By: Ozair
- 17th January 2016 at 04:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i think its several meters, and several hundred meters for a nuke tipped aam
The conventional AAMs typically have a larger lethal radius than that while the nuclear missiles were all over the place
For example with the AIM-9 the initial variant, the B model, had a 4.5 kg warhead that resulted in a lethal radius of about 9 meters.
The AIM-9A/B used a 4.5 kg (10 lb) blast-fragmentation warhead. This was triggered by an IR proximity or contact fuze, and had an effective kill radius of about 9 m (30 ft).
Some were smaller, such as the AA-8 with had only a 3 kg warhead.
The current AIM-9x has warhead size of 9.4 kg, so double the AIM-9B, and the lethal radius is almost certainly in the 10-15 meter range and perhaps larger given modern explosives. That warhead size is shared by most of the current WVR missiles, Python 5 is 11 kg, ASRAAM is 10 kg, with the AA-11 the smallest at 7.4 kg.
Looking at BVR missiles the AIM-120C-5 has a 18 kg warhead so probably closer to the 20-30 meter lethal radius. AA-12 is 22.5 kg, AIM-7M a 40 kg warhead, AA-10 is 40 kg and the AIM-54 was a colossal 61 kg. Those figures make sense given the active AAMs have smaller warheads, probably through both better guidance and less internal space, while the SARH missiles have bigger warheads due to less accurate guidance.
For the nuclear missiles, Wiki has the AIR-2 Genie with a warhead size of 1.5 kt and a blast radius of approx 300 meters.
The resultant weapon carried a 1.5-kiloton W25 nuclear warhead and was powered by a Thiokol SR49-TC-1 solid-fuel rocket engine of 162 kN (36,500 lbf) thrust. It had a range of slightly under 10 km (6.2 mi). Targeting, arming, and firing of the weapon were coordinated by the launch aircraft's fire-control system. Detonation was by time-delay fuze, although the fuzing mechanism would not arm the warhead until engine burn-out, to give the launch aircraft sufficient time to turn and escape. Lethal radius of the blast was estimated to be about 300 meters (1,000 ft).
The AIM-26 Falcon had a 250 t of TNT equiv nuclear warhead probably as a result of being SARH, which corresponded to a significantly smaller blast radius than the Genie but, even though the Genie was unguided, the AIM-26 was retired much earlier. (probably because the AIM-4/26 were such terrible missiles...)
Off topic I know but does anyone have figures for Russian nuclear AAMs or if they even had any?
By: Ozair
- 17th January 2016 at 04:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My view on this "Laser weapon" on Gen 6..is more like a defensive purpose... shooting down inbound missiles. 2 Km destruction range is i see acceptable given that effective warhead of AAM usually only have effective radius of several hundred meters. it'll keep away the protected aircraft from harmful fragments.
It is an interesting consideration. If airborne lasers do come on as expected, we might need more novel approaches to warhead and missile design to compensate. As with the 5th gen, we are seeing new missile programs to take advantage of increased 5th gen capabilities. We would probably see a similar requirement post 6th gen aircraft.
Some suggestions might be warheads with multiple independent self guided or powered sub munitions. That would give a self-defence laser potentially too many targets to destroy. Larger frag warheads that explode and place hovering frag in the air to kill engines?
By: Marcellogo
- 17th January 2016 at 06:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is an interesting consideration. If airborne lasers do come on as expected, we might need more novel approaches to warhead and missile design to compensate. As with the 5th gen, we are seeing new missile programs to take advantage of increased 5th gen capabilities. We would probably see a similar requirement post 6th gen aircraft.
Some suggestions might be warheads with multiple independent self guided or powered sub munitions. That would give a self-defence laser potentially too many targets to destroy. Larger frag warheads that explode and place hovering frag in the air to kill engines?
Something like this is already operational:
Obviously, we are talking about a totally different missile cathegory but let's say that Starstreak just got also a series of features (tungsten frame, beam riding guidance, systems, hypersonic velocity ) that can made the task even more difficult for a DEW to cope with.
A larger version of them, able to carry a proximity fuze and a larger warhead would do the task.
By: garryA
- 17th January 2016 at 06:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.
