If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#471
|
|||
|
|||
LukeCampbell wrote in message
Oh. My reading was that it could operate at full power (about 100 kW CW) for several seconds, and then had to be shut off to cool. Since I'm not actually working on the beasty, though, I can't say if my reading is correct or not. They're pulsed lasers, iirc. The first version, using the flash lamps, has to be. Flash lamps don't give a continuous pumping effect. Reading from what both HELSTF and LLNL has said, the LED pumped version is a follow-on. The laser guys are just as excited about the pulsed effects as we are. Rapid thermal cook-off takes a lot longer (theoretically) and doesn't work in every situation. Will Luke -- William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there Home: anzha@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp Work: wbaird@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends. |
#472
|
|||
|
|||
|
#473
|
|||
|
|||
William Baird wrote:
They're pulsed lasers, iirc. The first version, using the flash lamps, has to be. Flash lamps don't give a continuous pumping effect. Reading from what both HELSTF and LLNL has said, the LED pumped version is a follow-on. The laser guys are just as excited about the pulsed effects as we are. Rapid thermal cook-off takes a lot longer (theoretically) and doesn't work in every situation. That is just too cool. I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out. Luke |
#474
|
|||
|
|||
"Damo" writes:
"John Schilling" wrote in message ... (George William Herbert) writes: John Schilling wrote: Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct. I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4 air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you might as well send in F-15s?? The F-22 carries, internally and stealthily, six AIM-120 AMRAAMs and two AIM-9 Sidewinders. It can carry four missiles (2 ea AIM-9 and AIM-120) *and* two JDAMs internally, as a self-escorting strike aircraft. That may be where you got the four missiles bit from. But AMRAAMS are gross overkill against the sort of cruise missile being postulated here. You only need the long range, midcourse guidance, high energy and terminal maneuverability if the target is going to evade and/or shoot back, or if it's moving fast enough that even a supercruising F-22 can't engage closely. Against minimal cruise missiles, an air-to-air Stinger is more than enough. Yes, the Stinger has an air-to-air variant, and yes, the seeker will lock onto the exhaust of a small piston engine. And you can pack eight of them in the weight and volume envelope of an AIM-120, or four for an AIM-9. Fifty-six total in an F-22, without compromising stealth or supercruise[1]. This is not to say you could do it tomorrow. You'd have to design 4- and 8-rail extendable launchers, and integrate the missiles and launchers with the F-22 weapons control system. But it could be done faster than the hypothetical opposition could field their cruise missile swarms, at which point American fighter pilots get to have more fun than they've had since the Marianas Turkey Shoot. [1] A competent adversary not irrationally wedded to the Great Cruise Missile Swarm tactic would keep just enough MiG-29s or the like in inventory that American pilots would reasonably insist on a couple of AMRAAMs at all times Just In Case. So maybe fourty Stingers and two AIM-120s would be a more realistic loadout for this scenario, ~34 stowed kills at 0.8 Pk. Probably a couple more with the gun :-) -- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * |
#475
|
|||
|
|||
Fred J. McCall wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote: :Stinger is used in air to air mode, there's a separate product :version for it even (ATAS Block 2). It's used and qualified on :US Army helicopters. Against other helicopters. An F-22 is just a bit of overkill for hunting helicopters. The thread was specifically on, how does the US respond intelligently to the swarm of a tenth of a million cheap cruise missiles fired by the Swami of Elbonia in response to the 1st Armored, 1st Cav, 1st Inf, 3rd Inf, 7th Inf, 103rd Airmobile Armored, and a host of other units swarming across his border. The intelligent response is, of course, that the USAF on hearing of this threat fits tens of Stingers in pods to all the fighters they have available; in twenty years, that will be F-22s and F-35s. And lasers, no doubt. But lots of Stingers. There aren't enough helicopters in the world, probably, to justify fitting that many Stingers to a F-22 or F-35, though I wouldn't say it would *never* come to pass. -george william herbert |
#476
|
|||
|
|||
|
#478
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:25:13 -0000, Earl Colby Pottinger
