Is a Laser Weapon Really Important for Defense?

I would not know how to answer that without having a better understanding of the actual threat levels to surface ships and the effectiveness of the proposed countermeasure. For that matter, who does? Those in the know are not privy to talk about it, so it boils down to virtually pure speculation for the rest of us.

I suspect that a significant force behind axing the ABL test lab (and Future Combat System, et, al) has a lot to do with the current administration's desire to spend freely on domestic and party affiliated pet projects. Frankly, Obama is not a fan of the US military or the power they project, and DOD budgets are simply a diversion of funds that could be used for his domestic and party agenda.

So, it boils down to mostly politics in my opinion and I think that the "Hope" the administration ran on during the last election is really the strategy that is in play here. The "hope" is that we will not need any of these tools and if we posture ourselves as a bit meeker in the eyes of the world, perhaps we won't get picked on.

They may be right, but they may also be wrong. The reality probably lies somewhere in between.

Frankly, Obama is not a fan of the US military or the power they project, and DOD budgets are simply a diversion of funds that could be used for his domestic and party agenda.

Bah! This year's DOD budget was 4% bigger than last year's. Hell, right now the federal government is the only thing guaranteed to be active in the economy. Until the non-government economy gets back on its feet, we have little choice but to keep spending lavishly. ("We are all Keynesians now," is the economists' refrain.) (This spending policy, incidentally, is little changed from our previous president's, only the spending is more targeted and forward-looking [and admittedly bigger] now.)

Obama's military beef has been with the Iraq operation, which was indeed a cluster-screwup in virtually every way.

Back sort-of on-topic: Aircraft are small and fragile. Ships are large and relatively sturdy, but still mobile and with large power supplies. Ships are not nearly as unstable as aircraft either, and if a CIWS can be stabilized, so can a laser. Further, if something blows up close to an airplane, the plane has a good chance of being destroyed, whereas if an effectively portable device (limited in size and energy) explodes near a ship, the ship might get damaged, or it might need a paint touch-up.

Sadly, we haven't solved the stabilization or power problems for friggin' shark-mounted lasers.

Back on-topic furreal: I thought (without investigation) CIWS was good enough to defend against any modern threat, but the FEL is apparently designed for point defense against hypersonic threats. Speed-of-light is better than really-mechanically-fast, but it might be overkill, if there is such a thing for a defensive combat system.

"Hell, right now the federal government is the only thing guaranteed to be active in the economy."

That is giant red flag, if you ask me.

From my position within the defense contract industry, I see a recession from innovation and supporting programs. This is on a general term. Last year's defense related vender conventions have been shrinking and I have not seen anything that makes this year's activity look to be any better.

The technology is important but secondary. From a national security perspective, the ultimate question is this: "Are Mobile, Theater-Based, Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Systems Important for U.S. National Defense". If the answer is "yes" (as I believe that it is), then the next step is to decide upon the most reliable, most cost-effective way to do this. If the solution involves lasers - great. If it involves more traditional ABM technologies - that's fine, too.

And let's build (and deploy) these regional ABM systems before Iran and North Korea get much farther along in their nuclear programs.

It must be a thrill to concentrate on destructive powers, rather than constructive structures? Spending those budgets on these things gives a clear image of the mindset. It must be difficult for a nation to have no wars or threats to keep this "economy" alive. But does it serve world's purpose?

This laser is designed to destroy missiles (and maybe enemy aircraft). I fail to see how this defensive system could be considered a "destructive power."

On the article, I saw these lasers on the History Channel and I thought the technology was pretty cool.

Turning to lasers for defensive weapons is another step to going green.

With lasers you have a much lessor risk of having any on board ship accidents from mishandled ammunition. Naval ships have drills to keep the crew ready in the event that explosive materials are dropped.

Lasers are a lot less wear and tear on a ship structurally when tested. Those 16 inch guns on a battle ship would move the ship sideways when fired, you can be that recoil caused damage that had to be repaired in the shipyards during scheduled maintenance.

Lasers are far more accurate and unavoidable by enemy aircraft. The laser doesn't even have to be destructive to the plane, the light from the laser itself messes with the pilots eyes so they can't see anything. Currently it is an act of war just to direct a laser guided firecontrol system at an aircraft of another country. It's also a criminal offense of you are caught shining a laser at an aircraft flying over head because that laser light messes with the pilots eyes.

You can't really put a laser into a destructive weapon category because laser light only travels in a straight line and is limited to only targets within line of sight. Any target that is over the horizon is safe from a laser. So it's pretty much limited to only self defense purposes.

Each nation does not need to be concerned with the World's purpose. It needs to be concerned with the well being of it's citizens. Both short term and long term.

Our military needs superior defense capabilities so that potential attackers can readily access that any attack would end in failure. I support strong offensive and defensive capabilities. That would include super high tech lazers to destroy planes missles, torpedoes, structures, ships and enemy troops.

Lazer technology ultimately will have other uses in space defense, interstellar propulsion systems and likely mining and mineral processing. So i don't think it is a waste of money and time.

Unless I am mistaken I believe I saw an internal update on Boeing's web site earlier this year touting successful test results where Boeing is still working on the airbore laser program. maybe it was an old note from 2009.

Turning to lasers for defensive weapons is another step to going green.

With lasers you have a much lessor risk of having any on board ship accidents from mishandled ammunition. Naval ships have drills to keep the crew ready in the event that explosive materials are dropped.

Lasers are a lot less wear and tear on a ship structurally when tested. Those 16 inch guns on a battle ship would move the ship sideways when fired, you can be that recoil caused damage that had to be repaired in the shipyards during scheduled maintenance.

Lasers are far more accurate and unavoidable by enemy aircraft. The laser doesn't even have to be destructive to the plane, the light from the laser itself messes with the pilots eyes so they can't see anything. Currently it is an act of war just to direct a laser guided firecontrol system at an aircraft of another country. It's also a criminal offense of you are caught shining a laser at an aircraft flying over head because that laser light messes with the pilots eyes.

You can't really put a laser into a destructive weapon category because laser light only travels in a straight line and is limited to only targets within line of sight. Any target that is over the horizon is safe from a laser. So it's pretty much limited to only self defense purposes.

My son came across a how to video on Utube for converting a laser used in your DVD player to a burning device.

We're already using lasers for weapon guidance.

The firtst computer was as big as a room, perhaps bigger and worked on punchcards. Not many people could imagine at the time what the use of that machine could be, and why would someone spend so much time and money building one when its tasks could more or less be performed much cheaper by an economic human workforce. The system was marginally effective.

Today we all carry one in our pockets and can't imagine life without it. It's a mobile phone.

I still can only manage to light cigarettes with my laser pointer. Soon I will be projecting pictures in my mobile phone on a wall for everyone to see via a miniature laser projector. God knows what I will be able to do with a handheld chemical or free electron laser in 20 years. We'll have to wait and see.

The point and purpose of any weapon is energy on target, in such concentrations as to overwhelm any possible defense. With explosives in particular, be they chemical or nuclear, this achieves it's ultimate expression. The problem with explosives though is that we get a tremendous amount of energy that is in fact not actually applied to the target. A blast, by it's very nature, radiates energy outward from the source in all directions. But just suppose for a moment that we could get the point intensity of a nuclear explosion, but applied with surgical precision, and with absolutely no side-scatter? Beam transmission energy weapons allow us to do this exact thing, to apply massive energy to a pin-point target. Energy weapons have the potential to make explosives, particularly nuclear explosives, all but obsolete!

Directed energy weapons have a second advantage as well. The beam propagates at the speed of light, as opposed to at best a thousand or so meters per second. Which means no windage, no trajectory, and no time for the target to evade. Just point and shoot, and it's almost impossible to miss.

As a professional military man, I think that energy weapons are a great idea for those reasons alone. I don't care what they cost. If they can help us to win a war and keep my shipmates from being killed, then they're worth it.

And consider this. If that's your son or daughter out there, would you want him or her to be armed with energy weapons that would help bring them home alive, or would you prefer them to face hypersonic or nuclear missiles with CWIS?

With a nuclear blast you're going to be putting your stern to it full speed until the explosion passes then the Operations Specialists are going to be computing effective fallout winds and recommending courses to avoid it and the ship is going to have its washdown system activated.

They aren't going to be using CIWS in that event.

Yes, I know. I was a sailor, remember. But with the laser, they have a fair shot at taking it out before it goes off, which I personally find to be vastly preferable.