this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
100 points (97.2% liked)

technology

23179 readers
363 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Frank@hexbear.net 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

My non-expert opinion is there's no way you could keep a laser painted on a target manuevering at mach 13 long enough to actually melt it. How long do they even have between detection and impact? DEWs are appealing because they travel at light speed and don't need to carry ammo. ___ but you have to hold your flash light on the target until it heats up enough to fail. That's fine if you've got a cruise missile puttering along at a stately pace, but not a terminally manueverable hypersonic vehicle.

[–] knightly@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

How long do they even have between detection and impact?

Depends!

Carrier groups usually have an AWACS plane on standby, and wikipedia suggests modern systems have a 400km detection range. Assuming the missile has a steady speed of Mach 13, that's about 90 seconds of warning.

It's more complicated than this, though, because (afaik) these missiles cruise at a much lower speed and only reach maximum velocity when accelerating in their terminal guidance phase.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There's also the issue of laser range, which would probably be not very far, closer to the hypersonic missile last phase of attack range.

[–] knightly@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yep! Line of sight alone would limit laser countermeasures to the horizon, to say nothing of the air scattering the beam's energy for the whole distance.

But interceptors (anti-missile missiles) have no such limitation and would remain the only effective countermeasure for hypersonics.