Switch Theme:

Why is anti aircraft weaponry so ineffective?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

 Vaktathi wrote:
cannot maneuver that much (they're not able to chase planes through radical course changes like is often seen in movies)


This is simply incorrect. Modern surface to air missiles can pull 30g's, a manned aircraft can pull ~9gs before the pilot blacks out, up to maybe 15gs before the wings tear off. Missiles can grossly outmaneuver planes, but doing so burns up a lot of fuel and causes them to slow down/bleed energy drastically. A missile can pull a radical course range pretty easily at close range, generally a pilot wants to defeat a missile by forcing course changes earlier in its flight path so that its traveling at reduced speed and burning more fuel, so that by the time its that close it doesn't have enough left in the tank to actually keep up with the fighter. The danger of this though is that missiles become even more maneuverable the more fuel they burn, so if you don't cause it to burn fuel early on it will be in a better position to nail you once it catches up to you.


CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut






To be honest I'm surprised we don't have defensive lasers on planes with intense IR pulses meant to burn out IR sensors on heatseekers.

"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..." 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Matt Swain wrote:
To be honest I'm surprised we don't have defensive lasers on planes with intense IR pulses meant to burn out IR sensors on heatseekers.


Well, we can't exactly do that yet. But once we do those same lasers will be able to do the same to planes and their pilots. Which is why this current era of planes and missiles is not going to last much beyond the next few decades.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in gb
Fireknife Shas'el





Leicester

Lasers will just be another weapon in the arsenal; they’re hard to aim for long enough to transfer enough energy to make a kill, not as effective against aircraft as they are missiles (aircraft can absorb more energy / damage without catastrophic failure) and, most importantly, they’re limited by physics. The inverse square law means it’s practically impossible to make a long range laser.

I can potentially see them as a point-defence weapon on large fighters, but they’ll be gun range weapons and everyone will immediately start developing tactics and technology to mitigate them. It won’t be the end of planes or even missiles,

DS:80+S+GM+B+I+Pw40k08D+A++WD355R+T(M)DM+
 Zed wrote:
*All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

chaos0xomega wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
cannot maneuver that much (they're not able to chase planes through radical course changes like is often seen in movies)


This is simply incorrect. Modern surface to air missiles can pull 30g's, a manned aircraft can pull ~9gs before the pilot blacks out, up to maybe 15gs before the wings tear off. Missiles can grossly outmaneuver planes, but doing so burns up a lot of fuel and causes them to slow down/bleed energy drastically. A missile can pull a radical course range pretty easily at close range, generally a pilot wants to defeat a missile by forcing course changes earlier in its flight path so that its traveling at reduced speed and burning more fuel, so that by the time its that close it doesn't have enough left in the tank to actually keep up with the fighter. The danger of this though is that missiles become even more maneuverable the more fuel they burn, so if you don't cause it to burn fuel early on it will be in a better position to nail you once it catches up to you.

Sure, that was basically my point, I guess more detailed out. Yes they can maneuver, but since their thrust is limited, they can't do it a whole lot without bleeding velocity, and if forced to chase after an actively evading target will usually run out of forward momentum before they can engage their target, while something like the famous scene in Behind Enemy Lines shows the missiles under thrust through radical course changes doggedly pursuing an FA18 through the whole engagement that just isn't generally the case in reality.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

That's hardly the biggest inaccuracy in BEL though... Storage units in ejection seats? And those landmines... Cringe.

Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Jadenim wrote:
Lasers will just be another weapon in the arsenal; they’re hard to aim for long enough to transfer enough energy to make a kill, not as effective against aircraft as they are missiles (aircraft can absorb more energy / damage without catastrophic failure) and, most importantly, they’re limited by physics. The inverse square law means it’s practically impossible to make a long range laser.


Fighters are becoming more and more susceptible to the damage a laser can cause, and just damage in general. The F-35 basically can't take any damage and remain flyable. A laser would simply have to warp a few panels, crack the windscreen, or blind the pilot+his sensors to cause the plane to crash. The Inverse Square Law definitely does NOT preclude long-ish range lasers. Certainly lasers with sufficient range to make aircraft and missiles useless. No, they wouldn't have a range of thousands of kilometers, but 20-30 is more than sufficient to make aircraft and missiles useless.

It'll be a slow process as these lasers become more common. At first only the most high tech military will have them, but eventually they'll start trickling down and anywhere that can supply the power requirements will have them.


