3 ms·

So this uses 150 kilowatts of energy, or basically the equivalent of the gunpowder in 3 .50 cal bullets. Wouldn't the more practical solution be to invent an ex

So this uses 150 kilowatts of energy, or basically the equivalent of the gunpowder in 3 .50 cal bullets. Wouldn't the more practical solution be to invent an extremely accurate like .70 cal bullet controlled by the same targeting system. A .50 cal rifle can target accurately at near 2km, and has a useful range of 7km. Heavy mortars (IE two-man military or truck towed, not the ones the terrorists are using) usually only reach 8km in range and the high trajectory and slow velocity probably make it exceptionally easy to target (compared to conventional supersonic artillery rounds). So I ask, wouldn't the simplest solution have been a highly accurate heavy caliber rifle with explosive rounds that can hit a mortar shell at the peak of its arc when it's moving the slowest. The high refire rate already achieved with naval defensive weapons would mean you could take a few dozen shots and account for any inherent inaccuracy in an explosion propelled projectile.

blackguardx 18y ago
The difference is that a laser applies nearly 100% of its energy to the target (the rest being lost to atmospheric effects). A bullet loses energy quickly as it travels through the atmosphere. A laser also travels "at the speed of light," making targeting much simpler. A laser also travels in a straight line. A bullet is affected by gravity and wind, all of deflect it from its path and must be accounted for.
- electromagnetic 18y ago
  Hah, read up on the Navy's railgun tests. They're expecting accuracy of 5 meters at 370km's. A bullet loses no energy to gravity, it just gets converted into potential energy. It also loses little energy to the atmosphere, it retains about 90% to impact.
  - blackguardx 18y ago
    I didn't say a bullet loses energy to gravity. I said it affects the flight path. And if you think beyond high school physics for a second, you will realize that gravity does take away energy away from the collision if the target is at a higher elevation than the gun. The potential energy is useless in that situation. All that matters is kinetic energy.
  - blackguardx 18y ago
    1. The application is question is shooting down missiles. Accuracy to a static target is moot. 2. 90% to impact? That is a useless statistic. At what range? What if the target is at a significantly higher elevation as in the case of a missile?

blackguardx 18y ago

The difference is that a laser applies nearly 100% of its energy to the target (the rest being lost to atmospheric effects). A bullet loses energy quickly as it travels through the atmosphere. A laser also travels "at the speed of light," making targeting much simpler. A laser also travels in a straight line. A bullet is affected by gravity and wind, all of deflect it from its path and must be accounted for.

electromagnetic 18y ago
Hah, read up on the Navy's railgun tests. They're expecting accuracy of 5 meters at 370km's. A bullet loses no energy to gravity, it just gets converted into potential energy. It also loses little energy to the atmosphere, it retains about 90% to impact.
- blackguardx 18y ago
  I didn't say a bullet loses energy to gravity. I said it affects the flight path. And if you think beyond high school physics for a second, you will realize that gravity does take away energy away from the collision if the target is at a higher elevation than the gun. The potential energy is useless in that situation. All that matters is kinetic energy.
- blackguardx 18y ago
  1. The application is question is shooting down missiles. Accuracy to a static target is moot. 2. 90% to impact? That is a useless statistic. At what range? What if the target is at a significantly higher elevation as in the case of a missile?