Laser on the F-35.

uhhhhhh....This sounds an awful like the grandson of the Star Wars program. Not that its not cool, but the F-35 is expensive by itself, right? putting a friggin laser on it might make it more expensive. But i gotta admit, this laser idea would be pretty cool, unless it mysteriously reflects off something and cleaves your multi-million dollar piece of machinery in half.

Originally posted by autopilot
uhhhhhh....This sounds an awful like the grandson of the Star Wars program. Not that its not cool, but the F-35 is expensive by itself, right? putting a friggin laser on it might make it more expensive. But i gotta admit, this laser idea would be pretty cool, unless it mysteriously reflects off something and cleaves your multi-million dollar piece of machinery in half.

Eh, $10 million for a laser that can be used often to destroy ground targets is far more cost effective and probably reliable then using Mavericks, GPS, LGB, and dumb bombs that actually have to be produced in the long run...

Originally posted by ChrisRT

Eh, $10 million for a laser that can be used often to destroy ground targets is far more cost effective and probably reliable then using Mavericks, GPS, LGB, and dumb bombs that actually have to be produced in the long run...

UMM $10 on a laser that can be foiled by rain?
Yeah thats good!

You could say the same about just continuing to use AESA equipped F-15s because we aren�t planning to fight a formidable enemy...
Or the idea of fielding inaccurate first gen. A2A missiles�

They will have their uses and with the maturing of the technology will come greater power of the laser. Who says it will always be fowled weather anyway? This laser can be adapted for many roles from A2A combat, A2G combat and in later additions self defense...

Originally posted by ChrisRT
You could say the same about just continuing to use AESA equipped F-15s because we aren�t planning to fight a formidable enemy...
Or the idea of fielding inaccurate first gen. A2A missiles�

Firstly you could if you where so eager to fight you "enemy" in china, as you guys seem to want.
The first inacurate A2A missile was a step in the right direction, fielding a laser on a jet fighter isnt really a step in the right direction.

They will have their uses and with the maturing of the technology will come greater power of the laser. Who says it will always be fowled weather anyway? This laser can be adapted for many roles from A2A combat, A2G combat and in later additions self defense...

Yet the laser would be kinda useless in rain and clouds oh not to forget fog!
All of which appear in all quarters of the world.

All of that is based on opinion... That doesn�t chance the fact that the people that have been fighting wars for decades and hire researchers to see what is best, chose that a laser would be best...

If it isn�t (we all know it is) the best then its no skin off your back�

Originally posted by ChrisRT
All of that is based on opinion... That doesn�t chance the fact that the people that have been fighting wars for decades and hire researchers to see what is best, chose that a laser would be best...

Yeah sure it is.
They say a laser is best in some fields , yet you think it is flawless?
I am pointing out the disadvantages of it , like every good engineer should!

If it isn�t (we all know it is) the best then its no skin off your back�

So now you think lasers will work best huh, look at the disadvantages.
Like they do, why do you think they are not giveing it to infantry?
Disadvantage, the current laser is about the size of a 747. Real advantage there!

So now you think lasers will work best huh, look at the disadvantages.
Like they do, why do you think they are not giveing it to infantry?
Disadvantage, the current laser is about the size of a 747. Real advantage there!

The 747 ABLs laser is no bigger then ~2 cars... The laser that will be placed on our fighter/attackers is also relatively small...

Yeah sure it is.
They say a laser is best in some fields , yet you think it is flawless?
I am pointing out the disadvantages of it , like every good engineer should!

Who said its flawless? I said that it will adapt to new roles when the technology further matures. We will be going into combat armed with a laser pod and conventional missiles-bombs... in the mid-term future lasers will become the norm and will eventually replace crude bombs and missile.



I don't see what the big idea is... We are placing lasers on OUR fighter/attackers... so?
If one has the money and feels it has a good enough advantage why not do it?

Originally posted by ChrisRT

The 747 ABLs laser is no bigger then ~2 cars... The laser that will be placed on our fighter/attackers is also relatively small...

Yet what will it be used for? Killing enemies?
Why when it can so easily be countered.

Who said its flawless? I said that it will adapt to new roles when the technology further matures. We will be going into combat armed with a laser pod and conventional missiles-bombs... in the mid-term future lasers will become the norm and will eventually replace crude bombs and missile.

Doubt it, the crude bomb is the simplest and proven method of delivery and wont be going anywhere.

I don't see what the big idea is... We are placing lasers on OUR fighter/attackers... so?
If one has the money and feels it has a good enough advantage why not do it?

It was our planes too until SOMEONE decided to stab its ally in the back.

Yet what will it be used for? Killing enemies?
Why when it can so easily be countered.

Nope, it will be used to down inbound ICBMs...
How can it be easily countered? The ICBMs carry R-27ERs?


Please, don�t speak of that which you don�t know of... You should also take a break. You seem to be taking these discussions a bit too personally. I�m in no way attacking you and do not wish for hurt fealings�

Originally posted by ChrisRT
Please, don�t speak of that which you don�t know of... You should also take a break. You seem to be taking these discussions a bit too personally. I�m in no way attacking you and do not wish for hurt fealings�

The laser can be countered by practcically any liquid.
Infact, any glass angled at the right angle will reflect a laser away, lol aint that a bitch , you spend 100 billion on a laser and it doesnt hit the right target. lol

^ I'm not too deep into lasers. What you say sounds logical but we are talking about super powerful chemical lasers that have a few hundred KM range. Not dinky Dr. Robotneck medical lasers...
How is one to coat an aerodynamically sleek ICBM that is reaching the design limits of its medals with thousands of pounds of glass? How is a liquid or gel substance to stay on the surface of a missile that travels ~10-15 thousand miles per hour?

Whether what you speak is the truth or not I do not know. I do know that our military does know what it's doing and will continue to take steps in the right direction. It�s the choice of the politicians on whether it will be used for good or bad...

Countermeasures says:

�For instance, While the F-16 is a fast and powerfull airplane, the relatively slugish Boeing could take her probably out from long distance with her much huger laser that goes a hundred miles...�

Do you mean the 747-400 ABL platform?

�Now using the principle of total internal reflection I vision a blimp or plane from wich is suspended a hollow aluminium tube , open on both ends, the opening that will be entered by laserbeam will be slightly wider than the opening where the the beam will go out.�

It�d be a lot easier to aim and re-aim the laser itself than the aluminum tube, though; think of the motors and anti-hysteresis circuitry required -- especially to keep in in alignment with the laser itself!

Well you know of plasma stealth right?
Where the vehicle is coated in plasma.
Plasma is really a sort of 4th state of mass, you know solid,liquid and gas being the other 3.
The plasma has some ablities of gas and liquid.
Its a strange thing BUT, since plasma stops all radio waves makeing it stealth, then its logical it can stop some light.
Light is just EM waves like radio just a diffrent type you could say.
So its probable that it couldd stop a laser.
Remeber lasers no matter the power act acording to the laws of physics which state that light will bend,refract or what ever.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well you know of plasma stealth right?
Where the vehicle is coated in plasma.
Plasma is really a sort of 4th state of mass, you know solid,liquid and gas being the other 3.
The plasma has some ablities of gas and liquid.
Its a strange thing BUT, since plasma stops all radio waves makeing it stealth, then its logical it can stop some light.
Light is just EM waves like radio just a diffrent type you could say.
So its probable that it couldd stop a laser.
Remeber lasers no matter the power act acording to the laws of physics which state that light will bend,refract or what ever.

The existence of plasma stealth is debatable, its applications are debatable and for every new invention there will always be a counter developed.

If a laser is unable to destroy a plasma lased ICBM then the Aiges destroyers, PAC-3s and other systems of the missile shield will take over.

