Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

strykerpsg -> Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/18/2016 11:02:43 AM)

With these 2 systems coming on board finally, my question is how would they be mounted? Would they replace the deck gun, since they have the capability to engage full spectrum, sans subs or would they replace CIWS? Looking at pictures of Iron Beam, I suspect main gun mount, as it's a bit bigger than LaWS. However, could see LaWS replacing CIWS or supplementing as someone else posted.

Anyway, was playing around with Iron Beam and just wanted feedback from those more in the know than a landlocked infantryman...though I do know the land forces are looking hard at lasers to replace C-RAM...far more accurate and smaller SDZ, in theory.

Pending your comments...



Gunner98 -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/18/2016 4:39:03 PM)

If the Army system is to replace C-RAM than is would more likely be along the lines of the CIWS than the main gun.

I'm another army type but in the long standing role of a Canadian on the battlefield - to translate between Brits & Yanks - I was involved in bringing C-RAM (an American idea) into the Royal Artillery with British equipment. It's very much in the CIWS realm.



strykerpsg -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/19/2016 1:04:42 AM)

I read somewhere that the DDG1000's were built with extra capacity for generating power in support of upcoming laser defenses. I just wonder if it's feasible to put LaWS on the ship, supplementing the CIWS and complimenting the Iron Beam or would this be too much for the ships power sources to create and maintain?

Having seen the C-RAM in practice, it's a beast but all the lead going down range makes for an ugly Surface Danger Zone diagram, whereas laser makes much better sense, moving the SDZ from a lateral measurement on the ground to one of a more vertical issue, and no bullets impacting the ground.



SeaQueen -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/19/2016 2:35:27 PM)

Yes, that's one of the things the Navy wants to experiment with on the Zumwalts. I've also heard about possibly of rail guns.

The thing is, there is no CIWS on the DDG1000 so most likely it'd have to replace either one of the 30mm cannons, or else be an add-on.

There already exists a ship with a laser, the USS Ponce. It might be illustrative to look at how it's mounted. I'm not sure if there's any good pictures of it, though. They tend to be sensitive about that kind of thing.

Typically things at sea are much more spread out than on land (1 or 2 NM is considered "too close for comfort") so they're less concerned about accidentally hitting something friendly with a point defense weapon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

I read somewhere that the DDG1000's were built with extra capacity for generating power in support of upcoming laser defenses. I just wonder if it's feasible to put LaWS on the ship, supplementing the CIWS and complimenting the Iron Beam or would this be too much for the ships power sources to create and maintain?

Having seen the C-RAM in practice, it's a beast but all the lead going down range makes for an ugly Surface Danger Zone diagram, whereas laser makes much better sense, moving the SDZ from a lateral measurement on the ground to one of a more vertical issue, and no bullets impacting the ground.




giantsquid -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/19/2016 10:36:50 PM)

Here there is something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjXXRfwrHg
Range could be about 1 nm in good weather?
This is the system that is going to be mounted on LCS and Zumwaldt?



Dysta -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/19/2016 11:12:34 PM)

It seems lacks of stopping power if the boat isn't armed with any ordinance. It may punch through a fuel tank or a weak hull, but it still can drift in substanial speed if it is really intended to ram at it. I think a backup auto-cannon should be ready when laser have a difficulty to stop trespassers.



SeaQueen -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/20/2016 12:51:13 AM)

As is typical in these sorts of things, there usually isn't really a single "magic bullet" solution. Instead you have a combination of solutions, all of which have some effectiveness, and when taken together have the aggregate effect of hopefully being very effective.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

It seems lacks of stopping power if the boat isn't armed with any ordinance. It may punch through a fuel tank or a weak hull, but it still can drift in substanial speed if it is really intended to ram at it. I think a backup auto-cannon should be ready when laser have a difficulty to stop trespassers.




SeaQueen -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/20/2016 1:14:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: giantsquid
This is the system that is going to be mounted on LCS and Zumwaldt?


I don't know. My understanding is that the system mounted on the Ponce was an experimental weapon. Most likely it would be something similar, though.



strykerpsg -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/20/2016 8:58:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

As is typical in these sorts of things, there usually isn't really a single "magic bullet" solution. Instead you have a combination of solutions, all of which have some effectiveness, and when taken together have the aggregate effect of hopefully being very effective.