I can potentially see them as a point-defence weapon on large fighters, but they’ll be gun range weapons and everyone will immediately start developing tactics and technology to mitigate them. It won’t be the end of planes or even missiles,


The issue here is weight. Materials which are resistant to lasers are unacceptably heavy for aircraft or missile use. Such a plane would have no real maneuverability or ability to mount weaponry. Lasers are easily forseeable to be able to shoot down aircraft and missiles. An aircraft or missile that can resist being shot down by a laser and be an effective weapon is the thing that physics doesn't support.

The Inverse Square Law is not the obstacle that you think, but laser resistant materials are.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in gb
Walking Dead Wraithlord






Yeha im on the high powered lazors side for the future as the next step.. Conventional ballistic weapons seem far too limited by physics.

We already have locks and cameras that lock onto targets miles away up in the sky which are using lazors in principle. The trouble is having one powerful enough to do damage. However the bonus is you only in theory need to heat up a critical part of an aircraft to disable it so you don't need to brute force melt half the wing.

Of course the counter measure then becomes some sort of super reflective material.

Far out o the left field - Anyone think it will be possible to develop some sort of remote EMP/electircal weapon or be able to hack the aircraft from the ground with light?

In case its not clear i don't have expertise/knowledge on the matter so just saying stuff..

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/03 00:07:32


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in ca
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




Monarchy of TBD

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a27245/new-ceramic-coating-hypersonic-flight/

I've no idea of it's stealth properties, but in theory a ceramic coating with great heat dissipation might provide the next generation of laser resistant aircraft, once the laser technology proliferates.

Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.

 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Gitzbitah wrote:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a27245/new-ceramic-coating-hypersonic-flight/

I've no idea of it's stealth properties, but in theory a ceramic coating with great heat dissipation might provide the next generation of laser resistant aircraft, once the laser technology proliferates.


That material will be quite heavy, in the application that article is talking about it would only be on the leading edges not over the entire surface which is what a combat aircraft would need. That weight would mean less weaponry, less speed, and less maneuverability. Which would give a laser more time to do damage, which means its all self-defeating.

Another issue is the brittleness of ceremics. If a plane is traveling on a steady course, like a hypersonic passenger plane would be, its less of an issue. But a military aircraft that needs to perform high speed turns and other maneuvers is going to put a lot of stress on its frame which needs to be able to flex significantly. Flexing is not something that ceramics do.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in gb
Fireknife Shas'el





Leicester

Spoiler:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Jadenim wrote:
Lasers will just be another weapon in the arsenal; they’re hard to aim for long enough to transfer enough energy to make a kill, not as effective against aircraft as they are missiles (aircraft can absorb more energy / damage without catastrophic failure) and, most importantly, they’re limited by physics. The inverse square law means it’s practically impossible to make a long range laser.


Fighters are becoming more and more susceptible to the damage a laser can cause, and just damage in general. The F-35 basically can't take any damage and remain flyable. A laser would simply have to warp a few panels, crack the windscreen, or blind the pilot+his sensors to cause the plane to crash. The Inverse Square Law definitely does NOT preclude long-ish range lasers. Certainly lasers with sufficient range to make aircraft and missiles useless. No, they wouldn't have a range of thousands of kilometers, but 20-30 is more than sufficient to make aircraft and missiles useless.

It'll be a slow process as these lasers become more common. At first only the most high tech military will have them, but eventually they'll start trickling down and anywhere that can supply the power requirements will have them.


I can potentially see them as a point-defence weapon on large fighters, but they’ll be gun range weapons and everyone will immediately start developing tactics and technology to mitigate them. It won’t be the end of planes or even missiles,


The issue here is weight. Materials which are resistant to lasers are unacceptably heavy for aircraft or missile use. Such a plane would have no real maneuverability or ability to mount weaponry. Lasers are easily forseeable to be able to shoot down aircraft and missiles. An aircraft or missile that can resist being shot down by a laser and be an effective weapon is the thing that physics doesn't support.

The Inverse Square Law is not the obstacle that you think, but laser resistant materials are.


This idea that an F-35 can’t take any damage or it would crash is a myth. Otherwise they’d be dropping out of the sky left, right and centre to bird strikes, hail, etc. And they would be incredibly vulnerable to even current weapons, which the military just wouldn’t accept.

Also 20-30km is short, point defence, range for aircraft, which is exactly what I was talking about. And do you know how to defeat a laser defence system at that range? Fire more missiles. That’s it. Two or three missiles arriving simultaneously (preferably from slightly different directions) will overwhelm the defence system in the very, very short time it has to engage them.

If you’re still worried about your missile’s effectiveness against laser defences, program the flight control system to roll the missile during flight to dissipate energy (that’s just a software update). Maybe network them together with a datalink to mitigate sensor damage (most medium range missiles already have such a system for receiving updates from the launch aircraft, but a bit of modification would be required. Could also make your missiles more effective against stealth). Then there’s more significant modifications, such as reflective or absorbent coatings, which would start changing the speed/range/warhead balance, but still probably practical.

Like I said, it’s not that you can’t build a laser defence weapon, or even that they won’t be used , but the idea that it will give aircraft (or ships, or tanks) an impervious “zone of death” that will obliterate any threat and make them invulnerable to any attack is utter nonsense. It will be another weapon in the arsenal, it will change the balance of tactics and require innovative responses, but that’s just the nature of military technology.

DS:80+S+GM+B+I+Pw40k08D+A++WD355R+T(M)DM+
 Zed wrote:
*All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Obviously an F-35 can take at least some damage and remain flying. Nowhere near as much as an A-10, perhaps, but the A-10 is designed to take lots of fire and keep on flying where the F-35 is designed to not be seen or shot at. (Just how that's going to work in a CAS application is a completely different discussion, of course.)

What happens when an F-35 takes even the slightest damage is that it's radar reflective properties change. And when you're talking about radar cross sections, a millimeter's change in the profile of the aircraft can have a HUGE impact on it's stealth characteristics. A single bullet hole provides a rather large radar reflector in all aspects, after all.

Here's an intriguing question. Could a laser generate enough heat in a stealth aircraft's skin to warp it and ruin it's stealth characteristics in a brief exposure?

For that matter... how well does stealth technology work against LIDAR? Lasers can be used for more than just burning holes, after all. As I understand it, at least some missiles use a LIDAR system to inititate the fusing, so the technology already exists. As laser efficiency increases, one can expect LIDAR to start being used for search and track functions... especially if it bypasses radar-based stealth measures.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Jadenim wrote:
Spoiler:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Jadenim wrote:
Lasers will just be another weapon in the arsenal; they’re hard to aim for long enough to transfer enough energy to make a kill, not as effective against aircraft as they are missiles (aircraft can absorb more energy / damage without catastrophic failure) and, most importantly, they’re limited by physics. The inverse square law means it’s practically impossible to make a long range laser.


Fighters are becoming more and more susceptible to the damage a laser can cause, and just damage in general. The F-35 basically can't take any damage and remain flyable. A laser would simply have to warp a few panels, crack the windscreen, or blind the pilot+his sensors to cause the plane to crash. The Inverse Square Law definitely does NOT preclude long-ish range lasers. Certainly lasers with sufficient range to make aircraft and missiles useless. No, they wouldn't have a range of thousands of kilometers, but 20-30 is more than sufficient to make aircraft and missiles useless.

It'll be a slow process as these lasers become more common. At first only the most high tech military will have them, but eventually they'll start trickling down and anywhere that can supply the power requirements will have them.


I can potentially see them as a point-defence weapon on large fighters, but they’ll be gun range weapons and everyone will immediately start developing tactics and technology to mitigate them. It won’t be the end of planes or even missiles,


The issue here is weight. Materials which are resistant to lasers are unacceptably heavy for aircraft or missile use. Such a plane would have no real maneuverability or ability to mount weaponry. Lasers are easily forseeable to be able to shoot down aircraft and missiles. An aircraft or missile that can resist being shot down by a laser and be an effective weapon is the thing that physics doesn't support.

The Inverse Square Law is not the obstacle that you think, but laser resistant materials are.


This idea that an F-35 can’t take any damage or it would crash is a myth. Otherwise they’d be dropping out of the sky left, right and centre to bird strikes, hail, etc. And they would be incredibly vulnerable to even current weapons, which the military just wouldn’t accept.

Also 20-30km is short, point defence, range for aircraft, which is exactly what I was talking about. And do you know how to defeat a laser defence system at that range? Fire more missiles. That’s it. Two or three missiles arriving simultaneously (preferably from slightly different directions) will overwhelm the defence system in the very, very short time it has to engage them.

If you’re still worried about your missile’s effectiveness against laser defences, program the flight control system to roll the missile during flight to dissipate energy (that’s just a software update). Maybe network them together with a datalink to mitigate sensor damage (most medium range missiles already have such a system for receiving updates from the launch aircraft, but a bit of modification would be required. Could also make your missiles more effective against stealth). Then there’s more significant modifications, such as reflective or absorbent coatings, which would start changing the speed/range/warhead balance, but still probably practical.

Like I said, it’s not that you can’t build a laser defence weapon, or even that they won’t be used , but the idea that it will give aircraft (or ships, or tanks) an impervious “zone of death” that will obliterate any threat and make them invulnerable to any attack is utter nonsense. It will be another weapon in the arsenal, it will change the balance of tactics and require innovative responses, but that’s just the nature of military technology.


Sure, if there is just 1 laser. Which eventually there won't. Eventually any given combat zone will probably have hundreds of these lasers on both sides covering it. Either from fixed defensive installations or on mobile platforms. That is what will make aircraft and missiles useless because you'll never be able to afford the losses missiles and aircraft would suffer when you have to deal with that many lasers.

Put a half-dozen of these lasers on a warship. Have a half dozen of those ships, and you have a navel force that is literally immune to missiles and aircraft. Same goes for an army. Have a handful of laser units mounted on vehicles and you can make a land army immune to missiles and aircraft. Install these lasers all over your country and you'll make any combat occurring on your soil immune to missiles and aircraft. Even if the lasers are only individually 60-70% effective, in both numbers and attrition to enemy forces it results in practical immunity. Nobody, not even the US, could afford to launch missiles to deal with a 60% failure rate. Its not that every missile or aircraft gets shot down, its that enough are shot down that missiles and aircraft are abandoned because its too darn expensive. Even the cheapest missiles are many millions of $, and the same for planes. These lasers will cost very little to keep up and running. That's why its game over for aircraft and missiles.

That is what will eventually happen. It might take a couple decades, it might take closer to a century. But it is pretty much inevitable for all major world powers to get their hands on this type of defense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/03 15:52:48


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Grey Templar wrote:
Nobody, not even the US, could afford to launch missiles to deal with a 60% failure rate.


I rather expect nobody, not even the U.S., could afford that many lasers to achieve that sort of saturation throughout it's entire potential operational area. Then you're back to the status quo; find the area that is less defended and strike there to unravel the defenses of the target you're trying to hit.

And let's bear in mind, if you really want to defeat that sort of defense saturation, you saturate them with targets. You can build a cheap RC aircraft for a couple hundred to a couple thousand dollars. Won't be as capable as a full-up drone or manned aircraft, but will be at least as capable as, say, Fritz-X...

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

I think you're underestimating how cheap these lasers will eventually be. They won't remain multi-million $ weapon platforms for very long. But even if they were, its still a better investment than a missile because the laser is reusable. So proliferation is inevitable.

Yes, it will take a while before it gets to that point, but it will eventually get there.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/03 16:52:42


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






We still don't know much about counter laser tech. A laser beam can easily be deflected by reflective surfaces sending most of the heat energy away and there are other ways to absorb heat - like heat sinks and protective coatings.

No way to know if they will just be another weapon on the battlefield or something game breaking.

I think railguns are far more promising both offensively and defensively.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in gb
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant






Wouldn't the super laser defence be super susceptible to out of LOS artillery though, making it just a rock paper scissors, of laser beats jets, jets beat artillery, artillery beats lasers.

Also, as discussed earlier, it's all well and good the lasers being able to do the job, but tactics such as electronic warfare making it difficult to notice an attack coming is going to play its part still.

By the way I am a fan of lasers being weapons in theory, whatever is powering them is going to be a prime target, it would take a huge power source to weaponise that many lasers, it would be the prime target out of LOS weapons... This is under the assumption the weapons won't have their own power source each to allow them to make successive attacks of a period of time.

Lastly, and I know this was a point of contention in another thread but they still could be viable. Rod of Gods. Drop one of them bad boys on the laser fortress first.

My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance
My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog 
   
Made in gb
Fireknife Shas'el





Leicester

Or just wait for a cloudy day.

DS:80+S+GM+B+I+Pw40k08D+A++WD355R+T(M)DM+
 Zed wrote:
*All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Xenomancers wrote:
I think railguns are far more promising both offensively and defensively.


Rail as a ground-based AA weapon could be a thing - given the last testbed I heard of was on a Navy Destroyer, I think, it might be a while before it is capable of being used by an aircraft.

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Dysartes wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I think railguns are far more promising both offensively and defensively.


Rail as a ground-based AA weapon could be a thing - given the last testbed I heard of was on a Navy Destroyer, I think, it might be a while before it is capable of being used by an aircraft.

Doubtful aircraft will be utilizing them - agreed. They could be quite useful against aircraft and very useful at knocking out laser defense systems over the horizon. The weapon system is dealing with a lot of technical issues about making it a practical battlefield tech. I have no doubt they will be the mainstay of surgical strike artilery taking the place of aircraft and cruise missles for the majority of strikes. It will likely be a mainstay as a weapon in space combat if that ever becomes a thing. Mainly because it will be nearly impossible to intercept this weapon system a shell currently is considered unable to be intercepted (how do you even detect it?) Imagine if it is moving 5-10 times as fast with maybe a range of 150-200 miles? Realistically the ROF of a rail gun can actually be quite high and I imagine AA version of railguns would likely fire a lot of really small projectiles probably shooting 20-40mm (like a bofors gun) with much improved range and and velocity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/04 18:06:04


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Grey Templar wrote:
I think you're underestimating how cheap these lasers will eventually be. They won't remain multi-million $ weapon platforms for very long. But even if they were, its still a better investment than a missile because the laser is reusable. So proliferation is inevitable.

Yes, it will take a while before it gets to that point, but it will eventually get there.


And in the meantime you assume - wrongfully - that there will be zero research into countermeasures.

Every time there's an ultimate weapon against which there is no defense, someone invents a defense.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Vulcan wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
I think you're underestimating how cheap these lasers will eventually be. They won't remain multi-million $ weapon platforms for very long. But even if they were, its still a better investment than a missile because the laser is reusable. So proliferation is inevitable.

Yes, it will take a while before it gets to that point, but it will eventually get there.


And in the meantime you assume - wrongfully - that there will be zero research into countermeasures.

Every time there's an ultimate weapon against which there is no defense, someone invents a defense.


I'm sure people will try, but given what we know about the properties of the materials involved they would be ineffective since all of the laser resistant materials we know of would be far too heavy to be practical to use in an aircraft or missile.

It would require a bit of a revolutionary discovery in physics to get a super light laser resistant material. It does not require a revolutionary discovery to make super powerful lasers to shoot down planes.

That's the difference here. We know lasers capable of shooting down planes and missiles are possible. We do not have indication of any materials that could counter them in that role.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Grey Templar wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
I think you're underestimating how cheap these lasers will eventually be. They won't remain multi-million $ weapon platforms for very long. But even if they were, its still a better investment than a missile because the laser is reusable. So proliferation is inevitable.

Yes, it will take a while before it gets to that point, but it will eventually get there.


And in the meantime you assume - wrongfully - that there will be zero research into countermeasures.

Every time there's an ultimate weapon against which there is no defense, someone invents a defense.


I'm sure people will try, but given what we know about the properties of the materials involved they would be ineffective since all of the laser resistant materials we know of would be far too heavy to be practical to use in an aircraft or missile.

It would require a bit of a revolutionary discovery in physics to get a super light laser resistant material. It does not require a revolutionary discovery to make super powerful lasers to shoot down planes.

That's the difference here. We know lasers capable of shooting down planes and missiles are possible. We do not have indication of any materials that could counter them in that role.


Once upon a time people thought the same about cannonballs too.

There is no such thing as an unstoppable weapon. Never has been, never will be.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





England: Newcastle

Was just watching some Desert Storm footage from an Apache gunners seat. Was difficult to get a sense of perspective from how much zoom he was using but I was surprised the tanks/apc didn’t seem to be shooting back or moving. Basically a turkey shoot. Was one of those black and white images (nighttime?). I thought tanks had laser guided weapons so they could hit a moving target easily? I wouldn’t have thought flying in front of a dozen tanks/BMP was safe for an Apache. I’ve only ever seen one flying at Silverstone and they didn’t seem particularly fast.

If you were in an Abrams tank and in the same situation without any air support what would be the best way of dealing with that? Has a US tank platoon ever been in that situation?


Starting Sons of Horus Legion

Starting Daughters of Khaine

2000pts Sisters of Silence

4000pts Fists Legion
Sylvaneth A forest
III Legion 5000pts
XIII Legion 9000pts
Hive Fleet Khadrim 5000pts
Kabal of the Torn Lotus .4000pts
Coalition of neo Sacea 5000pts



 
   
Made in fr
Stalwart Tribune





 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Was just watching some Desert Storm footage from an Apache gunners seat. Was difficult to get a sense of perspective from how much zoom he was using but I was surprised the tanks/apc didn’t seem to be shooting back or moving. Basically a turkey shoot. Was one of those black and white images (nighttime?). I thought tanks had laser guided weapons so they could hit a moving target easily? I wouldn’t have thought flying in front of a dozen tanks/BMP was safe for an Apache. I’ve only ever seen one flying at Silverstone and they didn’t seem particularly fast.

If you were in an Abrams tank and in the same situation without any air support what would be the best way of dealing with that? Has a US tank platoon ever been in that situation?

As far as I know, attack helicopters like that are armored to withstand any kind of machine gun fire. You need at least some serious autocannon to damage it and tanks aren't usually equipped with that. And hitting a flying target with the main gun is not very likely to happen... Tanks could certainly carry some anti-air missiles, but I don't know if that's something that's actually done or if tanks are just not deployed far away from AA support.

Without any way to fire back at the helicopter, the best chance to survive is probably to deploy as much smoke as possible and try to get to cover.
   
Made in gb
Fireknife Shas'el





Leicester

If it was at night, I don’t think most of the Iraqi army had night vision / passive infrared at the time; if they had anything it was active infrared and that’s only really useful for targeting something you already know is there, not wide area search. Likely they didn’t even know anything was there.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/05 19:41:54


DS:80+S+GM+B+I+Pw40k08D+A++WD355R+T(M)DM+
 Zed wrote:
*All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





The way tanks defend against air attack is by bringing along a mobile SAM or AAA system.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Was just watching some Desert Storm footage from an Apache gunners seat. Was difficult to get a sense of perspective from how much zoom he was using but I was surprised the tanks/apc didn’t seem to be shooting back or moving. Basically a turkey shoot. Was one of those black and white images (nighttime?). I thought tanks had laser guided weapons so they could hit a moving target easily? I wouldn’t have thought flying in front of a dozen tanks/BMP was safe for an Apache. I’ve only ever seen one flying at Silverstone and they didn’t seem particularly fast.

If you were in an Abrams tank and in the same situation without any air support what would be the best way of dealing with that? Has a US tank platoon ever been in that situation?


Without air superiority western ground forces wouldn't be moving from forward positions. No modern army or navy would.

   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Lasers can be the world's best AA defense without killing a single aircraft though. We already have pretty good anti-missile and anti-shell active protection systems. A laser is another step in that direction, and what happens then? You either have to expend so many missiles or bombs to score a kill it's no longer economically feasible, or your plane's only effective weapon becomes it's gun which turns your expensive stealth platform into a WW2 plane.
   
Made in gb
Fireknife Shas'el





Leicester

Stealth bombs? A stealthy glide bomb would have minimal infra red signature and is small to start with, so probably relatively easy to reduce its radar signature to insignificance. At which point your super expensive anti-missile defence system becomes a glorified WW2 “spray and pray” ack-ack.

Or there’s those horrendous hypersonic sea-skimming missiles that give you minimal time to detect, engage and destroy (and will already be pretty resistant to energy attacks due to their normal operating temperature).

Or manoeuvring ballistic warheads that come in at orbital velocity and are also pretty tough due to being spec’d for re-entry G-forces and heat.

Or they make Ouze really happy and re-open the A10 production line; 30mm shells fired at several thousand RPM tend to put a dent in most people’s day!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes it makes your offensive weapons more expensive, but you’ve had to invest a lot of money in the defensive system first and people will immediately start developing technology and tactics that will reduce the effectiveness of your defences, requiring yet more investment on your part. That’s the very nature of the arms race and it’s been going since at least the 1850s without anyone hitting a technology that “wins”. To be honest I think the only thing that could would be a genuine, for real, stops all matter and energy from penetrating, force field and we are nowhere near that technology (if such a thing is even physical possible).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/07 06:45:26


DS:80+S+GM+B+I+Pw40k08D+A++WD355R+T(M)DM+
 Zed wrote:
*All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: