Could this 1-dollar Chinese adhesive defeat a billion-dollar US laser weapon?...

[Fred Bloggs]

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resistance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pushing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat protection of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolution of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protection systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
<769e3df3-0721-46b1-80f6-0271179bdea1n@googlegroups.com>:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resi=
stance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pus=
hing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist say=
s

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat prote=
ction of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolu=
tion of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protecti=
on systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500

But are lasers being used against ballistic missiles? Apart from Reagon\'s starwars I mean?
Atmosphere may attenuate and distort laser beams too.
This exists for cruise misslies it seems:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/inside-the-lockheed-martin-laser-technology-that-defeated-a-surrogate-cruise-missile.html

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resistance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pushing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat protection of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolution of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protection systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500

Electricity powered weapons, RF and lasers and rail guns, can\'t
compete with chemically driven projectiles and explosives for
destroying things. A polymer won\'t stop a tungsten spear traveling a
few thousand meters per second.

Lasers and RF can be good for disabling sensors.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 12:17:21 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resistance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pushing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat protection of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolution of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protection systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500

Electricity powered weapons, RF and lasers and rail guns, can\'t compete with chemically driven projectiles and explosives for destroying things.

Lasers can get to their target rather faster than lumps of metal. They can win that competition hands down.

Getting enough energy onto the target to achieve as destructive effect isn\'t easy. but people are working on it

> A polymer won\'t stop a tungsten spear traveling a few thousand meters per second.

So what.

> Lasers and RF can be good for disabling sensors.

RF doesn\'t deliver a whole lot of energy onto small area. Lasers can do better. Industry uses CO2 lasers to cut metal. Doing the same trick at longer distances takes more work.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 8:53:56 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote in
769e3df3-0721-46b1...@googlegroups.com>:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resi> >stance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pus=
hing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist say=
s

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat prote=
ction of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolu> >tion of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protecti> >on systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500
But are lasers being used against ballistic missiles? Apart from Reagon\'s starwars I mean?

They tried this one but it was a failure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

Atmosphere may attenuate and distort laser beams too.
This exists for cruise misslies it seems:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/inside-the-lockheed-martin-laser-technology-that-defeated-a-surrogate-cruise-missile.html

They don\'t mention range in that flash-and-dazzle show.

And when don\'t even have video from a range prop, there is the \"artist\'s conception\" fallback.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2020/tactical-airborne-laser-pods-are-coming.html

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:17:21 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resistance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pushing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat protection of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolution of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protection systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500
Electricity powered weapons, RF and lasers and rail guns, can\'t
compete with chemically driven projectiles and explosives for
destroying things. A polymer won\'t stop a tungsten spear traveling a
few thousand meters per second.

Lasers and RF can be good for disabling sensors.

All that stone age stuff you\'re talking about is worthless for a swarm event. And cooperative swarm events are becoming a reality. For ballistic stuff in thinner air, decoy swarms are a problem. Lasers, possibly multiple copies, are the only technology.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:08:12 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
<c08930b5-cf89-483a-89c2-bf18c4926bcfn@googlegroups.com>:

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 8:53:56 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Fred B=
loggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote in
769e3df3-0721-46b1...@googlegroups.com>:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat r=
esi=
stance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are =
pus=
hing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist =
say=
s

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-c=
hinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat pr=
ote=
ction of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural ev=
olu=
tion of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal prote=
cti=
on systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500
But are lasers being used against ballistic missiles? Apart from Reagon\'s=
starwars I mean?

They tried this one but it was a failure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

Nice article anyways

Atmosphere may attenuate and distort laser beams too.
This exists for cruise misslies it seems:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/inside-the-lockheed-martin-laser-technology-that-defeated-a-surrogate-cruise-missile.html

They don\'t mention range in that flash-and-dazzle show.

