Breakthrough Combat lasers for F15 jets and antimissile drones

[GhostZ06]

Didn't they test one for offensive purpose on the AC130?

they are currently in testing but it will be a high KW laser


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Tactical_Laser

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/afsoc-expects-c-130-laser-tests-within-year/

more current article

 

[GhostZ06]

Any one of these new weapon technologies, if successfully developed and deployed, might be
regarded as a “game changer” for defending Navy surface ships against enemy missiles. If two or
three of them are successfully developed and deployed, the result might be considered not just a
game changer, but a revolution. Rarely has the Navy had so many potential new types of surface ship
missile-defense weapons simultaneously available for development and potential
deployment. The HPV in particular has emerged as a program of particular interest to the
Department of Defense (DOD), which is exploring the potential for using the weapon across
multiple U.S. military services.

Although the Navy in recent years has made considerable progress in developing SSLs, EMRG,
and HVP, a number of significant development challenges remain. Overcoming these challenges
will likely require years of additional development work, and ultimate success in overcoming
them is not guaranteed.

The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s funding requests and
proposed acquisition strategies for these three potential new weapons. Potential oversight
questions for Congress include the following:

• 
  

  [*]Using currently available approaches for countering anti-ship cruise missiles
  (ASCMs) and anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), how well could Navy surface
  ships defend themselves in a combat scenario against an adversary such as China
  that has large numbers of ASCMs (including advanced models) and ASBMs?
  How would this change if Navy surface ships in coming years were equipped
  with SSLs, EMRG, HVP, or some combination of these systems?
  [*]How significant are the remaining development challenges for SSLs, EMRG, and
  HVP?
  [*]Are current schedules for developing SSLs, EMRG, and HVP appropriate in
  relation to remaining development challenges and projected improvements in
  enemy ASCMs and ASBMs? To what degree are current schedules for
  developing SSLs, EMRG, or HVP sensitive to annual funding levels?
  [*]When does the Navy anticipate issuing roadmaps detailing its plans for procuring
  and installing production versions of SSLs, EMRGs, and HVP on specific Navy
  ships by specific dates?
  [*]Will the kinds of surface ships that the Navy plans to procure in coming years
  have sufficient space, weight, electrical power, and cooling capability to take full
  advantage of SSLs (particularly those with beam powers above 200 kW) and
  EMRG? What changes, if any, would need to be made in Navy plans for
  procuring large surface combatants (i.e., destroyers and cruisers) or other Navy
  ships to take full advantage of SSLs and EMRG?
  [*]Are the funding sources for SSLs, EMRG, and HVP in Navy and Defense-Wide
  research and development accounts sufficiently visible for supporting
  congressional oversight?

https://news.usni.org/2017/12/05/report-congress-navy-laser-railgun-hypervelocity-projectiles-2

 

[Toastytoy]

Can't we just skip the charade and give these companies a few billion free and clear to not build them? Lot cheaper and easier than going through the whole R and D, production, testing, warehousing fiasco.

You say that, but we get all kinds of cool other technology that trickles down off of crazy expensive government projects like this. I think its worth it. And its just cool

 

[MadSquabbles500]

For now just Defensive counter measures to missiles and maybe limited A2A but they need to get bigger kilowatt lasers fitted on planes

But do they want to have a dog fighting laser for fighters?

 

[GhostZ06]

But do they want to have a dog fighting laser for fighters?

Yes at some point 100%


the army's and navys development road map is more interesting

 

[Scheme]

Man that's crazy you don't even really see anything.

Could be an ultraviolet laser, would explain why you don't see nothing.

It's worth noting getting hit by these things in the eye would instantly and permanently blind you, they would also give you cancer, etc.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Yes at some point 100%


the army's and navys development road map is more interesting

LOL pretty cool, then do they also want to put lasers on like Tanks, and IFVs for ground combat?

Why lasers as opposed to just sticking with the projectile weapons?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

When will they be able to be mounted on a shark?

 

[GhostZ06]

LOL pretty cool, then do they also want to put lasers on like Tanks, and IFVs for ground combat?

Why lasers as opposed to just sticking with the projectile weapons?

IFV and Tanks? yes..


Tanks, they also want to put Railguns on them, but we first have to get them shrunk down an more standard. Lasers on tanks, ifv would be good to neutralizing guided tank weapons.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

If anyone can answer will lasers work underwater or get refracted?

I guess they gonna put them on planes and surface ships, then it definitely fit on a submarine.

 

[GhostZ06]

Could be an ultraviolet laser, would explain why you don't see nothing.

It's worth noting getting hit by these things in the eye would instantly and permanently blind you, they would also give you cancer, etc.

i tihnk the only ones you can see are plasma based lasers an electron lasers? pretty sure you can see Particle-beam weapons and plasma