https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIxugT-QiEI
So we are already this far with lasers.
Won't this make anti-ship missiles obsolete? A ship with 4 of these things could destroy waves of missiles.
>>28050488
More missiles. Faster missiles. More lasers. Faster lasers.
>>28050488
Bring back deck guns
>>28050504
Missiles killed deck guns and broadside barrages
i cry evrytiem
>Won't this make aircraft obsolete?
No you stupid fuck
>>28050488
You know laser clowns are desperate for new funds when they keep promoting their toys burning through plastic boats as a major technological breakthrough. Sage and hide this cancer shit.
>>28050488
probably not, missiles are still very fast, it's still dependent on how fast the aiming servo can move the laser and what sides the missiles come from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2eehBk_DNQ
So we are already this far with lasers.
Won't this make ICBMs obsolete? A plane with 1 of these things could destroy waves of missiles.
>>28050578
they've already shot down a jet with it
>>28050752
Implying anyone will allow it fly straight over the silos.
>>28050578
Yeah and what's that F-22 shit all about. Wright Brothers already flew 100 years ago.
Hahaha I'm so clever.
>>28050776
Yeah, sure they did.
>>28050810
>B-but muh toy!
Keep paying.
>>28050493
>Faster lasers
How can you make light travel faster?
>>28050931
VTEC
>>28050961
/thread
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1dO_ns_WnwM
So we are already this far with guns.
Won't this make enemy soldiers obsolete? A man with 4 of these things could destroy waves of gooks.
>>28050578
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StC9nRB_AVY
>>28051021
>Won't this make enemy soldiers obsolete?
And who is going to shoot it? The Force?
You are trying to be funny but it's not working.
>reflective coating
>gratz, your laser just lost >98% of its efficiency.
>>28051029
>Booster phase
Good, now we only need to deliver this multi-billion toy deep into the enemy rear and a (!) Katyusha rocket will finally be no threat to our troops ...oh, wait.
>>28051037
>Gooks
>Using the M16A1
???
You would only need to deploy anti-ship weapons which go full supercavitation for the last kilometers.
And the lasers and all the other close-range anti-missile systems are suddenly worthless.
Lasers might eventually make ICBMs too vulnerable and everyone would switch to hypersonic cruise missiles.
>>28051050
>hello! I dont understand physics!
>>28051142
Well, you don't.
Ask a engineer for lasers what happens if you want to cut a piece of steel with a laser.
>>28051205
point out the reflective coating materials that could be used currently to counter the sheer amount of heat this thing produces. remember, the more complicated the coating, the more you have to redesign your rocket and payload.
>>28050961
mein sides
>>28050931
Use the red part of the spectrum.
Are these fancy things EMP protected? Because we could go from lasers to sticks in seconds
>>28051290
>that goalpost moving
But silicon, copper, zinc selenide coatings (all with 99% reflective at 45° and <1 absorbtion)... you know the stuff already used for laser/optics experiements. Google dielectric mirror for example.
You could even if you know the exact position of the laser destroy it just with the reflecting the laser close to itself.
>>28051530
Are these fancy things EMP protected? Because we could go from missiles to sticks in seconds.
>>28052037
Can't go on a missile so what is your point?
>>28052058
Why not?
All you'd have to do is mirror the nose of a Brahmos-II / P1500 and now the laser CIWS can't stop it before impact.
>>28052118
This doesn't really seem to be accurate. But who am I?
>>28051530
>anything made since the 1970s
>not EMP protected
smfh tbqh familia
Coating is a little complicated because it also need to stand air friction.
But that's the next step in the missile technolgy.
Proton beam weapons when
>>28052118
And the mirror won't have any dust or scratches on it during flight?
>>28051505
That only affects the wavelength, ya dingus.
>>28050488
>A ship with 4 of these things could destroy waves of missiles.
Hardly. The laser you'd need to burn through incoming ballistic missiles doesn't exist yet.
>>28050488
Even the future version of LaWS at ~100kW, is only meant to do UAV and small boat defense. The minimum for anti-missile work is a couple hundred kW.
>>28050504
>>28050511
Hey, if laser defense tech gets advanced and effective enough, we might just get those back!
>>28053441
10-100kw this decade 2020
100km-1mw next decade 2030
1mw-100mw decade after 2040
100mw-1kw we star wars now 2050 ( by the time most of us are old ass farts we will see laser weaponry capable of some cool shit akin to star destroyer weapons )
>>28053582
Materials won't scale that way but ok
Laserfag pls
This shit won't be able to keep up in sustained barrages when shtf due to power consumption
Unless you're towing a shitload of batteries it just won't do compared to missles
Also atmospheric condition could render this ineffective such as fog and shit
>>28050931
The same way you make light faster on a network: reduce the devices latency.
>>28054195
no laser < lasers
They can't counter all threats and work in all conditions. They are meant as a compliment to current defenses, not replace entirely.
>A ship equipped with a laser, for example, could use the laser to counter an initial wave of decoys while conserving the ship’s finite supply of interceptor missiles and CIWS ammunition for incoming weapons that are best countered by those systems.
> There are certain wavelengths of light (i.e., “sweet spots” in the electromagnetic spectrum) where atmospheric absorption by water vapor is markedly reduced. Lasers can be designed to emit light at or near those sweet spots, so as to maximize their potential effectiveness.
>FEL’s ability to change its wavelength so as to match atmospheric transmission sweet spots makes it particularly suited for operations in a marine environment.
>The Navy has concluded that its Aegis cruisers and destroyers (i.e., CG-47 and DDG-51 class ships), as well as San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships, would have enough available electrical power under battle conditions (i.e., when many other systems are also drawing electrical power) to support a LaWS system.
>>28053582
But FEL is MW class and expected before 2020
>>28054195
>batteries
Are you legitimately retarded?
>>28054195
>Unless you're towing a shitload of batteries
It's not like aircraft carriers contain nuclear reactors.
>>28052754
>>28054710
It's not like aircraft carriers will be the one mounting these lasers
>>28054720
Why not? Seems like a logical upgrade.
>>28054686
>>28054710
>Because power allocation isn't a thing
lol nuclear reactors have infinite power guiz
>>28054732
>If it's not infinite, it's not enough
>>28054732
Why when every DD produces in excess of 50 megawatts from standard engine operation alone and have more than enough to spare even with rad as at maximum output
Are you legitimately retarded?
>>28054686
The navy plans on developing the MW class FEL after building a 100kW one. The navy had mainly been focused on solid state lasers until recently. In 2016 they plan on shifting focus back on FEL. From what I've read the MW class FEL is expected after 2025
>>28054731
While new carriers might be the few ships that can power/fit a MW class FEL, the threats the laser's supposed to defend against, ASBM's, ASCM's, and MaRV's, are likely going to be going after the high priority target that is the carrier itself. When these threats come directly at a carrier and perform no maneuvers, the laser would likely point in the exact same direction for a period of time and the heat the air it's passing through which could defocus the beam. The issue of thermal blooming increases as laser energy increases.
