Electromagnetic vs Kinetic Energy

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the comparative effectiveness of electromagnetic weapons, specifically 155mm projectiles and infrared (IR) lasers, both delivering 530 MJ of energy against armored targets. Participants conclude that while projectiles may cause more immediate physical damage, lasers offer advantages in speed and precision, particularly against moving targets. The conversation highlights the limitations of IR lasers, such as vulnerability to silver coatings, while acknowledging the potential of advanced technologies like railguns and X-ray lasers. The debate also touches on military funding and the future of directed energy weapons (DEWs).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of kinetic energy and its application in projectile weapons
  • Familiarity with laser technology, particularly infrared and X-ray lasers
  • Knowledge of military applications of directed energy weapons (DEWs)
  • Basic principles of armor penetration and target damage assessment
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the operational principles of railguns and coilguns
  • Explore the effects of laser pulse duration on target damage
  • Investigate the development and applications of X-ray lasers in military technology
  • Study the current state of funding and research in directed energy weapons by the U.S. military
USEFUL FOR

Military strategists, defense technology researchers, and enthusiasts interested in the advancements and implications of weaponry, particularly in the context of kinetic versus directed energy weapons.

easyrider
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Looking at this in a weapon point of view, what would be the more effective one?

Say we have a 155mm projectile traveling and hitting a hard target(metallic), lightly and heavily armored, at different times, both with an impact energy of 530 MJ.

Also say we have a very short IR laser pulse with a beam diameter of 155mm also hitting lightly and heavy armored targets, with an energy of 530 MJ.

What would be the effects of each in a vacuum? Would it change very much to do it in atmosphere (besides the associated drop in velocity with more range for the projectile)?
The projectile most definitely seems it would be much more devastating but I just wanted to get some realistic answers on this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What a laser! 530 MJ!
Let's put aside the huge amount of energy and analyze pros and cons of conventional and laser weapons.
An IR laser can be easily defeated by applying a silver coating. Certainly, a lot of the coating would be vaporized but the target would be largely unharmed.
If we had a X-ray laser things would be different since X-rays can´t be stopped that easily. Thirty years ago, Edward Teller "sold" this idea to president Reagan who funded the project heavily. The result was a complete fiasco. Go and buy a good powder-powered cannon. It´s heavy, beautiful and it makes a lot of noise.
 
I agree, what is already being used definitely fills the need and is optimal. Railguns/coilguns seem like a better choice for future weaponry imo than lasers.

But okay, let's throw out the energy values, if a laser and bullet of equal size/energy hit and went through the roof of a ww2 half track from above with intention of knocking out the driver, would the effects of each be very much different?

Also, how would a laser of fairly high irradiance act on a fleshy target?
 
easy rider:

I know little about laser weapons except that they ARE being developed; So I have my doubts that the posts so far are objective. "effective" might not be the same as "devastating", but it SEEMs as if the projectile would do the most damage once it hit. An apparent advantage of new projectiles is that they are "SMART"...self guided or remotely so.

you might find this brief discussion of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_weapons#Military
 
I know that we, as in USMIL (Im in the Army), are developing all kinds DEWs. I don't know what you mean by "not objective"? IMO lasers definitely have their place, especially in anti-aircraft, anti-satellite, and all around long range weapons used against high speed moving targets. Absolutely nothing can match the speed and accuracy of a laser so they lend themselves to being great weapons for moving targets. My favorite thing in science fiction is the death star, lol (I think the weapons in Star Wars were a little bit more plausible than Star Trek-ie "quantum torpedoes" for one, though they were both far fetched). Ignoring that it takes more energy to do what the death star did than the amount the sun produces per second, the stats are crazy, 2.4E32 Watts and low enough divergence for a range of 6 light seconds. But that's the reason its fiction, so yeah.
The reason I was asking this was because I heard the Navy cut funding for their railgun. Of course the economy is in bad shape but shouldn't they cut down on things that are totally useless to the country, such as the presidents campaign and his and the first lady`s staff? I think they also did the same to the FEL which is a shame as the potential for it is high. I am not saying they should pick one over the other, but along with all the R&D going to lasers, I think they should try doing more stuff with electric gun tech such as railguns/coilguns as the muzzle velocity can be huggee.
 
I think this highly depends on the duration of the laser pulse. If it takes several seconds to deliver this energy, the most likely effects (I'm guessing) would that the laser simply burns through. If all that energy were delivered in about 1 millisecond I think there would be something a akin to an explosion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K