[HN Gopher] Israel rolls out laser defense system
___________________________________________________________________
Israel rolls out laser defense system
Author : Anonymous4272
Score : 78 points
Date : 2022-02-01 18:50 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| hirundo wrote:
| "If we can intercept a missile or rocket with an electrical pulse
| that costs a few dollars, we will essentially neutralize the ring
| of fire that Iran has set up"
|
| This sets up a steampunk scenario where the missile must be
| controlled by a mechanical gyroscopic guidance system, immune
| from electrical pulses.
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| This system isn't an EMP system. It heats the target until it
| disintegrates.
|
| I think the rockets it has to defend against are already as
| low-tech as possible, too.
| snidane wrote:
| Will they start shooting rockets when it gets foggy ouside now?
| ocschwar wrote:
| Historically they've not done that because they know the IDF's
| response is proportional to the civilian casualties on the
| Israeli side. Better to wait for clear weather when iron dome
| is maximally effective.
| [deleted]
| golergka wrote:
| This doesn't make any sense. The whole point is to get a
| bigger IDF response, bloodier palestinian casualties, louder
| western media coverage and larger help packages to pocket.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| 323 wrote:
| Could you make the missile really really shiny so that it
| reflects the laser away?
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| With rockets I'm guessing that thermal signatures are used to
| home in on the projectile being destroyed. But I'm wondering
| what's being used here to keep the laser locked onto the target
| projectile. It's definitely an impressive technological feat.
| LegitShady wrote:
| The arrow missile system uses the Israeli green pine radar for
| acquisition and tracking while the arrow interceptor has both
| passive ir and active radar tracking.
| datameta wrote:
| My (completely unsubstantiated) guess is that a targeting IR
| laser is used for the required granularity of target
| correction.
| WJW wrote:
| Typically you'd use radar to detect incoming projectiles, using
| multiple detections over time to determine the trajectory of an
| incoming missile (they are usually unguided and will thus
| follow a predictable ballistic trajectory).
| manishsharan wrote:
| But would it not be possible to build missiles that can
| intelligently alter route upon detecting detection ? I recall
| once working on a auto guided industrial machine based on
| Motorola 68000 microprocessor that could figure out how to
| route itself to its destination. So unless you can detect and
| eliminate the missile almost simultaneously, an intelligent
| missile could throttle it's velocity etc. to avoid
| predictable trajectory.
|
| Edit: some typos
| RegnisGnaw wrote:
| This is again a money play here, after all everything is a
| money play.
|
| Iron Beam (this system) is designed to intercept simple
| rockets, artillery, and etc for cheap. The total cost per
| shot is estimated at 2000USD overall (including life cycle
| of the parts, laser, etc) compared to 100000USD for Iron
| Dome missile alone. It is even more for more advanced stuff
| like Arrow 2, Arrow 3, or David's Sling (all, including
| Irom Dome, of which have greater range and capability than
| the Iron Beam).
|
| The issue with your system is cost.
|
| The rockets that Iran is supplying are unguided ballistic
| rockets. Artillery is also unguided and ballistic. These
| are super cheap so its easy and economical to fire a lot of
| them. This is why Israel wants Iron Beam cause its much
| cheaper then Iron Dome.
|
| Now lets focus on your solution. The missiles now will need
| advanced guidance system, maneuvering capabilities (mid
| course correction, path adjustment), radar and IR warning
| receivers, and other advanced electronics. None of which
| are cheap. These components also add weight to the missile,
| which means bigger missile and more fuel, which adds to the
| cost of the missile. The need to carry fuel for mid flight
| adjustment also means heavier missile, which means bigger
| missile, which means more expensive missile. So your cost
| per missiles goes up hell of a lot. So now you are limited
| to the number you can field against Israel. Now its worth
| it to throw up an Iron Dome against you or possibly an
| Arrow 2, both which are guided missiles interceptors.
|
| EDIT: Example of the rockets that the Iron Beam is designed
| to intercept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajr-5
| newsclues wrote:
| Automated counter-battery in addition to AD would be an
| interesting extra layer of deterrence.
| WJW wrote:
| And a PR nightmare. Shoot a missile from a school or a
| hospital, then afterwards the newspaper articles write
| themselves when the automated system retaliates. Radar
| data showing it was a missile launch site will always
| lose to pictures of mothers holding dead children.
|
| Counter battery is also of questionable effectiveness
| when most launch sites are used only once.
| wahern wrote:
| > And a PR nightmare. Shoot a missile from a school or a
| hospital, then afterwards the newspaper articles write
| themselves when the automated system retaliates.
|
| There's nothing new about Hamas firing rockets from
| schools and hospitals and Israel responding. It's
| difficult to exaggerate how dirty the conflict is, and in
| many respects always has been. It's a positive feedback
| look because these activities only further dehumanize one
| from the other's perspective, and it's compounded by
| people on both sides who capitalize on this dynamic for
| their own gain.
|
| I have a neighbor who grew up in Israel in the 50s and
| 60s. If you even mention the words "Arab" or
| "Palestinian" she'll get visibly angry and bitter. I'm
| sure the feeling is mutual for many on the other side.
| yehoshuapw wrote:
| while missiles can be built to have irregular routes, this
| is more important for missile-based defense. there, with
| the distances and speeds involved it will cause the
| interceptor to need to counter the irregularities, which
| will make it need to also be much more advanced. small
| changes in thrust however (at a later time - and thus
| higher speed) can cause only so much of a change.
|
| but more importantly - light-based interception can be re-
| pointed much faster then a missile can change it's own
| course.
| manishsharan wrote:
| A missile design may evolve to have the original missile
| to intelligently decompose,upon detection, into multiple
| smaller missiles each with a randomized target and path.
| The parent missile could focus on reaching as close as
| possible to target rich area with stealth and upon
| inevitable detection, unleash smaller missiles with
| randomized paths. If the cost of missiles keep going
| down, I can see aggressors firing several of these to
| maximize their probability of a successful hit.
| cronix wrote:
| That's been around for quite a long time, at least the
| late 1960's.
|
| > A multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle
| (MIRV) is an exoatmospheric ballistic missile payload
| containing several warheads, each capable of being aimed
| to hit a different target. The concept is almost
| invariably associated with intercontinental ballistic
| missiles carrying thermonuclear warheads, even if not
| strictly being limited to them.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targ
| eta...
| samus wrote:
| These are more expensive to build though. At some point,
| more far-ranging and guided systems can be used to snipe
| it before it is anywhere close from splitting apart. And
| Iron Beam will still be cheaper to deal with any warheads
| that manage to split off.
| hadlock wrote:
| I'm curious where the tipping point is, where the military
| response exceeds the financial cost of a political response. It's
| one thing to have tensions simmering on both sides of a border,
| it's another that one side feels wronged and is lobbing bombs
| over the fence.
|
| The fact that they're having to develop a laser defense system to
| defend against lobbed bombs seems like it's time to reevaluate
| political solutions.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| There are really only three solutions. One, Israel annexes
| Palestine in its current form, and ceases to be a Jewish state.
| Two, Israel annexes Palestine after removing its current
| inhabitants. Three, Israel stays in a state of low-grade
| warfare while carving out the most desireable bits of Palestine
| for its settlers as its population grows.
|
| One is untenable for obvious reasons. Two is untenable until
| memories of the holocaust cease being a formative experience
| for Israel, so essentially untenable for the rest of our
| natural lives. Three is not only the only option available,
| it's actually not that bad a situation while Israel can
| maintain its military dominance.
|
| I think a big mistake we in the west make when thinking about
| 'solutions' to the conflict is assuming both sides want peace.
| That's not been my impression on hearing anyone from either
| side talk, peace activists from the region but unconnected to
| the ruling structure notwithstanding.
| jlawson wrote:
| The "political response" is to be "pushed into the sea" and
| utterly conquered. The Palestinians and their leadership have
| made it clear across many explicit statements and policy
| documents for many years that this is their goal and they won't
| stop short of it.
|
| There is no "financial cost" to that; it is simply the end of
| existence. So there is no financial calculation to be made.
| Either you can afford the defenses you need to exist, or you
| can't and you stop existing.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| The Palestinians? They have not made it clear at all. TMany
| people living in Gaza, one of the poorest, unsafe, strips of
| land with the least amount of autonomy or basic human respect
| given, don't have time and energy to focus on a goal of
| utterly conquering and pushing Israel to the sea. I assume
| this implies killing all Israelis too?
|
| Quite a statement to make about the vast majority of Gaza
| citizens that can barely survive.
|
| --
|
| > Either you can afford the defenses you need to exist, or
| you can't and you stop existing.
|
| In no world could Palestine ever stop Israel from existing
| either. Like: - Kurds or Armenians can't wipe out Turkey. -
| Yemenese rebels (Houthi) can't wipe out Saudi Arabia. -
| Uyghur's or Tibet or Hong Kong or Taiwan can't wipe out
| China. - Ukraine or Georgia or Bosnia or Crimea can't wipe
| out Russia. - Kosovo can't wipe out Serbia. - Pakistan can't
| wipe out India. - IRA or Ireland can't wipe out Britain.
|
| ---
|
| Israel is a beautiful place. I enjoyed Tel Aviv quite a bit.
| I certainly don't want Israel going anywhere :)
| golergka wrote:
| > I assume this implies killing all Israelis too?
|
| Yes.
|
| > Quite a statement to make about the vast majority of Gaza
| citizens that can barely survive.
|
| Talk to them. Personally, I think that the reason this
| conflict is so misunderstood in the West is that you guys
| are just too distant from the cultural norms of the region,
| and literally can't believe that millions of people could
| openly and unapologetically be pro-genocide.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| I have talked to some.
|
| You didn't respond to any other parts of my post.
| Especially the main point I made of the listing of states
| in conflict where it is similarly not possible for the
| smaller side to wipe out the nicer one. The point of that
| is to show how unreasonable expecting any of those
| smaller states or people to ever be able to do a serious
| amount of damage to the stronger power.
|
| It is a stretch to say "millions" for Gaza. The
| population is under 2 million. Technically that is
| millions. Just want to clarify it means under 2M.
|
| It's also hard to talk to them when I don't live close by
| and The 1.8M people in Gaza use the energy equivalent to
| a town of under 25K people in the US.*
|
| * https://www.bing.com/fd/ls/GLinkPing.aspx?IG=1780314647
| 4C42E...
| ahthat wrote:
| This
| towe12301923 wrote:
| > "If we can intercept a missile or rocket with an electrical
| pulse that costs a few dollars, we will essentially neutralize
| the ring of fire that Iran has set up ... This new generation of
| air defence can also serve our friends in the region, who are
| also exposed to grave threats from Iran and its proxies.
|
| This is admirable. Instead of playing the typical offense-first
| arms race, they are in a defense-first technology race. Its non-
| violent and the technology and skills will benefit the entire
| country. I hope they eventually win the war just by building a
| far better country that people want to immigrate into instead of
| attack.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| I don't think people want to immigrate to the Gaza Strip. Under
| any conditions.
|
| Or if Gaza is not Israel to you. I think many people in Gaza
| would love to immigrate to Israel.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Note Israeli PM Bennet is currently facing a lot of media and
| public attention to large price hikes of different consumer
| goods, electricity and gasoline. Just saying.
|
| (PS - Also, scrutiny about Israeli soldiers having bound and
| gagged an 80-yro Palestinian man, leaving him on the floor in
| some abandoned building after having stopped him in an illegal
| roadblock, with him eventually dying. Israelis wouldn't need a
| distraction from that kind of stuff happening, though; we/they
| are already trained to filter that out.)
| [deleted]
| Footkerchief wrote:
| The use of the present tense is factually wrong. TFA says "Within
| a year already the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) will bring into
| action ..."
| james-redwood wrote:
| The space lasers were real /s
|
| (in reference to the Republican congresswoman who blamed the
| California wildfires on Jewish space lasers:
| https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-gree...)
| m0llusk wrote:
| It really surprises me that so many people who have seen UFO
| reports all their lives cite this as nothing but humorous
| stupidity from a politician. People who follow satellite data
| in order to understand global patterns of earthquakes and
| weather saw what looks like beams from unknown sources hitting
| areas that then caught fire. As with anything else this is very
| likely to be some kind of sensor or transmission glitch that
| simply needs to be analyzed in detail to find some mundane
| explanation, but it is worth acknowledging that the whole
| business emerged not from the political foolishness that got
| attached to it later but from hobbyists trying to explain
| genuinely peculiar data. Even when people talk about UFOs or
| space lasers it is worth taking in and trying to explain the
| actual data.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| > People who follow satellite data in order to understand
| global patterns of earthquakes and weather saw what looks
| like beams from unknown sources hitting areas that then
| caught fire.
|
| What? Is there a link to any of this or is it just standard
| internet BS?
|
| I've heard of earthquake lights and there may be something to
| that. Never heard of anything focused on places that later
| caught fire. The fires that I am aware of were mostly blamed
| on poor maintenance of electrical utility infrastructure or
| on arsonists or fools doing stupid stuff like "gender
| reveals".
|
| Enlighten me, but not _with_ one of them space lasers, just
| _about_ them.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| >This new generation of air defence can also serve our friends in
| the region, who are also exposed to grave threats from Iran and
| its proxies.
|
| Interestingly enough this system will be available to all those
| neighborly enough to join Israel against all the Iranian-backed
| adversaries. It sounds like sales of technology from the NSO
| group was a real foot-in-the-door for Israel for forging of new,
| previously unlikely alliances.
|
| Once you get all these rich petro-states hooked on the products
| that you can peddle then maybe the overall security situation in
| that region changes dramatically. For one, it becomes more likely
| that one of these operators could act unilaterally and thus could
| kick off a war that no one else wanted when other options were
| still on the table.
|
| Interesting development overall.
| nickff wrote:
| > _" It sounds like sales of technology from the NSO group was
| a real foot-in-the-door for Israel for forging of new,
| previously unlikely alliances."_
|
| Israel has had 'secret' alliances with some supposedly
| 'antagonistic' states for a long time. These are all just
| extensions of those previously hidden relationships.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Lots of news about Israel today. Amnesty International just
| released a new report condemning Israel as an apartheid state.[1]
|
| 1.
| https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...
| nsxwolf wrote:
| This harms the credibility of Amnesty International. There are
| many criticisms you can lay against Israel regarding the
| Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but "apartheid" doesn't pass the
| laugh test.
| yuvalr1 wrote:
| What a great way to start an off topic flame war...
|
| By the way, you could have shown Israel's response to this
| report as well:
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-attacks-delusional-amnes...
| dexwiz wrote:
| This tech will be the end of MAD and the start of WW3. The only
| thing holding back current super powers from direct confrontation
| are ICBMs and MAD. Once they can be reliably shot down via
| lasers, then full scale war is much more likely. I understand the
| current tech is for much slower, much lower rockets and cruise
| missiles. But the tech will evolve and get better. Israel is the
| current test bed for high tech defense, so expect further
| improvements over the next decade. We have seen a century of
| relative peace, enjoy it while it lasts.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > The only thing holding back current super powers from direct
| confrontation are ICBMs and MAD.
|
| "Trade interests"
| elsonrodriguez wrote:
| As long as EMPs are viable MAD is still in effect.
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| An emp would knock out electrical grids.... sure...
|
| But that isn't annihilation...
|
| Say russia installed this in major cities (rural is
| acceptable loss), then manufactured super sonic nukes that
| could deliver a strike in under 5 mins... or even a minute...
| they could strike many of our nuke sites (not all because of
| subs) but our major military operation bases, then we strike
| back from subs, but these take them all out, there's some
| fallout from atmospheric explosions which may be as bad, but
| maybe they hoist huge fans to blow it south to the Ukraine or
| another enemy state...
|
| I don't think EMP's really would deter this sort of
| outcome... MAD is becoming less and less a thing, super-sonic
| weapons are the real clencher, because with those it's simply
| whoever strikes first - if they strike hard enough can
| disable just about any enemy... so the trick will be not
| getting to the point of first strike... which...I don't think
| we can really prevent, not w/ water wars/climate resources
| diminishing, etc....
|
| The worst war ever will come, we thought globalization could
| keep people sane but threats to supply chains, and resources,
| and the existence of the earth itself turn people into
| desperate people. Desperate people don't always do what's
| considered 'sane'.
|
| What we'd deem an evil dictator might try and nuke 80% of the
| population to save the climate, and it probably would succeed
| but most sane people would say the cost is too great for that
| ...and they'd be right too.... I mean Thanos had good
| intentions but horrible means towards them...
|
| A madman who gets elected or inherits the button to the
| nations military arsenal could decide to burn it all down
| like Nero...
| selimthegrim wrote:
| >there's some fallout from atmospheric explosions which may
| be as bad, but maybe they hoist huge fans to blow it south
| to the Ukraine or another enemy state...
|
| This was in fact precisely Vladimir Zhirinovsky's idea in
| 1991 to stop the Baltics from seceding
| josefresco wrote:
| Nerd Alert: Thanos's motivations in the comics were
| definitely not "good". However, in the softened MCU version
| his motivations while hilariously dumb, could be considered
| "good".
| foobarian wrote:
| Even with somewhat assured first strike outcomes I still
| don't see a rational reason for a nuclear power to go ahead
| with it. What are they going to do afterwards, conquer
| territory? It's not going to work because nuclear strikes
| won't magically disappear the (now really angry)
| population. So what would be the point? And now you lose
| all the fruits of trade and punish your own people.
|
| Re: an insane leader ordering a strike just for fun, I have
| faith I guess in the staff who would be actually pushing
| the buttons. It has happened before.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > Say russia installed this in major cities (rural is
| acceptable loss)
|
| You mean like the Russian's existing system is designed?
| [0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-
| ballistic_missile_s...
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| I very much doubt this is effective against ICBMs. It'll be a
| ground-based system. ICBMs are just too far away, too much air
| in between. It's not a question of technology. It simply cannot
| be done from the ground.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| No system, even THAAD is 100% reliable. And nothing ever has
| been tested in the battlefield. Statistical significance of
| extreme levels is needed to eliminate MAD. Also, we shouldn't
| be too reliant on MAD theory to avoid developing defense tech.
| If we don't, it's a guaranteed SAD (Self-assured destruction
| :-) ).
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Shooting down a rocket going Mach 3 is different from an ICBM
| going Mach 25.
|
| ICBM research seems to be further along in the US, Russia and
| India than in Israel. Israel has a fairly accurate, but
| expensive, missile defense system already.
| gruez wrote:
| >This tech will be the end of MAD and the start of WW3.
|
| AFAIK shooting down warheads will always be harder than
| launching them. Unless your system is _really_ reliable, it can
| be bypassed by simply launching more missiles.
| pasabagi wrote:
| MAD was a dumb idea in the first place. Everybody has known,
| since the first world war, that a major power confrontation is
| very likely to end your nation, _even if you win_. The French
| were so demographically destroyed they literally could not
| raise an army to fight in the second world war. The British
| were so broke their empire collapsed. The Russian empire, the
| Austrian empire, the Ottoman empires all collapsed into
| splinters.
|
| Rational people would not want to be on either side of such a
| conflict. Except, international relations is fraught with
| pathological incentives, so peer conflicts happen nonetheless,
| and less than twenty years after the first world war ended,
| everybody was gearing up for a second.
|
| The cold war didn't go hot because we were lucky, not because
| MAD changed the basic dynamics of total war.
| dexwiz wrote:
| Rational people aren't the ones who start wars. People who
| grab and claw for power and climbed their way into leadership
| start wars. I wish the world was lead by rational people, but
| I don't think it is.
| hanoz wrote:
| The difference being that with _nuclear_ mutually assured
| destruction, the actual leaders are assured of their own
| personal destruction.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Are they? Who has the best bunkers? Who has dedicated
| aircraft you can live in permanently?
| Miraste wrote:
| > he French were so demographically destroyed they literally
| could not raise an army to fight in the second world war.
|
| This isn't true at all. The French army at the start of WWII
| was over 5 million men, one of the largest in the world. It
| suffered from bad luck and being led by morons, but it
| certainly existed.
|
| Per your other point, WWII made the US and the USSR global
| superpowers for half a century, and the US especially
| sacrificed far less than anyone else to get it. War is sadly
| not always a losing proposition, even total war.
| morelish wrote:
| I don't know about the demographic claim but definitely the
| French could not imagine _fighting_ another war and so
| their preparations were poor. They built the Maginot Line
| as a way of avoiding having to fight again. And I believe
| the political culture in the country and army all rotated
| around the idea that they never wanted to fight Germany
| again. This also extended to the Treat of Versailles were
| they tried to cripple Germany's ability to raise an army
| again. I don't know about the demographic claim, but he is
| sort of right that WW1 wrecked Frances fighting spirit.
| morelish wrote:
| Oh, I actually totally disagree with the original
| commenter's statement "The cold war didn't go hot because
| we were lucky, not because MAD changed the basic dynamics
| of total war." Erm. No. MAD definitely did change the basic
| dynamics.
| pasabagi wrote:
| I was exaggerating, but the demographic slump that happened
| as a result of WW1 was a problem for french military
| planners, which is why a large portion of their army were
| reservists or badly trained.
|
| Per your other point, you're shifting the terrain of the
| discussion. WW1 was almost a pure losers war, and yet, most
| of the same states engaged in WW2. That's the crazy
| decision. WW2, on the other hand, had relative winners
| (although I think the US would have done well regardless,
| and the USSR got to be a global superpower (which it was
| already) at an appalling cost).
|
| Another thing that bothers me about the whole 'MAD
| prevented the cold war from going hot' is that none of the
| generals at the time thought like that. People didn't
| really start thinking about nuclear weapons as anything
| other than just big bombs until well into the cold war.
| That's why MacArthur advocated their use in China.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| I will believe it when I see it. Focusing that much light on a
| small moving object, through layered and moving air, with an
| intensity to burn through metal would be an achievement. Burning
| through enough of that metal to degrade a _falling_ rocket (as
| opposed to during boost phase of flight) is even harder. For all
| the talk about cost reduction, have a look at what realworld
| laser armor costs. Painting the nosecone of a rocket white, or
| coating it with reflective foil costs next to nothing but is
| remarkably effective.
|
| Better question: What would this do to a manned aircraft? There
| is a reason there are treaties against blinding weapons.
| nine_k wrote:
| AFAIK far enough infrared is not very efficiently reflected by
| white paint or by metallic foil. If you can lower the
| efficiency of the cover layer from 99.9% to, say, 80%, this may
| be enough to degrade the mirror layer, create a dark spot or a
| cloud of plasma. After that most of the radiant energy will be
| consumed by that spot, it will overheat and degrade everything
| around it, while also changing the aerodynamics of the object
| enough to veer it way off course.
| zokier wrote:
| This article has a video of similar system from Lockheed Martin
| in 2013 demonstrating successful destruction of missile
| https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/iron-beam-iron-dome-and-lase...
|
| The capability for lasers to counter rockets has been
| demonstrated over and over in the past 20-25 years. The problem
| has always been making the systems practical, but I guess they
| are getting there now.
| simplyaccont wrote:
| >I will believe it when I see it. Focusing that much light on a
| small moving object, through layered and moving air, with an
| intensity to burn through metal would be an achievement.
| Burning through enough of that metal to degrade a falling
| rocket (as opposed to during boost phase of flight) is even
| harder.
|
| it's been working 20 years ago. it's just systems were too big.
| you needed 2-3 tracks to supply energy to laser system, and
| there were delays between shots.
|
| >For all the talk about cost reduction, have a look at what
| realworld laser armor costs. Painting the nosecone of a rocket
| white, or coating it with reflective foil costs next to nothing
| but is remarkably effective.
|
| doesn't work. nosecone it's small part of rocket, laser will
| target midsection probably. reflective foil won't help either
| as it needs to be designed to reflect specific wavelength of
| laser iirc
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Any foil will do, just as the JWST's sunshield is effective
| against all the wavelengths coming off the sun. Gold or
| silver is best, but aluminum foil from the grocery store is
| extremely reflective across all wavelengths we would call
| laser. Just giving the metal rocket a good polish would make
| a significant difference.
| simplyaccont wrote:
| there is some difference, but I guess all the companies
| that sank billions into directed energy weapons missed that
| aluminum foil from shop can negate all their efforts
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| It would need to pack the energy of a stick of dynamite (1 lb
| explosive weight) into a short burst of light.
| cobookman wrote:
| Would it? If the laser is able to focus on the rocket for
| multiple seconds. Then it'd just need to pack a fraction of
| that energy over a sustained duration. Which sounds
| reasonable.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| The rocket is moving at perhaps mach 4+. The laser has to
| strike a singular spot. So holding focus for multuple
| seconds is an as-yet-unsolved problem. Of course, hitting
| an incoming missile at all is at the edge of current
| capability.
| opwieurposiu wrote:
| At the current power level, this laser is mainly useful against
| drones.
|
| There is a limit to how much laser power you can shoot through
| the air. When the threshold for breakdown is exceeded, a high
| density plasma is produced which is opaque to visible and
| infrared wavelengths and thus absorbs the laser radiation.
|
| The moon does not have this laser power limit, but moving Tel
| Aviv to the moon would quite expensive and you would lose the
| mediterranean climate.
| Miraste wrote:
| Sounds like that could be gotten around by using multiple
| lasers.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Multiple beams creates a different problem. Say your beam
| is 1cm across and you are aiming at a 30cm target. All your
| energy is in that 1cm. You don't much care where in that
| 30cm it hits so long as it burns through. But with two
| lasers, to be effective, each beam needs to hit the same
| sport on the target. Instead of a 30cm target, laser #2 now
| has to hit the 1cm beam of the first laser.
| omegant wrote:
| That, or also you get a shotgun effect with different
| damaged areas in a single target. Increasing the
| probability of destruction with less powerful lasers.
| mrkstu wrote:
| Aren't there wavelengths available that wouldn't superheat
| air, but would be absorbed by a missile?
| simplyaccont wrote:
| THEL was shooting down mortars, shells and rockets at early
| 2000s
| golergka wrote:
| > moving Tel Aviv to the moon would quite expensive and you
| would lose the mediterranean climate
|
| Might make rent just a little bit cheaper though.
| jakedata wrote:
| Yeah, but there's no "atmosphere" any more...
| propesh wrote:
| Ill never forget when the Iron Dome was first rolling out, this
| rocket researcher on the internet said it couldn't be done. He
| explained it pretty well, and I was convinced. Search google
| for Iron dome doesn't work (looking back to 2010-14) And yet,
| it does work (mostly).
|
| So basically what I'm saying, this stuff is hard, and few
| people in the world can even verify your claim, never mind have
| access to the tech or AI behind it. But i'd bet with the
| Israelis.
| propesh wrote:
| Here is the article:
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/07/15/172055/an-
| explan...
|
| Again, not sure if this turned out to be correct; but from
| reading reports on the ground and the lives Israel claimed it
| saved (and building more of them,) it seems evident he was in
| fact wrong.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| ...and then what. What will they do when the rockets get faster,
| shinier, more erratic in flight...or any of the other things
| mentioned on this thread? I'm not going to pretend I have the
| solutions to the Arab Isreali conflict, but this is at best
| temporary. My best guess is the long term solution (if there is
| ever one attempted) will be more related to why people are
| motivated to launch rockets at their neighbours.
| nickff wrote:
| > _" My best guess is the long term solution (if there is ever
| one attempted) will be more related to why people are motivated
| to launch rockets at their neighbours. "_
|
| The problem is that the Palestinians are a heterogeneous group.
| Even if the Palestinian government makes a 'peace' deal with
| the Israelis, other Palestinians opposed to the deal can
| 'break' it by shooting off a few cheap rockets. Further
| complicating the issue, there are outside parties (such as the
| Iranians) who have a vested interest in preventing a lasting
| peace (in order to preserve their influence both in Palestine
| and in Lebanon).
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| These rockets are low tech. They only get through because of
| sheer numbers. Using lasers makes it harder to overwhelm with
| numbers.
| RegnisGnaw wrote:
| These "advanced" rockets will be more costly, which means your
| more limited on how many you can afford to fire. Thus Israel
| can intercept these "advanced" rockets with other solutions:
| Iron Dome, Arrow 2, Arrow 3, and David's Sling.
|
| The Iron Beam is the low cost per intercept solution, meant to
| intercept cheap unguided ballistic rockets.
| m4rtink wrote:
| IIRC (based on hard SF laser defece discussions) there is no
| perfect mirror, so pump enough MW/GW into it, even just for a
| short burst and the thing will start to melt or outright
| vaporize from the bit that it will always absorb.
|
| Then it won't be so shiny anymore, absorbing even more energy
| and so on, until it stops being a solid object.
|
| As for erratic flight paths - a physical object can't aim to
| match the beam steering capabilities of a group based
| stationary laser, given any realistic currently available
| propulsion or steering technology. It would need to do crazy
| high g & high energy manufacturing yet from the PoV of the
| laser its moving just a couple degrees if at all. As unlike a
| physical interceptor the laser beam moves at the speed of light
| and thud the point of aim can more more or less
| instantaneously.
| RegnisGnaw wrote:
| Its more a range issue. Irom Beam has a like a 7 km or mile
| (I forgot) range. Whereas other like Arrow 2, Arrow 3, or
| David's Sling has like 100km+ range.
|
| Iron Beam is all about cost per interception.
| RobRivera wrote:
| welcome to the concept of Escalation Dominance in the field of
| arms tech.
| loceng wrote:
| The best initial solution I believe is for the world to protect
| Palestine from the rockets fired from the Israel side - that
| way any retaliations to the small group of people firing
| rockets at Israel don't kill civilians or damage their
| infrastructure; e.g. put an Iron Dome or better system on the
| Palestinian side.
| golemiprague wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-01 23:01 UTC)