poofter or Nance?
1 Like
Except pulsed. Pew pew pew. Otherwise just ain’t feelin’ it.
2 Likes
1 Like
No. I don’t think your example is what he meant, at all. I also think that’s a strawman, but that’s beside the point.
I think he meant, give or take, that one is a strategy, the other is a tactic. Guerilla warfare is a style of asymmetric warfare.
You can conflate them as identical if you wish to, but the only outcome will be misinforming others and/or sounding ignorant. Your call.
1 Like
Seems that this is best used on boats that have a nicely placed boiler or other explosive object placed on the deck that this laser can heat to the point of bursting.
But that is what asymmetric warfare is: an attack on the weak. It is not a strategy on the part of the victim but rather an imposition on the weak. Guerrilla warfare is a tactic that may be used by anyone, even the hegemon.
And you are the one mistaking strategy, tactic, and quite simply what the word choice mean.
excellent analyses.
I really don’t think the kinetic weapons and the LaWs are meant for the same threats at this time.
However, just to play devil’s advocate, let’s consider one crucial advantage of the LaWs: logistics.
I don’t know how fast the LaWs heats and cools, so I have to make up some numbers. Let’s assume a 5 sec 30 kw pulse that 10% efficient is required for one “light” target. Thats 30kw/sec * 5 sec * 0.1 = 1.5 MJ per target. In very, very rough terms, a gallon of diesel fuel has 100 MJ. Thus, I can reload the LaWs and go after another 100 light targets by adding single gallon of diesel to fuel tank. (so long as I keep the LaWS from overheating, which is the kicker).
Now, let’s use your preferred solutions. The CIWS fires in bursts of 60 or 100 rounds, and has about 1000 rounds in the magazine.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm
So CIWS is good for about 10 “light” targets. But what if the attacker goes to 11? The LaWs just keeps pulsing away; while your mighty CIWS is just so much hot metal until a crew does the tricky operation of reloading a hot gun while under attack.
The LaWs has an even bigger advantage. As you know, loading and carrying ammunition on a ship is tricky business that takes crew, time, and precious cargo space. The LaWs has none of this. You “load” it with Diesel.
See where I am going with this? If I need to stop a single generic target, and I am willing to authorize lethal force, yeah, the M62 is way better. No question.
But the LaWs gives me a really cheap option in two senses. First I can fire the LaWs all week long and not worry about logistics. Second, the LaWs gives me a less-than-absolutely lethal tool for dealing with, say, Somali “fisherman” that are closing quickly. Try using the M62 in that scenario without killing anybody.
Also, this is a first-gen weapon. It’s going to get better. Given the huge logistical advantage, you can see why the Navy wants to give this thing a try.
2 Likes
Digging the deeper-thinking and all, but this part confused me. How can a person-melting, boat-exploding weapon not be lethal in this scenario?
Fair question.
I don’t know if this would actually work in practice, but the claim is that this can selectively heat small portion of the boat – say the intake manifold for the engine – until that part become dysfunctional, without puncturing the hull or a human. Trying to do the same with a “kinetic” weapon (ie bullets) would have metal fragments ricocheting every where.
To go full-on science fiction, imagine that the LaWS could be tuned to heat metal but not flesh. In that fanciful scenario, you could make a gun “to hot to handle” with actually putting a bullet through anyone.
In terms of how this works, don’t think of Star War’s laser blaster. Think “military grade hair dryer.” The LaWs can make specific bits of things very, very hot. If you do this to a fuel tank, you start a fire. If you do this to the nose cone of a missile, that nose cone will soften until air resistance deforms the missile, rendering it useless. If you do this to a metal box with pork and pineapple inside, you’ve got a luau.
5 Likes
