Air Force Turns 747 Into Holster for Giant Laser (washingtonp ost.com)

[Petro]

At 1:43 AM +0300 7/24/01, Sampo Syreeni wrote:

>But I also think the question Choate posed is a valid one: what happens when
>the target is *not* a ballistic missile, but people, equipment and vehicles
>on the ground, normal aircraft, or air-to-air missiles? One would think that
>the lower velocity differentials and expected distance-to-target make aiming
>much easier, and that effective counter-measures would be significantly more
>difficult to erect, considering that such conventional targets have
>properties very different from those of ballistic missiles (e.g. aircraft
>raise questions of aerodynamics and payload efficiency, wearable materials
>with albedos high enough are difficult to come up with, rotation and
>aerodynamic engineering cannot be used to dissipate the heat generated by a
>hit, people/cars/tanks/whathaveyou often need to be difficult to spot using
>aerial and satellite imaging, and so on).
>
>Such weapons capability could be *quite* useful, especially if the 747 can
>be effectively defended against anti-aircraft missiles, and the laser has a
>range and targeting capability on par with anti-ballistic missile
>applications. Hits on critical infrastructure, control over a nation's
>airspace, death-from-above FUD, that sort of thing.
>	

	IANALS (laser specialist), but I am given to understand that with
the high energy demands of these types of lasers, and the problems with
getting good energy levels through airborne dust, clouds, etc (and especially
in combat areas where dust and other airborne particles are rather common) 
make lasers less than ideal against ground or low flying targets. 

	Against high flying aircraft, you may be right.