digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at blog.wired.com

Navy Has Five-Year Plan to Build Laser Blasters

blog.wired.com — Long range laser weapons that do more than make little red dots show up on distant objects have long been a dream of science fiction creators and the military alike. Now it looks like a true, long-range laser blasting weapon may be ready for action within the next five years.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • scififan9009, on 03/28/2008, -1/+41"...long-range laser blasting weapon may be ready for action within the next five years."
    Translation: they are probably already ready, and are still classified.
    • greenvalleydigg, on 03/28/2008, -8/+2Your right. They have been working on laser weapon technology for several years.
    • bosssmiley, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3They've been promising this "ready in 5 years" guff since the '70s. Perpetually receding target date is fail.
    • moxley, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5There have been various laser, maser, and directed energy weapons operational since the late 80s at least, some earlier.

      What this likely means is that they want to be able to work with and use them in less secretive and confidential settings.

      In reality our military would NEVER say: "oh yeah, we've started working on these secret laser weapons, and they'll be done in five years." - If that were accurate it would be the stupidest thing in the world to tell the world. As the parent post pointed out, you say that kind of ***** AFTER you have the tech and know exactly what you're going to do with it.
    • DrDragun, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1If I remember correctly, they are already using MTHEL laser batteries to shoot down artillery shells and rockets. The challenge of a laser is that you must hold the laser on the target for a couple of seconds to heat it up and destroy it.

      This leads to 2 major problems: how to supply battery power on anything smaller than a battleship, and also how to track a moving target several miles away. Bear in mind your laser must be accurate to within better than 0.003 DEGREES angular if you want to track a 6-inch artillery shell at 2 miles away. And you have to hold that laser on the artillery shell for a couple of seconds as it follows a ballistic trajectory.
    • godplaysdnd, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8Until this battle station is fully operational, we are vulnerable. The Rebel Alliance is too well equipped, they're more dangerous than you realize.
      • MacEnvy, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6Dangerous to your starfleet, Commander; not to this battle station.
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Like we can afford this right now, and/or need it.
  • SilentStrider, on 03/28/2008, -5/+5The Navy gets all the cool toys.
  • snareguy17, on 03/28/2008, -5/+33Where's the sharks with the frickin laser beams attached to their heads?
    • RoboRay, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7They're kept loaded into the torpedo tubes on submarines.
    • Myztry, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3They could at least go with the inherent theme and make the submarines look like sharks.
      (A picture of George Bush with a shaved head and a pinkie in the corner of his mouth would go well here...)
    • godplaysdnd, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1actually we have terriorist killing dolphins and sealions
  • elitistmusician, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Well, first I plan to leverage our synergies toward diversifying markets, then restructure by year four and finish it off with some lasers.
    And that's my five year plan - after that it's anyone's guess.
    • moxley, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1So what you're basically saying is:

      1. Laser(s)
      2. ???
      3. PROFIT!!!!
  • meachen, on 03/28/2008, -10/+8***** yeah.....can burn a terrorists head off at 10 miles
    • BossKey, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9Wrong road to go down...we've already had way more, better weapons that the terrorists, but all they have to do is use simpler weapons and suddenly we have 9/11 and troop deaths.
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3You're right, but I dugg you down for being a party pooper.

