Originally posted by urmomma158
ur posting shows ur ignorance

The 1st and 3rd links aren't working for me.


From the 2nd link:

Though most defense officials and industry leaders state that directed energy weapons will not likely see operational status for four to five years, there is mounting evidence that the United States is pushing hard to procure a large number of systems in case of a near-term conflict with Iraq. In such a conflict, DEWs could see widespread use, destroying command, control and communication (C3) networks and causing power interruptions - effectively part of a major evolutionary step of the network-centric strategy that employed high-tech power and communications disruption techniques, first introduced during Operation Desert Storm, more than a decade ago.

Ahem....

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by urmomma158
ur posting shows ur ignorance

The 1st and 3rd links aren't working for me.


From the 2nd link:

Though most defense officials and industry leaders state that directed energy weapons will not likely see operational status for four to five years, there is mounting evidence that the United States is pushing hard to procure a large number of systems in case of a near-term conflict with Iraq. In such a conflict, DEWs could see widespread use, destroying command, control and communication (C3) networks and causing power interruptions - effectively part of a major evolutionary step of the network-centric strategy that employed high-tech power and communications disruption techniques, first introduced during Operation Desert Storm, more than a decade ago.

Ahem....

the article was written before the iraq war in 2003 its now 2006 just gotta wait 2 more years raytheon is bulinding a HPM weapon its basically just alarge AESA 2 more years isnt much u sed it would take 20 years so in a way yea................ i figured out whats rong with the link if u look closely at one the entire link isnt in hyperlink text form [edit on 9-3-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 9-3-2006 by urmomma158]

Still no luck for me on the links, copied and pasted into address bar and aviation week still says: "you've reached this page in an error".


As for the HPM weapons on an aircraft, seeing is believing...

Ground tests and AESA radars are one thing.

Generating the power on a fighter aircraft to achieve the full HPM effect is quite another.


But you are right, it will be here sooner than I said earlier, just not in a couple of years.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Ground tests and AESA radars are one thing.

Generating the power on a fighter aircraft to achieve the full HPM effect is quite another.


But you are right, it will be here sooner than I said earlier, just not in a couple of years.

they're already testing it out on large AWCS plane the E 10 but ur right fighter planes maybenot yet but were not talkin about a laser in the air atmospheric stuff wont affect hpm or emp weapons it would complement ABL's quite well an even better layered protection

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Ground tests and AESA radars are one thing.

Generating the power on a fighter aircraft to achieve the full HPM effect is quite another.


But you are right, it will be here sooner than I said earlier, just not in a couple of years.

they had a 500 pund system generate a whole lot of gigawatts the only problem with fighter is the size of the radar limits the beam not in but i think it has to do with angle of attack the power requirements are here but samll AESAá int capable thats what big AESA like on AWACS are for th power thing is in my link i posted unfortunately it doesnt woirk for u o well still gotta love the idea though

"It has been my humble impression, from both personal experience (research, more or less) and from the posts, that dogfights are not really an important part of aviation combat. Mainly because it's hard to get into one before either getting a kill or becoming one. Current tech has made dogfight capability great for bragging rights (India vs Us 9 to 1, lol) but other than that (Us vs India, wins vs nuclear wasteland, in a real combat scenario). Although it does look cool. also in the field of aviation obsolescence railguns with advanced enough targeting will be able to shoot down any aircraft that can be detected at ridiculous range (pre-threat)."

Wrong. Under actual large scale engagements in heavy ECM, modern SAM sites etc, the concept of pure BVR rail gun laser beam etc is a dream pitched by defense industry salesman.

"Yes, I agree that modern jet fighters would never end up dogfighting, and if so it would be in very limited terms. Most US fighters, the Tomcat for example, have an extreme advantage in their missiles, like the Phoenix missile. Its got longer range then most MiGs!
So even if the Russians build a better dogfighter, I think the US will still have the advantage because of long range missile technology."

Wrong, MiG-31 is the current undisputed king of long range interceptors. Look it up.

sminkeypinkey is correct, but it's all about the "usable" maneuverability envelopes, and there's a lot of unexplored room there.

American Mad Man is wrong on all counts.

Seekerof is wrong, "will continue to be prototypes and test bed" they are not, but combat ready, fully functional units, competing for serial production.

longbow is wrong, ALL modern missiles are avoidable by properly implemented defensive measures.

American Mad Man is wrong again, and it's turning into a pattern, put your self together Mt. Man.

SiberianTiger is wrong, yet funny.

Kenshin is correct, considering Russian underground manufacturing capacity, the scale of which is largely unknown, God knows what they could be building, and how many.

JamesBlonde is absolutely correct, glad to see you.

roniii259 is wrong, relying on Intelgirl as an authority on the topic is questionable.

longbow is correct here "Uhm, no. Actually in stealth VS stealth case the dogfight is the highest possibility."

orca71 is correct.