Discussing future and (im)possible carrier technology
- Thread starter Kurt
- Start date
The US should build this bird for its own purposes and embark them on the Wasp and America LHAs. If they did, I bet foreign sales would follow.
Same thing for a ASW V-22 variant.
The thing is, it is relatively easy to induce random movement in an incoming missile. This means that achieving a lock on by a laser beam will be really hard. The detection system needs to locate the missile, predict it's path, align the laser towards the missile and fire a pulse sufficient to burn through the missile casing before the missile changes course.
Simple rotation of the missile body will make it very hard for a laser to burn through.
Simple inert shielding of the sensor array will render laser blinding relatively useless. Basically, the sensor can be hidden with a shutter which exposes it for a fraction of a second just for course correction. When a missile is raveling at mach 1+, the ship it is attacking is effectively stationary when the missile is in CWIS range.
Kurt
Junior Member
I totally agree, thanks for the input. It's a major problem with lasers to keep them on target or have an impulse that contains enough energy.
Maybe there's a different option we have not yet looked at. Lasers could interfere with the ability to keep locked on the current target by attacking electronics and sensors. This increases the chances that with the reboot lock on after the laser impulse countermeasures, flares for example, are targeted instead of the ship.
Correct, wich is why I believe arguing against the use of lasers in this case on the ground that something will be built to counter it is meaningless, since that is an argument to stop all development for all time
It's not this spiral that worries me, but that laser weapons are also laser guidance that will greatly increase enemy ability to lock on the target precisely. Machine guns and rockets, the current close in weapon systems don't provide enemy missiles this advantage, except targeting their radar. But there are enough radar imitations possible to confuse them, while the energy output of a destructive laser will be hard to imitate as part of countermeasures.
Last edited:
Oh, I am fully aware that the Opsrey can fold up really nicely, what I meant to say was that, unlike a F-18 or E-2, a V-22 cannot move under it's own power when folded up. So it would always have to be towed around onto the launch spot, unhooked, transform on the spot. And the other way round.
A F-18 can just fold up the wings, retract the hook and taxi away itself after recovery, unlike the V-22.
It can also pretty much lift off from & recover to any place on the ship. But I'd guess that this requires a considerable amount of space wich is than unavailable for spotting or moving around aircraft during a launch or recovery cycle.
That was just my main concern. Although I'm obviously lacking the insight to pass informed judgement
Obviously, on LHD /sea control ships, these planes would indeed make a great addition.
I don't think that these random movements make too much of a problem. AShM are still rather heavy and don't pull the 70Gs of an AAM. I've come across # stating 10-20g, but don't really know. Even at a few miles range, the change in azimuth & bearing won't be too much. So if the optical mount on the laser is agile enough, I don't see any problem in constantly tracking the missile, since the AI knows were the target is instantly at all times. If at all, only tiny amounts of lead computations are needed.
And once the AShM gets closer to the target, those erratic movements will also have to decrease in scale, since the missile still needs to go towards the ship. And once the missile is constantly tracked, there's no point really in the shutter, since every time in opens, it will look into the glare.
I'm also not so sure about rotating them, at least with bank-to-turn missiles it's not going to work.
Last edited:
Kurt
Junior Member
Dear fellows,
because the Osprey seems to get more traction as THE next thing for operating from carriers, I want to present something from our German crazy ideas departement:
the "Osprey" or better even an Osprey fighter that can supercruise:
It was part of the German VTOL concept and less complicated than this transporter (another early "Osprey"):
Take a very good look at the engines, they have several turnable nozzles sideways. Perhaps the most complicated VTOL design ever.
because the Osprey seems to get more traction as THE next thing for operating from carriers, I want to present something from our German crazy ideas departement:
the "Osprey" or better even an Osprey fighter that can supercruise:
It was part of the German VTOL concept and less complicated than this transporter (another early "Osprey"):
Take a very good look at the engines, they have several turnable nozzles sideways. Perhaps the most complicated VTOL design ever.
Last edited:
And yet neither of them ever went forward to production.Dear fellows,
because the Osprey seems to get more traction as THE next thing for operating from carriers, I want to present something from our German crazy ideas departement:
It was part of the German VTOL concept and less complicated than this transporter (another early "Osprey"):
Take a very good look at the engines, they have several turnable nozzles sideways. Perhaps the most complicated VTOL design ever.
Here's another earlier US design..should probably put this on Goll's Quiz page.
This baby flew well. 5 or 6 prototypes were built and it underwent carrier and unimproved surface quals. But was cancelled under Mcnamara:
Anyone know which aircraft this was?
Now, these aircraft (the osprey) have made it to full production and are operating now in numers off of carrier/LHA/LHD decks:
And, of course, the JSF, which will also be produced in large numbers and operate in the STOVL mode as well
Last edited:
mmhmm, you are looking at it in a very human way - your eyesight is stabilized, and the human brain have great processing ability.
But imagine this, you are on a moving ship which have motion vertically, horizontally and transversely. The ship also pitches, yalls and rolls. Since a laser require a burn time, the stabilization system of the laser needs to keep track of the ships movement. at 1.6 km (1 mile), a degree of pitch equals a 28m or close to 100 ft of elevation change. You need stability system which is precise and have a large range of motion.
If we can draw on modern tanks as a comparison, their gun stability system are only that capable on slightly rough terrain to hit targets 2 km out -> targets which are really slow in comparison with missiles. Even APS have to engage generally in close range and mostly by proximity detonation or shotgun type area munitions.
lets say 10g is the limit on a ASM traveling at mach 1 at sea level - 340 m/s. lets say the laser needs a 3 sec burn to burn through the shell of the missile. the missile would have traveled 441 m in any off axis direction and would be 1020 m closer towards the ship in straight line terms, and since it is 3 dimensional space, the missiles could be closer or further away from the ship depending on its heading. To detect, track, predict and engage the missile is a daunting task.
This brings another question, how far can you engage the missile from? If we believe that some previous analyst regarding using lasers to shoot down ICBM would need around a 10 sec burn time, missile like the Sunburn flying at mach 3 20 meters off the will travel ~10 kM in 10 seconds, Even the vernable silkworms would have flown 3 km in 10 seconds. the detection range of sea skiming missiles are ~10 nm?
The allure of lasers is is theoretical unlimited straight line range and light speed delivery with minimal transmission loss in a straight line on a clear day. But this also suggest that lasers are pretty useless in lets say a tropical rain storm which traditional CWIS systems with their kinetic projectiles can still cut through the rain.