Lockheed to Build Laser for USAF SHIELD Program

a reply to: anzha

I don't really think lasers, giver their current power constraints and atmospheric problems associated with such are the best choice of beam weapon regarding the destruction of incoming ICBM.

Now a neutral particle beam or Maser type weapon combined with the correct weapons platform, well that might just be the ticket and capable of doing what it says on the tin, but again the power requirements and targeting and detection equipment have yet to be invented that could facilitate such weapons of mass destruction.

a reply to: andy06shake

SHIELD isn't intended for the ABM role. This is self protection from air to air missiles. The missile closes and the fighter shoots it down. This means 100 kw or less.

ABM role requires something at least 100 kw, if not a full MW. The ABL tests showed the power needed was much, much higher.

a reply to: anzha

True, but again power requirements and atmospheric conditions might still present an issue when Lazers are concerned.

a reply to: andy06shake

Power is not much of an issue anymore. Jet engines produce shbt loads. The system compactness is a definite issue since this is supposed to fit into a pod on a 4th gen fighter. Given this is a fiber laser, then I bet they can get it into the pod. Still a challenge, but doable.

Atmospheric conditions are rather different above 30k feet. Lasers work great up there. It's the lower atmosphere you have issues. OTOH, once the laser power gets high enough, you're going to want to stay below the horizon.

Either way, the dog fight is history.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It fits within a pod. The cooling system is what makes me curious. You can get 100 kw out of lots of little 4 watt laser diodes. However, even given their relative electrical efficiency, that's a lot of heat to be disposed of.

The lasers for the F-35D and (possibly) PCA would be bigger and meaner and meant for SAMs and killing other aircraft. This is just a self defense laser: AAMs have been bagged by lasers since the 80s. Its been the emitter power that has been an issue (and nasty rass chemicals) that has kept them off the battlefield to date.

a reply to: anzha

Think of SHIELD as an IRCM+. It'll be able to perform more than just IRCM and A2A kills, but not on the scale we will see with PCA or if the F-35 ever gets a laser. It won't outright destroy a SAM, but it won't have to. Burn a hole in the nose and it'll malfunction all on its own.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I was thinking....

Could this be combined with some sort of atmospheric lensing to amplify the power of the laer?

a reply to: Zaphod58

The normal way to kill a missile (or anything with a boomski inside) with a continuous wave laser is to induce the warhead to explode with a rapid thermal cook off. This has been demonstrated with katyushas on up. It doesn't work well against something with a reentry vehicle: being hardened against thermal energy.

A pulsed laser will induce shock damage as well. Pretty significant damage at that.

Drilling a hole is pretty damaging as we have seen in tests. Aircraft and missiles lose control. However, that's not the norm for killing a missile.

a reply to: grey580

It won't amplify but you can use that (theoretically) to counteract beam spread.

a reply to: Zaphod58

On the PCA, they've signaled they might skip the laser in the 'A' model to rush the bird into service faster. We'll see.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Could an exterior source vector the shot?

a reply to: anzha

I know the normal way. The point I've been making for years is that the normal way isn't the only way.

AFRL has stated that SHiELD would be used to attack other aircraft and missiles fired from the air and the ground. When asked whether LANCE could take down missiles in the boost phase, Afzal responded that mission requires a higher power and longer range.

zappity zap, can't dodge that.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: anzha

www.thedrive.com...

And the conjectural drop in laser for the so-called F-35D is shown at the end of the article.