US Navy's LASER CANNON WARSHIP: USS Ponce sent to Gulf After years of promises the US Navy has deployed its first operational laser cannon, which has been built into the USS Ponce and sent into a combat zone. The 30-kilowatt laser weapon system (LaWS) has been mounted high up on Ponce's superstructure, and a flashy video released by the Navy shows it blowing up parts of boats and …
Even the "hunks of lead" are covered. No dum-dums. No exploding rifle caliber bullets. No square bullets (that goes back the Brits and India). The list goes on....
Many military people (all countries and services) miss napalm. Against an entrenched enemy, it works wonders and sometimes it's the best way to clear out a cave system such as what was on Iwo Jima and certain tunnel systems in Vietnam..
The USoA had this added to the Geneva Convention because lasers are a very effective and cheap counter to air superiority. The wattage and focus required to disable a vehicle is significant, however blinding enemy pilots is much easier and lower powered. And the US wont set foot anywhere where they dont have total air superiority. Concern for the welfare of the comman man or the civility of warfare was not the aim with this cynical addition to the convention.
Technically the Swiss and Swedes added this however I have my tin foil hat on regarding their motivations.
"...when a cheap Maplin fogger is used to try and counter it?"
Don't know about Mapplin foggers, but read somewhere that pettyfoggers can be terribly expensive. ^_^
On a more serious note, it wouldn't be too cheap, accounting for scale and Industrial/Military Complex overhead.
A more economical system would probably include some kinetic weapon (probably a Phalanx or similar) shooting projectiles tailored for creating big columns of water droplets along the laser's trajectory. A few of those 'water columns' would probably turn the laser from a deadly menace into a pretty lights show. My guess is that 20mm including a small amount of high explosive and sodium would create lots and lots of droplets, smoke and water vapour.
Well.. think about it for a minute. Up against such players as the ISIS or whatever the hell they call themselves, suicide bombers, etc. what would you do? Sign the Convention, play fair, and expect them to play fair? Go back in history... Vietnam. Both the French and US tried to follow the Convention but got their butts kicked by an enemy who didn't. Same for Korea. If you're fighting an enemy who follows the rules, great... follow the rules. Be they two lines drawn up and exchanging musket fire or waves of infantry. But in the warfare that's building since WWII, the convention is pretty damn meaningless against them. For example, they use (and these are expressly prohibited): non-uniformed military. suicide bombers. intentionally targeting civilians. harsh treatment of prisoiners such as beheading. The list goes on and on.
So... how would choose to fight them? Follow the convention rules or the enemy's rules only go one bigger. I forget who said it and I'm probably paraphrasing but I find it's true: "In a world of barbarians, the only way to have peace is to be a bigger barbarian then they are. They don't understand anything else."
So, you think that being the supposed figurehead of democratic way of life it is then acceptable to drop out of a humanitarian agreement just so you get better odds.....
Well that worked for the CIA, 'Bringing the word Intelligence to American Intelligence' , bit of an oxymoron I think.....
now you have open season as the gloves will be off from all agressors, due to the hypocritical nature of the CIA and all involved.
Its letting what ever its shooting at well within a safe distance of the ship i.e. an aircraft would have already launched several weapons by then many miles away and scooted after all its no longer WWII and ground engagement with this weapon in unlikely as any commander taking his ship in that close to shore certainly has a death wish if only from canon fire.
Besides those small inconveniences it only shoots in direct line of sight so no overhead attacks or explosive decompression about the target then and whatever is behind the target be it friendly or not is likely to get some of the overspill too.
Yes I know its in beta phase but height seems to be the main advantage point for this weapon.
anything that can deflect the beam
anything that can diffuse the beam
anything that can overwhelm the targeting
anything that can make the laser overheat
location - on the sea
targets - other ships, boats, aircraft
sending a flood of small drones at it, loaded with marbles and smoke bombs should work a treat. then, once the air inbetween has been "tainted" with airborne glass globules and smoke, you send in even more, and if everything goes to plan, the laser overheats trying to penetrate the airborne mist it has itself created.
Ergo, laser dooda = more fear.
That is why they are sending this pea shooter to the gulf. Watch them go to the China Sea next, for more "sea trials".
The effectiveness discussion here is nice, but misses the wider point.
An interesting moral discussion is in whose hands you'd want this tech, once functional. US? China? Europe? Probably a moot discourse since the US are the only ones even close.
If you really want to turn up the temperature, imagine USS Ponce rocking up in Estonia. Putin would go /even more/ nuts.
After his victorious battle at the Kleidion pass on 29 July 1014 the Byzantine emperor Basil II (976-1025) blinded about fifteen thousand bulgarian prisoners of war, with the orders that one man for each hundred be left one eye so he could be their guide. Blinding was much used at the time as the more Christian penalty because God-given life was not taken.
The thing with most traditional countermeasures is they're deployed upon detection of the threat, i.e. detection of a missile/torpedo launch. Hard to do that when it's coming at you at the speed of light. In addition, since it's a mobile gun, the line of sight is always changing.
As for previous giggling over the "Ponce", if it has frikken laser beams, what will the "USS Clint Eastwood" have for ordinance?? :O
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
