>The Air Force next month plans to brief industry on a ne

>>31905884
Dakka is dead
long live Pew pew

Nice paywall, shitcock.

>>31905936
>>31905884
Here's a copy-paste:

Air Force to brief industry on defensive laser development for F-22, F-35 and PCA
November 03, 2016 |
Jason Sherman

The Air Force next month plans to brief industry on a new project to ready a speed-of-light defensive weapon for the F-22A Raptor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as well as a planned follow-on fighter capability in an effort that aims to demonstrate a prototype laser pod as soon as 2021.

On Dec. 6, the Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, will outline for industry plans for the "upcoming" acquisition, the Laser Advancements for Next-generation Compact Environments (LANCE), according to a notice published on Federal Business Opportunities Oct. 25.

"The objective of the [briefing] is to provide a timely update to the government-contractor community on the mission and vision of the LANCE project," according to the notice.

The LANCE project -- led by the lab's laser division of the Directed Energy Directorate -- is intended to support a larger project: the Self-Protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD) advanced technology demonstration program. The SHiELD demonstration aims to find a way to make a laser, powered by tens of kilowatts of electricity, function effectively at supersonic speeds by demonstrating system performance under stressing aerodynamic conditions.

Earlier this year, the Air Force asked industry for feedback on its idea for a LANCE project, soliciting "information on industry's capability to advance electrically driven lasers suitable for compact airborne application in an aerodynamic integrated pod-like structure carried on 5th- and 6th-generation tactical aircraft."

>>31905969

The Air Force considers the current fleet of F-22A Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is still in development and is also commencing operation, to be considered 5th generation aircraft. The service is exploring options for a follow-on 6th-generation fighter in the 2030s and plans in 2017 to formally begin assessing options for what is now called a penetrating counterair capability.

"Of particular interest to AFRL are laser technologies expected to be at [Technology Readiness Level] 4 or higher by 2017," states the Feb. 2 description of the notional LANCE project, technically mature enough that the basic components are integrated in a laboratory environment and work together. The Air Force also wants these technologies to have the potential to be integrated into a system model or ready for prototype demonstration in a relevant environment by 2021, the notice states.

"Advanced laser options under investigation are those with size and weight appropriate for integration as part of a complete laser weapon system (beam control, power, thermal control, and integrating structure subsystems) into an aerodynamic integrated pod-like structure carried by a tactical aircraft," the notice states.

Meantime, ARFL in August pushed ahead with a related project, awarding Northrop Grumman a $39 million contract to use a directed-energy system for self-protection in a project dubbed SHiELD Turret Research In Aero Effects (STRAFE).

The STRAFE objective is to design and build a moderate-energy laser beam control system for flight test and demonstration as part of an integrated laser system pod mounted to a tactical aircraft that breaks the sound barrier and reaches supersonic speeds, according to an Air Force summary.

>>31905974

On Nov. 1, W. Mark Skinner, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems vice president for directed energy, said as part of the STRAFE project, the company "is integrating an innovative beam director with proven beam-control technologies to help the Air Force define and successfully demonstrate a laser weapon capability for current and next generation aircraft."

The beam-control system, Skinner explained in a company statement, "characterizes the flight environment for atmospheric disturbances that could distort the laser beam, acquires and tracks incoming targets, determines an aim point for the laser, then 'shapes' and focuses the outgoing beam on the target."

182353

>>31905884

Absolute bullshit. There is no way that an aircraft that size will ever be able to generate enough energy to power weapon-grade laser beam. Same applies to railguns. It's not happening and it never will.

>>31905985
What?

300 kiloWatts is nothing for a turbine driven power system.

>>31905985
>t. vatnik
Thirty years ago we were putting anti-ballistic missile laser weapons on airliners.
We have a laser weapon small enough to use as a defensive deck gun on naval ships now. It's deployed on the USS Ponce.
I can totally believe this will happen in the next decade.

>>31905985
Most fighter engines produce tens of megawatts of kinetic and thermal energy. The F-35B's drive shaft for example delivers 13MW from the engine to the lift-fan, while the main engine still produces some ~20,000lbf of thrust.

Change the F-35B's system to only draw 1MW of power in order to spin a generator (which can have an efficiency anywhere between ~70 and 99% depending on size and design) and you've achieved the energy requirements to power a 150kW laser operating at ~30% efficiency.

>>31906014
http://thebulletin.org/navys-new-laser-weapon-hype-or-reality8326

>>31906012
>>31906014
>>31906043
lol that anon is priceless

>you will never power all that armor and a big gun on a tracked vehicle

>you will never be able to rapidly feed cartridges into a firearm

>you will never X that Y with enough Z

can you just fucken archive the page m8.

File: uQG5Z4b.png (1MB, 3000x1454px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1454px

>>31906043
It's convenient that there is a big, comfy space on the F-35A and C where the lift-fan is to house all that.

Would it be more difficult to fit a laser onto a F-22?

File: 1449464726861.png (751KB, 565x510px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 565x510px

>fighters with laser weaponry

The prospect of future aerial combat becomes more boring by the day.

Just bring the drones already, there will already be no room for skill.

>>31905884
>Fucking lazers
My body is so ready

>>31906089
Definitely, but where there's a will there's a way; maybe they could sacrifice the AIM-9X bays to house ram-air turbines and send power through to the bays they left empty for the cancelled side-facing AESA arrays, where the beam could be generated and perhaps piped through to where they were thinking of mounting an IRST / EOTS.

>>31906138
soon.jpg (in ~15 years)

>>31905985
there will never be a computer smaller than a room! Now excuse me while I load up 58 tapes and several punch cards so I can masturbate. Mmmm Mmmm. That is some good IBM pornography.

