Put a laser on AWACS and airborne refuelling. AWACS is particularly vulnerable to hypersonic missiles and they're important infrastructure to protect. You also have to bring them closer to the front to perform their work. Big platforms can carry lots more generation and carrying capacity. There could also be enough space to turret the laser via moving mirror. Prove such a system on an AWACS and it'll end up on Air Force One immediately because the spectre of AF1 getting hit with a drone or missile close to landing or takeoff is a serious risk either domestically in the US or abroad if it visits another country. Mover and Gonky Industries: Lasers for Heavies. It's much easier and it's necessary.
There is A type of radioactive beam wepon that can ignore armor entirely and "Cook the Meat", I forget the exact name for it but apparently it is doable with current tech. With plasmas you have A containment issue. Plasma works for welders but not ranged weaponry.
@@AKlover Absolutely true about plasma having containment issues. However, I wonder if current (or near-future) laser tech would support Laser-Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC), and if that would be sufficient to defeat a threat.
We asked a local resident of Arlen, TX about a propane powered laser and one Hank Hill said "A propane powered laser. That's just so got dang beautiful!" as he wiped away a tear.
Airborne lasers have been tried twice before, both failed miserably. Both programs have been covered, in depth, with two independent film documentaries; “Real Genius” covers a B-1 mounted system and “Spies Like Us” covers an earlier orbiting satellite system😎
20+ some years ago the Airforce began to test airborne laser on large Boeing planes (converted due to the size and amount of weight they can carry) Specifically this was in a military science book about new technology being created we do have the F22 and F35 and near everything mentioned for the Airforce, but near everything mentioned that the book mentioned for the army was not created, at least for the army.
The movie Real Genius had a chemical laser mounted on a B-1B, and used to target a professor's home where it heated up popcorn. However, that laser reaction was via a chemical reaction and I'm not sure how well that could be scaled for fighter/attack aircraft. The big problem with lasers is really that they don't really slice and dice like they do in science fiction. Industrial lasers cutting through metals are kind of slow, but very precise. I guess there's talk about using lasers for anti-drone defense where it wouldn't take much to damage a civilian-style drone.
Back before LANTRIN, Martin-Meritta and Thompson CSF were in a co-production agreement for the ATLIS pod system. ATLIS stands for Automatic Targeting LASER Illumination System. Thompson CSF is a French company. The French Air Force was developing an Air-to-Air LASER guided weapon. Atb the same time the US Marines were in a development stage os a man portable LASER weapon to take out enemy eyes by blinding them. (Ground forces know the it is better to wound an enemy rather than kill them as it requires more support personnel to care for wounded than dead.) Now, that being said, a new addendum to the International Rules of Permissible Weapons (Geneva Convention addendums) added that LASER weapons that intentionally blinds and opponent were not permissible. This is the same document that various government sign for say, anti-personnel land mines (Princess Dianna was a great advocate for this), shotguns using glass pellets (can't be seen on X-rays), various gases (see World War I), The United States signed on for not intentionally blinding with LASERs. This stopped the Marine program and caused Martin-Meritta to stop working on ATLIS. Martin-Meritta went on the develop LANTRIN. Unless we (the United States) has backed away from the addendums this system may be in violation of the agreement that we signed back in the late 1970's.
Until they can get them working properly on ships where you have orders of magnitude more power and weight available i do not see the point trying on smaller stuff like airplanes or land vehicles. It also seems fairly easy to defend against with ceramic plates or similar, at least on missiles.
The Soviets looked at lasers that were vastly more powerful than what's being trialled at the moment. It's one of those technologies that will forever be in the future.
Really should be ground based anyway for stability reasons. I mean the freakin laser goes at the speed of light. The biggest part of the equation is the trigonometry and physics to plot the “target” to the spot it will occupy in X period of time.
Battery would be too heay and they cannot "Parasitically" power the laser from two engines much less one would be my guess. With current known tech I'd rather have the Vulcan than the laser.
I'm going to guess that the problem is with the speed at which the technology is developing. There are so many advances happening so quickly that there's a fear that anything that gets deployed will be obsolete before it can be fielded. So, DOD keeps cooking the technology until it matures or there's an absolute need to field something RIGHT NOW!
Ah, this takes me back to the ill-fated F-15 ASAT project, where McChord AFB (RIP) 318 FIS F-15s would fly to the edge of space with a big-ass anti-satellite missile strapped to the belly and launch it to take out a Soviet satellite as the Eagle floated back through the high atmosphere, did an air restart and RTB'ed. Ah, well. But c'mon, who wouldn't want to be an Agent of SHIELD, unleashing HEL? And as Mover and Gonky joked, what if that story is a spoof, and they actually are still working on it, haha. As Gonky says, you just know this will work at some point.
Won’t they just mount these lasers on drones with some kind of disposable element that allows higher energy output (see the 1985, Val Kilmer movie, Real Genius, as the basis of my hypothesis, where they use something like the Boeing X-37 to carry a single-use high powered laser to vaporize ground targets). Also, on a side note, time permitting of course, can you do a video, with your opinions on France sending the Mirage 2000 to Ukraine?
Hope this is not a repeat of what happened with hypersonic weapon's where the US walked away from them and then China and Russia got it done leaving the US to play catch up . 🤔🤔
ok so does anyone know the actual power draw to fire a 100-150kw electron laser? (I could not find it) so P = V X I . Here P is power in watts. V is voltage in volts. I is current in amps. so 125,000w = V x I if V=200 then I=625amps (that's a crazy amount of amperage) I would be expecting that its rather difficult to put that much power generation in the Sky unless your using special engines with multiple generators per Engine or an Aircraft with more than 2 engines to increase the overall power bus capability. (I think the B-52J program will be used to enhance its electric generation capabilities) New engines, new radar, new sat com, integrated sniper pod, they could remove the M-61 removal counter balance (1200lb concrete block) from the tail and put in batteries/capacitors in the 47 section or were the 20mm ammo use to be, currently the B-52H has 4 generators one in each pod for redundance, it does not get close to using that kind of power unless the ECM is rocking and the TA radar is running hot, the new AUX packs will have to be designed and built from the ground up for the new engines so no reason they could not put a generator on every engine and since the current generators are like 60's tech I would expect a more power more efficient generator on the new engines. Hmmmm now you have an Aircraft with a 70ishK lb weapon load a massive bomb bay and two brand new pylon mounts under each wing. If you can not put some form of a laser on that... your Special.
Come on, everyone knows you have to use plasma weapons for stuff like this! It’s not nearly as cool if you can’t see the balls of fire flying out to hit its target…
Put a laser on AWACS and airborne refuelling.
AWACS is particularly vulnerable to hypersonic missiles and they're important infrastructure to protect. You also have to bring them closer to the front to perform their work.
Big platforms can carry lots more generation and carrying capacity. There could also be enough space to turret the laser via moving mirror.
Prove such a system on an AWACS and it'll end up on Air Force One immediately because the spectre of AF1 getting hit with a drone or missile close to landing or takeoff is a serious risk either domestically in the US or abroad if it visits another country.
Mover and Gonky Industries: Lasers for Heavies. It's much easier and it's necessary.
TBH, putting laser weapons on 4th gen fighters was too ambitious.
In the mid 90s when I worked on Global Hawk, HALE was "High Altitude, Long Endurance". At least they are recycling acronyms.
Do,n't worry, we can invest in phasers, disruptors, blasters, plasma bolts or protonbeams
There is A type of radioactive beam wepon that can ignore armor entirely and "Cook the Meat", I forget the exact name for it but apparently it is doable with current tech. With plasmas you have A containment issue. Plasma works for welders but not ranged weaponry.
@@AKlover Absolutely true about plasma having containment issues. However, I wonder if current (or near-future) laser tech would support Laser-Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC), and if that would be sufficient to defeat a threat.
We asked a local resident of Arlen, TX about a propane powered laser and one Hank Hill said "A propane powered laser. That's just so got dang beautiful!" as he wiped away a tear.
Dude, I was stationed at Kirtland when we test the first airborne lasers, two NC-135s
Airborne lasers have been tried twice before, both failed miserably. Both programs have been covered, in depth, with two independent film documentaries; “Real Genius” covers a B-1 mounted system and “Spies Like Us” covers an earlier orbiting satellite system😎
"SHIELD"? I didn't know Nick Fury was involved with developing these killer lasers! I thought this was Dr. Evil's project!!!
20+ some years ago the Airforce began to test airborne laser on large Boeing planes (converted due to the size and amount of weight they can carry)
Specifically this was in a military science book about new technology being created we do have the F22 and F35 and near everything mentioned for the Airforce, but near everything mentioned that the book mentioned for the army was not created, at least for the army.
I'm sure the two of you could come up with something, sounds fun to me haha, thanks you both for another fun one to watch.
Listening to you too. It’s like listening to to middle school. Kids have a conversation it’s all over the place.
6:14 Fire the wave motion cannon! All or nuthin, Hail Mary.
The movie Real Genius had a chemical laser mounted on a B-1B, and used to target a professor's home where it heated up popcorn. However, that laser reaction was via a chemical reaction and I'm not sure how well that could be scaled for fighter/attack aircraft.
The big problem with lasers is really that they don't really slice and dice like they do in science fiction. Industrial lasers cutting through metals are kind of slow, but very precise. I guess there's talk about using lasers for anti-drone defense where it wouldn't take much to damage a civilian-style drone.
Back before LANTRIN, Martin-Meritta and Thompson CSF were in a co-production agreement for the ATLIS pod system. ATLIS stands for Automatic Targeting LASER Illumination System. Thompson CSF is a French company. The French Air Force was developing an Air-to-Air LASER guided weapon. Atb the same time the US Marines were in a development stage os a man portable LASER weapon to take out enemy eyes by blinding them. (Ground forces know the it is better to wound an enemy rather than kill them as it requires more support personnel to care for wounded than dead.) Now, that being said, a new addendum to the International Rules of Permissible Weapons (Geneva Convention addendums) added that LASER weapons that intentionally blinds and opponent were not permissible. This is the same document that various government sign for say, anti-personnel land mines (Princess Dianna was a great advocate for this), shotguns using glass pellets (can't be seen on X-rays), various gases (see World War I), The United States signed on for not intentionally blinding with LASERs. This stopped the Marine program and caused Martin-Meritta to stop working on ATLIS. Martin-Meritta went on the develop LANTRIN. Unless we (the United States) has backed away from the addendums this system may be in violation of the agreement that we signed back in the late 1970's.
Until they can get them working properly on ships where you have orders of magnitude more power and weight available i do not see the point trying on smaller stuff like airplanes or land vehicles.
It also seems fairly easy to defend against with ceramic plates or similar, at least on missiles.
The Soviets looked at lasers that were vastly more powerful than what's being trialled at the moment. It's one of those technologies that will forever be in the future.
@@paulwood6729 just like commercial fusion, it’s 20 years off - every year…
My company is working on the GUARDIAN ANGEL High kinetic impact, low power draw, A-I i controlled, miniaturized quantum laser.
They should have kept that 747 with the laser
Really should be ground based anyway for stability reasons. I mean the freakin laser goes at the speed of light. The biggest part of the equation is the trigonometry and physics to plot the “target” to the spot it will occupy in X period of time.
Get Styropyro to build one for them. Crazy youtuber kid that builds insanely powerful lasers.
LOL - "DONT TELL THEM NOW"
Generally, this is a cooling and weight problem. Not surprising for the current generation of engines. The XA102 and XA103 show promise, though.
