Comments on: U.S. Navy's Ship-Mounted Laser Weapon. It Works. With Video.

By: david

david — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:09:04 +0000

That weapon needs a lot more fire power. The engine did not ‘blow up’. A small fire started on it that could have been extinguished with a bucket of water.

By: david

david — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:00:50 +0000

I am not a fan of weapons either but if we don’t continue to advance our knowledge of them, somebody else will.

By: Ignatyus

Ignatyus — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 23:34:47 +0000

Yes, they fried a boat with it.

That is not what it’s job will be.
They’re not using this in leiu of regular ballistics, but in cases where regular ballistics aren’t enough. Blowing up missiles & RPGs, burning up drones programmed with evasive maneuvers, pinpoint shots, ones that would be near impossible without computer targeting (igniting an object in between people), or targeting firearms & heating them so the human targets must drop them.

By: Wil

Wil — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:44:41 +0000

This particular laser weapon seems like it might be better used for short, non-lethal bursts against personnel, rather than ships. It seems like it could humble or incapacitate a fair number of people (pirates or terrorists?), at a distance.

As is said above, it does not seem to hold up against more conventional existing weapons, as a ship destroyer.

By: charl

charl — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:26:01 +0000

rays in general is the future for warfare. Check out H.A.A.R.P

By: TheCritic

TheCritic — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 02:55:19 +0000

@Theo

“Steve: I agree. It is also sick, stupid, evil and wrong. A waste of everyone’s talents. Look forward to the day when the construction of weapons is made a criminal act. Which it is.”

Sure. I’ll agree to that statement. Totally a criminal act. Just so you know. Everyone with a gun agrees, but they just want you to give up your ability to defend yourself first. THEN, they’ll drop their own weapons. Because as you know, humanity is so all about cooperation.

The day a country makes it illegal to develop measures of protecting itself will be the day that country ceases to be in power over its future. I hope that the things you hope for never come to fruition.

By: Lila Sovietskaya

Lila Sovietskaya — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:21:21 +0000

Good weapon. It is not usable for targets that out of line site. Time that the laser spends on target is important. A laser does not need to use visible light. A gamma ray laser makes a good anti-personnel weapon. However unless of very high power it will not do damage needed to ‘neutralize’ a target. Use of lasers requires new defenses against them. Remember if we have lasers ‘they’ have lasers. protection against laser is a mirror like armor that reflects and does not absorb the laser. personnel needs anti-laser instant action photochromic goggles and vests that have some reflective defense. Best defense for personnel will be the invisibility or automatic camouflage vest. See and not be seen is one on the main rules of moder combat. Another rule is: seem the first before they see you and shoot first. The Future is BRIGHT

The best way to prevent a war is to start one.
Congratulate me, I started talking like a military person. Maybe I am under the influence of ’1984′ doublespeak

By: Anthony

Anthony — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:55:19 +0000

If any private citizen can afford this laser, and can power it from their boat, then hats off to you. Toast your threat like a marshmellow. This can be considered just another from of self-defense in that respect.

I personally do not think this is a waste of time or money. Computers were much the same way at first. Think of what these first lasers are in an historical context.

By: pedro

pedro — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:13:00 +0000

Thanks for being the new blog police Terry. Last I checked this is a public blog and we have the right to exercise the first amendment.

It’s not like we’re talking off topic, using profanity, or personal attacks; it’s a good clean debate. It’s not directly about the Somali pirates, but that’s essentially what provoked research on these types of weapons. Guess our opinions don’t matter as much as yours…

By: TerryS.

TerryS. — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:00:21 +0000

I quote: “global security company Northrop Grumman”. This was taken off the heading on their website. Let’s call a spade a spade; Northrop Grumman is a Defence Contractor, not a global security company! What a pile of marketeering…

P.S. pedro and MT-LA; this isn’t your private discussion board. Take your arguments somewhere else.