B2431 wrote:
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 1/2/2004 5:42 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
(B2431) wrote in
:
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 1/2/2004 1:15 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
With weight ever decreasing, does anyone know if there has
been/is a project on something like this:
http://members.rogers.com/biglasers/continuous/abl.html
..intended to replace this?
http://www.military.cz/usa/navy/weap...phalanx_en.htm
Regards...

Not likely. The ABL is designed to be fired in the clear air at
altitude. A ship borne version would face problems with smoke,
fog and sea spray interferance.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

But impossible to overcome? I think there are som arguments
in favor:

1. A ship is a more stable platform than an airplane
2. The ABL's targets are houndreds of miles away, while
CIWS operate in less than a mile
3. More powerful lasers and advances in adaptive optics will
compensate for air distortions

Regards...

Good points.

I have no idea how die lasers work but I wonder how long they shelf life of the
chemicals are. In the case of the airborne version they can be prepared just
prior to flight. Again not an insoluable problem for boats.

When I mentioned sea spray I sould also have said rain. I don't know if they
can be optically corrected for.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

One of the issues is the lasers produce toxic gases. On the ABL, they
are vented outside the plane and are dispersed in the slipstream.

On ships it could be a more significant problem to get rid of them
without endangering the crew.

On the other hand, a ship could carry more laser fuel and heat
dispersion is easier to solve.