By: Vortex
- 1st June 2002 at 06:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
Basically my point Garry is "directed" weapons and by what definition does that mean? Also, CO2 lasers used are IR...your everyday experience with visible light doesn't always apply to IR. So, the question is, have you seen the absorbtion spectrum in the IR? Do you know exactly what is the attenuation of the specific wavelength(s) of the ABL? Lights getting blocked with object A, doens't mean it'll be the same in IR or any other wavelengths. It's such a cliche to say "attenuation"...obviously there's attenuation. By how much? You don't know. Just like stealth nay sayers who thinks detecting a stealth plane in 2-3 miles, or even 10 miles, means defeating it. That's all i can say. As to NK's case, my point is the worst kind of people is one who criticize on others on things they have no stake, or unwilling to take actions on their own what-so-ever. The idea isn't who gave who money being "good", but who actually did something about it and take a stand. If NZ feels for NK, why don't you guys trade with them. If it's the US actions against NK is so evil, why don't you angelic kiwis do something. Just like all the Europeans would only bitch about the middle east, why don't they do something, instead just criticizing the US. Because they, like NZ, have no back bone. If your government is so righteous, why don't you stand up to the big bad Americans? Do something. The point is, you have your agendas and national interests too. So, don't be a hypocrite.
New
By: Anonymous
- 2nd June 2002 at 07:03Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"Also, CO2 lasers used are IR...your everyday experience with visible light doesn't always apply to IR. "
True, but experience in TI and other night vision technologies is quite relevant.
"So, the question is, have you seen the absorbtion spectrum in the IR? Do you know exactly what is the attenuation of the specific wavelength(s) of the ABL? Lights getting blocked with object A, doens't mean it'll be the same in IR or any other wavelengths. "
Night vision pods on aircraft cover a wide range of frequencies... or they could if that was useful, yet there are often times when they are useless. Now of course this is at low level and this is the worst place for these devices, but if there were some magic frequency for each atmospheric condition then don't you think that would be applied to vision as well as the use of lasers?
"As to NK's case, my point is the worst kind of people is one who criticize on others on things they have no stake, or unwilling to take actions on their own what-so-ever. "
So when does the bombardment of Switzerland begin?
"...but who actually did something about it and take a stand."
So in this case doing something about "it" and making a stand would be for the US to drop all sanctions and send enough food for everyone in NK to prevent starvation... I don't think that happened.
For any other country to take such a stand they would need to stand up against the US... which country is in a position to do that?
What would the cost be?
There is a bully in the school that is all powerful. Because this bully is the principle and he makes up the rules.
He has a child cornered and no-one else has the courage to stand up against him... well some have in the past like Vietnam, and Iran, and Lybia, and Cuba... the rest of the kids saw what happened to them and have decided it is not worth the trouble.
Of course what you are saying is that these children are more guilty than the principal because they do nothing.
I'd suggest that self preservation is not a negative characteristic and nor is common sense.
The fact that NK has been embargoed and crushed by its neighbours does not make NZ or Switzerland etc responsible... the only countries that could be responsible are those that can actually do something to change the situation. This of course includes NK itself, but it also includes the US, SK, China, and possibly Japan (being a powerful country in the region).
Ahhh but it is the corrupt communist system you say.
The US can treat countries any way it likes and that countries future depends on which type of treatment it receives.
Countries like China do reasonably well despite being a corrupt communist country. Countries like SU, Cuba, NK, etc suffer with few allies and corrupt communist governments. Countries like SK, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwaite thrive with corrupt dictatorships or semi military governments.
So lets look at the keys to not having your population starving.
Oil works for SA and Kuwaite. China is an ally against North Korea, SU. SU was an ally against the Axis, but was too much of a rival that was too different from the US for them to remain friends. NK and Cuba and Vietnam were unlucky enough to have beaten the US in one of the latters many little military interventions. Fortunately for Vietnam it is not completely out in the cold as long as Vietnam war vets still hold out hopes of finding live US prisoners. NK and Cuba has nothing to offer. (If Iran let the US oil companies back in they'd lose their isolation in a heartbeat...).
"If it's the US actions against NK is so evil, why don't you angelic kiwis do something. "
No, you are right. A small south pacific country with just over 3.5 million people is just as bad as the US for our inaction. We could have solved all of the problems. The power we wield we could have fixed all of the worlds problems in a heart beat.
We are not stupid enough to believe that the principal deserves his job. He is just a child that is much bigger than all the others in the school. Many of the other kids have been able to read and write and have much longer written histories than the bully, but he listens to noone unless it suits him.
He thinks what he is doing is right, but most often what he does makes things much worse. Like any child he thinks himself blameless.
When it is suggested he has done something wrong he says "Well what did you do?" to one of the few children younger than him...
Of course he is not listening to the answer...
By: Vortex
- 2nd June 2002 at 08:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
yeah, this school principal must be really nice because little kids like NZ bitch all day and don't get punished. Really Garry and you call me naive, why don't you just admit that NZ also have their own "agendas" and unlike your assertion of standing up against the US, in reality nothing happens. I thought you are so eager to oppose the US, yet you asked for "price to pay"...what happened to righteousness? Talk is cheap, you can say all you want about the US, but the reality is you don't and won't make a difference. That must be really depressing sometimes huh?
As to thermal imagers...instead of saying general stuff, you do know what's inside it and how it sense IR radiation right? You do know that the device is inherently AC and that the detection "bandwidth" is actually based on what kind of emission is created by the target. Because of the attenuation of water vapour to specific IR wavelengths a lost of gain happens. But that's because the emission of the target happens to be the strongest at certain IR wavelength. But now you're saying the opposite is also true? That a specifically tuned IR laser will happen to be attenuated by the same principles? No, that's not true, because if you understand what i mean by "holes" in the spectrum, then you'll know it's not the same as a detector detecting the target emission through those holes. Why? Because the target are not and cannot be tuned that way. Emission of a target is natural and is very very difficult to alter the emission spectrum. You can omit some, but you can't totally refocuse it into another wavelength like in the case of laser emissions.
New
By: Anonymous
- 3rd June 2002 at 06:17Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"yeah, this school principal must be really nice because little kids like NZ bitch all day and don't get punished. "
Yes, quiet child! or I'll make you sit with the axis of evil...
How dare you think for yourself!
Why bother with NATO and UN... why not just give the US army jackboots and come out? }>
"Really Garry and you call me naive, "
Only about some things and only when you earn it.. }>
"...why don't you just admit that NZ also have their own "agendas" and unlike your assertion of standing up against the US, in reality nothing happens. "
That is what I have been trying to tell you... they all do. Suggesting one country is evil because their agenda is not the same as yours is what I am talking about.
