Directed energy weapons

  • Thread starter bestar
  • Start date
  • #1
bestar
9
0
hello. ive come to physics forum because when it comes to physics, ill admit im clueless. So im looking for some learned assistance. Im writing a book, its not about physics, but a portion of the book has to do with the viability of directed energy weapons i.e. lasers etc. Its a political book, not a physics book, so please answer in terms of someone who has an iq probably quite a bit lower than the average physics forum poster and knows little about actual physics. So here goes.

Part of my book as i stated has to do with the viability of directed energy weapons. So my questions are as follows. The military has developed a 100kw directed energy weapon. You can go to youtube and see it. Im thinking bigger however and i am aware that there exists a 1.3 petawatt "laser" or whatever its called. So one of the premises of my book is developing a system to defeat the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), and doing so with directed energy defense. So my question to the physics forum experts is what exactly would happen if an ICBM would be hit by the beam from a 1.3 petawatt laser? From what ive read this beam splits atoms so as a physics moron if someone could please put in laymens terms exactly what would happen if said icbm came in contact with such a defense? Also what would be the detrimental factors? Are there any environmental hinderances? Are there any hindrances to the beam hitting the target? Is this possible in either theory or in reality? Are we talking vaporizing this target or are we talking this beam not getting to the target at all for some reason or when it gets there being completely ineffective? At what wattage would the target be vaporized if at all? Ive seen 40 watt lasers cut through steel. So If i was to target an icbm with 1 quadrillion watts even for a femtosecond, what exactly would be the resulting damage to said target? And what would be the time frame/ wattage in general i may need to destroy said target?

I appreciate any help anyone on here could give me. thanks.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Jim1138
47
0
Have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon ?

The problem with using Lawrence Livermore's petawatt laser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility (NIF) as a weapon is 1) it is huge. It wouldn't even fit on an aircraft carrier. 2) while the peak power is a petawatt, the average power is tiny. Kind of like a camera strobe; bright for an instant but dark the rest of the time. It only fires a few times a day, if that. 3) the beam would "bloom" or defocus in the atmosphere and little would be focused on the target (unless the laser and target are in space). 4) There is nothing to aim the beam. It is only focused on a single point in a test chamber.

There is talk of using a laser of a kilowatt of power for defense against swarms of miniature drones each of which weigh an ounce or so. Given the low power level, resultant light weight, and likelihood of the threat- might become a common battlefield weapon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_air_vehicle
 
  • #3
pallidin
2,193
2
The idea behind defensive lasers targeted at ICBM's are very specific.
The laser does not vaporize the entire missle.
Rather, the laser vaporizes a small portion of the exterior shell surrounding the launch fuel, causing it to leak and/or ignite; resulting in catastrophic dynamics for that missle.
 
  • #4
bestar
9
0
Thanks for the assistance. What im looking for though moreso is not the viability of the current technology, but the potential of such technology. If i could build 50 1.3 petawatt lasers, could I destroy icbms? and what effect does a weapon of that type of power have on a target should it strike such target. basically, if i was to make a direct hit on an incoming icbm with this weapon, what would be the results as far as damage? none? complete destruction of the target?

Thanks for the assistance.
 
  • #5
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
Well as said, yes it is possible for a laser to destroy an ICBM - or more correctly, damage it enough that aerodynamic forces destroy it.

You don't need, nor do you want a laser in the petawatt class for this task, but if you used one, you'd probably be able to vaporize the ICBM. A megawatt class laser has been used to melt enough to destabilize them and cause them to disintegrate.
 
  • #6
bestar
9
0
What would be the hindrance of such a weapon? not meaning size and cost etc., but the hindrance of the actual beam connecting with the target? What would be the timeframe of contact i would need to complete the destruction? would it be immediate? or would i need extended contact with the target? would the destruction have to occur during the boost phase or is it conceivable that i could target/destroy multiple independent reentry vehicles? would it take a beam the size of a laser pointer to do it, or is it feasible scientifically to create a beam with a wider target area if necessary?
 
  • #7
pallidin
2,193
2
Formally, the destruction should occur during the boost phase; as the laser can effect fuel explosion, thus destroying the missile.
However, the laser system must be relatively close to the launch site or initial boost trajectory.

That aspect can be a huge problem as it might be difficult to have such a system close enough, especially with highly mobile launch platforms and/or launch facilities many hundreds of miles within the protected interior of the offensive country.

Because of this, much focus has and is being drawn towards dealing with the reentry phase.

The now defunked SDI program(satellite-based) seeked to address this, and now airborne laser systems are on the same track, yet MUST be in the air at the time, and very much near the reentry trajector(ies)

Yeah, it's a tough one...
 
  • #8
bestar
9
0
So then is it within the laws of physics to have a surfaced based missle defense system? Can this be done? I need to hit them in any phase. I need to be able to create a defense strong enough to stop an icbm, i need a laser(s) powerful enough to immediately destroy an icbm regardless of whether its in the boost phase, middle phase or reentry. the imporatnce of it is simple. Throughout history, the advantage in war has swung between the extremes of technologies offense and defense. At this point, because of the icbm, the advantage lies with the offense, and the world is catching up. The next swing of the pendulum is to the advantage of defense. The ability to stop the icbm delivery system is the next step, the next advantage in war.

So i guess the main jist of my question, is a surfaced based laser based missile defense system feasible within the laws of science, using lasers of the strength that currently exist? if so why not? This may be getting into the more theoretical than realistic, but theoretical is fine, as long as it can be conceivablly done. Im not concerned about cost or positioning or where they have to be. I can put them where they need to be and pay the cost of them. I just need to know from a scientific standpoint, can it be done, even in theory.
 
  • #9
pallidin
2,193
2
Correction on my previous post: It appears that airborne laser missle defense systems are designed for boost-phase interdiction of such missle, not reetry interdiction.
My apologies.

Source: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
So then is it within the laws of physics to have a surfaced based missle defense system? Can this be done? I need to hit them in any phase. I need to be able to create a defense strong enough to stop an icbm, i need a laser(s) powerful enough to immediately destroy an icbm regardless of whether its in the boost phase, middle phase or reentry. the imporatnce of it is simple. Throughout history, the advantage in war has swung between the extremes of technologies offense and defense. At this point, because of the icbm, the advantage lies with the offense, and the world is catching up. The next swing of the pendulum is to the advantage of defense. The ability to stop the icbm delivery system is the next step, the next advantage in war.

So i guess the main jist of my question, is a surfaced based laser based missile defense system feasible within the laws of science, using lasers of the strength that currently exist? if so why not? This may be getting into the more theoretical than realistic, but theoretical is fine, as long as it can be conceivablly done. Im not concerned about cost or positioning or where they have to be. I can put them where they need to be and pay the cost of them. I just need to know from a scientific standpoint, can it be done, even in theory.
The answer, for at least the third time, is yes. Your constraints need some work and there are technical issues that may make it impractical (but not impossible), but otherwise, again, yes, it certainly can be done.

Note: In general, the only ICBM you can shoot down in the boost-phase from a ground-based laser is your own. The Earth will tend to get in the way of shooting at an enemy's missile in the boost phase.
 
  • #11
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
It appears that airborne laser missle defense systems are designed for boost-phase interdiction of such missle, not reetry interdiction.
It's my understanding that some of the inherrent limitations of this are why it was cancelled:

Range limits plus boost-phase use mean it has to be located near the threat. That's fine for an AEGIS destroyer in international waters off the coast of Japan, but it's more complicated, expensive and less safe to operate an Airborne Laser in the same location, for the same purpose. It's probably OK if you're protecting against Iraqi SCUDs for a couple of months, but it gets expensive if you want a handful always hanging around North Korea just in case Lil Kim is a belligerent drunk.
 
  • #12
bestar
9
0
The answer, for at least the third time, is yes. Your constraints need some work and there are technical issues that may make it impractical (but not impossible), but otherwise, again, yes, it certainly can be done.

Note: In general, the only ICBM you can shoot down in the boost-phase from a ground-based laser is your own. The Earth will tend to get in the way of shooting at an enemy's missile in the boost phase.

This is great. This is what im looking for. What technical issues make it impractical? And this may make no sense, but if i could park these wherever i wanted, why would the earth get in the way? I can put it anywhere. If i can put it on a 747 i can put it anywhere no? yes? I can put it on a submarine? i can put it on an island somehwere, i can put it on a boat? i can take the earth out of the way? yes? no? and what are my constarints? this is great. this is exactly what im looking for. Thanks.
 
  • #13
pallidin
2,193
2
... North Korea just in case Lil Kim is a belligerent drunk.

