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

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 12:37:17 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

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

Those few cases still look like test/demos.

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

I think it would be reasonable for it to be required that artists\'
impressions and doctored pics be identified as such. It\'s increasingly
hard to tell.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 1:05:18 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 12:37:17 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
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:

<snip>

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

I think it would be reasonable for it to be required that artists\' impressions and doctored pics be identified as such. It\'s increasingly hard to tell.

For John Larkin, For most of us a picture can be worth a thousand words, and the pictures are doctored in ways designed to make it clear that they are doctored.

Somebody gullible enough to swallow climate change denial propaganda isn\'t a good arbiter of what constitutes less than obvious doctoring.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney