Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped



I would think that lasers should be good for killing drones, or blinding tanks. Even so, for tank cameras, simple LCD covers like in welding helmets, should probably be good protection against lasers at reasonable distances.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:16:02 -0500, Ignoramus32266

Killing drones is one of the major objectives of deploying the 30 kW models, which both the Navy and the Army have. I don't know about blinding tanks. Maybe.
The way they work depends on an extremely good tracking system. The beam spot has to remain on its target for a couple of seconds to do any serious melting or cooking, and that's with very thin rocket and aircraft shells.
They have some practical uses right now, but they aren't the game-changing weapons that will be coming down the road pretty soon.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well you are looking at baby lasers.
In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter.
Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the table top lasers used to study lenses.
All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag. A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.
This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.
Martin
On 9/25/2015 9:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:13 -0500, Martin Eastburn

It is new technology. None of the other high-powered lasers worked out for a weapon. Diode-bade fiber lasers have.
--
Ed Huntress



>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm talking about an ICBM or MRV coming in at high speed and you shoot it with a BB, the BB dents the skin which then causes friction and burning and you know the rest. Think of the Shuttle. Something out of place or moving into the airflow burns and causes massive disruption and explosions as it cascades into death.
Martin
On 9/27/2015 7:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch rocket is out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles, each of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.
Joe Gwinn

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that were pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a continuous 1 MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons. They just aren't practical.
The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and welding lasers.
There are other types of lasers under development that hold promise for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for high-power direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They could make extremely compact weapons.
--
Ed Huntress


>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too critical to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all but reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by then).
These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to time.
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do. Right now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able to shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at Israel. The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.
At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.
For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter of focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a steady laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down, but that's what the shipboard systems can already do.
Star Wars is still a ways off.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And they will work for a while, and are perfect for defeating a swarm attack.
But a lightweight water-cooled shield will defeat a 30 KW laser, so long as the sea doesn't run out of water.

Yep. The problem here is the distance and the unsteady atmosphere.

And no worries about unsteady atmosphere.

Yes tracking is key, but so are active optics, to maintain a bright focal spot despite blooming due to the beam itself.

Yes, but we will get there, one new capability at a time, as the art progresses.
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Can you imagine the barrel of a tank cannon heated up in a spot - I think it just might 'backfire'...
Martin
On 9/27/2015 2:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

utter.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and chemical fas hioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel concerns) and rel atively nothing went toward military electrophysics or electromagnetic rese arch and production.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if they just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance.
As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you do if it rains?
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf
Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of it in ~1995.
-jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades. As I mentioned, the man who helped me built a ruby-rod laser in 1965, Dr. Herb Elion, was doing advanced laser research for the Navy then.
When they dropped the chemical lasers for impracticality, diode lasers were already making progress in industry. So a lot of research tagged along with that. Those are the weapons we have today. The realm that further advances in laser weapons are in consists largely of problems with maintaining beam integrity. The government has thrown a lot of money into university research that's been working on that. It's very complex.
Laser technology has been pushed so hard, from so many angles, for so long, that it seems doubtful that it could have moved much faster, no matter how much military-industrial-complex money was thrown at it.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In the mid 60's a military contractor beamed a ruby laser between their NH facilities 15 miles apart. While they were setting up the beam hit the ground, causing a woman to fall into a fit of religious ecstasy from seeing the Burning Bush.
I spent three college summers working on government research grants.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We used the campus water tower to range with. It was easy to get mechanical distance and later it was done using a laser.
On a dark night, without a moon, you could just see it on the tower with a small telescope or binoculars.
Love the burning bush.
We worked on a neutron gun. Spooky. But I learned how to protect oneself from a neutron explosion or beam.
Candle wax. Large thick blocks. Then the same in concrete.
I was using a machine in the same lab as our 'mad' and lovable scientist from Scotland. Fresh out PHD in the right field. And a voice we never heard in East Texas in the late 60's. And 5 years after I lived in the south pacific.
Martin
On 9/28/2015 6:40 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:50:08 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

I don't think you're right about that. The government has funded a lot of laser research. During Star Wars, it was a huge amount.
The understanding of laser physics took some time. If you look at the earlier books on lasers versus what it known today, it's startling. I'm having a heck of a time keeping up just with the industrial developments.
Research sometimes takes time and coming up with ideas more than just money.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:54:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

e

t
.

d
l

f

d

f

e of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing .

Hell. Ronald Reagan even ignored treaties with the Russians to limit stuff like cruise missiles. Though, House Speaker Tip O'Neill and the democrats were tougher on Star Wars related research than the republicans at that ti me, but still. Electromagnetic and laser research, development and product ion always get next to nothing in funding compared to stuff like F-15s, Stealth Bombers, A-10s and M-1 tanks and munitions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.