New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 02:51pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4882 of 4915)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

that was almarst that wrote that -- do I have that wrong -- I'll check.

rshowalter - 02:53pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4883 of 4915)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD4836 almarst-2001 6/12/01 10:18am

rshowalter - 02:55pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4884 of 4915)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

4838 rshowalter 6/12/01 10:23am
was neither formal agreement nor disagreement - - - - - but I was espressing sympathy for almarst , and making a point about politeness that I think we probably agree on.

dirac_10 - 03:00pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4885 of 4915)

smartalix - 02:22pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4875 of 4879)

What is the stated application of the laser tech you described?

Here's a start: http://www.trw.com/productsandservices/main/0,1104,4_39_134_146_210^5^210^210,00.html#

They used to have cool movies of them shooting down the missles, several at once. But just removed them, for whatever reason.

Lasers are line of sight. It will be a year or two before they can be put in airplanes, and longer for satellites. Therefore, only ground based ones are available. And therefore only short range missles are vulnerable. The range is over 10 km for rockets and jets. The power is well over 1 megawatt.

Where in the ICBM's arc is the laser supposed to magically eliminate the target?

During the boost phase. The big powerful ones above can actually destroy the katusha warhead itself, but lasers lend themselves to blowing up the rocket. All they have to do is punch a hole in the thin skin. The airbourne one that will be tested next year has a range of hundreds of miles.

Knocking out a hardened warhead is much more difficult than a booster, so that is where the immediate use will be.

As far as my grasp of lasers, I am the optoelectronics editor at a trade magazine for electronic design engineers. I have a small grasp of lasers and optoelectronics.

And you don't know about the existing ground based lasers. And that we have already sold them to foreign governments? And that they have never ever missed a missile? My my.

What is your experience in the field?

Only rshowalter "knows".

rshowalter - 03:05pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4886 of 4915)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"Big lie" strikes again.

Now, just so I can be informed -- what angle through the atmosphere does a ground base lasar need to shoot down a missile, before warhead separation? How close does the lasar have to be to target?

If you're close enough, of course, a lasar isn't needed for boost phase. A 50 caliber machine gun will do.

dirac_10 - 03:05pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4887 of 4915)

Here's the link to the cool movies of it shooting down the rockets. Found it.

http://www.trw.com/news/kits/kits_thel.asp

I don't know about your "trade magazine" but it has even been in Popular Science I'm told.

alty53 - 03:12pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4888 of 4915)

to dirac 1.5..that's your evidence!!!!!...and you fell for that widely known forgery.......grow up!

dirac_10 - 03:13pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4889 of 4915)

rshowalter - 03:05pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4886 of 4887)

"Big lie" strikes again.

From one of your old "associates" like me?

Now, just so I can be informed --

That's why I'm here, to "inform" you.

what angle through the atmosphere does a ground base lasar need to shoot down a missile, before warhead separation?

The stated plan is to put it in an 747 at 35,000 feet. It will shoot down many hundreds of miles and hit the booster "shortly" after launch. I would guess, shortly after clearing the clouds. The angle is pretty flat. 6 miles up and hundreds of miles away.

rshowalter - 03:15pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4890 of 4915)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Absorbtion problems? Vibration problems with the airplane? Anybody blushing when they predict this will work?

dirac_10 - 03:16pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4891 of 4915)

alty53 - 03:12pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4888 of 4889)

to dirac 1.5..that's your evidence!!!!!...and you fell for that widely known forgery.......grow up!

Getting pretty shrill and desperate, aren't we?

Fooled Popular science too. And the newspapers of the world. And the Israeli government. And the Federation of American Scientists. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Don't stop now. This is fun.

(24 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense