Military Review

US Navy ready to go into battle with laser weapons

US Navy ready to go into battle with laser weapons

The US Navy commissioned the company Northrop Grumman to modify the solid-state laser, which will be installed on warships. In two years of testing, the military concluded that the laser weapon can be used in real combat conditions.

For the first time, a 15-kilowatt laser gun developed by Northrop Grumman was tested in the 2011 year. One of the ships of the US Navy destroyed an inflatable boat from a new gun. The modified version will be used in real combat, said Steve Hickson, vice president of the arms company. The laser machine, he said, is planned to be made sufficiently reliable and affordable for widespread use.

After the first tests in 2011, it was decided that 15 kilowatts is not enough to destroy enemy targets in combat conditions. The head of the Naval Forces Research Department, Rear Admiral Nevin Carr, then stated that for the destruction of, for example, a military cruise missile would need to be installed several dozen times more powerful.

In addition to Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Kratos Defense & Security Solutions are engaged in the development of laser weapons for the US Army. The latter have already created a LaWS (Laser Weapon System) solid-state installation, which in 2014 is planned to equip the Ponce landing ship docking ship serving in the Persian Gulf. It is known that this laser gun will be able to blind and hit enemy drones and will help ships to target anti-aircraft missiles at targets.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. klimpopov
    klimpopov 24 May 2013 10: 10 New
    As the name does not match the text ...
    1. patline
      patline 24 May 2013 10: 20 New
      Yes, about this laser already tired of reading and commenting. PR for pumping dough.
      Well, once I’ve started, then I’ll finish: Methods of counteracting the laser are simple to idiocy - fog, dust, smoke screen, in the end, the reflection of the beam to the source or to another target.
      1. Sleptsoff
        Sleptsoff 24 May 2013 11: 12 New
        There is no dust in the ocean, fogs are rare, cruise missiles with reflectors and smoke screens do not exist.
        1. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith 24 May 2013 12: 50 New
          Put you +
          I think they can develop a new coverage for RCC.
        2. Slayer
          Slayer 24 May 2013 23: 07 New
          billions in the laser creation, as always, swell, and counteracting it costs a couple of thousand, an ordinary mirror))
    2. knn54
      knn54 24 May 2013 13: 10 New
      klimpopov: Somehow the name does not match the text ...
      Mb. -American military sailors are not ready to go into battle without laser weapons.
      Sleptsoff: There is no dust in the ocean, fogs are rare ...
      Soviet experiments of the 70–80s showed that the scattering of laser radiation due to moisture droplets in the air above the sea is very large. To remove the scattering problem, a laser with a very small wavelength must be used, which is technically very difficult.
      True, for LARGE air defense and missile defense (?), Ship lasers can have advantages over existing anti-aircraft artillery systems.
    3. Joker
      Joker 24 May 2013 13: 42 New
      Well, it went capozakidatelstvo hi Maybe there is no sense from him (from the laser), but at least a start has been made, Moscow didn’t build right away, gradually finish it, allocate money, attract scientists, we also need to develop in this area, without much zeal, of course, we don’t have a cold war I need something, we’ll figure it out for ourselves, we’ll get something (I don’t see anything wrong with that)
      1. Melchakov
        Melchakov 24 May 2013 16: 57 New
        Quote: Joker
        while there is no sense from him (

        Yes, that’s not the point. Why was the "volcanoes" to clean. Left the "sevens", and then put this miracle. The laser must be placed where there is YaSU. EMLO.
    4. T-100
      T-100 25 May 2013 16: 25 New
      Well this is how much electricity will need to be generated, they will have to put a nuclear power plant on each ship. What is the range, I hope at least 15 km, and in fog, cloudy, how will they work? In general, to a large military use is still far away !!!
  2. Canep
    Canep 24 May 2013 10: 11 New
    Smoke bombs completely neutralize this miracle weapon, which I suppose is worthless.
    1. Canep
      Canep 24 May 2013 10: 20 New
      Quote: Canep
      Smoke bombs completely neutralize this miracle weapon

      And I'm not talking about rain, snow, fog, cloud cover, etc.
      1. Bykov.
        Bykov. 24 May 2013 10: 38 New
        Quote: Canep
        ... And I'm not talking about rain, snow, fog, cloud cover, etc. ...