Uh, I think opium is his problem, but that's another story... :wink:
 
  • #14
pallidin
2,193
2
...why would the earth get in the way?

Well, can you shine a laser from the grouind at NYC and hit a plane flying over the Soviet Union?
No.

The earth's curvature comes into serious play at even marginal distances.
I would seriously doubt that a ground laser at NYC could even hit a plane 600 miles away at 30,000 feet altitude.
 
  • #15
bestar
9
0
Well, can you shine a laser from the grouind at NYC and hit a plane flying over the Soviet Union?
No.

The earth's curvature comes into serious play at even marginal distances.
I would seriously doubt that a ground laser at NYC could even hit a plane 600 miles away at 30,000 feet altitude.

what distances?
 
  • #16
bestar
9
0
at what distance does it come into play? please include in your explanation if you would fire a ground based laser and hit an icbm in the middle phase and reentry phase whatever those altitudes are.
 
  • #17
pallidin
2,193
2
what distances?

Here's a general primer:

Examples:

For observers on the ground with eye-level at h = 5 ft 7 in (5.583 ft), the horizon is at a distance of 2.89 miles (4.65 km).
For observers standing on a hill or tower 100 feet (30 m) in height, the horizon is at a distance of 12.25 miles (19.71 km).


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

This is "line of sight" A requirement for laser interdiction.

Obviously this changes with high altitude reentry missiles. Don't know the math with respect to your question.
 
  • #18
Nicodemus
54
0
Can I ask, what would be the effect of a Zettawatt laser in atmosphere? If you had enough power, would you see ElectroWeak effects, and if so, what would they be?
 
  • #19
bestar
9
0
also in follow up to nicodemus, what are electroweak effects and at what power would you need your weapon to be to still be effective considering taking such effects into account?
 
  • #20
MattRob
208
29
I just found this, and I remembered doing some math once to find the distance to cirrus clouds just at the horizon just for fun. (Yes, not only was I interested with clouds but I also did math about clouds for fun. Probably pretty normal here, but as a highschooler that's pretty funny where I come from...)

Certainly you know high school math, algebra?

So I'm no scientist, but I'm sure this is right and will give your range. You can put this ground-based laser system anywhere not in a hostile nation, since naturally anybody launching ICBM's at you is probably hostile, and countries like NK probably wouldn't take kindly to us planting ICBM-killing laser sites on their soil...

So range is very, very important.

I drew a right triangle, it assumes that anything at 90* is in Line-of-sight, and that the laser is on the ground, with an airborne target. Given these facts, this is the range of the system:

The three points are "The Laser", on the surface. This point has the 90* angle to the other two. "The Target", at some altitude in the air, and the center of the Earth, which has some obscenely small angle to the other two. (This angle isn't important.)
The line connecting "The Laser" to the Center of the Earth is parallel to our Y-Axis, and is equal to the radius of the Earth, "r".
The line connecting "The Target" and "The Laser" is parallel to the X-axis, leaving the distance in-between the target and the center of the Earth as the Hypotenuse.
The hypotenuse line is equal to the radius of the Earth, "r", plus the altitude of the target, "Alt".

So,
H = r + alt

And
r^2 + D^2 = H^2

D^2 = H^2 - r^2

D = Sqrt( (r+alt)^2 - r^2 )
r = 6,371 km
D = Sqrt ( (6,371 + alt)^2 - 40,589,641 )

Give an altitude in km, and you'll get a range in km.

However, anything just on the horizon will either probably be blocked by clutter (trees, mountains, etc.), and the atmosphere will block too much of your laser light to be effective. Assuming you can intercept at a 60* angle, that means your range is only 86.6% the given value.

Here's some values up front:
Altitude (10km is ~32,000 feet). Range, and range adjusted to 86.6% original value.
Large bombers fly ~50,000 feet tops, which is ~15km.

Altitude: 10 km, range: 357 km, range, adjusted: 309 km
Altitude: 15 km, range: 437 km, range, adjusted: 378 km
Altitude: 20 km, range: 505 km, range, adjusted: 437 km
Altitude: 25 km, range: 565 km, range, adjusted: 489 km
Altitude: 30 km, range: 619 km, range, adjusted: 536 km
Altitude: 35 km, range: 669 km, range, adjusted: 579 km
Altitude: 60 km, range: 876 km, range, adjusted: 759 km

I don't know much about ICBM's, but I do know a lot about Space lift vehicles. ICBM's are solid fuel, so they're somewhat a different animal from liquid-fuelled/space rockets.
Liquid fuel rockets can burn longer on less fuel, and the Space Shuttle will stop burning (MECO for Main Engine CutOff) around 109 km altitude. It's Solid Rocket Boosters (which use the same fuel as ICBM's) burn out around 30 km.