If this 'plasma' stealth disables radar one can always rely on heat detection via a highly advanced IRST with laser range finder and guide the missile long enough until the missiles internal guidance can either home in on it's infra red signature, visibly pick up the ICBM, or and switch to conventional internal guidance radar...
Who says advanced satellite tracking is out of the picture?

Anyhow, we shouldn�t worry about ICBMs too much as is one where to use them everybody would be hurting. Nukes are only for a deterrence and wars of the future will most likely be fought by conventional means. That means lasers and any other shiny new weapon we can developed.
In the end I hope we never have to use them...

Devilwasp by the lasers not working in fog your on about diffraction, where light doesnt go out the same way it came in.

When you shine a laser pointer in fog at a wall from say 10 metres away you can see the dot on the wall but its not very bright because its using up energy going through the fog as all lasers give off thermal energy.

A laser like the one they intend on mounting in a jsf shouldnt have that much of a problem because it would have a far higher power rating and therefore would still do its job just not as effectively.

The hell dya mean your safe from them in scotland anyway? you can put a laser in a low orbit round the planet so its not as badly effected by the atmosphere then have a person shining a simple laser detonater on what they want destroying.

Lasers couldnt completely replace missiles because even if they can track them to shoot them down the position of the laser would affect its ability to do so. how much energy do you think it would require to use a laser at 100 miles when it would be far simpler to just shoot a long range missile at the target then close in and kill him while hes trying to dodge/shoot down the missile you could even take the plane out with the machine guns plane carries.

Lasers are a nice project but they wont be effective unless you can get them down into something like a shoulder mounted anti vehicle laser or a laser equivalent of a SAW. why bother with lasers for most buildings anyway? plastic explosives or conventional bombs work well enough.

Lasers are nice enough but for ground operations an automatic railgun would be easier.

Lasers couldnt completely replace missiles because even if they can track them to shoot them down the position of the laser would affect its ability to do so. how much energy do you think it would require to use a laser at 100 miles when it would be far simpler to just shoot a long range missile at the target then close in and kill him while hes trying to dodge/shoot down the missile you could even take the plane out with the machine guns plane carries.

Same could be said about computers and power consumption and whatever else not... Generators, as well as other technology never ceases to advance.
Missiles will start showing their true limitations soon. They are already hitting maximum range as their diameter and length cannot increase or they will become vastly less effective.

One must remember the range of the laser on the ABL is a few hundred KM and that the US ARMY had in the 80's lasers that could effectively disable satellites (not destroy but disable) in orbit and still has it and are consider fielding it.

Originally posted by Rubber
Devilwasp by the lasers not working in fog your on about diffraction, where light doesnt go out the same way it came in.

When you shine a laser pointer in fog at a wall from say 10 metres away you can see the dot on the wall but its not very bright because its using up energy going through the fog as all lasers give off thermal energy.

A laser like the one they intend on mounting in a jsf shouldnt have that much of a problem because it would have a far higher power rating and therefore would still do its job just not as effectively.

What kind of fog do you get? The laser wouldnt make it ten metres here man.
How efficient is it if they dont know whats there, or if they hit it the but the laser is not as efficient?

The hell dya mean your safe from them in scotland anyway? you can put a laser in a low orbit round the planet so its not as badly effected by the atmosphere then have a person shining a simple laser detonater on what they want destroying.

In scotland it rains, it rains every damm day near enough. Christmas eve it rained and blowed gales so strong it blocked up the motor way for 24 hours due to overturned traffic.
Its so soggy here i think the laser would just lose all of its energy.

Frankly Lasers are like rail guns, efficient in space and pretty much thats it.

efficient in space and pretty much thats it.

That's true, though, we are just developing bolder lasers to counter the lack of efficiency

Originally posted by ChrisRT
That's true, though, we are just developing bolder lasers to counter the lack of efficiency

Why not spend it on more high tech options, like a better cruise missile or even better more fighters.