        Yes, and the mirror, no one has forbidden ... not to mention energy consumption, this "wunderwaffen."
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 24 May 2013 10: 42 New
          Especially since the mirror reflects the laser only if it is an ideal mirror at an ideal angle.
          1. dima1970
            dima1970 24 May 2013 11: 38 New
            There is the concept of “angle of incidence — angle of reflection,” and “ideal angle” does not occur in physics. In any case, a sufficiently large part of the beam’s energy will go into space and it can turn into a regular sunbeam.
          2. tchack
            tchack 24 May 2013 11: 58 New
            To reflect that mirror will reflect, there is another problem: the laser will still cut the mirror by the influence of thermal energy ...

            It is easy to check with a powerful laser pointer (2000 mW). If you hold the laser beam in one place for a long time, for example, on the thermometer of a thermometer, then the temperature will rise ...

            To reflect thermal energy in the UV range, an athermal coating of the mirror is necessary.
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 24 May 2013 10: 41 New
        I recommend reading about the new generation of lasers.
        1. Hudo
          Hudo 24 May 2013 11: 51 New
          Quote: Pimply
          I recommend reading about the new generation of lasers.

          Probably Chubais nayseysal? How have you heard! Young red hair from **** vomits and makes nano-lasers, well, very expensive .....
        2. Anton Karpenko
          Anton Karpenko 24 May 2013 12: 31 New
          Pimpled, missiles in flight can rotate - this alone will reduce the effectiveness of laser exposure by dozens of times. Further, there are heat-resistant coatings with a very high melting point - for example, the heat-insulating substance with which "Buran" was coated, or its analogue on American shuttles. It’s not so difficult to make a rocket nose cooling system - let it work at full power in just five seconds, during which time the PRK will fly 2-3 kilometers without heating up. All these measures make the use of lasers completely useless.
  3. Scandinavian
    Scandinavian 24 May 2013 10: 13 New
    These weapons are promising in nature and if the West finds their optimal use against our missiles in the near future it may not be very sweet for us, especially for our RZK and Iskander. I hope our smart heads in design bureaus are already looking for a counterweight to this striped implementation.
    1. rpek32
      rpek32 24 May 2013 10: 48 New
      Scandinavian, read the article:
      1. karbofos
        karbofos 24 May 2013 14: 16 New
        rpek32 thanks for the link. very informative, there is something to oppose the American trolls. good
    2. ovgorskiy
      ovgorskiy 24 May 2013 10: 54 New
      This weapon is promising.

      This weapon is not promising, but a dead end. Americans developed a more or less decent laser for air-based laser weight 10 tons, power approx. 1 MW. With a low laser efficiency, the power plant should be of the order of 10 MW (for reference: diesel engine power of 2 MW), can you imagine such a design? As I understand it, even such a laser was recognized as not effective. And the lasers that Hollywood shows should not have a power of 1, but 10 or 100 MW. In short, a laser and a nuclear power plant in addition.
      1. True
        True 24 May 2013 13: 08 New
        Key Features of USS George HW Bush (CVN-77):
        Displacement: 97 tons
        Length: 332,8 m
        along the waterline - 317 m
        Width: 76,8 m
        along the waterline - 40,8 m
        Draft: 11,3 m
        Engines 2 reactors, 4 turbines
        Power 260 000 l. with. (191 MW)
        1. ovgorskiy
          ovgorskiy 25 May 2013 08: 10 New
          Oddly enough, but with such a power plant on an aircraft carrier, there is a shortage of energy from the launch catapult of the aircraft, and the laser add (5%) of power. And the aircraft carrier needs not one laser, but 6-8 pieces, what will you power them with?
  4. vitas
    vitas 24 May 2013 10: 27 New
    Everything was discussed in the last topic, Americans' lasers are useless shit !!!
    1. Uncle
      Uncle 24 May 2013 18: 47 New
      Quote: vitas
      lasers of americans useless shit !!!

