Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Meh, nevermind. I looked into it some more and it's a partnership with Boeing and BAE. But, Orlanth, I don't think I'd complain about the US Navy when BAE advertises the weapon system on their website...

http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/mk38_mod2_stabilized_minor_gun.html




And here's what the skiff looked like:



What were they thinking shooting at that ship? doh.

I think the idea is that they WEREN'T thinking.

Any word on scalar weapons?

My friend is on the Ashland, he said it was kind of funny to watch.

Lasers are awesome and all that, but why in hell are they developing such high end weapons for taking out skiffs? A skiff is a floating coffins for anything that carries an autocannon. Whenever they come into contact with navy boats they get trashed, or they run away.

The problem is that there's a lot of shipping to protect, and a lot of people desperate enough to take to the high seas and hope they get lucky and don't run into a navy boat. The answer isn't putting high end toys on the boats, but putting more boats in the ocean - and that not installing whacky guns.

sebster wrote:Lasers are awesome and all that, but why in hell are they developing such high end weapons for taking out skiffs? A skiff is a floating coffins for anything that carries an autocannon. Whenever they come into contact with navy boats they get trashed, or they run away.

The problem is that there's a lot of shipping to protect, and a lot of people desperate enough to take to the high seas and hope they get lucky and don't run into a navy boat. The answer isn't putting high end toys on the boats, but putting more boats in the ocean - and that not installing whacky guns.

As much as I agree with this poster I have to say that I like the idea of the wacky guns

Soooo.......

How long before the pirates start bringing mirrors with them?

If Boeing and BAE see Laser weapons as the future then they have to test them somehow. There is already a myriad of 'anti pirate' weapons out there, the most significant part of all this is that Boeing and BAE managed to squeeze some cash from the US navy in order to perfect and test said Laser's....

And let's be honest, Laser's would be a crap site more deterring to your averedge Somali pirate than the clatter of a .50 cal.

sebster wrote:Lasers are awesome and all that, but why in hell are they developing such high end weapons for taking out skiffs? A skiff is a floating coffins for anything that carries an autocannon. Whenever they come into contact with navy boats they get trashed, or they run away.

The problem is that there's a lot of shipping to protect, and a lot of people desperate enough to take to the high seas and hope they get lucky and don't run into a navy boat. The answer isn't putting high end toys on the boats, but putting more boats in the ocean - and that not installing whacky guns.

To be perfectly honest, I see this as more of a test/trial run for a more efficient combat laser. One that could be slaved to a computer array to eliminate missiles being fired at ships. Because that is a VERY big concern in the Navy. Skiffs are just a sideshow.

Maybe its because it might cost less money to fire a laser repeatedy over the cost of expending actual ammunition. We have a laser that uses a power source and energy that is already being produced by the ship's boilers or whatever type of engine they have on the ship, or we have a cannon that fires a bunch of bullets that need to be replaced.

Maybe there's some sort of economics behind it as well.

Melissia wrote:I think the idea is that they WEREN'T thinking.

2 possibilities: They were high at the time (Somali Pirates are famous for their drug abuse issues), or they were not able to properly identify the ship. It was probably a bit of both.

I'm actually going to stick up for the pirates on this issue in that it's not easy to identify the navy's ships, and it takes extensive training to be able to properly identify navy vessels. Unarmed cargo ships and an LSD all look like big grey ships to an untrained eye.

Until you spot the guns anyway?

25mm guns are pretty hard to spot until you're too close already.
I can see how they might think it was an unarmed handy cargo freighter.


From the front especially but also from the sides easy to mistake.

Edit: fixed stupid links (I hope)

AustonT wrote:
No, and then no again.

Ok. I ought to be big enough to admit I got this wrong. The two weapons are different.

Chowderhead wrote:Going back to the title, can we mount them on sharks yet? Or perhaps dolphins?

We have Very, angry sea bass so far

Orlanth wrote:

AustonT wrote:
No, and then no again.

Ok. I ought to be big enough to admit I got this wrong. The two weapons are different.

I can be big enough to admit I was a little bit of a dick about it.

AustonT wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

AustonT wrote:
No, and then no again.

Ok. I ought to be big enough to admit I got this wrong. The two weapons are different.

I can be big enough to admit I was a little bit of a dick about it.

Nah, you were ok about it really. Putting me straight rather than down, or that is how it looked.

AustonT wrote:25mm guns are pretty hard to spot until you're too close already.
I can see how they might think it was an unarmed handy cargo freighter.


From the front especially but also from the sides easy to mistake.

Edit: fixed stupid links (I hope)

By the time the pirates get close enough to a ship that it appears that large they are in range of the 25mm cannons, 50 cal machine guns, phalanx close in weapon system, and are close enough that any of the marines topside can shoot at them. It as a difficult and bad call that they made when the ship appeared much smaller and much further away when they decided to engage it. By the time they got close it was too late.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS the best hint they could have had not to engage is the multiple globe shaped military style radars visible on the top of the ship. Civilian ships don't carry a half dozen obviously military radar units, but these pirates are not well trained sailors.

If only we could make a lasgun, we could rule the world.

Ketara wrote:To be perfectly honest, I see this as more of a test/trial run for a more efficient combat laser. One that could be slaved to a computer array to eliminate missiles being fired at ships. Because that is a VERY big concern in the Navy. Skiffs are just a sideshow.

Sure, and I know lasers are expected to be very important in the next generation of anti-missile defence. But plinking a skiff from a distance really doesn't seem to me much like the response time and accuracy needed to bring a missile down. This seems more like finding a use for something, along the way to developing a technology that might one day be useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Maybe its because it might cost less money to fire a laser repeatedy over the cost of expending actual ammunition. We have a laser that uses a power source and energy that is already being produced by the ship's boilers or whatever type of engine they have on the ship, or we have a cannon that fires a bunch of bullets that need to be replaced.

Maybe there's some sort of economics behind it as well.

I'm pretty sure once you look at the 3 million odd the article proposed in developing this weapon, that would have paid for a whole lot of ammo. I'm also pretty certain that of all the various costs of a boat, from radar suites to engines to the basic monthly salary for the crew, ammo costs would be pretty trivial.

Maybe it's a space thing, though? Less space needed for ammo means long term they can make smaller boats, which would matter a lot as they continue to develop boats with low radar visibility.

Let's be honest three million dollars to develop a new weapon system is basically on the cheap. It'll cost at least 10times that. And lord forbid they develop a COIL for antiship use. Which they probably never will because you lose the BLOS capability of conventional munitions. It also has less to do with ammunition capacity as rate of fire a working infinite repeater is the holy Grail of SciFi and naval anti missle defense.