US Laser and Rail Gun Development News

Jura said:

then I'll be wrong



and I quote a recent study by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

claiming "The current layered defensive AAW approach puts surface combatants on the wrong end of weapon and cost exchanges."
(p. 18 in the document available at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think Brumby originally posted it, but I'm not sure)

and instead suggesting, well, I don't want to misquote them, so I just clipped out this picture:

and anybody who cares may read that document ... but yeah, they acknowledge "A key barrier to implementing this new AAW scheme is cultural. Today's surface combatant commanders prefer defenses that can engage incoming missiles at the same approximate range." etc., so,
kwaigonegin
come to Prague and we talk about it LOL

Click to expand...

Lol.. Guess what that is? A layered defense also lol.. It"s salesman talk. Hehehehe the brochure talks about oth engagement yet it also talks about lasers and CIWS...

kwaigonegin said:

Lol.. It"s salesman talk. ...

Click to expand...

just one question then, is this true or false (sorry if I mistype now; it's from the bottom of p. 18):

A common U.S. air defense tactic is to shoot two interceptors at an incoming missile, look for successful engagement, and then shoot again if necessary. Therefore, at least two interceptors are expended on every incoming missile.

Click to expand...

?

it's related to the sentence about

... today's standard shot doctrine "shoot, shoot, look, shoot" (SS-L-S) ...

Click to expand...

?

Jura said:

just one question then, is this true or false (sorry if I mistype now; it's from the bottom of p. 18):


?

it's related to the sentence about
?

Click to expand...

I honestly couldn't tell you if the engagement doctrine is 2:1 or 10:1 or whatever... In the real world it could very well rest on the 'pucker' factor of the CO. It also depends on the range of engagement and the probability of hit as calculated by the ships algorithm. Also different threat scenarios requires different engagement strategies. I do not believe it is 2:1 for all types of inbound missile threat. It also depends on available types of weapons on board. A ship with only essm and r2d2 will react differently than a ship with sm6' sm3. Etc.. Also is the inbound bogey hypersonic, supersonic or is it endoatmospehric?

I can however say that the navy at least for the last 10 yrs have even constantly reviewing and honing their A2/AD concept and how it fits into the overall abc or air sea battle space concept and also to counter that of potential adversaries.

kwaigonegin said:

I honestly couldn't tell you if the engagement doctrine is 2:1 or 10:1 or whatever...

Click to expand...

thanks, personally I can't imagine that "shoot, shoot, look, shoot" approach the document presented: there are just three SPG-62 Illuminators on an A. Burke-class Destroyer, right? ... but what do I know LOL

Jura said:

thanks, personally I can't imagine that "shoot, shoot, look, shoot" approach the document presented: there are just three SPG-62 Illuminators on an A. Burke-class Destroyer, right? ... but what do I know LOL

Click to expand...

It's brochure talk.. Those things have sent many men to their deaths! The gunless F4s and the over gunned B29s have sent many a good men to their deaths because the military bought into the sales pitch.

A bland, non-informational video from Boeing on HEL systems. Right now, JHPPSL is conducting tests at the old THEL site at WSMR while HELLADS is being integrated into the beam director at North Oscura Peak (also at WSMR). It would be very interesting to see how >100KW lasers backed up with adaptive optics can engage targets like supersonic missiles or large turbojet drones. The main thing about the new generation of lasers is their ability to be turned on with the flick of a switch and left running for hours. That is actually a significant advantage since it lets you debug the optical train using the actual HEL beam rather than a low power surrogate.

strehl said:

A bland, non-informational video from Boeing on HEL systems. Right now, JHPPSL is conducting tests at the old THEL site at WSMR while HELLADS is being integrated into the beam director at North Oscura Peak (also at WSMR). It would be very interesting to see how >100KW lasers backed up with adaptive optics can engage targets like supersonic missiles or large turbojet drones. The main thing about the new generation of lasers is their ability to be turned on with the flick of a switch and left running for hours. That is actually a significant advantage since it lets you debug the optical train using the actual HEL beam rather than a low power surrogate.

Click to expand...

More details on Boeing's compact HEL in a suitcase. I'm not too sure what the market would be for this thing. Most likely an IR&D program.

found a document with plenty of interesting charts:



one of them ("depicting operations against various target types"):

Equation said:

Click to expand...

found this funny text:

Laser skeptics sometimes note that laser proponents over the years have made numerous predictions about when lasers might enter service with DOD, and that these predictions repeatedly have not come to pass. Viewing this record of unfulfilled predictions, skeptics might argue that “lasers are X years in the future—and always will be.”

Click to expand...

LOL!

Laser proponents acknowledge the record of past unfulfilled predictions, but argue that the situation has now changed because of rapid advancements in SSL technology and a shift from earlier ambitious goals (such as developing megawatt-power lasers for countering targets at tens or hundreds of miles) to more realistic goals (such as developing kilowatt-power lasers for countering targets at no more than a few miles).

Laser proponents might argue that laser skeptics are vulnerable to what might be called cold plate syndrome (i.e., a cat that sits on a hot plate will not sit on a hot plate again—but it will not sit on a cold plate, either).

Click to expand...

in