Originally posted by Wildbob77
I think this is the same as this post.

It is.


I don't bother much with the other forums on here though... apart from space exploration once in a while.



Anyhoo, this has serious connotations for aircraft and air warfare. Unless you have significiant shielding of all electronics, once your spotted by shipborne radar, your probably dead.

Maneuverability is useless, speed is useless.


Would an airborne laser ever have the power to serious challenge a laser carrying surface ship? I very much doubt it.


This could potentially see the end of the aircraft carrier as a naval force and a reversion to the old capital ships of the past.

Aircraft would still be useful for force projection over land (especially 3rd world countries without advanced air defence systems). But entirely useless for sea denial (of opfor).

Originally posted by solidshot
The laser may have the power to destroy a missile but does it have the ability to track one? especially in heavy sea's.

Radar will track...


If AEGIS can detect and deal with sea-skimmers now... how do you think it would fare with a zero response time?


Initially, I was thinking the laser would replace CIWS - and radar can definitely track the incoming missiles at these kind of ranges.

Originally posted by kilcoo316





Radar will track...


If AEGIS can detect and deal with sea-skimmers now... how do you think it would fare with a zero response time?

Not quite what i meant, i assume these lasers will be turret based? if so then they will have to rotate and elevate? will they be able to do this at a fast enough speed to keep a missile or aircraft within it's sights?

Originally posted by solidshot
if so then they will have to rotate and elevate?

Oh god no!

Manual steering of beams is sooo last century!


Solid state lasers are the equivalent of AESA on steroids.




As for can they rotate/elevate quick enough... what difference would there be between rotating/elevating a laser and AAA?

So you're basically saying that all hypersonic missiles, like the Russian Kh - 31 and Kh - 22, are on the verge of obsolescence because hypersonic (Mach 2.7 - 4.0) speed on parabolic trajectories suddenly matter for naught? Through clouds and air humidity?

I say it's as much a pipe dream and waste of money as starwars was.

Fire one more missile than the amount of lasers on the ship.

Originally posted by SonyADbis
So you're basically saying that all hypersonic missiles, like the Russian Kh - 31 and Kh - 22, are on the verge of obsolescence because hypersonic (Mach 2.7 - 4.0) speed on parabolic trajectories suddenly matter for naught? Through clouds and air humidity?

Yup.

Fry the electronics and the thing will spiral out of control.

If its on a parabolic path, it can be tracked from hundreds of miles away. Engaged tens of miles away and neutralised long before it gets near the ship.



Thinking about the whole concept more, I believe a two tiered system incorporating rail guns as the initial long range interceptor and lasers as the close in defence would be a more logical progression.

Eventually lasers will increase in range to supplement, or even replace rail guns.

Originally posted by SonyADbis
I say it's as much a pipe dream and waste of money as starwars was.

The problem with star wars was it had to be built light... to get into high altitude positions. The power source was a major issue.

Obviously on a ship, this is not a significant problem.

Originally posted by C0bzz
Fire one more missile than the amount of lasers on the ship.

The non-reliance on any finite supply of munitions is one of the key strengths of the system.


I suppose the only reliance is on power... but its not likely the ship will run out of fuel, is it?

A laser, unlike a missle, is a straight, "line-of-sight" weapon; it cannot follow the curvature of the Earth.

A missle can be fired at it target from miles away, below the horizon line, and track its way to a target.

A laser must be able to optically engage its target to be effective.


The effectivenes of a laser can therefore be minimized by limiting the amount of time the laser has to achieve an optical "lock" on its target.


Laser counter-measures include shielding (enveloping plasmas can be effective), hardening (mirror coatings have been tested), and minmized exposure (high-velocity) flight profiles.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Fry the electronics and the thing will spiral out of control.

How are you going to fry the electronics on an air to ground aircraft launched missile doing mach 4 that uses inertial navigation, datalink updates and radar homing for final trajectory.

Originally posted by kilcoo316If its on a parabolic path, it can be tracked from hundreds of miles away. Engaged tens of miles away and neutralised long before it gets near the ship.

So far that has only been accomplished with interceptor missiles.

That's what you're going to use to intercept the Kh-22 at 23000 metres doing mach 4 on its way to the target. Another Mach 4 missile.

Originally posted by kilcoo316Thinking about the whole concept more, I believe a two tiered system incorporating rail guns as the initial long range interceptor and lasers as the close in defence would be a more logical progression.

Railguns? This clearly isn't a serious discussion.

Originally posted by kilcoo316Eventually lasers will increase in range to supplement, or even replace rail guns.

What railguns? Perhaps you mean gatling guns. I think presuming you can down yourself a Kh-22 in flight with a laser is wholly unrealistic.

Originally posted by kilcoo316The problem with star wars was it had to be built light... to get into high altitude positions. The power source was a major issue.

Obviously on a ship, this is not a significant problem.

No, but space would be. And the delicateness and complexity of the whole technical ensemble would also be a problem.

Also, I should think the a Mach 4.0 missile with a maximum range of 500 km could withstand direct exposure to the laser for a little while seeing as it can withstand the heat from air friction at that speed.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by SonyADbis]

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
A laser, unlike a missle, is a straight, "line-of-sight" weapon; it cannot follow the curvature of the Earth.


A missle can be fired at it target from miles away, below the horizon line, and track its way to a target.

Indeed. You make a valid point.


However to track the incoming vampire, your radar has to see over the horizon anyhow. Hence why sea skimmers are so dangerous.

Of course, if the SM could be handed off, to say a hawkeye then its a different ball game.

[edit on 18/7/09 by kilcoo316]

Originally posted by SonyADbis
How are you going to fry the electronics on an air to ground aircraft launched missile doing mach 4 that uses inertial navigation, datalink updates and radar homing for final trajectory.

You speak as if a laser cannot keep up with something travelling Mach 4.

So far that has only been accomplished with interceptor missiles.

That's what you're going to use to intercept the Kh-22 at 23000 metres doing mach 4 on its way to the target. Another Mach 4 missile.

Yes... of course it has only been accomplished with interceptors... what else has there been to this point?!?!

Railguns? This clearly isn't a serious discussion.

Clearly you are not up to speed on current R&D projects.

What railguns? Perhaps you mean gatling guns. I think presuming you can down yourself a Kh-22 in flight with a laser is wholly unrealistic.

Deny ignorance.

Within 10 years lasers will be on man-o-wars and air warfare will have changed.

No, but space would be. And the delicateness and complexity of the whole technical ensemble would also be a problem.

Space an issue?!?!

Relative to packign things onto a satellite?

Have you took leave of your senses?!?!

Also, I should think the a Mach 4.0 missile with a maximum range of 500 km could withstand direct exposure to the laser for a little while seeing as it can withstand the heat from air friction at that speed.

Air friction is not multiple kilowatts of heat energy concentrated on a very small area.