We built polymer heat exchangers for a NGC-ES developmental laser around 10
years ago. It was a diode system rated at 100kw. Polymer heat exchangers were a
design requirement.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
<http://www.cesaronitech.com/> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x1004 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
William Claybaugh
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:06 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Hypersonics have finally arrived
Henry:
You sure those are diodes? All the one’s I’ve seen were FEL’s.
Bill
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:59 PM Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Apply a potential difference to a conductive material, and you'll get a net
migration of electrons along the potential direction. "electric".
Oh, you wanted something more specific than that? :-) Current public reports
of tests and prototypes seem to cluster around what I presume are diode lasers
with continuous outputs in the tens of kilowatts range, mounted with
appropriate pointing and beam-forming on ships, aircraft, and large ground
vehicles. Some stories give the impression that the customers think another
order of magnitude of reliable power output (in the hundreds of kilowatts) will
give them a useful area defense against targets heavier than the small
rockets/shells and small drones commonly mentioned as current test targets.
Henry
On 10/15/2020 1:48 PM, roxanna Mason wrote:
electric lasers these days.
Elaborate on "electric"
Ken
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 1:41 PM Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Utility in evading missile defenses aside, one thing to keep in mind is, for
certain targets - among them ships - payload fraction is less important. A
hypersonic impact delivers TNT-equivalent energy for the entire vehicle mass
involved even with no actual warhead on board at around Mach 9, and the
equivalent energy of a 25%-of-vehicle mass TNT warhead at Mach ~4.5.
Given that the main penetrating-defenses advantages seem to be maneuvering
beyond an interceptor's ability to follow, and operating in atmosphere bands
where the interceptor loses effectiveness, effective anti-missile beam weapons
will likely negate much of those advantages and largely obsolete expensive
hypersonics. Which may well explain why USN (and USAF) seems very interested
in electric lasers these days.
Henry
On 10/15/2020 2:23 AM, George Herbert wrote:
OT...
It’s not much of a secret I do missiles and nuclear proliferation research and
analysis including threat systems analysis as a side job.
There are a few things you can do with hypersonic weapons. You can approach
targets in the inconvenient altitude and speed band where there’s too little
lift for normal fins and too much for unstreamlined exoatmospheric
interceptors. Midcourse defense gets very difficult... You can change
direction in hypersonic flight, allowing flightpaths avoiding defenses or
attacking simultaneously from different directions, complicating defenses.
Under some circumstances they can use trajectory changes in target approach to
maneuver out of interceptor engagement envelopes after interceptor burnout.
Against rapidly maneuvering targets there is a better target volume capability.
Under some circumstances the range is longer than a smaller ballistic
trajectory Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle can do.
They are much more expensive and harder to do than maneuvering ballistic RVs.
They can’t carry effective decoys, IR sensors see them thousands of kilometers
away, and avoiding defenses has to be done essentially blind because they can’t
credibly detect incoming interceptors with onboard sensors.
The payload fraction of ballistic RVs is about 0.5, of maneuvering RVs 0.3-0.4,
of hypersonic glide weapons 0.2 or less and Hypersonic cruise weapons 0.1 or
so. For the same payload they’re tremendously larger missiles to start with,
with corresponding ship, aircraft, submarine, truck, or silo capacity issues.
They make better sense as Chinese antiship Missiles than as US prompt
conventional strike missiles. The countries don’t have analogous needs.
-george
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 14, 2020, at 10:19 PM, Troy Prideaux
<mailto:troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
attracted a lot of attention and hype but had no military value
whatsoever.
(For the sponsoring nation, that is -- it had considerable value to their
enemies,
since it pulled desperately-scarce resources away from things that *did*
have
real military value.) The recent hypersonics hype smells much the same to
me...
Henry
I guess the difference now is the "enemy/ies" are all on the same hypersonic
bandwagon.
Troy