[QUOTE]Possibly using an externally-mounted POD with sufficient transportable electrical power, the Air Force Research Lab is already working on experimental demonstrator laser weapons able to bolt-on to an aircraft
Air Force scientists are working to arm the B-52 with defensive laser weapons able to incinerate attacking air-to-air or air-to-ground missile attack. Offensive and defensive laser weapons for Air Force fighter jets and large cargo aircraft have been in development for several years now. However, the Air Force Research Lab has recently embarked upon a special five-year effort, called the SHIELD program, aimed at creating sufficient on-board power, optics and high-energy lasers able to defend large platforms such as a B-52 bomber.
“You can take out the target if you put the laser on the attacking weapon for a long enough period of time,” Air Force Chief Scientist Greg Zacharias told Scout Warrior in an exclusive interview. Possibly using an externally-mounted POD with sufficient transportable electrical power,[B] the AFRL is already working on experimental demonstrator weapons able to bolt-on to an aircraft[/B], Zacharias added. [B]Given that an external POD would add shapes to the fuselage which would make an aircraft likely to be vulnerable to enemy air defense radar systems, the bolt-on defensive laser would not be expected to work on a stealthy platform, he explained.[/B]
However, a heavily armed B-52, as a large 1960s-era target, would perhaps best benefit from an ability to defend itself from the air; such a technology would indeed be relevant and potentially useful to the Air Force,[B] as the service is now immersed in a series of high-tech upgrades for the B-52 so that it can continue to serve for decades to come. [/B] Defending a B-52 could becoming increasing important in years to come if some kind of reconfigured B-52 is used as the Pentagon’s emerging Arsenal Plane or “flying bomb truck.”
Lasers use intense heat and light energy to incinerate targets without causing a large explosion, and they operate at very high speeds, giving them a near instantaneous ability to destroy fast-moving targets and defend against incoming enemy attacks, senior Air Force leaders explained.
Defensive laser weapons could also be used to jam an attacking missile as well, developers explained. “You may not want to destroy the incoming missile but rather throw the laser off course – spoof it,” Zacharias said.
Also, synchronizing laser weapons with optics technology from a telescope could increase the precision needed to track and destroy fast moving enemy attacks, he said.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Laser Weapons for Fighter Jets
Aircraft-launched laser weapons from fighter jets could eventually be engineered for a wide range of potential uses, including air-to-air combat, close air support, counter-UAS(drone), counter-boat, ground attack and even missile defense, officials said.
Low cost is another key advantage of laser weapons, as they can prevent the need for high-cost missiles in many combat scenarios.
[B]Air Force Research Laboratory officials have said they plan to have a program of record for air-fired laser weapons in place by 2023.[/B]
Ground testing of a laser weapon called the High Energy Laser, or HEL, has taken place in the last few years at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. The High Energy Laser test is being conducted by the Air Force Directed Energy Directorate, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico.
The first airborne tests are slated to take place by 2021, service officials said. Air Force leaders have said that the service plans to begin firing laser weapons from larger platforms such as C-17s and C-130s until the technological miniaturization efforts can configure the weapon to fire from fighter jets such as an F-15, F-16 or F-35.
Air Combat Command has commissioned the Self-Protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator Advanced Technology Demonstration which will be focused on developing and integrating a more compact, medium-power laser weapon system onto a fighter-compatible pod for self-defense against ground-to-air and air-to-air weapons, a service statement said.[URL="http://www.richardcyoung.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ac-130-laser-show.png"] [B]Air Force Special Operations Command is working with both the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Naval Support Facility Dahlgren to examine placing a laser on an AC-130U gunship to provide an offensive capability.[/B][/URL]
[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1753354-air-force-laser-weapons-to-defend-b-52-bomber[/URL]
Not sure how reputable Scout is as a source, every other story talking about this points to them as the source of this information in an exclusive interview. The SHIELD program was[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/17/politics/us-air-force-laser-fighter-jet-weapons-research/"] reported[/URL] in the past.
It baffles me that the B52 is still in service
it would seem to me that money could be better spent reengining the things instead so they can carry more cruse missiles instead of lasers
Could the laser be used to blind an enemy pilot? Sounds totally plausible.
BUFFs with defensive lasers... that actually sounds pretty damn neat.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;51800144]Could the laser be used to blind an enemy pilot? Sounds totally plausible.[/QUOTE]
That's against multiple weapons conventions. You can't use lasers in that fashion.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51800045]It baffles me that the B52 is still in service[/QUOTE]
The old adage "if it ain't broke don't fix it" comes into play here. Large heavy bombers have been mostly superceded by smaller air craft using precision munitions to accurately hit targets that would have took thousands of pounds of ordinance during WWII. Still sometimes that's what you want, and there's no sense in replacing something that's very good at that.
With its size it also has gained new abilities with the advancement of technology, such as essentially becoming an airborne porkipine filled with anti-aircraft or ground missiles, as well as guided bombs.
So long as the airframes hold up I'm sure we'll still see them flying decades into the future.
