That's a pretty bold statement...
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
PEW-PEW !! USS Ponce deploys laser weapon in Gulf
- Thread starter enlUSMC
- Start date
That's a pretty bold statement...
I got to be the target for one of the calibration runs a few month ago. It did, it didn't help that they wouldn't tell us the wavelengths so we went in hoping our LEPs would be enough. Luckily we can still see. That was six hours of "F&ck this noise"
They still have to be aimed and even if they have potential they still have a very long way to go, there were a lot of good reasons the YAL-1 was cancelled.
According to some googling I did, the laser spread equation is: RT = 0.61 * D * L / RL
Where RT = beam radius at target (meters)
D = distance from laser emitter to target (meters)
L = wavelength to beam
RL = radius of laser lens or reflector
So with a wavelength of 1000 nm through a 2 meter telescope has a spot size of 12.2 cm at 100km. If the power output is 1 megawatt it could burn through about 1mm of graphite a second. It would burn through metal at a much higher rate.
Of course the published power of the laser on the Ponce is 30 kilowatts
Where RT = beam radius at target (meters)
D = distance from laser emitter to target (meters)
L = wavelength to beam
RL = radius of laser lens or reflector
So with a wavelength of 1000 nm through a 2 meter telescope has a spot size of 12.2 cm at 100km. If the power output is 1 megawatt it could burn through about 1mm of graphite a second. It would burn through metal at a much higher rate.
Of course the published power of the laser on the Ponce is 30 kilowatts
Hmm. Learning has occurred. So the range, if I'm doing my math right, is not linear with distance, but limited by the ratio of lens radius to wavelength. Still less than linear for a given power increase, depending on engineering constraints, but better than an inverse square law.
So it is an inverse square relationship... The power output of the beam is distributed in the spot. The spot is presumably a circle, with the area = <SEE ASTB STUDY SECTION>. So.... the intensity of that spot (like radar intensity) is its power/Area... and area goes like RT^2, and RT goes like distance, so intensity goes like 1/D^2.
The bonus here is that you have the 0.61 factor in there, and the L/RL can be used the same way you can focus a radar beam with a big reflector.
... ok someone post the nerds photo ...
Goddammit. Now you're making me do algebra. It's Saturday night post-bourbon. Math can wait until tomorrow post-coffee.
What that equation apparently ignores is atmospheric absorption and scatter, although some nominal ballpark value could be rolled up somewhere in that 0.61 constant.
My question is how they cool the thing. Pumping 50kw through a lense for any period of time is gonna heat the glass and distort the beam focus.
The NIF has finally gotten down to four hours between shots, however they're pumping 400 TW through their lasers.
The NIF has finally gotten down to four hours between shots, however they're pumping 400 TW through their lasers.
Gatling lasers? Sweet.