Anti-Missile Lasers: Size Doesn't Matter for Cutting Power

  • Thread starter taylaron
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Lasers
In summary, the military is working on a powerfull laser that can potentially knock down hazardus misiles. It is not necessary for the laser to be huge in diameter.
  • #1
taylaron
Gold Member
397
1
i know that the military is producing a powerfull laser that can potentially knock down hazardus misiles (possibly ICBMs)
wouldent all you need to have is an estreemly powerfull VERY SMALL laser. size doesn't matter if your cutting straight through it. wither the cut is 5 inches, or 2 cm. its still cut. all electrical connections would be severed. there's no need to have the laser be huge in diamater.
right?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
They are focusing the laser on as small a spot as possible (many many miles away). The goal is to burn through the outer metal skin and ignite any propellant tanks or piping they can. The counter strategy is to coat the missle skin with a reflective material at the laser wavelength.
 
  • #3
And no matter what they want you to believe, the project so far is a total turkey.
 
  • #4
your probably right...
its a good idea though.
...we'll get it eventually...
 
  • #5
Danger said:
And no matter what they want you to believe, the project so far is a total turkey.
Danger, there are several ABM technologies being worked on simultaneously and the media likes to talk-up the ones that are failures, but laser-based ABM defense is one that works. Not maybe, not could be, not promising: it works and will be in service in a few years. Here is the Airborne Laser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_laser
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/
The Airborne Laser (ABL) weapons system, designated YAL-1A, is a megawatt class chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) primarily designed to shoot down theatre ballistic missiles (TBMs) similar to the Scud while in boost phase. The laser system is fitted to a heavily modified Boeing 747-400F freighter and is still in the test period. The laser has been test fired on the ground but not yet in flight. However a much less powerful early flying prototype successfully shot down several missiles in the 1980s. It was called the Airborne Laser Laboratory, and was a technological pathfinder for the ABL [1].

The ABL doesn't burn through a missile, or disintegrate it. Rather it heats the missile skin, weakening it and causing failure due to flight stresses. If proven successful, a fleet of seven Boeing 747s with the ABL system would be constructed. In operation they would be divided between two combat theaters.
Though the prototype hasn't been tested yet, the fact that earlier technology demonstrators have proven successful leaves little doubt that it will work. It is important to remember, though, that this particular weapon has a range of only a few hundred miles, so it needs to be near the enemy launching the missile. The more comprehensive defense systems, however, are the ones that are failures.

Space-based lasers would work too, and could provide global protection, but would be too expensive for now. And yes, that sounds like Reagan's Star Wars. It is in fact, a direct decendant of that research, which at the time was little more than a pipe dream. But hey - on the plus side, DVD players are cheap today!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Much like the days when B52s were in constant flight, the ABL systems can remain in constant flight over the area of concern - like off the coast of N. Korea. This would [or does] allow them to be close enough to be effective during the first stage of a missile launch.
 
  • #7
I'm not denying that the thing (after enough screw-ups to still make it a financial turkey) can shoot down a target missile. I'm also aware that there are several methods of countermeasures that could render it useless if the enemy decided to implement them.
 
  • #8
Well, all technologies are subject to countermeasures, so we take countermeasures to the countermeasures. It becomes a question of the cost to benefit ratio.

And I think you are still confusing the NMD and the old SDI program with the current ABL program.
 
Last edited:

Related to Anti-Missile Lasers: Size Doesn't Matter for Cutting Power

1. What is an anti-missile laser?

An anti-missile laser is a type of directed energy weapon that uses focused beams of light to intercept and destroy incoming missiles or other threats, such as enemy aircraft or drones.

2. How does the size of an anti-missile laser affect its cutting power?

The size of an anti-missile laser does not necessarily determine its cutting power. Factors such as the energy source, optics, and targeting systems play a larger role in the effectiveness of the laser. A smaller laser with advanced technology can have the same or even greater cutting power than a larger, less advanced laser.

3. Can anti-missile lasers be used as a stand-alone defense system?

No, anti-missile lasers are typically used as part of a larger defense system, which may include other weapons, sensors, and tracking systems. They are most effective when used in conjunction with other defense measures.

4. Are anti-missile lasers currently being used in military operations?

Yes, anti-missile lasers have been used in limited military operations, particularly for protecting naval vessels from threats such as small boats and drones. However, they are still in the early stages of development and are not yet widely deployed.

5. What are some potential drawbacks or limitations of anti-missile lasers?

Some potential drawbacks of anti-missile lasers include their limited range, susceptibility to atmospheric conditions and potential for interception by countermeasures. Additionally, they may not be able to intercept multiple targets simultaneously. However, with continued research and development, these limitations can potentially be overcome.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
0
Views
798
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
109
Views
54K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top