wrote: Things I have learnt: 1) There are people to this day don't seem to understand that Americans are not cowards, they just don't like to fight wars. **** they off and they will fight, they will not be scared off, rather they will hit you with everything they have got. Why people think otherwise that is beyond me. Me neither. I can see why some people might think that as a nation we are not too bright or perhaps easily manipulated, but we certainly seem to be willing to fight. 2) There are people to this day who think they can make a war too big to fight. America is BIG, it really is BIG, I mean really, really BIG. When America goes to war, it does not gear up production to fight, instead it uses the war to clean out all the old stock it has lying around to make room for new shiny weapons that it will make later after examining the results of the old weapons. By the way America hate holding onto old stock, it does not matter how little you are, they want to use all thier old stock on you to clean out the inventory. I guess it make the paperwork easyier. 3) There are people to this day who think they can make a war too expensive. America is rich, it probably is the only country where government people say "A billion here, a billion there, soon it starts to add up to real money' and mean it. In other words if you spend a billion dollars making your defense system, America can afford to spend ten billion tearing it down. Ditto, if you spent 10 billion. Tell me something, do you like throwing the nation's money away? I gather we spent about $60B fighting the Iraq war, and are planning to spend another $80B or so on "reconstruction". "Reconstruction" is apparently not reconstructing very much at the moment (almost no power in Iraq, water shortages, etc. from an article I recently read) - despite a very large budget. Oddly enough, Iraq did a much faster job of reconstruction all by itself without US help after the Gulf war. Go figure. What are we actually getting for our money? Do you think that the US gvt is going to find the mysteriously missing weapons of mass destruction? Apparently you don't want to set any limit into how much money the US will throw away. The recent trend to mindless militarism in the US frankly alarms me. If we were actually getting something from it as a nation, it might be understandable (though not particularly ethical, a sort of "big fish eats little fish might makes right" sort of ethics). But we're not even getting anything from it (as a nation, I mean, I'm sure a few rich people are getting very much richer). |
#479
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:01:24 -0800, pervect
wrote: 1) There are people to this day don't seem to understand that Americans are not cowards, they just don't like to fight wars. **** they off and they will fight, they will not be scared off, rather they will hit you with everything they have got. Why people think otherwise that is beyond me. Me neither. I can see why some people might think that as a nation we are not too bright or perhaps easily manipulated, but we certainly seem to be willing to fight. Perhaps it comes from the typical American unwillingness to suffer unnecessary casualties. Not that we won't do what it takes, just that we'd prefer to do it without any of our guys dying. Rather than trying to storm an enemy position, we'd rather just bomb and shell the hell out of it first, losing time but gaining lives. It's a long and glorious tradition going back to the time when American irregular troops were considered unmanly and cowardly for not standing toe to toe with the British regulars and exchanging volleys with them. -- "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft |
#480
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Johnny Bravo writes: On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:01:24 -0800, pervect wrote: 1) There are people to this day don't seem to understand that Americans are not cowards, they just don't like to fight wars. **** they off and they will fight, they will not be scared off, rather they will hit you with everything they have got. Why people think otherwise that is beyond me. Me neither. I can see why some people might think that as a nation we are not too bright or perhaps easily manipulated, but we certainly seem to be willing to fight. Perhaps it comes from the typical American unwillingness to suffer unnecessary casualties. Not that we won't do what it takes, just that we'd prefer to do it without any of our guys dying. Rather than trying to storm an enemy position, we'd rather just bomb and shell the hell out of it first, losing time but gaining lives. It's a long and glorious tradition going back to the time when American irregular troops were considered unmanly and cowardly for not standing toe to toe with the British regulars and exchanging volleys with them. Apparantly there are those (see the A-Bomb on Japan thread) who think that this is, somehow, unfair. Ain't nobody fights fair. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |