Re: Airborne lasers
From: Pat Flannery (flanner_at_daktel.com)
Date: 11/14/04
- Next message: Joann Evans: "Re: Rules Set for $50 Million 'America's Space Prize'"
- Previous message: Joann Evans: "Re: Lifeboats in Space"
- In reply to: Peter Stickney: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Next in thread: Henry Spencer: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Reply: Henry Spencer: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:09:10 -0600
Peter Stickney wrote:
>
>The idea of getting a TBM to "Fly up the beam" strikes me as, quite
>frankly, absurd - the ABL's targets are quite distinctive - Ballistic
>Missiles in teh boost phase - they've got a rather unique character to
>them. wingborne threats would most likely be left to more
>conventional defences.
>
(big snip of good stuff)
This is a very good argument; but if you can fire enough SAMs at the ABL
to keep it busy shooting them down rather than their intended TBM
targets, you've effectively defeated them as a defense.
Whereas the ABL itself will probably capable of staying on station for
several days with inflight refueling and a large enough crew to work in
shifts, the same can't be said of its escort fighters- they will
probably need to be rotated every 12 to 18 hours even with inflight
refueling to let their crews rest, and that will significantly up the
cost and complexity of the laser defense operation.
One of the B-2's selling points was that it didn't need fighter escort
like a B-52 might, as it was theoretically immune to detection and
interception by enemy SAM and ATA missiles.
In the perfect world, the ABL would be an unmanned stealth aircraft
capable of staying on patrol for many days (if not weeks), via inflight
refueling.
I don't know how much the whole laser system weighs (I suspect it's
pretty bulky and heavy, as they are mounting it in a 747 freighter) but
a high altitude dirigible (say 80-100,000 ft.) would be able to maintain
long patrol times while using little fuel, while at the same time
operating at altitudes that would significantly thin out the atmosphere
between the laser and its target missile- thereby increasing its
effective range.
Considering that the whole targeting and firing sequence must be highly
automated already due to time constraints on the interception operation
while the target missile's motors are still firing, this probably would
be feasible.
But I still think you can outwit this weapon system someway as long as
it's operating in the way it presently is intended (heating liquid
propellant tanks).
Pat
- Next message: Joann Evans: "Re: Rules Set for $50 Million 'America's Space Prize'"
- Previous message: Joann Evans: "Re: Lifeboats in Space"
- In reply to: Peter Stickney: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Next in thread: Henry Spencer: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Reply: Henry Spencer: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