        (OK, not really)
    • moxley, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3Yeah, that is especially cool when the definition of terrorist changes with these new laws and YOU are considered the terrorist for taking part in some boycott or demonstration.
  • reekon, on 03/28/2008, -4/+10Can it be set to stun?
    • Oppslagsverk, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Well they have to if we are to shoot princesses. Leias especially.
    • Aensland, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7Don't beam me, bro!
      • WALRUSJAMES, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1yeah i lol'd hard
        • NRay7882, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2pew pew pew! Seriously though, does the navy even need lasers? What's wrong with cannons, sea-to-land/air missiles, and Vulcan cannons. And SUBMARINES! Bunch of greedy bastards.
          • Oppslagsverk, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2The navy needs to upgrade to lasers because it's cool. Also they need to get going if we want to get to Star Wars time:D
    • dualscreenman, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5"Don't lase me, bro!"
      Fix'd.
    • blast_flame, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1No. Only lightly toasted and well done.
  • RazorUK45, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2beats using trained dolphins to swim up to enemy ships and plant explosives on them.
    • craighoxton, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6They're training people from Bangalore to do that job now as they're cheaper
    • lamiaconfitor, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6It totally doesn't.
  • Shadowgamers, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Gauss Lasers :V Soon a satellite will be able to shoot a concentrated beam to earth and the Mid'East will meet a man named Kane...
    • craighoxton, on 03/28/2008, -0/+10But according to the James Bond movies, the space laser satellite must be covered in diamonds
      • Aensland, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Or in the shape of a huge phallus, if we go by Austin Powers.
        • craighoxton, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3"I will call it The Alan Parsons Project!"
      • lamiaconfitor, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1or both!
  • CTK14A, on 03/28/2008, -7/+1.
  • jjive, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4The "Village People" will never be the same again.
    • LogicBomB, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3What you talking about? Now they can have the laser-light show ON the boat.
  • Regulator980, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Here's the video of a military-grade laser defense weapon. It can shoot down missles and even artillery shells from the sky with a very intense infrared laser.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmI6UnR4gg
    • lamiaconfitor, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1rick rolld? oh, no. it actually is what you said it is. damn :(
    • Myztry, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Interesting weapon. Using infra-red energy to explode projectiles is almost environmentally friendly.
      It has morally scary implementations as higher wave energy could be used to cook/kill pilots of planes and vehicles without damaging hardware. The worst kind of war would be where the score tokens (SEE: soldiers) just fall over dead for no apparent reason.
      • thrallie, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2who gives a ***** about the environment when this will be primarily used if nuclear weapons are used against us? I would gladly give the earth some pollution from a missile instead of all the pollution caused by a nuke.
        • Myztry, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1I was under the impression it was purposed for any projectile on a best (only) tool for the job basis. Thanks to narrowing it down to one scenario for me...
          As for being environmentally clean, wouldn't it be wonderful if all weapons could be replaced with energy weapons. There'd be no infrastructural damage, and war would be sustainable forever.
          In one Star Trek episode, a planetary race become so devastated by infrastructure damage, they decided to run the war as a simulation, and require the allocated casualties to report to the termination rooms.
          This went on for centuries, until The Enterprise was deemed destroyed but the crew refused to be terminated and restarted the physical war. Soon after the war ceased, as it proved too expensive to maintain.
  • firemansamuk, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2This may sound silly and stupid but do you think they could create a mirror effect that would just mirror the laser been back to who ever shot it?
    • hollyminkowski, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3http://www.atpturbo.com/Merchant2/graphics/0000000 ...
      • roosterjm2k2, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1It worked for Barf in "Spaceballs" ... so why not?
    • Zekarus, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3 It's possible to create a surface that'll reflect the EM wave produced by the laser [roughly speaking], whether it be visible light, IR, UV, X-Ray, etc. etc.

      It's all theoretical and will depend on other factors, such as humidity, dust particles and other interferences, as well as "strength" of the laser and perfection of the surface, to name a few.

      That's what I speculate anyway. I'm a medical scientist, not a physicist.
      • enicholas, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3No, it really isn't. Ordinary mirrors don't reflect enough light to be useful for high-power lasers -- you have to use special, super-expensive mirrors made by depositing many layers of precise thickness, and these mirrors are tuned for specifically the wavelength of laser light you're trying to reflect.

        The problem is that if you're not reflecting enough light, the absorbed light becomes heat. Increasing the heat rapidly reduces the mirror's ability to reflect light (red-hot mirrors don't work so well), which increases the rate at which the mirror heats, which means you quickly have a vaporized mirror.

        And that's for a perfectly clean mirror. If you've got, say, a few specks of dust on it -- well, those specks of dust will absorb most of the light striking them, and melt far faster than the surrounding clean mirror. So now you've got little bits of molten rock on the mirror, and each such spot isn't reflecting a useful amount of light and is consequently heating up far faster than you had hoped. The spots transfer heat into the surrounding mirror, causing circular blooms of melted mirror. These circles rapidly increase in size and the whole mirror melts.

        So basically a shiny missile might last a couple of seconds longer than a non-reflective one.
        • Zekarus, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I never said ordinary mirrors. I mentioned nondescript "surface". He also mentioned "mirror-effect", not a "mirror". It can be anything from ceramic to actually being metallic. Defense-wise, I also can imagine some sort of cooling to prevent [or reduce the rate of] melting as well.

          Ah, bear with me. My use of terminology probably wasn't that clear to begin with. Good thing I'm not an actual physicist, eh?
    • lurkndog, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1No, not really. You can't reflect a high-powered laser with a normal mirror, it would just burn right through. Plus, dust or dirt or oil on the mirror's surface would also prevent it from reflecting. Moisture might even stop it from working.
  • Hinph, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3So it is possible that I will be killed someday by a laser blaster? That's pretty exciting.
    • moxley, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Yeah,. you'll be kickin it in that cantina listening to Max Rebo and all of the sudden:

      ...no blasters...NO BLASTERS!!!
    • Galume, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Actually, you can be killed by today's lasers....it just takes a really really long time and is much more painful...
  • 18Zulukiller, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Dam first rail guns now lasers.
  • jon26l, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4Why is this needed?
    • codewater, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2Exactly my thought... Please explain why we humans need yet another way of killing each other? Sick. Just sick.
      • JointVenture, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3There are bad people in the world.

        You sound like the type of person who bitches about cops and then boo hooo hoooos when they cant find the guy who rapped your daughter.
        • Shadowgamers, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I'd sure complain about those Rappers too V:
        • codewater, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Yes. The people producing weapons. On both sides of the fence.
          My daughter? What a cheap trick to make people get behind your foolish beliefs about guns, well two can play that game: "You sound like the kind of person who likes guns until someone uses them to rape your daughter under gunpoint and then blow her brains out". Or rapp her maybe? Americans and your guns... *phew*
    • waspbr, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1There two ways you can see this
      1- this is going to cost more money to what is already the most expensive armed forces in the world, it is doubtful that it is going to cos only 160 million, it is not unusual that armed forces project get waaaaay over budget, it could be said that in the midst of a recession this is probably not the best time to go on spending on "frivolous" tech.

      2 - provided the technology is developed, it can be sold to allies in order to create revenue, although this is a gamble since the US is probably not the only one developing this. Another point is that the new weaponry may give the navy an edge over other countries in naval warfare.



    • Hinph, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Style points, of course. Pew Pew is a much cooler way of killing somebody than bang bang.
    • Chirp08, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1yeah your saying that NOW, but when the Covenant gets here...
    • bigtmac68, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2There is a very pressing need for this kind of weapon. Anti-Missile Defense. The greatest threat to any Naval Surface Task Force is anti ship cruise missiles. These weapons are cheap and readilly available and although the current ‘anti missile-missile’ based defense systems are very effective, they can be overwealmed or circumvented.

      A laser based defense system would be several orders of magnitude more effective and would allow a surface ship to defend coastal areas against balistic nuclear missle attacks as well.

      These are not needed to destroy other ships or land based targets, and current weapons platforms can already do this far better anyway. As a defensive weapon system however, a particle beam laser defense array really is the holy grail.
    • stix213, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1The use of a laser weapon would eliminate the need to manufacture projectiles or missiles to do what the laser will do. I'd expect that the intended platforms would be nuclear powered naval vessels, who already have a very inexpensive supply of electricity, without a need for constant refueling.

      So, replacing projectile & missile weapon systems with a laser system can provide the following theoretical cost reductions:
      1) Eliminate the need for the military to constantly purchase replacement ammo (surface to air missiles are pretty expensive)
      2) Reduce costs associated with resupplying ships equipped with this system, by not needing to transport ammo. (various resupply ships, shipments via air to coastal bases, etc)

      In addition to cost savings, the laser weapon will be impervious to techniques currently used to defeat various missile guidance systems, such as GPS navigation jamming, flares to defeat heat seekers, and good old patriot missile style surface to air missiles.

      Also, in the event of a large scale war with a foe such as China or Russia, we should expect that much of our satellite based missile guidance capability (GPS, etc) would be destroyed early in the conflict. China has already demonstrated this capability. There is a need to have an effective weapon system that doesn't rely on satellite navigation to stay a step ahead of China and other nations to deter them from ever starting a large scale conflict.
  • joshf52, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Why not equip them on some sharks' heads?
    • Etchii, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1My cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done...
  • SuperVepr308, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Pretty cool ***** but it sucks there is no recoil. Recoil is what makes firing a weapon fun.
  • x00x, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Science fiction has time and again proven itself the incubator of innovation and invention.
  • shitdisturber, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1This is already in the works. it is called MHETL Mobile High Energy Tactical Laser. Developed by the Israeli Military and US firms. It has shot down 100% of Katushka rockets as well as 100% of Howitzer rounds. Ship mounted, aircraft and mobile land use are also a done deal. Look it up. It's there.
  • jimbruno, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0Tom Clancy = Nostradamus?
  • rjc1187, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3I hate to be all hippie about this, but we should not be excited about new ways to kill each other. I mean yeah, sometimes peace is accomplished by war, but new technologies like this is securing our self annihilation from this planet. honestly, i think we have enough weapons on this earth(nuclear bombs), why make more? every country should come together and prepare for the real enemy of mankind, meteors! its only a matter of time before one comes our way.
    • xarno, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0And why can't they use lasers to destroy meteorites? Also, this only insures our safety in case our enemies develop better weapons than us.
      • rjc1187, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2"And why can't they use lasers to destroy meteorites?" Valid point. "this only insures our safety in case our enemies develop better weapons than us.", this is the wrong attitude to be taking. The US has to take the initiative to stop this arms race. In the 40's it was nuclear weapons, now it's laser weapons being invented. Eventually they are going to make a weapon so crazy it could wipe out humanity in one fatal swoop. We need to come to an agreement to end this madness. We need to make peace not more weapons.
        • xarno, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Yea you have a good point as well, but another question is do you believe that if we didn't develop it, it wouldn't be developed at all?
        • rjc1187, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1"do you believe that if we didn't develop it, it wouldn't be developed at all?" Difficult to say. In a perfect world where all armed governments corporate and work together to lay down arms, there will be some variables to the equation of peace. For example Al Quieda could probably get the private financing and research to develop some nasty weapons. Government crackdown, and the lack of scientists would definitely slow down their development of arms, but not entirely. For the most part, they wouldn't be developing things that a superpower country could. Rogue governments could also be problematic but can be solved with trade barriers. The bottom line is however, if all countries become allies and lay down their weapons there will be no incentive to develop new weapons.
        • bigtmac68, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I think you are missing the point of these particular systems. They really are not intended to kill but to defend. The only useful purpose for a laser is to shoot down incoming artillery, rockets and missles.
          Functional laser defense systems on ships and on land coud save any number of civillian lives. Civillians are usually the ones who suffer the most from artillery attacks, and if you can simply nullify them in the air then that danger is removed.
          Far more important is that once these systems become in common use, the threat of global thermonuclear war will be a thing of the past entirely. The ICBM will become as obsolete at that point as the catapult.

          I think that making nuclear missles useless relics of a bygone era is a pretty good reason to pursue this technology.

  • Etchii, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Rail guns, lasers, attack drones... its like a game of CnC.

  • jlebrech, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I'm expecting Destroyers named after sharks then!!

    Hammerhead! Comes to mind as a name.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sharks
    • bluesatin, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0I prefer the name Cow Shark personally, but it's personal preference really
  • tcpip4lyfe, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7"Commence operation Pew Pew."
  • GunOfSod, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1In Other News, China and Russia invest $4.00 on a can of aluminium spraypaint.
    • Harabeck, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Which shows you no nothing of mirrors vs lasers.
  • daggone, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4great. something else the big swinging dicks of the world can misuse.
  • proliance, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Let me know when they get to 1.21 jigawatts.
  • Abbeygargoyle, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4There you see, Lord Vader? She can be reasonable. Proceed with the operation. You may fire when ready...
  • Zaggynl, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3/me has 1 second plan to put mirror on opposing ship

    Seriously, lasers?
    • Harabeck, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1As explained above, you need a special mirror to reflect a laser without it just burning through, and things like moisture and dust can screw your mirror up. So it really wouldnt work.
  • rochskier, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Hahahaha....they asked defense contractors to build it!

    Multiply the schedule and budget numbers by 2 at the minimum.
  • Yage2006, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Sweet cant wait to try one.
  • mrgreg, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Ironically that lame 80s movie called "Real Genius" about military lasers was on Comedy Central yesterday. heh.
  • wynja, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Freaking laser beams.
  • ShaneMcDeath, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Can i just say that i am delighted that we continue to kill more and more efficiently year after year! Fantastic work guys. Now if we could just shift the focus to feeding those little scamps who are starving to death and maybe have a little think about exploring the cosmos, we will be all set.
    • bigtmac68, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Missing the point, we allready have all the means to kill we will ever need.
      This is a purely defensive system designed to defend ships, cities, troops, people against missles, bombs, mortars and nukes.
      it really is a good thing guys.
  • vondur, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Meh, I will be impressed when they have phasers and disruptors.
  • unfilterthought, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Hand of NOD?
  • mattlphoto, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Dang, they stole my five year plan.
    Oh well back to pretending like I know science and coming up with another crazy scheme.
  • m0nte, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Just think of the ammo savings in the long haul.
  • Ortheos, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1These are already being used in many militaries around the world. China used one to dazzle a US spy sattelite recently, which it could have also destroyed but that would have been an act of war, and russia, britain, france, japan, india, germany etc use them on ships for intercepting incoming missiles, just like the US is already doing. I don't know where this 5 year crap is coming from. These became just another military inventory item about 8 years ago.
    Digg is so far behind the times sometimes, it makes me sick.
  • kd1s, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Missile defense will be interesting. With a high power LASER you can pretty much knock out anything incoming. Skynet here we come!
  • carguy25, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1I want to know when they're going to introduce the "phaser"
  • stuffradio, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Now we'll need some light sabers to shoot back the laser beams :P
  • alvarezg, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1You can't shoot a laser beam over the horizon the way you can a missile. Strictly line-of-sight.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.