zero-one wrote:I already saw them, Helios currently generates a 10KW laser, the goal is to eventually jump to 50KW by 2021.
When ABL was under development testing the actual output was very much under wraps but 100 kilowatts was mentioned a lot, and development blurbs mentioning the possibility of eventually reaching 200 kilowatts being "achievable" were floated at the time, but not confirmed, IIRC.
Now we see figures of ABL being 1-megawatt discussed in the open, so I don't think we know what Helios output is planned to be in 2021, so I'll go along with the Griffin suggestion that DoD is planning to field a "
hundreds of kilowatts" laser on a real operational platform by 2021.
zero-one wrote:But the link I posted was clear in that the USAF does not want to another 10 year development cycle, they want to use existing, mature systems. So the B-21 and F-35 are leading candidates for the PCA's manned component.
This is not correct, as I already pointed out yesterday, the platform(s) can be bought into service without the laser, and have it integrated after the initial platform is made fully operational. They don't get developed together but they do get developed to be plug-'n-play integrated.
zero-one wrote:So if you were to build a 500KW laser now. it would weigh 17,500 - 20,000 lbs empty. And thats not the only problem.
This is no impediment, B-2 carries 60,000 lb of 2 x MOP. An initial 250 kilowatt laser may use only 1/4 of its available weapon payload. In terms of
crawl->walk->run, this is what I had in mind as the
crawling stage with an operational system. It's 'walk' is 500 kilowatts for same size and weight. And 3/4 of payload is still available for internal missiles and bombs.
zero-one wrote:The manned Airborne Laser maxed out at an altitude of about 40,000 feet, where clouds and turbulence made it harder to keep the beam on the target. “65,000 feet is where we think we need to be,” ... Air turbulence deflects and distorts the laser beam. ... The ABL is not designed to intercept TBMs ...
... Fighters are far more resistant to damage than missiles ... So the B-21 and F-35 are leading candidates for the PCA's manned component.
Tougher solid-fueled ICBM destruction range would likely be limited to 300 km, too short to be useful in many scenarios, according to a 2003 report by the American Physical Society on National Missile Defense.
http://www.airborne-laser.com/how_does_it_work.php
Firstly, this aircraft will not aim for a 300 km effective range against a TBM (maybe later).
It's more like a
maximum of ~125 km range engagements, so a lot less path-distortion is involved. You would only light-up an aircraft that can't be avoided from detecting or tracking you, within the range of your own passive detection and engagement sensor-array. Or else you aim at damaging its weapons at closer range. The closer the aircraft or weapon approaches, the better the beam quality and pointing, and the sooner what you specifically aim at is degraded to destruction.
Operating effectively at
common tactical altitudes is not a problem for beam-quality and the range you need to operate it out to (limited by your passive sensors, of which the laser aperture will be one).
As for hitting an armored vehicle or ground target, contrary to one of your links, the same applies. If you're an unmatched quality VLO stealth platform, you can approach closer and have a shorter path to a ground target. And the vehicle itself may survive superficially, but will its systems, sensors and antennas? Such as a driver's optics? Aiming system? You may not kill the vehicle but you can make it ineffective and a sitting duck, via selective targeting parts of it, thus delivering your own ground forces major advantages.
Plus a TBM is narrow and fast moving. Many aircraft are larger and all are slower and exposed for longer, with a much longer time to approach. There will be more than enough time to engage them with multiple laser strikes. You don't have to burn a wing off or cut through the structure. Sensors and comms antennas (sometimes the same things) are more vulnerable than the skin and structures. But lose those and it's probably done in a fight. Or at least it is now highly vulnerable to a single AAM attack to finish it off.
A cockpit, and what's in it, is likewise highly vulnerable and it's the most easy to access and contains the most fragile and exposed components to any direct energy attack. Even if the pilot is shielded, the damaging and distorting of a canopy frame, and the 'plexiglass' layering may cause so much damage or heat and smoke from seals that the pilot is forced to turn away, is incapacitated, or must eject. This will also induce serious shock-heating and cooling stresses in the canopy, and possibly delaminate or collapse it depending on energy levels.
If 250,000 watts hits a fan face on an Su57's engine for 2 seconds that fan is likely to have some distortion and terminal perimeter clearance issues. Performance suddenly drops, the jet starts to crab-walk. It's now highly vulnerable to being picked-of and you're probably no longer the pilot's first priority ... suddenly discovers he needs to be somewhere.
The survivability of the 'B-21' has been much increased by the laser and even if what it shoots at does not die, it can complete its mission that day, and the next.
09 Sep 2019, 16:52