      Yes, there are so many laser specialists, I just shrunk! They write about pointers, about a bunny, and people cut steel with lasers at a time, give a drawing, get a part, cut like an autogen, but without a trace. And such equipment is full, I see no problem to increase the range, if the source of energy is unlimited power. And do not tell me about the scattering of the beam, the laser does not have it.
      1. vitas
        vitas 24 May 2013 19: 39 New
        Hold native
      2. Scutum
        Scutum 25 May 2013 19: 24 New
        they cut it, but at what distance? and not scattering - but the absorption of quanta of electromagnetic radiation by the medium in which it propagates. But about an energy source of unlimited power - is this type of cold fusion already used everywhere? wassat
  5. JonnyT
    JonnyT 24 May 2013 10: 27 New
    Why not with a plasma gun? PR - so PR in full! wassat
    1. kostiknet
      kostiknet 24 May 2013 12: 17 New
      Quote: JonnyT
      Why not with a plasma gun?

      And their J. Lucas drags on the courts, suspecting plagiarism for "Star Wars" repeat But in general - more amers lasers, Jedi and Darth Vader !! (go crazy so big good )
  6. HAM
    HAM 24 May 2013 10: 29 New
    At this time, in order to bring down a rocket, at least it needs to be stopped for a few dozen seconds to burn through. And the laser power is measured in mega joules or gigajoules, but not in kilowatts.
  7. Strezhevchanin
    Strezhevchanin 24 May 2013 10: 32 New
    Each laser has its own torpedo !!! We will finish off missiles. tongue
  8. Sochi
    Sochi 24 May 2013 10: 40 New
    If you look at the history of weapons inventions, then they just didn’t come up with ... but only what we use now remains. Only now, exoticism was rarely adopted, after the first battles it was usually written off.
  9. Dima190579
    Dima190579 24 May 2013 10: 54 New
    First, they wanted to put this laser on an airplane. Now they’ll put it on the ship and then on the engine.
  10. Ulysses
    Ulysses 24 May 2013 11: 07 New
    Do not dazzle the homing head with a laser pencil. wink
    1. tchack
      tchack 24 May 2013 11: 49 New
      They will blind a potential adversary by directing a laser into the eye ...
      Level 100 Bullies ...
  11. gregor6549
    gregor6549 24 May 2013 11: 24 New
    Again hysteria about the next "wunderwaffe." Yes, in clear weather, a non-maneuvering single-target, which can be detected in time and put on stable tracking by regular shipborne reconnaissance and target detection means i.e. with radars, electro and just optics, it may be possible to put a muzzle on the ocean.
    But who will attack the ship alone these days? Is that a kamikaze and a bad one. So they have long been bred. And with a massive stellar attack (i.e. from all directions) and with intense interference, including for lasers (fumes, etc., which impairs air transparency in the path of the laser beam), all these lasers will be losers.
  12. IRBIS
    IRBIS 24 May 2013 11: 41 New
    One of the ships of the US Navy destroyed an inflatable boat from a new gun.
    Well, we don’t have inflatable boats in service. Neither surface nor underwater - all, for some reason, are metal. And they, infections, also shoot back with all sorts of nastiness.
    Development is good, but at the level of existing technologies, so far it is all from the field of moral influence on the psyche of Somali pirates. No more.
    1. tchack
      tchack 24 May 2013 11: 47 New
      One of the ships of the U.S. Navy destroyed an inflatable woman on an inflatable boat from a new gun.
      This is progress ...
      1. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 24 May 2013 12: 20 New
        Quote: tchack
        And they, infections, also shoot back with all sorts of nastiness.

        Rejoice that they do not shoot at inflatable targets with spermatosaurs.
        You just try to imagine such a picture.
    2. Canep
      Canep 24 May 2013 18: 01 New
      Quote: IRBIS
      Well, we don’t have inflatable boats in service.

