Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gandalftb
No mirroring could protect the target as they would not know the precise direction to create a deflection and no mirror would be aerodynamic. Anything airborne would be defenseless.

I don't believe that anyone was proposing equipping the attacking missiles with (flat) mirrors which would bounce the beam directly back to the airplane from which the laser was shot.

I think that, instead, the proposal was simply to coat the outside of the missile with the same reflective substance as is used on the mirrors of the laser so that any incoming beam would be bounced away and thus rendered harmless.

A flat mirror would, of course, be aerodynamically problematic, but simply "dipping" the outside of the missile in silvery stuff would reduce its absorption of light and thus would reduce its vulnerability to laser beams.

You're welcome.

Regards,

15 posted on 12/05/2008 1:12:58 AM PST by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: alexander_busek

As it turns out, a mirrored surface is no protection against a high-energy laser. It has been demonstrated in lab tests that the energy transfer is enough to destroy a target.


17 posted on 12/05/2008 2:19:00 AM PST by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: alexander_busek

I suppose you could “spin” the missile as well as reflective coating the skin, so that no single targeted spot gets overheated. I really don’t know the physics of these particular lasers well enough to know if that would work.


36 posted on 12/05/2008 6:17:23 AM PST by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson