Antice wrote:Yeah. That is why tanks are obsolete until someone invents a power-source capable of supporting a high power laser system capable of downing aircraft like it was swatting flies.
... and any sensible implementation thereof will take out all anti-tank missiles and infantry within range... which brings us back to kinetics such as the APFSDS...
... and then the introduction of anti-armor directed energy weapons...
If we can get polywell working well enough to power something the size of a mech, I see no reason you would not simply put more of that power into a fleet of aircraft that almost never have to land/refuel, and if they make directed energy weapons more combat capable than current munitions, they wouldn't have to land frequently to rearm themselves either like the predator drones have to.
EricF wrote:If we can get polywell working well enough to power something the size of a mech, I see no reason you would not simply put more of that power into a fleet of aircraft that almost never have to land/refuel, and if they make directed energy weapons more combat capable than current munitions, they wouldn't have to land frequently to rearm themselves either like the predator drones have to.
... hmmmmmm... obviously a fusion-powered aircraft will be able to carry more armor than a chemically-powered aircraft... but armor heavy enough to shrug off multi-megawatt return fire from a notional FAFV?
They are fielding solid-state lasers in the 10 kilowatt range for use by (and on) air and ground units even as we sit here typing at each other... megawatt-class beams aren't far behind, first by ganging an array of smaller beam module outputs together and then by increasing the individual module output power...
Just how big will the aircraft have to get to survive in that case?
EricF wrote:If we can get polywell working well enough to power something the size of a mech, I see no reason you would not simply put more of that power into a fleet of aircraft that almost never have to land/refuel, and if they make directed energy weapons more combat capable than current munitions, they wouldn't have to land frequently to rearm themselves either like the predator drones have to.
... hmmmmmm... obviously a fusion-powered aircraft will be able to carry more armor than a chemically-powered aircraft... but armor heavy enough to shrug off multi-megawatt return fire from a notional FAFV?
They are fielding solid-state lasers in the 10 kilowatt range for use by (and on) air and ground units even as we sit here typing at each other... megawatt-class beams aren't far behind, first by ganging an array of smaller beam module outputs together and then by increasing the individual module output power...
Just how big will the aircraft have to get to survive in that case?
I think the correct question is how stealthy does it have to get to not get shot at
zapkitty wrote:... so instead of the tank hiding from the aircraft the aircraft is now hiding from the tank?...
Fixed wing aircraft suck at hiding. all they have going for them is speed.
fusion powered aircraft will most likely be developed towards greater speed and maneuverability. the pilot will become obsolete in the not to distant future. but even that will not be enough if Anti air capability with Directed energy weapons keep improving at the current pace.
Mecha otoh will never make tactical sense. they are just too visible. a low profile is what you want. the most destructive power possible in as small as package as you can make it.
Modern warfare is a game of tag. where the stakes are death.
Smaller soldier robot's is viable tho. stealthed to near invisibility and highly lethal. Even powered battle armor is viable for policing actions.
One thing to keep in mind tho is that all weapons fielded for a particular conflict needs to be chosen based on what kind of fight that is going happen. war's are often won or lost on the planning table.
Everything is hiding from everything else, and the quickest to draw and fire wins (visions of the gunslinger)--but no one cares because none of these things have people aboard.
How weird is that?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:Everything is hiding from everything else, and the quickest to draw and fire wins (visions of the gunslinger)--but no one cares because none of these things have people aboard.
How weird is that?
I'm planning to watch the movie screamers tonight. I guess I will get an answer to just how scary that concept is then. My gut feeling is that it is very scary indeed.
You cannot win wars by only killing the enemies automatons. you have to get your killing machines close to his people in order to kill them. with the battlefield filled with automated area denial systems the real battle will move into the cities. wars in the future may turn out to be worse slaughters than even both world wars combined.
A thought. How will your automatons rape and pillage? And if they don't, why would the enemy ever surrender? Or do they simply kill and friendlies better stay out of the area?
Antice wrote:[ war's are often won or lost on the planning table.
Very true. FDR ordered a 200 ship in late 1937. Vac tube computers interfacing with radar on battleships meant the New Jersey @ 5 miles of range could not just Jap ships, they aimed for the bridge to decapitate command. If the first salvo missed the second very likely scored. The Navy got every hi tech gadget it wished for and this was often decisive. @ midway the same 16 in guns on the New jersey fired 165 salvoes, vs the virginia which gave up after 35 salvoes. No keel funded after Dec 8th 1941 saw front line action.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
Antice wrote:[ war's are often won or lost on the planning table.
Very true. FDR ordered a 200 ship fleet in late 1937. Vac tube computers interfacing with radar on battleships meant @ midway, the New Jersey @ 5 miles of range could not just hit Jap ships, they aimed for the bridge to decapitate command. If the first salvo missed the second very likely scored. The Navy got every hi tech gadget it wished for and this was often decisive. @ midway the same 16 in guns on the New jersey fired 165 salvoes, vs the virginia which gave up after 35 salvoes. No keel funded after Dec 8th 1941 saw front line action.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
Amidst all the theorizing it's good to remember that powerful directed energy weapons are not a given just because you have lots of electricity. Lots of electricity means solid state lasers, but they're still so inefficient that the heat generated severely limits their power. Even when they have active cooling, the densities are nothing like what you need for an instant kill of an aircraft.
On the other hand, a plasma bolt from a small fusion reactor like a DPF could probably take down an aircraft quite handily. If you can point them fast enough, rail guns will work. If you had an M-E weapon, it's possible you could fire recoilless hypersonic rounds from a handgun that could take out an aircraft. I don't see folks working on any of this right now though, except for the rail gun, and for now this is exclusively an artillery weapon--nothing like point defense.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
On the other hand, a plasma bolt from a small fusion reactor like a DPF could probably take down an aircraft quite handily.
I'm not one inclined to do the work needed to find out, but if anyone wants a model of a current DPF machine, several different machines are available for
download here: http://www.intimal.edu.my/school/fas/UFLF/
GIThruster wrote:Amidst all the theorizing it's good to remember that powerful directed energy weapons are not a given just because you have lots of electricity. Lots of electricity means solid state lasers, but they're still so inefficient that the heat generated severely limits their power. Even when they have active cooling, the densities are nothing like what you need for an instant kill of an aircraft.
... er.... when are these limits going to kick in? The builders of such devices are selling 10kW units as add-ons to humvees, and they have successfuly tested prototype 100kW units in extended operation... and they are still ramping up the power of the modules themselves...
... and even the current level of ~100kW is one mean beam... a set of 5-10 of them on a notional FAFV is going to make quick hash, or rather ash, of existing aircraft...
You're quoting figures I haven't seen, unless those are for chemical lasers. Cheep electricity from a Poly isn't going to make chemical lasers more viable.
Certainly interested to see these Hummvee add-opns and such. I wouldn't have guessed a 10kW laser had much use. What are they for?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
