Talk:Tactical High Energy Laser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Middle Eastern military history task force United States military history task force

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Main Purpose of Article is Convey Descriptive Information About Stated Topic 3 Radar 4 Dates 5 Refractive vs. Reflective

[edit] NPOV

The "oh this might not work" section seem to be much smaller than the "oh, it's great" section. Especially in light of the SCADS of evidence that this (and similar systems) won't work due to the desires of politicians being second to the simple facts of physics. I know, my POV is showing. I'll back it up with some citations soon. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Especially in light of the SCADS of evidence that this (and similar systems) won't work due to the desires of politicians being second to the simple facts of physics." Actually, I'm at a loss about what you're even talking about. There has been quite a bit of skepticism towards the idea of using missile-based interceptors against ballistic missiles. Though a laser-based system seems to be less complicated from a technical standpoint. My guess is that you taking your skepticism towards a *missile-based* means of *ballistic missile* interception and turning that into a much more generalized skepticism against all forms of interceptor technology (laser-based and otherwise) against a wide variety of targets (mortars, missiles, artillery, aircraft, etc). - BC, November 12, 2005

The tone and writing style of this article leads me to think that it (bar the final lines casting some doubt on the claims of accuracy) was taken from an official press release. I have no proof of this, but the article does appear word for word elsewhere on the internet.

This article reads very strangely. Whatever the reason, I feel it's in dire need of a major re-write. Shockeroo (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree: it reads like a product brochure or press release. --geoff_o (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main Purpose of Article is Convey Descriptive Information About Stated Topic

...just like any other encyclopedia, not to be a political platform for debate about the topic. The article as written largely accomplishes that purpose. It does need some factual updates, as the MTHEL system has been recently delayed due to reduced Israeli financial participation.

Here are a few more links: Joema 20:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281536.html
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_MTHEL,,00.html
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2003/20030505/energy_weapons.shtml

After further review I agree there was some non-encyclopedic stuff of a press release nature. Removed or rephrased that to make it more factual. The purpose of an encyclopedia is NOT to present pro/con options about items, but convey factual descriptions. Joema 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radar

[1] - it is written here, that the "Red Color" (formerly, Red Dawn (alert)) alert makes use of the programm's radar, located near Nahal Oz, though the laser itself isn't there... Flayer 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

The first line of this article reads "The cooperative Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) Demonstrator ACTD was designed and built by the United States and Israeli governments on July 18, 1996." Unless the two governments actually designed and built the whole thing in a single day, I'm not sure what this refers to. Is it the start of the contract? The first test firing? The original expected delivery date? The day the initial proposal was submitted? 134.117.219.243 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. The wording was caused by a botched edit by an anon contributor, which was never corrected. I looked up and restored the original wording. Joema 04:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refractive vs. Reflective

I've believe ablative refractive (ceramic) coatings are the sort of thing any feasible upgraded Qassam would have; instead of a mirrored finished. Where as ablatives force the laser to have a increased dwell-on-target time, mirrors are useless unless they can reflect a substantial portion of the incoming energy (which in this case is infrared vs visible light). Under the manufacturing conditions the rockets are made under, it would be easier and probably more effective to procure and transport, say Titanium Dioxide vs polishing the rocket casing. ~~No Account Yet (sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.199.248 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)