Approved Submission LACRAMMS (laser-system countermeasure system for rockets, artilliary, mortar, missiles and shells)

Review in progress.

Overall this article is fairly sound. A couple of small issues. I do not see how a laser system is going to determine the thinnest point of a target. The laser is only going to be bouncing off the exterior. Also what kind of laser is it, is the beam visible or not. etc.

If I may just butt in, (sorry, I know I'm fairly new) but the technology already exists today to measure the thickness of something with a laser gauge. It's fairly complex, but the jist of it is essentially the laser bouncing off a surface and going back to the sensor, little different from the same operating principles as RADAR or SONAR.

http://www.acuitylaser.com/support/thickness-measurement

I can't quote the science of it verbatim, but that website can explain it better than me. It's not unreasonable for the LACRAMMS system to be able to give you an 'in-the-ballpark' estimate of material thickness with a simple red optical laser, especially considering how much more advanced the SARP tech level is to the modern day.

Cheers, and I hope this helps.

The article you referenced does not apply to what this article says it can do. The article you offered talks about measuring objects with thickness being the same as width. It also uses two lasers on oppossite sides of the object in question. This is a weapon system firing lasers at an object. At best it should be using a separate laser for the targeting, range finding and one to actually destroy the target. But the system can not determine the shape, because the laser is going to bounce off and away from the source when it hits most of the projectile. Also you have to consider how much time does the system have do deal with said projectile. If the object is coming straight at the target, then the using the laser range finding on the front of the object you would get an approximation of shape of the front. Also this system should be connected to some sort of RADAR system to let it know an object is coming. Because you can't have the system just constantly sweeping with lasers looking for a target.

I probably should have clarified: Its looking for "stereotypically thin" areas. In practice, the thinnest point of any missile or conal object is just beneath the rim of its nosebone (which is very thick) or the length-ways bodyplate which incurs minimal stress during transit to target.
Determining shape using a laser is actually really really easy: Its identical to how we do it using radar: You have an expected return and a recieved return (which relies on the principle of expected and received return based on caustic diffusion: That 99% of the light does not return as you've stated is a required function for this to work) and by comparing the data you have, you can build values of depth which are both above and beneath which are compensated against some clever programming to build up an optical echo-location of what the target object looks like.

Our lag-times involved here are the capacitors feeding the laser, the intra-laser feed-system which forms the beam and any subtle correction of lenses and of course the biggest bottle-neck, computer control.

I think I need to add somewhere that this depends on a passive detection system, or that our goose knows someones shooting at it: It has a pretty narrow conal vision but can be adjusted like a turret and swept to focus on a specific target based on information fed for other systems.

And actually, you can sweep lasers in such a way. We do it today: The principle is the backbone of Google and DARPA's unmanned vehicle programs because laser-optical return times are much lower than those of radar which has a lower frequency: Meaning it piles up like a spring before bouncing off a target much slower, has a lower velocity and a lower detection/process return because you need to wait longer to recieve the entire thing which as I said is moving slower.

The only issue against this is many types of cathode used for these projects tend to overheat quickly which is an IRL concern. They also have wicked energy requirements: In SARP, I'm surprised we're not all using gamma-emission based radar due to its insane terrahertz frequency response-times over long distances an the higher aperture/imaging resolution.

edit
Appropriate updates have been made, clarifying details requested.