Unexpectedly, Navy’s Superlaser Blasts Away a Record

[Ideologue]

What are the prospects of using mirrored hulls and shells for ships and missiles, then?

[Malthus]

What are the prospects of using mirrored hulls and shells for ships and missiles, then?

Disco Navy! 

[cue the Village People ...]

[MadImmortalMan]

What are the prospects of using mirrored hulls and shells for ships and missiles, then?

Presumably there would be enough heat transfer to wreck the mirror pretty quickly, even if it does reflect the laser at first.

[Neil]

What are the prospects of using mirrored hulls and shells for ships and missiles, then?

Presumably there would be enough heat transfer to wreck the mirror pretty quickly, even if it does reflect the laser at first.

And it'd be hard to keep a mirrored hull clean anyways, which means that even if it worked, it still wouldn't work.

[Ideologue]

Is there a lot of heat transfer with mirrors?  Oh well, it was just an idea (after all, mirror systems have been considered to increase weaponized laser ranges and give them an over-the-horizon capability).

Regarding cleanliness, I think missiles could be kept isolated enough.

[Razgovory]

What are the prospects of using mirrored hulls and shells for ships and missiles, then?

I don't think those would really work against a high-powered laser.

[jimmy olsen]

Video of a 15kw test on a boat at sea. Not that impressive looking, but it does set the boat on fire so it's a start.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/04/video-navy-laser-sets-ship-on-fire/

[Pat]

Lasers are focused through the lens of the eye making them extremely injurous to the retina, which can grow back to heal minor injuries but not major ones. They can also heat fluid in the eye causing steam explosions. It only takes a few milliwatts to injure the eye and 50mw can blind someone. In some countries, for example Australia, laser pointers over 1mw require a license. Top range hand-held laser pointers are now in the range of 1-2 watts and they will engrave wood and cut hard plastic cd trays and they can blind you simply from the reflection from looking at the dot. In Moscow a few years ago they moved an open-air laser show under party tents because of rain. 12 blind and more with eye damage. Using lasers to shoot down projectiles is one thing but in the vid they are using a 15 kilowatt laser against a boat. I really hope they're not thinking of doing that in real warfare. If such use isn't already severely restricted in the laws of war it should be. There is no way you can control how that laser reflects on various surfaces or who looks at the dot. I don't see a dot in the video meaning it could be a UV laser. That's actually more dangerous as you don't protect yourself from it by reflexively blinking or closing your eyes. People's eyes will still be drawn to the flame or whatever and the damage is the same.

[Ideologue]

Lasers are focused through the lens of the eye making them extremely injurous to the retina, which can grow back to heal minor injuries but not major ones. They can also heat fluid in the eye causing steam explosions. It only takes a few milliwatts to injure the eye and 50mw can blind someone. In some countries, for example Australia, laser pointers over 1mw require a license. Top range hand-held laser pointers are now in the range of 1-2 watts and they will engrave wood and cut hard plastic cd trays and they can blind you simply from the reflection from looking at the dot. In Moscow a few years ago they moved an open-air laser show under party tents because of rain. 12 blind and more with eye damage. Using lasers to shoot down projectiles is one thing but in the vid they are using a 15 kilowatt laser against a boat. I really hope they're not thinking of doing that in real warfare. If such use isn't already severely restricted in the laws of war it should be. There is no way you can control how that laser reflects on various surfaces or who looks at the dot. I don't see a dot in the video meaning it could be a UV laser. That's actually more dangerous as you don't protect yourself from it by reflexively blinking or closing your eyes. People's eyes will still be drawn to the flame or whatever and the damage is the same.

Explosive devices create a pressure wave that shatters lungs, generates shrapnel, and is several thousand degrees.  What's the qualitative difference?

I have the same question about chemical weapons, though.

[Pat]

The biggest difference is IMO that you have some control of what area is affected by explosives while it is very difficult to take into account how a laser - that will go on for miles and miles - will reflect off various surfaces and who will be looking at what.

[Neil]

The laws of war were formulated before lasers, and military grade lasers are less prone to reflection, as they burn imperfect reflectors.

A bullet or shell will go for miles and miles, but we didn't ban those.

[Slargos]

The laws of war were formulated before lasers, and military grade lasers are less prone to reflection, as they burn imperfect reflectors.

A bullet or shell will go for miles and miles, but we didn't ban those.

Well perhaps we should have, and given peace a chance. 

[Norgy]

I wonder which ships have a 2,000 foot thick hull.

The new classes of Super Dreadnoughts! 

The class to supplant the Dread-nought-but-superlasers class, I presume?

[Cecil]

So does these make aircraft obsolete for naval warfare and by extension carriers? I know someone on this forum who would likely welcome that development. 

[Pat]

The laws of war were formulated before lasers, and military grade lasers are less prone to reflection, as they burn imperfect reflectors.

A bullet or shell will go for miles and miles, but we didn't ban those.

Less prone to reflection doesn't mean it wont burn the eyes of people looking at the dot. The laws of war are added to all the time, I looked it up and lasers are regulated under the 1980 Geneva convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (which prohibits the use of lasers to blind but allows laser weapons that can have it as a collateral effect).