FC Forums

Tau wrote:TIL I'm not alone here.

So yeah, I've been an aviation nut since I was four. My parents were both stationed at Wright-Patt in the '90s, so.

I don't have anything aerospace-related to vent about at the moment, actually. Except that I really wanted to make it up to Oshkosh this year with some guys from the local air museum club, but I haven't been in touch with them since March.

CatsVsNinjas wrote:You're looking at the wrong person. I know a lot of things but i'm not super interested.

Tau wrote:TIL I'm not alone here.

So yeah, I've been an aviation nut since I was four. My parents were both stationed at Wright-Patt in the '90s, so.

I don't have anything aerospace-related to vent about at the moment, actually. Except that I really wanted to make it up to Oshkosh this year with some guys from the local air museum club, but I haven't been in touch with them since March.

ACH0225 wrote:Are missiles aviation?

Ivan2006 wrote:

ACH0225 wrote:Are missiles aviation?

Only if they go hypersonic.

On a similar note, America is about to lose their air superiority if they can't fit anti-missile lasers into their fighters by 2016.

Below are fifth-generation fighter aircraft projects, three of which have already produced operating prototypes, one from Russia and two from China,

Spoiler:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47 (Russia, prototype, cancelled, but was proof of concept for technologies vital for further Russian developments)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-50 (Russia, prototype, planned to enter service in 2016)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_LMFS (Russia, in development)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi/HAL_FGFA (Russia/India, early develpment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_M ... t_Aircraft (India, in development)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20 (China, prototype, likely to enter service between 2017 and 2019)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31(China, prototype, very little information available)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_ATD-X (Japan, in development, first flight planned 2014)

Former Secretary of Defense Gates said that "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire."

"So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept."

The Air Force did not request further funds for the Airborne Laser for 2010; Air Force Chief Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable." In December 2011, it was reported that the project was to be ended after 16 years of development and a cost of over $5 billion. On 14 February 2012, the YA-1 flew her final mission to Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ and was placed in storage at the AMARG.

Shadowcat wrote:
Ivan what? most of those articles dont even have the word laser in them. And the ones that do appear to be nothing more then laser pointers to distract heat-seeking missiles. Laser based missile defense is a joke currently and especially in an atmosphere. Once were in space then the size requirements for a powerful laser and dropoff of damage could be waved. As for US research into it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL ... velopments
and:

Former Secretary of Defense Gates said that "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire."

"So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept."

The Air Force did not request further funds for the Airborne Laser for 2010; Air Force Chief Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable." In December 2011, it was reported that the project was to be ended after 16 years of development and a cost of over $5 billion. On 14 February 2012, the YA-1 flew her final mission to Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ and was placed in storage at the AMARG.

I dont see how laser based missile defense would give them air superiority, Not to mention you need platforms to launch said aircraft and as for the US's supply of air bases, well, there fucking everywhere. And ten of these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier because you know, You can never have enough air dakka.

Iv121 wrote:See the advantage of missile AA def is indeed the vast range of the missile , however there is one main limitation: They have trouble taking out low altitude projectiles. AA missiles require a radar system to direct them to their targets, problem is that those radars have trouble picking up small low altitude projectiles on time for the missiles to intercept them. Currently our Iron Dome is the only AA system in the world capable of intercepting such low flying targets however this requires the radar system to be placed outside the missile (on the battery itself). The missiles themselves are launched at the trajectory of the incoming projectile. Currently this method provides 95% destruction rate which is good but leaves you open to the remaining 5%, also those missiles have trouble with low altitude course changing missiles, in other word cruising missiles. Those also cant provide protection against shells, lasers on the other hand protect well against all 3 threats mentioned above.

In general though as you see lasers are more fit to be placed in specific areas that you need to defend or in specific directions where you know the projectile is going to pass. Good locations would be ships, special military camps, the border of Gaza and Israel. Bad places would be planes, satellites, the border of the united states and so on.

Lasers have a smaller effective radius however they make up for it by the ability to hit their targets almost instantaniously (basically at the speed of light). In other words its just point and shoot at everything that comes in your direction, will it be a shell or a missile. The course of the projectile doesn't matter anymore either. Although the targeting radar suffers from the same limitations usual radars do the short periods of time in which they are capable of detecting the incoming projectiles is enough for the laser to target and destroy them.