Pretty damn cool. How in the hell can they do this?
Oh, I thought maybe they were making artillary out of geese.
This changes many assumptions about ballistic missile defense. Artillery shells are hard, very robust targets with very limited engagement envelopes.
It will be interesting to see how it performs under less predictable conditions, or against multiple targets.
If they “upped” the power, could this be used on missles?
In theory of course.
It will be interesting to see how it performs under less predictable conditions, or against multiple targets.
(sorry - just saw the line about Katyushas - but it would still be interesting to see it in operation against a full-on bombardment of modern MLRS-style projectiles)
Well, if a single installation can handle multiple Katyushas, it should at least seriously degrade a MRLS barrage. Multiple installations, if they can avoid the issue of two or more systems targeting the same targets, should do even better.
World Eater, upping power isn’t needed for missiles… They’re already more fragile than artillery shells, not to mention usually significantly larger. Artillery shells are mostly solid metal, with a surprisingly small bursting charge. Sub-munition shells are mid-way between a conventional shell and a missile… A bit larger, usually, and with thinner walls than a standard shell, but still more robust than a missile. Artillery shells must handle and survive massive, violent acceleration while being fired. Missiles have much slower acceleration, for all that they accelerate very fast. What a missile does is accelerate longer. The more gentle launch means that a missile can carry larger payloads, requires less robust structure, and generally has longer range.
A Directed Energy Weapon that can cause an artillery shell to detonate prematurely should be pure hell on missiles.
OK, what I wanna know is, what does this gizmo sound like and look like if you’re standing around nearby when they fire it? (Like, say, these two guys.)
Pretty neat, but could it be used against nuclear missiles? As I understand, they detonate high above their targets. The laser would need to be extremely concentrated and the servos that aim it on its target very finely tuned. But this seems to be the case already. Do nuclear missiles approach their targets high or low or does it depend on the missile? They would probably have to be shot down pretty near the target, anyway. Do they “arm” near their target and become sensitive to collisions or damage? I mean would damaging an armed nuke result in its detonation? As I understand, there is a slim chance of shooting down a low-altitude cruise missile with an anti-aircraft missile…they cruise pretty slow to conserve fuel, at least when going for long distance. I presume it’s easier to intercept them with air-to-air missiles, tho since the US missile shield seems to be a very expensive disappointment, or was it meant agains higher-cruising missiles?
Tons of questions, pick the ones you can answer and please correct my views where possible.
Pretty neat, but could it be used against nuclear missiles? As I understand, they detonate high above their targets. The laser would need to be extremely concentrated and the servos that aim it on its target very finely tuned. But this seems to be the case already. Do nuclear missiles approach their targets high or low or does it depend on the missile? They would probably have to be shot down pretty near the target, anyway. Do they “arm” near their target and become sensitive to collisions or damage? I mean would damaging an armed nuke result in its detonation? As I understand, there is a slim chance of shooting down a low-altitude cruise missile with an anti-aircraft missile…they cruise pretty slow to conserve fuel, at least when going for long distance. I presume it’s easier to intercept them with air-to-air missiles, tho since the US missile shield seems to be a very expensive disappointment, or was it meant agains higher-cruising missiles?
Tons of questions, pick the ones you can answer and please correct my views where possible.
Pretty neat, but could it be used against nuclear missiles? As I understand, they detonate high above their targets. The laser would need to be extremely concentrated and the servos that aim it on its target very finely tuned. But this seems to be the case already. Do nuclear missiles approach their targets high or low or does it depend on the missile? They would probably have to be shot down pretty near the target, anyway. Do they “arm” near their target and become sensitive to collisions or damage? I mean would damaging an armed nuke result in its detonation? As I understand, there is a slim chance of shooting down a low-altitude cruise missile with an anti-aircraft missile…they cruise pretty slow to conserve fuel, at least when going for long distance. I presume it’s easier to intercept them with air-to-air missiles, tho since the US missile shield seems to be a very expensive disappointment, or was it meant agains higher-cruising missiles?
Tons of questions, pick the ones you can answer and please correct my views where possible.
Rats, I got technical problems again, hence the repeat posting…and I can’t even delete or edit them, why? But anyway, The system seems to be pretty darn cheap too, as TRW Inc. is only tenth in pentagon’s top contactors in 1998 with mere pocket change of 1,3 billion bucks. Oh, and 9th in '99 with 1,4 billion.
top 10 defense contractors 98
top 10 defense contractors 99