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.
Originally posted by Wildbob77
I think this is the same as this post.
Originally posted by solidshot
The laser may have the power to destroy a missile but does it have the ability to track one? especially in heavy sea's.
Originally posted by kilcoo316
Radar will track...
If AEGIS can detect and deal with sea-skimmers now... how do you think it would fare with a zero response time?
Originally posted by solidshot
if so then they will have to rotate and elevate?
Originally posted by SonyADbis
So you're basically saying that all hypersonic missiles, like the Russian Kh - 31 and Kh - 22, are on the verge of obsolescence because hypersonic (Mach 2.7 - 4.0) speed on parabolic trajectories suddenly matter for naught? Through clouds and air humidity?
Originally posted by SonyADbis
I say it's as much a pipe dream and waste of money as starwars was.
Originally posted by C0bzz
Fire one more missile than the amount of lasers on the ship.
Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by kilcoo316
IF the ship carries two lasers, what happens if you fire 10 hypersonic sea-skimming missiles at it?
Originally posted by kilcoo316
Fry the electronics and the thing will spiral out of control.
Originally posted by kilcoo316If its on a parabolic path, it can be tracked from hundreds of miles away. Engaged tens of miles away and neutralised long before it gets near the ship.
Originally posted by kilcoo316Thinking about the whole concept more, I believe a two tiered system incorporating rail guns as the initial long range interceptor and lasers as the close in defence would be a more logical progression.
Originally posted by kilcoo316Eventually lasers will increase in range to supplement, or even replace rail guns.
Originally posted by kilcoo316The problem with star wars was it had to be built light... to get into high altitude positions. The power source was a major issue.
Obviously on a ship, this is not a significant problem.
Originally posted by Bhadhidar
A laser, unlike a missle, is a straight, "line-of-sight" weapon; it cannot follow the curvature of the Earth.
A missle can be fired at it target from miles away, below the horizon line, and track its way to a target.
Originally posted by SonyADbis
How are you going to fry the electronics on an air to ground aircraft launched missile doing mach 4 that uses inertial navigation, datalink updates and radar homing for final trajectory.
So far that has only been accomplished with interceptor missiles.
That's what you're going to use to intercept the Kh-22 at 23000 metres doing mach 4 on its way to the target. Another Mach 4 missile.
Railguns? This clearly isn't a serious discussion.
What railguns? Perhaps you mean gatling guns. I think presuming you can down yourself a Kh-22 in flight with a laser is wholly unrealistic.
No, but space would be. And the delicateness and complexity of the whole technical ensemble would also be a problem.
Also, I should think the a Mach 4.0 missile with a maximum range of 500 km could withstand direct exposure to the laser for a little while seeing as it can withstand the heat from air friction at that speed.