Lasers are a growing threat. Laser pods are most likely gonna be one of the future weapons used against aircraft (it's also the only cheap solution to destroy swarms of UAV/CCAs).How can fighters defend/protect themselves against lasers?
By being far away enough to not be hit. By the time you are within laser range you are within Fox 2 range anyway.
return to traditionmake jets shiny againOr just fly behind a cloud
>>64496923First, a jet isn't going to make enough power to power a strong enough laser to take down another plane. The other jet would need to be really close and at that point it would be more effective to hit it with some 20mm cannons.
>>64497175A 20-50kw laser has a range of maybe 2km but laser power and price are undergoing an exponential curve. A 300-500kw laser will have range equivalent to the plane's IR sensors (40+km) against other planes and a megawatt laser will be able to kill things in orbit.tl;dr jets can't defend against mature lasers. Fighter jets will be over as a unit. But in the mid-term they can cope by going extra high altitude, hugging the ground, or trying to delay the initial target acquisition with jamming.
By having agility higher than gimbal limits of the laser pod.
>>64497194It's like you forgot about the range of radars and AAMs
>>64497213I think you're committing the space combat range fallacy. AAMs could have infinite range and be fired from a plane which also has an infinite range radar. If they're up against a laser-armed plane which can shoot them down by the dozens at 40km, it doesn't matter.
>>64496923>How can fighters defend/protect themselves against lasers?Ultimately it depends heavily on the specifics of how powerful the lasers get and what their operational parameters are, like how quickly they can shoot again. That said generically:1. Even more heavy BVR: This is the most obvious since it's the heavy doctrine already, but lasers are LoS only, and won't have infinite range through even regular atmosphere.2. Weather: even powerful lasers won't work through clouds.3. Stealth & camo: lasers are not AoE, you still (and in fact need even more) an extremely accurate firing solution. This is the classic joust: whoever gets a good shot off first wins, but that's the same as right now right? So just even more so it's an arms race on all the actual IRL factors, whose lasers go farther, who can find the opponent faster, who can make them hit faster, doctrine to make that all happen more reliably.4. Decoys/mass: more drones, more numbers, cheaper, so higher losses are acceptable.Contrary to >>64497194 I more see it as shaking up the mix, not a fundamental change by itself. Ground lasers are another things for SEAD/DEAD, air lasers are another cat & mouse, space lasers too for that matter. And it's another way that advanced nations will be able to better stomp on lesser ones but it was ever thus.
>>64497247That's assuming they can be detected before going pitbull.
>>64497255It's very optimistic to think that they can't be intercepted after. Compare with tank APSs. Yes, early in the transition you'll see stealthier missiles and armored missiles to keep the old ways relevant, but once lasers take off, it's all over. The only limit is how fast the gimbal can re-address, which is about 60x per second right now with un-optimized tech.
>>64497194A one MW laser can do stuff to satellites in LEO, so 200-400 Km
>>64496923/m/en here:See, once upon a time, where some bugs FROM SPACE! came to Earth (specifically, CHYNA).>chinks went chinking, zerg rush 70s style (i forgot, BETA, how the smartpants denominated them, landed in 1973)>Things goes well, until TWO WEEKS later (see this is where it going?) BAM!, bugs created the Laser Classes (see Pic Related, the Big Pink, and the little light green wit hair from a scrotum)>can hit planes to 100 km at distance, if there is no obstacles (Earth's curvature, Mountains, or even other BETA on the line of fire)>those facts, added with how BETA multiplies extremely fast, become a nightmare for mankind.Everyone went "OMG! bugs evolving to our attacks!">while those aliens can't fly (for whatever reason) anything of their sights would get a warm light>and melted like butter >can't be contained by chinks, or even Soviets, BETA expand to Central Asia, without almost no resistanceSO... >a year later (1974)>bugs come AGAIN from space>lands in Saskatchewan (middle of Canada)>OHSHITOHSHITOHSHIT US govt goes panic mode >they know how dangerous those bugs from fighting them on the Moon, AND the new bug toys in China.>the minute the landing happens, the site receives enough nukes to contaminate HALF of Canada the lore exaggerates the radioactivity from nukes... but lets say , it happened>USA (ergo, the rest of the planet) avoids a second front, and only Eurasia falls into the hands of BETA>Since ANYTHING flying at 100 metres get insta-laser'd, the MIC create humanoid robots (Tactical Surface Fighters) that were for the Moon War>originally only with rockets, on Earth they add turbines like jet-packs, for longer distances>not a good substitute, but humanity gains 30 more years to fight and contain the BETATL;DR= NUKING on site and tall robots can truly contain the Laser menace. McArthur would approve this.
>>64498579Why don't they just use drones?
>>64496923it's simple they outrun the laser or hide in the clouds
Simple, you don't get hit.Pilots get trained to dodge lasers like in that Resident Evil movie, then they learn how to do it with a plane.
