US Military Will Install Laser Turrets on Bombers and Fighter Jets

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by yuppa

 

Because missiles consist of pretty much a rocket motor, and a warhead/tracking system, and have to be small enough to deploy quickly (ground to air for instance) they have limited physical shielding, so if one could find them, taking them out with a laser isnt going to be impossible.

A tank column or a convoy however, will contain armoured vehicles, and a laser powerful enough to turn those to slag, would likely be heavier than the airframe of a warthog !

Think its more practical as a infantry cooker.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by MysterX

 

The COIL on the YAL-1A was a megawatt class laser, and it required a 747-400 to carry it. That program was cancelled because even a megawatt class laser didn't have the range to destroy a missile without the aircraft flying over hostile territory.

Thanks for that mate.

I didn't think 150kW sounded like anywhere near enough to effectively do 'combat damage'...if a MW version has serious range / energy drawbacks too...this might only be useful as a very close range, dogfight type weapon..or maybe more useful as a propaganda weapon.

Some stealth attack potential, for dug in positions or disrupting enemy comms.

Might also have some ship defensive potential as a 'laser wall' type of thing for incoming cruise type missile defense.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Well, if it was going to be used to attack ground targets, I would agree with you. I think the possibilities presented by use of laser as a missile defense weapon on board aircraft are very interesting however. There are just a few technical details that need to be worked out first.

The ground based weapon platform that makes me shiver is the lightning cannon... laser induced plasma channel.... oooh, all the discs in my spine just resonated a little at the prospect.

Lasers, or course, do not need large mechanical turrets like guns do - they can be "steered" by mirrors or small turrets, and such systems are already in place for missile counter-measure lasers such as DIRCM

No doubt using more powerful lasers will require more space and possibly a larger external fitting - but they might also be fitted as an external store on many a/c.

reply to post by yuppa


Even with the GAU-8 removed, it's going to be a pretty small laser. Which means not a lot of power, even with the aircraft powering the system, as we talked about. Lasers on fighters is a great idea, but right now, not that feasible.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by strafgod

 

In the demo video, I think its against an F-22.

www.youtube.com...

Jesse's, did the guy say 2 million flight hours on this thing. Yeah right.
How long have they been testing this hing? a few hundred years?

reply to post by spy66


He's talking total flight time of all versions of the Predator/Reaper airframe. Two million flight hours is about right. They've been operating for ten years now. Just the Predator version has over 1 million flight hours to date. The USAF was expecting Predator and Reaper flight hours to reach 2 million by this year, along with being able to keep up 65 orbits globally.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Isnt there a way they could use spare heat in the engines to power the laser? Some sort of thermoelectric conversion? Theres got to be an awful lot of heat waste in a jet fighter/bomber.

What's smaller and lighter, an alternator powered off the turbine, or some big TE converter that's heinously inefficient? Remember you'll need a big heat dump on the cold side of the thermoelectric converter.

The problem is, you need a LOT of power. And you need a LOT of cooling. You can compensate for a lack of total power output by using batteries and cutting back on your duty cycle, but then you can't fire continuously.

Oh, and I recall another post in the thread about variable substrates. Lasers in this class are not used to drill holes. You want to heat to deflagration, or heat to fail the control electronics. Alternately, you can, if you've got enough power, knock big dents in things by causing an explosive plasma bloom on the surface of an object. Most flying objects are not that mechanically strong and can be dented pretty easily. That's catastrophic if you're at Mach something.

Is this laser travel at the speed of light? If so, the missile simply cannot outrun it? does it.

reply to post by Militarywarfare


It's not a matter of the missile out running the laser, it's about the range of the laser. The laser used in the YAL-1A was short ranged enough that to hit a launching ballistic missile, they would have to fly over hostile territory, and put the aircraft at risk.

reply to post by Bedlam


You have a message. Another kinda interesting question.

I wonder how long it will take China to steal this...

S&F! Awesome thread, and lots of cool vids and links.

Since this is being made public, it makes you wonder what aspects of these new systems are still on a need to know basis. As far as we know, they may have already circumvented the power requirement problems.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Bedlam

 

You have a message. Another kinda interesting question.

I think TPTB have intercepted your message - my mailbox is empty.

Alas.

reply to post by Bedlam


Ok, it's sent again. Hopefully this time they won't be paying attention and it'll go through.

I'm betting if they're just now starting to advertise this, they had stuff that would make this look like a toy well before 9/11. Which is an interesting thought.

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
I'm betting if they're just now starting to advertise this, they had stuff that would make this look like a toy well before 9/11. Which is an interesting thought.

Interesting how? Like the FEL could have blasted the center beam of the WTC? That sort of thing? Well given its power if it was the nuke version a half second blast could have melted the central core of the building.

Upgrade complete.

Originally posted by yuppa

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
I'm betting if they're just now starting to advertise this, they had stuff that would make this look like a toy well before 9/11. Which is an interesting thought.

Interesting how? Like the FEL could have blasted the center beam of the WTC? That sort of thing? Well given its power if it was the nuke version a half second blast could have melted the central core of the building.

And killed everyone in Manhattan. Not to mention the devastating explosion as the surface of the beam ablated.

reply to post by Bedlam


Somehow I do not think the FEL causes nuclear explosions. Just because its powered by it does not make it
explode. A FEL can be very precise as well.