That would make the most sense, of course. Would it be practical to have both installed and even multiple mounts of each or would the power consumption be off the charts? I know we can modify the ships to utilize them, I'm just not sure if it's "gaming it" too much this early in development or realistic, given the design of the Zumwalt.

Great comments overall. Even greater is the ability to modify and play with these...



SeaQueen -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/20/2016 1:18:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg
That would make the most sense, of course. Would it be practical to have both installed and even multiple mounts of each or would the power consumption be off the charts?


I don't know. Both what installed? It looks like the Austin has a LaWS installed on top of the pilot house. They say the DDG-1000 was built with extra power capacity for a similar sort of weapon, so you might as well add at least one and play with it. Maybe two (fore and aft?). Heck, add as many as 4 (fore, aft, port, starboard).

Even if the weapon system they might eventually employ on the DDG-1000 isn't the one they deployed on the Austin, most likely it will be something that performs at least as well, even if the details of it's functionality aren't the same.

What you're really doing in the game when you add a mount to the DDG-1000 is hypothesizing that eventually they'll mount something of similar performance. The power requirements are basically irrelevant if you ask me, because if you discover that 1 mount isn't good enough, and you really need 2, and if the existing power plant can't supply that, then you can be pretty sure someone is going to say eventually, "We need to refit the engines!" Power requirements are not really a question of interest as a war gamer because you can't really answer them.

quote:


I know we can modify the ships to utilize them, I'm just not sure if it's "gaming it" too much this early in development or realistic, given the design of the Zumwalt.


I don't think of it as "gaming" it. Usually when I design a scenario, I'm interested in figuring out where things break down and fail. So, of course adding multiple mounts will make it more effective, the question I'm interested in is how much more effective? If I play the scenario a few times and think, "Wow, it's untouchable!" then I start modifying the scenario to make it tougher. I might increase the size of the force attacking it, or change the weapon systems attacking (e.g. sub-sonic ASCMs versus super-sonic ASCMs).

You're not really "gaming" things so long as you approach the problem with the idea that you're trying to learn something.



ThornEel -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/20/2016 8:58:35 PM)

In what way are the Ponce laser or its next iterations better than an autocannon, in this use? There is the 'endless ammo' point, but this doesn't seem enough to justify such resources spent compared to giving more rounds for an autocannon.
Genuine question, and specifically for targeting small vehicles - as it is seems quite different from anti-projectile defence.

Also, what is the rate of fire of those, and what does it do to its signature? A laser putting only as much energy in waste heat than in its beam is still considered utter science-fiction, so I'm curious about their waste disposal systems and how it affect their performances.



giantsquid -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/20/2016 9:38:01 PM)

I have read lasers like Laws could be paired with a 30mm autocannon too. I think their plus points over conventional weapon are probability to hit (almost no time of flight) and endless ammo, but now they are less reliable, very dependent on weather and probably do much less damage, especially at long range. No info on Laws range (1 nm?), reliability, rate of fire, but from the video looks like one flash each 5-10 seconds.

In game terms I tried Coil laser on LCS. Has very high prob. hit, but It doesn't do too much damage, and that makes sense. Range is probably too much: about 10 nm.




SeaQueen -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (1/21/2016 4:41:19 PM)

Therein lies the interesting question. How do you employ a low damage weapon with a very high probability of hitting? You could play around with that in the doctrine settings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: giantsquid
In game terms I tried Coil laser on LCS. Has very high prob. hit, but It doesn't do too much damage, and that makes sense. Range is probably too much: about 10 nm.




mahuja -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (3/11/2016 5:19:48 PM)

Command doesn't do a good job of simulating these. (Though I don't believe it would be worth it to move dev time from other things to fix this.)

These weapons don't operate by "flashes" so much as continouos illumination, adding thermal energy on the target point until it overheats.

The real weapons have 3 uses
- Overheating (cooking off) an explosive charge (as repeatedly demonstrated in the video)
- Overheating and resulting damage/disabling of important components, like engines and sensors. Boat with outboard engines? Kill the engines. There was talk of employing weaker variants of these weapons on civilian airliners to burn out ir sensors on manpads launched against them. The manpad scare seems to have gone away since then.
- Melting a hole in the object 'skin', either so you can reach a vulnerable component, or to compromise structural integrity.

It follows that the amount of time you need to focus on one target to achieve the desired effect, will vary. Increasing distance will give a less focused beam, increasing the time needed. In command, this is 15s times however many times you miss your fixed 90% roll, and a hard limit on distance.

The effective range of these weapons (where they will cause the above effects in a reasonable time) will be quite dependent on things like weather. In perfect weather, I have no problem believing in ranges well in excess of 10nm. (See also the airborne laser and its 300nm range. Thinner atmosphere etc. I don't know the relevant physics.) In a cats, dogs, buckets and kitchen sinks downpour, though... (If it inhibits visual detection, it probably does the same to the lasers.)

But especially since they aren't added to anything by default, this is a moot point. At the moment it's more like a toy added to tick a checklist entry. Which is fine, given how unimportant they are in the current scheme of things.




ComDev -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (3/11/2016 5:47:35 PM)

Thanks for your input mahuja.

Would it be possible to compile a set of stats (i.e. best guesses) on effective ranges, illumination times, etc, under various conditions?



Dimitris -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (3/11/2016 6:09:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mahuja

Command doesn't do a good job of simulating these. (Though I don't believe it would be worth it to move dev time from other things to fix this.)

These weapons don't operate by "flashes" so much as continouos illumination, adding thermal energy on the target point until it overheats.

The real weapons have 3 uses
- Overheating (cooking off) an explosive charge (as repeatedly demonstrated in the video)
- Overheating and resulting damage/disabling of important components, like engines and sensors. Boat with outboard engines? Kill the engines. There was talk of employing weaker variants of these weapons on civilian airliners to burn out ir sensors on manpads launched against them. The manpad scare seems to have gone away since then.
- Melting a hole in the object 'skin', either so you can reach a vulnerable component, or to compromise structural integrity.

It follows that the amount of time you need to focus on one target to achieve the desired effect, will vary. Increasing distance will give a less focused beam, increasing the time needed. In command, this is 15s times however many times you miss your fixed 90% roll, and a hard limit on distance.

The effective range of these weapons (where they will cause the above effects in a reasonable time) will be quite dependent on things like weather. In perfect weather, I have no problem believing in ranges well in excess of 10nm. (See also the airborne laser and its 300nm range. Thinner atmosphere etc. I don't know the relevant physics.) In a cats, dogs, buckets and kitchen sinks downpour, though... (If it inhibits visual detection, it probably does the same to the lasers.)

But especially since they aren't added to anything by default, this is a moot point. At the moment it's more like a toy added to tick a checklist entry. Which is fine, given how unimportant they are in the current scheme of things.



We have much better plans for them [:)]



Schr75 -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (3/11/2016 8:01:00 PM)

quote:

We have much better plans for them


Ooooh.

Canīt wait[:D]



VFA41_Lion -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (3/12/2016 4:18:17 AM)

quote:

There was talk of employing weaker variants of these weapons on civilian airliners to burn out ir sensors on manpads launched against them. The manpad scare seems to have gone away since then.


This sounds a lot like what EL AL has installed on their airplanes ( http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2014/02/27/elbit-unveils-laser-based-anti-missile-system-for-commercial-airliners-all-el-al-jets-will-be-protected/ )



AlmightyTallest -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (3/12/2016 2:15:26 PM)

They have been on U.S. aircraft and helicopters for years, here's the AN/AAQ-24(V) NEMESIS from Northrop Grumman deflecting a missile toward an aircraft:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv1Wr380NsI

Same system on an Apache: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gqQuwRX-ps

Raytheon Scorpion system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKmVToBoSko

Nice history of IRCM's from BAE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX8dvbW1yZc&list=PLAYUfo1uRlOlDrHHshJ1BFyIsO3YZp-Ox


But for a more powerful and destructive system, you can see what the Outlaw laser see's while it engages a UAV and mortars in flight using a 10kw laser in the tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlf6Vz6W_ts




mahuja -> RE: Iron Beam and LaWS mountings (3/17/2016 12:03:06 AM)

As far as guesses go, everything really comes down to power, wavelength and physics.

I imagine it may be useful to think of it as a reverse IRST. What would this irst sensor see at the target if I emit this much? The atmospheric effects and limitations (scattering, weather) would likely be similar. If it rains cats, dogs, buckets and kitchen sinks... you better have a metal thrower as backup.
This is possibly affected by the wavelengths they will use.

As for power, and thus time... power output is probably going to be the most classified detail in the whole thing.
The last video from almighty shows a 10kW demonstrator at work, at short range.
If we assume it's realtime, it'll give some hints about how long it takes.
I feel I've seen a longer version of it at some point, but maybe not.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.484375