>>64498589It was the 70s.imagine how primitive were the chips and electronics of that era, added with costs to mass producing, while rolling the equivalent of 5 to 10 Vietnam Wars of supplies and sheit.and yes, Shirogane Frodo-san, even stuff like artillery rounds got intercepted mid-air. A relatively bigger and slower drone would still be a gamble, even if programed to fly slow, and between moving obstacles. For today's scenario? sure, clog the skies, but you need to erase them fast, or who knows what new strain would appear on surface...
>>64498681>It was the 70sBuilding nuclear bunkers down to 4,000 ft25 Megaton nukes744 B-52sExplosive cigars for CastroKilling gooks and chinksNuke China & Russia togetherMAN I MISS THE COLD WAR
>>64496923What if they cover the planes in mirrors?
>>64496923Chrome-mirror plating. "I'm rubber. You're glue. Bounces off of me and sticks to you!" /thread
>>64496923>How can jets defend themselves against lasers?Disco Balls.
>>64496923Inverse Square Rule, mayhaps?
>>64498681>It was the 70s.They have giant humanoid robots and moon bases.
>>64496923Distance. Lasers lose penetration rapidly the farther you get from the "melt" zone.
>>64500000Quints of truth
>>64496923Clouds exist
>>64500000>moon bases>get mogged by shitty logistics>giant humanoid robotsI don't mind that idea, but how they got implemented was goofy and lame. Cool looking robots, but still.>>64499541raw force, precision was for pussies.
>>64497194>laser price and powerThe retards on /g/ were asserting and damn sure we'd have air core sodium batteries 10x that capacity of the best possible li-ion by now. 15 years ago.I don't believe anything anyone says, about anything.
>>64496923Mirror coating. Next question please.
>>64497175>First, a jet isn't going to make enough power to power a strong enough laser to take down another plane.>yes i am technically illiterate>how can you tell?
>>64496923Could you use a generated plasma sheathe and attenuate it to absorb the incoming laser frequency and disperse it?
>>64500761It's not about theoretical horsepower. It's about the cooling, something only the US will be able to do with their VCE engines which have been in development since the 80s. A 300kw laser will need 700kw of cooling.
>lasers on a planeEhhhhh.....limited utility unless you're sacrificing a lot of the plane's potential.In the case of a defensive laser you'd need something like a roboticized turret, or multiple lasers, or some insane reflector setup with multiple (selectable) emitter points.There's almost no point in trying missile defense by laser if all you have is a foward facing unmoveable or limited aiming laser.100-150kw is also the practicable output limit, it generates up to 500kw of waste heat.Power feeding is a big problem, the capacitor system would need to be massive for sustained (7-10 second) lases. Lasers are one of the most inefficient things in the world. Outside of lab conditions, impractical, unrealistic research, a laser is generally 25-30% efficient at best. So your 150kw system would need to be fed 400-600kw.Not much use for attack due to LOS limitation, beam collimation limits, atmosphere scattering/absorption. If it takes 150kw to effectively disable another thing in a useful amount of time (7-10 seconds) you're only getting 10-12km range from it. A plane in an air war is dead by then.
>>64500849>its not about power >its about cooling
>>64500912>Power feeding is a big problem,>t. another victim of the Common Corehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeekr_9X
>>645009121. You're taking energy from the engines' generators, which are in the Megawatt range. Planes like the E-3 Sentry or a B787 generate over 1 MW alone.2. Efficiency depends on design, so there isn't a specified number.3. Air cooling on a plane is the simplest way to go. If you're cruising at 400-500 knots (460-575 mph), you're getting plenty of cooling capacity.>Not much use for attack due to LOS limitation, beam collimation limits, atmosphere scattering/absorption.A 1 MW laser is able to burn satellites in LEO. This has been done. Plus, everything is LOS with fighters, including radar and missiles.
>>64500955How is this moving the goalposts when the diode will burn itself up after a second of use without adequate cooling?
>>645010191. Now downfactor conversion losses starting with the generally correct assumption that non heat recapture, direct turbine-mechanical generation is 31% efficient at best2. This is military. We are attempting to maximize output and limit space/weight. You cannot have all three of efficiency, size, and power at best theoretical numbers. You pick one, compromise another, and the last suffers.3. How will it be air cooled? Purely exterior? Flow channels? Will it have an internal liquid module? How does this affect weight size and observability?4. Shooting straight up into ever thinning air is in no way comparable to a horizontal beam. What were the beam times for sat shots. How does it relate to a plane defending against a mach 4 missile.Again, "laboratory conditions" are not real life. Well controlled testing of limited scope is not real life.And 1MW laser on a fighter is NOT real life.
>>64501049>Now downfactor conversion losses starting with the generally correct assumption that non heat recapture, direct turbine-mechanical generation is 31% efficient at bestThat's thermal efficiency, not mechanical. Modern permanent magnet generators have efficiencies upwards of 90%.>This is military. We are attempting to maximize output and limit space/weight. You cannot have all three of efficiency, size, and power at best theoretical numbers. You pick one, compromise another, and the last suffers.And? The size would be about the same of a drop tank. Most pods, even the jammers, have that size.>Shooting straight up into ever thinning air is in no way comparable to a horizontal beam. What were the beam times for sat shots. How does it relate to a plane defending against a mach 4 missile.The Boeing YAL-1 (B747) had a 1 MW laser. The useful range was 200 miles agains solid-fueled missiles.
