At 4:05 AM 4/26/96, Bill Frantz wrote:
Moreover, a laser shot costs $3,000, compared to several million dollars for a missile. Army officials envision the Nautilus would be beamed from a truck capable of firing 50 shots before requiring more laser material.
Does anyone have any idea what "more laser material" means?
Sure, most high-power lasers like this are chemical lasers, consuming reactive materials.
(This is not the same as "gas lasers," a la the early CO2 lasers. And of course ruby and Nd-YAG lasers are not what is meant here, either.)
P.S. I don't place much faith in laser weaponry. Some obvious countermeasures are: spin the projectile to minimize heating of any one spot, determine the wavelength of the planned laser and coat the projectile with a suitably reflective coating, apply ablative layers that can burn off without harm, etc. Such countermeasures are of course well-known to the laser builders, but they still make the game much tougher. All a matter of attack and counter-attack, and the costs of each. Like castles and siege engines. Or like crypto.
--Tim May
Other problems include tracking the missile accurately for the one or two seconds (that's likely to be a mile or so if it's anything like a Scud) and handling the dispersive effect of the air temperature gradient caused by the laser itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | Weller's three steps to Greatness: | 1. See what others cannot | 2. Think what others cannot stevenw@best.com | 3. Express what others cannot