US developing untraceable weapons
camera_lumina at hotmail.com
Sat Oct 12 19:17:13 PDT 2002
Well, there was also some other details left out by that article. A "100kW
beam" doesn't tell you very much if you don't know the beam diameter. A
1310nm telecom laser can cause serious eye damage with 10mW, but that's 10mW
into, say 38 um^2. But it ain't going to do nothing to enemy aircraft
located at a distance. A 100kW laser might easily have a smaller energy
density depending on the diameter. In addition, there's the problem of
focusing that thing through turbulence, but turbulence through certain
wavelength windows may not be a problem.
>From: Steve Schear <schear at lvcm.com>
>To: cypherpunks at lne.com
>Subject: Re: US developing untraceable weapons
>Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:28:03 -0700
>At 12:10 PM 10/11/2002 -0700, "Major Variola (ret)" <mv at cdc.gov> wrote:
>>Theres no huge explosion associated with its employment, there are no
>>parts left behind that someone can analyze to say, this came from the
>>explains an unnamed Lockheed Martin official quoted in Aviation Week and
>>Technology in July. The damage is localized, and it is hard to tell
>>where it came from
>>and when it happened. It is all pretty mysterious.
>The only energy sources I can think of that is portable enough to go in a
>jet are a generator running of the main/aux jet engine or a chemical
>Unless the DoD has found a practical new chemical reaction, other than the
>Fluorine/Deuterium they used for decades on various shipboard project such
>as MIRACL, the plane would be easily identified and targeted by the
>fluorescing the chemical plume with LIDAR.
>Assuming a laser efficiency of 5% an electric source would have to provide
>over 2 MW of continuous power (from Star Wars test results, I assume a
>pulsed laser is inadequate for causing damage in combat situations) to
>supply a 100KW beam. The most efficient generators I'm aware are capable
>of producing about 2-4 HP/lb. 2 MW equates to about 2700 HP or about 650 -
>1300 lbs. Assuming the laser isn't too terribly heavy or aerodynamically
>cumbersome the entire package could be carried aboard a fighter.
>"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
>majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
>conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses."
>--- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy