From: Andrew Clough (aclough@mit.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 23:31:02 MST
It would be really nice if these could be mounted on tanks and
made to detonate HEAT projectiles while they are still out of effective
range (of the warheads's plasma jet that is, not the
missile/RPG/shell). Is it just me, or do modern tanks just cry out for
point defense? Why don't we mount mini-vulcans on tanks to shoot down
incoming missiles? Would the necessary radar or lidar be too vulnerable?
Anyway, it would probably we easier to charge a flywheel or
capacitor for this off a tank or APC's engine than off anything on a cruise
missile or jet; so I don't know why we're considering putting this defense
on those platforms. Maybe the engagement range for a microwave gun is so
great that it would be wasted on ground vehicles that engage at relatively
close range? People with real experience with tanks, please tell me if I'm
horribly wrong about anything.
At 02:16 PM 1/23/2003 +1100, you wrote:
> From the BBC
>
>US working on lightning weapon
>Weapon could be tested on an unmanned aircraft (US Department of Defense)
>The US Air Force is working on developing a man-made bolt of lightning
>powerful enough to fry sophisticated computer and electronic components in
>weapons.
>
>Researchers are looking at ways of putting so-called High-Powered
>Microwave (HPM) beams on aircraft and cruise missiles.
>
>The short, intense burst of energy is intended to be lethal to electronics
>but have no effect on people.
>
>Aerospace experts have suggested an experimental version of the weapon
>could be used in a war against Iraq, carried on a cruise missile or
>unmanned aircraft.
>
>But the secrecy surrounding the use of these weapons would mean it could
>be some time before details are released to the public.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST