Futuristic Laser Successfully Tested on Cruiser

[Thomas]

Well ballistic missiles already have a lot a of thermal protection as they have to survive re entry. Just curious if a even a high powered laser would rival that kind of heat.

The FEL Laser is what will be the game changer. If it can burn through 20ft of steel in 1 sec as claimed. That puts it in a class all by itself.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

The FEL Laser is what will be the game changer. If it can burn through 20ft of steel in 1 sec as claimed. That puts it in a class all by itself.

I'm sure it is. But it is far from being combat ready ready if that video was any indication.

 

[Thomas]

I'm sure it is. But it is far from being combat ready ready if that video was any indication.

I'm sure it isn't since that was only a 15kw demonstration.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

I'm sure it isn't since that was only a 15kw demonstration.

How much power does a current ship like the Arleigh Burke devote to weapons systems?

 

[Obambam]

that's cool, in the military hardware world, you always have capabilities and counter capabilities. maybe next generation ballistic missiles will have mirrors on them or something.

In the military world, given time, there will always be a counter. Just like how the DF-21D was the first ASBM and a counter to the SM-3 to be developed and deployed.

 

[Thomas]

How much power does a current ship like the Arleigh Burke devote to weapons systems?

No Idea....I'm sure you can google it. I know all future Navy ship designs have much more increased power output.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

No Idea....I'm sure you can google it. I know all future Navy ship designs have much more increased power output.

Well I thought you were a professional.

Its 81,000 Kw for the entire ship but most of that is to propulsion. I was wondering how much you could utilize while still being mobile.

 

[Obambam]

We must also question the range and effectiveness of the laser. It is absurd to compare something coming towards to ship at Mach 10 to a 'bobbing, weaving boat' or 'high-speed cruising target' (please also note on the choice of words - have a destructive effect). Even if they did a test on America's fastest cruise missile - 'X51 Hypersonic Cruise Missile' (Max speed - Mach 5) it would still lack the capability to successfully negate the DF-21D.

X-51 Hypersonic Cruise Missile – Fastest Cruise Missile

Imagine having the ability to strike anywhere in the world within one hour. The X-51 is an amazing hypersonic cruise missile that travels 600 miles in just ten minutes (approximately 3600 MPH or Mach 5).

 

[gambit]

Gambit, I'll make it easier. US lasers are currently not powerful enough. Even the chemical lasers are not powerful enough right now at range.

Any proof, besides 'Chinese physics', that the US cannot produce sufficient power.

Shooting down a ballistic warhead is therefore currently not possible (hence the small boat - something they could have done in the late 1970's with chemical lasers but not solid state lasers). Your statements about ASBM being obsolete are therefore premature.

The problem with intercepting a descending ballistic warhead is not detection or targeting. A descending ballistic warhead is highly contrasted against a uniform background, in the infrared and microwave spectrum. It is about making the interception %100 certain due to the closing speed between the warhead and the interceptor. If there is a miss, the interceptor does not have a second chance. This laser will negate that situation. Nowhere have I ever said that it is impossible for a descending ballistic warhead to hit a moving target. I have always said that the technical hurdles for the DF-21 are considerable for the same reason -- that if there is a miss even by just one meter -- the ship win. The DF-21 must be %100 certain at all times.

The DF-21 is not yet deployed. Same for this laser weapon. But weapons procurement depends on the estimated longevity of the weapon against the most likely adversary. Neither the US nor China procure weapons to use against Somali pirates, do we? So if the US already demonstrated that we WILL have a viable and functional defense against descending ballistic warhead, the problem for China will be to estimate how long will the US take to make this laser weapon fully functional and effective against ballistic warhead. This estimation will affect DF-21 procurement because why would China procure something everyone knows is worthless against an adversary that has a defense against it.

 

[Obambam]

The DF-21 is not yet deployed. Same for this laser weapon.

It is already deployed.

Neither the US nor China procure weapons to use against Somali pirates, do we?

No one needs to procure anything against Somali pirates. I even dare say a bunch of taliban with AK-47's will be suffice. It makes more sense to combat them with cheap mercenaries.

So if the US already demonstrated that we WILL have a viable and functional defense against descending ballistic warhead, the problem for China will be to estimate how long will the US take to make this laser weapon fully functional and effective against ballistic warhead.

US, so far, only demonstrated it against a bobbing, weaving boat and a high-speed cruising target (speed of the cruising target is unknown). No claims were made on a Mach 10 descending warhead. So until then, the US can keep refining its efforts and it is only save to assume that there will be another plot twist coming from the Chinese side.

This estimation will affect DF-21 procurement because why would China procure something everyone knows is worthless against an adversary that has a defense against it.

It is already deployed. It is instead up to the US now to step up with its testings and to come up with a funtional counter to the worthless DF-21D mach 10 descending ballistic missile. The estimation of procurement for such lasers will be determined by its test results, functionality and effectiveness of the laser in a maritime environment. Because why would the guys who fund the military procure something everyone knows is worthless against an adversary's defense?

 

[gambit]

It is already deployed.

Source for that? And please do not offer op-ed pieces.

US, so far, only demonstrated it against a bobbing, weaving boat and a high-speed cruising target (speed of the cruising target is unknown). No claims were made on a Mach 10 descending warhead. So until then, the US can keep refining its efforts and it is only save to assume that there will be another plot twist coming from the Chinese side.

Correct...And I want to see what 'plot twist' could that be.

It is already deployed. It is now up to the US now to step up with its testings and to come up with a funtional counter to its worthless DF-21D mach 10 descending ballistic missile. The estimation of procurement for such lasers will be determined by its test results, functionality and effectiveness of the laser in a maritime environment. Because why would the guys who fund the military procure something everyone knows is worthless against an adversary's defense.

And any proof, besides 'Chinese physics', that the US could not?

 

[Obambam]

Source for that? And please do not offer op-ed pieces.

And your sources for that it is not deployed? And please do not offer 2009 pieces.

Correct...And I want to see what 'plot twist' could that be.

Correct, it is up to the US to find a way and deploy a functional counter against its adversary's defense. Until then, there is no need for any Chinese plot twist.

And any proof, besides 'Chinese physics', that the US could not?

At this point no 'Chinese Physics' is needed. It will only be needed when 'American Physics' proved that it could.

For the mean time, patience is virtue my friend.

 

[gambit]

And your sources for that it is not deployed? And please do not offer 2009 pieces.

Right...You are asking me to prove a negative.

Correct, it is up to the US to find a way and deploy a functional counter against its adversary's defense. Until then, there is no need for any Chinese plot twist.

We already have. The issue is no longer theoretical but engineering.

At this point no 'Chinese Physics' is needed. It will only be needed when 'American Physics' proved that it could.

So you admit there is such a thing as 'Chinese physics'. Good.

For the mean time, patience is virtue my friend.

And we got plenty of that.

 

[Obambam]

Right...You are asking me to prove a negative.

So you do not have any prove? Too bad.

We already have. The issue is no longer theoretical but engineering.

Then it would be down to the US engineering to prove that such theories can be achieved. And I do not mean theory to hit a speed boat or a Mach 5 missile, but a descending mach 10 ballistic missile.

So you admit there is such a thing as 'Chinese physics'. Good.

Nothing wrong with admitting to something you often quote yourself right?
Let us not forget that it was the 'Chinese Physics' that kicked the backside of these American engineers and made them do their homeworks.

And we got plenty of that.

Which is good for China.

 

[gambit]

So you do not have any prove? Too bad.

It is wrong to demand someone to prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, not with the doubter.

Then it would be down to the US engineering to prove that such theories can be achieved. And I do not mean theory to hit a speed boat or a Mach 5 missile, but a descending mach 10 ballistic missile.

This is where you Chinese boys continue to prove yourselves idiotic. The theories have already been proven but apparently you have a problem understanding the difference between theory and engineering.

Nothing wrong with admitting to something you often quote yourself right?
Let us not forget that it was the 'Chinese Physics' that kicked the backside of these American engineers and made them do their homeworks.

This just goes to prove that once again, China is just trying to catch up but still remain behind.