Of course with the same laser as my example... extending the exposure time to 8.3 minutes.. you can engage aircraft target at 50 Km. But can you tell me what kind of aircrafts especially fighter aircrafts used today that will calmly stay and keep on moving steadily ? Well airliner or drone maybe but not agile fighters.. Plus they might have LWR.
How about try to blind the pilot eye or sensor ?
My expectation is that those kind of targets will violently maneuver. Unless the laser is electronically steered.. i don't think it will be able to keep track on agile target. Thus fast engagement time is the key parameter here. and it can be achieved with either more powerful laser or having larger mirror/ laser focusing aperture
.
I don't think you need the laser to be "electronically" steered like PESA or AESA to keep the beam on target , unless the target is extremely close range
Air defense gun like CIWS can use normal turret and bullet and still successful engage any aircraft that come close enough
Damaging a beam rider sensor:confused:, that is faced backward:confused:with a laser device:stupid:.
Ok, now to summarize the discussion by now, we passed from a death ray carring plane to a high power DIRCM to be employed as a sort of Ciws system, to be mounted in a pod (so it can be mounted practically on every plane having enough power generation ) and available in a few years.
A little too few to be defined as the main characteristic of a next gen fighter IMHO.
Sensor, propulsion, manned or unmanned, size, other weapon?
By: mig-31bm
- 17th January 2016 at 09:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Damaging a beam rider sensor:confused:, that is faced backward:confused:with a laser device:stupid:.
Ok, now to summarize the discussion by now, we passed from a death ray carring plane to a high power DIRCM to be employed as a sort of Ciws system, to be mounted in a pod (so it can be mounted practically on every plane having enough power generation ) and available in a few years.
A little too few to be defined as the main characteristic of a next gen fighter IMHO.
Sensor, propulsion, manned or unmanned, size, other weapon?
IMHO , the size and weight of next gen fighter will depend alot on how mature , useful DEW weapon is
If DEW turn out to be very powerful that you can blow up any missiles in a fraction of a second then it is likely that next gen fighter will be huge and optimized for long range
By: Marcellogo
- 17th January 2016 at 10:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
May be the jammer and the target are not located at same place in case of beam riding sensor
Beam riding have rather unique tractology too
The image refers to the old radar single emitter system.
About all actual systems use laser instead, much less power required and much narrow beams.
All of themuse multiple emitters (usually four) to cope with the earlier system main disadvantage, that you see well in the image: as the beam tend to spread, the more the distance the more missile became increasingly inaccurate.
With multiple emitter it is instead directed at the juntion point of the different beams: even if they spread wide this point tend to stay way tighter.
Tractology in this case is even more peculiar that even the one in picture: missiles keep on spinning at a great intensity.
Give a look loook to some Syria videos in which a russian ATGM is used to get an idea of it.
So let's made a sum: rear facing sensor, possibility of hardening the frontal part, multiple small size warheads coming at once on a wawering /spinning trajectory, a very hard client to cope by for a laser weapon.
By: Marcellogo
- 17th January 2016 at 10:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IMHO , the size and weight of next gen fighter will depend alot on how mature , useful DEW weapon is
If DEW turn out to be very powerful that you can blow up any missiles in a fraction of a second then it is likely that next gen fighter will be huge and optimized for long range
In such a moment, my first objection would be valid: also opponents would have something similar and would put much powerful ones on cargo planes or also from land and use them directly against fighters.
There is nothing like X-wings (or Vipers) slipping between deathstar (or BS Galactica) heavy laser mounts in real world.
By: moon_light
- 17th January 2016 at 12:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well first of all..YAL 1 have over 3MW of Power and Mirror diameter of 1.5 meter. and you still wonder why it can have range of 200-500 km against BM ?
----
My view on this "Laser weapon" on Gen 6..is more like a defensive purpose... shooting down inbound missiles. 2 Km destruction range is i see acceptable given that effective warhead of AAM usually only have effective radius of several hundred meters. it'll keep away the protected aircraft from harmful fragments.
This 10 kW laser have destruction range of 2 km at sea level
Designed for short-range defense of high-value assets including forward operating bases, the ADAM system’s 10-kilowatt fiber laser is engineered to destroy targets up to 2 kilometers
So I think a 100 kW system at 30-40k feet should perform significantly better
For example power on target at 30k feet :
It has been shown that there are many physical considerations in the employment of high energy solid-state laser systems aboard fighter-sized aircraft. However, with developing technology, none are insurmountable. The real question is whether or not such a system is worth the time and money spent to research, test and field these new technologies.
