Because?..If we are going to call it 6th gen it must have:
Because?..If we are going to call it 6th gen it must have:
At least limited in time supersonic capability is greatly needed, since it greatly increases launching envelopes of weaponry. So you will either have your LW with supersonic dash capability or will suffer -20%(roughly speaking) range on any weapon employed .Random though while drinking a lot of wine.
Release envelope affects not only things like head-on missile engagements, but NEZ on maneuvering target too. In quite a few cases missile launched at supersonic and subsonic will be a difference between missile reaching or not target at all.
1. Do you disagree?Because?..If we are going to call it 6th gen it must have:
1. Do you disagree?Because?..If we are going to call it 6th gen it must have:
2. Basically, lasers are going to render all missiles useless. For radar guided missiles, the laser will melt the head, where the radar is located. For IR guided missiles, the laser will melt the booster, where heat is coming from. So, my question is:
How much energy do we need to melt a small part of a missile? Can the F135 generate the required energy for the beam and the cooling before the missile hits the plane?
PS: Loyal Wingmen are very good for CAS and this is going to be their main mission. But for interdiction they just cannot work, hence the multiple airframes solution from the USAF (2 or 3 planes with different functions that, together, will be the 6th gen system).
I am disagreeing with someone throwing a bunch of buzzwords around hoping some of them will stick. Neither not having vertical tail has anything to do with being 6 gen, nor lasers are anywhere close to rendering missiles obsolete. There is not a single operational and only one entering serial production jet with DIRCM for the moment! What "melting enemy missiles" we are talking about?Do you disagree?
PS: Loyal Wingmen are very good for basic AtG (CAS for example) and this is going to be their main mission (hence attritable). But for interdiction and air dominance, they just cannot work, hence the multiple airframes solution from the USAF (2 or 3 planes with different functions that, together, will be the 6th gen system). F35 + LW for everything else as a high-low mix, like F15 and F16.
What is an anti-laser missile? You can't dodge a laser beam so the only thing you can do is harden the missile. At close tactical range, an HEL beam will put a very intense focus onto a target so you will need a much thicker, heavier skin. That in turn will lead to lasers with more power just like every other arms race.
I should not respond to InADream and Gargean because they are offensive but whatever.
1. What could possibly be their use other than simple AtG? You can't send F35s to do it, because of the thousands of manpads and shorads on the ground. A single F35 will fly with them so it can dictate the targets but from further away and higher. Some will get shot down. Some will return. Not a big deal. This is going to be the doctrine. If a 20 yo (me) can figure it out, I would guess it's common knowledge.
2. Also, yes, lasers are the next big thing. Deal with it. Missiles replaced cannons on air to air combat several decades ago. It took some decades but they eventually did it. It's like saying:
- We need F4s with cannons cause missiles are trash.
- OK then we need more money to develop better missiles, right?
- No. Missiles bad, cannons good.
That's literally your logic:
"Lasers trash, missiles good"
Anyway, the ultimate question is:
If lasers are going to render missiles (and even artillery shells) obsolete, then how are future wars going to be fought? I guess we will go back to who has the most infantry men or the only option will be to use local EMPs.
So you imply they won't be limited by LoS and will not degrade in atmosphere after some "bright advancements in technology"?Also, "lasers are limited to line of sight and degrade with distance". Yes. For now. Like the early missiles.
Maybe mirrors will be on the missiles, so we can shoot lasers round corners......So you imply they won't be limited by LoS and will not degrade in atmosphere after some "bright advancements in technology"?Also, "lasers are limited to line of sight and degrade with distance". Yes. For now. Like the early missiles.
...That's true for unfocussed light from a point source. There's a reason so much work is being done in adaptive mirrors and lenses such. It's to make sure lasers don't suffer from the inverse square law.Talk of lasers for the new gen fighters and USAF testing some, Pentagon over the last thirty years has invested ~$12 billion and as yet has failed to deploy a single weapon system, one of the main reasons lasers up against one of the laws of physics, the inverse square law, stating that a specified physical quantity, in this case emf/photons, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity, so the laser power/heat generated on target falls off dramatically with increasing distance.
Minimum energy/heat generated on target missile to burn thro measured in J/cm2, minimum required said to be ~ 10kJ./cm2. So would expect fighter would need min of ~ 1 MW electric power for decent range laser, don't know if fighter will have the generating capacity, lower power would require longer dwell times on target and a future enemy AA missile will have laser hardening built in eg ablative surfaces to mitigate effects of laser, meaning that very a short range anti AA missiles look the more effective/lower cost option to USAF than a laser as they awarded initial $93million of max $375 million contract to Raytheon this July to develop a miniature self defense missile mini-missile.
After thirty years in research there is the saying, lasers are the weapons of the future and always will be.
No optical system will want weapon level light coming into it. Aiming an HEL against another HEL would be interesting since you would be staring at a light source of immense power. It would be a question of who shoots first.
No optical system will want weapon level light coming into it. Aiming an HEL against another HEL would be interesting since you would be staring at a light source of immense power. It would be a question of who shoots first.
Not talking of aiming at the source of the laser but the beam itself at a tangent. Would it attenuate the power of the laser sufficient to remove it as a threat?
...That's true for unfocussed light from a point source. There's a reason so much work is being done in adaptive mirrors and lenses such. It's to make sure lasers don't suffer from the inverse square law.Talk of lasers for the new gen fighters and USAF testing some, Pentagon over the last thirty years has invested ~$12 billion and as yet has failed to deploy a single weapon system, one of the main reasons lasers up against one of the laws of physics, the inverse square law, stating that a specified physical quantity, in this case emf/photons, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity, so the laser power/heat generated on target falls off dramatically with increasing distance.
Minimum energy/heat generated on target missile to burn thro measured in J/cm2, minimum required said to be ~ 10kJ./cm2. So would expect fighter would need min of ~ 1 MW electric power for decent range laser, don't know if fighter will have the generating capacity, lower power would require longer dwell times on target and a future enemy AA missile will have laser hardening built in eg ablative surfaces to mitigate effects of laser, meaning that very a short range anti AA missiles look the more effective/lower cost option to USAF than a laser as they awarded initial $93million of max $375 million contract to Raytheon this July to develop a miniature self defense missile mini-missile.
After thirty years in research there is the saying, lasers are the weapons of the future and always will be.
Talk of lasers for the new gen fighters and USAF testing some, Pentagon over the last thirty years has invested ~$12 billion and as yet has failed to deploy a single weapon system, one of the main reasons lasers up against one of the laws of physics, the inverse square law, stating that a specified physical quantity, in this case emf/photons, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity, so the laser power/heat generated on target falls off dramatically with increasing distance.
Minimum energy/heat generated on target missile to burn thro measured in J/cm2, minimum required said to be ~ 10kJ./cm2. So would expect fighter would need min of ~ 1 MW electric power for decent range laser, don't know if fighter will have the generating capacity, lower power would require longer dwell times on target and a future enemy AA missile will have laser hardening built in eg ablative surfaces to mitigate effects of laser, meaning that very a short range anti AA missiles look the more effective/lower cost option to USAF than a laser as they awarded initial $93million of max $375 million contract to Raytheon this July to develop a miniature self defense missile mini-missile.
After thirty years in research there is the saying, lasers are the weapons of the future and always will be.
The best way to kill a man with a laser is to hit him over the head with it.
mmm, kind of thinking, I fire a fragile missile at you, you make it dumb using a laser, it falls out of the sky. You assume I will keep making fragile missiles, with onboard guidance. Maybe I just make a giant 'shotgun' and fire it in your general direction. One of them will hit you.Yes. Electric cars are the same. Everyone was saying "they have limited range". Battery tech has evolved and now they are almost going to surpass ICE cars. Ofc they will never be good at transporting heavy stuff.
Besides, it's not a replacement for long range air defences but for shorads and CIWS. It's just that lasers are going to be so effective up close that nothing will get through. It's like the machine gun in WW1. Nothing could get through. Artillery shells could, but lasers can take them out as well. Until ofc the invention of the tank and so forth.
Mirrors can become pretty hot too afaik. Flying mirrors or flying lasers for area defence is an interesting concept indeed.
Dang remember not to look into laser w/ remaining eye.The best way to kill a man with a laser is to hit him over the head with it.
I invite you to stand in front of an industrial laser.