      In arsenal there are inflatable boats smile
      The small inflatable boat LMN is intended for crossing small infantry groups, reconnaissance groups, conducting engineering reconnaissance of water obstacles by engineering reconnaissance groups, organizing evacuation and rescue services and river outposts at crossings, performing various auxiliary tasks when building pontoon bridges or organizing ferry crossings.
      1. shamil
        shamil 26 May 2013 12: 07 New
        I'll burn it with a magnifying glass
  13. k220150
    k220150 24 May 2013 11: 56 New
    All inflatable and success and courage and boats with women
    1. True
      True 24 May 2013 13: 17 New
  14. Ezhaak
    Ezhaak 24 May 2013 12: 17 New
    US Navy ready to go into battle with laser weapons

    And then
    The U.S. Navy instructed Northrop Grumman to finalize a solid-state laser, which will be installed on warships.

    The second sentence states that the laser is not only not yet ready, but has never even been installed on a warship.
    The article is essentially about nothing. IMHO
  15. bulvas
    bulvas 24 May 2013 12: 18 New
    local "objective" critics surprise
    once computers weighed hundreds of tons and took up huge spaces
    today NASA has learned how to build satellites based on a phone with Android

    where are we with our critics?

    with laser weapons it will be even worse. There is a hope that among real people there are much fewer "objective" critics like here
    1. No_more
      No_more 28 May 2013 11: 36 New
      This was not a fundamental problem, but a purely engineering (technical) one. There is a fundamental problem here and it consists in the fact that the amount of energy necessary to hit a target is created at all the distance from the gun mount to the target. It’s the same as if, in order to defeat a tank, it was necessary to generate a cumulative stream all the time the projectile approached the target.
      Lasers in dense atmospheres will never be effective at distances greater than a few meters. Effective, in this case, means: to have advantages over other means of destruction.
      If you want the future so much, then I can safely say that it is behind the railguns, the shot of which is much cheaper, and the striking ability is orders of magnitude higher. And in view of the enormous velocity of the projectile, you can save on guided missiles, because there’s not enough time to make a maneuver to dodge, you only need a very short 100% predictable portion of the target’s trajectory, which is enough for approach and defeat.
  16. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 24 May 2013 13: 08 New
    Dear bulvas, it’s not the critics, but the laws of physics.
    1. bulvas
      bulvas 24 May 2013 13: 45 New
      the laws of physics allow you to transfer energy using a laser beam
      You can achieve the effectiveness of such a transfer, but for this you will have to sweat and decently spend. Even better is to start putting these laws into practice and gain experience from it.

      How did the first planes fly? - on parole
      Who flew them? Who built them with their own money? - Crazy?

      and where would we be now if not for these enthusiasts?
      1. No_more
        No_more 28 May 2013 11: 39 New
        The fact is that there was no worthy alternative for airplanes, and for the laser, there were a lot of alternatives as a means of destruction. Why is the laser so good, what is the advantage?
        Laser weapons would be perfect for airless space, but there are better options in our dense turbulent atmosphere.
  17. sys-1985
    sys-1985 24 May 2013 13: 28 New
    They will now have new amusement to launch balloons and shoot at them from the mega-cool prodigy. After an accurate hit, they will clap their hands together! :)
  18. sys-1985
    sys-1985 24 May 2013 13: 32 New
    In general, we should sincerely rejoice in their "genius and success" in the construction of what cannot be.
    1. bulvas
      bulvas 24 May 2013 13: 51 New
      Quote: sys-1985
      ... building what cannot be

      no matter how you add “ we"
  19. Lone gunman
    Lone gunman 24 May 2013 13: 52 New
    in general, the successes of amers have already snapped ...

    but I believe in the "bright" future of Russia
  20. shamil
    shamil 24 May 2013 14: 25 New
    and if the rocket is given rotation along the longitudinal axis, how much should it be heated
    1. Lone gunman
      Lone gunman 24 May 2013 18: 15 New
      long and hard ... good
  21. APASUS
    APASUS 24 May 2013 23: 03 New
    What a hat!
    They destroyed the rubber boat ?!
    And if it will be a highly maneuverable target in cloudy weather ??