And when don\'t even have video from a range prop, there is the \"artist\'s conception\" fallback.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2020/tactical-airborne-laser-pods-are-coming.html

Now 300 kW is a lot ...
if used from airplane to airplane or airplane to ground it can do a lot of damage.
With good pointing accuracy you can evaporate the bad leaders

 

[Martin Brown]

On 13/06/2023 13:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
769e3df3-0721-46b1-80f6-0271179bdea1n@googlegroups.com>:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough
heat resi= stance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pus= hing
the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist
say= s

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon



Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat prote=
ction of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a
natural evolu= tion of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal
protecti= on systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500


But are lasers being used against ballistic missiles? Apart from
Reagon\'s starwars I mean? Atmosphere may attenuate and distort laser
beams too. This exists for cruise misslies it seems:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/inside-the-lockheed-martin-laser-technology-that-defeated-a-surrogate-cruise-missile.html

I expect that there are some.

The tricks for atmospheric optical phase compensation in realtime to
image astronomical objects have been known for a long time now. Doing it
in the near infrared strikes me as entirely possible for weapons beams.

The only snag will be powering the weapon laser and pointing its beam at
the target and in focus for long enough to do thermal damage without
harming the optics assembly doing the pointing. Basically it sets bounds
on how physically big and clean the mirrors and windows must be.

--
Martin Brown

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:17:21 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resistance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pushing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat protection of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolution of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protection systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500
Electricity powered weapons, RF and lasers and rail guns, can\'t
compete with chemically driven projectiles and explosives for
destroying things. A polymer won\'t stop a tungsten spear traveling a
few thousand meters per second.

Lasers and RF can be good for disabling sensors.

The only problem with chemically powered weapons is getting them to the target when it\'s moving at mach 5. Mass has a problem called inertia.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:17:21?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resistance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pushing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat protection of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolution of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protection systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500
Electricity powered weapons, RF and lasers and rail guns, can\'t
compete with chemically driven projectiles and explosives for
destroying things. A polymer won\'t stop a tungsten spear traveling a
few thousand meters per second.

Lasers and RF can be good for disabling sensors.

All that stone age stuff you\'re talking about is worthless for a swarm event. And cooperative swarm events are becoming a reality. For ballistic stuff in thinner air, decoy swarms are a problem. Lasers, possibly multiple copies, are the only technology.

It\'s easy to defend against lasers; the energy density is low at the
target and reflectors/ablators are cheap. Or even retroflectors.

I think there is a C130 or some other giant plane full of laser. It\'s
not very effective. Electricity is low density energy. Even chemical
lasers are wimpy weapons.

Swarm weapons are certainly the wave of the future. Imagine a billion
dollar aircraft carrier attacked by a hundred cheap stealth and
surface and undersea drones. But they would still deliver explosives.

Stone age is still good. A well-thrown stone will kill you faster and
cheaper than a laser.

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:00:32 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:17:21?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resistance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pushing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat protection of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolution of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protection systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500
Electricity powered weapons, RF and lasers and rail guns, can\'t
compete with chemically driven projectiles and explosives for
destroying things. A polymer won\'t stop a tungsten spear traveling a
few thousand meters per second.

Lasers and RF can be good for disabling sensors.

All that stone age stuff you\'re talking about is worthless for a swarm event. And cooperative swarm events are becoming a reality. For ballistic stuff in thinner air, decoy swarms are a problem. Lasers, possibly multiple copies, are the only technology.

It\'s easy to defend against lasers; the energy density is low at the
target and reflectors/ablators are cheap. Or even retroflectors.

I think there is a C130 or some other giant plane full of laser. It\'s
not very effective. Electricity is low density energy. Even chemical
lasers are wimpy weapons.

Swarm weapons are certainly the wave of the future. Imagine a billion
dollar aircraft carrier attacked by a hundred cheap stealth and
surface and undersea drones. But they would still deliver explosives.

But, easily shot down by lasers long before reaching their target. The surface and underwater weapons have been defended against by conventional weapons for decades. I guess you don\'t actually know much about carrier groups?

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:06:17 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:00:32 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:17:21?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resistance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pushing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat protection of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolution of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protection systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500
Electricity powered weapons, RF and lasers and rail guns, can\'t
compete with chemically driven projectiles and explosives for
destroying things. A polymer won\'t stop a tungsten spear traveling a
few thousand meters per second.

Lasers and RF can be good for disabling sensors.

All that stone age stuff you\'re talking about is worthless for a swarm event. And cooperative swarm events are becoming a reality. For ballistic stuff in thinner air, decoy swarms are a problem. Lasers, possibly multiple copies, are the only technology.

It\'s easy to defend against lasers; the energy density is low at the
target and reflectors/ablators are cheap. Or even retroflectors.

I think there is a C130 or some other giant plane full of laser. It\'s
not very effective. Electricity is low density energy. Even chemical
lasers are wimpy weapons.

Swarm weapons are certainly the wave of the future. Imagine a billion
dollar aircraft carrier attacked by a hundred cheap stealth and
surface and undersea drones. But they would still deliver explosives.
But, easily shot down by lasers long before reaching their target. The surface and underwater weapons have been defended against by conventional weapons for decades. I guess you don\'t actually know much about carrier groups?

There\'s not a single instance of a modern U.S. warship shooting down a live incoming anti-shipping missile.

And they probably can\'t defend themselves very well against supercavitating torpedoes.

https://navalpost.com/a-gamechanger-weapon-supercavitating-torpedo/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitating_torpedo

They do pretty well against Somali pirates in rubber boats, and drug cartel smugglers.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:00:32 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:17:21?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resistance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pushing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat protection of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolution of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protection systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500
Electricity powered weapons, RF and lasers and rail guns, can\'t
compete with chemically driven projectiles and explosives for
destroying things. A polymer won\'t stop a tungsten spear traveling a
few thousand meters per second.

Lasers and RF can be good for disabling sensors.

All that stone age stuff you\'re talking about is worthless for a swarm event. And cooperative swarm events are becoming a reality. For ballistic stuff in thinner air, decoy swarms are a problem. Lasers, possibly multiple copies, are the only technology.

It\'s easy to defend against lasers; the energy density is low at the
target and reflectors/ablators are cheap. Or even retroflectors.

I think there is a C130 or some other giant plane full of laser. It\'s
not very effective. Electricity is low density energy. Even chemical
lasers are wimpy weapons.

Swarm weapons are certainly the wave of the future. Imagine a billion
dollar aircraft carrier attacked by a hundred cheap stealth and
surface and undersea drones. But they would still deliver explosives.

Stone age is still good. A well-thrown stone will kill you faster and
cheaper than a laser.

I\'m just relieved they didn\'t shoot a million dollar weapon at that so-called \"spy whale\" hanging around Scandinavia a few weeks ago. It may not have been technologically possible. They need a stable of attack dolphins with explosive charge harnessed to them to kill another animal kamikaze style.

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 17:00:11 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/06/2023 13:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
769e3df3-0721-46b1-80f6-0271179bdea1n@googlegroups.com>:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough
heat resi= stance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pus= hing
the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist
say= s

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon



Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat prote=
ction of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a
natural evolu= tion of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal
protecti= on systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500


But are lasers being used against ballistic missiles? Apart from
Reagon\'s starwars I mean? Atmosphere may attenuate and distort laser
beams too. This exists for cruise misslies it seems:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/inside-the-lockheed-martin-laser-technology-that-defeated-a-surrogate-cruise-missile.html

I expect that there are some.

The tricks for atmospheric optical phase compensation in realtime to
image astronomical objects have been known for a long time now. Doing it
in the near infrared strikes me as entirely possible for weapons beams.

The only snag will be powering the weapon laser and pointing its beam at
the target and in focus for long enough to do thermal damage without
harming the optics assembly doing the pointing. Basically it sets bounds
on how physically big and clean the mirrors and windows must be.

I\'d do a power density budget, taking into account that if the optical
power at the emitting aperture is too high, the atmosphere will ionize
and bounce the beam back into the emitter. Nor are reentry vehicles
all that fragile.

Joe Gwinn

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:00:32 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

All that stone age stuff you\'re talking about is worthless for a swarm event. And cooperative swarm events are becoming a reality. For ballistic stuff in thinner air, decoy swarms are a problem. Lasers, possibly multiple copies, are the only technology.

It\'s easy to defend against lasers; the energy density is low at the
target and reflectors/ablators are cheap. Or even retroflectors.

But this is about ballistic missiles, no? And, ablation causes thrust,
so even if it doesn\'t destroy the missile, it deflects it.

I think there is a C130 or some other giant plane full of laser. It\'s
not very effective. Electricity is low density energy.

It\'s my understanding that combustion chemistry is the energy source
for that (gas dynamic laser).

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 2:02:53 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:06:17 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:00:32 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:17:21?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resistance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pushing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat protection of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolution of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protection systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500
Electricity powered weapons, RF and lasers and rail guns, can\'t
compete with chemically driven projectiles and explosives for
destroying things. A polymer won\'t stop a tungsten spear traveling a
few thousand meters per second.

Lasers and RF can be good for disabling sensors.

All that stone age stuff you\'re talking about is worthless for a swarm event. And cooperative swarm events are becoming a reality. For ballistic stuff in thinner air, decoy swarms are a problem. Lasers, possibly multiple copies, are the only technology.

It\'s easy to defend against lasers; the energy density is low at the
target and reflectors/ablators are cheap. Or even retroflectors.

I think there is a C130 or some other giant plane full of laser. It\'s
not very effective. Electricity is low density energy. Even chemical
lasers are wimpy weapons.

Swarm weapons are certainly the wave of the future. Imagine a billion
dollar aircraft carrier attacked by a hundred cheap stealth and
surface and undersea drones. But they would still deliver explosives.
But, easily shot down by lasers long before reaching their target. The surface and underwater weapons have been defended against by conventional weapons for decades. I guess you don\'t actually know much about carrier groups?
There\'s not a single instance of a modern U.S. warship shooting down a live incoming anti-shipping missile.

You are just silly sometimes. There were no moon landings... until there were.

And they probably can\'t defend themselves very well against supercavitating torpedoes.

https://navalpost.com/a-gamechanger-weapon-supercavitating-torpedo/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitating_torpedo

They do pretty well against Somali pirates in rubber boats, and drug cartel smugglers.

Now you are sounding like Larkin.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 17:00:11 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/06/2023 13:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
769e3df3-0721-46b1-80f6-0271179bdea1n@googlegroups.com>:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough
heat resi= stance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pus= hing
the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist
say= s

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon



Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat prote=
ction of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a
natural evolu= tion of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal
protecti= on systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500


But are lasers being used against ballistic missiles? Apart from
Reagon\'s starwars I mean? Atmosphere may attenuate and distort laser
beams too. This exists for cruise misslies it seems:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/inside-the-lockheed-martin-laser-technology-that-defeated-a-surrogate-cruise-missile.html

I expect that there are some.

The tricks for atmospheric optical phase compensation in realtime to
image astronomical objects have been known for a long time now. Doing it
in the near infrared strikes me as entirely possible for weapons beams.

The only snag will be powering the weapon laser and pointing its beam at
the target and in focus for long enough to do thermal damage without
harming the optics assembly doing the pointing. Basically it sets bounds
on how physically big and clean the mirrors and windows must be.

Since billions have been spent on laser weapons for decades, and none
are deployed, it must not be easy.

Like a rail gun.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:02:47 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:06:17?PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:00:32?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:17:21?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chinese researchers say their industrial resin mixture has enough heat resistance to protect ballistic missiles from laser attacks

‘BPR-1’ and other advances in protective technology are pushing the arms race in directed energy weapons to a new stage, scientist says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223570/could-1-dollar-chinese-adhesive-defeat-billion-dollar-us-laser-weapon

Various formulations of BPR have been used for quite a while for heat protection of high speed aerodynamic vehicles, so this latest is a natural evolution of the technology, borne of necessity.

Science and technology of polymeric ablative materials for thermal protection systems and propulsion devices: A review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079642516300500
Electricity powered weapons, RF and lasers and rail guns, can\'t
compete with chemically driven projectiles and explosives for
destroying things. A polymer won\'t stop a tungsten spear traveling a
few thousand meters per second.

Lasers and RF can be good for disabling sensors.

All that stone age stuff you\'re talking about is worthless for a swarm event. And cooperative swarm events are becoming a reality. For ballistic stuff in thinner air, decoy swarms are a problem. Lasers, possibly multiple copies, are the only technology.

It\'s easy to defend against lasers; the energy density is low at the
target and reflectors/ablators are cheap. Or even retroflectors.

I think there is a C130 or some other giant plane full of laser. It\'s
not very effective. Electricity is low density energy. Even chemical
lasers are wimpy weapons.

Swarm weapons are certainly the wave of the future. Imagine a billion
dollar aircraft carrier attacked by a hundred cheap stealth and
surface and undersea drones. But they would still deliver explosives.
But, easily shot down by lasers long before reaching their target. The surface and underwater weapons have been defended against by conventional weapons for decades. I guess you don\'t actually know much about carrier groups?

There\'s not a single instance of a modern U.S. warship shooting down a live incoming anti-shipping missile.

And they probably can\'t defend themselves very well against supercavitating torpedoes.

https://navalpost.com/a-gamechanger-weapon-supercavitating-torpedo/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitating_torpedo

They do pretty well against Somali pirates in rubber boats, and drug cartel smugglers.

Helicopters and F35s don\'t need giant runways with catapults. So we
could have lots of small carriers instead of a few billion-dollar
targets.

The trend is smaller and cheaper and smarter.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 12:14:16 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:00:32?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

All that stone age stuff you\'re talking about is worthless for a swarm event. And cooperative swarm events are becoming a reality. For ballistic stuff in thinner air, decoy swarms are a problem. Lasers, possibly multiple copies, are the only technology.

It\'s easy to defend against lasers; the energy density is low at the
target and reflectors/ablators are cheap. Or even retroflectors.

But this is about ballistic missiles, no? And, ablation causes thrust,
so even if it doesn\'t destroy the missile, it deflects it.

I think there is a C130 or some other giant plane full of laser. It\'s
not very effective. Electricity is low density energy.

It\'s my understanding that combustion chemistry is the energy source
for that (gas dynamic laser).

I was a 747 with a chemical laser. Cancelled in 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1#Cancellation

 

[Martin Brown]

On 13/06/2023 22:17, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 17:00:11 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/06/2023 13:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:

But are lasers being used against ballistic missiles? Apart from
Reagon\'s starwars I mean? Atmosphere may attenuate and distort laser
beams too. This exists for cruise misslies it seems:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/inside-the-lockheed-martin-laser-technology-that-defeated-a-surrogate-cruise-missile.html

I expect that there are some.

The tricks for atmospheric optical phase compensation in realtime to
image astronomical objects have been known for a long time now. Doing it
in the near infrared strikes me as entirely possible for weapons beams.

The only snag will be powering the weapon laser and pointing its beam at
the target and in focus for long enough to do thermal damage without
harming the optics assembly doing the pointing. Basically it sets bounds
on how physically big and clean the mirrors and windows must be.

Since billions have been spent on laser weapons for decades, and none
are deployed, it must not be easy.

I didn\'t say it was easy - only that it was now possible. The problem is
the energy budget for powering it and the sheer physical size needed.

The US does seem to be deploying laser weapons on some of its ships.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/power/article/14207816/highenergy-laser-weapons-move-quickly-from-prototype-to-deployment

Although again the physical size and 150kW power requirement limits
their usefulness.

--
Martin Brown