4 ms·
In the long term I'd expect lasers to outperform bullets at intercept tasks. They certainly travel faster and have the potential to aim faster and carry a deepe
by jjoonathan 9y ago
In the long term I'd expect lasers to outperform bullets at intercept tasks. They certainly travel faster and have the potential to aim faster and carry a deeper reserve of ammunition. Even if this system is only an incremental step towards that goal I think it makes sense.
- nabla9 9y agoThey are impacted by weather - dust, humidity, rain and clouds. If there is dust or smoke in the air that touches the optics they easily melt into the glass and start fast degradation process. The HEL demonstration with 15 kilowatts laser took forever to ignite small fire in a target boat (directed at a single point in the outboard motor). 150-kilowatt laser is ten times faster but simple water pump in the front of approaching boat is effective countermeasure. DARPA has had low power laser demonstrators for 20 years. They are cheaper now but developing yet another is not going to produce more improvement in the power scaling of lasers. High power lasers are hard for optics and all other parts.
- John_KZ 9y agoI think they mainly do it for cheaper-per-shot defence against badly equipped armies. Which means they don't like spending a lot of bullets on the phalanx system to counter enemy artilety in middle east, and it doesn't rain much in the desert anyway, so they're good to go. They can also have applications in high-altitudes and in space. Maybe to take down MRVs? That makes a lot more sense actually.
- nabla9 9y ago>Maybe to take down MRVs? You need very high power lasers for that. These are the hopes DARPA has for lasers but they don't seem to materialize.
- riku_iki 9y agoI see main application as air defense against UAV and missiles, not boats.. Hellfires and javelins will probably be more effective against boats..