I'd take an educated guess that an ICBM will burnout somewhere in-between 25km-60km. Anything below 25 km there's too much air friction, anything above 60 km would mean either a very long burn time for a solid fuel rocket or an unrealistically high acceleration. It would be nice if someone knew the facts on this.

Everybody's said it a few times and I'll say it again, destroying the entire missile is incredibly difficult. However, you probably understand from Challanger, if not a few other things, that rockets have a wonderful tendency to blow up on launch. If you can target a missile during launch, you don't have to destroy it, instead, you just damage the wall of the fuel tank, and the thing destroys itself. Even if it doesn't, though, an ICBM needs an extremely specific amount of speed and a very specific heading, if you just damage it during launch you'll probably have set it off course or under-speed so it won't hit it's target. They're relatively easy to destroy during launch.

For firing time, IIRC, it takes 12 seconds for the airborne laser to get a lock and down a missile.

Any other time, they don't have a big explosive fuel tank attached, they just glide to their target after launch. So then you actually have to damage them enough that they can't re-enter correctly and will break up on reentry. Think: Columbia. Any time after re-entry would be incredibly difficult. You'd probably be better off using kinetic kill missiles for point-defense, like the THAAD system, at least until laser technology improves significantly.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Nicodemus
54
0
I already can see this is ignoring major issues like bloom, and it still doesn't say what it would mean to have a laser in the power Electroweak power range. (hard or impossible as that might be to achieve)
 
  • #22
MattRob
208
29
I already can see this is ignoring major issues like bloom, and it still doesn't say what it would mean to have a laser in the power Electroweak power range. (hard or impossible as that might be to achieve)

I just don't understand the point. That would be nothing less the equivalent to using an ICBM to take out an infantry squad. You simply don't need lasers that powerful unless you're trying to do something REALLY grand, and in that case a nuke will do just fine.

I'm assuming everyone is aware of the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) Israel and the U.S. have developed? It's successfully downed mortar rounds and artillery rockets, among a few other things. It seems they've more or less overcome most of the specific technical aspects of direct energy weapon systems. Let me rephrase that, they have overcome the technical details. The main problem now is getting enough electrical power to fit in, say, a truck.

And most importantly, make it work with small enough logistics that it wouldn't just make more sense to use ASATs and THAADs. Why use a 2$ bil dollar laser system that requires a small army of logistics when you could just use rockets, sure they aren't as capable or reliable, but the cost difference completely overshadows that. With the THEL, it fills a niche that rockets simply can't do, and because it's shooting down much smaller targets at shorter range it doesn't need nearly as much power.

For what bestar is talking about specifically, the perfect laser missile shield, lasers have already been produced with that sort of capability, albeit airborne and on the lower end of that spectrum. (YAL-1A ABL, the airborne laser that's been mentioned before.)
I can imagine that flying at high altitudes allows them to work with much less bloom than a ground-based system.
To get an idea of it's capabilities, it could intercept a liquid-fuelled ICBM at up to 600 km away, and a solid-fuelled ICBM at 300 km.

The math earlier was just for line-of-sight. For a system to actually have that capability, it would probably need anywhere from 8x to 30x the capability of the YAL-1A ABL, given the fact that at an altitude of 70,000 feet 90% of the atmosphere by mass is beneath you, while the YAL-1A can fly at ~40,000 feet.

8x-30x depends on whether you want to be able to intercept it during the flight phase or not, for just ascent and descent phases, it'd probably need to be in the neighborhood of ten times more powerful, to get through all the haze of the atmosphere below 40,000 feet (which is roughly seven or eight times more than you'd have to deal with at 40,000 feet ), 30x is a lot, but ICBM's can fly in the range of above a thousand kilometers, for comparison, the ISS is only at 355 kilometers.

I know these numbers are very broad and probably only provide a basic sketch, but I think that's all bestar really needs for this case...

Back on the topic of that Zettawatt laser, the YAL-1A uses a megawatt-class Laser. For comparison, a terawatt laser system would be well beyond 50x as powerful as the ABL. (1,000x, 20x larger than the biggest thing you'd possibly need.) A Terawatt laser would be 1,000x more powerful than that, petawatt a 1,000x more, and exawatt a 1,000x more, and a zettawatt 1,000x times more. Sure you know, but I get the feeling we've lost sense of scale... The question was for a missile shield. A Zettawatt laser would easily be 10,000,000,000,000x larger than anything you could possibly need for that purpose. Not a thousand times too large, not a million, not a billion, not a trillion, not even a quadrillion, but in the neighborhood of a quintillion times larger. Heck, that's probably too large for the Death Star. So I'd say that's a little off-topic...
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Nicodemus
54
0
MattRob, I'm asking in theory, not practice. Should I make a seperate topic to ask that question? The topic seemed pretty open.
Specifically I was wondering if unique effects occur in that energy range, which is that of an earlier era of the universe. The overall power, or the "death star" nature is not what I'm wondering about, as it is obvious; there's a reason I said it's (probably) impossible.
 
  • #24
MattRob
208
29
Probably a good idea to start a new thread. It's an interesting question, but this thread is about near/mid-future development of a ballistic missile shield with LASER technology, I take.

One thing to also address is that this wouldn't just be on a strategic level, but also on a tactical scale. Lasers will hit the tactical scale (and arguably already have) a good while before they reach strategic (missile shield) scale.

Tactical scale as in: Systems mounted on trucks to shoot down artillary and mortars. Systems mounted on Humvees or tanks that could shoot down RPG's. Point-defense lasers, and, an even more effective tactical (cruise) missile shield for our navy.
Soon after would come airborne Air-to-Ground-Lasers (AGL), or even humvee-mounted anti-air systems.

Heck, at long ranges it takes bullets a second or two to hit their target, at very long range it might be even longer for a tank round to hit a target. It could be that in the mid-term to near future lasers could be intercepting kinetic rounds, i.e. lasers could be shooting down BULLETS once the technology is advanced enough, in principle it's not that much more difficult than shooting down an RPG, which isn't very far off.
 
  • #25
Nicodemus
54
0
Probably a good idea to start a new thread. It's an interesting question, but this thread is about near/mid-future development of a ballistic missile shield with LASER technology, I take.

One thing to also address is that this wouldn't just be on a strategic level, but also on a tactical scale. Lasers will hit the tactical scale (and arguably already have) a good while before they reach strategic (missile shield) scale.

Tactical scale as in: Systems mounted on trucks to shoot down artillary and mortars. Systems mounted on Humvees or tanks that could shoot down RPG's. Point-defense lasers, and, an even more effective tactical (cruise) missile shield for our navy.
Soon after would come airborne Air-to-Ground-Lasers (AGL), or even humvee-mounted anti-air systems.

Heck, at long ranges it takes bullets a second or two to hit their target, at very long range it might be even longer for a tank round to hit a target. It could be that in the mid-term to near future lasers could be intercepting kinetic rounds, i.e. lasers could be shooting down BULLETS once the technology is advanced enough, in principle it's not that much more difficult than shooting down an RPG, which isn't very far off.

OK, I'll make that thread, and I can see why lasers of such power would be "doomsday", not a missile shield.

In the context of this thread, you mention kinetic rounds which I assume means orbital shots or railgun rounds? I can imagine a laser having a hell of a time with the atmospheric disturbance created by railgun rounds, and something like a tungsten rod dropped from LEO... would it even notice a laser firing on it?

Lasers against missiles have the benefit of a relatively slow target that is extremely fragile, but against a kinetic round with some heat shielding or bloom, I don't see it. When you shoot down an RPG, you're detonating it, like a rocket booster, or destroying the aerodynamics of a rocket or missile. If someone threw a laser at my bullet, I'd use a flechette shotgun... doesn't seem worth it.
 
  • #26
MattRob
208
29
Ah. I wasn't being clear, I meant a kinetic round as in a non-missile projectile, i.e. a bullet. Though I guess I'm wrong in that most tank rounds have a warhead of some kind, except SABOTs.

As for heat shielding - I was thinking that ICBM warheads might make hard targets because they already have heat shielding - but it really depends on the technical details of the laser. If it's a
A: burn-a-hole-in-target type laser, then heat shielding would greatly help shield the target. Except, the shield is only made for atmospheric reentry, if it's damaged before (ablative heat shielding) or during reentry, then it won't be able to take all the heat of reentry and will break up. (Though the heat stresses of reentry depend on it's flight path, so this will only have limited success. They minimize heat shielding with a margin of safety to keep the warhead as light as possible - I assume that it's just enough to make a successful reentry on the harshest flight path possible. Heat it up just a little more - past it's tolerance - boom.) I suppose an ablative heat shield could be weathered during flight so it's not strong enough to take reentry later on. But a Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) heat shield won't weather, it'll just warm up and cool off, so heating the shield before reentry won't work, unless you can overpower it and melt a portion of it, physically damaging or mishaping it so it won't take reentry.

But if it's a
B: flash laser that heats up a small layer of the target's surface in less than a millisecond - vaporizing a small layer of material - rapid expansion is an explosion which destroys the target - then the temperature range would mean heat shielding is ineffective. (smaller amount of material - thousands of degrees hotter) The solution to that could be to plate the outside of the heat shielding with a reflective material, hoping it'll reflect enough light so it doesn't melt away. Though chances are either of the two laser designs would simply melt through it and then get away at the heat shield underneath.
 
  • #27
Nicodemus
54
0
Ah. I wasn't being clear, I meant a kinetic round as in a non-missile projectile, i.e. a bullet. Though I guess I'm wrong in that most tank rounds have a warhead of some kind, except SABOTs.

As for heat shielding - I was thinking that ICBM warheads might make hard targets because they already have heat shielding - but it really depends on the technical details of the laser. If it's a
A: burn-a-hole-in-target type laser, then heat shielding would greatly help shield the target. Except, the shield is only made for atmospheric reentry, if it's damaged before (ablative heat shielding) or during reentry, then it won't be able to take all the heat of reentry and will break up. (Though the heat stresses of reentry depend on it's flight path, so this will only have limited success. They minimize heat shielding with a margin of safety to keep the warhead as light as possible - I assume that it's just enough to make a successful reentry on the harshest flight path possible. Heat it up just a little more - past it's tolerance - boom.) I suppose an ablative heat shield could be weathered during flight so it's not strong enough to take reentry later on. But a Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) heat shield won't weather, it'll just warm up and cool off, so heating the shield before reentry won't work, unless you can overpower it and melt a portion of it, physically damaging or mishaping it so it won't take reentry.

But if it's a
B: flash laser that heats up a small layer of the target's surface in less than a millisecond - vaporizing a small layer of material - rapid expansion is an explosion which destroys the target - then the temperature range would mean heat shielding is ineffective. (smaller amount of material - thousands of degrees hotter) The solution to that could be to plate the outside of the heat shielding with a reflective material, hoping it'll reflect enough light so it doesn't melt away. Though chances are either of the two laser designs would simply melt through it and then get away at the heat shield underneath.

Are you thinking of a phased array?... I can't see any other way to get around bloom that would occur in the firestorm around a kinetic bombardment. A bullet, a missile, rocket or even ICBM, I understand however.
 
  • #28
bestar
9
0
thanks. very helpful. i appreciate your assistance on this matter and ill be sure to give physics forum a heads up in my not likely to be published book. thanks again.
 
  • #29
mrspeedybob
869
62
Wouldn't an optical weapon be ineffective against a polished reflective surface? It doesn't seem like polishing their missiles would be too much of an inconvenience for a serious hostel threat.
 
  • #30
Nicodemus
54
0
Wouldn't an optical weapon be ineffective against a polished reflective surface? It doesn't seem like polishing their missiles would be too much of an inconvenience for a serious hostel threat.

It would have to be HIGHLY reflective across the laser's bandwidth, withstand heat of reentry...

Right now there isn't any such material or process; remember what MattRob has been telling us: it doesn't take a lot of energy to ablate a small amount of material and destroy a re-entry vehicle, or launch stage of a missile.

To put it really bluntly: even if the laser didn't damage the shielding, from reading after MattRob's explanation, it sounds like the plasma and "burning" atmosphere would do the damage. In space... you'd need so much less power from the laser to defeat shielding (no atmospheric bloom), so I don't see that working.

Reactive armor, as with tanks, and then some means of correcting trajectory in a non-catastrophic manner seems to be the best defense. I don't know how any modern projectile, rocket, or missile could do that before being destroyed however, or so heavy that it would be cheaper to pour molten gold on our enemies.
 
  • #31
MattRob
208
29
In space... you'd need so much less power from the laser to defeat shielding (no atmospheric bloom), so I don't see that working.

Unless it's a ground-based system. Then you'd still have to shoot through the atmosphere.

Reactive armor, as with tanks, and then some means of correcting trajectory in a non-catastrophic manner seems to be the best defense...

Reactive armor against lasers? Hm. I guess that could work for the flash-point lasers. I hadn't thought of that... As for the long-burning lasers, not sure it would do much good, really. But given the almost total lack of other countermeasures I could understand.

There's a lot of debate on it, but I personally like wikipedia. It's almost the sum of all human knowledge quickly accessible, as for reliability, it does have citations. I said that b/c the Wiki article for the THEL has a nice list of possible countermeasures to LASER attacks. My first action when I'm trying to learn about something is Wikipedia, after all, there's really not much incentive or humor in changing some obscure scientific fact on there, and if you doubt something you can check it's source. Not sure how open other forumites are to it, but there's a sub-article for an Air Force laser program, lasers in general, and laser weapons.

My own idea I like is deploying a dust "cloud" of material where each particle is highly reflective, not just creating a bloom effect, but scattering light in every direction (like a water cloud appearing white from any direction).

...or so heavy that it would be cheaper to pour molten gold on our enemies.
That made me laugh, that's quotable. I get this idea when I see a lot of the advanced weapon systems they have in development. I think the best example would be "Fingers of God" - the uranium rods dropped from space. (Orbit? You can't "drop" something from orbit...)
 
  • #32
Nicodemus
54
0
When I say in space, I mean in space, not orbit. As for ablative armor, the idea is:
1: Prevent destruction of the RV/Projectile/Missile
2: Formulated to maximize bloom: the more you burn, the less energy makes it to your target.
3: In the case of a high energy pulsed laser, it would be LESS effective; if the ablation is violent enough as you've pointed out, that would be enough to do the job of the laser.

The heart of ablative armor against a laser is to create the dust you mentioned, which requires either a TON of power to punch through, or a phased array that can change wavelengths on the fly. AFAIK, that last one doesn't exist yet, so it's a good way to achieve the former.

This is very distinct from ablative or reactive tank armor, which seeks to defeat through additional mass, or a counter-acting force.

The "fingers of god" idea is interesting, but while you CAN drop things from orbit with a little boost, you also have to LIFT those rods. The whole point is that you have this terrific mass of depleted uranium, or tungsten, but that's a FORTUNE to launch into space.

Frankly, it seems easier to use a massive ICBM if you want to level something that badly, and design it to carry "fingers". I gather that is something that's been explored, but in practice it's a political weapon. If you want to level a city, you don't need kinetic weaponry, or even nukes. It's cheap and relatively easy to firebomb a city, and dead is dead.

Now, if you make a land-based rail gun to launch orbital loads, or a sea-based version, I could see that being weaponized.
 
  • #33
yuiop
3,962
20
It may be possible that "filament propagation" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filament_propagation) mat mitigate divergence problems in the atmosphere for laser beams with terawatt intensities.

Also see http://www.teramobile.org/publications/turbulence.pdf. However they seem to talking about applications in communications and lightning control rather than military applications. I guess for communication purposes you could keep the laser fixed on a given path, while for a military target the beam would have to track the object for a while and so the filament wave-guide will not stay in one place, limiting its effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Nicodemus
54
0
It may be possible that "filament propagation" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filament_propagation) mat mitigate divergence problems in the atmosphere for laser beams with terawatt intensities.

Also see http://www.teramobile.org/publications/turbulence.pdf. However they seem to talking about applications in communications and lightning control rather than military applications. I guess for communication purposes you could keep the laser fixed on a given path, while for a military target the beam would have to track the object for a while and so the filament wave-guide will not stay in one place, limiting its effectiveness.

I can't see any reason why that wouldn't work, but until you linked to it, I'd only heard of it. I'm going to start that thread after all, but I think I'll make it more general: "Lasers At Improbable Energies: What Happens?" One thing: that could arguably go in a lot of catagories, but which one should I make it in?
 

Suggested for: Directed energy weapons

  • Last Post
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
925
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Top