So Russia says it has hypersonic missiles which cannot be intercepted by anything today.
Can they be intercepted by lasers? I know, lasers are faster than sound, duh, but I mean, what about the targetting tech? Whatever computer the laser system is married to, will it be able to detect and identify and track hypersonic targets?
Pic unrelated
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
phys.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Lasers will be able to intercept, assuming that laser tech keeps maturing. Can they now? I wouldn't bet they can do it just yet.
Lasers can only intercept plastic boats, cardboard drones and maybe tiny slow mortar rounds. Better ask here, it's where laser discussions belong:
>it's where laser discussions belong:
Given that real testing of laser interception against full-sized artillery, rpgs, TBMs, ICBMs and cruise missiles have all been performed, and with the probable exception of ICBMs been successful under test conditions, maybe you should check your facts or fuck off to /v/ yourself? OP's question is valid. What you've described isn't even accurate for LaWS.
Despite the other user being wrong, current laser systems aren't capable of engaging hypersonic targets. Of whats currently deployed, they either don't have the targeting capabilities or are underpowered for the role. This isn't so much a problem the lasers themselves but more to do with targetting capabilities. No point defense system is immune to hypersonic missiles.
>laser intercept icbm
No
>So Russia says
Russia is the poor kid in the neighborhood who claims he has all the cool stuff but no one is allowed to see it. China is the kid who sees the rich kids with cool stuff then buys the knock off from a flea market and claims it's just as good. EU is the kid whose parents make him wear water wings in kiddy pools.
Read what I said again, "been been tested against". Not successfully tested, just been investigated with real money and facilities. They absolutely have been tested against ICBMs.
The "probable" in the sentence "with the probable exception of ICBMs been successful" was just hedging my bets against a successful test during the early boost phase or something. Afaik there have been no successful tests against ICBMs but there have been tests against them, and successful tests against everything else listed as I stated.
Smoke and clouds defeat lasers.
>So Russia says it has hypersonic missiles which cannot be intercepted by anything today.
The US says this.
>Russia
>"Having" something
So they have, what, 10 of the things? Maybe 12?
>US general tell Congress they don't have defense against "X" threat.
>Military gets huge spending boost a few months later.
Like clockwork.
>Can they be intercepted by lasers?
No. Photons have no mass. And hypersonic missiles fly so damn fast and hot that even if you shone the laser at it for 10 minutes, it wouldn't do shit to it.
They still have more nukes than the US. And they have more hypresonics now than the US will have in 2025.
Laser defenses aren't effective against ICBMs and hypersonic missiles If it can handle heat of reentry or hypersonic speeds, it can handle heat of the laser for the small amount of time it takes to close distance. The laser defenses for foreseeable future are used against slower smaller missiles, drones, and small vessels. Ballistics missles and/or hypersonic missiles are faster, larger, and have more heat shielding. The tracking systems can also be jammed with electronic countermeasures. At any rate, a simple spam fest of missiles is always able to destroy any super advanced defenses that are out there.
youtube.com
Ablative coating would probably eliminate the threat of lasers entirely. Literally all you would need is a inch thick coating of the tiles they use on space shuttles to counter any laser system they have in operation currently and in the foreseeable future. Billions in design and development crippled by a simple retrofitting.
The amount of time a sea level hypersonic missile been detected and hitting its target is not very long.
I think even with scout ships spread out to get a earlier warning, and the missile is tracked and lazed to stop functioning.
You still have a (dead) missile travling at Hypersonic towards you.
>photons have no mass
Yet.
have you even read that link?
>Ablative coating would probably eliminate the threat of lasers entirely. Literally all you would need is a inch thick coating of the tiles they use on space shuttles to counter any laser system they have in operation currently and in the foreseeable future. Billions in design and development crippled by a simple retrofitting.
Wouldn't such heat shielding tiles already be fitted on ICBM warheads, for when they make their inevitable reentry? I think the amount of energy the laser can dump out on target (with losses because atmophere and actual energy the laser can pump out) is a more limiting factor if you would want to intercept any reentering warhead.
>Literally all you would need is a inch thick coating of the tiles they use on space shuttles to counter any laser system they have in operation currently
Then you won't have terminal targeting.
And US is the mentally-challenged kid that everyone has to put up with because of his rich, influential and overprotective parents, who buy him Power Wheels for birthday and then go ballistic on every other kid at the party when he inevitably drives into their empty oversized pool and almost breaks his neck. He turns out to be fine except for some bruises, because he fell on a couple of Asian kids who were hiding there playing kisses and broke their legs but who the fuck cares. The little retard later claims that he saw them there and fell on top of them because they had to be stopped before they left cooties all over the place.
>Photons have no mass.
Get a load of this quantum retard. We found glitches in the matrix bro.
You seem upset. Want to talk about it?
user, it's this place. My workflow has been interrupted for over a month due to reasons that are beyond my control, and what started as a lil' bit of shitposting to kill time has turned into a weeks-long imageboards binge the likes of which I haven't had for years. It's really getting out of hand and I'm not sure I'll be able to stop it as easily this time.
I have fucking 9 to 5 job and even that can't save me from this fucking place.
>have 8 to 5 job
>be married
>play video games and paint
>Jow Forums doesn't load properly on the PC
>still find a way to be here
How does this even happen?
>real testing of laser interception against full-sized artillery
Tiny mortar round is not "full-sized artillery".
>rpgs
Link.
>TBMs, ICBMs
In boost phase, i.e. irrelevant.
>and cruise missiles
Link.
But better just return to It's where laserfags and their toys belong anyway.
>intercepted by lasers?
Yeah. The laser doesn't need to outright destroy a target at those speeds, it only needs to weaken an area and the heat generated by moving that fast and the drag that already affects it would be enough to make any vehicle moving that fast lose structural integrity.
>targetting tech
Yeah, that's actually the part that's the easiest as it's been in use for decades. Radar is very good at tracking very fast moving targets, you only need to look at the old Sprint ABM tests. My biggest concern would just be something mechanical, like a swivel mount for such a laser weapon - if the object is relatively low to the ground, it'd be within LOS for a pretty short time and it'd be difficult to slew the mount to stay on target the entire time.
And I say that I indeed have a four foot long prehensile fully-semi-automatic assault schlong.
>Fully automatic
That's impressive, mines only a pump action
To me lasers have more of a short range purpose and that microwave guns are better. Sure ballistic missiles can take the heat in regards to converting mach speed of kinetic objects to heat
checks temperature of mach 20 or above in kinetic speed heat, checks temperature of laser welding. No user just no.
This
but it did not world during Obama though
Chemical laser is powerful enough to zap missiles but it is huge (they mounted one on an airliner) and extreme toxic. Might as well dump that thing on the enemy as chemical weapon.
Other smaller and rapid firing laser systems exist but they are not powerful enough to stop missiles. Especially not against a Russian style saturation attack with multiple types of missiles coming in from all directions. Russian antiship missiles are super fast and super heavy the missile can smash it's target into pieces by kinetic energy alone so the best defense is still hunting the platform that's providing guidance. That's where drones come in.
kys yourself and read a book
Because Obama was a great president, unlike the traffic cone with a wig
>Obama
>great
youtube.com
Yeah, they also said they could get to the Rhine in less than two weeks but it took them several months to get to the center of Grozny.
>Small gaffe means he wasn't the best president we've ever had
Please, it was just an appeal to emotion, to Honor the survivors.