>>31906203
Wonder how much room is left over in the design from the start. I remember stories of how they struggled to shed weight during the early LRIPS.

>John, why is there a big hole behind this cover?
>Sean....lasers, dude. Like in the future? What if we want lasers?
>Someone get Sean a fucking raise!

>>31906216
Not all technologies advance equally fast. Battery performance has been only improved very incrementally over the last decades, same with rocket engines, powder guns etc

>>31905985
>>31906012
not sure how night /k/ is up for it but I've had a world buildling idea for awhile.

So the big problem with lasers isn't an energy problem but a power problem. You need electricity for an instant but capacitors or flywheels are heavy. Why not do what we have been doing and keep using explosions? How much power could you get if you take a 25mm or 30mm or 155mm round, fire into into a linear motor beefy enough to stop it, then channel all that electricity into the laser? Does that sound reasonable? Sort of like a reverse railgun.

>>31906260
tfw when they put a merlin in the f22 for a laser

There is a common misconception that lasers have to be MW class to be useful.

>>31906290
>implying that would be lighter that a capacitor.

I love the idea that someone spends time coming up with these acronyms, no matter how obtuse they are

>>31905884

The future is now! There's something about laser weapons that makes me giddy.

>>31905974
>>31905977
The acronyms, they're BREEDING!

>>31906014
you don't understand, the lasers on those planes took up most of the fucking plane and the size is not the optics it is the chemistry part because in order to generate enough power they had to use chemical lasers

I don't think this will be real

>>31906304
in order to do what they want it to do they pretty much have to be senpai

>>31906371

kek

File: Enterprise-Firing.jpg (13KB, 400x303px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 400x303px

Its gonna take some nice tech to actually make it feasible for a fighter to melt tanks with sci fi lasers.

File: Joint strike fighter fuel tank layout BAE.gif (46KB, 710x481px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 710x481px

>>31906250
For the F-35? So long as we're willing to trade fuel tank volume there's plenty. If worst comes to worst there's also the Multi Mission Pod (the F-35's gun pod, minus the gun-relevant openings), which could potentially house part of the system (maybe the laser aperture), although it'd be less than ideal to only have lower hemisphere coverage.

>>31906260
Incrementally sure, but take Tesla's new Powerwall 2; it has double the capacity for the same cost / approximate form factor as the one shown off last year.

>>31906290
Wouldn't be practical; high discharge batteries also aren't that big of a problem; you can get hobby consumer batteries that do 10kW constant or 20kW for ~10 seconds, fit in your hand, have the capacity to discharge for a minute at 10kW and can survive hundreds of cycles. Again, that's just stuff you can buy from HobbyKing.

>>31906371
Welcome to the military

>>31906383
Chemical lasers have always been huge because you need to carry a ton of chemicals, pump systems, feeding tanks, etc. Check out this article on solid state lasers: http://aviationweek.com/technology/general-atomics-third-gen-electric-laser-weapon-now-ready The thing they show off there could likely fit into one of the F-35's bomb bays today; all it's missing is an aperture (turret gimbal and optics).

>>31905974
So...

LANCE=Laser and laser components suitable to the operational requirement

STRAFE=A supersonic-capable pod that contains the LANCE components plus a turret that can aim (and focus, or is that part of LANCE?) the beam at relevant ranges/bearings while traveling at all relevant (including post-mach) speeds

SHiELD=Overall system, fully integrated into C3I/sensor fusion for cuing and operation

Is this correct?

>>31906405
yes I know what a solid state laser is my point was that the limiting factor is power supply

there are actually extremely powerful semiconductor lasers as well but again, power

File: IMG_1624.png (159KB, 364x254px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 364x254px

>>31906096
Grab your buddies

File: X-15_Model_in_Supersonic_Tunnel_-_GPN-2000-001272.jpg (3MB, 2400x2400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2400x2400px

>>31906417
I'm not 110% sure about these, but I believe:

LANCE = as you said

STRAFE = A Northrop Grumman contract to develop a beam control system (allow the missile to be aimed and focused correctly at supersonic speeds.

SHiELD = a tech demo which should integrate STRAFE and LANCE, but being a tech demo I'm not sure it'd be fully integrated with its parent aircraft; it might just be thrown on an F-15E and aimed akin to a TFLIR pod. Another program might then take SHiELD, scale it a bit higher and actually make a system to be procured. Or who knows, maybe SHiELD will be sufficient for self-defense and be fielded as a prototype.

>>31906458
Power supply isn't an issue though; jet engines can deliver megawatts of power, there are generators small / efficient enough to fit in spaces like where the F-35B's lift fan sits, and capacitors / buffer batteries are durable and compact enough to supply a few hundred kW on demand. The main reason they're not flying them today is because the USAF wants to do risk-reduction, and because the optics of shooting a beam accurately through supersonic shock waves isn't easy.

>>31906514
Actually, to be clear on my stance; power supply is an issue in that it's not easy, but it's definitely achievable with today's technologies.

>>31905985
O.K., let me go through the math on this. For those who have seen this before, I apologize in advance.

Let's take a 100KW laser. That's the neighborhood in which USAF has been predicting laser cannons would become militarily relevant for the last 20+ years (seriously, they were talking about this in the mid-90s).

At the time, such a weapon was estimated to be ~10% efficient. Since then, lasers have improved to the point where 30% in a field weapon is not unreasonable, but for now, let's stick with 10%. Let's also assume that the generator (basically, a giant alternator that goes where the lift fan driveshaft would go on a F-35B) is only 50% efficient, whereas they can be made better than that today.

So, our 100KW laser needs 1MW @ 10% efficiency to operate. To be militarily relevant, the laser has to service the target pretty quickly; let's just assume, for a moment, that aircraft and missiles take no more than 3.6 seconds to defeat. Really, it should be shorter than that in order to be useful in a fight, but let's run with that for a second.

3.6 seconds @ 1MW = 3,600,000 joules. Whew, that's a big number.

Wait a second, though... 1 KWh = 1000*60*60=3,600,000 joules.

So, your 10% laser needs 1KWh in electricity to be generated or released from storage at a rate of 1MW. I doubt any type of batteries could discharge that fast and be small enough to carry, but ultracapacitors might, or, you could steal 2MW out of the 13MW of shaft power available to the F-35 and run it through the 50%-efficient generator.

Yeah, that'll work. And remember, 10% (laser) and 50% (generator) are seriously low-balled numbers.

So, yeah, providing raw electrical power to a laser cannon on the F-35 is well within the margins of reality; it's just an engineering challenge to design and build components that meet space and weight requirements, plus developing the 100KW+ laser in the first place.

>>31906216
Several PC pioneer's predicted computers would be small enough for anyone to carry.

>>31906514
I don't know how real of a problem shooting through sonic waves would be. Intuitively the problem would be lensing from the sonic wave due to density differences of air however the differences would be pretty slight as air is near n = 1 index of refraction already

>>31906526
does this factor in Q switching?

File: ADFX-01_Morgan.jpg (49KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1024x576px

So when do I get my Morgan?

>>31906526
I ran out of space to cover the last topic... heat.

Assuming again that the laser is only 10% efficient, that's .9KWh of heat that now is inside the laser components instead of being blown out the back of the engine, which is designed to deal with orders of magnitude more heat. This is a Bad Thing(tm).

The USAF plan has been, for well over a decade, to pump the waste heat into the fuel tanks. Yes, you read that right.

It turns out that 900 watt-hours of heat isn't all that much when spread across a few thousand pounds of fuel. Some of the heat radiates through the skin, raising the IR signature by some infinitesimal amount, and the rest gets fed with the fuel into the engine, where the slightly (~1F) warmer fuel actually burns a little more efficiently (not really enough to matter).

And, of course, if the laser is 30% efficient, it requires 1/3 of the input power, and produces 1/3 of the waste heat... and if the generator is 70% efficient instead of 50% efficient, that reduces the total shaft power needed. Those numbers start dropping fast, and pretty soon, the math becomes not just feasible, but practical.

The bottom line? Yes, Virginia, laser cannons *are* very possible, indeed, and will become practical once the remaining issues (building a laser cannon that is powerful enough and reliable enough, building a pod or housing that can contain and direct it, and figuring out how to do both of those things while at mach speeds).

This is the most intelligent thread on /k/ atm.

>>31906587
This math is agnostic towards pulse formation; it's purely about joules in and joules out.

If anything, Q-switching would affect the number of joules required to service a target; all I have to go by, though, is the decades-long USAF assertion that 100KW output is militarily significant as a weapon.

>>31906138
I doubt this will actually happen

I can't wait to see them banned due the whole "weapons designed to blind people for life" thing.

>>31906290
Wouldn't an expendable canister of chemical fuel be more effective at generating powerful beams of light very quickly?

>>31906405
U tryin to tell me that the future fighter jet is literally 90% fuel tank????

>>31906014

Nah, the Russians are not that far behind when it comes to lasers.

what are the future of missiles? Mass spam of small hit to kill swarms?

>>31905884
I'll believe it when I see it
And it working consistently.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-vs-america-are-laser-weapons-the-key-victory-17115

>>31906754

It is suggested that your average ICBM would require about 10 kilojoules/cm2 to kill it. This would rise to 20 to 30 kilojoules/cm2 with ablative armor, and it would be tripled if the ICBM was spinning on its long axis since the laser couldn't dwell on the same spot 100% of the time.

>>31906754

There are materials that could make them more resilient to laser weapons.

File: VF11_FASTpack_micromissiles.jpg (210KB, 864x591px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 864x591px

>>31906754
>Mass spam of small hit to kill swarms?
Yes.

>heres why you should keep funding us for the next 5 years

File: 004853_10_fig1.jpg (112KB, 1050x603px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1050x603px

What do you guys think of relay mirrors?

They'd enable lasers to reach over the horizon. Maybe you could house a laser in a large jet like a B-1B or B-21, and bounce shots off relay drones closer to the enemy. This would let your expensive shooter jet hang back in safer airspace, and engineering the laser maybe easier, as you wouldn't have to miniaturize stuff to fit on an itty bitty fighter.

There was some buzz on relay mirrors around 2006 ish, but I haven't seen much recent news.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/72099/boeing-demos-relay-mirror-system-for-laser-targeting.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/arms.htm

>>31906813

As any satellite, it would be very vulnerable to interception. Useful against low tech nations, but any nation with ASAT, projectile or laser based, will blow them up easily.

>>31906727
I would imagine but I don't know anything like that.

>>31906727
Chemical lasers are... messy. They require large volumes of really nasty chemicals, and produce equally-nasty waste. It's not remotely portable/disposable like gunpowder-based weapons.

Electricity is far, far easier to use.

>>31906834
What about relays on high flying drones?

What's the status on free electron lasers? They appear to have been put on the back burner in favor of free electron lasers

>>31906750
They are quite far behind on money, however.

>>31906862
What is this I don't even

>>31906892
Well you see, the free electron's are taking the free electron's jeeerbs. But its ok. Trump will build a wall. An electron wall. And its ohm will be great. The greatest in fact. And the Coloumb is gonna pay for it.

>>31906748
Most fighters are 90% fuel tanks, the F-35 is no exception.

