5.5 Gen. F-35 ?

a reply to: EartOccupant

There are currently no existing long range laser systems that are deployed in an antiaircraft role. Lasers are great, but they have limitations. They're having problems with the fiberoptic laser that everyone thought was going to be the new great thing, and range has always been a problem for lasers. They work great as a short range defense system, but not so much for long range. The only systems being installed on aircraft right now are for short range IR missile defense.

One of the things that killed the YAL-1A was the fact that to hit a missile in the boost phase, you had to be over hostile territory, near the launch site. Doing that in a 747-400 was just inviting getting shot down.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok, what about close combat ?

Air to air/dogfight.. or ground to air ?

I've seen laser demonstrations, but the amount of time it took to keep focus before destruction was ..I admitt a bit slow...

Then again.. what I see.. does not have to be were technology is.

and thats only lasers.. directed emp or other exotic stuff... ?

( Just thinking out loud )

For a long time. Hit to kill will be the way to go.

I like the Standard 6 but lasers I think are a bit away.

RAB

a reply to: EartOccupant

All of them, currently, require so much power, or are such short ranged, that it's just not worth it. They're looking at HPM weapons on aircraft around the mid-2020s or so, but right now they're only down to a size to fit on a cruise missile sized platform, which is still too big to be useful for anything but flying over a target and hitting it. They were supposed to test CHAMP on an AGM-86 this year, but that's still a pretty big, heavy weapon, even at that size.

They've tested a laser on a C-130H for ground attack, but that's a big laser. They're also talking about putting one on the AC-130J, but again, that's a big weapon.

a reply to: RAB

The more sensors.... The more interference is a weapon

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok, that's raw destruction.

Due to other interests i'm learning a bit about electronics and sensoring...

Wouldn't wel " aimed " signals be effective enough to disrupt plane/missile/guided things to reach their goal? Without the power ( watts / Joules ) ...just the right "frequency " to disrupt their mission ...

( I guess we would be back to throwing stones ; )

a reply to: EartOccupant

That's basically what CHAMP does, but again, you have the range issue. A JASSM has a range of almost 300 miles, while a JASSM-ER has a range of something like almost 600 miles. There isn't a directed energy system out there that could hit the launch platform that far out. They could stop the weapons themselves, but with enough weapons coming at them, they'd be in trouble.

There are several lasers that are operational that are used to stop weapons as they are in the terminal phase. The biggest problem is stopping multiple weapons coming at the same time.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So we are back to numbers....
More.. more.. more..

So basically you are saying we have laser goalkeepers now, but not enough / on the right places... to effectively resist the total power that could be directed at us.

a reply to: EartOccupant

Not even close. You could probably count on one hand the number of different systems that are out there, and the numb yeters of those that are actually in use, would barely require the fingers of your other hand. There are still too many issues involved with lasers to make them truly useful yet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok i get that.

Forget about lasers for a second.

What about interference? Isn't that a whole other ballgame?

Or do you count it the same?

Edit: Did some research on CHAMP and I guess it comes down to directing a signal to a certain place... either brute force or disrupting systems.

You could call that a "laser" in common talk.

a reply to: EartOccupant

The military acronym is DEW. It's largely accepted that means lasers, but it's any kind of energy based system.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok.. excuse me for going wild ..
But what about non-directional interference ?

How far are we there ?

a reply to: EartOccupant

Some systems are farther along than others. They're probably farther along with anti GPS systems than anything else.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Finally something that makes sense ; )
Tnx for thinking along,
let's put it in a declining orbit for today.

Safe transfer

a reply to: Zaphod58


Is there a precedent/analogy, cost-wise, between the Hornet-Super Hornet variant? Or the Eagle-Strike Eagle Variant in a 5.5 F-35 variant?

Obviously, it would be more expensive than either but there is precedence, yes?

Not even close. You could probably count on one hand the number of different systems that are out there, and the numb yeters of those that are actually in use, would barely require the fingers of your other hand. There are still too many issues involved with lasers to make them truly useful yet.

What happened to Metal Storm?
That was supposed to be the next big thing in wide range defense with incoming multiple warheads...

a reply to: Blackfinger

It's not a laser system. There are gun systems out there, but not many laser systems.