Railguns & Superlasers, the US Navy is awesome! :cool:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/02/unexpectedly-navys-superlaser-blasts-away-a-record/
QuoteNEWPORT NEWS, Virginia — Walking into a control station at Jefferson Labs, Quentin Saulter started horsing around with his colleague, Carlos Hernandez. Saulter had spent the morning showing two reporters his baby: the laboratory version of the Navy's death ray of the future, known as the free-electron laser, or FEL. He asked Hernandez, the head of injector- and electron-gun systems for the project, to power a mock-up electron gun — the pressure-pumping heart of this energy weapon — to 500 kilovolts. No one has ever cranked the gun that high before.
Smiling through his glasses and goatee, Hernandez motioned for Saulter to click and drag a line on his computer terminal up to the 500-kV mark. He had actually been running the electron injector at that kilovoltage for the past eight hours. It's a goal that eluded him for six years.
Saulter, the program manager for the free-electron laser, was momentarily stunned. Then he realized what just happened. "This is very significant," he says, still a bit shocked. Now, the Navy "can speed up the transition of FEL-weapons-system technology" from a Virginia lab to the high seas.
Translated from the Nerd: Thanks to Hernandez, the Navy will now have a more powerful death ray aboard a future ship sooner than expected, in order to burn incoming missiles out of the sky or zap through an enemy vessel's hull.
"Five hundred [kilovolts] has been the project goal for a long time," says George Neil, the FEL associate director at Jefferson Labs, whose Rav 4 license plate reads LASRMAN. "The injector area is one of the critical areas" of the whole project.
The free-electron laser is one of the Navy's highest-priority weapons programs, and it's not hard to see why. "We're fast approaching the limits of our ability to hit maneuvering pieces of metal in the sky with other maneuvering pieces of metal," says Rear Adm. Nevin Carr, the Navy's chief of research. The next level: "fighting at the speed of light and hypersonics" — that is, the free-electron laser and the Navy's Mach-8 electromagnetic rail gun.
Say goodbye to an adversary's antiship missiles, and prepare to fire bullets from 200 miles away, far from shoreline defenses. No wonder the Navy asked Congress to double its budget for directed-energy weapons this week to $60 million, most of which will go to the free-electron laser.
It won't be until the 2020s, Carr estimates, that a free-electron laser will be mounted on a ship. (Same goes for the rail gun.) Right now, the free-electron laser produces a 14-kilowatt beam. It needs to get to 100 kilowatts to be viable to defend a ship, the Navy thinks. But what happened at Jefferson Labs Friday shrinks the time necessary to get to 100 kilowatts and expands the lethality of the laser. Here's why.
Excite certain kinds of atoms, and light particles — photons — radiate out. Reflect that light back into the excited atoms, and more photons appear. But unlike a lightbulb, which glows in every direction, this second batch of photons travels only in one direction, and in a single color, or wavelength. Which slice of the spectrum depends on the "gain medium" — the type of atoms — you use to generate the beam. But the free-electron laser is unique: It doesn't use a medium, just supercharged electrons run through a racetrack of superconductors and magnets — an accelerator, to be technical — until it produces a beam that can operate on multiple wavelengths.
That means the beam from the free-electron laser won't lose potency as it runs through all the crud in ocean air, because its operators will be able to adjust its wavelengths to compensate. And if you want to make it more powerful, all you need to do is add electrons.
But to add electrons, you need to inject pressure into your power source, so the electrons shake out and run through the racetrack. That's done through a gun called an injector. In the basement of a building in Jefferson Labs, a 240-foot racetrack uses a 300-kilovolt injector to pressurize the electrons out of 200 kilowatts of power and send them shooting through the accelerator.
Currently, the free-electron laser project produces the most-powerful beam in the world, able to cut through 20 feet of steel per second. If it gets up to its ultimate goal, of generating a megawatt's worth of laser power, it'll be able to burn through 2,000 feet of steel per second. Just add electrons.
And that's why Hernandez's achievement is so important. He shrugs, concealing his pride. A powerful accelerator at Cornell University is "stuck at 250″ kilovolts, he grins. And he's on a roll. Hernandez's team fired up the injector in December with enough pressure to prove the FEL will ultimately reach megawatt class. Steel: Beware.
"It definitely shortens our time frame for getting to 100 kilowatts," Saulter says, and it produces a "more powerful light beam." But he won't speculate on how much sooner this means the laser can get into the fleet. In any case, the Navy doesn't yet have the systems to divert the amount of power from its ships' generators necessary to operate the laser, but anticipates it will by the 2020s.
There are still a lot of obstacles to getting the free-electron laser onto a ship. The 240-foot racetrack that Neil built at Jefferson Labs — a scale model of one that's underground here, seven-eighths-of-a-mile long — is way too big. Boeing has a contract to build an initial workable prototype by 2012, but by 2015 the racetrack has to be much, much smaller: 50 feet by 20 feet by 10 feet. And as the model shrinks, it's got to get more efficient in harvesting photons from electrons.
But that starts by getting more electrons out of the power source.The better the injector is at that, the more powerful a beam results, even presuming that the engineers can't keep finding efficient ways of getting their photons. Walking into a conference room, Saulter is still stunned. He figured he'd just wind Hernandez up by putting the project's ultimate goal in his colleague's face. "I had no idea he'd get up to that today."
Currently, the free-electron laser project produces the most-powerful beam in the world, able to cut through 20 feet of steel per second. If it gets up to its ultimate goal, of generating a megawatt's worth of laser power, it'll be able to burn through 2,000 feet of steel per second. Just add electrons.
:blink:
I got turned down for a press pass to the energy weapons conference :(
Quote from: Brazen on March 16, 2011, 08:49:49 AM
I got turned down for a press pass to the energy weapons conference :(
You wanted to see if they could pop popcorn with it, didn't you?
Quote from: Brazen on March 16, 2011, 08:49:49 AM
I got turned down for a press pass to the energy weapons conference :(
Do you know if that statement is accurate Brazen? It seems incredible if it can already slice through 20ft of steel per second. What range are they talking about there? It already sounds like a devastating weapon.
What's the use of line-of-sight weapons for the navy :p
Quote from: Warspite on March 16, 2011, 09:05:47 AM
What's the use of line-of-sight weapons for the navy :p
Shoot down Chinese ballistic anti-ship missiles. Then pound every naval and air base within a hundred miles of the coast with their rail guns. :contract:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 16, 2011, 08:59:09 AM
Do you know if that statement is accurate Brazen? It seems incredible if it can already slice through 20ft of steel per second. What range are they talking about there? It already sounds like a devastating weapon.
Well, this guy's allegedly claiming to have "turned it up to 11". In Northrop's recent tests of the Maritime Laser Demonstration for the Navy, it burnt through hull sections of model boats at sea, but they failed to specify how thick the hulls were, how long they had to be fired at for or whether they were stationary. Who'd have thought, defence companies being cagey about new tech?
Here's the latest official press release on the FEL programme:
http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2011/Free-Electron-Laser-Milestone.aspx (http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2011/Free-Electron-Laser-Milestone.aspx)
And a fact sheet:
http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2011/Free-Electron-Laser-Milestone.aspx (http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2011/Free-Electron-Laser-Milestone.aspx)
Quote from: Brazen on March 16, 2011, 09:22:09 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 16, 2011, 08:59:09 AM
Do you know if that statement is accurate Brazen? It seems incredible if it can already slice through 20ft of steel per second. What range are they talking about there? It already sounds like a devastating weapon.
Well, this guy's allegedly claiming to have "turned it up to 11". In Northrop's recent tests of the Maritime Laser Demonstration for the Navy, it burnt through hull sections of model boats at sea, but they failed to specify how thick the hulls were, how long they had to be fired at for or whether they were stationary. Who'd have thought, defence companies being cagey about new tech?
Didn't they shoot down some drones with it last year?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 16, 2011, 09:31:42 AM
Didn't they shoot down some drones with it last year?
That was a different one. The thread's about FELM, my first reply was mistakenly about MLD. The drone demonstration was Raytheon's Laser Close-In Weapons System (CIWS).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10682693 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10682693)
I wonder which ships have a 2,000 foot thick hull.
Quote from: Brazen on March 16, 2011, 09:45:48 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 16, 2011, 09:31:42 AM
Didn't they shoot down some drones with it last year?
That was a different one. The thread's about FELM, my first reply was mistakenly about MLD. The drone demonstration was Raytheon's Laser Close-In Weapons System (CIWS).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10682693 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10682693)
You're a military tech nerd. That's so awesome. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
I wonder which ships have a 2,000 foot thick hull.
The new classes of Super Dreadnoughts! :cool:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 16, 2011, 11:03:32 AM
You're a military tech nerd. That's so awesome. :P
Meh, I don't have the sub-autistic male-only gene that would enable me to recall this information at will. Though this thread gives me an idea for a features on who would win in a fight between the different energy weapons. They wouldn't let me set up an exoskeleton wrestling match.
What are the prospects of using mirrored hulls and shells for ships and missiles, then?
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2011, 03:44:28 PM
What are the prospects of using mirrored hulls and shells for ships and missiles, then?
Disco Navy! :D
[cue the Village People ...]
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2011, 03:44:28 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 16, 2011, 04:50:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2011, 03:44:28 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2011, 03:44:28 PM
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.
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/
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.
Quote from: Pat on April 09, 2011, 10:20:46 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2011, 11:11:26 AM
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. :hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fcontentfile%2Ffile%2F1.1330388%2521img1330337.jpg&hash=9a554199deeedcafce4e0b0a32429f03f024c446)
Quote from: KRonn on March 16, 2011, 11:19:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
I wonder which ships have a 2,000 foot thick hull.
The new classes of Super Dreadnoughts! :cool:
The class to supplant the Dread-nought-but-superlasers class, I presume?
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. ;)
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2011, 11:11:26 AM
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).
How long until we get an infantry version of this "2000 feet of steel per second" laser?
Quote from: Siege on April 09, 2011, 11:35:47 PM
How long until we get an infantry version of this "2000 feet of steel per second" laser?
Considering the generator technology hasn't shrunk to where it'd be feasible on a dedicated destroyer yet, it could be a while...
Quote from: Siege on April 09, 2011, 11:35:47 PM
How long until we get an infantry version of this "2000 feet of steel per second" laser?
Never. The infantry can't be trusted not to burn their own dicks off with that sort of shit.
Quote from: Pat on April 09, 2011, 09:03:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2011, 11:11:26 AM
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).
Given that these sorts of multi-million dollar weapons are liable to be used against mudhuts, I don't think there's too much to worry about.