It poses a few questions.
The video is edited and choppy so there is no time reference for how long the beam needed to be on target to ignite the engine housing.
How would it do against a moving target verses an anchored boat?
And why did they see the need to test it using a fairly new boat worth well over $50,000?
I know several boatyards that would have gladly sold them a dozen old clunkers for short money.
The old boats would have been a more realistic recreation of what Somali pirates are using.
Or was it just a waste of tax money to get business to a marina owned by a Congressman?
Discussion on:
Top
Rated
Rated
Interesting.
Posted by Hates Idiots
12th Apr 2011
Just
In
In
Billy Mitchell
Posted by gardoglee
12th Jun 2012
Show:
+2
Votes
Interesting.
Posted by Hates Idiots
12th Apr 2011
0
Votes
RE: Video: Navy destroys ship with powerful laser
By the time the boat will catch fire, the war will be over! lol!
Posted by Administrator.
14th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Exactly..
Does it take 5 seconds or 50 seconds? Even 5 seconds is almost imposable on a small moving target.
Several years ago the Marine Corps was working on an anti tank weapon that would be perfect for dealing with pirates. It was a small tungsten rod mated to a simple rocket.
Flying at 3 times the speed of sound it was fire and forget because even a target moving at 40 mph left to right would only move a few feet before the rocket could travel to its maximum range. The shear velocity of the impact destroyed the target.
It tested well and the Corps tried to buy some, but Congress rejected the purchase. I guess it was too cheap and simple which did not make enough money for the right contractor.
Coupled with a small explosive charge it would have been cheap to build and deploy on land and sea. Paired in a mount with an M2 .50 cal it would have wrecked havoc on small and medium sized pirate boats.
Several years ago the Marine Corps was working on an anti tank weapon that would be perfect for dealing with pirates. It was a small tungsten rod mated to a simple rocket.
Flying at 3 times the speed of sound it was fire and forget because even a target moving at 40 mph left to right would only move a few feet before the rocket could travel to its maximum range. The shear velocity of the impact destroyed the target.
It tested well and the Corps tried to buy some, but Congress rejected the purchase. I guess it was too cheap and simple which did not make enough money for the right contractor.
Coupled with a small explosive charge it would have been cheap to build and deploy on land and sea. Paired in a mount with an M2 .50 cal it would have wrecked havoc on small and medium sized pirate boats.
Posted by Hates Idiots
15th Apr 2011
0
Votes
Do Nothing?
And the adversaries will stand around and watch while the flames go higher...
Of course, the smarter ones will have MIRRORS...
Of course, the smarter ones will have MIRRORS...
Posted by fiosdave
21st Apr 2011
+1
Vote
only 98 million for that???
gasoline is a lot more flamable than diesel, most boats use diesel and most fuel tanks are below the water line.... metal doesn't burn...
it might work against a jet aircraft but it's totally impractical against a boat. unless the boat is made of wood or fiberglass.
if anything, it seemed that boat was in greater danger of being swamped then of being lasered.
P.S. The title is totally misleading... it should have read "Navy uses powerful and megaexpensive laser to ignite the gasoline in a small unprotected outboard engine while leaving the little bitty boat intact."
it might work against a jet aircraft but it's totally impractical against a boat. unless the boat is made of wood or fiberglass.
if anything, it seemed that boat was in greater danger of being swamped then of being lasered.
P.S. The title is totally misleading... it should have read "Navy uses powerful and megaexpensive laser to ignite the gasoline in a small unprotected outboard engine while leaving the little bitty boat intact."
Posted by e5923
Updated - 27th Jun 2011
0
Votes
Navy Laser
What advantage does this provide for most armed encounters? I support the study of
high energy lasers for military use, but a 2 thousand dollar M2 .50 cal would have done
the same thing for what, a million dollars less? The headline was garbage; someone needs to do their homework. A motorboat isn't a SHIP.
high energy lasers for military use, but a 2 thousand dollar M2 .50 cal would have done
the same thing for what, a million dollars less? The headline was garbage; someone needs to do their homework. A motorboat isn't a SHIP.
Posted by prospector5
15th Oct 2011
0
Votes
Billy Mitchell
A not so long time ago in a Navy not so far away, the emphasis was on building Super Dreadnoughts, since everyone with a brain and any military experience knew that the only way to win Sea Supremacy was to have bigger battleships than the other guy. There was one really stupid guy named Billy Mitchell who kept insisting that airplanes were actually also useful for naval warfare, and even went so far as to suggest that an airplane could sink a battleship! Clearly the guy was an idiot.
Of course, the real test of Mitchell's idea was not the US navy tests in which he did indeed sink a battleship with bombs from a plane (although the Navy did say he cheated...a rather stupid concept in the context of warfare). The real proof was at Pearl Harbor.
Now, when you say that this first publicly released test video was unimpressive, you remind me of the Navy saying that Mitchell cheated because he dropped his bombs too fast while sinking the battleship Ostfriedland, which had been the pride of the German Navy in WWI. This was a first test. Calling it a failure because you could have done the same with a machine gun is like saying airplanes are useless in warfare because the Wright Flyer didn't have the cargo capacity of a B-52.
Of course, the real test of Mitchell's idea was not the US navy tests in which he did indeed sink a battleship with bombs from a plane (although the Navy did say he cheated...a rather stupid concept in the context of warfare). The real proof was at Pearl Harbor.
Now, when you say that this first publicly released test video was unimpressive, you remind me of the Navy saying that Mitchell cheated because he dropped his bombs too fast while sinking the battleship Ostfriedland, which had been the pride of the German Navy in WWI. This was a first test. Calling it a failure because you could have done the same with a machine gun is like saying airplanes are useless in warfare because the Wright Flyer didn't have the cargo capacity of a B-52.
Posted by gardoglee
12th Jun 2012