For the FA-18E/F, the likelihood of being able to field a thermally-managed, adequately-powered 100 kW laser system is low. And, while a 50 kW system appears (via HELEEOS simulation) to be an adequate air-to-air offensive and/or defensive weapon, its utility in the air-to-ground environment would be somewhat limited to the softer targets. Clearly, a 25 kW system will be inadequate in the air-to-ground environment. However, it could prove to be a decent defensive air-to-air weapon (in the SAM DEFENSE role) Diffraction effects make the power on target at ranges greater than 10 km too small to be effective, and thus it would have little tactical value in the offensive air-to-air role. The versatility of an HEL weapon makes it an attractive option for the warfighter. If a 50 kW or greater weapon could be fielded on an FA-18E/F, then it could prove to be a valuable asset. A 25 kW weapon, serving only as a defensive, close-range system, might be too much of a sacrifice of weapon stations and fuel carrying capacity for the Super Hornet.
The Joint Strike Fighter should be able to adequately power a 100 kW weapon. The question of cooling remains, although those technologies are under development. A 100 kW system is clearly versatile in both the air-to-air and air-to-ground environments, and this weapon would revolutionize the tactics of the aerial arena. Again, though, it will never be a standalone weapon. There will always be a need for explosive weapons and hard target penetrators to destroy certain targets. There will always be scenarios where the laser, no matter how powerful, will be relatively useless (e.g. bad weather), and thus there will always be a need for the conventional weaponry of the strike fighter
By: stealthflanker
- 17th January 2016 at 13:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Off topic I know but does anyone have figures for Russian nuclear AAMs or if they even had any?
Supposedly there is a nuclear variant of R-33
It is an interesting consideration. If airborne lasers do come on as expected, we might need more novel approaches to warhead and missile design to compensate. As with the 5th gen, we are seeing new missile programs to take advantage of increased 5th gen capabilities. We would probably see a similar requirement post 6th gen aircraft.
Some suggestions might be warheads with multiple independent self guided or powered sub munitions. That would give a self-defence laser potentially too many targets to destroy. Larger frag warheads that explode and place hovering frag in the air to kill engines?
Or advancement in materials. make it more resistant to directed energy weapon.
Maybe we could have in the future "Laser absorber"
Something like this is already operational:
Obviously, we are talking about a totally different missile cathegory but let's say that Starstreak just got also a series of features (tungsten frame, beam riding guidance, systems, hypersonic velocity ) that can made the task even more difficult for a DEW to cope with.
A larger version of them, able to carry a proximity fuze and a larger warhead would do the task.
and so.. not fire and forget ?
How about try to blind the pilot eye or sensor ?
This was a concern at old time.. especially for British who developed a concept of enclosed canopy. So the pilot have no direct vision to outside.
and there was a"cheap method" of actually give pilot an eyepiece to cover 1 eyes... and let him fly with one eyes open... when he got blinded.. he can simply switch the eye pice to the blinded eye and continue flying.
I don't think you need the laser to be "electronically" steered like PESA or AESA to keep the beam on target , unless the target is extremely close range
Air defense gun like CIWS can use normal turret and bullet and still successful engage any aircraft that come close enough
If you're only dealing with one target that would be true... But when dealing with multiple targets and your laser turret were happen to not be able to kill the target "at blink of an eye" then.. you will need electronic steering.
As for the "depth" Well Target like aircrafts and missiles are Not "thick" target... for example.. skin thickness of Russian SS-18 Satan ICBM is only in order of 2-3 mm. Thickness would be the least of your worries on air to air combat scenario using lasers.
This 10 kW laser have destruction range of 2 km at sea level
By: bring_it_on
- 17th January 2016 at 13:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ I have posted 3-4 papers (including this one) here before. Another point worth remembering is that your intentions with the DEW may be very different. How long do you need to impact the inlets, or the nozzle/engine area to cause damage to the aircraft? What if there is a direct DE strike on the radome? How long before it begins to impacts its performance along that of other critical components of the aircraft? What if you go after a fuel tank?
The Burris article talks about a lot of what has been discussed here. and is a relevant read.... -
A majority of airborne and ground-based military targets, including IR and RF anti-aircraft missile threats, are vulnerable to lasers. It must be noted, however, that a laser weapon attack is fundamentally different than an attack by conventional high explosive weapons. Because lasers cause very localized damage what is really being attacked are target components (e.g., critical electronics located beneath the skin, sensors, load bearing strcture, fuel tanks etc). Whereas conventional weapons typically destroy s targets, laser weapons will usually produce far less destructive, but still desirable effects (eg,. Functional kill, mobility kill). ….
The final point to note is that most targets will hav several components susceptible to lasers, each component having its own associated vulnerability requirements (fluence, spot size, minimum irradiance).
How long is the engagement time ? and how big are the supporting optics ?
The graph is talking about power on target at different ranges. There are however, various studies that look at engagement times. The lockheed study chose 5 seconds. I have seen one with 3 seconds as well.
By: garryA
- 17th January 2016 at 14:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ I have posted 3-4 papers (including this one) here before. Another point worth remembering is that your intentions with the DEW may be very different. How long do you need to impact the inlets, or the nozzle/engine area to cause damage to the aircraft? What if there is a direct DE strike on the radome? How long before it begins to impacts its performance along that of other critical components of the aircraft? What if you go after a fuel tank?
The link are not available I think , I can only download one of them
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 17th January 2016 at 15:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ I have posted 3-4 papers (including this one) here before. Another point worth remembering is that your intentions with the DEW may be very different. How long do you need to impact the inlets, or the nozzle/engine area to cause damage to the aircraft? What if there is a direct DE strike on the radome? How long before it begins to impacts its performance along that of other critical components of the aircraft? What if you go after a fuel tank?
The Burris article talks about a lot of what has been discussed here. and is a relevant read.... -
The graph is talking about power on target at different ranges. There are however, various studies that look at engagement times. The lockheed study chose 5 seconds. I have seen one with 3 seconds as well.
I suspect the most obvious target would be the cockpit of an opposing aircraft. No pilot is going to do anything useful while literally being burned alive in a depressurized cockpit. (it is an ugly thought, but then no more so than trying to tear his airplane apart with metal fragments)
The cockpit would also be attractive as a target because it is big, exposed from most angles, and easily recognizable by automated aiming software.
By: Ozair
- 18th January 2016 at 00:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suspect the most obvious target would be the cockpit of an opposing aircraft. No pilot is going to do anything useful while literally being burned alive in a depressurized cockpit. (it is an ugly thought, but then no more so than trying to tear his airplane apart with metal fragments)
The cockpit would also be attractive as a target because it is big, exposed from most angles, and easily recognizable by automated aiming software.
but I haven't heard of any provision against melting a pilot...
Yes, a laser weapon designed to blind someone is prohibited, but a laser weapon designed to kill is not. Lots of weapons have the potential to cause blindness.
By: Marcellogo
- 18th January 2016 at 03:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe we could have in the future "Laser absorber"
and so.. not fire and forget ?
It a 20 Kg weapon man, jet still able to reach mach 4 and release 3 submunition: for an A2A weapon we would reason about something 10X weight, for a S2A also 50X, still for the terminal submunitions, i'll still bet on beam riding, for the reason i've explained before.
A cargo missile for the cruise part with an autonomous guidance system and a laser pointer launching 3-4 starstreak like missiles in sequence, each in turn delivering 3 submunitions and we are served
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 17th January 2016 at 00:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i think its several meters, and several hundred meters for a nuke tipped aam
Posts: 815
By: Ozair - 17th January 2016 at 04:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The conventional AAMs typically have a larger lethal radius than that while the nuclear missiles were all over the place
For example with the AIM-9 the initial variant, the B model, had a 4.5 kg warhead that resulted in a lethal radius of about 9 meters.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-9.html
Some were smaller, such as the AA-8 with had only a 3 kg warhead.
The current AIM-9x has warhead size of 9.4 kg, so double the AIM-9B, and the lethal radius is almost certainly in the 10-15 meter range and perhaps larger given modern explosives. That warhead size is shared by most of the current WVR missiles, Python 5 is 11 kg, ASRAAM is 10 kg, with the AA-11 the smallest at 7.4 kg.