I'm curious if they'll reuse this for ICBM defense like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1"]Air Force's earlier laser program[/URL]:
[img_thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/YAL-1A_Airborne_Laser_unstowed_crop.jpg[/img_thumb]
So I'm guessing they solved the problem airborne laser weapons had of requiring giant vats of chemicals to power the lasers
Source: some discovery channel show I watched 10 years ago
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51800258]So I'm guessing they solved the problem airborne laser weapons had of requiring giant vats of chemicals to power the lasers
Source: some discovery channel show I watched 10 years ago[/QUOTE]
na that was a very powerful laser chemical laser, this is just a solid state one very likely the same kind the navy is using
I wonder if the future is retrofitting gunships like the AC-130 to give it an insanely accurate light vehicle killer.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;51800296]I wonder if the future is retrofitting gunships like the AC-130 to give it an insanely accurate light vehicle killer.[/QUOTE]
The engineering doesn't lie, the only real world implementions of any directed energy weapons (including railguns) will be relegated to large platforms like naval destroyers and airborne gunships like the AC-130.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;51800308]The engineering doesn't lie, the only real world implementions of any directed energy weapons (including railguns) will be relegated to large platforms like naval destroyers and airborne gunships like the AC-130.[/QUOTE]
Anything basically that can actively generate the amount of energy required, and is sustainable.
Planes just don't seem to come to mind when i think of it.
The Gerald R Ford class of carriers are currently designed to output faaaaaar more power than they're current consumption demands, purely for the purpose of planned fitting of DEWs.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;51800210]I'm curious if they'll reuse this for ICBM defense like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1"]Air Force's earlier laser program[/URL]:
[img_thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/YAL-1A_Airborne_Laser_unstowed_crop.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Unlikely. The ABL was killed because it didn't have the range to present a credible defense against ICBMs. A proposal during the ABL's development showed that it would take a fleet of ABLs to run constant airborne patrols on the Iranian border to counter an Iranian ICBM threat.
A few hundred kilometers just doesn't cut it against ICBMs. The Advanced Tactical Laser, the one designed for AC-130s, was substantially weaker than the ABL because it was only meant to provide fire support against ground targets within 10km. A laser for point defense will likely be fairly low-powered since it doesn't need much range at all.
Incidentally, the concept of a laser blowing missiles apart is a pretty huge exaggeration of what these lasers are meant to do. They heat up the surface of a missile, weakening it to the point where the aerodynamic stress of flying at Mach 3+ causes it to break up. We've got a long ways to go before we have tank killers and bunker busters.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51800045]It baffles me that the B52 is still in service[/QUOTE]
They built a hell of an airplane and strategic bomber design plateaued in the 1950s when the Buff was still state-of-the-art. There's still juuuust enough of a reason to keep strategic bombers in active duty, but the demand to innovate on them really just isn't there beyond enabling them to shoot down missiles that are trying to shoot them down.
I always preferred GDI's Ion Cannon over the NOD Laser. If space orbital weapons were allowed how viable would a satellite laser cannon be? Would harnessing a constant charge and then some from solar energy be viable?
Just curious, is a mirror enough to block any of these lasers?
[QUOTE=Megadave;51800910]Just curious, is a mirror enough to block any of these lasers?[/QUOTE]
They melt instantaneously through mirrors. There was a special material they used to deflect 50kW laser shots at a piece of ballistics glass at a right angle, but they wouldn't even tell me what it was.
Or you could just use thick pieces of metal depending on power output. The problem is defending, say, an aircraft cockpit. Nothing is stopping you from being lit on fire by a high powered laser through your canopy window.
[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;51800189]That's against multiple weapons conventions. You can't use lasers in that fashion.[/QUOTE]
You can, however, use a laser to explode his head.
We still use the B-52 because we don't have anything else to replace them. They're cost effective and we already have a decent amount of them. Plus they don't break down easily like all the other bombers. All of them suck, but the B-52 suck the least surprisingly.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51800686]They built a hell of an airplane and strategic bomber design plateaued in the 1950s when the Buff was still state-of-the-art. There's still juuuust enough of a reason to keep strategic bombers in active duty, but the demand to innovate on them really just isn't there beyond enabling them to shoot down missiles that are trying to shoot them down.[/QUOTE]
Makes sense, why bother trying to make an expensive and high maintenance stealth aircraft when you can just shoot down the jets and missiles stealth aircraft try to avoid
Not to mention, they put out some pretty great tunes. Gotta love the distinctive leading vocals of Fred Schneider.
But in all seriousness, it does seem a little anachronistic, but fucking cool at the same time. Putting frickin' [B]laser weapons[/B] on [B]a B-52 Stratofortress[/B]. It's like giving assault rifles to the Winged Hussars, or putting a red dot sight on a flintlock pistol.
[QUOTE=choco cookie;51801478]We still use the B-52 because we don't have anything else to replace them. They're cost effective and we already have a decent amount of them. Plus they don't break down easily like all the other bombers. All of them suck, but the B-52 suck the least surprisingly.[/QUOTE]
Not really, the B52 is ancient and things on them are constantly break down.
The only reason they're still flying is their replacements, the B1 and B2, had their production runs cut severely for various reasons. Given that they're only used to haul bombs over nations that lack air forces, or to shoot at Russia with long range nuclear cruise missiles there hasn't been much need to replace them.
Now though, the Russians are developing increasingly sophisticated long range SAM systems which necessitates the development of the B-21 and laser defence systems.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51801487]Makes sense, why bother trying to make an expensive and high maintenance stealth aircraft when you can just shoot down the jets and missiles stealth aircraft try to avoid[/QUOTE]
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Better to avoid being shot at in the first place than find yourself forced to respond to incoming threats. All that does is distract from the mission and expose yourself to unnecessary risk.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.