The U.S. Navy has a raygun -- and it's a big one

[Lindley]

That movie was awesome.

 

[John Picard]

Very cool.. I'm willing to bet as defensive tech gets better and better... it will bring back deck mounted guns as a primary weapon again.

Can we say.. return of the battleship?

No. Battleships will not sail again; however, the Rail Gun is going to make Naval Warfare very interesting.

 

[sojourner]

Agreed on the battleships. Naval warfare is now firmly entrenched in defending the carrier. At least, on the surface, submarines on the other hand....

 

[John Picard]

Agreed on the battleships. Naval warfare is now firmly entrenched in defending the carrier. At least, on the surface, submarines on the other hand....

Now? Sorry, but that's always been the mission of the support ships and the airwing. If you haven't heard, back in the Cold War days F14 pilots were scrambled to intercept Russian Bears and move them out so as not to get a fix on the carrier. The pilots would issue warnings for the Bear to turn around, and if the pilot did not comply, then the F-14s would move into position - one above one wing of the Bear, and the other below the opposite wing. The two craft would then force the Bear to turn by working in tandem by hitting the wings.

Back at the carrier, one bird would have a rumpled topside and the other would have a rumpled bottom.

Helicopters, P3s, and S3 Vikings are but a couple of tools to locate submarines.

 

[Caliburn24]

Two questions pop into my head immediately concerning the laser.

1) What type of laser is it? Yeah, there are different types.

2) Can you bounce it off a mirror? Because if you can...that opens up a world of strategic and tactical possibilities.

 

[sojourner]

Agreed on the battleships. Naval warfare is now firmly entrenched in defending the carrier. At least, on the surface, submarines on the other hand....

Now? Sorry, but that's always been the mission of the support ships and the airwing. If you haven't heard, back in the Cold War days F14 pilots were scrambled to intercept Russian Bears and move them out so as not to get a fix on the carrier. The pilots would issue warnings for the Bear to turn around, and if the pilot did not comply, then the F-14s would move into position - one above one wing of the Bear, and the other below the opposite wing. The two craft would then force the Bear to turn by working in tandem by hitting the wings.

Back at the carrier, one bird would have a rumpled topside and the other would have a rumpled bottom.

Helicopters, P3s, and S3 Vikings are but a couple of tools to locate submarines.

"Now" as in since the war in the pacific proved the superiority of aircraft carriers. Not "now" as in "starting today".
Regarding submarines, I was referring more to sub vs sub.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Two questions pop into my head immediately concerning the laser.

1) What type of laser is it? Yeah, there are different types.

2) Can you bounce it off a mirror? Because if you can...that opens up a world of strategic and tactical possibilities.

Although I do not know the answer to your first question but for your second question I believe the answer would be NO.
Bouncing ultra powerful lasers are actually a myth since the laser would transfer enough energy to burn the reflecting surface.

 

[sojourner]

^Yea, blame that myth on Johnny Quest.

 

[Caliburn24]

You guys have any links demonstrating that you can't bounce a high power laser off a mirror in orbit?

It isn't that I don't believe you, but I'm curious about the details.

I know the Relay Mirror Experiment back in 1990 proved that it could be done with lasers of limited power.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

You guys have any links demonstrating that you can't bounce a high power laser off a mirror in orbit?

It isn't that I don't believe you, but I'm curious about the details.

I know the Relay Mirror Experiment back in 1990 proved that it could be done with lasers of limited power.

You need to take into consideration that light is both particle and wave. Photons have mass therefore kinetic energy with electromagnetic energy is relied through the laser. Stronger the power input more kinetic energy is transferred.
This is how light sails operate also.

 

[sojourner]

I'll bring in my favorite source for all things space combat related. Go to this page and scroll about half way down for the laser info:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x1.html

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Sojourner,

Great article

 

[Caliburn24]

It is a good website, and one I've visited before, but it argues that bouncing a laser off a special mirror is perfectly feasible.

A more scientifically plausible but much less dramatic laser weapon is the combat mirror. In this scheme, the spacecraft doesn't have a laser, just a large parabolic mirror. The laser is several million miles away, on a freaking huge solar power array orbiting your home planet. You angle the mirror so it will do a bank shot from the distant laser off the mirror and into your target, then radio the laser station to let'er rip. About fifteen minutes later the diffuse laser beam arrives, and your parabolic mirror focuses it down to a megaJoule pinpoint on your target.


The advantage is that the spacecraft does not have to lug around the laser, the power supply, the heat radiators, and other massive elements of the laser weapon. The spacecraft can have a higher acceleration or increased payload. The beam can also be of a power level associated with laser equipment that is not considered "portable by spacecraft", if the laser generator is a few miles in diameter your spacecraft could care less.


Disadvantages include the lag time between ordering a shot and its arrival, and the vulnerable nature of the combat mirror (generally little more than a large Mylar balloon).

Now of course the mirror we use is not going to be a normal mirror...

Now I know all you older science fiction fans still remember Johnny Quest and The Mystery Of The Lizard Men where Dr. Quest demonstrates that one can defend oneself against a weapon-grade laser beam with a dressing-room mirror. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in reality. No mirror is 100% efficient, and at these power levels, the fraction that leaks through is more than enough to vaporize the mirror armor. The same goes for "ablative armor." One zap and the impact point is abruptly as bare of armor as a baby's behind.


Inside a laser cannon, a relatively diffuse laser beam is generated. This prevents the beam from vaporizing the cannon's internal optics. At the business end, a parabolic mirror focuses the diffuse beam down to the aforementioned megaJoule pinpoint on the hapless target.

However, if the Navy can create a highly focused and powerful laser as the article in the OP suggests, it is certainly capable of producing a diffuse laser that be focused by a combat mirror up in orbit. It is just a matter of engineering.

 

[sojourner]

^True, I was viewing the question from more of "using a mirror as defense" point of view.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Now of course the mirror we use is not going to be a normal mirror...

Now I know all you older science fiction fans still remember Johnny Quest and The Mystery Of The Lizard Men where Dr. Quest demonstrates that one can defend oneself against a weapon-grade laser beam with a dressing-room mirror. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in reality. No mirror is 100% efficient, and at these power levels, the fraction that leaks through is more than enough to vaporize the mirror armor. The same goes for "ablative armor." One zap and the impact point is abruptly as bare of armor as a baby's behind.


Inside a laser cannon, a relatively diffuse laser beam is generated. This prevents the beam from vaporizing the cannon's internal optics. At the business end, a parabolic mirror focuses the diffuse beam down to the aforementioned megaJoule pinpoint on the hapless target.

However, if the Navy can create a highly focused and powerful laser as the article in the OP suggests, it is certainly capable of producing a diffuse laser that be focused by a combat mirror up in orbit. It is just a matter of engineering.

One problem, a parabolic mirror has a relatively short focal point so unless the beam is defused into several Km I don't think it would work.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Hey, if I was a Head of State with ambitions of World Domination on my mind, I'd put up as many laser equipped satellites as I could, and mirrors wherever I couldn't put the lasers so I could hit any target on earth. Nothing strikes fear into an opponents heart knowing you can hit them anytime, anywhere (and instantly), and they can't do a damn thing to stop you. Technically they could launch missiles in retaliation -- but the same laser system that could rain death on every other nation could also be used to blow away the missiles. This would be a logical course of action for a leader with such extreme ambitions (World-Domination) as such people are often narcissists or sociopaths obsessed with absolute power.

Of course if I was an the head of an opposing nation, I'd want to destroy such a system before it became operational at nearly any cost (and this would include using a full nuclear strike) before they got it online because of the danger it would cause to their own lives, the lives of their people, and potentially, the rest of the whole world.


CuttingEdge100

 

[Lindley]

Yes, but you'd use an unnecessarily slow dipping process when lowering James Bond into the shark tank, thereby sealing your fate.

 

[Caliburn24]

There are a whole slew of treaties banning the "weaponization of space" and the placing in orbit of many sorts of weapons, although since most of those treaties were signed with the USSR it is questionable just how binding they still are today. Regardless, the international outcry would be enormous if anyone tried to put weapons up there.

Also, lasers are generally not a truly effective weapon against anything but aircraft, missiles, rockets and satellites, because those things have fuel or delicate electronics that can be disrupted or ignited by the relatively minor damage done by the laser.

If you want something in orbit that can rain down destruction, I'd try "Thor".

Project Thor is an idea for a weapons system that launches kinetic projectiles from Earth orbit to damage targets on the ground. Jerry Pournelle originated the concept while working in operations research at Boeing in the 1950s before becoming a science-fiction writer.[1][2]


The most described system is 'an orbiting tungsten telephone pole with small fins and a computer in the back for guidance.' The weapon can be down-scaled, an orbiting "crowbar" rather than a pole.[citation needed] The system described in the 2003 USAF report was that of 20 feet long, 1 foot diameter tungsten rods, that are satellite controlled, and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10, and strike 25-foot accuracy.[3][4][5]


The time between deorbiting and impact would only be a few minutes, and depending on the orbits and positions in the orbits, the system would have a world-wide range.[citation needed] There is no requirement to deploy missiles, aircraft or other vehicles. Although the SALT II (1979) prohibited the deployment of orbital weapons of mass destruction, it did not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons.


The system is not prohibited by either the Outer Space Treaty nor the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.[4][6]
The idea is that the weapon would inflict damage because it moves at orbital velocities, at least 9 kilometers per second. Smaller weapons can deliver measured amounts of energy as small as a 500 lb conventional bomb.[citation needed] Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuke.[5] These designs are envisioned as the ultimate bunker busters.[4][7]


The highly elongated shape and high density are to enhance sectional density and therefore minimise kinetic energy loss due to air friction and maximise penetration of hard or buried targets. The larger device is expected to be quite good at penetrating deeply buried bunkers and other command and control targets. The smaller "crowbar" size might be employed for anti-armor, anti-aircraft, anti-satellite and possibly anti-personnel use.[citation needed]


The weapon would be very hard to defend against. It has a very high closing velocity and a small radar cross-section. Launch is difficult to detect. Any infra-red launch signature occurs in orbit, at no fixed position. The infra-red launch signature also has a small magnitude compared to a ballistic missile launch. One drawback of the system is that the weapon's sensors would almost certainly be blind during atmospheric reentry due to the plasma sheath that would develop ahead of it, so a mobile target could be difficult to hit if it performed any unexpected maneuvering.[citation needed] The system would also have to cope with atmospheric heating from re-entry, which could melt the weapon.[8]

While the larger version might be individually launched, the smaller versions would be launched from "pods" or "carriers" that contained several missiles.[citation needed]
The phrase "Rods from God" is also used to describe the same concept.[9] A USAF report called them "hypervelocity rod bundles".[10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Caliburn24,

There are a whole slew of treaties banning the "weaponization of space" and the placing in orbit of many sorts of weapons, although since most of those treaties were signed with the USSR it is questionable just how binding they still are today. Regardless, the international outcry would be enormous if anyone tried to put weapons up there.

True, but such treaties generally restrict weapons of mass destruction only, not lasers or conventional weapons.

Also, lasers are generally not a truly effective weapon against anything but aircraft, missiles, rockets and satellites, because those things have fuel or delicate electronics that can be disrupted or ignited by the relatively minor damage done by the laser.

True, but those are some of the biggest threats...

If you want something in orbit that can rain down destruction, I'd try "Thor".

If I recall correctly, Thor was sometimes nicknamed "Rods from God". Regardless, if I was a President with ambitions of World Domination, I'd want to use those too.

 

[farmkid]

Caliburn24,

There are a whole slew of treaties banning the "weaponization of space" and the placing in orbit of many sorts of weapons, although since most of those treaties were signed with the USSR it is questionable just how binding they still are today. Regardless, the international outcry would be enormous if anyone tried to put weapons up there.

True, but such treaties generally restrict weapons of mass destruction only, not lasers or conventional weapons.

And, such treaties would only restrict world leaders who respect international law. The hypothetical world leader we are discussing here is bent on world domination, and I suspect that he (or she, of course) wouldn't really care much about the treaty. Saying a treaty would stop him leaves one to wonder why laws against murder/theft/speeding/etc. don't stop such behavior.