Boeing: Raygun dreadnoughts will rule the oceans by 2019

I apologize if this has been posted already, it didn't come up in any search in the forums.

Boeing: Raygun dreadnoughts will rule the oceans by 2019
Track this topic Print story Post comment Missiles, laser sharks simply nowhere

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Physics, 17th April 2009 09:16 GMT

Free whitepaper – Transforming IT through convergence, alignment and good governance

US aerospace mammoth Boeing has made a bold announcement, saying that it will "transform naval warfare in the next decade" by developing powerful warship raygun turrets able to blast enemy missiles and aircraft out of the sky from afar.

The arms globocorp said yesterday that it has been awarded an initial $6.9m contract in a deal potentially worth as much as $169m, to develop a prototype Free Electron Laser (FEL) beam cannon.

Boeing say that this will provide an "ultra-precise, speed-of-light capability and unlimited magazine depth to defend ships against new, challenging threats, such as hyper-velocity cruise missiles", and that "FELs are capable of achieving the megawatt power the Navy requires for ship defense".

"It will be a cornerstone of the Navy's plan to incorporate directed energy systems into its future all-electric ship architecture," adds Boeing missile-buster veep Greg Hyslop.

www.theregister.co.uk...

This is kind of a strange announcement. Why would they announce that by 2019 the U.S. navy will be able to stop any, and every offensive weapon, not to mention enemy ships, with this "raygun"?

What will be, or was, the awnser from countries like Russia, and China?

If these countries are against a simple "missile defense system", my guess is that they will be even more against this raygun being used by the Navy in the future.

I find it strange that they make this announcement public. But again, i could be wrong.


[edit on 23-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 26-4-2009 by GAOTU789]

What's the surprise? Laser anti-missile defences have been in the pipeline for decades (first missile shootdown in the 70's IIRC) , and fleet defence is an obvious application.

it's not fundamentally different from using missiles or other projectiles (eg Phalanx) to defeat missiles.

On past performance it would be an error to assume that a) it'll be in place in ten years and b) that it will work with a high degree of reliability.

Lasers are strictly line of sight only. Regular naval guns have a far higher range than a naval laser could ever have, because they can go over the horizon. lasers are nice for shooting missiles, since they're hard to find when they aren't in line of sight anyway, and if they're ICBM types, they're going up, not hugging the ground. Lasers are less good for shooting ships. Lasers are lousy weapons against anything close to armor anyway.

This would be the perfect defence system for a air craft carrier battle group.

And would negate all the money countries like china have spent on high speed anti ship missiles.

reply to post by ANNED


It wouldn’t be that good. As Mdiinican pointed out they would be limited in that they can’t fire over the horizon as guns, missiles and ship borne aircraft can (given proper guidance). They’re also limited to the number of targets they can intercept at any given time. Where you may have 64 missiles on your ship with the ability to control a dozen at a time, you would probably only have enough power and space to have a handful of lasers. The few lasers you do have would also be limited in where they can fire by the physical structure of the ship.

So let’s say a ship faces an attack from one direction by multiple sea skimming missiles.

With a missile system, ships radar, mounted at 20m would detect the sea skimmers at 16km. In the time it takes for the skimmers to get within 3km the ship could probably launch a salvo of around 30 missiles engaging 30 separate targets.

A laser based defence, despite being able to detect at the same range would only be able to engage from 10km. With a ten second engagement time, each laser could only intercept around three threats. With only a limited number of turrets and these turrets themselves limited in where they can fire, a laser based defence is considerably less capable than a missile based equivalent. Even a liberal four turrets on a single ship could only engage 12 targets.

Something about this disclosure seems to scripted.
Don't we already have an energy based satellite system in place which was based on the Top Secret Star Wars program of the Reagan era?

From what I've been able to piece together over time, the real issue is the energy source.

These weapons, if it is right to even call them that, are energy based and not projectile. They can gather the energy and redirect it to a specific target or location. We assume that it is focused, and we assume the energy source is "conventional".

I really don't think that is the case.

It is not too far fetched to consider that the original idea put forward by Tesla 70 years ago, may indeed have been harnessed and developed into an effective shield defense system. So it is only natural to move it from the highly secret L.E.O. platforms down to secure Naval platforms. A kind of Vetting of the technology if you will.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by GriffinRD]

What disclosure? These weapons have been in the public eye for decades.

They’ve only recently become efficient enough to be practical(ish) now though. There are no known or rumoured system placed in orbit as far as I know and since space based weapons are illegal even a suggestion that they exist would cause uproar.

All they are is very big, very powerful lasers just like you get in labs and whatnot. Most generate the laser through chemical reaction though in this case Boeing is claiming to use free electron lasers which would draw power from the ships engines.

There’s no conspiracy in this, just an over stated Boeing advertisement.

Originally posted by Mike_A
There are no known or rumoured system placed in orbit as far as I know and since space based weapons are illegal even a suggestion that they exist would cause uproar.

Oh. I see. I mis-spoke then.
Nevemind.

Since the sources cited in this link takes up a great deal of space i wont repost them on this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Personally i think there is little 'new' ( minitaurization of equipment and power sources ) in the field of lasers other than perhaps the fact that all the old information may again be 'leaking' out. Lasers capable of shooting down ICBM's have existed since the 70's but were in part supplanted by other energy weapons that were simply more efficient. If these stations are still active , wherever they may be hidden( or not so much) their primary purpose will probably be in the ASAT role as mobility still seems to be the key defense against existing DEW's.

Stellar

Edit: Well it looks like you will be able to appreciate the following Slayer.

I tried to provide a summary of short which is based on press clippings , a decent understanding of physics and at good helping of credulity ( at least first; this stuff tends to grow on you) here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

For a FAR more professional approach ( which i only discovered much later) i suggest the following rather brilliant summary:

www.frank.germano.com...

Well, pleasant dreams...

Stellar

[edit on 29-4-2009 by StellarX]

You just never know maybe it has taken this long to finally figure out what Tezsa was talking about all those years ago.


Tezlas Death Ray

will send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 250 miles from the defending nation's border and will cause armies of millions to drop dead in their tracks

When put into operation, Dr. Tesla said, this latest invention of his would make war impossible. This death-beam, he asserted, would surround each country like an invisible Chinese wall, only a million times more impenetrable. It would make every nation impregnable against attack by airplanes or by large invading armies.

Tesla's 'Death Ray' In
1940 NY Times

'Death Ray' For Planes
The New York Times
September 22, 1940

Nikola Tesla, one of the truly great inventors who celebrated his eighty-fourth birthday on July, 10 tells the writer that he stands ready to divulge to the United States government the secret of his "teleforce," of which he said," airplane motors would be melted at a distance of 250 miles, so that an invisible 'Chinese Wall of Defense' would be built around the country against any enemy attack by an enemy air force, no matter how large.

Why not keep regular cannons and use the lasers as defensive weapons only. A laser might be a good replacement for the Phalanx CIWS, but I think that I'd rather have a sixteen-inch cannon instead of a laser. Lasers are notorious for being hard to maintain, and while I love the HELLADS/THEL/MTHEL-type systems, I'd rather a standard projectile launching weapon. Maybe railguns are the next big development in ship weapons.

i concur with the concesus :

` if you are close enough to use a naval DEW as an offensive armnent against other surface units , you are way too close `

my 1st thought on ` how to stop this alleged " unstopable " monster - the humble torpedo - lets see it shoot its DEW at incoming fish