By: SOC
- 23rd June 2005 at 00:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shorter range but it was a much smaller and faster target too. With 70s technology. Also it was a much lower power laser so focusing and distortion were more of an issue.
Sidewinders faster than ballistic missiles? You've gotta be joking...
Hubble is in space, ABL isn't.
Space based platforms don't have to deal with problems like turbulence though. I wonder how that figures into the whole stabilization plan?
By: sferrin
- 23rd June 2005 at 02:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sidewinders faster than ballistic missiles? You've gotta be joking...
Space based platforms don't have to deal with problems like turbulence though. I wonder how that figures into the whole stabilization plan?
Apparently you missed the part where we were talking about airplanes. Not ballistic missiles. Also when I compared the problem to Hubble I conceeded the difference between a spacecraft and an aircraft. Perhaps you missed a post or two. However the fact remains they were able to hit a small high velocity target in the 70s, with 70s computers and before the term "adaptive optics" was even coined.
By: Vortex
- 23rd June 2005 at 07:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Space based platforms don't have to deal with problems like turbulence though. I wonder how that figures into the whole stabilization plan?
SOC, by going to space, i personally believe you're trading one problem for an even tougher problem. I would think a space version would need to carry a lot....you probably won't even believe this...liquids. Liquids? The biggest problem with space based lasers are the power requirements. Most automatically assume, power for the laser. No, in my opinion, power in terms of heat ejection rate from the satellite. Imagine, a 1MW laser. Ok, you only need 10 seconds (let's just say). Then that's 10MJ of energy. That's not that bad actually. Fuel energy density is roughly 50MJ/kg (iirc). Carrying a few hundred kg of fuel and oxidizer and generate power at 10% efficiency makes this doable. Or, you want to go the solar panel route. It should still be ok. Now think of this, lasers have very low conversion efficiency (ABL uses COIL principle) so you need to eject at least 10 times (more i believe) the power of the laser. Unlike the power for laser, you can slow charge and quick discharge. You can not fast charge (as an analogy) waste heat and slow discharge it (it will blow up)....unless you use phase change principles(afaik). Heat sink it to some liquid and let it evaporate. By mass, that's the most efficient. Need to do that carefully as not to disturb the satellite orbit too. IIRC, some astronaut space suit thermal control design uses external evaporation to control the suit temperature.
By: Arthur
- 23rd June 2005 at 11:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Space based platforms don't have to deal with problems like turbulence though.
If it was just turbulence... but there's plenty of atmospheric distortion making the targeting process far more difficult for the AL-1 (which of course is an Attack-modified Liaision aircraft :) ). Inversion, clouds, absorbtion (damn, suddenly pollution does become a problem)... quite tricky.
Also, so far i can find very little info on how the operational deployment is planned. Id guess you need to deploy three AL-1s to cover one potential threat area (one on patrol, one on standby, one backup). Now multiply that by the number of countries/regions in the then-declared Axis of Bad Guys, a number of aircraft undergoing maintenance, a few for training... That is going to be one terribly expensive capability.
By: sferrin
- 23rd June 2005 at 13:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If it was just turbulence... but there's plenty of atmospheric distortion making the targeting process far more difficult for the AL-1 (which of course is an Attack-modified Liaision aircraft :) ). Inversion, clouds, absorbtion (damn, suddenly pollution does become a problem)... quite tricky.
Also, so far i can find very little info on how the operational deployment is planned. Id guess you need to deploy three AL-1s to cover one potential threat area (one on patrol, one on standby, one backup). Now multiply that by the number of countries/regions in the then-declared Axis of Bad Guys, a number of aircraft undergoing maintenance, a few for training... That is going to be one terribly expensive capability.
IIRC the way they had in mind was more for troop defense from things like Scud and other sub-1000km missiles. You'd have several in theater and keep one or two on patrol at the forward edge of the battlefield. ABL goes after them on the way up and things like THAAD and PAC-3 go after them on the way down.
New
Posts: 424
By: pluto77189
- 23rd June 2005 at 13:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The AL-1 will probably not have much of a problem traking aircraft. At
such distances, the beam will have to move in very tiny increments to
fllow a fast moving, manuvering target.
Ballistic missles in the boost phase are simple - straight up. Even if
they're moving faster, they're very predictable. A manuvering fighter will
be slower, for sure, but harder to track. Different targets.
A cruising fighter, unaware of the AL's presence is another matter. It
would be an easy target. This all hinge son the identification, ranging,
tracking lasers firing duration prior to the main blaster. If it takes more
than a few seconds to identifiy, range and prep a target, any fighter with
an IR sensor is going to be made aware pretty quickly.
Also of importanace is the vulnerability of the targets. A fighter might be
writen off if certain parts are hit for even a short period of time. A pilot
would be wounded very badly, and probably blinded by just a short
exposure to such a high intensiy beam. IR seekers on missles and
sensors on the plane would be likely destroyed, as would any optical
sensors. I wonder what firing time is required to actually cause structural
damage to the average airframe.
By: Lightndattic
- 23rd June 2005 at 13:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder what firing time is required to actually cause structural damage to the average airframe.
It would probably be significant as opposed to weakening the outer fuel casing on a TBM. The actual 'Kill' on a BM is not from the laser, it's from the internal pressure from the burning fuel that blows out the weak spot created by the laser. Actually trying to melt skin and structural components of a fighter would take much longer bursts, but as you said.... sensors and pilot are a lot more vulnerable.
By: sferrin
- 23rd June 2005 at 14:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would probably be significant as opposed to weakening the outer fuel casing on a TBM. The actual 'Kill' on a BM is not from the laser, it's from the internal pressure from the burning fuel that blows out the weak spot created by the laser.
Actually that is incorrect although that may contribute to it. After all liquid fuel ICBMs are not under internal pressure (well the Atlas was but I think it was the exception rather than the norm. A boosting ICBM is under compression loads and you make a weak spot so it collapses. Try this the next time you have an empty soda can. Holding onto something for balance an empty aluminum soda can standing on end will support your weight if you step up onto it very carefully. Think of this as an ICBM in flight. Now gently tap one side of the can with your free foot. The can fails catastrophically. They actually did a test almost exactly like this with a section of Titan II and a laser.
By: BuffPuff
- 23rd June 2005 at 15:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I read many years ago in a British newspaper. that certain Nato naval vessels, incl RN friggates had lasers fitted in place of or in place of guns. These lasers were not designed to shoot down A/C, but rather to blind the pilot or crew. The lasers wewr removed apparantly as they were consided an inhumane weapons system.
Mind you, it was the Daily Mirror, so the facts may not be, lets say 100% accurrate...ahem!!!
By: sferrin
- 23rd June 2005 at 15:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I read many years ago in a British newspaper. that certain Nato naval vessels, incl RN friggates had lasers fitted in place of or in place of guns. These lasers were not designed to shoot down A/C, but rather to blind the pilot or crew. The lasers wewr removed apparantly as they were consided an inhumane weapons system.
Mind you, it was the Daily Mirror, so the facts may not be, lets say 100% accurrate...ahem!!!
There has been the ocassional report in the past of NATO helicopters being "dazzled" by lasers from Soviet ships (it was back in the good old days) but I don't know how wide spread they ever were.
By: Vortex
- 23rd June 2005 at 22:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...not to mention the altitude these missiles will be destroyed by the ABL will be significantly different from an aircraft target. Keep in mind, IIRC, the "intensity" isn't all that high. Yes, it's a MW class laser, but it's beam diameter is huge. So, the "intensity" isn't really "world class". It's the fact that at the rarefied atmosphere, most of the heat can't be dissipated into the surrounding air. This is different for an aircraft target because the heat will be dissipated into the surround cold air (yes, not as dense as at the ground, but enough. That's why you'll freeze to death if unshielded-->airframe).
As to the structural failure...i'm not sure which direction it would buckle (failure type under compression loads). The question is why is it under such large compression load? Doesn't that depends no what phase the rocket is in?
