Current models for HH military hardware

The problem with AWACS vs laser is that it's a huge slowly maneuvering platform. So you can illuminate it for quite a while.

AWACS also has a severe vulnerability to ARMs. Fundamentally an air liner vs a high Mach missile will usually end poorly for the air liner. And the radar cross-section of a missile nose-on the the AWACS is going to be fairly low. The Russian R-37M with a 400 km range was designed expressly to do this.

kzt wrote:The problem with AWACS vs laser is that it's a huge slowly maneuvering platform. So you can illuminate it for quite a while.

AWACS also has a severe vulnerability to ARMs. Fundamentally an air liner vs a high Mach missile will usually end poorly for the air liner. And the radar cross-section of a missile nose-on the the AWACS is going to be fairly low. The Russian R-37M with a 400 km range was designed expressly to do this.

I agree on the vulnerability to ARMs - and for the next few decades, at least, I think a long range ARM is going to be a much greater threat to AWACs than lasers.

Also my limited understanding is that once you get into high energy lasers long dwell times through atmosphere become effectively impossible. You get a brief burst and then the energy transfer from your laser into the air disrupts the beam - and at that point dumping more power reduces effectiveness because it feeds the disruptive turbulence and plasma faster than it punches through. So keeping a weapons grade laser on a slow moving atmospheric target doesn't seem (from what little I understand) to be a viable tactic. You need one powerful enough to kill during that brief pre-disruption atmospheric window.

Jonathan_S wrote:Also my limited understanding is that once you get into high energy lasers long dwell times through atmosphere become effectively impossible. You get a brief burst and then the energy transfer from your laser into the air disrupts the beam - and at that point dumping more power reduces effectiveness because it feeds the disruptive turbulence and plasma faster than it punches through. So keeping a weapons grade laser on a slow moving atmospheric target doesn't seem (from what little I understand) to be a viable tactic. You need one powerful enough to kill during that brief pre-disruption atmospheric window.

It certainly would be an issue from a ground site, but both aircraft are moving so I'm not sure how that interacts.

kzt wrote:Once you get effective AA lasers manned combat aircraft are pretty much doomed vs 1st world adversaries. Next airborne radars get killed by lasers on aircraft from very far away.

Materials science will continue to progress. "Stealth" tech works by deflecting specific EM frequencies emitted by radar. While admittedly coherent, thus able to put more power on target, lasers are just another form of EM radiation. Sooner rather than later, I'd expect more "laser-resistant" aircraft skins...

DW's answers for each advance in the Honorverse [see, for ex, Foraker's "triple ripple"] mirrors the real-world cycle of advances and counters, thus making his books all the more readable and thought-provoking.

jcreed57 wrote:

kzt wrote:Once you get effective AA lasers manned combat aircraft are pretty much doomed vs 1st world adversaries. Next airborne radars get killed by lasers on aircraft from very far away.

Materials science will continue to progress. "Stealth" tech works by deflecting specific EM frequencies emitted by radar. While admittedly coherent, thus able to put more power on target, lasers are just another form of EM radiation. Sooner rather than later, I'd expect more "laser-resistant" aircraft skins...

DW's answers for each advance in the Honorverse [see, for ex, Foraker's "triple ripple"] mirrors the real-world cycle of advances and counters, thus making his books all the more readable and thought-provoking.

In many ways, Stealth (especially early stealth) and lasers are not a good mix. The systems in the F-117a and the B-2 are actually designed to absorb a wide range of frequencies, and (according to some sources) actually have copper mesh underlayments to spread the energy from the radar absorption around and dissipate it as heat energy over a large surface area. Lasers will pump in more energy than the dissipation structures can possibly absorb in a small area and cause it to melt and burn.

The best solutions to survive a laser is a primary reflective surface with a high heat absorption and capacitive material, and one that constantly shifts it's face. A spinning polished steel missile is the bane of a laser.

Another interesting development is the rail gun the US Navy is working on...currently up to 30,000 G--not bad for pre-fusion, pre-gravitic tech! The kinetic warheads are claimed to reach Mach 5, with a 100 mile range...hmmm wonder what Seijin Merlin could do with a few of those? [I know, wrong thread]

jcreed57 wrote:Another interesting development is the rail gun the US Navy is working on...currently up to 30,000 G--not bad for pre-fusion, pre-gravitic tech! The kinetic warheads are claimed to reach Mach 5, with a 100 mile range...hmmm wonder what Seijin Merlin could do with a few of those? [I know, wrong thread]

on the order of 1 mile per second. (1.6KM/sec) 100 miles = 100 seconds.

an error of 1 MPH crosswind will put it about 140 feet off target. (1KPH crosswind error = 27M)

darrell wrote:

jcreed57 wrote:Another interesting development is the rail gun the US Navy is working on...currently up to 30,000 G--not bad for pre-fusion, pre-gravitic tech! The kinetic warheads are claimed to reach Mach 5, with a 100 mile range...hmmm wonder what Seijin Merlin could do with a few of those? [I know, wrong thread]

on the order of 1 mile per second. (1.6KM/sec) 100 miles = 100 seconds.

an error of 1 MPH crosswind will put it about 140 feet off target. (1KPH crosswind error = 27M)

From a USNI press release:

"Navy, in addition to developing the railgun itself, is working on a hypervelocity projectile (HVP) that will support both the railgun and conventional 5-inch guns. The GPS-guided round will fly at hypersonic speeds, but the Navy is still working with the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office to close the fire control loop between the gun and the projectile."

So the load will have onboard guidance capability...and of course the mil-spec GPS systems are more accurate than civilian...I expect accuracy won't be that big of an issue. Of course, they could always illuminate the target for a laser-guided weapon using local human operatives or via low-power laser satellites. Actual sea-based laser weapons are nearing the 150-kW range, still a bit light for most uses.

Returning to the issue of strategy and doctrine, it would seem the current strike force centered around a carrier may be obsolete in favor of smaller, more agile, (and cheaper) ships that can project significantly more firepower in more flexible ways through the use of drones, railguns, and eventually lasers.

Now this:

DARPA's new Gremlin drones fly back to their 'mothership' after completing recon missions....

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/04/15/ ... sions.html

Are we likely to see remotely-piloted LACs in HH's future?

jcreed57 wrote:Are we likely to see remotely-piloted LACs in HH's future?

RFC has expressly ruled any remote controlled or autonomous ships will NOT happen in the Honorverse.