F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Coming to a warship near you, soon, allegedly...
Royal Navy to build laser cannon by end of the decade - Telegraph
Royal Navy to build laser cannon by end of the decade - Telegraph
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Already on operational warships.....
US navy demonstrates ship-based laser weapon ? video | US news | The Guardian
though some are less impressed..
Navy's new laser weapon: Hype or reality? | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
US navy demonstrates ship-based laser weapon ? video | US news | The Guardian
though some are less impressed..
Navy's new laser weapon: Hype or reality? | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia has done some testing in the usa with their lasers and one was optioned for possible use on aircraft. I think LO will be ok with lasers on ships, or even planes. Just not the F-35.
A1b,
I know you're a real F-35 enthusiast, but I do think you have LO's position completely wrong. He is not 'anti' everything to do with F-35, he simply questions the wild claims made about it, some of the appalling politics behind it and the cost vs what we're going to get. He also corrects those that come here shouting its praises with no regard for the consequences of how it will perform out there in the big, bad, nasty world.
Sorry, LO, if I assume too much.
Technically, airborne lasers are a possibility, but the space, weight, power, heat, pointing issues are very different to those on a ship. Both platforms will always suffer from atmospheric influences, which severely degrade range and effect - there are counters to distortion, but again that's more space, weight and power.
Of course, all that depends on whether you wish to target the hardware, the soft target inside it or the EO sensors. The last point there raises vulnerability issues for the DAS. As ever, these swords have two edges.
I know you're a real F-35 enthusiast, but I do think you have LO's position completely wrong. He is not 'anti' everything to do with F-35, he simply questions the wild claims made about it, some of the appalling politics behind it and the cost vs what we're going to get. He also corrects those that come here shouting its praises with no regard for the consequences of how it will perform out there in the big, bad, nasty world.
Sorry, LO, if I assume too much.
Technically, airborne lasers are a possibility, but the space, weight, power, heat, pointing issues are very different to those on a ship. Both platforms will always suffer from atmospheric influences, which severely degrade range and effect - there are counters to distortion, but again that's more space, weight and power.
Of course, all that depends on whether you wish to target the hardware, the soft target inside it or the EO sensors. The last point there raises vulnerability issues for the DAS. As ever, these swords have two edges.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=a1bill;9142309]Australia has done some testing in the usa with their lasers and one was optioned for possible use on aircraft. I thi
Interesting. Reference please.
Interesting. Reference please.
what does my ideal weapon platform look like?
It was John Farley who suggested the suitability of replacing the fan with a laser quite some time ago.
The F-35 is not the only option for the laser, the AC-130 and F-15 will come first
Lockheed Launches Laser Production Line; Bets On Fiber Tech « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
That is an interesting concept, Peter.
So, as I understand: take out the fan, so you don't need (or probably want) the moving rear nozzle or the roll posts or their ducts. In UK terms that makes it land based? Install a massive generator powered by the fan take-off shaft. Install the big laser and ancilliary equipment in the hole. Re-write the FCS software. Add the aiming system. Add a dome top and bottom for coverage, presumably at risk to the stealth properties. Probably a hundred other things if I think about it. Or are you talking about using the same space forward of the engine in the other models?
Is it now a special mission platform or the new CTOL D(L) Model?
I'd like to hear more about the F-15 version version too. I can see the big ac as a likely platform first.
So, as I understand: take out the fan, so you don't need (or probably want) the moving rear nozzle or the roll posts or their ducts. In UK terms that makes it land based? Install a massive generator powered by the fan take-off shaft. Install the big laser and ancilliary equipment in the hole. Re-write the FCS software. Add the aiming system. Add a dome top and bottom for coverage, presumably at risk to the stealth properties. Probably a hundred other things if I think about it. Or are you talking about using the same space forward of the engine in the other models?
Is it now a special mission platform or the new CTOL D(L) Model?