BTW we do sometimes stand up... admittedly we rolled over for the French with regard to the Rainbow warrior affair because they threatened us financially (dairy exports to the EU), but I don't see any Nuclear powered US ships visiting... seems like we can stand up sometimes (and I'll be the first to admit it was because all the US could threaten us with was to not play war games with us any more via ANZUS).
"I thought you are so eager to oppose the US, yet you asked for "price to pay"...what happened to righteousness? Talk is cheap, you can say all you want about the US, but the reality is you don't and won't make a difference. That must be really depressing sometimes huh?"
See above.
"As to thermal imagers... ...emissions."
All I am doing by looking from the point of view or TI is looking at the transmission medium that is the atmosphere. I think you'll agree that this is as relevant to a viewer as it is to a transmitter.
Of course when they were designing TI they just chose freqencies at random.... no hang on a minute they analysed the IR and UV spectrums for "Holes". They found two. These are the two they use now. The TI instruments they use on aircraft and armoured vehicles look through these holes but they still are not 100% all weather... they can't be. Any laser design will come up against the same problem unless it goes to freqencies that are not so close to light as to be effected by the atmosphere in the same way light is.
Microwaves have been mentioned as has EMP. These are much better options which it seems the US navy agrees according to Ja's first post here.
By: Vortex
- 3rd June 2002 at 23:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
Garry, most if not all thermal imagers are broad band...broad in the sense it probably will cover across 10 microns or more, unless you are near the Visible/IR regime, where i think it cuts down to 3 types of detectors (for optimum detection) from 1 to 10 microns. In any case, the medium (through air) will be your "filter". That said, you can't pick a "band" if you are detecting. No, unless you aim for those low wavelengths. In general i believe the current IRs use mid wavelength ones...while researching in both lower and higher frequencies. But, if you are an emitter, then you would naturally try to pick a wavelength where the medium will have high transmissivity, notice that now you get to pick. About detectors picking frequencies, this is probably more attributed to older detector elements, which some types do have a rather narrow higher sensitivities (you really don't have a choice there since it's more of material properties than sensor design points), but we're talking about newer detectors now. Of course i'm not expert at it, and if you have other opinions/facts, i like to hear them. That's what's so great about science, it's theoretically possible to reach the "truth", unlike politics ;)
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th June 2002 at 02:46Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
I understand what you are saying but my problem with it is if the ABL designers have gone and analysed all possible weather patterns around every potential battlefield in the world and got these magical frequency holes... why didn't they pass them on to the guys making laser target markers?
If what you say is correct then the appropriate frequency could be calculated and transmitted to a low flying UAV to mark targets in Kosovo, yet so many targets went on their merry way because of the weather. Flying at medium altitude the aircraft were safe, in fact more safe than usual due to the lower threat from visually guided missiles, yet targets were not engaged because the lasers could not penetrate the weather...
ABL is a nice idea but there are other cheaper options with fewer problems to overcome... (Leave lasers in space...)
By: Vortex
- 4th June 2002 at 17:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
I don't know, there are probably good reasons for that, ie, beam size, beam power, optics for certain frequencies, beam frequency, the type of lasers, etc...ABL is a huge laser by any standard. You can't just fit it on a small UAV with a smaller version....way too heavy. I'm not sure if you can make a laser that small for that wavelength (not a diode laser). As to lasers in space...that's even worse. How are you going to dissipate all that heat? Even with a 99% efficiency (which obviously won't be the case), a 1MW power shot means 10kW of heat. That's a lot of heat to be dumped simply by radiation. Dumping 10kW of heat in air is possible without creating too much of an IR signature if done properly. I'm convinced that it's not that much of a problem. You do know that apollo astronauts put a corner reflector on the Moon and people on Earth measured the exact Earth-Moon distance with a laser.
New
By: Anonymous
- 5th June 2002 at 05:19Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"ABL is a huge laser by any standard. You can't just fit it on a small UAV with a smaller version....way too heavy."
The ABL is as big as it is for one single reason... power.
A laser target marker doesn't need any where near as much power as the ABL. In fact it needs no more power than it already has.
"I'm not sure if you can make a laser that small for that wavelength (not a diode laser)."
I have seen lasers the size of a thumbnail or smaller. The largest part of a modern laser is usually the power supply. As long as the right materials are avaiable a laser in any frequency range could be made. This might require two lasers to be carried... that would be no problem as modern laser rangefinders are light and portable a UAV with a payload of 100kgs or more could easily carry 2-3.
As an example two laser ranger/markers from Russia... not known for their compact small light military gear (though usually rugged and strong) one being the 1D22 which can mark targets out to 7km or range targets to 40km and weighs 45kgs. The 1D26 system can be used to mark a tank size target at 5km and measure ranges of 30km and weighs 13kgs.
As you yourself say they can use lasers to measure the distance to the moon with the aid of proper reflectors... of course pointing a laser directly up means 30-40km of air and the rest of the way in a vaccuum. What the ABL does is actually harder in that it has to travel through up to 400km or air.
"As to lasers in space...that's even worse. How are you going to dissipate all that heat? "
How does the sun disipate its heat?
Simple heat exchangers are very efficient in space... a coil of tubing exposed to the vaccuum of space out of the suns heat will cool any liquid it contains to about minus 100 degrees C or colder. on the sunny side of the machine of course any liquid in the tubing with be heated to a reasonably high temperature too... but that assumes there is liquid in the tubing while it is exposed to the sunlight.
In fact in the cold vaccuum of space it is keeping components roughly the same temperature that is the problem which has been solved. (Think about the problem of spacesuits or space telescopes where when they are in the suns glare half is over boiling point and the other half is well below freezing point... these problems have already been solved...)
By: Vortex
- 6th June 2002 at 00:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
uh Garry, no...don't tell me that heat transport is solved in space in the context of that much heat generation. You like to believe that and again saying it is much much easier than seeing an actual thing or did design calculations to know what you're actually talking about. Having a satellite facing the sun, but not generating much internal heat is very very different to this situation. Most satellites don't generate much heat anyways, except from electronics. over 10kW (probably over 100kW for a 1MW laser) of electronic heat dissipation? I"m not even sure MILSTAR generates that much heat. As to lasers, if you read my post again you'll see i've mentioned DIODE lasers being small. I'm not sure if you can make the kind of lasers for ABL wavelength that small. I'm sure you understand that there are many kind of different lasers out there and they can't cover that much wavelengths unless you use a dye laser, even that have certain problems and are usually large. Your soldier sized laser markers are nothing more complex than a laser from a laser pen. But, the ABL is a GAS laser which the ones i've seen even for relatively low power is HUGE, not only that, it sucks up a lot of power. It's the same idea of making a miniature robotic insect, but...what about that huge power supply it needs?
New
By: Anonymous
- 7th June 2002 at 06:56Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"Your soldier sized laser markers are nothing more complex than a laser from a laser pen. But, the ABL is a GAS laser which the ones i've seen even for relatively low power is HUGE, not only that, it sucks up a lot of power."
This is quite correct but marking a target with a laser from 10km is quite different from trying to shoot down an ICBM from 400km.
Can you not accept that a laser that relies on "frequency holes" as you put it would not need to be large?
Regarding space based lasers... yes they would be big, but without an atmosphere to burn through they would would actually be effective 24/7 hovering over the target area... well above defended airspace.
If heat transfer is so difficult in space why then do Astronauts have to have layers in their spacesuits to retain their body heat? Why is it that astronauts who are working on the dark side of the space ship or space station only able to work for an hour or two due to the cold. Could it possibly be because their body heat is escaping into space?
Space is cold. If you have something hot inside a satelite, you just pump a liquid (not water as it has to high a freezing point) through tubes that are exposed to the vaccuum of space... simple idea.
Is in use now.
Used in spacesuits too... liquid is pumped around the suit when the astronaut is in the sunlight so that rather than one side of his body freezing and the other side boiling the temp is just right for humans... or is there a seperate freezer and heater for the two sides that move when he moves?
By: Vortex
- 7th June 2002 at 17:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
>This is quite correct but marking a target with a laser from
>10km is quite different from trying to shoot down an ICBM
>from 400km.
>Can you not accept that a laser that relies on "frequency
>holes" as you put it would not need to be large?
true, but i've consistenly said at that frequency it may well have to be a gas or dye laser, which is quite large from what i know. To make it easier to understand, it's like trying to make a very small antenna for a very large wavelength RADAR...humm, you understand there that the wavelengths are not really that compatible and the losses are huge if outright impossible (i don't know about the specifics, but just an analogy). So, using a DIODE laser to pump out wavelengths in of long IR? I'm not sure if that's possible for the kind of power required also. Another thing, laser heads can be small, but you have to agree that the whole package have to be small, cooling system and power supply.
>Regarding space based lasers... yes they would be big, but
>without an atmosphere to burn through they would would
>actually be effective 24/7 hovering over the target area...
>well above defended airspace.
Only geosynchronous equatorial orbit can have true 24/7 hovering over the target. All other geosynchronous will do a sine wave up and down the equator even though it'll stay at the same longitude. But, ok, i'll accept and assume geosynch equatorial orbit is available for SBL, but what about coverage beyond the tropical zone? Not a good idea. A small fleet of ABLs CAN cover 24/7 with minimum range to target. Not a laser. Besides, at GEO, you are by definition hitting in the coast phase, not boost phase.
>If heat transfer is so difficult in space why then do
>Astronauts have to have layers in their spacesuits to retain
>their body heat?
Garry, the point is cyclical loads and the "range" of heat transport required. The larger that is, the more difficult it is to design exchangers. Humans and almost all spacecrafts don't put out too much heat, compared to 100kWs or more. So your design have to accomodate a huge swing in heat flux to retain the permissible temperature swing. You see, the problem is an engineering problem and most likely solvable, but it's much much more complex than it seems.
New
By: Anonymous
- 8th June 2002 at 00:55Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"have to be a gas or dye laser, which is quite large from what i know. "
A 2-3 watt laser is not going to be the size of a house... whatever its frequency. The lasers used in the Russian laser target markers are not diode lasers or they'd be much smaller. (Western systems are less than 10kgs with GPS receivers included.)
"To make it easier to understand, it's like trying to make a very small antenna for a very large wavelength RADAR...humm, you understand there that the wavelengths are not really that compatible and the losses are huge if outright impossible (i don't know about the specifics, but just an analogy). "
I thought that the frequency of a laser had more to do with the chemicals or medium that was excited in the tube. Certainly the power generated has more effect on the size of the laser than the freqency unless you wanted a wide range of frequencies to be generated.
"Another thing, laser heads can be small, but you have to agree that the whole package have to be small, cooling system and power supply."
In a UAV the cooling supply could be an airscoop. In space they have as many launches of the space shuttle as they need to get as much equipment up there as they need.
"A small fleet of ABLs CAN cover 24/7 with minimum range to target. "
That is the problem though they can't.
The cost of keeping at least one 747 within 400km of Iraq, Iran, North Korea and possibly even China would be high enough if it could even be done but china and Iran and probably Iraq are big enough that they could base their missiles on their territory more than 400km from international or US friendly airspace. A laser from space firing downwards woudl at most have to penetrate 30-40km of atmosphere... 18km of which would have clouds/rain/ice etc.
One SPL over Iran/Iraq, and one over NK that could cover most of China as well.... (and perhaps one over France... }> )
"You see, the problem is an engineering problem and most likely solvable, but it's much much more complex than it seems."
Yes, I never said it would be easy.
I am not trashing ABL on a whim or just because it is American. The Soviets had a similar system in the mid -80s based on an IL-76... they decided the problems outweighed the advantages.
The whole starwars program saw lots of designs and development and appart from a few X-ray lasers (which generated much less power than they thought it would) most Laser work focussed on use in outer space only.
Attacking ICBMs is harder in the boost phase because there is no bright flame coming out the rear of it to make it stand out on IR sensors. However against one or two missiles with radar and a laser a system is possible now. Obviously this means Rogue state launch or accidental firing by China or Russia, but not full scale attack or even malicious attack by a few disgruntalled Russians.
By: Vortex
- 8th June 2002 at 06:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
>"have to be a gas or dye laser, which is quite large from
>what i know. "
>
>A 2-3 watt laser is not going to be the size of a house...
>whatever its frequency. The lasers used in the Russian laser
>target markers are not diode lasers or they'd be much
>smaller. (Western systems are less than 10kgs with GPS
>receivers included.)
size of a house? Garry, even if it's the size of a laptop for the laser head, and a full size computer tower for the DRIVE, you'll aready have a huge problem. What about the power supply (not cooling, sure i'll give you air), ram air? You got to be joking. First of all, we aren't talking about the units being used today, obviously those are small enough to be mounted on a small pod. But, the question is whether other wavelengths will do better. Please don't deviate and mix different cases to make your point. As to size and wavelength...yes, let's say its' a gas laser, instead of ~1um wavelenght in fundamental mode, you use let's say 10um. Now, in order to get the same power, you'll probably need a tube longer than 10x, because the wavelength just increased by a factor of 10 while the energy associated with it is lower.
>A laser from space
>firing downwards woudl at most have to penetrate 30-40km of
>atmosphere... 18km of which would have clouds/rain/ice etc.
>One SPL over Iran/Iraq, and one over NK that could cover
>most of China as well....
Just exactly which orbit in your mind will these satellites be parked at? You do know the altitudes for even the lowest LEOs don't you? What about GEO? That's straight down, now how about slant range? You better check your orbits Garry.
>"You see, the problem is an engineering problem and most
>likely solvable, but it's much much more complex than it
>seems."
>
>Yes, I never said it would be easy.
And yes, and i'm saying at current level of technology, ABL is more feasible than SBL. Maybe next 20 years will we see a mature SBL, instead of within this decade for ABL.
>I am not trashing ABL on a whim or just because it is
>American. The Soviets had a similar system in the mid -80s
>based on an IL-76... they decided the problems outweighed
>the advantages.
And Garry aren't you guilty of your prejudices like when you accuse others being "Western" lovers? Just because the Soviets think so, you think that's 100% the case to others. So, your FSW S-37 will work will just because the Soviets/Russians said so, even when NASA don't think it's advantages outweighs disadvantages. Talking about biased. Now, why was Gorbachav so eager to eliminate an entire class of ballistic missiles in return for a US pledge to stop SDI? You're telling me that was just somekind of joke? First of all, the real technological challange to SDI/ABL type of system IS NOT the "energy weapon/beam", but something else, i prefer not to talk about that. But keep in mind, stop being infactuated about the problem being the laser beam and related...
>this means Rogue state launch or accidental firing by China
>or Russia, but not full scale attack or even malicious
>attack by a few disgruntalled Russians.
And I and others like Buff repeat, the NMD is not aimed at negating the Soviet or even Chinese ICBMs please stop insinuating on that. It's to stop the high probability of a few missiles (a couple) falling into the wrong hands...and then even worse, the US would have to oblilerate where ever it came from just to prevent further attempts.
New
By: Anonymous
- 9th June 2002 at 02:26Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"size of a house? Garry, even if it's the size of a laptop for the laser head, and a full size computer tower for the DRIVE, you'll aready have a huge problem. What about the power supply (not cooling, sure i'll give you air), ram air? You got to be joking. First of all, we aren't talking about the units being used today, obviously those are small enough to be mounted on a small pod. But, the question is whether other wavelengths will do better. Please don't deviate and mix different cases to make your point. As to size and wavelength...yes, let's say its' a gas laser, instead of ~1um wavelenght in fundamental mode, you use let's say 10um. Now, in order to get the same power, you'll probably need a tube longer than 10x, because the wavelength just increased by a factor of 10 while the energy associated with it is lower. "
Sorry I think we are not talking about the same thing... I am talking about the laser target marker... 2-3 watt is probably much more powerful than is needed... A UAV that can fly for 12 hours with two Hellfires (90kgs total) would certainly be able to carry a laser target marker of similar or heavier weight.
"Just exactly which orbit in your mind will these satellites be parked at? You do know the altitudes for even the lowest LEOs don't you? What about GEO? That's straight down, now how about slant range? You better check your orbits Garry."
Geostationary... 32,000km above Earth... range is rather unimportant in space as ten metres of vaccuum effects a laser as much as 10,000kms of vaccuum... that is the point of putting them in space. (Obviously distance reduces power but not to the extent that atmosphere does.)
"And yes, and i'm saying at current level of technology, ABL is more feasible than SBL. Maybe next 20 years will we see a mature SBL, instead of within this decade for ABL."
Waiting an extra 20 years for a system that could do the job is much better than getting one now that won't.
"Just because the Soviets think so, you think that's 100% the case to others."
I was not suggesting that if the Soviets couldn't do it then the US couldn't... I was saying that my reasons for saying the ABL is no use was not because the ABL is American... which is not the same thing.
"...because the Soviets/Russians said so, even when NASA don't think it's advantages outweighs disadvantages. "
The scientists working on star wars projects could care less whether their proposal would actually work in the real world or not... they just wanted their pet projects funded.
"Now, why was Gorbachav so eager to eliminate an entire class of ballistic missiles in return for a US pledge to stop SDI? "
Because by the time Gorbachav was in power the SU was already short of money. Removing one weapon type (while still retaining the ability to obliterate each other) is much cheaper than starting down a new path of very expensive technologies stationed in space. The ABM treaty had pretty much limited space to sensors... starwars was going to add a new dimension to warfare that the Soviets would have to follow and Gorby knew they couldn't afford it.
"But keep in mind, stop being infactuated about the problem being the laser beam and related..."
My opinion is based on the aftermath of starwars and its many projects.
"And I and others like Buff repeat, the NMD is not aimed at negating the Soviet or even Chinese ICBMs please stop insinuating on that. It's to stop the high probability of a few missiles (a couple) falling into the wrong hands...and then even worse, the US would have to oblilerate where ever it came from just to prevent further attempts."
The guy who signed the papers and pushes the button thinks differently.
Whenever justification for the NMD is asked for the same old excuses come out.... Rogue states launching a missile, Accidental launch of a weapon and malicious renegade launch of missiles due to mafia or corruption or whatever. The first excuse is obviously directed at Iran, Iraq, NK, and Libya. The second is of course directed at any nuclear power likely to have missiles aimed at "Western" allies and is basically Russia and China. (Of course the fact that missiles are supposed to be not targetted at anyone suggests this excuse is rather weak). The last excuse is usually leveled at Russia with hints of China due to levels of corruption and the power of the Mafia there. (The fact that the NMD is supposed to defend from one or two missiles suggests that this excuse is weak as well... if a "bad guy" gets his hands on launch codes then he could launch from 64-200 missiles... not one or two... or do you think that there is one launch button for each missile?).
". It's to stop the high probability of a few missiles (a couple) falling into the wrong hands...and then even worse, the US would have to oblilerate where ever it came from just to prevent further attempts."
The likelyhood of a few ICBM falling into the wrong hands is incredibly low... they can weight up to 200 tons!
More likely is a few warheads and then these people with the wrong hands would just have to spend 5-10 years designing a missile to fire it... or they could smuggle it into the US and detonate it there... just as well you guys have ABL close to service... airbases will be no problem and you can fly them right up to the target area... }>
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 1st June 2002 at 06:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
Basically my point Garry is "directed" weapons and by what definition does that mean? Also, CO2 lasers used are IR...your everyday experience with visible light doesn't always apply to IR. So, the question is, have you seen the absorbtion spectrum in the IR? Do you know exactly what is the attenuation of the specific wavelength(s) of the ABL? Lights getting blocked with object A, doens't mean it'll be the same in IR or any other wavelengths. It's such a cliche to say "attenuation"...obviously there's attenuation. By how much? You don't know. Just like stealth nay sayers who thinks detecting a stealth plane in 2-3 miles, or even 10 miles, means defeating it. That's all i can say. As to NK's case, my point is the worst kind of people is one who criticize on others on things they have no stake, or unwilling to take actions on their own what-so-ever. The idea isn't who gave who money being "good", but who actually did something about it and take a stand. If NZ feels for NK, why don't you guys trade with them. If it's the US actions against NK is so evil, why don't you angelic kiwis do something. Just like all the Europeans would only bitch about the middle east, why don't they do something, instead just criticizing the US. Because they, like NZ, have no back bone. If your government is so righteous, why don't you stand up to the big bad Americans? Do something. The point is, you have your agendas and national interests too. So, don't be a hypocrite.
By: Anonymous - 2nd June 2002 at 07:03 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"Also, CO2 lasers used are IR...your everyday experience with visible light doesn't always apply to IR. "
True, but experience in TI and other night vision technologies is quite relevant.
"So, the question is, have you seen the absorbtion spectrum in the IR? Do you know exactly what is the attenuation of the specific wavelength(s) of the ABL? Lights getting blocked with object A, doens't mean it'll be the same in IR or any other wavelengths. "
Night vision pods on aircraft cover a wide range of frequencies... or they could if that was useful, yet there are often times when they are useless. Now of course this is at low level and this is the worst place for these devices, but if there were some magic frequency for each atmospheric condition then don't you think that would be applied to vision as well as the use of lasers?
"As to NK's case, my point is the worst kind of people is one who criticize on others on things they have no stake, or unwilling to take actions on their own what-so-ever. "
So when does the bombardment of Switzerland begin?
"...but who actually did something about it and take a stand."
So in this case doing something about "it" and making a stand would be for the US to drop all sanctions and send enough food for everyone in NK to prevent starvation... I don't think that happened.
For any other country to take such a stand they would need to stand up against the US... which country is in a position to do that?
What would the cost be?
There is a bully in the school that is all powerful. Because this bully is the principle and he makes up the rules.
He has a child cornered and no-one else has the courage to stand up against him... well some have in the past like Vietnam, and Iran, and Lybia, and Cuba... the rest of the kids saw what happened to them and have decided it is not worth the trouble.
Of course what you are saying is that these children are more guilty than the principal because they do nothing.
I'd suggest that self preservation is not a negative characteristic and nor is common sense.
The fact that NK has been embargoed and crushed by its neighbours does not make NZ or Switzerland etc responsible... the only countries that could be responsible are those that can actually do something to change the situation. This of course includes NK itself, but it also includes the US, SK, China, and possibly Japan (being a powerful country in the region).
Ahhh but it is the corrupt communist system you say.
The US can treat countries any way it likes and that countries future depends on which type of treatment it receives.
Countries like China do reasonably well despite being a corrupt communist country. Countries like SU, Cuba, NK, etc suffer with few allies and corrupt communist governments. Countries like SK, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwaite thrive with corrupt dictatorships or semi military governments.
So lets look at the keys to not having your population starving.
Oil works for SA and Kuwaite. China is an ally against North Korea, SU. SU was an ally against the Axis, but was too much of a rival that was too different from the US for them to remain friends. NK and Cuba and Vietnam were unlucky enough to have beaten the US in one of the latters many little military interventions. Fortunately for Vietnam it is not completely out in the cold as long as Vietnam war vets still hold out hopes of finding live US prisoners. NK and Cuba has nothing to offer. (If Iran let the US oil companies back in they'd lose their isolation in a heartbeat...).
"If it's the US actions against NK is so evil, why don't you angelic kiwis do something. "
No, you are right. A small south pacific country with just over 3.5 million people is just as bad as the US for our inaction. We could have solved all of the problems. The power we wield we could have fixed all of the worlds problems in a heart beat.
We are not stupid enough to believe that the principal deserves his job. He is just a child that is much bigger than all the others in the school. Many of the other kids have been able to read and write and have much longer written histories than the bully, but he listens to noone unless it suits him.
He thinks what he is doing is right, but most often what he does makes things much worse. Like any child he thinks himself blameless.
When it is suggested he has done something wrong he says "Well what did you do?" to one of the few children younger than him...
Of course he is not listening to the answer...
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 2nd June 2002 at 08:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
yeah, this school principal must be really nice because little kids like NZ bitch all day and don't get punished. Really Garry and you call me naive, why don't you just admit that NZ also have their own "agendas" and unlike your assertion of standing up against the US, in reality nothing happens. I thought you are so eager to oppose the US, yet you asked for "price to pay"...what happened to righteousness? Talk is cheap, you can say all you want about the US, but the reality is you don't and won't make a difference. That must be really depressing sometimes huh?
As to thermal imagers...instead of saying general stuff, you do know what's inside it and how it sense IR radiation right? You do know that the device is inherently AC and that the detection "bandwidth" is actually based on what kind of emission is created by the target. Because of the attenuation of water vapour to specific IR wavelengths a lost of gain happens. But that's because the emission of the target happens to be the strongest at certain IR wavelength. But now you're saying the opposite is also true? That a specifically tuned IR laser will happen to be attenuated by the same principles? No, that's not true, because if you understand what i mean by "holes" in the spectrum, then you'll know it's not the same as a detector detecting the target emission through those holes. Why? Because the target are not and cannot be tuned that way. Emission of a target is natural and is very very difficult to alter the emission spectrum. You can omit some, but you can't totally refocuse it into another wavelength like in the case of laser emissions.
By: Anonymous - 3rd June 2002 at 06:17 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"yeah, this school principal must be really nice because little kids like NZ bitch all day and don't get punished. "
Yes, quiet child! or I'll make you sit with the axis of evil...
How dare you think for yourself!
Why bother with NATO and UN... why not just give the US army jackboots and come out? }>
"Really Garry and you call me naive, "
Only about some things and only when you earn it.. }>
"...why don't you just admit that NZ also have their own "agendas" and unlike your assertion of standing up against the US, in reality nothing happens. "
That is what I have been trying to tell you... they all do. Suggesting one country is evil because their agenda is not the same as yours is what I am talking about.
BTW we do sometimes stand up... admittedly we rolled over for the French with regard to the Rainbow warrior affair because they threatened us financially (dairy exports to the EU), but I don't see any Nuclear powered US ships visiting... seems like we can stand up sometimes (and I'll be the first to admit it was because all the US could threaten us with was to not play war games with us any more via ANZUS).
"I thought you are so eager to oppose the US, yet you asked for "price to pay"...what happened to righteousness? Talk is cheap, you can say all you want about the US, but the reality is you don't and won't make a difference. That must be really depressing sometimes huh?"
See above.
"As to thermal imagers... ...emissions."
All I am doing by looking from the point of view or TI is looking at the transmission medium that is the atmosphere. I think you'll agree that this is as relevant to a viewer as it is to a transmitter.
Of course when they were designing TI they just chose freqencies at random.... no hang on a minute they analysed the IR and UV spectrums for "Holes". They found two. These are the two they use now. The TI instruments they use on aircraft and armoured vehicles look through these holes but they still are not 100% all weather... they can't be. Any laser design will come up against the same problem unless it goes to freqencies that are not so close to light as to be effected by the atmosphere in the same way light is.
Microwaves have been mentioned as has EMP. These are much better options which it seems the US navy agrees according to Ja's first post here.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 3rd June 2002 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
Garry, most if not all thermal imagers are broad band...broad in the sense it probably will cover across 10 microns or more, unless you are near the Visible/IR regime, where i think it cuts down to 3 types of detectors (for optimum detection) from 1 to 10 microns. In any case, the medium (through air) will be your "filter". That said, you can't pick a "band" if you are detecting. No, unless you aim for those low wavelengths. In general i believe the current IRs use mid wavelength ones...while researching in both lower and higher frequencies. But, if you are an emitter, then you would naturally try to pick a wavelength where the medium will have high transmissivity, notice that now you get to pick. About detectors picking frequencies, this is probably more attributed to older detector elements, which some types do have a rather narrow higher sensitivities (you really don't have a choice there since it's more of material properties than sensor design points), but we're talking about newer detectors now. Of course i'm not expert at it, and if you have other opinions/facts, i like to hear them. That's what's so great about science, it's theoretically possible to reach the "truth", unlike politics ;)
By: Anonymous - 4th June 2002 at 02:46 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
I understand what you are saying but my problem with it is if the ABL designers have gone and analysed all possible weather patterns around every potential battlefield in the world and got these magical frequency holes... why didn't they pass them on to the guys making laser target markers?
If what you say is correct then the appropriate frequency could be calculated and transmitted to a low flying UAV to mark targets in Kosovo, yet so many targets went on their merry way because of the weather. Flying at medium altitude the aircraft were safe, in fact more safe than usual due to the lower threat from visually guided missiles, yet targets were not engaged because the lasers could not penetrate the weather...
ABL is a nice idea but there are other cheaper options with fewer problems to overcome... (Leave lasers in space...)
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 4th June 2002 at 17:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
I don't know, there are probably good reasons for that, ie, beam size, beam power, optics for certain frequencies, beam frequency, the type of lasers, etc...ABL is a huge laser by any standard. You can't just fit it on a small UAV with a smaller version....way too heavy. I'm not sure if you can make a laser that small for that wavelength (not a diode laser). As to lasers in space...that's even worse. How are you going to dissipate all that heat? Even with a 99% efficiency (which obviously won't be the case), a 1MW power shot means 10kW of heat. That's a lot of heat to be dumped simply by radiation. Dumping 10kW of heat in air is possible without creating too much of an IR signature if done properly. I'm convinced that it's not that much of a problem. You do know that apollo astronauts put a corner reflector on the Moon and people on Earth measured the exact Earth-Moon distance with a laser.
By: Anonymous - 5th June 2002 at 05:19 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"ABL is a huge laser by any standard. You can't just fit it on a small UAV with a smaller version....way too heavy."
The ABL is as big as it is for one single reason... power.
A laser target marker doesn't need any where near as much power as the ABL. In fact it needs no more power than it already has.
"I'm not sure if you can make a laser that small for that wavelength (not a diode laser)."
I have seen lasers the size of a thumbnail or smaller. The largest part of a modern laser is usually the power supply. As long as the right materials are avaiable a laser in any frequency range could be made. This might require two lasers to be carried... that would be no problem as modern laser rangefinders are light and portable a UAV with a payload of 100kgs or more could easily carry 2-3.
As an example two laser ranger/markers from Russia... not known for their compact small light military gear (though usually rugged and strong) one being the 1D22 which can mark targets out to 7km or range targets to 40km and weighs 45kgs. The 1D26 system can be used to mark a tank size target at 5km and measure ranges of 30km and weighs 13kgs.
As you yourself say they can use lasers to measure the distance to the moon with the aid of proper reflectors... of course pointing a laser directly up means 30-40km of air and the rest of the way in a vaccuum. What the ABL does is actually harder in that it has to travel through up to 400km or air.
"As to lasers in space...that's even worse. How are you going to dissipate all that heat? "
How does the sun disipate its heat?
Simple heat exchangers are very efficient in space... a coil of tubing exposed to the vaccuum of space out of the suns heat will cool any liquid it contains to about minus 100 degrees C or colder. on the sunny side of the machine of course any liquid in the tubing with be heated to a reasonably high temperature too... but that assumes there is liquid in the tubing while it is exposed to the sunlight.
In fact in the cold vaccuum of space it is keeping components roughly the same temperature that is the problem which has been solved. (Think about the problem of spacesuits or space telescopes where when they are in the suns glare half is over boiling point and the other half is well below freezing point... these problems have already been solved...)
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 6th June 2002 at 00:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
uh Garry, no...don't tell me that heat transport is solved in space in the context of that much heat generation. You like to believe that and again saying it is much much easier than seeing an actual thing or did design calculations to know what you're actually talking about. Having a satellite facing the sun, but not generating much internal heat is very very different to this situation. Most satellites don't generate much heat anyways, except from electronics. over 10kW (probably over 100kW for a 1MW laser) of electronic heat dissipation? I"m not even sure MILSTAR generates that much heat. As to lasers, if you read my post again you'll see i've mentioned DIODE lasers being small. I'm not sure if you can make the kind of lasers for ABL wavelength that small. I'm sure you understand that there are many kind of different lasers out there and they can't cover that much wavelengths unless you use a dye laser, even that have certain problems and are usually large. Your soldier sized laser markers are nothing more complex than a laser from a laser pen. But, the ABL is a GAS laser which the ones i've seen even for relatively low power is HUGE, not only that, it sucks up a lot of power. It's the same idea of making a miniature robotic insect, but...what about that huge power supply it needs?
By: Anonymous - 7th June 2002 at 06:56 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"Your soldier sized laser markers are nothing more complex than a laser from a laser pen. But, the ABL is a GAS laser which the ones i've seen even for relatively low power is HUGE, not only that, it sucks up a lot of power."
This is quite correct but marking a target with a laser from 10km is quite different from trying to shoot down an ICBM from 400km.
Can you not accept that a laser that relies on "frequency holes" as you put it would not need to be large?
Regarding space based lasers... yes they would be big, but without an atmosphere to burn through they would would actually be effective 24/7 hovering over the target area... well above defended airspace.
If heat transfer is so difficult in space why then do Astronauts have to have layers in their spacesuits to retain their body heat? Why is it that astronauts who are working on the dark side of the space ship or space station only able to work for an hour or two due to the cold. Could it possibly be because their body heat is escaping into space?
Space is cold. If you have something hot inside a satelite, you just pump a liquid (not water as it has to high a freezing point) through tubes that are exposed to the vaccuum of space... simple idea.
Is in use now.
Used in spacesuits too... liquid is pumped around the suit when the astronaut is in the sunlight so that rather than one side of his body freezing and the other side boiling the temp is just right for humans... or is there a seperate freezer and heater for the two sides that move when he moves?
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 7th June 2002 at 17:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
>This is quite correct but marking a target with a laser from
>10km is quite different from trying to shoot down an ICBM
>from 400km.
>Can you not accept that a laser that relies on "frequency
>holes" as you put it would not need to be large?
true, but i've consistenly said at that frequency it may well have to be a gas or dye laser, which is quite large from what i know. To make it easier to understand, it's like trying to make a very small antenna for a very large wavelength RADAR...humm, you understand there that the wavelengths are not really that compatible and the losses are huge if outright impossible (i don't know about the specifics, but just an analogy). So, using a DIODE laser to pump out wavelengths in of long IR? I'm not sure if that's possible for the kind of power required also. Another thing, laser heads can be small, but you have to agree that the whole package have to be small, cooling system and power supply.
>Regarding space based lasers... yes they would be big, but
>without an atmosphere to burn through they would would
>actually be effective 24/7 hovering over the target area...
>well above defended airspace.
Only geosynchronous equatorial orbit can have true 24/7 hovering over the target. All other geosynchronous will do a sine wave up and down the equator even though it'll stay at the same longitude. But, ok, i'll accept and assume geosynch equatorial orbit is available for SBL, but what about coverage beyond the tropical zone? Not a good idea. A small fleet of ABLs CAN cover 24/7 with minimum range to target. Not a laser. Besides, at GEO, you are by definition hitting in the coast phase, not boost phase.
>If heat transfer is so difficult in space why then do
>Astronauts have to have layers in their spacesuits to retain
>their body heat?
Garry, the point is cyclical loads and the "range" of heat transport required. The larger that is, the more difficult it is to design exchangers. Humans and almost all spacecrafts don't put out too much heat, compared to 100kWs or more. So your design have to accomodate a huge swing in heat flux to retain the permissible temperature swing. You see, the problem is an engineering problem and most likely solvable, but it's much much more complex than it seems.
By: Anonymous - 8th June 2002 at 00:55 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"have to be a gas or dye laser, which is quite large from what i know. "
A 2-3 watt laser is not going to be the size of a house... whatever its frequency. The lasers used in the Russian laser target markers are not diode lasers or they'd be much smaller. (Western systems are less than 10kgs with GPS receivers included.)
"To make it easier to understand, it's like trying to make a very small antenna for a very large wavelength RADAR...humm, you understand there that the wavelengths are not really that compatible and the losses are huge if outright impossible (i don't know about the specifics, but just an analogy). "
I thought that the frequency of a laser had more to do with the chemicals or medium that was excited in the tube. Certainly the power generated has more effect on the size of the laser than the freqency unless you wanted a wide range of frequencies to be generated.
"Another thing, laser heads can be small, but you have to agree that the whole package have to be small, cooling system and power supply."
In a UAV the cooling supply could be an airscoop. In space they have as many launches of the space shuttle as they need to get as much equipment up there as they need.
"A small fleet of ABLs CAN cover 24/7 with minimum range to target. "
That is the problem though they can't.
The cost of keeping at least one 747 within 400km of Iraq, Iran, North Korea and possibly even China would be high enough if it could even be done but china and Iran and probably Iraq are big enough that they could base their missiles on their territory more than 400km from international or US friendly airspace. A laser from space firing downwards woudl at most have to penetrate 30-40km of atmosphere... 18km of which would have clouds/rain/ice etc.
One SPL over Iran/Iraq, and one over NK that could cover most of China as well.... (and perhaps one over France... }> )
"You see, the problem is an engineering problem and most likely solvable, but it's much much more complex than it seems."
Yes, I never said it would be easy.
I am not trashing ABL on a whim or just because it is American. The Soviets had a similar system in the mid -80s based on an IL-76... they decided the problems outweighed the advantages.
The whole starwars program saw lots of designs and development and appart from a few X-ray lasers (which generated much less power than they thought it would) most Laser work focussed on use in outer space only.
Attacking ICBMs is harder in the boost phase because there is no bright flame coming out the rear of it to make it stand out on IR sensors. However against one or two missiles with radar and a laser a system is possible now. Obviously this means Rogue state launch or accidental firing by China or Russia, but not full scale attack or even malicious attack by a few disgruntalled Russians.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 8th June 2002 at 06:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
>"have to be a gas or dye laser, which is quite large from
>what i know. "
>
>A 2-3 watt laser is not going to be the size of a house...
>whatever its frequency. The lasers used in the Russian laser
>target markers are not diode lasers or they'd be much
>smaller. (Western systems are less than 10kgs with GPS
>receivers included.)
size of a house? Garry, even if it's the size of a laptop for the laser head, and a full size computer tower for the DRIVE, you'll aready have a huge problem. What about the power supply (not cooling, sure i'll give you air), ram air? You got to be joking. First of all, we aren't talking about the units being used today, obviously those are small enough to be mounted on a small pod. But, the question is whether other wavelengths will do better. Please don't deviate and mix different cases to make your point. As to size and wavelength...yes, let's say its' a gas laser, instead of ~1um wavelenght in fundamental mode, you use let's say 10um. Now, in order to get the same power, you'll probably need a tube longer than 10x, because the wavelength just increased by a factor of 10 while the energy associated with it is lower.
>A laser from space
>firing downwards woudl at most have to penetrate 30-40km of
>atmosphere... 18km of which would have clouds/rain/ice etc.
>One SPL over Iran/Iraq, and one over NK that could cover
>most of China as well....
Just exactly which orbit in your mind will these satellites be parked at? You do know the altitudes for even the lowest LEOs don't you? What about GEO? That's straight down, now how about slant range? You better check your orbits Garry.
>"You see, the problem is an engineering problem and most
>likely solvable, but it's much much more complex than it
>seems."
>
>Yes, I never said it would be easy.
And yes, and i'm saying at current level of technology, ABL is more feasible than SBL. Maybe next 20 years will we see a mature SBL, instead of within this decade for ABL.
>I am not trashing ABL on a whim or just because it is
>American. The Soviets had a similar system in the mid -80s
>based on an IL-76... they decided the problems outweighed
>the advantages.
And Garry aren't you guilty of your prejudices like when you accuse others being "Western" lovers? Just because the Soviets think so, you think that's 100% the case to others. So, your FSW S-37 will work will just because the Soviets/Russians said so, even when NASA don't think it's advantages outweighs disadvantages. Talking about biased. Now, why was Gorbachav so eager to eliminate an entire class of ballistic missiles in return for a US pledge to stop SDI? You're telling me that was just somekind of joke? First of all, the real technological challange to SDI/ABL type of system IS NOT the "energy weapon/beam", but something else, i prefer not to talk about that. But keep in mind, stop being infactuated about the problem being the laser beam and related...
>this means Rogue state launch or accidental firing by China
>or Russia, but not full scale attack or even malicious
>attack by a few disgruntalled Russians.
And I and others like Buff repeat, the NMD is not aimed at negating the Soviet or even Chinese ICBMs please stop insinuating on that. It's to stop the high probability of a few missiles (a couple) falling into the wrong hands...and then even worse, the US would have to oblilerate where ever it came from just to prevent further attempts.
By: Anonymous - 9th June 2002 at 02:26 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: USN focuses again on directed-energy weapons
"size of a house? Garry, even if it's the size of a laptop for the laser head, and a full size computer tower for the DRIVE, you'll aready have a huge problem. What about the power supply (not cooling, sure i'll give you air), ram air? You got to be joking. First of all, we aren't talking about the units being used today, obviously those are small enough to be mounted on a small pod. But, the question is whether other wavelengths will do better. Please don't deviate and mix different cases to make your point. As to size and wavelength...yes, let's say its' a gas laser, instead of ~1um wavelenght in fundamental mode, you use let's say 10um. Now, in order to get the same power, you'll probably need a tube longer than 10x, because the wavelength just increased by a factor of 10 while the energy associated with it is lower. "
Sorry I think we are not talking about the same thing... I am talking about the laser target marker... 2-3 watt is probably much more powerful than is needed... A UAV that can fly for 12 hours with two Hellfires (90kgs total) would certainly be able to carry a laser target marker of similar or heavier weight.
"Just exactly which orbit in your mind will these satellites be parked at? You do know the altitudes for even the lowest LEOs don't you? What about GEO? That's straight down, now how about slant range? You better check your orbits Garry."
Geostationary... 32,000km above Earth... range is rather unimportant in space as ten metres of vaccuum effects a laser as much as 10,000kms of vaccuum... that is the point of putting them in space. (Obviously distance reduces power but not to the extent that atmosphere does.)
"And yes, and i'm saying at current level of technology, ABL is more feasible than SBL. Maybe next 20 years will we see a mature SBL, instead of within this decade for ABL."
Waiting an extra 20 years for a system that could do the job is much better than getting one now that won't.
"Just because the Soviets think so, you think that's 100% the case to others."
I was not suggesting that if the Soviets couldn't do it then the US couldn't... I was saying that my reasons for saying the ABL is no use was not because the ABL is American... which is not the same thing.
"...because the Soviets/Russians said so, even when NASA don't think it's advantages outweighs disadvantages. "
The scientists working on star wars projects could care less whether their proposal would actually work in the real world or not... they just wanted their pet projects funded.
"Now, why was Gorbachav so eager to eliminate an entire class of ballistic missiles in return for a US pledge to stop SDI? "
Because by the time Gorbachav was in power the SU was already short of money. Removing one weapon type (while still retaining the ability to obliterate each other) is much cheaper than starting down a new path of very expensive technologies stationed in space. The ABM treaty had pretty much limited space to sensors... starwars was going to add a new dimension to warfare that the Soviets would have to follow and Gorby knew they couldn't afford it.
"But keep in mind, stop being infactuated about the problem being the laser beam and related..."
My opinion is based on the aftermath of starwars and its many projects.
"And I and others like Buff repeat, the NMD is not aimed at negating the Soviet or even Chinese ICBMs please stop insinuating on that. It's to stop the high probability of a few missiles (a couple) falling into the wrong hands...and then even worse, the US would have to oblilerate where ever it came from just to prevent further attempts."
The guy who signed the papers and pushes the button thinks differently.
Whenever justification for the NMD is asked for the same old excuses come out.... Rogue states launching a missile, Accidental launch of a weapon and malicious renegade launch of missiles due to mafia or corruption or whatever. The first excuse is obviously directed at Iran, Iraq, NK, and Libya. The second is of course directed at any nuclear power likely to have missiles aimed at "Western" allies and is basically Russia and China. (Of course the fact that missiles are supposed to be not targetted at anyone suggests this excuse is rather weak). The last excuse is usually leveled at Russia with hints of China due to levels of corruption and the power of the Mafia there. (The fact that the NMD is supposed to defend from one or two missiles suggests that this excuse is weak as well... if a "bad guy" gets his hands on launch codes then he could launch from 64-200 missiles... not one or two... or do you think that there is one launch button for each missile?).
". It's to stop the high probability of a few missiles (a couple) falling into the wrong hands...and then even worse, the US would have to oblilerate where ever it came from just to prevent further attempts."
The likelyhood of a few ICBM falling into the wrong hands is incredibly low... they can weight up to 200 tons!
More likely is a few warheads and then these people with the wrong hands would just have to spend 5-10 years designing a missile to fire it... or they could smuggle it into the US and detonate it there... just as well you guys have ABL close to service... airbases will be no problem and you can fly them right up to the target area... }>