Battery would be too heay and they cannot "Parasitically" power the laser from two engines much less one would be my guess. With current known tech I'd rather have the Vulcan than the laser.
It's still too difficult to keep a beam on target long enough to do damage.
I'm going to guess that the problem is with the speed at which the technology is developing. There are so many advances happening so quickly that there's a fear that anything that gets deployed will be obsolete before it can be fielded. So, DOD keeps cooking the technology until it matures or there's an absolute need to field something RIGHT NOW!
I missed that time when Iran attacked American Forces with ballistic missiles like article said.
Ah, this takes me back to the ill-fated F-15 ASAT project, where McChord AFB (RIP) 318 FIS F-15s would fly to the edge of space with a big-ass anti-satellite missile strapped to the belly and launch it to take out a Soviet satellite as the Eagle floated back through the high atmosphere, did an air restart and RTB'ed. Ah, well.
But c'mon, who wouldn't want to be an Agent of SHIELD, unleashing HEL?
And as Mover and Gonky joked, what if that story is a spoof, and they actually are still working on it, haha. As Gonky says, you just know this will work at some point.
Not sure what the similarities are. Other than being cancelled. ASAT actually achieved interception during the single test.
Simple. The quest for leading edge weapons capabilities that go well beyond the original platform aims, then (rightly or wrongly) were abandoned.
meanwhile , China move ahead with high energy laser for their air force .
RIGHT?!
Won’t they just mount these lasers on drones with some kind of disposable element that allows higher energy output (see the 1985, Val Kilmer movie, Real Genius, as the basis of my hypothesis, where they use something like the Boeing X-37 to carry a single-use high powered laser to vaporize ground targets).
Also, on a side note, time permitting of course, can you do a video, with your opinions on France sending the Mirage 2000 to Ukraine?
Yeah...just not yet...
Just give us anything that sounds like a seismic imploder or whatever
No Bass or Meat Helmets!
Hope this is not a repeat of what happened with hypersonic weapon's where the US walked away from them and then China and Russia got it done leaving the US to play catch up . 🤔🤔
They just can’t agree on how to get it to make the pew pew pew noise.
ok so does anyone know the actual power draw to fire a 100-150kw electron laser? (I could not find it) so P = V X I . Here P is power in watts. V is voltage in volts. I is current in amps. so 125,000w = V x I if V=200 then I=625amps (that's a crazy amount of amperage) I would be expecting that its rather difficult to put that much power generation in the Sky unless your using special engines with multiple generators per Engine or an Aircraft with more than 2 engines to increase the overall power bus capability. (I think the B-52J program will be used to enhance its electric generation capabilities) New engines, new radar, new sat com, integrated sniper pod, they could remove the M-61 removal counter balance (1200lb concrete block) from the tail and put in batteries/capacitors in the 47 section or were the 20mm ammo use to be, currently the B-52H has 4 generators one in each pod for redundance, it does not get close to using that kind of power unless the ECM is rocking and the TA radar is running hot, the new AUX packs will have to be designed and built from the ground up for the new engines so no reason they could not put a generator on every engine and since the current generators are like 60's tech I would expect a more power more efficient generator on the new engines. Hmmmm now you have an Aircraft with a 70ishK lb weapon load a massive bomb bay and two brand new pylon mounts under each wing. If you can not put some form of a laser on that... your Special.
ALL the research, *NEVER A Product* !
Algorithmic engagement comment.
🤛🏼(▨_▨¬)🤜🏼 I'm feelin' that Al Gore rhythm. ⛽⛽✈🚀 🛩🛫🛦✈🐄💨
Come on, everyone knows you have to use plasma weapons for stuff like this! It’s not nearly as cool if you can’t see the balls of fire flying out to hit its target…
Another attempt to put a gun better than the A-10 on a jet failed.
I’m surprised they admitted this was unworkable this soon: the grift money must have been delayed in the mail.
Lmfao
What a dumb mistake 😂
Why is the US rubbish at everything?