Will Lasers Really Make Effective Military Weapons?

No

We already have tracking systems that would make these weapons viable. The problem is the huge amount of energy required to make them work. A US Navy ship for instance has nuclear power plants that could sufficiently power a ship mounted system. Land based systems could be sufficiently powered. In both cases however, range is an issue.

Regarding diversions, "ghosting" technology has been around for 30 years, albeit unused (and unreported) in any conflict I am aware of.

The biggest problem with lasers is the low efficiency, typically under 30%, and unless designed with care, the heat wasted can distort the optical paths and reduce the efficiency.

The Hydrogen flouride lasers and capable of war us, as long as you ignore the huge plume of HF they emit. Here is one, google has many more links

Hydrogen fluoride laser

Airborne Laser works.

Boeings Airborne Laser (ABL) will locate and track missiles in the boost phase of their flight, then accurately point and fire the high-energy laser, destroying enemy missiles near their launch areas.

Errr, so that's assuming you've got a 747 up and flying somewhere near the launch site.
Maybe if you get 24 hours written notice of launch time/location, then the weapon may work.
What you mean to say is Animations of airbourne lasers work.
Come to think of it Bugs Bunny has some great ideas too.
Del

ACME products will send you one by mail order.

Yes it does. We have laser base tracking system we have laser with so much of power will make football field rock to go to dust. This is forefront in technological field and when it merged with navigation system it makes best wapon and better than atomic wapon

The really good point is that lasers are unlikely to become terrorist weapons.....too big and too expensive when really effective.......and I personally believe they will get better.....and better.

Aw come on Del, do tell us about the Laser Long Bow you are developing.

comments remooved by US Goverment.

Counter measure - reflective or ablative skin coating on the rocket or shell body.

Nothing beats a good old kinetic impact and when the application is ABM or ASAT where the energies are high enough all that is required is to put some stuff in the way; no need to intercept.

The most cost effective path is to ensure the peace. The entire space dependent trillion dollar tactical and logistical system becomes a scrap heap when some guy with rudimentary space capability decides to deny space to everyone.

Trying to make war a business is a sure path to bankruptcy. There is a lot of historical precedence to support this position.

All of this high priced junk works great against some poor peasant; try that with the S.C.O. and we will all be wishing we would have invested in A-10s instead of F-22s.

Conflict is first and foremost an economic endeavor. Forget that and the other guy ends up eating steak and living in cool digs and you end up eating weenies and living in a mud hut.

Gavilan