Free Electron Laser

[SplitInfinity]

The United States Military is in the process of the planning and installation of the Free Electron Laser Defense System which at first will be installed on all U.S. Carriers starting with the new Gerald R. Ford and J.F.K. as well as this Laser will be installed on all Aegis Cruisers.

 

This Laser is not effected by atmosphere and on Carriers will use a Networked Supercomputing Target and Acquisioning system as well as be supplied power by the carriers 2 A1B Nuclear Reactors which will allow the Laser sufficient power to vaporize any target in Air, Space, Land or Sea.

 

Discover Magazine has reported that this Nuclear Reactor power supplied Free Electron Laser can vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of Solid Steel in very short time.

 

Recently it has been whispered that China and Russia have becomed very alarmed at this Laser System's capabilities as it would represent overwhealming capabilitiies.

 

Split Infinity

 

 

[John Cuthber]

This bit "this Nuclear Reactor power supplied Free Electron Laser can vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of Solid Steel in very short time."

isn't very plausible.

In turn it is unlikely that "China and Russia have becomed very alarmed at this Laser System's capabilities"

[pwagen]

This might be very current news in about 5 years.

 

 

On March 18, 2010 Boeing Directed Energy Systems announced the completion of an initial design for U.S. Naval use.^[20] A prototype FEL system has since been demonstrated with a full-power prototype scheduled by 2018.^[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser#Military_uses

[imatfaal]

Just using wild approximations it would take the entire thermal output of a (nimitz class - cannot find power of ford-class) nuclear reactor around an hour and half to heat up a narrow column (and the heat would in reality spread hugely) of steel to boiling point.

 

Of course during this hour the attacker cannot move, steer, have any lights on, and it presumes a f e laser of 10000 times the power so far demonstrated, which can run continuously, with no efficiency losses, and perfect transmission, and complete absorbtion of all the energy by the steel to be heat, and that the target stays still

[John Cuthber]

And I suspect that the fire hoses on a decent sized ship could pump enough water at the target spot to keep it cool anyway.

 

The only thing the Russians will be doing in response to this article is laughing at how gullible some of the Westerners are.

[SplitInfinity]

For those of you who think this Laser but a dream...google the Gerald R. Ford Free Electron Laser.

 

This thing is the real deal.

 

Split Infinity

This bit "this Nuclear Reactor power supplied Free Electron Laser can vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of Solid Steel in very short time."

isn't very plausible.

In turn it is unlikely that "China and Russia have becomed very alarmed at this Laser System's capabilities"

 

This is from Discover Magazine. I thought it was an overstatement as well but that magazine is reputable and I have heard others talk about how this was possible as long as enough energy was made available.

 

Split Infinity

[John Cuthber]

The Stefan Boltzmann law tells me that a square metre of boiling steel dissipates about half a megawatt of radiated heat.

It will also lose much the same from the back.

So you need to add about 1MW/m^2

The effciency is , at best, about 25%

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA502659

so that's 4MW /m^2

 

a two metre square hole two metres long has an area of 24 m^2

So that's 100 MW

Molten steel is shiny so about 9/10 of the input energy is reflected.

Thats up to at least a GW for a fairly small hole.

 

Russians can do high school physics too.

[SplitInfinity]

 

Free-electron lasers have a theoretical maximum efficiency of 65%, while others are lucky to get a third of that. This means if your beam power is 5,000 megawatts (five gigawatts), and your cannon has an efficiency of 20%, the cannon is producing 25,000 megawatts.

 

You set the beam at a very small diameter and this level of temp. will vaporize the steel.

 

Split Infinity

[swansont]

Free-electron lasers have a theoretical maximum efficiency of 65%, while others are lucky to get a third of that. This means if your beam power is 5,000 megawatts (five gigawatts), and your cannon has an efficiency of 20%, the cannon is producing 25,000 megawatts.

 

You set the beam at a very small diameter and this level of temp. will vaporize the steel.

 

Split Infinity

 

You don't have 7.7 GW available to make a 5 GW beam. The total output of the A1B reactors is around a GW, much of which is needed to run the ship.

[John Cuthber]

I can't think of any reason why I should care what the theoretical efficiency is, given that the real efficiency is somewhere between 10 and 25%

 

"You set the beam at a very small diameter and this level of temp. will vaporize the steel."

Which would make a very small hole in the ship.

Nobody would care.

It also makes the problem of pointing the beam at the same spot more difficult.

 

At best, you need the whole power from the reactor to make fairly a small hole in the ship.

Can you see why they might choose to use a gun instead?

 

(Note to any Russian military people reading this: I'm laughing too)

 

BTW, Swansont, is that figure for the power output thermal, mechanical or electrical?

Unless it's the electrical power rating, this absurd scheme just managed the remarkable trick of becoming even sillier.

 

Does anyone know the typical mass of the explosives used to fire a naval gun?

It would be a good starting point to work out the available power.

For example, A kilo of TNT delivers about 4 MJ

If that burns in less than a millisecond the available power would be more than 4GW.

I suspect they use rather bigger charges and they burn rather faster (the detonation velocity is about 7km/s which suggests a small charge would burn in something like a tenth or a hundredth of that time) so a naval gun would have several orders of magnitude more power available to damage the opposition than the big nuclear reactors on these ships.

 

Anyone have better data that we could look at to see just how much more power a gun can deliver, compared to the reactors?

My guess is about a thousandfold more.

[swansont]

BTW, Swansont, is that figure for the power output thermal, mechanical or electrical?

Unless it's the electrical power rating, this absurd scheme just managed the remarkable trick of becoming even sillier.

I only did a quick search and found two numbers: 600 MW and 485 MW. Neither had details, but the idea is that the reactors are much more efficient than earlier types, so it's possible that it's 600 MWth and 485 MWe. Or not, because the primary use of the reactors is propulsion and electrical loads are secondary. The upshot was that the claim is at least a factor of 5 and more likely an order of magnitude (or more) too aggressive. And I will note than none of the posts SplitInfinity has made contain any sort of substantiation for the claims. (the closest is a suggestion to Google for something)

 

———

 

OK, here's some research (the kind that should be expected of the originator of a thread like this)

 

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/02/18/navy-breaks-world-record-futuristic-laser-getting-real/?intcmp=prn_baynote-js_Navy_Breaks_World_Record_With_Futuristic_Free-Electron_Laser

 

The claims are disjointed, but it says operating at 14 kW, with a goal of 1 MW. so, nothing like the >5 GW that was being claimed. Also note that 20 feet/sec is a rate. No claim that anyone has actually burned through 20 feet of steel, and no mention of how long the laser has run. Only that they got it up to 500 kV.

 

However, following John Cuthber's suggestion above: a liter of water (1kg) will take 300kJ to heat from 25 ºC to boiling, and another 2250 kJ to boil, so each liter/sec of water you pump on the target has the potential to remove as much as 2.5 MW of energy. This isn't going to be used against ships — you'd need line-of-sight, anyway, and ships don't get that close for battle anymore. This is to shoot down relatively thin-skinned missiles or possibly planes or drones, as a defensive system, complementing the phalanx CWIS.

[ACG52]

The op gave the name of the system as the "Free Electron Laser Defense System". As a defensive system, you don't have to melt through 20 meters of steel. Anti-ship missles don't have 20 meters of steel. They do have a lot of electrical systems which would not react well to a buch of high-energy photons..

[John Cuthber]

The op gave the name of the system as the "Free Electron Laser Defense System". As a defensive system, you don't have to melt through 20 meters of steel. Anti-ship missles don't have 20 meters of steel. They do have a lot of electrical systems which would not react well to a buch of high-energy photons..

Fair point, but the OP also said

"Discover Magazine has reported that this Nuclear Reactor power supplied Free Electron Laser can vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of Solid Steel in very short time."

which is utter bollocks.

 

In principle, we could go back to cannon balls.

If the Russians launch a big lump of cast iron at us, and we retaliate with a big scary laser, then we get hit by very hot cannon ball.

(check out just how much power you would need to make a sensible difference to the trajectory of a big heavy lump of metal. Photon pressures are small.)

[ACG52]

If the Russians launch a big lump of cast iron at us

We pretty much ignore it. Aircraft carrier decks get hit harder than anything ballistic is going to do.

[John Cuthber]

That depends on the size of the lump of iron, though I admit this one isn't going to get thrown from a ship any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater

Also, a lump of iron will hit the deck a damned sight harder than a plan landing on it.

Cannon shells don't have tyres and suspension because they don't need to survive the impact.