Looking at BVR missiles the AIM-120C-5 has a 18 kg warhead so probably closer to the 20-30 meter lethal radius. AA-12 is 22.5 kg, AIM-7M a 40 kg warhead, AA-10 is 40 kg and the AIM-54 was a colossal 61 kg. Those figures make sense given the active AAMs have smaller warheads, probably through both better guidance and less internal space, while the SARH missiles have bigger warheads due to less accurate guidance.
For the nuclear missiles, Wiki has the AIR-2 Genie with a warhead size of 1.5 kt and a blast radius of approx 300 meters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
The AIM-26 Falcon had a 250 t of TNT equiv nuclear warhead probably as a result of being SARH, which corresponded to a significantly smaller blast radius than the Genie but, even though the Genie was unguided, the AIM-26 was retired much earlier. (probably because the AIM-4/26 were such terrible missiles...)
Off topic I know but does anyone have figures for Russian nuclear AAMs or if they even had any?
Posts: 815
By: Ozair - 17th January 2016 at 04:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is an interesting consideration. If airborne lasers do come on as expected, we might need more novel approaches to warhead and missile design to compensate. As with the 5th gen, we are seeing new missile programs to take advantage of increased 5th gen capabilities. We would probably see a similar requirement post 6th gen aircraft.
Some suggestions might be warheads with multiple independent self guided or powered sub munitions. That would give a self-defence laser potentially too many targets to destroy. Larger frag warheads that explode and place hovering frag in the air to kill engines?
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 17th January 2016 at 06:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Something like this is already operational:
Obviously, we are talking about a totally different missile cathegory but let's say that Starstreak just got also a series of features (tungsten frame, beam riding guidance, systems, hypersonic velocity ) that can made the task even more difficult for a DEW to cope with.
A larger version of them, able to carry a proximity fuze and a larger warhead would do the task.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 17th January 2016 at 06:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How about try to blind the pilot eye or sensor ?
I don't think you need the laser to be "electronically" steered like PESA or AESA to keep the beam on target , unless the target is extremely close range
Air defense gun like CIWS can use normal turret and bullet and still successful engage any aircraft that come close enough
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 17th January 2016 at 07:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The hole is 3 cm in diameter but how deep is it ?
Btw based on this , how far can a LRF damage the IR sensor ?
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAEOApqFQoTCKu6_fbvjckCFUFVGgodDJIBBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffoi.se%2FReportFiles%2Ffoir_0152.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGIkVI73ElKFqWAa5nABjZMAfqTwA&sig2=ZJ6PFn2YD2b0WEb6d1JBsQ&bvm=bv.107467506,d.d2s
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bBb2LpX5CnQC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=DIRCM+laser+MJ&source=bl&ots=CDjaDoP-Rr&sig=Hgfm5Qm7D2uir1rA8FmNMucXH50&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnob3kgd7JAhUGyRQKHWnECuQQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q&f=false
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 17th January 2016 at 08:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Damaging a beam rider sensor:confused:, that is faced backward:confused:with a laser device:stupid:
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 17th January 2016 at 09:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
May be the jammer and the target are not located at same place in case of beam riding sensor
Beam riding have rather unique tractology too
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 17th January 2016 at 09:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Damaging a beam rider sensor:confused:, that is faced backward:confused:with a laser device:stupid:.
Ok, now to summarize the discussion by now, we passed from a death ray carring plane to a high power DIRCM to be employed as a sort of Ciws system, to be mounted in a pod (so it can be mounted practically on every plane having enough power generation ) and available in a few years.
A little too few to be defined as the main characteristic of a next gen fighter IMHO.
Sensor, propulsion, manned or unmanned, size, other weapon?
Opps, double post.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 17th January 2016 at 09:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IMHO , the size and weight of next gen fighter will depend alot on how mature , useful DEW weapon is
If DEW turn out to be very powerful that you can blow up any missiles in a fraction of a second then it is likely that next gen fighter will be huge and optimized for long range
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 17th January 2016 at 10:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The image refers to the old radar single emitter system.
About all actual systems use laser instead, much less power required and much narrow beams.
All of themuse multiple emitters (usually four) to cope with the earlier system main disadvantage, that you see well in the image: as the beam tend to spread, the more the distance the more missile became increasingly inaccurate.
With multiple emitter it is instead directed at the juntion point of the different beams: even if they spread wide this point tend to stay way tighter.
Tractology in this case is even more peculiar that even the one in picture: missiles keep on spinning at a great intensity.
Give a look loook to some Syria videos in which a russian ATGM is used to get an idea of it.
So let's made a sum: rear facing sensor, possibility of hardening the frontal part, multiple small size warheads coming at once on a wawering /spinning trajectory, a very hard client to cope by for a laser weapon.
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 17th January 2016 at 10:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In such a moment, my first objection would be valid: also opponents would have something similar and would put much powerful ones on cargo planes or also from land and use them directly against fighters.
There is nothing like X-wings (or Vipers) slipping between deathstar (or BS Galactica) heavy laser mounts in real world.
Posts: 999
By: moon_light - 17th January 2016 at 12:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This 10 kW laser have destruction range of 2 km at sea level
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/may/0507-ss-adam.html
So I think a 100 kW system at 30-40k feet should perform significantly better
For example power on target at 30k feet :
Posts: 906
By: stealthflanker - 17th January 2016 at 13:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supposedly there is a nuclear variant of R-33
Or advancement in materials. make it more resistant to directed energy weapon.
Maybe we could have in the future "Laser absorber"
and so.. not fire and forget ?
This was a concern at old time.. especially for British who developed a concept of enclosed canopy. So the pilot have no direct vision to outside.
and there was a"cheap method" of actually give pilot an eyepiece to cover 1 eyes... and let him fly with one eyes open... when he got blinded.. he can simply switch the eye pice to the blinded eye and continue flying.
If you're only dealing with one target that would be true... But when dealing with multiple targets and your laser turret were happen to not be able to kill the target "at blink of an eye" then.. you will need electronic steering.
As for the "depth" Well Target like aircrafts and missiles are Not "thick" target... for example.. skin thickness of Russian SS-18 Satan ICBM is only in order of 2-3 mm. Thickness would be the least of your worries on air to air combat scenario using lasers.
How long is the engagement time ? and how big are the supporting optics ?
I won't be surprised though if the engagement time is more than 1 seconds.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 17th January 2016 at 13:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ I have posted 3-4 papers (including this one) here before. Another point worth remembering is that your intentions with the DEW may be very different. How long do you need to impact the inlets, or the nozzle/engine area to cause damage to the aircraft? What if there is a direct DE strike on the radome? How long before it begins to impacts its performance along that of other critical components of the aircraft? What if you go after a fuel tank?
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?134417-a2a-and-a2g-variants-of-a-stealth-fighter&p=2214017#post2214017
The Burris article talks about a lot of what has been discussed here. and is a relevant read.... -
The graph is talking about power on target at different ranges. There are however, various studies that look at engagement times. The lockheed study chose 5 seconds. I have seen one with 3 seconds as well.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 17th January 2016 at 14:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The link are not available I think , I can only download one of them
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 17th January 2016 at 15:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suspect the most obvious target would be the cockpit of an opposing aircraft. No pilot is going to do anything useful while literally being burned alive in a depressurized cockpit. (it is an ugly thought, but then no more so than trying to tear his airplane apart with metal fragments)
The cockpit would also be attractive as a target because it is big, exposed from most angles, and easily recognizable by automated aiming software.
Posts: 815
By: Ozair - 18th January 2016 at 00:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is a provision against using laser weapons specifically to permanently blind someone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons
but I haven't heard of any provision against melting a pilot...
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 18th January 2016 at 02:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, a laser weapon designed to blind someone is prohibited, but a laser weapon designed to kill is not. Lots of weapons have the potential to cause blindness.
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 18th January 2016 at 03:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It a 20 Kg weapon man, jet still able to reach mach 4 and release 3 submunition: for an A2A weapon we would reason about something 10X weight, for a S2A also 50X, still for the terminal submunitions, i'll still bet on beam riding, for the reason i've explained before.
A cargo missile for the cruise part with an autonomous guidance system and a laser pointer launching 3-4 starstreak like missiles in sequence, each in turn delivering 3 submunitions and we are served