| |
Mark Sandlin wrote in message ...
> >
> > That is, unless they are futuristic bullets designed to supercavitate.
> > Finding out what the principle of supercavitation is, is left as an • exercise
> > to the reader... ;-)
>
> I suppose, but wouldn't that be terribly inefficient?
Well, yes, but I'd thought you'd want to find out what supercavitation was
all by yourself ;-)
>
> It would likely be simpler and cheaper to use a different type of weapon.
> And in the military, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder. ;^)
Really? I thought that it was considered appropriate to spend an extra
trillion on a weapon, just to give you that ever-so-slight edge over your
enemy... I musta been reading the wrong history books.
Anyway, I think laser beams would attenuate pretty quickly in a
not-very-transparent medium like seawater. A supercavitating bullet
travelling at Mach 3? No problem ;-)
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) Seawater is moreor-less transparent to a properly tuned blue/green lasers, so there would be little/no attenuation. No moving parts to corrode in the saltwater, and no ejection ports to get gummed up by oceanic detritus. --Karim (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bridget
|
| I suppose, but wouldn't that be terribly inefficient? It would likely be simpler and cheaper to use a different type of weapon. And in the military, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder. ;^) ~M (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