We're going back to guns only dogfights, lads! The lasers might be usable against aircraft but its better not to get caught with your pants down while recharging. There's nothing the missilefags can do to stop us!

Stealth? Stealth is useless when you can't make missiles stealthy and lasers shoot them down all the time! Only the toughest, fastest, most balls-to-the-wall fighters can win the air battles of the laser rave future!

>>31906862
Oops brain fart. Let me rephrase

What's the status on free electron lasers? They appear to have been put on the back burner in favor of solid state lasers

File: LMJ-tour-big.jpg (85KB, 900x560px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 900x560px

I believe this could happen, but what about the range of this laser?
Even if it's a 300 Kw laser, the effective range will not surpass 2km.

At that distance, the F-35 would be destroyed by hostile AA

>>31906587
You can see from the picture how much light refracts at supersonic speeds; combine that with the fact that the waves will change angles with airspeed, attitude, aperture elevation and bearing, it becomes a not-so-trivial problem, especially when you're trying to hit something thin like a missile at several nautical miles or further.

>>31906748
In general, if there's a space that doesn't require maintenance access, it becomes a fuel tank. when it tanks are full, it's nearly 40% fuel by weight.

>>31906940
While true, the F-35 has a greater fuel fraction than most western fighters; the F-35 carries more fuel than the F-22 for example.

>>31906978
The Navy was leading the way with them, but dropped their development program on them; I'm guessing they were either just too hard to scale up at the time, or had some other issue (reliability, etc).

>>31907033
By what reasoning do you get 2km from? And besides that, how does the enemy AA destroy the F-35? With missiles? They'll be shot out of the sky. With guns? The laser will kill or mission kill the enemy first.

>be russian
>shoot missile at jet
>jet shoots at missile

Why even live?

>>31907033
>uss ponce, 30kw laser, 1 mile.
>f35, 200 kw laser, anon says only 1 mile

DOES NOT COMPUTE

File: 17[1].gif (5KB, 478x306px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 478x306px

>>31907079
Not to mention that the atmosphere is pretty thin at the altitudes jets fly at.

>>31907093
Hell, the lazer does not need to even blow up the missle, just fuck the seeker.

This has enormous implications for CBG defense.

A CAP of f-35s with such a pod could, in an attack, fly around and zap any missiles it can (everything from mach 1.5 to subsonic cruise missiles, to mach 2-3 on a head on pass).

Of course, planes can already do this, but they have to expend limited missiles to do it.

>>31907111
Better to just put the lasers on the ships themselves and let them take care of it. They can spare a lot more energy, fuel and weight for a larger laser.

Of course, the other implication is that WE RAILGUN BATTLESHIPS NOW BABY

>>31906043
>megawatts

That is so much bullshit. Sauce for numbers?

>>31907186
I can't find a source for 13MW at the moment, but here's one saying 29,000 shaft horsepower, which equates to about 21.6MW: https://web.archive.org/web/20140413151529/http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost:d3c882b1-9bb6-4091-8262-a65f82cb171c

>>31907200
Another for 28,000 horsepower: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19133

File: thumbnail_5100043977087473621.jpg (32KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x300px

>>31907156

They said it can't be done!

>>31907156
No, the laser is going on the planes regardless. Why would you not take care of far off vampires with the cap? Its already done today.

>>31907052
>With missiles? They'll be shot out of the sky.

Oh right,

>3 SAMs coming at you at 1km/s
>laser can react in 2 seconds to destroy them

>>31907079
>uss ponce, 30kw laser, 1 mile.
I just checked it, and it's 50Kw, so the 300 Kw laser will have range of 6 mi.
That's still small range.

And lasers are not missiles, the atmosphere would not make such difference

>>31907246
>The LaWS is designed to be used against low-end asymmetric threats. Scalable power levels allow it to be used on low-power to dazzle a person's eye to non-lethally make them turn away from a threatening posture, and increase to 30 thousand watts (30 kW) to fry sensors, burn out motors, and detonate explosive materials.

6 miles is also about 10 km away, which is plenty of time.

>>31907257
Naaah, I'm still not convinced that it could be used as a defensive or offensive weapon. Only if they made more powerful lasers

>>31907233
Correct, I actually didn't mean to imply that the fighters shouldn't have lasers too. However, their energy should be reserved for missiles coming at them while leaving the ships to do most of the work in defending themselves.

The fighters will be the primary line of defense against tactical nuclear strikes though since they can intercept further away from the naval formation.

>>31907246
It would take more than 2 seconds because the aircraft could be flying away from the position and it takes time for the missile to get up to speed out of the tube. If the defender has no lasers of his own, it will have to deal with guided munitions coming from the aircraft at more than 2 km out, so waiting until it comes close isn't necessarily an option.

>>31907279
I dont think the vampires will be shooting missiles at the fighters.

Of course, you are implying that there is enemy fighters inbound, then of course the cap will go and intercept that.

I was thinking strictly vamps.

>>31907278
>Naaah, I'm still not convinced that it could be used as a defensive or offensive weapon.

Its litterally going to be used as an defenseive measure.

>>31907279
Since the aircraft is just 2km away, I thought that only manpads could be used.

But how about patriot missiles or S-400?
Those go mach 4-6.
It's more than 2km/s, an F-35 top speed is mach 1.6

With all this in mind, will there be some convention written as to not use these to blind enemy (human) combatants?

I can see it possible to use rapid mirrors (like a video projector's DLP) to scan large arcs of fire rapidly. It wouldn't need much time on a retina near 100kW.

Best thread on /k/ tonight btw. Dragon, thanks (as always) for not being a faggot.

>>31907476
scanning with lasers and de-focusing them to a larger area is going to be the same in effectiveness. only de-focusing is much less mechanically complex.

>>31907099
indeed damaging the seeker makes the missile absolutely worthless. you need good auto-aim for that the missiles will be doing this silly dance they do against ships as they near a plane if this becomes a thing. it's also possible they will be covered with mirror on the front and get target data from the plane that fired them.

>>31907662
But then it wouldn't be anywhere as cool.

I vote for diffracting, beam-splitting crystals to create the Scatter Laser Cannon.

>>31907476
No probs; there's already a convention written as to not use them to blind combatants though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

In short, if you use the weapons specifically to blind, you're committing a war crime. If your laser is designed to kill, but the enemy escapes with his life, but not his vision, then you're legally fine.

Meh
I liked chinese nuclear general more

>>31907079
>diffraction isnt a thing

Lasers are a meme.

Even in space, Lasers wont be useful for anything but close in defense. And even with 300kw, you have to burn long and hard at an BVRAAM that is coming with Mach 4 at you.

I suggest people to play Children of a Dead Earth, a realistic space warfare simulator, and see how shitty lasers are, even in the airless void of space.

Well, then I'd just launch two or three PL-15s at every F-35. Not that this isnt already standard procedure...

>>31906628
This assumes full fueltanks for the duration of the flight.
half a kwh of energy being dumped into 100lb of fuel makes it a hell of a lot hotter than 1000lb of fuel.

>>31906754
radar scrambling drones.

>>31906628
>.9KWh of heat that now is inside the laser components instead of being blown out the back of the engine
thank god you are literally surrounded infinite amount of high pressure and high speed cooling agent.

>>31907476

The British deployed dazzling lazers in the Falklands War, though they didn't get to use them.

>>31905985
They don't have the tech today but it should happen in time.

>>31906546
Yeah but the retarded anon who said it's impossible isn't a pioneer, he's what the strawman represents: a moron who says "never" without providing a single sensible justification just because he can't see it happening with his limited mind.

>>31906813
Wouldn't work

>>31906862
So you'd rather have a particle accelerator? Impractibru

>>31907052
I'm still not sure the problem with supersonic speed is real bro.

>>31907905
This
In order for the space meme mirror to be useful you would need a huge diameter laser and a huge diameter mirror otherwise you end up with a very wide beam at the target as if you simply shined a laser on the moon or something

>>31908144
This "retarded anon" has a degree in optics

This isn't like Moore's law, the size and efficiency of the optics do not shrink and improve because physics prevents that

Likewise batteries and capacitors don't obey Moore's law, they would take up lots of space

The cost (not talking money) to put a laser that could effectively do what they want is extremely high since lasers have really shitty energy conversion from input power to output and have issues with diffraction at long range necessitating bigger lenses- look at the size of the yal test bed optics turret, it's fucking huge

You would be destroying the target by ablation with a pulsed output but like someone else said what's to stop everyone from putting infrared reflective coatings on everything? (Did not agree with the part about spinning, if you do a pulsed output it probably wouldnt matter the pulses can be super fast)

>>31908241
*I'm also not the same person from the beginning of the comment tree but another person that doesnt think it is practical

You can probably generate the energy but it's the rest I'm talking about

File: C&C_Generals_King_Raptor.jpg (11KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x200px

>>31905884
WE KING RAPTOR NOW BOYS

>>31905884
We CnC generals zero hour now?

>>31908241
Well, this anon is calling you out on bullshit about your degree, as well as this anon having worked in the military industrial complex around several salable direct energy projects. What the fuck was your degree in optics on, because that's a pretty vague statement.

A battery would not be used, a bank of super capacitors would be. A battery would not be the only power source, a variant of an integrated drive generator being driven by the turbine engine would be. You use fiber optics and stack many small lasers. You use one laser that is fired first to judge atmospheric conditions,then tune your other lasers accordingly.

Im going to just keep ramming shit down your throat now.

https://defensesystems.com/articles/2014/03/07/darpa-excalibur-high-energy-laser.aspx
http://www.geek.com/news/darpas-prototype-excalibur-laser-successfully-zaps-target-7-kilometers-away-1587208/

that is old new. old fucking news.

>>31908390
>a bank of super capacitors would be
probably not enough tho, you are better off using mechanical/centrifugal capacitors they output dat amp that you need for energy weapons.

>>31906721
>Burns off the face completely
>Caring about blinding effects

>>31906014

>uss ponce

Wew lad

>>31908241
>what's to stop everyone from putting infrared reflective coatings on everything?

I love when people keep saying this as if it's a good reason not to into laser weapons. What's to stop them? Cost, obviously. Even if a weapons system is defeated by countermeasures, forcing your opponents to develop, equip, and deploy those countermeasures can make it worth the cost. Especially in the case of lasers - what are you going to do, put reflective coatings over your seeker heads?

Can you even into arms race?

File: GenZH_Granger_Victory.png (160KB, 331x327px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 331x327px

>>31905884
My body is ready.

Time to change my last name to Granger, and join the Air Force!

>>31906403
Laser != Phaser you fucking scrub

>>31906290
>So the big problem with lasers isn't an energy problem but a power problem.
>aircraft engine has 30000 kW shaft power
>power is the problem

>>31908390
engineering

you sound like a mechanical or electrical engineer

do you really think that shit would be realistic in a real world environment? do you really think you could maintain the appropriate degree of calibration and alignment or that it would even be practical? it looks like that would require alignment between adjacent lasers of about 25 fucking microradians for the range they quote. how do you propose that is done in a real world environment where temperatures change? that would be pretty difficult using optomechanics and optics

>>31908819
>implying it would be more cost effective to be putting these extremely expensive laser turrets on f35's versus just coating missiles

>>31908255
>>31908273
>>31908834

We Control the Skies

>>31908906
so are you going to constantly sacrifice engine performance to use your laser less than 1% of the time? because I highly fucking doubt you'll be able to put in some kind of clutch for your generator

>>31908945
>F-35B literally has fan clutch
Also you can use generator with electromagnet induction

File: GenZH_Granger_Mugshot.png (105KB, 250x247px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 250x247px

>>31905884
We General Granger now

>>31908981
that too will sacrifice power in the end, but i guess you almost never run a jet at full thrust and you also don't have to constantly power the lasers only for short bursts.
not sure if the speed sacrifice is larger than what the machinegun operating slows on the plane...

>>31907764
Kek. Poor abdul, never gonna see the plane that makes him burst into fire....

>>31908984
LETS PUT ON AN AIRSHOW

File: C&C Generals Laser General.jpg (19KB, 332x327px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 332x327px

>>31908984
Hey Granger... I see you can't hack it without my specialty lasers

>>31908981
I'm unaware as to how the fan clutch works but I am presuming it works at lower engine outputs and probably not when you're flying at sanic the hedgeheg speeds

>>31909060
probably simply turns the vertical fan on to the main drive shaft and off.

File: 1347324768756.jpg (66KB, 427x421px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 427x421px

>>31909057
Lets see your lasers power shit when I carpet bomb your power plants

>>31909077
yes... that is the obvious part

I am speaking about the non-obvious like the actual design and the range of engine speeds it can turn on

File: 5075923288399012.jpg (7KB, 180x177px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 180x177px

>>31909080
My simulations tell me you're the faggot!

>>31906014
The Ponce's LaWS is not capable of being used as a deck gun yet. Too low powered. Navy thinks it needs ten times the power in order to shoot down anti ship missiles

>>31906711
What, drones or lasers?

File: LiftSystem[1].jpg (654KB, 3424x1634px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 3424x1634px

>>31909096
The driveshaft is spinning all the time and is connected to the low-pressure turbine (the rearward 1 of 2 turbines; the last stage before the afterburner section).

That low-pressure turbine has variable-geometry blades (they can tilt). In forward flight, they're feathered and they don't absorb much energy. During transition, they start to increase their pitch and catch more of the engine exhaust, spinning the drive shaft at a higher RPM and with more force.

At a certain speed, the clutch engages (it's a fancy dry carbon-on-carbon design, similar to a high-end disk brake) and the gearbox and lift-fan start spin up.

Plenty more info in this PDF: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=23301

>>31908984
Heheh general, ever see a raptor, up close?

heh heh heh

>>31909203
cool, thanks senpai-senpai

>>31906138

>missile spam at gigantic distances
>laser spam against missiles
>planes then engage in extreme manouvers impossible for human pilots or fuck off

we live in an 80's anime

File: magspace.ru_post[1].jpg (117KB, 1018x541px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1018x541px

>>31905884
>speed-of-light defensive weapon
So, they just called IR-jammer with fancy word to make it sound like sci-fi thing.

>>31907476

how about using them to incinerate arabs where they stand?

(relatively) painless kebab.

>>31906383
it was a chemical laser you fucking mongoloid retard

look up YAL-1 before you talk shit about it you fucking waste of human life

holy shit you are fucking dumb if you think we're still using CHEMICAL lasers

kys

>>31909666
congrats on your trips retard but you misunderstand my fucking point, the size was coming from the POWER SOURCE WHICH IN THAT CASE WAS CHEMICAL BUT WOULD ALSO BE LARGE IF IT WAS ELECTRICAL

File: hqdefault (1).jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

Does it make popcorn?

File: ADF-01_Falken_(Laser).jpg (313KB, 834x626px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 834x626px

>>31906606
More of a Falken man myself.

>>31906750
>Nah, the Russians are not that far behind when it comes to lasers.

They literally do not have a DEW program.

>>31906096
ITS TIME

>>31909856

Except they do.

>>31907937
Actually, no, it doesn't. The heat would still be moved away from the laser and to other parts of the aircraft, from which it would still be cooled by the outside air.

>>31908087
Correct. That's ultimately where the heat goes. Getting it away from the laser faster just means that you can fire faster, which is a very useful thing.

>>31906290
chemical lasers are a thing.

>>31906397
a precise and fast enough laser aimed at a infrared seeker could be useful far below MW class

>>31910605
yeah sure if you have an avacs to put it on.

>>31910734
i mean a boeing e3

>>31910784
>small boats
>tens of kW

Damn, I wouldn't want to be one to be roasted by a laser while on a fucking boat.

>>31907911
>a realistic space warfare simulator

Are you for real

>>31908819
truth is you don't even need ir seekers to lock onto a target that is illuminating itself for you with a powerful laser. you can home in on he laser beam.

>>31908834
>Shitty trigger discipline.
>Not the ever fuckable General Leang.
Filthy casual.

>>31909694
the power source is already there for electrical

it's called the jet engine

>Can't even develop the raptor on time without major budget problems/serious problems
>Now wants to build lasers
ok

>>31909525
How exciting. Not.

There will never be another fighter pilot to earn glory by his own skill in war between developed nations, pilots will become glorified backseat drivers.

>>31912033
War isn't a sport, or a game

>>31908925
Hit the nail on the head. And yes. Yes I do think that shit is applicable in the real world environment.You have various degrees of capability, just like with flight.

The higher up you get, in particular above the clouds, the less issues you are going to have. I wont get into countermeasures that will get developed like "dust generators" as we can go that road all day.

At the lower levels of the atmosphere you are going to likely have sensor fusion with very few lone wolf platforms working on their own, this will allow for more sensor fusion. In particular we are going to start seeing more and more sensor fusion from the "big" sources, such as weather satellites and ground stations. If anything they will be more important than ever.

No shit man. I like you, you seem to know your stuff. You should get a job in the defense industry. There really are only two spots now, those inside, and those outside. Better to be inside man.

>In the future ships will constantly be puffing out smoke and dust to diffuse lasers

What a bleak future.

>>31909169
Drones. Machines have their own shortcomings that will inevitably be taken advantage of in conflict.

File: 1477070089533.gif (3MB, 280x250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 280x250px

>>31908255
>>31908273
>>31908834
>>31908934
I came in here specifically for this shit.

>>31905884
OH BOY!
>more embezzlement of funds and disaster-level projects like the F-35
>more $50,000 hammer contracts to fill

>>31911279
>you can home in on he laser beam.
Which makes it even easier for the missile to be completely fried? It's a catch 22.

>>31908925

Coating missiles in what, Space Magic? There are no x-ray mirrors.

>>31905905
There's no pew pew, it just lights up.

>>31912796
yeah we should spend that money on Google welfare and free education for libtards

>>31911279
Good point. After all, it's not as if the laser can be turned off or pointed somewhere else once the seeker has been disabled.

>>31908925
>versus just coating missiles
Just the missiles, eh? So you're not going to protect your airplanes, drones, radars, ships, tanks, trucks, infantry, ground installations, or anything else? Just the missiles?

And of course the extra weight added by the anti-laser coatings isn't going to impose any penalties on performance, right?

File: command and conquer 3 hot kane date.png (875KB, 600x698px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 600x698px

So, Orcas when? I want my fucking Orcas

File: 547e67773b7c8_-_extreme-machines-boeing-f-a-18f-super-hornet-lg.jpg (28KB, 475x315px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 475x315px

>>31907206
>>31907200
I keep trying to tell people about the laser hornet.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-comparison-tests/reviews/a18787/extreme-machines-boeing-fa-18f-super-hornet/

>>31908255
WATCH THE SKIES, IVAN, WE'RE GONNA PUT ON AN AIR SHOW!


>>31906606
>>31906468
>>31906096
Belkan Spess Magic, fucking finally.

>>31909812
Remove FALKEN remove FALKEN
Forneus Master Race

>>31913550
>Orcas
>not sticking to superior Venoms
Remove GDI

File: x49-3.jpg (185KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 800x500px

>>31906096
>>31906606
>>31909812
>Pre-Corporate War aircraft
LOL

>>31915940
>Liking the Nightmeme
We all know Nemo was just a simulation

>>31911279
> Missile homes in on the laser.
> Laser increases output to the hundreds of kilowatt range
> Missile seeker receptors completely fried

sounds good.

File: ecn46Er.gif (1MB, 750x324px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 750x324px

we amarr now?

>>31916030
I didn't knew battleships could fly.

>>31906961
no they aren't lasers on gimbals or turrets or some shit sort of kill dog fighting even more.

>>31916477
Not enough to damage or destroy armored full-size aircraft while fending off missile pokes at the same time. Without the need for stealth they are free to coat that craft in whatever ablative material and use however powerful engines they like to move a heavily armored fighter. Only cannons will have enough punch to do anything within a reasonable timeframe.

>>31910873
it only kills the engine with focused beam not the entire boat.
megawatts are not enough to destroy a small boat or cook the crew.

>>31906650
Bloody fuck
I had no idea we had intelligent retards here

>>31916567
If the enemy is trying to dogfight with you, you're not dealing with missiles (or maybe you are, but it's a wonder that you've failed to take down a fighter that old that it doesn't use HOBS missiles).

Powerful engines and heavy ablative materials aren't free either, they kill your range, make you heavier, which kind of ruins your ability (and confidence) to dogfight.

You're also relying on the idea that no part of their aircraft is vulnerable, so either they're flying blind and are just going to fly on by you, or they have either a canopy of sensor apertures which can be burned through. Hell, where do their cannon rounds come from? Melt their muzzle and see what happens then.

Lastly, if you plan on making a brand new airframe to be very laser-resistant and have reasonable kinematics, you're going to have to deal with next-next-gen lasers like free electron lasers that can just tune their frequency to burn through your armor.

>>31916973
>If the enemy is trying to dogfight with you
No, WE charge into a dogfight and force them to act, possibly with current-gen stealth fighters which give up some performance in favor of being hard to see at range. Otherwise both sides hold distance in a standoff except whoever has the lasers is basically invulnerable. Fights with a lower tech country is still much more likely than a war with countries with similar tech (because they have nukes anyway).

>You're also relying on the idea that no part of their aircraft is vulnerable, so either they're flying blind and are just going to fly on by you, or they have either a canopy of sensor apertures which can be burned through. Hell, where do their cannon rounds come from? Melt their muzzle and see what happens then.
You cover the sensors and guns and have redundancy everywhere. No glass canopy. Sensor fusion with the squadron means that a plane can fly blind with a wireframe computer simulation of the outside world in the event that it is completely blinded. Armored covers on the guns and laser turrets only retract when necessary.

>>31917013
>No, WE charge into a dogfight and force them to act
...why?

>You cover the sensors and guns and have redundancy everywhere.
Cover them with what? Slabs of ceramic? And again, you're talking about a hypothetical aircraft that wouldn't see entry to service for 20 years. You also assume that with all that armour, you'll somehow have a maneuverability advantage against someone who doesn't.

>>31917068
>...why?
To force fat, slow, pudgy aircraft in the vein of the F-35 into an fight where the faster and more agile aircraft is at the advantage. I mean, you could just burn them one by one with the whole squadron's lasers, but then you better have enough fuel reserved for any heavier support or bombardment aircraft that is probably the main target of the engagement anyway.

>Cover them with what? Slabs of ceramic?
Just enough ablative armor to counter enemy lasers and give it a slightly better buffer against fragmentation and cannon rounds. It is only heavily armored by relative standards.

>>31917145
So rather than fire missiles from afar at a target that has no stealth and limited ability to sense or employ EW, you'd instead fly all the way over to it and spend a couple thousand pounds of fuel in a dogfight, while simultaneously alerting the enemy to your location, narrowing your situational awareness and putting yourself further into the NEZ of the enemy's weapons?

At least with the lasers you're only burning slightly more fuel than in cruise.

>It is only heavily armored by relative standards.

Sure, and a soldier being given just enough armor to cover their entire body is only heavily armored by relative standards.

>>31917410
The new aircraft is under the assumption that it may also be going up against an enemy with lasers some of the time. Missiles at that point are wasted space and specializing the craft around a single weapon (autocannon) is more efficient. That's what the armor is for; in those kinds of equal fights it has to survive long enough to attack the enemy with a weapon that the laser turrets can't render useless and fast enough to not just end up with two opposing squadrons who are completely burnt and blinded. That last situation would be real awkward.

>>31917448
>it may also be going up against an enemy with lasers some of the time.

Okay

>Missiles at that point are wasted space and specializing the craft around a single weapon (autocannon) is more efficient.

And more expensive as a fleet; what does it do against the majority of fighters that have missiles? Or are you saying that anti-laser plane also has lasers? If so, why not just use that supposedly super-effective ablative armor on missiles?

>>31917470
>Or are you saying that anti-laser plane also has lasers?
Oh, clarification needed then. This hypothetical fighter has laser turrets and cannons. The lasers are reserved for anti-missile duty and are only manually unlocked for anti-aircraft work when it is the right situation to use and abuse it. The cannons are still their primary weapon to take things down quickly.

>If so, why not just use that supposedly super-effective ablative armor on missiles?
I'm not getting the reasoning here.

>>31917500
>I'm not getting the reasoning here.
Nothing's truly laser-proof, especially if your opponent can tune the frequency of their laser or just uses a secondary MASER, so why risk your entire aircraft when you can send a missile that'll be quicker, more agile, expendable and have a lesser impact on your flight and combat performance?

>>31917545
>so why risk your entire aircraft when you can send a missile that'll be quicker, more agile, expendable
Because in the age of lasers, you are spending millions of dollars a pop for zero effect on target. Once everyone advanced has sufficient laser coverage, I am predicting that missiles become effectively obsolete.

So your only other options are to engage in mass coordinated lasing matches, trying to snipe each other with railguns, or going in and blasting them with cannons, or maybe if you're totally nuts you toss a tactical nuke into the airspace and hit everyone that way. There are no viable missile weapons here unless you are willing to spend fat wads of cash on crazy large uninterceptable masses of micro missiles; those will probably have relatively poor range though.

We will have to fully commit to aerial fights once again, just like old times.

>>31917597
>>31917545
>>31917500
Wait hold on, am multitasking too much and didn't read that last part correctly.

The reason why placing armor on the missiles isn't worth it is simply because it won't have as much thermal capacity as a large plane will have. The square cube law is actually an advantage here. Just like for aircraft, the more armor you place on the missiles the slower they are, and the more engine you put on it to compensate the bigger (and easier) a target it will be. The effects on the flight characteristics of a small missile is going to be a lot larger than adding the weight to a fighter. After a certain point it may be too clumsy and too heavy of a missile to be practical.

For a manned aircraft the armor's job will be to absorb some of the heat and help transfer it across the rest of the plane and fuel to reduce the laser's effects, then be ejected once it has reached capacity.

>>31917667
Except the purpose of ablative armor is not to absorb energy, it's to insulate against it and dissipate it. The Space Shuttle didn't survive re-entry by being able to store massive amounts of heat in its fuselage, it survived by having its ceramic lower skin insulate it against heat and ablate (have particles tear away when they got too hot).

A missile would only have to survive a single lasing, the square cube law means that it can carry a thicker relative layer of armor, and by not having to fly multiple times it can use a rocket motor that overcomes the challenge of being significantly heavier. Not having to fly multiple times also means it's okay if it's structure is weakened (to a non-critical extent) and by being unmanned it doesn't have to worry about keeping part of the structure at <100F. Targeting will still be an issue, but there's no reason you can't use the same techniques planned for a ceramic fighter.

>>31917597
>Because in the age of lasers, you are spending millions of dollars a pop for zero effect on target.
Reminder that modern missiles like the AIM-120D don't need any kind of target-observable EM emissions until so close that they can't react.

Even previous-gen models have 80% of kill shots getting the target inside the NEZ before the target has any idea the missile has been fired.

>>31911877
Lange was a loser who is the stereotype of the Chinese: Stealing everyone else's shit because it is better than yours.

>>31905884
Chair force wastes billions of dollars on planes that are slightly better than the last one they spent billions on

>>31919356
>better
>waste

Are you enjoying the rock-powered central heating fire in your cave?

>>31917145
>To force fat, slow, pudgy aircraft in the vein of the F-35

Just a shitposter, stop responding to this anon seriously.

>>31907663
Why not have a tandem seeker/datalink for the sake of redundancy?

>>31920641
AIM-120D has both an LPI two-way datalink for primary guidance and a radar seeker head for terminal.

Wouldn't be better to use big aircraft , that way you have more space and can put more of them, perhaps even an offensive one? Or perhaps use them as a dedicated (all kind of) missile interception.

>>31917774
Still infinitely more fuckable.

>>31915940
>>31915940
>>31915940
FUCKING OUROBOROS GET OUT