It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Laser defence systems

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I know that military aircraft such as C-130s, tristars and other transports have these, which can "blind" IR missiles, and there is a test version at least to destroy ICBMs, but are they used on other systems than aircraft?

These would be very useful on ships, and other slow moving or stationary objects that are possible targets for missiles, and would be much more efficient at disabling or destroying missiles than intercepting missiles.




posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Unfortunately, to make a laser with enough power to destroy something requires a large amount of space and power.

For example, the ABL system requires the inside of an entire 747 to house it's laser, which only can shoot down a few missiles. Systems utilitizing missiles or guns to shoot down incoming objects is actually much more effective and efficient than lasers using todays technology.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
Unfortunately, to make a laser with enough power to destroy something requires a large amount of space and power.

For example, the ABL system requires the inside of an entire 747 to house it's laser, which only can shoot down a few missiles. Systems utilitizing missiles or guns to shoot down incoming objects is actually much more effective and efficient than lasers using todays technology.


The U.S military is working on high energy lasers small enough to fit on the JSF, Chinooks, and FCS size armoured vechicles.

A single ABL can shoot down 20 missiles (plans for a fleet of 5-8), and has a laser range of more than 200 miles.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I agree, the power requirements are so huge no conventioal power source will do. The boeing plane uses a chemical rxn to create the massive power need, also it has a fast "recharge" time.
Even a small nuclear reactor would take more time to build up the required energy for each shot.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
hey im new but to the point. If you have a big ship such as an Arcraft Carier you have nuclear power sourse that you can use to power the lazer. allowing it to be mutch more efective no to mention you can make a slot where it would come out on deack and detonate the warhear from a grait distence alowing even an ICBM to detonate in the stratisfear but it may requier some sort of senser with ferther rang then what is allready on it... i have an idea to allso ferther protect the ship from subs and other under water hazers to alow the Arcraft Carier to detect and destroy (ferther detail if asked).



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
First, very high energy lasers are typically chemical lasers. Even if you have an unlimited source of electricity (even though a nuclear reactor can put out a lot of power, there are still limitations - primarily on how much heat the steam turbines can turn into electricity) - very high energy conventional lasers would still take up a signifigant portion of even a very large ship. (My guess would be over 50,000 sq feet) - And just because a ship is large doesn't mean it has lots of extra space.

Another problem with ship-carried lasers is that the air immediately above the ocean has a lot of humidity and is dense, unlike the air at 40,000 ft - signifigantly hurting the lasers ability to penetrate the air to large distances.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join