"Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 10, 10:56*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?

Might as well mount the lasers on sharks.

The future is the virtual AWACS. Take a half dozen F-22s in and they
can cover most of the sky. (Would it really really kill the USAF to
mount those side radars?)

Then MADL links everybody together.

-HJC

On Mar 10, 1:56*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
...
How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
Ken-

Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.

jsw

On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

...
How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
Ken-

Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
jsw

Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
Ken

On Mar 10, 8:27*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

...
How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
Ken-

Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
jsw

Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,http://www.msnbc.msn..com/id/4926840
where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.

Hard to say but easy to assume that AWACS platforms won't be getting
any bigger, so it's not like there will be all this spare space and
power capacity. AWACS will continue to be dependent on fighter cover;
any self-defense capability will probably come from heavy focused
beams of microwave frying Red Force avionics (or injecting code bugs
into them...I've heard about that more than once from informed
sources).

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

...
How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
Ken-
Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
jsw

Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
Ken

Last I heard the lasers in question were chemical lasers which fill
the cargo bay of a 747. I don't think you have a clue how little free
space is AWACS. It's obvious you have never been in one, I have.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Danelda, you're still posting, nice to hear from you.

On Mar 10, 6:59 pm, Dan wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

...
How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
Ken-
Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
jsw

Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
Ken

Last I heard the lasers in question were chemical lasers which fill
the cargo bay of a 747. I don't think you have a clue how little free
space is AWACS. It's obvious you have never been in one, I have.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Late 60's Star Trek had 'communicators', in the 70's I worked with
others on digitizing TX/Rx, now a 10 yr old brat has more ability in
a cell phone (like 20x eh) than Cpt Kirk had in the fiction of
2200's,
It's applied physics, personally I'd perfer humans negotiate rather
than exploite that power to kill each other, what do you think?
Ken

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Danelda, you're still posting, nice to hear from you.

On Mar 10, 6:59 pm, Dan wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
...
How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
Ken-
Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
jsw
Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
Ken
Last I heard the lasers in question were chemical lasers which fill
the cargo bay of a 747. I don't think you have a clue how little free
space is AWACS. It's obvious you have never been in one, I have.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Late 60's Star Trek had 'communicators', in the 70's I worked with
others on digitizing TX/Rx, now a 10 yr old brat has more ability in
a cell phone (like 20x eh) than Cpt Kirk had in the fiction of
2200's,
It's applied physics, personally I'd perfer humans negotiate rather
than exploite that power to kill each other, what do you think?
Ken


Noted as unresponsive.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Mar 9, 11:21*am, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message

. au...





"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message
...

The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically
equals. the Spit is prettier
British aerial *victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.

During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1.
If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of
3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count
bomber claims, rate as? *The RAF fighter force over claims over
France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? *The USAAF heavy bomber gunner
over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is
the description for the bomber gunners?

Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more
deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the
number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the
claims. *Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive
at the time than it was.

The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October
1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719
Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes
to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

Bombers would overclaim because several bombers would claim the same kill..
one wonders how much damge B-17s did to each other.
especially the waist gunners.

One of the UK posters a while back mentioned a Luftwaffe night fighter
pilot who saw two Lancasters shoot each other down one night.

On Mar 10, 8:53 pm, Dan wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Danelda, you're still posting, nice to hear from you.

On Mar 10, 6:59 pm, Dan wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
...
How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
Ken-
Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
jsw
Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
Ken
Last I heard the lasers in question were chemical lasers which fill
the cargo bay of a 747. I don't think you have a clue how little free
space is AWACS. It's obvious you have never been in one, I have.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Late 60's Star Trek had 'communicators', in the 70's I worked with
others on digitizing TX/Rx, now a 10 yr old brat has more ability in
a cell phone (like 20x eh) than Cpt Kirk had in the fiction of
2200's,
It's applied physics, personally I'd perfer humans negotiate rather
than exploite that power to kill each other, what do you think?
Ken

Noted as unresponsive.

Hi Danelda.
No offense, but wife's beens watching my posts since you started
flirting with me, so I need to watch my p's and q's, you know.
Post a pic, or a resume of your interests, if I'm not interested
there's
a few fella's who could smolder your hot flames with masculine favors.
Ken

On Mar 10, 6:01*pm, Typhoon502 wrote:
On Mar 10, 8:27*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:





On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

...
How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
Ken-

Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
jsw

Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.

Hard to say but easy to assume that AWACS platforms won't be getting
any bigger, so it's not like there will be all this spare space and
power capacity. AWACS will continue to be dependent on fighter cover;
any self-defense capability will probably come from heavy focused
beams of microwave frying Red Force avionics (or injecting code bugs
into them...I've heard about that more than once from informed
sources).

AWACS stay out of the battle. Their purpose is to stay out on the
fringe and let the sensors work from afar. This distractive argument
has no real weight in the discussion. They don't plan or intend to
get into the battle.
If the bad guys leave the main battle to go after the sensor
platforms, they leave the primary targets undefended. "Oooh, we took
out your AWACS haha, sure you then went on to take out all of your
primary targets but we got your AWACS which now that we have lost all
our defenses you don't really need anymore..."

BB