Forum: Technology

1st503rdsgt wrote:

More gadget sights (CNN is reprint from Wired).

So what are you saying? It never happened? All these places are just making it up? Laughing

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Anyways, awwwe, aren't they cute. Propellers and everything.

They don't contain high-explosive warheads that will detonate and the larger wing area makes them stay in the sky longer.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

As for tests. Here's the video I believe you sent earlier of a 50kW test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hs9vmlEd-A
Let us count the seconds from when the laser starts burning the fiberglass to when the drone finally loses control (I got to 15), and that was just a passing shot at altitude.

Do you know of any missiles with wings that large? Do you think a missile will fly along on fire like that, especially after the laser has burnt-out its guidance in a head-on encounter?

UAVs are designed not to explode, missiles are not.

F-16.net Sponsor

mcraptor wrote:

They don't contain high-explosive warheads that will detonate and the larger wing area makes them stay in the sky longer.

Do you know of any missiles with wings that large? Do you think a missile will fly along on fire like that, especially after the laser has burnt-out its guidance in a head-on encounter?

UAVs are designed not to explode, missiles are not.

Of course, because a propeller-driven target drone made out of canoe material and flying a nice, high crossing path is so much harder to bring down than an incoming ~15,000lb supersonic cruise missile with a warhead designed to survive impact with a ship (delayed fusing) and guidance system designed to withstand the heat/stresses of flying Mach 2.5 at sea-level.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

mcraptor wrote:

They don't contain high-explosive warheads that will detonate and the larger wing area makes them stay in the sky longer.

Do you know of any missiles with wings that large? Do you think a missile will fly along on fire like that, especially after the laser has burnt-out its guidance in a head-on encounter?

UAVs are designed not to explode, missiles are not.

Of course, because a propeller-driven target drone made out of canoe material and flying a nice, high crossing path is so much harder to bring down than an incoming ~15,000lb supersonic cruise missile with a warhead designed to survive impact with a ship (delayed fusing) and guidance system designed to withstand the heat/stresses of flying Mach 2.5 at sea-level.

It's exactly because it's travelling at Mach 2.5 with very small aerodynamic surfaces that it won't be able to hold steady flight with a cut in it, bleeding flames, when a laser 3 times as powerful hits it and transfers exponentially more energy at a given range.

You assume that the laser took 15s to go through, it didn't, it went through straight away, hence the trail of fire. It's because it was flying at maybe 150-200mph with large wings that it could keep going. A thin missile doing 1800mph won't, not to mentioned that it won't guide with a whole in its radar, and its radar on fire. If you watch horrific space shuttle accidents, you'll see they don't fly so well with small imperfections in the structure.

As an analogy it's like getting a puncture in a bicycle tire at 15mph and getting one on a modded GSXR-1000 at 215mph.

mcraptor wrote:

You assume that the laser took 15s to go through, it didn't, it went through straight away,

I just love the way children think lasers work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZWzf3h50LU (go to 1:15).

1st503rdsgt wrote:

mcraptor wrote:

You assume that the laser took 15s to go through, it didn't, it went through straight away,

I just love the way children think lasers work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZWzf3h50LU (go to 1:15).

Perhaps it is the child that can't fully contemplate 100kW of sustained power on the body of a weapon that's already suffering severe skin friction, with complex electronics in its nose and a shock wave coming off its nose.

We're talking about 100 times the power of a typical metal cutting laser in a FEL system that can be perfectly wavelength tuned so that it suffers minimal loss with distance. The spot temperature is likely to be beyond the vaporization point of the metal.

mcraptor wrote:

Perhaps it is the child that can't fully contemplate 100kW of sustained power on the body of a weapon that's already suffering severe skin friction, with complex electronics in its nose and a shock wave coming off its nose.

We're talking about 100 times the power of a typical metal cutting laser in a FEL system that can be perfectly wavelength tuned so that it suffers minimal loss with distance. The spot temperature is likely to be beyond the vaporization point of the metal.

Wishful thinking. Thankfully, the USN seems to know better because there are no near-term plans to replace so much as a single Bushmaster with 100kW lasers.

Is it me, or does fielding a 100kW laser sound ridiculously expensive compared to using a bomb / missile / bushmaster to kill the same target?

kamenriderblade wrote:

Is it me, or does fielding a 100kW laser sound ridiculously expensive compared to using a bomb / missile / bushmaster to kill the same target?

No actually. One of the laser's main potential advantages is costs because there are no expensive interceptors to manufacture, maintain, or run out. Even 20mm rounds aren't exactly cheap. A laser can be fired as long as the ship has fuel (within thermal limits), an attribute referred to as a "deep magazine" in multiple sources. Given current developments, it's only a matter of time before such weapons become powerful enough to function as an effective defense against ant-ship missiles, after which it is a matter of finding a way to provide them with the necessary electrical power (for firing and cooling). The argument going on here is how big and how soon. Mcraptor here seems to think that a 100kW system (which is only being planned for light drones and small projectiles) is somehow good enough to function as a usable CIWS despite his own sources stating that MW range weapons would be required to do that effectively against incoming supersonic cruise missiles.

That depends on how often you expect to use your CIWS, both between resupply and overall. If you only expect a couple of ships to ever actually use the system, and only a couple of shots at that, then an expensive "deep magazine" weapon isn't really competitive with a cheaper limited shot system.

count_to_10 wrote:

That depends on how often you expect to use your CIWS, both between resupply and overall. If you only expect a couple of ships to ever actually use the system, and only a couple of shots at that, then an expensive "deep magazine" weapon isn't really competitive with a cheaper limited shot system.

Lasers can also provide a much quicker response than the current systems (provided they're powerful enough), which is something to think about given developing threats. As for costs, this is all speculation for the future anyways, so we'll just have to see.

For a laser based CIWS, I can see it running on board a nuclear powered navy vessel as a missile / projectile defense system as the nuclear reactor provides more than enough power to keep the system running.

On a drone with limited fuel / power, I really doubt it'd be practical without turning it into

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser

Which is a cancelled program.

kamenriderblade wrote:

On a drone with limited fuel / power, I really doubt it'd be practical without turning it into

When I said "meant for drones," I meant for shooting them down, not to be carried by. The technology for light drones has widely proliferated, and it's not inconceivable that adversaries will eventually attempt to observe or even attack US ships with swarms of the things; which is what a 100kW laser would be perfect for dealing with.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Wishful thinking. Thankfully, the USN seems to know better because there are no near-term plans to replace so much as a single Bushmaster with 100kW lasers.

Depends what you mean by near-term. I've linked several sources that suggest one within the next 6-8 years.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Mcraptor here seems to think that a 100kW system (which is only being planned for light drones and small projectiles) is somehow good enough to function as a usable CIWS despite his own sources stating that MW range weapons would be required to do that effectively against incoming supersonic cruise missiles.

Now stop re-hashing that lost argument:

1) It was your source; and

2) A Navy Study, Northrop Grumman Study and a Defense Science Board Study within that source suggested 100kW for close-range defense against cruise missiles and rockets and artillery. Close-range was also categorically stated at 1-2nm.

count_to_10 wrote:

That depends on how often you expect to use your CIWS, both between resupply and overall. If you only expect a couple of ships to ever actually use the system, and only a couple of shots at that, then an expensive "deep magazine" weapon isn't really competitive with a cheaper limited shot system.

Theoretically no, but are you factoring in shelf-life?

mcraptor wrote:

...100kW for close-range defense against cruise missiles and rockets and artillery. Close-range was also categorically stated at 1-2nm.

1-2mn? I don't know what NG is considering as a cruise missile there: maybe this?

Would you care to guess how long it takes to cross that distance at Mach 2+?

Quote:

Theoretically no, but are you factoring in shelf-life?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that a 100kw+ laser is more maintenance intensive than a bundle of missiles.

Forum: Technology

Which New Eastern Bloc Weapon Scares You the Most?