Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Space Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Space based lasers
BLUIE006    12/18/2006 5:00:14 AM
--- Is the Science out there able to create a space based laser system able to target and destroy...buildings (or people)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Herald1234       1/3/2007 11:36:15 AM












I would like to comment on the destruction of the N Korean missile.

I would not have used my 'secret laser' on it for a rather simple reason.  I want to know if it works.

---  CHAS





I understand your logic. But it really doesn't matter if it works. N Korea ballistic missiles are terror weapons with little military value. But the psychological value of being able to threaten a nuclear ballistic missile launch could potentially upset the balance of power regionally when nations such as Japan start to feel that they have to take matters in their own hands. Also, if a DoD laser was used. It would not be likely that the N Koreans would have detected it.

DA




Japan, the PRC, RoK, and Russia would. They can read and interpret radar data.



Herald




Yes but how are they going to know the difference between a failed cheap a$$ NorK missile and a working TD-2 that has a critical structural failure, sudden exploding fuel tank or other such laser related nastiness? Not being sarcastic, I honestly don't know how to discern that from radar data?

DA


Honestly, you could tell from the radar return signal scatter type, when it fails, just how a rocket motor casing fails and that will tell tell you a lot about the failure mechanism.
 
Lasers have a definite characteristic effect on a rocket for which you can look as do particle beams.
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    A Question Herald   1/3/2007 1:02:22 PM

Honestly, you could tell from the radar return signal scatter type, when it fails, just how a rocket motor casing fails and that will tell tell you a lot about the failure mechanism. Lasers have a definite characteristic effect on a rocket for which you can look as do particle beams.  Herald

Radars are directional.  Assume an attack occurs opposite radars observing a victim missile.  What do you see now except for anomolous flight path by the main missile body Herald?

v^2



 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Herald reply...   1/3/2007 1:28:55 PM

















I would like to comment on the destruction of the N Korean missile.

I would not have used my 'secret laser' on it for a rather simple reason.  I want to know if it works.

---  CHAS






I understand your logic. But it really doesn't matter if it works. N Korea ballistic missiles are terror weapons with little military value. But the psychological value of being able to threaten a nuclear ballistic missile launch could potentially upset the balance of power regionally when nations such as Japan start to feel that they have to take matters in their own hands. Also, if a DoD laser was used. It would not be likely that the N Koreans would have detected it.

DA






Japan, the PRC, RoK, and Russia would. They can read and interpret radar data.





Herald






Yes but how are they going to know the difference between a failed cheap a$$ NorK missile and a working TD-2 that has a critical structural failure, sudden exploding fuel tank or other such laser related nastiness? Not being sarcastic, I honestly don't know how to discern that from radar data?

DA



Honestly, you could tell from the radar return signal scatter type, when it fails, just how a rocket motor casing fails and that will tell tell you a lot about the failure mechanism.

 

Lasers have a definite characteristic effect on a rocket for which you can look as do particle beams.

 

Herald 




First of all thanks Herald and everybody else. This is a very neglected board, as EW3 mentioned some time ago, that will definitely become more popular in time as space takes center stage in future conflicts. Now back to the discussion...


...I see your point about a radar being able to determine the type of failure, within reason. Having said that though, there are scenarios where this may be problematic. For example, the laser doesn't necessarily have to punch a hole in its target. Let suppose for example the beam manages to heat the fuel tank enough that the internal pressure causes a rupture. There is in my opinion, no way to say with certainty, unless you are observing the launch with a multi-spectral device that a laser was illuminating the fuel tanks prior to the rupture. It could easily be mistaken for a failed component of the missile. The physical forces acting on a missile are tremendous as you know. The most minute design flaw or FOD damage ect. can and has caused catastrophic damage. So I'm not entirely convinced that the laser would be detected without a detailed analysis of the wreckage which is still problematic for obvious reasons.

Particle Beams on the other hand may prove more readily detectable by radar. They attack by kinetic energy and have explosive effects from my understanding. A radar detecting a missile shattering to pieces in different directions as if struck by a projectile would probably be a big clue that something sinister happened. Personally I am fascinated by Particle Beams and their potential. I wish I knew more about them but it seems that all the interesting stuff about their military applications went deep deep into the black sometime around the 1960's. I have read that a Soviet spacecraft attempted to carry one into orbit a few decades ago but the launch failed and the equipment was destroyed. Further, the Soviets denied that it was an actual weapon and said the device was only a full scale mock up....hmmm. The cost of a lauch per kilo is so expensive and the Soviets used their largest rocket for the attempt. Seems a bit costly for a mock up if you ask me. Another thing about particle beams that I have read is that its difficult to make some of them work in atmosphere. There are two distinct technologies and one works in a vacuum while the other would propagate through the air like a bolt of lightning. Not sure though where there current state of the art is now.


DA

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Replies to various.   1/3/2007 3:25:25 PM




Honestly, you could tell from the radar return signal scatter type, when it fails, just how a rocket motor casing fails and that will tell tell you a lot about the failure mechanism.
Lasers have a definite characteristic effect on a rocket for which you can look as do particle beams.  Herald


Radars are directional. 
Assume an attack occurs opposite radars observing a victim missile.  What do you see now except for anomolous
flight path by the main missile body Herald?


v^2




1. Fragmentaion pattern, if the radar is fast pointing enough, close enough, and discriminating enough. It doesn't matter from what aspect the painting  beam impinges and produces a return echo on the rocket motor body. The fragmentation scatter[zipper and corkscrew effects] you will see, and that is your clue. If you are LOS blocked, you have your radar positioned wrong. The DF-2 gained enough altitude to be a clear radar target, and it is this event I discuss, not some hypothetical.

_________________________________________________________________

First of all thanks Herald and everybody else. This is a very neglected board, as EW3 mentioned some time ago, that will definitely become more popular in time as space takes center stage in future conflicts. Now back to the discussion..

I like to talk about space, but to be honest, we Human beings spend so much time killing each other down here, we leave very little time, intellect, or resources for what we should be doing, which is putting ourselvesd where 99.9 of our future opportunity and resources lie.    .

...I see your point about a radar being able to determine the type of failure, within reason. Having said that though, there are scenarios where this may be problematic. For example, the laser doesn't necessarily have to punch a hole in its target. Let suppose for example the beam manages to heat the fuel tank enough that the internal pressure causes a rupture. There is in my opinion, no way to say with certainty, unless you are observing the launch with a multi-spectral device that a laser was illuminating the fuel tanks prior to the rupture. It could easily be mistaken for a failed component of the missile. The physical forces acting on a missile are tremendous as you know. The most minute design flaw or FOD damage ect. can and has caused catastrophic damage. So I'm not entirely convinced that the laser would be detected without a detailed analysis of the wreckage which is still problematic for obvious reasons.

I cover this above, DA. The likely means of detection is fragmentation pattern analysis. While a zipper effect may be a casing fatique crack or a weld point failure, the actual burst would not resemble an limited area asymmetric blowout like you would see with a tire overinflated to its near burst condition, slit with a razor. That is the closest analogy, I will make. Remember that you slash across your target with a particle beam, or a laser, not just shine on it like a searchlight.

Particle Beams on the other hand may prove more readily detectable by radar. They attack by kinetic energy and have explosive effects from my understanding. A radar detecting a missile shattering to pieces in different directions as if struck by a projectile would probably be a big clue that something sinister happened. Personally I am fascinated by Particle Beams and their potential. I wish I knew more about them but it seems that all the interesting stuff about their military applications went deep deep into the black sometime around the 1960's. I have read that a Soviet spacecraft attempted to carry one into orbit a few decades ago but the launch failed and the equipment was destroyed. Further, the Soviets denied that it was an actual weapon and said the device was only a full scale mock up....hmmm. The cost of a launch per kilo is so expensive and the Soviets used their largest roc
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Herald reply...   1/3/2007 4:14:27 PM
Good stuff and thanks for the replies.



DA

 
Quote    Reply

EW3       1/3/2007 4:25:10 PM
Back to the original post about sapce based lasers against building and people, I think the term overkill is in order 
There are more $$ efficient ways to destroy those kinds of targets  We seem to be doing quite well with smart weapons. 
The real value of space based lasers is in denying space to the enemy.  Knock out their communication, intel and GPS satellites and it's WWIII vs WWI.   We win everytime. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Agreed.   1/3/2007 4:43:27 PM

Back to the original post about sapce based lasers against building and people, I think the term overkill is in order 

There are more $$ efficient ways to destroy those kinds of targets  We seem to be doing quite well with smart weapons. 

The real value of space based lasers is in denying space to the enemy.  Knock out their communication, intel and GPS satellites and it's WWIII vs WWI.   We win everytime. 


Information inferiority kills you every time. Denying space is the primary US advantage. I actually think if we had the same kind of advantage in HUMINT, our military superiority in the battlespace would be crushing. Space helps us there; if we can use dedicated GSO satellites to directly talk to our SOF ground teams. A laser LOS communications system might be a near term space-based laser that would have enormous benefits to us, as it is harder to listen in on ladio chatter than omnidirectional radio and you can really densely pack the optical data stream.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics