It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Has any military considered Laser SUBMARINES??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The more i think about it the more they would work really well, they are under water hidden from sight can surface any where in world, they run on nuclear power so theres a power source for lasers rite there.

They are doing lasers in 747 is it are they not?

Yup they could even make these subs huge and have multiple laser batterys on them 4-5 lasers very high powered would make it real powerful vehicle.

ALSO call me silly but can lasers fire under water????

Hell they could probably add microwave generators and have a microwave shield around sub would that do anything to protect sub???




posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by blobby
The more i think about it the more they would work really well, they are under water hidden from sight can surface any where in world, they run on nuclear power so theres a power source for lasers rite there.

They are doing lasers in 747 is it are they not?

Yup they could even make these subs huge and have multiple laser batterys on them 4-5 lasers very high powered would make it real powerful vehicle.

ALSO call me silly but can lasers fire under water????

Hell they could probably add microwave generators and have a microwave shield around sub would that do anything to protect sub???


im not sure if lasers wil; ne effective under water becuase the way the anti-missile lasers work is by directing intense heat/energy onto the surface of the target this will not work underwater becuase of the cooling effects of water. i may be wrong with this assumption.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
As a laser travels it is dissipated by the atmosphere. The lower you go the more dense the atmosphere and the further the laser is scattered. The airborne laser is airborne to bypass the denser parts of the atmosphere and get a greater percentage of energy on target. The nuclear reactor of a sub would offset this however.

The real problem is the volume of airspace the laser can hit. When it's airborne the laser can "see" further and has more volume. Considering the cost of a sub compared to an airborne laser and the fact that you'd need more subs to cover the same area it becomes extremely uneconomical.

As for firing underwater the light from the laser gets scattered even faster than in the atmosphere to the point that once you get more than a dozen meters down a laser would be useless.

It would be possible to retrofit a couple of ballistic missile tubes to carry a laser and its systems as a point defence system or as a last ditch effort against ballistic missiles.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Good lord! When did the public schools stop teaching science?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Blobby,

Blue Light laser radar (see 'Magic Lantern') is already used for mine detection at relatively decent depths (300-400ft max I believe).

However; I doubt seriously if you would be able to use lasers as a kill mechanism if only becuase they are thermal weapons and the amount of energy disappated in 'boiling water' would be extreme.

I would really like to know myself if it is possible to use LIDAR as either a targeting system (drone subs run sprint-drift combinations and then 'illuminate' a wide swath before charging on). Or to make communications links with surface buoys possible in controlling network weapons systems such as preemplaced CAPTOR mines, S2A popup SAMs or even (Sea Ferret) long range overland recce/strike drones.

Targeting of course requires a reflection which means you are looking at out-and-back return distances with considerable absorption and backscatter problems for typical sub vs. sub (say 10,000m minimum tracking distances) engagement. It might be possible however to mount a turreted or VLS based supercav 'interceptor' system which used Lidar to track inbound threats for terminal defensive engagement using initial swimout (low speed) to spot the SALH reflections and then boosting to 200 knots or so to make the mechanical kill.

Kind've a lethal decoy type system.

OTOH, comms are one way and I would guess fairly undetectable thanks to the surface breakup refractory and 'mirror' reflectance effects of even mild wave action. If you can hold a 10ft target pattern from say 20-30` slants (a cube a mile in diameter and say 900ft deep) you should be able to do a lot of things now considered too 'masts up = surface target' dangerous for prolonged exposure reasons.

With today's multi/hyperspectral IIR satellite and HALE platform resolutions, the ocean is nearly transparent in a lot of regions so you don't want a sub anywhere's near the surface. Similarly, you don't want to 'manever' to either target or engage when your own platfom is nearly helpless to counter fire (one torpedo usually spells the end of a submarine as a combat platform, if not a true vehicle kill).

Avoiding those two conditions, especially with the large amount of inshore ops were are now doing, would be a key prerequisite for SSN ops (big thermal plume, lots of plant noise, very uniform thermal gradients).


KPl.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
It really depends on the wavelength and type of particle use in the coherent wave. I wouldn't be surprised if they were cooking up some sort of "Beam" weapon for use underwater but I don't know what it would be composed of.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by blobby
The more i think about it the more they would work really well, they are under water hidden from sight can surface any where in world, they run on nuclear power so theres a power source for lasers rite there.

They are doing lasers in 747 is it are they not?

Yup they could even make these subs huge and have multiple laser batterys on them 4-5 lasers very high powered would make it real powerful vehicle.

ALSO call me silly but can lasers fire under water????

Hell they could probably add microwave generators and have a microwave shield around sub would that do anything to protect sub???



the 747ABL you are talking about doesn't get its high power from electricity. it gets it from a chemical reaction. It is a C.O.I.L. laser or Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser.

The Airforce and Boeing are fitting a smaller version on an AC130 gunship to use against ground targets to vaporize tanks, ground targets, people etc.

a megawatt laser would boil the water before it got any distance from the sub, although it would create bubbles in the water which would cause a ship to sink due to the loss of buoyancy. an interesting way to sink a ship



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Why have lasers when you can have a supersonic underwater missle? heres a very very old but active link from the web, which has sat in my favorites for nearly 7 years.
Super cavitation weapons, thats the way to go! old but a useful start point to any future digging you might want to do


Might help if i posted the link....ROFL


www.jrmooneyham.com...

enjoy.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by MadGreebo]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Sorry blobby i forgot to post this link as well... has pictures and a very good concise explanation about super cavitation. Its very very interesting subject, and it just makes you wonder about just how a large surface ship would defend itself against such a weapon or craft!


www.subsim.com...

Enjoy.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join