Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

tacf-x wrote:

I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between blinding a missile and initiating all out structural failure of an aircraft wing via rapidly applying a heat load to the wing fuel tank.

If you can blind the missile, you can blind the aircraft. More, there is reason to believe that optical filters will make it impossible to blind a missile without destroying it. Further, you have a lot more burn time to take down a fighter than you have to take down a missile closing in on you.
When the long range missile is made obsolete, it will be in favor of even longer range weapons, not for a return to gun fighting.

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by FlightDreamz on Sep 02, 2012 - 02:59 PM; edited 1 time in total

Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my Two Cents

!
[img]http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_mumaw_photogrpahy/6878225113/[/img]

FlightDreamz wrote:

Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my Two Cents

!
[img]http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_mumaw_photogrpahy/6878225113/[/img]

My understanding is that laser technology had progressed beyond YAL-1.

count_to_10 wrote:

FlightDreamz wrote:

Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my Two Cents

!
[img]http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_mumaw_photogrpahy/6878225113/[/img]

My understanding is that laser technology had progressed beyond YAL-1.

DIRCM isn't powerful enough to shoot a missile down, much less an aircraft. It merely prevents the seeker from being able to see.

Quote:

count to 10
My understanding is that laser technology had progressed beyond YAL-1

Perhaps, I've even heard the idea floated of using the space in the F-35B (where the front lift engine is attached) to power a laser but my point is where not at the point yet where a laser is a reliable weapon. ( Shrug

)
Maybe someone should start a separate thread on the topic of lasers in future air combat?

wrightwing wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

FlightDreamz wrote:

Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my Two Cents

!
[img]http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_mumaw_photogrpahy/6878225113/[/img]

My understanding is that laser technology had progressed beyond YAL-1.

DIRCM isn't powerful enough to shoot a missile down, much less an aircraft. It merely prevents the seeker from being able to see.

That's not really the issue. Because missile seekers can be shielded against laser energy by filters, it's likely that any effective directed energy missile defense will have to physically destroy missiles.

If your missile won't track in a dogfight, it's not as good as guns; it's inferior to guns

Sorry to quote something from the first page but I was wondering about the above statement. If the guns aiming solution is calculted by the fighters computer I am assuming it gets the opposing aircrafts location from It's radar. If the opposing aircraft is VLO would this not make guns as good as missiles at best? If you can't lock up a HOBS missile can you get an accurate fix for guns?

guns also have a "dummy" mode

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

guns also have a "dummy" mode

Which really doesn't do you any good if the missiles are better than your eye at tracking targets in the first place.

count_to_10 wrote:

That's not really the issue. Because missile seekers can be shielded against laser energy by filters, it's likely that any effective directed energy missile defense will have to physically destroy missiles.

This is true, but that's not necessarily a 100% solution(shielding), and it may be that a DIRCM is powerful enough to physically damage the seeker, but not necessarily powerful enough to damage the missile's airframe.

wrightwing wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

That's not really the issue. Because missile seekers can be shielded against laser energy by filters, it's likely that any effective directed energy missile defense will have to physically destroy missiles.

This is true, but that's not necessarily a 100% solution(shielding), and it may be that a DIRCM is powerful enough to physically damage the seeker, but not necessarily powerful enough to damage the missile's airframe.

If it's strong enough to do that, it can also blind the fighter's sensors and the pilot. If you can burn through a filter in the time of flight of a missile, an order of magnitude more will probably let you burn down an aircraft.

FlightDreamz wrote:

Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my Two Cents

!
[img][/img]

[]

The airframe yes, but the internal components and technology could in the future be transferred to a different platform. If not miniaturized even further. It's a damn shame too, because it was a great concept. Its orbits would have been no further than those of tankers and sentries, and it was hardly more vulnerable.

count_to_10 wrote:

FlightDreamz wrote:

Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my Two Cents

!
[img]http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_mumaw_photogrpahy/6878225113/[/img]

My understanding is that laser technology had progressed beyond YAL-1.

IIRC YAL-1 used chemical laser. These days solid state laser is considered to be more favorable for military use.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 in dogfights