US Navy Now Zapping Boats

The Navy and Northrop Grumman announced yesterday that for the first time a program that integrates solid state lasers on naval vessel had engaged another boat moving across the water.

I realize this was reported yesterday, but I wanted to get the discussion going here since Defense Tech has covered the development of the Boeing’s Advanced Tactical laser which fires a beam from an airborne C-130 and the Laser Avenger, an updated air defense Humvee which can engage UAVs, cruise missiles and other aerial targets.

Now we’ve got working prototypes of laser engagement systems on the ground, sea and air. It’s a complicated algorythm to aim and accurately fire a laser at a moving target that’s subjected to all the interference of an ocean environment — not just the movement, but sea spray and electrostatic activity just over the horizon.

Additionally, the Navy accomplished several other benchmarks, including integrating MLD with a ship’s radar and navigation system and firing an electric laser weapon from a moving platform at-sea in a humid environment. Other tests of solid state lasers for the Navy have been conducted from land-based positions.

Having access to a HEL weapon will one day provide warfighter with options when encountering a small-boat threat.

But while April’s MLD test proves the ability to use a scalable laser to thwart small vessels at range, the technology will not replace traditional weapon systems.

But as my colleague from DoD Buzz just said, if the services are unwilling to use the active denial system because they see it as a torture weapon, how will they ever use the weaponized version of a laser when people are aboard?

— Christian

30 Comments on "US Navy Now Zapping Boats"

  1. I guess its more impressive that it NOT slowly generating a fire.

    Was it by chance that the engine was black?

    Could they repeat it on a white or silver engine?

    This test looks like something they would do on MythBusters- if they had their budget slashed.

  2. Seems pretty impressive to me.

    The heated source didn't seem to move, even with the rolling waves and pitching boat. That seems like the targeting software was working pretty well.

    The damage to the boat is secondary I think to the ability to actually hit it in maritime conditions. They can always look to increase the output of the laser. That won't mean anything if they can't hit their target.

  3. Reported yesterday? I heard about this last week. Saw the video too. Good ole' DT.

  4. I hope the laser was mounted on another boat or ship, and not on the outrigger you see on the boat! I like to see my tax dollars hard at work, but did they really have to use a pair of mercury 200's and what appears to be a nice rib boat to prove this thing works? wouldn't a 55 gal. drum bobbing in the water displayed the same results? $45,000 vs. $65.00, not hard math! no wonder we are going broke!!!

  5. Yes, as typical example of wasting taxpayers' money. Why burn one when you can burn more?

  6. Steve Hardy | April 12, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

    All I want is to see it work on something wrapped in silver foil and not a convenient black and trough a cloud of water vapour every sensible pirate will be able to flood the air with in a couple of years!

    Steve

  7. Proof of concept system. Has done very well. Some of the arguments against I think don't quite understand the amount of energy they are talking about in the full power version of some of these systems.

    A laser that can cut through 20 feet of steel in a second is not going to be slowed down in any significant way by reflective material. Will that material scatter some photos? Yes, will that power of a beam cut through that material in a nano second anyway? Yes.

    Even this test system was able to be fired at a moving target, at sea level in surf conditions. It already passed through more water vapor than a single boat with a fire hose can probably put up. Then there are the practical considerations. A fire hose pump is not a daisy, it's a pretty heavy piece of gear and to carry that in addition to any kind of weaponry and crew is no small feat for a speed boat. Probably not possible. Plus keep in mind this is a defensive weapon, so if they bad people are slowing down to throw up water vapor, which they would have to in order to stay in the area where the cloud is, the ship with the laser is waving goodbye as it sails away.

  8. This is not an impressive test of an HEL. Vaporizing the target in a microsecond is an impressive test of an HEL. Maybe this footage is to entertain the masses.

  9. If your fleet is being bothered by small boats, I would think the ideal solution would be a few AH-1 Super Cobras and their 20mm cannons. The lasers would be better saved for cruise missiles.

  10. or maybe there could -what would have nobody guessed- be a reason behind it. Maybe this is the same constallation with the motors like somali pirates use often. The USN faced them already. Then the bill would include training and testing which is actually costsaving.

    oh boy I'm wall street.

  11. john moore | April 12, 2011 at 4:39 pm |

    I gotta ask why use two 100hp merc outboards? The cost alone.

    Talk about waste.

  12. Just a though, but if you want to drill holes through expensive outboard motors, a 50 cal M2, or 25mm chain gun will work just as well, is current technology and a whole lot cheaper than a laser. Also uses less power. Ahh well, the taxpayers $$ at work.

  13. Tom Billings | April 12, 2011 at 5:57 pm |

    Bill, this was *not* a FEL, but a solid state laser. That is a significant difference, because they may be available before FELs will be. FELs will have both higher power, if the NAVY has the juice onboard, and it has the ability to switch from one wavelngth to another along the spectrum till they find one in which the material coating the target absorbs best, and *then* turn the power up. *Everything* absorbs better at some wavelengths than others, and that changes with temperature as well.

    Regards,

    Tom Billings

  14. What was the total time of the test? It looked like they cut away at least two times. Also, can they do this on a moving target?

  15. RizerBurnz | April 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm |

    Absolutely unimpressive…

  16. Enter text right here!I guess

  17. Well I guess somebody will outfit the Somali Pirates with tinfoil hats.

  18. > if the services are unwilling to use the active denial system because they see it as a torture weapon, how will they ever use the weaponized version of a laser when people are aboard?<
    Well, it's not because **DOD** sees it as a "torture weapon", it's that the New York Times and Al Jazeera will report that "serious questions have been raised by human rights organizations" about the use of the weapon and then PBS and NPR will pick up on that and then some lefty women in congress will hold pressers and that will be the end of it.

  19. Guys I guess your missing the concept, sure we can launch a hail of 50cal rounds at the boat, but a laser travels at the speed of light, strait, and over a great distance. If you have boats 2000 yards out and you are wanting to disable them by pin pointing the engine, what other options are out there?

    As far as using the engines vs a "floating drum", this tested several aspects that a drum wouldn't offer. A moving target, how long to disable the engines, ability to cut through the engines, etc.

  20. Matrix_3692 | April 13, 2011 at 6:10 am |

    for the first decade the laser will be making it's true debut in combat, it will be an awesome weapon of fear, until everyone is familiar to the weapon and countermeasure is developed and fielded.

  21. Seems to me, disabling the boats will not keep it from launching missiles. The anti-ship missiles need to be cooked off.

  22. 1) You can't change the power of 20mm or chain guns. You can change the power of HELs
    2) You can always run out of bullets. If you run out of power, your in trouble anyway
    3) HEL allows you to adjust aim while not spending ammunition (its a beam, not a shot)
    4) HEL gives you options- anything from causing discomfort of the enemy combatant, to blinding them (can't hit what you can't see), to cutting through their boat like a hot knife through butter. Aim for the missiles and make them blow before they hit their target, disable that suicide ship before it hits the boat, or kill the engines of a speeder moving contraband. One weapon. Many options. A 20mm or a chain gun can only accomplish one or two of these tasks.

  23. Steve Lyons | April 13, 2011 at 9:27 am |

    It would be more impressive if the "target" vessel was making evasive maneuvers and at speed. Granted it is bobbing in the water, that isn't a "combat situation" where this could be useful. Also what is the damage to a human that is hit with the beam, not that I car about the bad guys, but in a combat situation that is a likely outcome too.

  24. So would they pick up pirates from boats that have their motors lasered into ****, or just leave them floating 200 miles from shore with no food and no paddles?

    Not that I’d complain I’m just curious.

  25. This was not a FEL. It was a HEL or you could say solidstate.

  26. No to mention that, according to this article: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,229554,0

    We add the option of placing a single beam within 3 mm of a target (in rough seas), or spreading the beam out like a fan to create a wide sweep of counter electronics (after all, we are only talking about electronic wavelengths- just very high powered ones which have the potential to cause damage as well).

    Your counter-electronics measures, your non-lethal, AND your lethal defenses, all in one package means dropping a load of weight- great for planes, trains, and automobiles (as well as ships)

  27. The active denial system is anti-personel phased array microwave, (same tech as radar), which is intended to cause pain without causing permanent damage.

    Lasers are photon pumps that are intended to melt material and light things on fire, I.E. an anti-materiel weapon.

    two completely different devices, for two completely different purposes.

    I fail to see how being reluctant to deploy an anti-personel "pain ray", would translate to being reluctant to deploy an anti-materiel incendiary ray.
    Seeing as how the USA never ratified the treaty banning incendiary weapons, and pays only lip service to most such high-minded but pointless concepts. (you can't shoot the infantry with that .50 cal, but feel free to target the equipment that they are carrying.)

    Dead is dead, and it doesn't really matter if you were burned by the laser, or by the fuel that the laser ignited.

  28. Google award contract M67854-04-C-5074. It's a contract with the Office of Naval Research and the University of Florida Sponsored Research Department to study the sensory consequences of using a laser from 1.242 kilometers away (over a mile and a half) to torture and kill people with taser-like motor effects and other pain infliction scenarios. Just like the laser that caught the boat on fire, the beam is invisible. The Office of Naval Research has been working diligently to use this laser weapon for defense force protection, homeland security and law enforcement purposes as the contract clearly states. The New World Order is here and American citizens will be targeted with this weapon as they go about their daily lives. They have been using the laser weapons on Americans for several years. An FBI agent stated to me that many citizens are coming to them complaining they are being electrically shocked by aircraft, but the FBI can do nothing because America is at war and therefore, the military can do whatever they want to anyone.

  29. why would you even bother responding to a post like that?

  30. joe manning | July 9, 2011 at 1:19 am |

    oh and can it still be entertaining to mess with the dogs and cats with it bet they know the answer to that .

Comments are closed.