Carrying A Laser Down The Road... How Iran's Biggest Naval Advantage Just Became Useless! Remember President Trump Mentioning This?
(www.youtube.com)
— ＭＩＬ - ＩＮＴＥＬ —
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (8)
sorted by:
Word is that they are still trying to stick a laser weapon in a fighter. If I had to speculate, I would have a weapon that I could upload into the bay of a B-2 or B-1 on demand. It would have its own independent power source.
The refinery op had the infamous blue laser. That is all I know for now.
There is a retired general who used to be a squadron mate and sounds like he got to play with some of my toys as a general. One day we will be able to chat.
A laser weapon likes to be a long-range engagement system at high altitude, and large aircraft are the best carriers, preferably ones with range/endurance. (Their best firing direction is broadside, due to atmospheric propagation effects.) Fitting one into a 767 would be suitable. It could probably fit into a B-1 or a B-2, but it would be a headache integrating it and then you would have one less B-1 or B-2 to carry ordnance. Something like the Helios probably weighs tons, and I don't see that as a good match for a fighter platform. It also is the kind of weapon that needs a Guy In Back to operate.
The YAL-1A would have been a dominator of the skies, with a lethal range of maybe 1000 kilometers, but it was never evaluated in that role. I once calculated that at such a range, the airborne laser platform could not even be seen against the sky background. It could reach out and kill, and the victim wouldn't know where the blow came from.
The refinery story is just a story, then. There are no blue lasers.
Good luck with the general. Even with retired pals out of the field, we can't say much face to face. (Or, you have to be a master of the art of allusion.)
The systems are getting lighter per Kilowatt all the time. Straight down is not as bad as one would expect. At least that’s what I was told by the guys doing the math. One of the main trade offs is dwell time. The ship has to be quick. For a significant target set, the airborne platform can have a longer dwell time and be effective.
Reference comms: It is a pain in the butt waiting for one of my toys or strategies to go public before I can say anything concrete. And often the name is changed.
Straight down (nadir direction) is at right angles to the airflow, so that qualifies as a "broadside" shot. But then you have relative target motion to deal with. Dwell time is a function of open-fire intensity. If you are closer, that would theoretically allow shorter dwell times. But these get to be so short, direct human shot control is not really feasible. If there are intervening clouds, forget it.
What people don't take into consideration is that it is not easy to perform target identification on ground targets. Against a sky background, there is no clutter. Just easier to drop a JDAM on set coordinates.
The YAL-1A was my last hurrah, and it did good...until Obama junked it. It would have been suitable against North Korean or Iranian ballistic missiles, which was the whole point of its development. I guess the Air Force didn't realize how much trouble they went to until they paid the bills. (Plus the Air Force has a fickle heart, always pursuing a shorter wavelength.) Once you get to megawatt-class, the fun begins!