fighter jets with lasers are closer than you might think.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

i know there is no "air" in space but there are particles.... and the more velocity one gaines the more influence these particles have...... so once the particles start to become our limiting factor instead of our engines.... we need
to remove them from our itended path to gain more speed right?

originally posted by: dennisarends
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

i know there is no "air" in space but there are particles.... and the more velocity one gaines the more influence these particles have...... so once the particles start to become our limiting factor instead of our engines.... we need
to remove them from our itended path to gain more speed right?

I think we are so far away from that level of technology it's (in my opinion) pointless to down the road of trying to deflect particles, because once we have the technology to travel at the speeds we are talking about we will be so much more advanced that there will probably be far better methods.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Would some particles be ingested to be used as fuel?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Would some particles be ingested to be used as fuel?

I don't know of any technologies being pursued that would ingest particles for fuel. Although it was great fun to watch on Stargate Universe

Found this..www.spacewar.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Nickn3

Kinds that are really really classified and accidentally kill observers during tests.

Porta-proteus would be both terrifying and entertaining.

a reply to: Bedlam

God wouldn't it though?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
LM apparently has or believes they soon will have a fusion generator that will fit in a truck, so I imagine it would also fit in a plane, and be able to power some pretty impressive lasers.

You can also grab some really impressive power from the exhaust of the jet, if you don't mind slowing it down.

Or you can use the hot, ionized, high speed gas coming out of the jet and maybe lase the thing directly. There's a patent for that.

Biggest problem is surely size and weight of the power centers needed to power a LASER (yes, it should be capitalized - it's an acronym, not a wordm and yes, it's an "S", never a "Z").

Naval ships have LASERs because they have a nuclear reactor on board capable of generating the massive amounts of power needed for this type of weapon.

Where are you going to put a nuclear reactor on a warplane?

a reply to: babybunnies

The only ships with nuclear reactors on board are carriers and submarines. The vast majority of the fleet is turbine powered.

a reply to: Zaphod58


After the jets are hooked up!



You might like the ending of this one.

a reply to: Bedlam

Mumm...deep fried with a side of graser.

a reply to: randyvs

HA! That's funny as hell.

Yawn Lasers are so 1970,s...Get your head next to a rail gun and watch that puppy fly...

a reply to: Blackfinger

The next gen. surface war ships well have both as their first line weapon systems. Each will have their own niche.

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: Blackfinger

The next gen. surface war ships well have both as their first line weapon systems. Each will have their own niche.

What are the latest specs,last I heard was flat trajectories out to 14 kms...

a reply to: Blackfinger

I'm not sure the range at a flat trajectory but it is able to reach to horizon in 6-7 seconds at mach 7+ and has about twice the muzzle energy as a equivalent sized powder round. If they are able to track and target effectively they can get to the incoming threat much quicker than any ship defensive system (with the exception of the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3) and way more cost effective too. They recently test the air burst feature of the rounds for use against airborne targets.
This weapon, along with lasers that have already proven themselves effective against airborne as well as surface ship targets will make for a pretty good ship borne air defense system at a fraction of the cost as current gen missiles.

www.ga.com...

a reply to: Sammamishman

A mach 7 airburst would be like hitting a re enforced steel wall correct?

a reply to: yuppa

It would have a devastating effect, that is for sure. There is a LOT of kinetic energy with combined (projectile and threat closing speed) of mach 9-10.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Biggest problem is surely size and weight of the power centers needed to power a LASER (yes, it should be capitalized - it's an acronym, not a wordm and yes, it's an "S", never a "Z").

Naval ships have LASERs because they have a nuclear reactor on board capable of generating the massive amounts of power needed for this type of weapon.

Where are you going to put a nuclear reactor on a warplane?

One solution might be to feed the capacitor bank with a generator coupled to the aircraft turbine. The F-35B engine is the best example.


In a chilean national newspaper was published an interview to the admiral of the chilean army and former member of the governing junta Jose Toribio Merino. In it he relates that he was invited by the US Navy to a demonstration of a laser cannon. He detailed that what most surprised him that there was no noise and all I saw was the ship in flames and sinking.

The publication of this interview was in the mid 80s.