Posted on 12/15/2015 10:35:39 AM PST by Red Badger
A system on the ground is easy. A system in the air is very hard. And a system in the air is not reliable. To fire a laser takes a huge amount of electricity if its to bring down a missile or fighter. And, while the laser may be fast to get to a target, it needs time to relay enough energy to destroy the target.
Actually a laser in space is easier too. Weight is less of an issue. The sun provides lots of energy. And there is no rain or pollution to degrade the ray.
Fighters with lasers capable of taking down another fighter is science fiction, not science.
You haven’t been paying attention.
Iron Beam systems are already road mobile, and they are a half generation behind USA HEL systems.
So mobility isn’t the problem.
HEL and Iron Beam systems take out missiles and artillery shells already today, which is different from knocking out a fighter jet (mass, profile, maneuverability, beam detection, etc.).
So pointing out that current airborne lasers are unlikely to take out another fighter jet means either that you aren’t paying attention, or that you are being deliberately deceptive. Your choice.
NOW...for those paying attention, getting a road-mobile laser system from today (hint: they are already deployed in the field, i.e. “they exist”) into the air by 2030 is a manageable challenge...and something that would probably be for defensive measures such as knocking out anti-aircraft missiles and ack-ack shells.
Noteworthy is that everyone keeps saying that such fighter jets would have to carry other munitions. Perhaps air to air missiles. Perhaps small smart-bombs.
Regardless, mounting *existing* mobile weapons systems onto aircraft has been done ever since the first Browning was loaded onto a Wright Flyer over a century ago.
Prepping an aircraft design today for such a feat by 2030 hardly seems like “science fiction” ... unless you haven’t been paying attention.
I love the F5U.. very cool just wish they let it fly before they broke it up...thought it make a good ground attack turboprop
The requirements for ABM and a fighter are dramatically different.
Agreed. Advanced systems already in the field. And black program development at any given time always seems like science fiction. The leading edge of classified development is probably well beyond these issues.
I have been paying attention. Your flying laser will be a big huge, heavy, expensive, ineffective boondoggle. We are not currently out there replacing bullets and missiles for lasers. We do use lasers for lots of purposes now. But to knock a fighter out of the sky or a to disable a tank, you need a long extension cord. Or a huge battery and you get one shot.
I am sure there is a general and a congressman out there who is gullible enough to ok this thing.
So is a “good spell” a few seconds or a few minutes? It makes a big difference.
You keep mentioning taking out a fighter jet with a laser, which means that you *haven’t* been paying attention.
What’s getting mounted into DANG by 2030 is the currently road-mobile Iron Beam defensive system, which is meant (in DANG configuration) to shoot down anti-aircraft missiles...not fighter jets.
I doubt the writer understands the diffrrence
Well I hope they only fire one, and its slow.
Iron Beam *already* shoots down more than one incoming missile.
You say that you are paying attention...what’s the most recent publication that you’ve read?
Anything since 2010?
It shoots down small drones after it applies a ray for several seconds. Its big and heavy. It takes huge amounts of energy. And it works in perfect whether.
If you are flying along on a sunny day and some slow drones come at you. You can blow them out of the sky as long as there aren’t that many.
If you are a 747 sized aircraft, you can blow larger things out of the sky. But you still have a limit before you need to land and pug in like a Tesla. And I hope no one sees you, because you will be so big and slow that anyone could down you. And again, you need a nice sunny day.
The reality is that you can easily make missiles who’s skin would reflect a laser. So this technology is not the future.
What’s the most recent publication that you’ve read?
Publications mean nothing, they are carefully worded marketing pieces. When you replace bullets and missiles you have something. But now you are just a boondoggle.
If you aren’t reading publications, how are you paying attention?
They don’t teach math or science in journalism schools. They’re electives.....................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.