[Carry_Okie]

I would think that there were some ceramic coatings that might not have too much of a problem with that, or would perhaps sluff. Then there is the idea of a gas envelope of adsorptive material that would hold the heat behind the rocket. How long would it have to evade being fried before it got to its target, given that aquistion, tracking, targeting and firing, especially on multiple incoming targets, all take time?

[USAF_TSgt]

Sorry about the delay in replying, it's been quiet a busy last few days. Your last question is very valid, as the Army (both the US and Israeli) have found out with the Patriot/PAC-III (US) and the Arrow II (Israeli) anti-ballistic missile systems. It seems that in a non-war environment (such as a first-strike or random, small, terrorist attacks), the authority to fire/engage targets must be approved at a fairly high level (two- or three-star level for US military, case-in-point is the CAOC in UAE and Saudi Arabia). The military, and the civilians who control the military, must decide who will approve launching these missiles (for PAC-III and Arrow II) or firing these lasers (in the case of this article). The technology for tracking, targeting, and firing against multiple incoming targets is already available, and employed in a lot of systems (all modern jets, PAC-III, Arrow II, and others). Acquistion shouldn't be a problem because almost all missles used would have to get fairly high (unless it's a cruise missile that skims the surface) to get enough range on the reentry/return side of a ballistic path. As for the ceramic coatings, the problem is the more weight you add for fairly heavy coatings is less weight for warhead and guidance systems, and smaller ranges. You raise good questions, and a lot of this must be worked out before these systems get operationally deployed (especially in the US).