Either fight to deploy...or get out of the way!!!
Posted on 07/22/2006 3:07:27 AM PDT by Paul Ross
Either fight to deploy...or get out of the way!!!
Is that laser beam actually as wide as that mirror ?
Meet the future of CIWS. This is why I believe little additional money has been put into Phalanx. Mach 3 ASCMs require a more immediate response.
Just for perspective, the whole concept of directed energy, indeed all historical and contemporary weaponry, is to take energy from a source, launch and deliver it accurately, then obliterate the crap outta the target in a paroxysm of 1/2 mv^2 (or heat) violence. Controlled energy launch here...to uncontrolled energy arrival there.
There is another kind of weapon that is spiritual and is unknown by national armies. This is another kind of violence and delivers another kind of energy.
I agree with the post. The Middle East might be a good place to test and improve such a weapon.
I wonder how good it is at swatting houseflies. I could use a new swatter.
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
While directed energy weapons might solve many issues it can never be the technological cure all its supporters claim it to be.
Always remember the final battlefield and the only one that counts is in the human mind. “Winning hearts and minds”, to quote a saying from Vietnam, is the real key to understanding World War IV.
For those who are trying to stand on the sidelines (they just want rice in their rice bowls) you try to win their hearts. Get them to understand it is in their best interest to support.
For those who are carrying a gun and are killing your troops (they are true believers of the cause) you try to win their minds. Get them to understand that their individual survival means giving up the true belief. You do this by killing them every chance you get. The survivors, their leadership, will get the message and either stop trying to kill you (a truce), convert (peace) or get exterminated (peace).
Unfortunately this has been the history of armed conflict. And man has not evolved sufficiently to change this harsh reality.
The fixed installation design could easily be stationed in three locations in Israel, North, South and Middle to provide total coverage. Being such a ridiculously small country, a mobile system is a complete waste of money. Fixed is the way to go for them.
...or even to populated sites.
Scrubbers solve that. And better "toxic chemicals" (can you say gasoline truck?) rolling around their streets in tankers than Katyusha's raining down on their houses and industry...
The Deuterium Flouride and combustion by-products are not serious issues. Residue removal maintenance issues in an operationally deployed system are easily manageable.
The real issue was keeping the mirrors cool. And the fixed installation allowed for an effective approach to implement a solution. One that is not easily translatable to a mobile platform.
Deploy it now. Its better than nothing.
Yes.
MTHEL testbed beam director during laser firing. In this infrared photo, the MTHEL testbed high-energy laser beam can be seen as it is projected by the beam director at a Katyusha rocket in flight.
How about swamping the defense? Can this handle a large volume of fire or will it overheat?
As far as swamping the defense, that is basically a non-winner. Unlike ballistic interceptors. The rate of fire, azimuth, slewing across the horizon are all pretty impressive.
It can even nail inbound artillery shells...
"As the nation's only laser weapon, the THEL testbed has shot down a variety of threats since 2000, showing its versatility by destroying about three dozen targets, ranging from Katyusha rockets to artillery shells and large-caliber rockets, and now mortar threats as well."
Here is a depiction of the fixed installation:
Just wondering if you could elaborate.
MOVE 'ZOT'. FOR GREAT JUSTICE.
Most impressive.
....
Not ZOTs!
That is the province of the Higher Powers...
That's okay. "Dwell time" is the nomenclature of choice in the biz. All are just verbal abbreviations to express this idea: Keep the beam on target sufficiently long for destruction. This dwell-time can vary based on target "hardness" or distance issues. Hence, the system has to be able to ascertain when the target either disintegrates or is sufficiently damaged as to permit transition to other targets. Thus in theory, as you surmise, rate-of-kill is limited by the length of that required dwell time. Most effective exposures have been extremely short in duration to have the destructive success, however.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.