Dumb question, but how about shooting other type of rays? Lasers tend to do at 1 frequency...
>>64496923*pew**pew**pew*Ahhhaaa! Got em!
>>64501269There's no point in speaking with you, your head is in the clouds and you don't understand reality.
>>64501420Lmao. Retard.
>>64501451I'm the black bastard your dad pays to come over and break their bed while I use your mother on sunday mornings, faggot.
>>64501457You're 100% ESL. Probably a chink or a kike. Blow me, nigger.
>>64501457Oooor a pajeet. Saaaaarrr
>>64500000I'll check it, and it is true, but I'm not ecstatic about it.
>>64501038>>64497175>First, a jet isn't going to make enough power
>>64501420https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRACLIt's already been done faggot.
>>64496923mirrors
>>64496923Can't imagine
>>64496923How about we just polish the planes to a mirror finish??
>>64496923Shoot counter lasers to scatter lasers targeting you
>>64500849If only we had a mach 1 airstream to cool the system.
>>64505167Have we tried polishing a mirror to a plane's finish to test it first?
>>64502293Not the same anon, and yes, a plane is not be able to produce enough power with current engines. The PTMS on the F-135, the single most powerful and advanced fighter jet engine in the world, can only produce 30kw of power and cooling capacity. The upcoming ECU F-135 will be able to produce 80kw of power and nearly 150kw in cooling. That's still not enough for even a 25kw laser assuming all the other systems magically stop using power when the laser is turned on. That's why I mentioned VCE engines which will be on the F-47. The XA102/XA103 will likely produce up to 500kw of power along with 200kw of cooling capacity each, which will give the plane sufficient power to not only run a 200-300kw laser, but run it for up to 30 seconds at a time before hitting coolant thermal limits. It's going to be an absolute game changer that only the US will have for fighter sized aircraft for at least a decade because VCE engines are so fucking bonkers at difficulty to design.>>64505174Jets already use both intake bypass and engine bleed air for cooling, retard. Do some quick maths to find out how big of a dedicated intake in addition to those existing cooling methods you'd need to cool a 700kw passive heatsink going mach .9 at 30k feet.
>>64505593It's about the generators, not the engines. Behemoths like the E-3 and the B787 produce well in excess of 1 MW of electricity from their engines.>A radar alone needs 20-30 kW to operate. Your numbers ain't right.
>>64505655Notice how I said >fighter sized aircraft?Also, a GaN AESA radar is 50% thermally efficient vs 30% for a laser. It hardly ever operates at full power too.
>>64505676GaN radar efficiency typically ranges from 50-65%, while GaAs systems generally achieve 25-40% efficiency. This means that a 20 kW radar such as the APG-77 or APG-85, would need 40 to 80 kW of power. This of course, excluding all the stuff that needs electricity on board such as all the avionics and actuators. Thus, the power generated on board the jet is most likely in the 100+ kW.Lasers don't have a set efficiency. Solid-state lasers can go from an efficiency of 10% to over 50% for solid-state fiber lasers.
>>64496923Orbital decoys and kinetic/supersonic rocket strikes from orbit interlinked with satellites monitoring laser activity. long-range stealth missiles that can use the laser's own beam as a guidance marker against aircraft larger than civilian airliners.massive kinetic projectile bombardment from karl gustav-sized cannons firing 0000 buckshot sized projectiles over a wide area
>>64496923plasma energy shields.
>>64506257>Thus, the power generated on board the jet is most likely in the 100+ kW.That's true. But I'm talking about specifically the PTMS figure here. What you're referring to is the total capacity of the main engine-driven generator.
Oh hey it's this thread again cool.1. The US will be the first country to put usable lasers on planes.2. Everyone else will be 30-50 years behind, as always.3. The chinks will claim they have something better, no we may not see it, and it will quietly disappear as soon as they think it's not gaining them any face.4. Lasers don't mean shit against BVR missiles coming in from over the horizon
>>64506355Based and realI've been trying to tell the thread that the US will be the only ones with this tech on their fighters for the next decade at least.
>>64496923Easy. Switch all power to FRONT, deflector shields.
>>64496923>How can fighters defend/protect themselves against lasers?They could disengage by dispensing chemical cloud adsorbing the laser and blocking the line of sight of the aggressor
>>64506355At 60,000 ft the horizon is 300 miles away. Airborne 1 MW lasers (ex. YAL-1) can blow up solid-fuel missiles at 200 miles away. Modern long-range AAMs have ranges of about 100 NM at best, probably less against maneuvering targets. They won't come from "over the horizon".
>>64507177Like chaff basically