I'd like to hear more about the F-15 version version too. I can see the big ac as a likely platform first.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 9th Oct 2015 at 23:22.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR, the yanks have a high tech laser testing range, we don't. This is from 10 years ago for a joint us/aus for the f-35.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...or-jsf-204809/
An advanced tactical demonstrator version is currently undergoing optics integration ahead of testing as part of the joint Australian-US Project Arrangement 10 EWSP cooperation programme.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...or-jsf-204809/
An advanced tactical demonstrator version is currently undergoing optics integration ahead of testing as part of the joint Australian-US Project Arrangement 10 EWSP cooperation programme.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was 10 years ago, scaleable and the tech they were looking to develop. but at that stage it wasn't the rip the f-35b fan out and put a megawatt laser in it's place. we just had some 'stuff' the yanks liked. we also did some laser imaging and aircraft fitted laser depth sounding.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, as I understand: take out the fan, so you don't need (or probably want) the moving rear nozzle or the roll posts or their ducts. In UK terms that makes it land based? Install a massive generator powered by the fan take-off shaft. Install the big l@ser and ancilliary equipment in the hole.
Having been shown to struggle as a dog fighter against the F-16, evidently, the F-35 has not quite proved its metal against the A-10 at shooting enemy soldiers on the ground? Yes I've got this from a glossy magazine, but.......thought it would be interesting to add to the debate
FB
FB
A1b, DIRCM is not scalable into a directed energy weapon of the megawatt class. That's like saying I can take this floating tea light candle and scale it up to a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
It is totally different technology; the only similarity being they both use light.
It is totally different technology; the only similarity being they both use light.
I'm sorry, A1b, you have completely changed your argument and confused two technologies. You started with ridiculing LO:
You have conveniently moved from megawatt class lasers to DIRCM and some other Aussie laser technology that is "on the net", offering a link to https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...or-jsf-204809/ , which is now in-use laser IR self-protection. Nemesis.
I'm done on this one, on the grounds that you are spouting rubbish and you do not understand the subject matter.
Originally Posted by a1bill
it was just that I think LO excelled himself. We can always rely on LO in his use of sublimation with anything associated with the F-35. To say "The problem is that the "next" l@ser - >150 kW and <3,500 lbs - won't fit, and by the time we get to the l@ser-after-next (fractional-megawatt and <2,000 lbs) the nature of air combat will have changed dramatically." has to be one of the classics and deserved a special mention.
I'm done on this one, on the grounds that you are spouting rubbish and you do not understand the subject matter.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, that was awesome, Glad Rag. Best fighter I ever flew. Great video and thank you for the distraction from lasers. I was getting dangerously close to explaining Nd YAG or tuneable laser technology - flashbacks to QWI Course industry visits. I feel better now.
In fact, I might have to go and watch it again.
In fact, I might have to go and watch it again.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM they are two different topics, one is LO making claims of laser weapons not fitting into the future battle space, the other was me saying "Australia has done some testing in the usa with their lasers and one was optioned for possible use on aircraft." and gave the link to the OZDIRCM. I understand it was the use of fiber optics instead of mirrors and I think the generation of the laser beam too. The tech is scaleable and the yanks/aus wanted to develop it further.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a1bill
As you should expect, you have been writing bolleaux and it is as clear as daylight to everyone. And you have been called out. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
As you should expect, you have been writing bolleaux and it is as clear as daylight to everyone. And you have been called out. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
LO making claims of l@ser weapons not fitting into the future battle space,
Reading isn't your long suit either, is it?
By the way, there's a really good reason why the F-35B-based l@ser platform isn't a particularly good idea: onboard energy is not the limiting factor. It's energy storage, conversion, space, weight and cooling that matter.
You don't need 20MW to run a l@ser that will remotely fit in the aircraft. If you had wall-plug efficiency of 25 per cent you could (in theory) continuously run a 5MW l@ser (that's >4x the size of the one in the YAL-1). You might fit that on a large ship.
A perfectly standard turbine-engine generator will feed the energy-storage system of a few-hundred-KW pulsed l@ser quite adequately. GenAtom is working on a 150 kW unit that can be energized by a generator on a PW545.
Reading isn't your long suit either, is it?
By the way, there's a really good reason why the F-35B-based l@ser platform isn't a particularly good idea: onboard energy is not the limiting factor. It's energy storage, conversion, space, weight and cooling that matter.
You don't need 20MW to run a l@ser that will remotely fit in the aircraft. If you had wall-plug efficiency of 25 per cent you could (in theory) continuously run a 5MW l@ser (that's >4x the size of the one in the YAL-1). You might fit that on a large ship.
A perfectly standard turbine-engine generator will feed the energy-storage system of a few-hundred-KW pulsed l@ser quite adequately. GenAtom is working on a 150 kW unit that can be energized by a generator on a PW545.