Virtual aircraft carriers vs. real aircraft carriers

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22995
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 02:27

Operational Implications of Laser Weapons by Richard J. Dunn, III 2005

http://www.northropgrumman.com/analysis ... _of_La.pdf (0.4Mb)

"...the concept for integrating a SSL [Solid State Laser] into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would place the laser system in the fan cavity of the short-take-off-and vertical-landing version of the aircraft and use the fan shaft to power a megawatt-sized generator..."
Attachments
F-35BlaserInLiftFanCavity.gif
SSLintergrationConcepts.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 02:47

tacf-x wrote:A networked grid of F-35s could help in OTH Ballistic missile launch detection but then there's the possibility of using a kilowatt-class solid state laser in the F-35B to destroy scuds on the ground.


OMG
Offline

tacf-x

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 03:25

What? Am I being unreasonable? We're working on solid state lasers right now and it's only a matter of time before the B variant starts being offered with its lift-fan replaced with a laser to take out enemy scuds. It may not work for BMD since the dwell times can't be that good for actually intercepting the missiles but when they're on the ground a kilowatt class laser should work fine for disabling the important systems on the missile so it won't function. Cooling will be a problem but I'm sure that could be worked out with a good heat-exchanger.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7690
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 03:46

- double post -
Last edited by popcorn on 07 Jan 2012, 05:08, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7690
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 04:00

tacf-x wrote:What? Am I being unreasonable? We're working on solid state lasers right now and it's only a matter of time before the B variant starts being offered with its lift-fan replaced with a laser to take out enemy scuds. It may not work for BMD since the dwell times can't be that good for actually intercepting the missiles but when they're on the ground a kilowatt class laser should work fine for disabling the important systems on the missile so it won't function. Cooling will be a problem but I'm sure that could be worked out with a good heat-exchanger.


All it's going to take is money and time to turn the concept into reality. The document that spaz linked to may be a bit dated but its clear that once mastered laser technology will be a game changer. Another reason why the B jet is my favorite.. the potential to generate megawatts of electricity to power all sorts of EW/EA stuff coupled with its comprehensive sensor suite will allow it to impact the future battlespace in ways not readily apparent today. . Proving it's value far beyond its use as platform for kinetic strike.
Offline

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 04:16

The problem is that the Screeching Baby Seal doesn't fly high enough to get over the distortions of the atmosphere.

An external pod on the F-22 would do a better job.
Offline

tacf-x

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 06:04

hcobb wrote:The problem is that the Screeching Baby Seal doesn't fly high enough to get over the distortions of the atmosphere.

An external pod on the F-22 would do a better job.


Are you serious? The F-22 lacks the internal volume available to house a power supply for a laser and an external pod would increase drag. Not only that but flying low would be GOOD! One thing that prevented the YAL-1 ABL from being a viable air to ground asset was that it flew too high to the point where the laser would have to plow through more atmosphere to get to the surface and as such the blooming effect would be more of an issue with power dissipations.

It is for that reason the the ATL onboard that modified C-130 was a better choice for that scenario. By deleting the large central lift-fan in the F-35B there is enough internal volume to house the necessary power generators, APUs, scalable laser LRUs for the solid state laser system as well as the cooling systems for said laser.

A single external pod would be hard-pressed to house all of that and not be a serious drag issue. There's a difference between a NGJ and a death ray in terms of power and cooling requirements.[/i]
Offline

river_otter

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 09:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 07:09

tacf-x wrote:By deleting the large central lift-fan in the F-35B there is enough internal volume to house the necessary power generators, APUs, scalable laser LRUs for the solid state laser system as well as the cooling systems for said laser.


Don't forget that all three airframes have an essentially similar "hole" in the same place. The fan bay of the F-35B is also a bay for cannon ammo and a small fuel tank on the F-35A, and nothing but a bigger fuel tank on the F-35C. And the A mounts essentially the same engine as the B, just not the clutch and fan, while the C mounts a corrosion-resistant version of the engine, but dimensionally swappable for either of the others. If a laser could fit in that space on the B, any of the variants could house the same laser in the same place. I would personally think the A most suitable, because it has less distractions (roll posts, 3-bearing nozzle, lift fan and nozzle doors), and somewhat greater structural integrity than the B. Probably the C would have the most difficulty for a number of reasons (for example, the larger wings would make it more sensitive to atmospheric turbulence and make aiming and dwell time more challenging, the engine is the least similar, and like the B it carries the weight of a lot of extra parts), but even the C could fit the laser in the same spot for loss of a fuel tank.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7690
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 08:04

river_otter wrote:
tacf-x wrote:By deleting the large central lift-fan in the F-35B there is enough internal volume to house the necessary power generators, APUs, scalable laser LRUs for the solid state laser system as well as the cooling systems for said laser.


Don't forget that all three airframes have an essentially similar "hole" in the same place. The fan bay of the F-35B is also a bay for cannon ammo and a small fuel tank on the F-35A, and nothing but a bigger fuel tank on the F-35C. And the A mounts essentially the same engine as the B, just not the clutch and fan, while the C mounts a corrosion-resistant version of the engine, but dimensionally swappable for either of the others. If a laser could fit in that space on the B, any of the variants could house the same laser in the same place. I would personally think the A most suitable, because it has less distractions (roll posts, 3-bearing nozzle, lift fan and nozzle doors), and somewhat greater structural integrity than the B. Probably the C would have the most difficulty for a number of reasons (for example, the larger wings would make it more sensitive to atmospheric turbulence and make aiming and dwell time more challenging, the engine is the least similar, and like the B it carries the weight of a lot of extra parts), but even the C could fit the laser in the same spot for loss of a fuel tank.


For the navy to benefit from a laser-enhanced jet, modifying the C would be required in any case as it is already carrier-capable. It then becomes unlikely that justification for an A variant can be made and the AF would just go with the C laser jet as well.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22995
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Jan 2012, 03:09

F-35 and AEGIS USNI article here: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... each-aegis
OR
TEXT only: http://www.usni.org/print/9450

The Long Reach of Aegis Issue: Proceedings Magazine - January 2012 Vol. 138/1/1,307 By Robbin F. Laird

Concluding paras only:
"...These F-35-Aegis offense and defense bubbles can be networked throughout the Pacific to enhance the capacity of individual nations. They represent a prime example of how one country’s assets can contribute to the reach others, together establishing a scalable capability for a honeycombed force.

Overall, the enterprise lays a foundation for a global capability in sea-based missile defenses and for protecting deployed forces as well as projecting force. Power such as this is increasingly central to the freedom of action necessary for the worldwide operation of the U.S. military and our coalition partners."

This is a long article.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post13 Jan 2012, 05:36

Undersecretary Work addressed the Surface Navy Association earlier today about the future of the fleet. He mentioned how aviation will help mitigate the effect of fewer ships: “People say, ‘Is it going to be 313 ships or 310?’” Work said in an anxious voice. Then he declared: “I don’t care! We’ve got BAMS!” He showed a chart with overlapping circles where ships, BAMS, and the Navy’s new P-8 Poseidon aircraft will be able to cover more area when they come online."

"...the new reach of the P-8, BAMS and E-2D Hawkeye means the future of the U.S. Navy is so bright that Work said he was “psyched.”"

Curious he did not mention the F-35 as one of the aviation platforms contributing to the mitigation. Maybe he didn't get the memo.



http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/01/12/sna-t ... z1jJDGIPiY
DoDBuzz.com
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22995
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Jan 2012, 06:17

I'll ensure that Mr.Work gets the memo then.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7690
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post13 Jan 2012, 06:31

spazsinbad wrote:I'll ensure that Mr.Work gets the memo then.

I hope so because he was criticzed for being seemingly oblivious to the C4ISR capabilities of the F-35 when he ordered a reevaluation of the Navy and Marines aviation resources last year. I can't recall if this was before or after Northern Edge; I think it was the latter in which case it's even worse.
OTOH,he may just be walking a fine line to protect the programs he mentioned by not playing the f-35 card too prominently.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22995
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Mar 2012, 05:46

Laser Battlefield Future perhaps: http://www.fastcompany.com/1823017/darp ... rone-laser

DARPA Unveils Drone-Slaying War Laser BY Neal Ungerleider | 03-08-2012

"A weapon that used to be the size of a passenger jet now fits on the back of a flatbed truck...."

http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/20 ... .laser.jpg
Attachments
LaserBattleFieldGraphic.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nathan77 and 16 guests