Laser CIWS

With weight ever decreasing, does anyone know if there has been/is
a project on something like this:


http://members.rogers.com/biglasers/continuous/abl.html


..intended to replace this?


http://www.military.cz/usa/navy/weap...phalanx_en.htm




Regards...

In article ,
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

With weight ever decreasing, does anyone know if there has been/is
a project on something like this:


http://members.rogers.com/biglasers/continuous/abl.html

The new carriers in the works for the US include much more electrical
capacity to allow for just such a thing.

Most of the newer ships have a more modular approach, so they can change
out weapons much faster when they become available.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 1/2/2004 1:15 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


With weight ever decreasing, does anyone know if there has been/is
a project on something like this:


http://members.rogers.com/biglasers/continuous/abl.html


..intended to replace this?


http://www.military.cz/usa/navy/weap...phalanx_en.htm




Regards...

Not likely. The ABL is designed to be fired in the clear air at altitude. A
ship borne version would face problems with smoke, fog and sea spray
interferance.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am

With weight ever decreasing, does anyone know if there has been/is
a project on something like this:

http://members.rogers.com/biglasers/continuous/abl.html

Not likely. The ABL is designed to be fired in the clear air at altitude. A
ship borne version would face problems with smoke, fog and sea spray
interferance.

For larger ships, spray would be somewhat less of a problem, and could
be avoided as an issue with fast-operating covers for the systems. With
a good choice of wavelengths, smoke and fog aren't that much of a
problem, especially at fairly short ranges.

It's just going to be a while. Heck, they're talking about laser
weapons for *tanks*, which tend to live in much worse conditions almost
all of the time.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

From: Chad Irby
Date: 1/2/2004 5:16 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: m

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am

With weight ever decreasing, does anyone know if there has been/is
a project on something like this:

http://members.rogers.com/biglasers/continuous/abl.html

Not likely. The ABL is designed to be fired in the clear air at altitude. A
ship borne version would face problems with smoke, fog and sea spray
interferance.

For larger ships, spray would be somewhat less of a problem, and could
be avoided as an issue with fast-operating covers for the systems. With
a good choice of wavelengths, smoke and fog aren't that much of a
problem, especially at fairly short ranges.

It's just going to be a while. Heck, they're talking about laser
weapons for *tanks*, which tend to live in much worse conditions almost
all of the time.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com


Back in 1971 or 1972 Popular Mechanics(?) showed a picture of a laser tank. g

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
says...


Back in 1971 or 1972 Popular Mechanics(?) showed a picture of a laser tank. g


Shhh, those are secret !

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

(B2431) wrote in
:
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 1/2/2004 1:15 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


With weight ever decreasing, does anyone know if there has
been/is a project on something like this:


http://members.rogers.com/biglasers/continuous/abl.html


..intended to replace this?


http://www.military.cz/usa/navy/weap...phalanx_en.htm




Regards...

Not likely. The ABL is designed to be fired in the clear air at
altitude. A ship borne version would face problems with smoke,
fog and sea spray interferance.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


But impossible to overcome? I think there are som arguments
in favor:

1. A ship is a more stable platform than an airplane
2. The ABL's targets are houndreds of miles away, while
CIWS operate in less than a mile
3. More powerful lasers and advances in adaptive optics will
compensate for air distortions



Regards...

From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 1/2/2004 5:42 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(B2431) wrote in
:
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 1/2/2004 1:15 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


With weight ever decreasing, does anyone know if there has
been/is a project on something like this:


http://members.rogers.com/biglasers/continuous/abl.html


..intended to replace this?


http://www.military.cz/usa/navy/weap...phalanx_en.htm




Regards...

Not likely. The ABL is designed to be fired in the clear air at
altitude. A ship borne version would face problems with smoke,
fog and sea spray interferance.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


But impossible to overcome? I think there are som arguments
in favor:

1. A ship is a more stable platform than an airplane
2. The ABL's targets are houndreds of miles away, while
CIWS operate in less than a mile
3. More powerful lasers and advances in adaptive optics will
compensate for air distortions



Regards...

Good points.

I have no idea how die lasers work but I wonder how long they shelf life of the
chemicals are. In the case of the airborne version they can be prepared just
prior to flight. Again not an insoluable problem for boats.

When I mentioned sea spray I sould also have said rain. I don't know if they
can be optically corrected for.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

B2431 wrote:
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 1/2/2004 5:42 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
(B2431) wrote in
:
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 1/2/2004 1:15 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
With weight ever decreasing, does anyone know if there has
been/is a project on something like this:
http://members.rogers.com/biglasers/continuous/abl.html
..intended to replace this?
http://www.military.cz/usa/navy/weap...phalanx_en.htm
Regards...

Not likely. The ABL is designed to be fired in the clear air at
altitude. A ship borne version would face problems with smoke,
fog and sea spray interferance.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

But impossible to overcome? I think there are som arguments
in favor:

1. A ship is a more stable platform than an airplane
2. The ABL's targets are houndreds of miles away, while
CIWS operate in less than a mile
3. More powerful lasers and advances in adaptive optics will
compensate for air distortions

Regards...

Good points.

I have no idea how die lasers work but I wonder how long they shelf life of the
chemicals are. In the case of the airborne version they can be prepared just
prior to flight. Again not an insoluable problem for boats.

When I mentioned sea spray I sould also have said rain. I don't know if they
can be optically corrected for.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

One of the issues is the lasers produce toxic gases. On the ABL, they
are vented outside the plane and are dispersed in the slipstream.

On ships it could be a more significant problem to get rid of them
without endangering the crew.

On the other hand, a ship could carry more laser fuel and heat
dispersion is easier to solve.

No Spam! wrote:

One of the issues is the lasers produce toxic gases. On the ABL, they
are vented outside the plane and are dispersed in the slipstream.

On ships it could be a more significant problem to get rid of them
without endangering the crew.

On the other hand, a ship could carry more laser fuel and heat
dispersion is easier to solve.

The lasing chemicals used in weapons like ABL are not really considered safe
for shipboard use. For example, one part of a COIL's typical fuel is
high-test hydrogen peroxide, the same stuff that blew up Kursk. So you
almost certainly will not see high-energy chemical lasers aboard ship.

Naval laser applications are pretty much focused (no pun intended) on lasers
that run on electricity from the ship's power system instead. (Such as the
all-electric propulsion system planne for DD(X)) There are a couple of
candidates -- free-electron lasers are promising these days (seppite a poor
hsitory back in the 1980s). So are solid-state lasers. There's been a lot
of research on these two in the last couple of years, from all of the
services. (The Army is looking at a solid-state laser to replace the
chemical laser in the THEL anti-artillery system, to make it usefully
portable. The Air Force thinks it can put a solid-state laser in the
lift-fan bay of a JSF.)

People have taked about absorption problems, which are certainly a real
issue. The shipboard environment is about the worst possible for a weaopn
laser, with salt spray, fog, mist, haze, etc. ABL gets to operate above all
this stuff and thus can be comparatively simple. But it's still dependant
on adaptive focusing to get through the thin, dry air where it would be
shooting.

That's one thing making free-electron lasers of particualr interest to the
Navy. An FEL can be tuned across a wide range of frequencies, letting it
pick the optimium one for good propagation under prevailing conditions.

http://www.jlab.org/news/articles/2003/navy.html

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)