3 ms·
Mirrors would work for a low power laser, but not for what they were testing. There are other options though. The simplest one is a spiky elongated nose cone, w
by pauljurczak 7y ago
Mirrors would work for a low power laser, but not for what they were testing. There are other options though. The simplest one is a spiky elongated nose cone, which would dramatically reduce delivered power density for a missile on head-on trajectory. Add an ablative cone and you can defeat laser power levels realistically available in the near future, compact enough to be placed in a pod under a wing. Bear in mind that chemically powered laser will have limited number of shots available. Electrically charged one (with super-capacitor) will need significant delays between shots. In both cases they can be overwhelmed by a large enough number of missiles.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoWould not the laser burning off the ablative armour disturb the trajectory ?
- jacobush 7y agoYep, but that could be countered by putting the missile in a spin (like a rifled bullet) or by active course correction.
- wompawomp 7y agoWell, consider that a trajectory deviation for nuclear strikes is less meaningful inside of a 30 mile radius (might be helpful to a neighboring county). Also, the EMP would likely harm the laser. Meanwhile, laser batteries are probably only going to be protecting ships and their current port. So, better hope it's fleet week. The article mentions enticipated aircraft mounts. I wouldn't expect airborne lasers to scramble in time for most nuclear attacks. They'll only be used in the sense of dog fighting and suring offensive operations.