New
Posts: 2,228
By: coanda
- 23rd June 2005 at 22:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
vortex,
you'll be in compression on the way up and on the way down, on the way down you'll be in greater compression than on the way up, although if your pulling 4g vertical acceleration, you'll be under plenty of compression......the compressive stress will significantly reduce the time taken for the cylinder to fail as heating the cylinder will cause the material of course to weaken, and, buckling stress being related to applied force, fail. therefore one could assume that, with linear compressive loading, a 4g acceleration will cause twice the compressive loading of a 2g acceleration, and hence fail in half the time.
this is of course a totally vertical cylinder only under compressive loading, if its inclined it will actually probably fail due to the secondary effects of the heating.....i.e. the heating and gravity will cause a mis-alignment of the cylinder and therefore a non-equal pressure differential around the cylinder, the result of which is movement, until the pressure differential is satisfied or until critical structural failure due to dynamic (air driven) loading conditions.
By: Vortex
- 24th June 2005 at 06:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
vortex,
you'll be in compression on the way up and on the way down, on the way down you'll be in greater compression than on the way up, although if your pulling 4g vertical acceleration, you'll be under plenty of compression......the compressive stress will significantly reduce the time taken for the cylinder to fail as heating the cylinder will cause the material of course to weaken, and, buckling stress being related to applied force, fail. therefore one could assume that, with linear compressive loading, a 4g acceleration will cause twice the compressive loading of a 2g acceleration, and hence fail in half the time.
this is of course a totally vertical cylinder only under compressive loading, if its inclined it will actually probably fail due to the secondary effects of the heating.....i.e. the heating and gravity will cause a mis-alignment of the cylinder and therefore a non-equal pressure differential around the cylinder, the result of which is movement, until the pressure differential is satisfied or until critical structural failure due to dynamic (air driven) loading conditions.
I understand the stress part. My question is mostly toward which phase the ABL was meant to target. The reason being that the high stress phases are not all that dominating in the flight profile of a rocket. And, obviously the higher (altitude) it is the less the aerodyanmic load. I've always thought the ABL targets when its in the break cloud cover to coast phase. I could be wrong. Of course i would love to see if anyone has any data on accelerations history of any BM. I've seen one for the STS, but that would not be a good comparison since that's manned and carries sensitive "cargos". For the STS, it isn't loaded much at all. I've always thought the ABL targets short range BMs like the Scud since they don't have a separate internal fuel tank so burning and weakening the missile walls are good enough.
By: sferrin
- 24th June 2005 at 13:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I understand the stress part. My question is mostly toward which phase the ABL was meant to target. The reason being that the high stress phases are not all that dominating in the flight profile of a rocket. And, obviously the higher (altitude) it is the less the aerodyanmic load. I've always thought the ABL targets when its in the break cloud cover to coast phase. I could be wrong. Of course i would love to see if anyone has any data on accelerations history of any BM. I've seen one for the STS, but that would not be a good comparison since that's manned and carries sensitive "cargos". For the STS, it isn't loaded much at all. I've always thought the ABL targets short range BMs like the Scud since they don't have a separate internal fuel tank so burning and weakening the missile walls are good enough.
While the missile is still under boost is what I've read.
New
Posts: 2,228
By: coanda
- 24th June 2005 at 14:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
boost would be the right phase to get it
1.most stressful phase of flight
2.still probably over enemy territory
3.effects of explosion not felt on friendlies
4.represents largest targets, why go after individual warheads if you can get them all in one location.
By: sferrin
- 25th June 2005 at 02:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ok, so does that mean the operational specs would mean no chance after boost?
Most of what I've read suggests they're banking on using the stress of the object under boost to assist in the destruction of the target but that they could go after any kind of missile within range be it a TBM or ICBM. Also there's been talk about aiming it UP. Doesn't take a ton of wattage to screw up a satellite. As for attacking a target in the midcourse phase. . .I don't know. I haven't heard anything about it but it doesn't hurt to speculate :D
A liquid propellant rocket would present the opportunity to heat the interior (empty tanks with residual propellant) to the point of rupture which would change it's orientation with regards to the flightpath if nothing else which would be bad news upon reentry. Actually, as another poster pointed out you still have to deal with the g's coming in also so a weakened airframe could still lead to destruction of the missile but how would you know you'd done lethal damage? If the missile has a warhead bus then interfereing with it's operation is going to cause it all sorts of problems. If all that you see coming in are warheads and decoys. . .well RVs are DESIGNED to deal with heat and I haven't a clue how the heat of the laser at X number of miles compares to the heat and stress of reentry. If it was one of the old fashioned RVs that used heatsinks it would be even more difficult I'd think.
By: over G
- 26th June 2005 at 01:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
again the innocent optimism...
well, i think that is a interesting idea, but we must see the reality, at 15000mts there is enough air density to absorb high frecuency energy ( well thats the reason why we can fly without X-ray protection at such heighs), if i remember well there were two options or an IR laser (efficient, but to emmit a decent power output it needs a huge "glass") or a X ray (iodine-oxigen), the 747 use this last, so we must see what is the true range, also the laser must point the target few seconds (few seconds to that precision margin its an eternity), the time of energy "reload" and how many shoots can do -remember that the fuel of the plane is compromised by the energy-hunger laser and the tactical range-, the machine will work, but will be also limited.
Im not a ballistic ICBM missiles expert, but i think that the MIRVs are deployed at hundreds of km from the target (i dont know if are thousands).
and knowing how the russians think, well i wouldnt be surprised if they deploy inner reflectant coatings for their missiles, at the long way is only light (and is reflected, actually in that way the laser works), and the cilindrical surface is pretty perfect to that
anyone have a pic of the soviet Il76 80s airborne laser???
New
Posts: 2,228
By: coanda
- 26th June 2005 at 11:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
over-g IF what you reckon is true and that the thing is useless over such a distance at such a height it limits its operational usefullness to tactical/theatre wide applications.......now, can they point it DOWN????
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 23rd June 2005 at 00:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sidewinders faster than ballistic missiles? You've gotta be joking...
Space based platforms don't have to deal with problems like turbulence though. I wonder how that figures into the whole stabilization plan?
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 23rd June 2005 at 02:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Apparently you missed the part where we were talking about airplanes. Not ballistic missiles. Also when I compared the problem to Hubble I conceeded the difference between a spacecraft and an aircraft. Perhaps you missed a post or two. However the fact remains they were able to hit a small high velocity target in the 70s, with 70s computers and before the term "adaptive optics" was even coined.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 23rd June 2005 at 07:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SOC, by going to space, i personally believe you're trading one problem for an even tougher problem. I would think a space version would need to carry a lot....you probably won't even believe this...liquids. Liquids? The biggest problem with space based lasers are the power requirements. Most automatically assume, power for the laser. No, in my opinion, power in terms of heat ejection rate from the satellite. Imagine, a 1MW laser. Ok, you only need 10 seconds (let's just say). Then that's 10MJ of energy. That's not that bad actually. Fuel energy density is roughly 50MJ/kg (iirc). Carrying a few hundred kg of fuel and oxidizer and generate power at 10% efficiency makes this doable. Or, you want to go the solar panel route. It should still be ok. Now think of this, lasers have very low conversion efficiency (ABL uses COIL principle) so you need to eject at least 10 times (more i believe) the power of the laser. Unlike the power for laser, you can slow charge and quick discharge. You can not fast charge (as an analogy) waste heat and slow discharge it (it will blow up)....unless you use phase change principles(afaik). Heat sink it to some liquid and let it evaporate. By mass, that's the most efficient. Need to do that carefully as not to disturb the satellite orbit too. IIRC, some astronaut space suit thermal control design uses external evaporation to control the suit temperature.
Posts: 7,877
By: Arthur - 23rd June 2005 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If it was just turbulence... but there's plenty of atmospheric distortion making the targeting process far more difficult for the AL-1 (which of course is an Attack-modified Liaision aircraft :) ). Inversion, clouds, absorbtion (damn, suddenly pollution does become a problem)... quite tricky.
Also, so far i can find very little info on how the operational deployment is planned. Id guess you need to deploy three AL-1s to cover one potential threat area (one on patrol, one on standby, one backup). Now multiply that by the number of countries/regions in the then-declared Axis of Bad Guys, a number of aircraft undergoing maintenance, a few for training... That is going to be one terribly expensive capability.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 23rd June 2005 at 13:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IIRC the way they had in mind was more for troop defense from things like Scud and other sub-1000km missiles. You'd have several in theater and keep one or two on patrol at the forward edge of the battlefield. ABL goes after them on the way up and things like THAAD and PAC-3 go after them on the way down.
Posts: 424
By: pluto77189 - 23rd June 2005 at 13:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The AL-1 will probably not have much of a problem traking aircraft. At
such distances, the beam will have to move in very tiny increments to
fllow a fast moving, manuvering target.
Ballistic missles in the boost phase are simple - straight up. Even if
they're moving faster, they're very predictable. A manuvering fighter will
be slower, for sure, but harder to track. Different targets.
A cruising fighter, unaware of the AL's presence is another matter. It
would be an easy target. This all hinge son the identification, ranging,
tracking lasers firing duration prior to the main blaster. If it takes more
than a few seconds to identifiy, range and prep a target, any fighter with
an IR sensor is going to be made aware pretty quickly.
Also of importanace is the vulnerability of the targets. A fighter might be
writen off if certain parts are hit for even a short period of time. A pilot
would be wounded very badly, and probably blinded by just a short
exposure to such a high intensiy beam. IR seekers on missles and
sensors on the plane would be likely destroyed, as would any optical
sensors. I wonder what firing time is required to actually cause structural
damage to the average airframe.
Posts: 400
By: Lightndattic - 23rd June 2005 at 13:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would probably be significant as opposed to weakening the outer fuel casing on a TBM. The actual 'Kill' on a BM is not from the laser, it's from the internal pressure from the burning fuel that blows out the weak spot created by the laser. Actually trying to melt skin and structural components of a fighter would take much longer bursts, but as you said.... sensors and pilot are a lot more vulnerable.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 23rd June 2005 at 14:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually that is incorrect although that may contribute to it. After all liquid fuel ICBMs are not under internal pressure (well the Atlas was but I think it was the exception rather than the norm. A boosting ICBM is under compression loads and you make a weak spot so it collapses. Try this the next time you have an empty soda can. Holding onto something for balance an empty aluminum soda can standing on end will support your weight if you step up onto it very carefully. Think of this as an ICBM in flight. Now gently tap one side of the can with your free foot. The can fails catastrophically. They actually did a test almost exactly like this with a section of Titan II and a laser.
Posts: 545
By: BuffPuff - 23rd June 2005 at 15:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I read many years ago in a British newspaper. that certain Nato naval vessels, incl RN friggates had lasers fitted in place of or in place of guns. These lasers were not designed to shoot down A/C, but rather to blind the pilot or crew. The lasers wewr removed apparantly as they were consided an inhumane weapons system.
Mind you, it was the Daily Mirror, so the facts may not be, lets say 100% accurrate...ahem!!!
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 23rd June 2005 at 15:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There has been the ocassional report in the past of NATO helicopters being "dazzled" by lasers from Soviet ships (it was back in the good old days) but I don't know how wide spread they ever were.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 23rd June 2005 at 22:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...not to mention the altitude these missiles will be destroyed by the ABL will be significantly different from an aircraft target. Keep in mind, IIRC, the "intensity" isn't all that high. Yes, it's a MW class laser, but it's beam diameter is huge. So, the "intensity" isn't really "world class". It's the fact that at the rarefied atmosphere, most of the heat can't be dissipated into the surrounding air. This is different for an aircraft target because the heat will be dissipated into the surround cold air (yes, not as dense as at the ground, but enough. That's why you'll freeze to death if unshielded-->airframe).
As to the structural failure...i'm not sure which direction it would buckle (failure type under compression loads). The question is why is it under such large compression load? Doesn't that depends no what phase the rocket is in?
Posts: 2,228
By: coanda - 23rd June 2005 at 22:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
vortex,
you'll be in compression on the way up and on the way down, on the way down you'll be in greater compression than on the way up, although if your pulling 4g vertical acceleration, you'll be under plenty of compression......the compressive stress will significantly reduce the time taken for the cylinder to fail as heating the cylinder will cause the material of course to weaken, and, buckling stress being related to applied force, fail. therefore one could assume that, with linear compressive loading, a 4g acceleration will cause twice the compressive loading of a 2g acceleration, and hence fail in half the time.
this is of course a totally vertical cylinder only under compressive loading, if its inclined it will actually probably fail due to the secondary effects of the heating.....i.e. the heating and gravity will cause a mis-alignment of the cylinder and therefore a non-equal pressure differential around the cylinder, the result of which is movement, until the pressure differential is satisfied or until critical structural failure due to dynamic (air driven) loading conditions.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 24th June 2005 at 06:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I understand the stress part. My question is mostly toward which phase the ABL was meant to target. The reason being that the high stress phases are not all that dominating in the flight profile of a rocket. And, obviously the higher (altitude) it is the less the aerodyanmic load. I've always thought the ABL targets when its in the break cloud cover to coast phase. I could be wrong. Of course i would love to see if anyone has any data on accelerations history of any BM. I've seen one for the STS, but that would not be a good comparison since that's manned and carries sensitive "cargos". For the STS, it isn't loaded much at all. I've always thought the ABL targets short range BMs like the Scud since they don't have a separate internal fuel tank so burning and weakening the missile walls are good enough.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 24th June 2005 at 13:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While the missile is still under boost is what I've read.
Posts: 2,228
By: coanda - 24th June 2005 at 14:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
boost would be the right phase to get it
1.most stressful phase of flight
2.still probably over enemy territory
3.effects of explosion not felt on friendlies
4.represents largest targets, why go after individual warheads if you can get them all in one location.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 25th June 2005 at 02:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ok, so does that mean the operational specs would mean no chance after boost?
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 25th June 2005 at 02:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most of what I've read suggests they're banking on using the stress of the object under boost to assist in the destruction of the target but that they could go after any kind of missile within range be it a TBM or ICBM. Also there's been talk about aiming it UP. Doesn't take a ton of wattage to screw up a satellite. As for attacking a target in the midcourse phase. . .I don't know. I haven't heard anything about it but it doesn't hurt to speculate :D
A liquid propellant rocket would present the opportunity to heat the interior (empty tanks with residual propellant) to the point of rupture which would change it's orientation with regards to the flightpath if nothing else which would be bad news upon reentry. Actually, as another poster pointed out you still have to deal with the g's coming in also so a weakened airframe could still lead to destruction of the missile but how would you know you'd done lethal damage? If the missile has a warhead bus then interfereing with it's operation is going to cause it all sorts of problems. If all that you see coming in are warheads and decoys. . .well RVs are DESIGNED to deal with heat and I haven't a clue how the heat of the laser at X number of miles compares to the heat and stress of reentry. If it was one of the old fashioned RVs that used heatsinks it would be even more difficult I'd think.
Posts: 1,838
By: over G - 26th June 2005 at 01:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
again the innocent optimism...
well, i think that is a interesting idea, but we must see the reality, at 15000mts there is enough air density to absorb high frecuency energy ( well thats the reason why we can fly without X-ray protection at such heighs), if i remember well there were two options or an IR laser (efficient, but to emmit a decent power output it needs a huge "glass") or a X ray (iodine-oxigen), the 747 use this last, so we must see what is the true range, also the laser must point the target few seconds (few seconds to that precision margin its an eternity), the time of energy "reload" and how many shoots can do -remember that the fuel of the plane is compromised by the energy-hunger laser and the tactical range-, the machine will work, but will be also limited.
Im not a ballistic ICBM missiles expert, but i think that the MIRVs are deployed at hundreds of km from the target (i dont know if are thousands).
and knowing how the russians think, well i wouldnt be surprised if they deploy inner reflectant coatings for their missiles, at the long way is only light (and is reflected, actually in that way the laser works), and the cilindrical surface is pretty perfect to that
anyone have a pic of the soviet Il76 80s airborne laser???
Posts: 2,228
By: coanda - 26th June 2005 at 11:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
over-g IF what you reckon is true and that the thing is useless over such a distance at such a height it limits its operational usefullness to tactical/theatre wide applications.......now, can they point it DOWN????
Posts: 545
By: BuffPuff - 26th June 2005 at 14:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, downwards over a barbecue!! Will do those burgers and suasages to a right old crisp!!!!!! :)