Are Directed Energy Weapons Still Viable in Modern Warfare?

  • Thread starter Thread starter maximus
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) have evolved since their initial development, facing challenges such as energy production and effectiveness in atmospheric conditions. While traditional DEWs struggled to deliver sufficient damage, advancements have led to the deployment of airborne laser systems, exemplified by Northrop Grumman's laser-equipped 747, known as "BILL." This aircraft can detect missile launches and neutralize threats with a chemical laser, minimizing collateral damage by directing debris back to the launch site. The potential for space-based DEWs remains limited due to political concerns, despite their effectiveness in a vacuum. Overall, while DEWs are gaining traction in specific applications, their broader implementation in modern warfare is still constrained by technological and political factors.
maximus
Messages
495
Reaction score
4
remember the directed energy weapons (or Star Wars) project? what kinds of thing did they create and why aren't they in use? last i remember the problem was they couldn't produce enought energy to create suffecient damage, but that was like 20 years ago. and if we developed fusion one day, could that suffice?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Another problem with DEWs is that they really come into their own in a vacuum (where there is no atmosphere to disperse the energy). That means space-based weapons; not very poitically popular.

However, laser weapons as airborne anti-missile platforms is now a reality. Northrop Grumman recently test-flew and has now delivered a laser-equiped 747 named "BILL" to the DoD. It is designed to fly over a contested area, searching with powerfull RADAR and other sensing equipment to detect a launch in progress, then shoot it down with a chemical laser while it is still climbing. One great advantage of this is that the debris falls back on the ones who launched, and not on the city we're trying to defend.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top