They also don't slow down before they land.

[SplitInfinity]

You don't have 7.7 GW available to make a 5 GW beam. The total output of the A1B reactors is around a GW, much of which is needed to run the ship.

 

First of all I never stated that the 2...A1B reactors used on specific U.S. Carriers...were capable of generating the level of energy required to vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of steel. Discover Magazine was the source of the statement that if a sufficient energy supply...electrical generated by nuclear reactors...was supplied to a Free Electron Laser Cannon...it could vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of solid steel in a short period of time.

 

THAT...is all the detail the magazine provided and they are CORRECT.

 

It is OBVIOUS...that the two A1B reactors could not supply the amount of power required to do this...but a Ground Based Free Electron Laser and multiple nuclear reactors probably could.

 

I was informed that the standard Mirrored Optics usually based in a Satellite for over the horizon targeting...would be vaporized by a Super High Powered Free Electron Laser....and that a new Multi-Prism targeting system is or will be used. These Prisms are said to be constructed and designed very much like the compound eye of an insect....and that the multiple prisms...which can be moved, turned as well as flex...allow for Split Beaming as well as splitting and using one incomming beam to destroy multiple targets as well as allow the multiple split beams to be of various width and intensity.

 

The CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford...CVN-79 J.F.K....and CVN-80 Enterprise...which are all Ford Class Stealth Carriers...will either be refitted or fit...depending upon their launching date...with two or even three newer and more powerful reactors than the A1B's.

 

The Russians...at the time...Soviets...had deceided to go the direction of Particle Beams as they did not have issues with atmosphere as well as at the time of the Cold War...were Direct Energy Weapons that the technology existed to create with a capability of having a Big Punch. The problem was the Soviets found that Particle Beams have a nasty habit of irradiating the people who use them and many Soviet Scientists and Crew ended up dead.

 

The U.S. also studied Particle Beam Tech. but went the direction of Lasers and even though the Russians currently understand and can build a Free Electron Laser...they are at least a DECADE or more behind in developing and fielding a Mission Capable weapon. The U.S. on the other hand has designed and is currently INSTALLING the Bones of this Laser System in both the new Ford Class Carriers as well as the Satellite System necessary for over the horizon targeting.

 

Given the advancement in Supercomputing and Networking...the targeting of anything from incomming ICBM's to Anti-Carrier Missiles will be of ease and the Split Beaming Prism aspect should allow a single beam fired at a Targeting Satellite to destroy many oncoming Missiles or Aircraft in very short time.

 

One thing I have learned...reading about TALKING to do something or deploy something gives very little certaintly that a weapon system will actually BE built or deployed. But when I read the USN's own schedualing that lists the system...the companies installing it on a Carrier as well Cruisers...as well as actual listed appropriations spent on designing a more powerful nuclear reactor which design and construction will be necessary to properly power the Free Electron Laser...THEN I know all the talk is not just hype.

 

Split Infinity

 

Fair point, but the OP also said

"Discover Magazine has reported that this Nuclear Reactor power supplied Free Electron Laser can vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of Solid Steel in very short time."

which is utter bollocks.

 

In principle, we could go back to cannon balls.

If the Russians launch a big lump of cast iron at us, and we retaliate with a big scary laser, then we get hit by very hot cannon ball.

(check out just how much power you would need to make a sensible difference to the trajectory of a big heavy lump of metal. Photon pressures are small.)

 

For whatever reason...you and others think I was stating a Carrier based Free Electron Laser...FEL...would be firing a 5 or greater Gigawatt beam. I never stated this nor was I implying it as the FEL based upon the Carriers and Cruisers will be used for Missile Defense as well as precision targeting of enemy aircraft and enemy electronic detection equipment.

 

What I quoted from Discover was a theoretical possibility.

 

Split Infinity

[swansont]

SplitInfinity, on 28 Mar 2013 - 21:31, said:

First of all I never stated that the 2...A1B reactors used on specific U.S. Carriers...were capable of generating the level of energy required to vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of steel. Discover Magazine was the source of the statement that if a sufficient energy supply...electrical generated by nuclear reactors...was supplied to a Free Electron Laser Cannon...it could vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of solid steel in a short period of time.

 

THAT...is all the detail the magazine provided and they are CORRECT.

Thanks for clarifying. This is why you need to provide links for your material, because when you don't, all we have to go on is what you post, and the it looks a lot like one claim. One outlandish claim.

 

 

SplitInfinity, on 28 Mar 2013 - 21:31, said:

For whatever reason...you and others think I was stating a Carrier based Free Electron Laser...FEL...would be firing a 5 or greater Gigawatt beam. I never stated this nor was I implying it as the FEL based upon the Carriers and Cruisers will be used for Missile Defense as well as precision targeting of enemy aircraft and enemy electronic detection equipment.

You sinned by omission. You were the one who used 5 GW as the threshold for cutting through steel, without any caveats or further explanations.

[John Cuthber]

Splitinfinity,

You said "This Laser is not effected by atmosphere and on Carriers will use a Networked Supercomputing Target and Acquisioning system as well as be supplied power by the carriers 2 A1B Nuclear Reactors which will allow the Laser sufficient power to vaporize any target in Air, Space, Land or Sea."

 

And we have shown that no laser powered by the roughly a GW of power available from "the carriers 2 A1B Nuclear Reactors" could, even in principle, "vaporize any target in Air, Space, Land or Sea." because there isn't enough power there to vapourise at least one plausible target, specifically, a big ship. The radiative heat loss for anything bigger than a 6 foot cube at the boiling point of steel would be more than the laser could deliver.

 

It doesn't matter what the magazine said.

You were simply wrong.

Stop arguing about it.

 

"Discover Magazine was the source of the statement that if a sufficient energy supply...electrical generated by nuclear reactors...was supplied to a Free Electron Laser Cannon...it could vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of solid steel in a short period of time.

THAT...is all the detail the magazine provided and they are CORRECT."

 

The biggest nuclear power plant produces about 8GW

At 4MW /m^2 radiative loss and 25% efficiency with 50% reflective losses (the reflective losses would be reduced compared to the calculation I made earlier because it's a long deep hole)

you get about 32MW/m^2

8GW would, maybe, if you could target it accurately, heat 250m^2 to the boiling point of steel.

your 1000 foot deep hole is about 300 m long, so the diameter would be about 10 inches

Now there are a few issues with that.

Firstly, if the metal in the middle were heated to boiling then a lot of the stuff round it would be heated to melting so the hole would get wider. You would end up with a funnel shaped hole and the total area would be much bigger. So driving this 1000 foot hole would take a lot more power so, even the 10 inch hole is an overestimate (for the far end of the hole, near the surface it would be much bigger).

a 10 inch hole isn't going to sink a battle ship, especially as it would have to be above the water line (the laser won't go through sea water).

 

Also, that's the maximal size of the hole which could be maintained by that much power.

How log it would take to drill it is another matter.

You would need to persuade the target not to move away.

 

Perhaps the most important question is where are you going to find a 1000 foot thick slab of steel to use as a target?

A laser with a thousand fold less power, aimed at the bridge of the ship, would trash a lot of the equipment, not least the senior crew.

So, if the Russian military are still watching this,

Вам необходимо некоторое алюминиевой фольги

[SplitInfinity]

Thanks for clarifying. This is why you need to provide links for your material, because when you don't, all we have to go on is what you post, and the it looks a lot like one claim. One outlandish claim.

 

 

 

You sinned by omission. You were the one who used 5 GW as the threshold for cutting through steel, without any caveats or further explanations.

 

Your right...I should have clarified that.

 

Split Infinity

 

Splitinfinity,

You said "This Laser is not effected by atmosphere and on Carriers will use a Networked Supercomputing Target and Acquisioning system as well as be supplied power by the carriers 2 A1B Nuclear Reactors which will allow the Laser sufficient power to vaporize any target in Air, Space, Land or Sea."

 

And we have shown that no laser powered by the roughly a GW of power available from "the carriers 2 A1B Nuclear Reactors" could, even in principle, "vaporize any target in Air, Space, Land or Sea." because there isn't enough power there to vapourise at least one plausible target, specifically, a big ship. The radiative heat loss for anything bigger than a 6 foot cube at the boiling point of steel would be more than the laser could deliver.

 

It doesn't matter what the magazine said.

You were simply wrong.

Stop arguing about it.

 

"Discover Magazine was the source of the statement that if a sufficient energy supply...electrical generated by nuclear reactors...was supplied to a Free Electron Laser Cannon...it could vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of solid steel in a short period of time.

 

THAT...is all the detail the magazine provided and they are CORRECT."

 

The biggest nuclear power plant produces about 8GW

At 4MW /m^2 radiative loss and 25% efficiency with 50% reflective losses (the reflective losses would be reduced compared to the calculation I made earlier because it's a long deep hole)

you get about 32MW/m^2

8GW would, maybe, if you could target it accurately, heat 250m^2 to the boiling point of steel.

your 1000 foot deep hole is about 300 m long, so the diameter would be about 10 inches

Now there are a few issues with that.

Firstly, if the metal in the middle were heated to boiling then a lot of the stuff round it would be heated to melting so the hole would get wider. You would end up with a funnel shaped hole and the total area would be much bigger. So driving this 1000 foot hole would take a lot more power so, even the 10 inch hole is an overestimate (for the far end of the hole, near the surface it would be much bigger).

a 10 inch hole isn't going to sink a battle ship, especially as it would have to be above the water line (the laser won't go through sea water).

 

Also, that's the maximal size of the hole which could be maintained by that much power.

How log it would take to drill it is another matter.

You would need to persuade the target not to move away.

 

Perhaps the most important question is where are you going to find a 1000 foot thick slab of steel to use as a target?

A laser with a thousand fold less power, aimed at the bridge of the ship, would trash a lot of the equipment, not least the senior crew.

So, if the Russian military are still watching this,

Вам необходимо некоторое алюминиевой фольги

 

Again...it is my fault for not clarifying my statements.

 

Split Infinity

[John Cuthber]

When you said "This Laser is not effected by atmosphere and on Carriers will use a Networked Supercomputing Target and Acquisioning system as well as be supplied power by the carriers 2 A1B Nuclear Reactors which will allow the Laser sufficient power to vaporize any target in Air, Space, Land or Sea."

 

What did you mean?

What wasn't clear?

[SplitInfinity]

When you said "This Laser is not effected by atmosphere and on Carriers will use a Networked Supercomputing Target and Acquisioning system as well as be supplied power by the carriers 2 A1B Nuclear Reactors which will allow the Laser sufficient power to vaporize any target in Air, Space, Land or Sea."

 

What did you mean?

What wasn't clear?

 

Again...my wording should have been more specific.

 

Split Infinity

[John Cuthber]

OK, so you should have been clearer.

What were you trying to say?

[SplitInfinity]

OK, so you should have been clearer.

What were you trying to say?

 

OK...I will restate this.

 

The Ford Class carriers will have Free Electron Lasers installed. The current reactors will be two A1B's which will probably be replaced by two or perhaps even three more powerful reactors.

 

The carriers FEL systems will be used along with a Satellite Targetng system for both Carrier Defense and Offense but mainly used for Anti-missile...Anti-aircraft defense which they will be VERY adept.

 

The statement as far as the 1000 feet steel statement was a theoretical one where if enough power was available the FEL could vaporize a hoe quickly through it. This would not be carrier based.

 

The carrier FEL along with a sat system should be able to easily destroy ground based and ship based radar and other electronic systems specific to tracking and targeting as well as capable as an ani-personal weapon.

 

Split Infinity

[swansont]

OK...I will restate this.

 

The Ford Class carriers will have Free Electron Lasers installed.

 

… eventually, assuming the R&D pans out.

[SplitInfinity]

… eventually, assuming the R&D pans out.

 

A short while ago I was absolutely FLOORED as I watched the U.S. Navy target a small rocking boat at sea with a low poer FEL. It was able to target the craft as well as keep a beam lock upon a specific point on this rocking boat. I NEVER thought the FEL would be made public so soon.

 

Now there is a strong push to get FEL's deployed on U.S. Carriers as well as Cruisers as they can both protect the carriers from any incoming missile as well as be used for Balistic Missile Defense. This Laser System is to be used in conjuction with the remade SM-3 which now uses a new long burn and powerful solid fuel that allows it with the aid of Super Computing Target and Aquisitioning to strike Missiles and Satellites at Orbital Distances.

 

An SM-3 was used a while back to destroy and directly target and strike the Hydrazine Booster Fuel Tank of a failing U.S. Satellite. It scored a perfect hit as telescoped video showed the Hydrazine Tank exploding in orbit.

 

Split Infinity