Thread 64496923

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 tradition
make jets shiny again

Or just fly behind a cloud

>>64496923 (OP)
First, 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.

>>64497175
A 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.

>>64497194
It's like you forgot about the range of radars and AAMs

>>64497213
I 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 (OP)
>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.

>>64497247
That's assuming they can be detected before going pitbull.

>>64497255
It'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.

>>64497194
A one MW laser can do stuff to satellites in LEO, so 200-400 Km

>>64496923 (OP)
/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 resistance
SO...
>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 BETA

TL;DR= NUKING on site and tall robots can truly contain the Laser menace. McArthur would approve this.

>>64498579
Why don't they just use drones?

>>64496923 (OP)
it'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.

>>64498589
It 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 70s
Building nuclear bunkers down to 4,000 ft
25 Megaton nukes
744 B-52s
Explosive cigars for Castro
Killing gooks and chinks
Nuke China & Russia together

MAN I MISS THE COLD WAR

>>64496923 (OP)
What if they cover the planes in mirrors?

>>64496923 (OP)
Chrome-mirror plating.

"I'm rubber. You're glue. Bounces off of me and sticks to you!"

/thread

>>64496923 (OP)
>How can jets defend themselves against lasers?

Disco Balls.

>>64496923 (OP)
Inverse Square Rule, mayhaps?

>>64498681
>It was the 70s.
They have giant humanoid robots and moon bases.

>>64496923 (OP)
Distance. Lasers lose penetration rapidly the farther you get from the "melt" zone.

>>64500000
Quints of truth

>>64496923 (OP)
Clouds exist

>>64500000
>moon bases
>get mogged by shitty logistics

>giant humanoid robots
I don't mind that idea, but how they got implemented was goofy and lame. Cool looking robots, but still.

>>64499541
raw force, precision was for pussies.

>>64497194
>laser price and power
The 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.

>>64496923 (OP)
Mirror 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 tel?

>>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?

>>64496923 (OP)
Could you use a generated plasma sheathe and attenuate it to absorb the incoming laser frequency and disperse it?

>>64500761
It'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 plane
Ehhhhh.....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 Core
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeekr_9X

>>64500912
1. 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.

>>64500955
How is this moving the goalposts when the diode will burn itself up after a second of use without adequate cooling?

>>64501019
1. Now downfactor conversion losses starting with the generally correct assumption that non heat recapture, direct turbine-mechanical generation is 31% efficient at best
2. 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 best

That'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 (OP)
*pew*
*pew*
*pew*
Ahhhaaa! Got em!

>>64501269
There's no point in speaking with you, your head is in the clouds and you don't understand reality.

>>64501420
Lmao. Retard.

>>64501451
I'm the black bastard your dad pays to come over and break their bed while I use your mother on sunday mornings, faggot.

>>64501457
You're 100% ESL. Probably a chink or a kike. Blow me, nigger.

>>64501457
Oooor a pajeet. Saaaaarrr

>>64500000
I'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