The impression I got from your original post- which I now see was mistaken was that you wanted to essentially make a tall wave- clearly not reasonable...
But look at the discussions here on the difficulty of stopping such a missile with extremely fast response rapidfire bullet based systems, now consider the time, and energy to do what you suggest... It just seems far more practical to stick with or modify existing on board point defense systems- remember, whatever you want to use you want to travel with you at top speed...
As for lasers, well, we are actively working at lasers that can be mounted on a jet plane to take out ICBMs at a great distance, the air borne laser project- this seems like a very similar application.... and the laser has a HUGE advantage over the bullet in speed (obviously), and range... and an aircraft carrier could have a much bigger laser system with more power and shots than the ones planned for the ABL...
Current Events » in reply to Yeah. I guess I did. Still can't figure it out either. What IS your point?
My point, and why Lasers may not be such a bad option
The whole thread (54 posts)
- Naval warfare bulletin
- There are at least two major weak spots in the missile design.
- 3rd weakness
- What about reactive armor?
- Maybe
- No...
- It all depends on how much momentum change is required to detonate the missile.
- You missed my point by a mile. (n/t)
- It all depends on how much momentum change is required to detonate the missile.
- Ultrasonic or microwave emitters might work.
- No...
- Maybe
- What about reactive armor?
- re: There are at least two major weak spots in the missile design.
- Kind of hard to get anything past a phalanx.
- 3rd weakness
- re: Naval warfare bulletin
- We need a World Peace Accord
- There are at least two major weak spots in the missile design.