Solid State Laser News

Perhaps they should have written 'first system-level implementation of a high-energy class solid-state laser this Century' or similar.
 
Lockheed HEL ad. Nothing new but the distinction of HELIOS being an integrated part of the ship instead of a bolt on prototype shows HELs are finally getting their nose into the tent.


 
Notice that all 35's seems to be Bee airframe. IMOHO the shaft mounted engine will be so well suited to generate power with the fan bay used to host all the necessary systems for such weapons.

I wonder if it's what we are shown to see. Although we have a pod mounted laser displayed on the F-16.
 
Last edited:
The lid cover actuator will need a serious upgrade. Unlike you like slow motion fight, that looks fairly cheap for an high-tech weapon.
 
TomcatViP said:
The lid cover actuator will need a serious upgrade. Unlike you like slow motion fight, that looks fairly cheap for an high-tech weapon.
Click to expand...
Maybe, depends on how well the expect the early warning system to work.

Consider this is Israel who has show to have good Early Warning, they probably expect that they will have amble time to pop the lid and preposition it to kill the target as it get into range. Remember they only need to open once per engagement, so being fairly cheap is probably a plus.
 
TomcatViP said:
The lid cover actuator will need a serious upgrade. Unlike you like slow motion fight, that looks fairly cheap for an high-tech weapon.
Click to expand...

Another thing is that proof of concepts/tech demonstrators are often built quickly out of parts and materials that are on hand, so to speak. So it is likely that the operational version would use a better layout.
 
Grey Havoc said:
TomcatViP said:
The lid cover actuator will need a serious upgrade. Unlike you like slow motion fight, that looks fairly cheap for an high-tech weapon.
Click to expand...

Another thing is that proof of concepts/tech demonstrators are often built quickly out of parts and materials that are on hand, so to speak. So it is likely that the operational version would use a better layout.
Click to expand...
I do agree. Given the expected low cost of modifying the mechanism, that would be a probable source of future discontent if not.
 
I'm not sure how you point it. Even if there was a jack lift to prop it vertically (and you need constant adjustment for tracking) there is no obvious way to point in azimuth.
 
fredymac said:
I'm not sure how you point it. Even if there was a jack lift to prop it vertically (and you need constant adjustment for tracking) there is no obvious way to point in azimuth.
Click to expand...
There appears to be some sort of joint above the cab. My guess is that the cylinder would be hoisted to a vertical position like a missile preparing for launch and then two joints direct the beam wherever you like. The more obvious joint would deal with altitude while rotation would deal with azimuth - that's not so visible because its a simple rotating joint, flush with the cylinder.

EhKPhL3WAAI4Q_1.png Screen Shot 2020-09-08 at 10.46.17 AM.png
 
Last edited:
defence-blog.com

Boeing’s mobile laser gun successfully defended convoy against drones

Boeing announced that its new mobile laser gun system, commonly known as Compact Laser Weapon System, successfully tested at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. During a Sept. 3 field test of the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, CLWS successfully defended a...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com
 
I wonder if this is a private alternative to the SHIELD laser? Boeing was doing the pod for that and maybe Lockheed wasn't happy with their work.

In the video, the laser pod is attached to fighters but there is no reason a bigger pod couldn't be mounted directly to the KC-46. With the extra room/power generation available, a stronger laser would be able to go after the attacking fighter instead of the missile it launches.
 
You'll probably go with HPMW in that case.

The advantages of the laser pod for a fighter is illustrated in the video: it can reposition itself to engage the threat (getting closer, inside weapon deadly engagement envelope). And the pod is lightweight.

The tanker can't manoeuvre and a laser weapon will be dependent of a clear line of sight. That leaves the engagement odds in the hands of the aggressor...

On the contrary, the superior available power (through SOFC and static discharge) is more suitable for an HPMW (no line of sight needed, highly directional if not hemi-spherical). The constraints is mass and the draw on fuel that have to not jeopardize mission.
 
Greater laser power allows greater range. At 25,000 feet altitude, your horizon is almost 200 miles and the fighter is probably at a similar altitude so it will be in line of sight. Attacking at that range means you will need a bigger beam director aperture (to reduce diffraction) so it will be too big for a fighter. However, a smaller/weaker laser pod is easier and cheaper to build so it might be a better starting point. If you are operating in an area with persistent stratospheric clouds then using fighters would also be useful if you wanted a greater keep out range.

I think HPMs are still directional although not as much as lasers (if you think of them as extremely powerful radar beams). The CHAMP missile is the exception but in that case it is directly overflying the targets at short range.
 
If I was in that Mig 29, I will sneak below cloud overcast and fire from there. Good luck to get me first or my missile coasting toward you at Mach 4.

Good point for the directional constraint.
 
Guess it depends on how good is my situational awareness (on board and networked). As for Mach 4, assuming 750mph per Mach, the laser is travelling at roughly Mach 900,000.
 
Yes but you need to detect, acquire, track, slew your sensor and lase.

Meanwhile every Hour the missile cover 3000miles, hence it covers the distance from 5kft (cloud overcast top layer) to your cruise altitude (20kft) in 1/1000th of an hour (we have 20-5=15=3miles), what is 3.6 seconds.

Obviously I am taking the easiest theorical case where your forward speed is negligeable, the missile acceleration to Mach 4 is instantaneous and the mig29 launch vertically right under the plane.

But still, if we apply a factor of two to cover for the simplifications (arbitrary), we can still see easily how that will be a short time to
detect, acquire, track, slew the sensor and lase.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Yes but you need to detect, acquire, track, slew your sensor and lase.

Meanwhile every Hour the missile cover 3000miles, hence it covers the distance from 5kft (cloud overcast top layer) to your cruise altitude (20kft) in 1/1000th of an hour (we have 20-5=15=3miles), what is 3.6 seconds.

Obviously I am taking the easiest theorical case where your forward speed is negligeable, the missile acceleration to Mach 4 is instantaneous and the mig29 launch vertically right under the plane.

But still, if we apply a factor of two to cover for the simplifications (arbitrary), we can still see easily how that will be a short time to
detect, acquire, track, slew the sensor and lase.
Click to expand...
The Mig gets within 15,000 feet!!!! Of the other aircraft?
 
If a MiG is getting that close to me before detection, that would become priority 1 in the R&D list. Off hand, I assume tankers have overwatch (AEW&C aircraft, ships, satellites, etc). The video actually showed a DAS like system on the KC-46 but air tasking plans would presumably realize high value assets need radar cover.
 
Whatever happened to Laser Induced Plasma Channel to just distrupt a target.s flight path?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom