This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when it was
part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing craft but
doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the Air Force gets
the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't want to do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

The cannon as I recall was intended for ICBM intercept. MIRV bodies...
The cannon is likely very close to the one I consulted about with
the R&D/E company as they needed a fanout buffer and we had a good one.
I developed a level shifter to get to the logic (non-standard) levels
of the barrels in the R&D gun.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 6:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/

I suspect the U-2xx depleted heads of the cannon was part of it,
as after an engagement the heads had to be recovered. Nothing like
land mines sitting there for years and years. Remember they were
tank busters.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 7:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when it was
part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing craft but
doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the Air Force gets
the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't want to do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:23:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when it was
part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing craft but
doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the Air Force gets
the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't want to do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

I'm not sure that is correct as the A.F. has been engaged in ground
support for it's whole existence. The entire purpose of the armed
C-47's (Puff the Magic Dragon) was ground support and I was even
bought several beers by Army guys when they found out that I was in
the organization. Our big brag was that if we got there before They
got through the fence that we never lost a camp.

But I might add that the Army was very jealous of their helicopter
rights and privileges. We built two Hueys with twin mini guns and
rocket pods at Nha Tang and had to go to the Army for help in adding
the rocket pods and the fact that the Air Force was "building armed
helicopters" went all the way to headquarters MAAGV.

( We got to keep our armed Hueys because the were labeled "for "Air
Base Defense" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:26:45 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:23:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when it was
part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing craft but
doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the Air Force gets
the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't want to do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

I'm not sure that is correct as the A.F. has been engaged in ground
support for it's whole existence.

Which doesn't mean that the USAF, the USAAF, or the Air Corps, or
the Aviation Section of the Signal Corps had really like the tasking.

The entire purpose of the armed C-47's (Puff the Magic Dragon) was ground support and I was even
bought several beers by Army guys when they found out that I was in
the organization. Our big brag was that if we got there before They
got through the fence that we never lost a camp.

But I might add that the Army was very jealous of their helicopter
rights and privileges. We built two Hueys with twin mini guns and
rocket pods at Nha Tang and had to go to the Army for help in adding
the rocket pods and the fact that the Air Force was "building armed
helicopters" went all the way to headquarters MAAGV.

Yep. If the Army can't have fixed wing aircraft, then the Air
Force does _not_ get rotary wing aircraft.

Turf wars, as bad as on a Union job.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

College kids are constantly pushing the military to modernize itself with respect to technology, engineering and science. Having decades old habits and traditions don't always do it. Its always been like that. There's no such thing as "oldie, but goodie".

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:17 PM UTC-4, Martin Eastburn wrote:
The cannon as I recall was intended for ICBM intercept. MIRV bodies...
The cannon is likely very close to the one I consulted about with
the R&D/E company as they needed a fanout buffer and we had a good one.
I developed a level shifter to get to the logic (non-standard) levels
of the barrels in the R&D gun.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 6:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:50 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:23:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when it was
part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing craft but
doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the Air Force gets
the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't want to do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

I'm not sure that is correct as the A.F. has been engaged in ground
support for it's whole existence. The entire purpose of the armed
C-47's (Puff the Magic Dragon) was ground support and I was even
bought several beers by Army guys when they found out that I was in
the organization. Our big brag was that if we got there before They
got through the fence that we never lost a camp.

But I might add that the Army was very jealous of their helicopter
rights and privileges. We built two Hueys with twin mini guns and
rocket pods at Nha Tang and had to go to the Army for help in adding
the rocket pods and the fact that the Air Force was "building armed
helicopters" went all the way to headquarters MAAGV.

( We got to keep our armed Hueys because the were labeled "for "Air
Base Defense" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

The Marines flew Harriers, presumably for CAS. I think the Harriers are being phased out. Maybe they should transition to the A-10

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:31:42 -0700 (PDT), Rex
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:50 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:23:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when it was
part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing craft but
doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the Air Force gets
the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't want to do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

I'm not sure that is correct as the A.F. has been engaged in ground
support for it's whole existence. The entire purpose of the armed
C-47's (Puff the Magic Dragon) was ground support and I was even
bought several beers by Army guys when they found out that I was in
the organization. Our big brag was that if we got there before They
got through the fence that we never lost a camp.

But I might add that the Army was very jealous of their helicopter
rights and privileges. We built two Hueys with twin mini guns and
rocket pods at Nha Tang and had to go to the Army for help in adding
the rocket pods and the fact that the Air Force was "building armed
helicopters" went all the way to headquarters MAAGV.

( We got to keep our armed Hueys because the were labeled "for "Air
Base Defense" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

The Marines flew Harriers, presumably for CAS. I think the Harriers are being phased out. Maybe they should transition to the A-10

As they said in that article, and as I pointed out here six months ago
or more, the A-10 was conceived before terrorists had MANPADS. Imagine
trapshooting with loads that seek the clay pigeons electronically.

And so ground support has shifted toward high-flying aircraft with
sharply targeted weapons. That new generation they talk about in the
article, in addition to the soon-to-come laser weapons, change the
game.

I've always liked the A-10, but they were designed to deal with the
groundfire that was typical in the 1960s.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:31:42 -0700 (PDT), Rex
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:50 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:23:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when it was
part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing craft but
doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the Air Force gets
the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't want to do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

I'm not sure that is correct as the A.F. has been engaged in ground
support for it's whole existence. The entire purpose of the armed
C-47's (Puff the Magic Dragon) was ground support and I was even
bought several beers by Army guys when they found out that I was in
the organization. Our big brag was that if we got there before They
got through the fence that we never lost a camp.

But I might add that the Army was very jealous of their helicopter
rights and privileges. We built two Hueys with twin mini guns and
rocket pods at Nha Tang and had to go to the Army for help in adding
the rocket pods and the fact that the Air Force was "building armed
helicopters" went all the way to headquarters MAAGV.

( We got to keep our armed Hueys because the were labeled "for "Air
Base Defense" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

The Marines flew Harriers, presumably for CAS. I think the Harriers are being phased out. Maybe they should transition to the A-10

I'm not sure that the Marines would want a 40 year old airplane :-)
But probably more to the point, can an A-10 do the same job?

The A.F. says that retiring them would save $3.7 billion from 2015 to
2019.


--
cheers,

John B.

ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.


On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:26:05 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

The cannon as I recall was intended for ICBM intercept. MIRV bodies...
The cannon is likely very close to the one I consulted about with
the R&D/E company as they needed a fanout buffer and we had a good one.
I developed a level shifter to get to the logic (non-standard) levels
of the barrels in the R&D gun.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 6:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/

Remove 333 to reply.
Randy

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i


On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:26:05 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

The cannon as I recall was intended for ICBM intercept. MIRV bodies...
The cannon is likely very close to the one I consulted about with
the R&D/E company as they needed a fanout buffer and we had a good one.
I developed a level shifter to get to the logic (non-standard) levels
of the barrels in the R&D gun.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 6:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/

Remove 333 to reply.
Randy

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.

--
Ed Huntress




On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:26:05 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

The cannon as I recall was intended for ICBM intercept. MIRV bodies...
The cannon is likely very close to the one I consulted about with
the R&D/E company as they needed a fanout buffer and we had a good one.
I developed a level shifter to get to the logic (non-standard) levels
of the barrels in the R&D gun.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 6:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/

Remove 333 to reply.
Randy

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 6:31:56 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
On 9/23/2015 5:41 PM, wrote:
College kids are constantly pushing the military to modernize itself with respect to technology, engineering and science. Having decades old habits and traditions don't always do it. Its always been like that. There's no such thing as "oldie, but goodie".

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:17 PM UTC-4, Martin Eastburn wrote:
The cannon as I recall was intended for ICBM intercept. MIRV bodies....
The cannon is likely very close to the one I consulted about with
the R&D/E company as they needed a fanout buffer and we had a good one.
I developed a level shifter to get to the logic (non-standard) levels
of the barrels in the R&D gun.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 6:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/






And lasers will be finding their way to warships
before long also, especially for ship defense.

The long sought bottomless magazine. And costing
less than a dollar per shot according to the
article.




Navy Considers Laser Weapons for Carriers


Military.com
Jun 16, 2015 | by Kris Osborn

The Navy may outfit it's new Ford-class aircraft carriers with a wide
range of laser weapons to shoot down incoming missiles and eventually
provide offensive fire power, senior service official said.

With this future in mind, the Ford-class carriers are built with three
times the electrical power generating capacity compared to Nimitz-class
carriers, Moore said.

The USS Ford is able to generate 13,800 volts of electrical power, more
than three times the 4,160 volts that a Nimitz-class carrier generates,
said Rear Adm. Thomas Moore, Program Executive Officer, Carriers.
As the technology matures, Navy leaders anticipate using a number of
lasers to assist existing missiles designed for carrier defense.

"The current technology in directed energy, with the power and cooling
required, means that the installations are big and they are heavy - but
the technology is rapidly advancing. I've seen some concepts that start
to get the sizes down," said Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, Director of Air
Warfare.

While much less expensive than defensive missiles engineered aboard the
Ford-class carriers such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and the
Rolling Airframe Missile, laser technology requires a large amount of
on-board, transportable electrical power.

"There are finite numbers of missiles and finite installations on the
carrier. If you can put a directed energy piece on there with its lower
cost per round, you can see where you can start to reduce the cost
overall and measurably increase the protection of the ship," Manazir
said. "The aircraft carrier is a wonderful platform for the installation
of directed energy -- currently for defensive use and, as technology
gets more advanced, you can look at offensive laser technology."
Related Video

The USS Ford is built with four 26-megawatt generators, bringing a total
of 104 megawatts to the ship. This helps support the ship's developing
systems such as its Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS,
and provides power for future systems such as lasers and rail-guns,
Moore added.

The USS Ford also needs sufficient electrical power to support its new
electro-magnetic catapult, dual-band radar and Advanced Arresting Gear,
among other electrical systems.

"Ford is designed with significant electrical margin for the future
because we see more and more electrical systems coming on," Manazir
said. "It is also designed with energy storage capability which takes
the power out of the reactor and stores it at a certain level. Then you
can take from that storage capacity to operate individual systems."
As technology evolves, laser weapons may eventually replace some of the
missile systems on board aircraft carriers.

"Lasers need to get up to about 300 kilowatts to start making them
effective. The higher the power you get the more you can accomplish. I
think there will be a combination of lasers and rail guns in the future.
I do think at some point, lasers could replace some existing missile
systems. Lasers will provide an overall higher rate of annihilation,"
Moore said.

The Ford-class ships are engineered with a redesigned island, slightly
larger deck space and new weapons elevators in order to achieve a
33-percent increase in sortie-generation rate. The new platforms are
built to launch more aircraft and more seamlessly support a high-op tempo..

The new weapons elevators allow for a much more efficient path to move
and re-arm weapons systems for aircraft. The elevators can take weapons
directly from their magazines to just below the flight deck, therefore
greatly improving the sortie-generation rate by making it easier and
faster to re-arm planes, Moore said

The Navy has already deployed one laser system, called the Laser Weapons
System, or LaWS, which has been operational for months.
LaWS uses heat energy from lasers to disable or destroy targets fast,
slow, stationary and moving targets. The system has successfully
incinerated UAVs and other targets in tests shots, and has been
operational aboard an amphibious transport dock in the Persian Gulf, the
USS Ponce.

The scalable weapon is designed to destroy threats for about $59-cents
per shot, an amount that is exponentially lower than the hundreds of
thousands or millions needed to fire an interceptor missile such as the
Standard Missile-2, Navy officials explained.

While at sea, sailors have been using the LaWS for targeting and
training exercises every day and the weapon has even been used to
disable and destroy some targets, service officials said.
Navy sailors and engineers have discovered some unanticipated
intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance value from the laser
weapons system by using its long-range telescope to scan for targets,
Navy officials said.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...-carriers.html

Its about time. The technology has been around for years and years, like with green cars, aircraft and other transportstion.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:49:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 6:31:56 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
On 9/23/2015 5:41 PM, wrote:
College kids are constantly pushing the military to modernize itself with respect to technology, engineering and science. Having decades old habits and traditions don't always do it. Its always been like that. There's no such thing as "oldie, but goodie".

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:17 PM UTC-4, Martin Eastburn wrote:
The cannon as I recall was intended for ICBM intercept. MIRV bodies...
The cannon is likely very close to the one I consulted about with
the R&D/E company as they needed a fanout buffer and we had a good one.
I developed a level shifter to get to the logic (non-standard) levels
of the barrels in the R&D gun.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 6:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/






And lasers will be finding their way to warships
before long also, especially for ship defense.

The long sought bottomless magazine. And costing
less than a dollar per shot according to the
article.




Navy Considers Laser Weapons for Carriers


Military.com
Jun 16, 2015 | by Kris Osborn

The Navy may outfit it's new Ford-class aircraft carriers with a wide
range of laser weapons to shoot down incoming missiles and eventually
provide offensive fire power, senior service official said.

With this future in mind, the Ford-class carriers are built with three
times the electrical power generating capacity compared to Nimitz-class
carriers, Moore said.

The USS Ford is able to generate 13,800 volts of electrical power, more
than three times the 4,160 volts that a Nimitz-class carrier generates,
said Rear Adm. Thomas Moore, Program Executive Officer, Carriers.
As the technology matures, Navy leaders anticipate using a number of
lasers to assist existing missiles designed for carrier defense.

"The current technology in directed energy, with the power and cooling
required, means that the installations are big and they are heavy - but
the technology is rapidly advancing. I've seen some concepts that start
to get the sizes down," said Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, Director of Air
Warfare.

While much less expensive than defensive missiles engineered aboard the
Ford-class carriers such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and the
Rolling Airframe Missile, laser technology requires a large amount of
on-board, transportable electrical power.

"There are finite numbers of missiles and finite installations on the
carrier. If you can put a directed energy piece on there with its lower
cost per round, you can see where you can start to reduce the cost
overall and measurably increase the protection of the ship," Manazir
said. "The aircraft carrier is a wonderful platform for the installation
of directed energy -- currently for defensive use and, as technology
gets more advanced, you can look at offensive laser technology."
Related Video

The USS Ford is built with four 26-megawatt generators, bringing a total
of 104 megawatts to the ship. This helps support the ship's developing
systems such as its Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS,
and provides power for future systems such as lasers and rail-guns,
Moore added.

The USS Ford also needs sufficient electrical power to support its new
electro-magnetic catapult, dual-band radar and Advanced Arresting Gear,
among other electrical systems.

"Ford is designed with significant electrical margin for the future
because we see more and more electrical systems coming on," Manazir
said. "It is also designed with energy storage capability which takes
the power out of the reactor and stores it at a certain level. Then you
can take from that storage capacity to operate individual systems."
As technology evolves, laser weapons may eventually replace some of the
missile systems on board aircraft carriers.

"Lasers need to get up to about 300 kilowatts to start making them
effective. The higher the power you get the more you can accomplish. I
think there will be a combination of lasers and rail guns in the future.
I do think at some point, lasers could replace some existing missile
systems. Lasers will provide an overall higher rate of annihilation,"
Moore said.

The Ford-class ships are engineered with a redesigned island, slightly
larger deck space and new weapons elevators in order to achieve a
33-percent increase in sortie-generation rate. The new platforms are
built to launch more aircraft and more seamlessly support a high-op tempo.

The new weapons elevators allow for a much more efficient path to move
and re-arm weapons systems for aircraft. The elevators can take weapons
directly from their magazines to just below the flight deck, therefore
greatly improving the sortie-generation rate by making it easier and
faster to re-arm planes, Moore said

The Navy has already deployed one laser system, called the Laser Weapons
System, or LaWS, which has been operational for months.
LaWS uses heat energy from lasers to disable or destroy targets fast,
slow, stationary and moving targets. The system has successfully
incinerated UAVs and other targets in tests shots, and has been
operational aboard an amphibious transport dock in the Persian Gulf, the
USS Ponce.

The scalable weapon is designed to destroy threats for about $59-cents
per shot, an amount that is exponentially lower than the hundreds of
thousands or millions needed to fire an interceptor missile such as the
Standard Missile-2, Navy officials explained.

While at sea, sailors have been using the LaWS for targeting and
training exercises every day and the weapon has even been used to
disable and destroy some targets, service officials said.
Navy sailors and engineers have discovered some unanticipated
intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance value from the laser
weapons system by using its long-range telescope to scan for targets,
Navy officials said.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...-carriers.html

Its about time. The technology has been around for years and years

No, it hasn't. Fiber lasers of that capability (from IPG) just became
available about four or five years ago, and weaponizing them into
something that really works has only been possible for a couple of
years.

like with green cars, aircraft and other transportstion.

I had a couple of green cars -- British Racing Green. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.

Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from
Textron.

..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM

Joe Gwinn

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 11:00:37 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:49:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 6:31:56 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
On 9/23/2015 5:41 PM, wrote:
College kids are constantly pushing the military to modernize itself with respect to technology, engineering and science. Having decades old habits and traditions don't always do it. Its always been like that. There's no such thing as "oldie, but goodie".

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:17 PM UTC-4, Martin Eastburn wrote:
The cannon as I recall was intended for ICBM intercept. MIRV bodies...
The cannon is likely very close to the one I consulted about with
the R&D/E company as they needed a fanout buffer and we had a good one.
I developed a level shifter to get to the logic (non-standard) levels
of the barrels in the R&D gun.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 6:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/






And lasers will be finding their way to warships
before long also, especially for ship defense.

The long sought bottomless magazine. And costing
less than a dollar per shot according to the
article.




Navy Considers Laser Weapons for Carriers


Military.com
Jun 16, 2015 | by Kris Osborn

The Navy may outfit it's new Ford-class aircraft carriers with a wide
range of laser weapons to shoot down incoming missiles and eventually
provide offensive fire power, senior service official said.

With this future in mind, the Ford-class carriers are built with three
times the electrical power generating capacity compared to Nimitz-class
carriers, Moore said.

The USS Ford is able to generate 13,800 volts of electrical power, more
than three times the 4,160 volts that a Nimitz-class carrier generates,
said Rear Adm. Thomas Moore, Program Executive Officer, Carriers.
As the technology matures, Navy leaders anticipate using a number of
lasers to assist existing missiles designed for carrier defense.

"The current technology in directed energy, with the power and cooling
required, means that the installations are big and they are heavy - but
the technology is rapidly advancing. I've seen some concepts that start
to get the sizes down," said Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, Director of Air
Warfare.

While much less expensive than defensive missiles engineered aboard the
Ford-class carriers such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and the
Rolling Airframe Missile, laser technology requires a large amount of
on-board, transportable electrical power.

"There are finite numbers of missiles and finite installations on the
carrier. If you can put a directed energy piece on there with its lower
cost per round, you can see where you can start to reduce the cost
overall and measurably increase the protection of the ship," Manazir
said. "The aircraft carrier is a wonderful platform for the installation
of directed energy -- currently for defensive use and, as technology
gets more advanced, you can look at offensive laser technology."
Related Video

The USS Ford is built with four 26-megawatt generators, bringing a total
of 104 megawatts to the ship. This helps support the ship's developing
systems such as its Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS,
and provides power for future systems such as lasers and rail-guns,
Moore added.

The USS Ford also needs sufficient electrical power to support its new
electro-magnetic catapult, dual-band radar and Advanced Arresting Gear,
among other electrical systems.

"Ford is designed with significant electrical margin for the future
because we see more and more electrical systems coming on," Manazir
said. "It is also designed with energy storage capability which takes
the power out of the reactor and stores it at a certain level. Then you
can take from that storage capacity to operate individual systems."
As technology evolves, laser weapons may eventually replace some of the
missile systems on board aircraft carriers.

"Lasers need to get up to about 300 kilowatts to start making them
effective. The higher the power you get the more you can accomplish. I
think there will be a combination of lasers and rail guns in the future.
I do think at some point, lasers could replace some existing missile
systems. Lasers will provide an overall higher rate of annihilation,"
Moore said.

The Ford-class ships are engineered with a redesigned island, slightly
larger deck space and new weapons elevators in order to achieve a
33-percent increase in sortie-generation rate. The new platforms are
built to launch more aircraft and more seamlessly support a high-op tempo.

The new weapons elevators allow for a much more efficient path to move
and re-arm weapons systems for aircraft. The elevators can take weapons
directly from their magazines to just below the flight deck, therefore
greatly improving the sortie-generation rate by making it easier and
faster to re-arm planes, Moore said

The Navy has already deployed one laser system, called the Laser Weapons
System, or LaWS, which has been operational for months.
LaWS uses heat energy from lasers to disable or destroy targets fast,
slow, stationary and moving targets. The system has successfully
incinerated UAVs and other targets in tests shots, and has been
operational aboard an amphibious transport dock in the Persian Gulf, the
USS Ponce.

The scalable weapon is designed to destroy threats for about $59-cents
per shot, an amount that is exponentially lower than the hundreds of
thousands or millions needed to fire an interceptor missile such as the
Standard Missile-2, Navy officials explained.

While at sea, sailors have been using the LaWS for targeting and
training exercises every day and the weapon has even been used to
disable and destroy some targets, service officials said.
Navy sailors and engineers have discovered some unanticipated
intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance value from the laser
weapons system by using its long-range telescope to scan for targets,
Navy officials said.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...-carriers.html

Its about time. The technology has been around for years and years

No, it hasn't.

Yes it has. "The first laser was built in 1960 by Theodore H. Maiman at Hughes Laboratories" (wikipedia), this makes the technology at least that old..

If the military had placed the majority of its funding into that program versus others, then the technology would be far more advanced by today.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.

Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from
Textron.

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM

Joe Gwinn

Ooooh....duck hunting will never be the same.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:14:16 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:31:42 -0700 (PDT), Rex
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:50 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:23:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when it
was part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing craft
but doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the Air
Force gets the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't want to
do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

I'm not sure that is correct as the A.F. has been engaged in ground
support for it's whole existence. The entire purpose of the armed
C-47's (Puff the Magic Dragon) was ground support and I was even
bought several beers by Army guys when they found out that I was in
the organization. Our big brag was that if we got there before They
got through the fence that we never lost a camp.

But I might add that the Army was very jealous of their helicopter
rights and privileges. We built two Hueys with twin mini guns and
rocket pods at Nha Tang and had to go to the Army for help in adding
the rocket pods and the fact that the Air Force was "building armed
helicopters" went all the way to headquarters MAAGV.

( We got to keep our armed Hueys because the were labeled "for "Air
Base Defense" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

The Marines flew Harriers, presumably for CAS. I think the Harriers are
being phased out. Maybe they should transition to the A-10

As they said in that article, and as I pointed out here six months ago
or more, the A-10 was conceived before terrorists had MANPADS. Imagine
trapshooting with loads that seek the clay pigeons electronically.

This is kinda OT from the thread or the group, but --

It seems like we've been getting really good at precision guided
munitions against technologically unsophisticated enemies (who respond by
finding ways to engage us in technologically unsophisticated, yet
effective, ways).

Are we ready for a war with China or Russia? Somehow I don't think we're
going to scrape all the way through the 21st century without a war with
one of them.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 11:00:37 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:49:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 6:31:56 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
On 9/23/2015 5:41 PM, wrote:
College kids are constantly pushing the military to modernize itself with respect to technology, engineering and science. Having decades old habits and traditions don't always do it. Its always been like that. There's no such thing as "oldie, but goodie".

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:17 PM UTC-4, Martin Eastburn wrote:
The cannon as I recall was intended for ICBM intercept. MIRV bodies...
The cannon is likely very close to the one I consulted about with
the R&D/E company as they needed a fanout buffer and we had a good one.
I developed a level shifter to get to the logic (non-standard) levels
of the barrels in the R&D gun.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 6:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/






And lasers will be finding their way to warships
before long also, especially for ship defense.

The long sought bottomless magazine. And costing
less than a dollar per shot according to the
article.




Navy Considers Laser Weapons for Carriers


Military.com
Jun 16, 2015 | by Kris Osborn

The Navy may outfit it's new Ford-class aircraft carriers with a wide
range of laser weapons to shoot down incoming missiles and eventually
provide offensive fire power, senior service official said.

With this future in mind, the Ford-class carriers are built with three
times the electrical power generating capacity compared to Nimitz-class
carriers, Moore said.

The USS Ford is able to generate 13,800 volts of electrical power, more
than three times the 4,160 volts that a Nimitz-class carrier generates,
said Rear Adm. Thomas Moore, Program Executive Officer, Carriers.
As the technology matures, Navy leaders anticipate using a number of
lasers to assist existing missiles designed for carrier defense.

"The current technology in directed energy, with the power and cooling
required, means that the installations are big and they are heavy - but
the technology is rapidly advancing. I've seen some concepts that start
to get the sizes down," said Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, Director of Air
Warfare.

While much less expensive than defensive missiles engineered aboard the
Ford-class carriers such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and the
Rolling Airframe Missile, laser technology requires a large amount of
on-board, transportable electrical power.

"There are finite numbers of missiles and finite installations on the
carrier. If you can put a directed energy piece on there with its lower
cost per round, you can see where you can start to reduce the cost
overall and measurably increase the protection of the ship," Manazir
said. "The aircraft carrier is a wonderful platform for the installation
of directed energy -- currently for defensive use and, as technology
gets more advanced, you can look at offensive laser technology."
Related Video

The USS Ford is built with four 26-megawatt generators, bringing a total
of 104 megawatts to the ship. This helps support the ship's developing
systems such as its Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS,
and provides power for future systems such as lasers and rail-guns,
Moore added.

The USS Ford also needs sufficient electrical power to support its new
electro-magnetic catapult, dual-band radar and Advanced Arresting Gear,
among other electrical systems.

"Ford is designed with significant electrical margin for the future
because we see more and more electrical systems coming on," Manazir
said. "It is also designed with energy storage capability which takes
the power out of the reactor and stores it at a certain level. Then you
can take from that storage capacity to operate individual systems."
As technology evolves, laser weapons may eventually replace some of the
missile systems on board aircraft carriers.

"Lasers need to get up to about 300 kilowatts to start making them
effective. The higher the power you get the more you can accomplish. I
think there will be a combination of lasers and rail guns in the future.
I do think at some point, lasers could replace some existing missile
systems. Lasers will provide an overall higher rate of annihilation,"
Moore said.

The Ford-class ships are engineered with a redesigned island, slightly
larger deck space and new weapons elevators in order to achieve a
33-percent increase in sortie-generation rate. The new platforms are
built to launch more aircraft and more seamlessly support a high-op tempo.

The new weapons elevators allow for a much more efficient path to move
and re-arm weapons systems for aircraft. The elevators can take weapons
directly from their magazines to just below the flight deck, therefore
greatly improving the sortie-generation rate by making it easier and
faster to re-arm planes, Moore said

The Navy has already deployed one laser system, called the Laser Weapons
System, or LaWS, which has been operational for months.
LaWS uses heat energy from lasers to disable or destroy targets fast,
slow, stationary and moving targets. The system has successfully
incinerated UAVs and other targets in tests shots, and has been
operational aboard an amphibious transport dock in the Persian Gulf, the
USS Ponce.

The scalable weapon is designed to destroy threats for about $59-cents
per shot, an amount that is exponentially lower than the hundreds of
thousands or millions needed to fire an interceptor missile such as the
Standard Missile-2, Navy officials explained.

While at sea, sailors have been using the LaWS for targeting and
training exercises every day and the weapon has even been used to
disable and destroy some targets, service officials said.
Navy sailors and engineers have discovered some unanticipated
intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance value from the laser
weapons system by using its long-range telescope to scan for targets,
Navy officials said.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...-carriers.html

Its about time. The technology has been around for years and years

No, it hasn't.

Yes it has. "The first laser was built in 1960 by Theodore H. Maiman at Hughes Laboratories" (wikipedia), this makes the technology at least that old.

I built my first laser in 1965, with a synthetic ruby rod given to me
by Dr. Herb Elion of Princeton University, who did pioneering laser
research for the US Navy.

I research and write about lasers every month. The company that makes
the laser weapon power sources for the US military, IPG Photonics, is
one I'm in contact with every week. I know what they can do, and I
know the specific laser power heads that the Navy and Air Force are
using in their weapons. I'll be watching their newest ones at work in
November.

These devices are made with diode-pumped lasers that have fiber
amplifiers. They're good for around 10 kW each, and the weapon
development comes from ganging them up and focusing them together. The
Navy weapon is 30 kW. The next step is to get them up over 100 kW.
They aren't there yet. And that will not be nearly enough to knock out
an ICBM.

The recent developments have been with lasers that have a wavelength
on the order of 1000 nm -- near inrared. Most high-powered lasers have
wavelengths that are reflected by shiny or polished surfaces. The
output of the fiber laser, currently the hot ticket in laser cutting
machines for fabricators, is absorbed by shiny surfaces. That
combination of power, compactness, and wavelength is what makes the
laser weapons possible. This is all fairly new technology.


If the military had placed the majority of its funding into that program versus others, then the technology would be far more advanced by today.

The technology comes from a transplanted Russian company that is now
based in the US. The diodes that power these things are the product of
US, Japanese, and Russian technology.

You do go off on speculative tangents, mog.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:10:27 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:14:16 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:31:42 -0700 (PDT), Rex
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:50 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:23:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when it
was part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing craft
but doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the Air
Force gets the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't want to
do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

I'm not sure that is correct as the A.F. has been engaged in ground
support for it's whole existence. The entire purpose of the armed
C-47's (Puff the Magic Dragon) was ground support and I was even
bought several beers by Army guys when they found out that I was in
the organization. Our big brag was that if we got there before They
got through the fence that we never lost a camp.

But I might add that the Army was very jealous of their helicopter
rights and privileges. We built two Hueys with twin mini guns and
rocket pods at Nha Tang and had to go to the Army for help in adding
the rocket pods and the fact that the Air Force was "building armed
helicopters" went all the way to headquarters MAAGV.

( We got to keep our armed Hueys because the were labeled "for "Air
Base Defense" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

The Marines flew Harriers, presumably for CAS. I think the Harriers are
being phased out. Maybe they should transition to the A-10

As they said in that article, and as I pointed out here six months ago
or more, the A-10 was conceived before terrorists had MANPADS. Imagine
trapshooting with loads that seek the clay pigeons electronically.

This is kinda OT from the thread or the group, but --

It seems like we've been getting really good at precision guided
munitions against technologically unsophisticated enemies (who respond by
finding ways to engage us in technologically unsophisticated, yet
effective, ways).

Are we ready for a war with China or Russia? Somehow I don't think we're
going to scrape all the way through the 21st century without a war with
one of them.

Well, if we're betting, I'm betting not. A little skirmish here or
there, but not a war.

The leaders of all three countries are not nuts. They've lived under
the threat of nuclear holocaust for over a half-century and they don't
want it. I see no indication that any of them is like the loons of N.
Korea or Iran.

Again, if we're betting, my guess is that the country most likely to
face a real nuclear threat is N. Korea -- which could happen if they
get trigger-happy with our navy or our defense forces in S. Korea.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:10:27 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:14:16 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:31:42 -0700 (PDT), Rex

wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:50 PM UTC-5, John B.
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:23:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air
Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when
it
was part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground
support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing
craft
but doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the
Air
Force gets the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't
want to
do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

I'm not sure that is correct as the A.F. has been engaged in
ground
support for it's whole existence. The entire purpose of the
armed
C-47's (Puff the Magic Dragon) was ground support and I was even
bought several beers by Army guys when they found out that I was
in
the organization. Our big brag was that if we got there before
They
got through the fence that we never lost a camp.

But I might add that the Army was very jealous of their
helicopter
rights and privileges. We built two Hueys with twin mini guns
and
rocket pods at Nha Tang and had to go to the Army for help in
adding
the rocket pods and the fact that the Air Force was "building
armed
helicopters" went all the way to headquarters MAAGV.

( We got to keep our armed Hueys because the were labeled "for
"Air
Base Defense" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

The Marines flew Harriers, presumably for CAS. I think the
Harriers are
being phased out. Maybe they should transition to the A-10

As they said in that article, and as I pointed out here six months
ago
or more, the A-10 was conceived before terrorists had MANPADS.
Imagine
trapshooting with loads that seek the clay pigeons electronically.

This is kinda OT from the thread or the group, but --

It seems like we've been getting really good at precision guided
munitions against technologically unsophisticated enemies (who
respond by
finding ways to engage us in technologically unsophisticated, yet
effective, ways).

Are we ready for a war with China or Russia? Somehow I don't think
we're
going to scrape all the way through the 21st century without a war
with
one of them.

Well, if we're betting, I'm betting not. A little skirmish here or
there, but not a war.

The leaders of all three countries are not nuts. They've lived under
the threat of nuclear holocaust for over a half-century and they
don't
want it. I see no indication that any of them is like the loons of
N.
Korea or Iran.

Again, if we're betting, my guess is that the country most likely to
face a real nuclear threat is N. Korea -- which could happen if they
get trigger-happy with our navy or our defense forces in S. Korea.

--
Ed Huntress

We might become involved in a war with their neighbors or a proxy war
elsewhere but neither of them has the ability to conquer defended
territory beyond driving distance. No one else has a fraction of our
power to engage a powerful army like Iraq's half way around the world
on short notice. In the Falklands war Britain was barely more than a
match for Argentina, and only because they had nuclear submarines.

The tragicomical misadventures of the Russian aircraft carrier
"Admiral Kuznetsov" show how far they are from acquiring that power.
http://forum.worldofwarships.com/ind...raft-carriers/
"Anticipating breakdowns, large ocean-going tugs accompany Admiral
Kuznetsov whenever she deploys."

http://www.oldsaltblog.com/2014/10/r...nese-liaoning/

-jsw

On 2015-09-25, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.


I would think that lasers should be good for killing drones, or
blinding tanks. Even so, for tank cameras, simple LCD covers like in
welding helmets, should probably be good protection against lasers at
reasonable distances.

i

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:16:02 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.


I would think that lasers should be good for killing drones, or
blinding tanks. Even so, for tank cameras, simple LCD covers like in
welding helmets, should probably be good protection against lasers at
reasonable distances.

i

Killing drones is one of the major objectives of deploying the 30 kW
models, which both the Navy and the Army have. I don't know about
blinding tanks. Maybe.

The way they work depends on an extremely good tracking system. The
beam spot has to remain on its target for a couple of seconds to do
any serious melting or cooking, and that's with very thin rocket and
aircraft shells.

They have some practical uses right now, but they aren't the
game-changing weapons that will be coming down the road pretty soon.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:32:05 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:10:27 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:14:16 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:31:42 -0700 (PDT), Rex
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:50 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:23:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when it
was part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing craft
but doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the Air
Force gets the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't want to
do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

I'm not sure that is correct as the A.F. has been engaged in ground
support for it's whole existence. The entire purpose of the armed
C-47's (Puff the Magic Dragon) was ground support and I was even
bought several beers by Army guys when they found out that I was in
the organization. Our big brag was that if we got there before They
got through the fence that we never lost a camp.

But I might add that the Army was very jealous of their helicopter
rights and privileges. We built two Hueys with twin mini guns and
rocket pods at Nha Tang and had to go to the Army for help in adding
the rocket pods and the fact that the Air Force was "building armed
helicopters" went all the way to headquarters MAAGV.

( We got to keep our armed Hueys because the were labeled "for "Air
Base Defense" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

The Marines flew Harriers, presumably for CAS. I think the Harriers are
being phased out. Maybe they should transition to the A-10

As they said in that article, and as I pointed out here six months ago
or more, the A-10 was conceived before terrorists had MANPADS. Imagine
trapshooting with loads that seek the clay pigeons electronically.

This is kinda OT from the thread or the group, but --

It seems like we've been getting really good at precision guided
munitions against technologically unsophisticated enemies (who respond by
finding ways to engage us in technologically unsophisticated, yet
effective, ways).

Are we ready for a war with China or Russia? Somehow I don't think we're
going to scrape all the way through the 21st century without a war with
one of them.

Well, if we're betting, I'm betting not. A little skirmish here or
there, but not a war.

The leaders of all three countries are not nuts. They've lived under
the threat of nuclear holocaust for over a half-century and they don't
want it. I see no indication that any of them is like the loons of N.
Korea or Iran.

Again, if we're betting, my guess is that the country most likely to
face a real nuclear threat is N. Korea -- which could happen if they
get trigger-happy with our navy or our defense forces in S. Korea.


Why should China want to embark on a war with the U.S. ? Like the
Japanese, they seem to have realized that economic power is cheaper
than military power.

They seem far more intent on creating the "Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank (AIIB)" than going to war.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.

Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from
Textron.

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM

I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground
vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it
sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot?

--
I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues.
--Duke Ellington

I was thinking, about those smart fuzed bombs and such.

Are they actually effective against a smart opponent?

Could they be rendered useless by some simple tricks, like inflatable
tanks, spray painted tank outlines on the ground, or something else
that is cheap but can confuse those weapons?

i

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:25:05 -0400, Randy333
wrote:

ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

I don't know much about that laser but I do know what a 50kW induction
heater will do to a 2" steel rod. Room temperature to incandescent
liquid in a couple of seconds.

I think that if they can keep the beam focused on one spot for a few
seconds, it can do some serious damage to 10" of armor. It will be
ablating the armor so it doesn't really matter how hard the stuff is.

The potential countermeasure is a sandwich of layers of reflective
material with high heat of vaporization materials between the layers.

Yeah, I did some work in this area back in college when we still
studied by candle light :-)

John


500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.


On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:26:05 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

The cannon as I recall was intended for ICBM intercept. MIRV bodies...
The cannon is likely very close to the one I consulted about with
the R&D/E company as they needed a fanout buffer and we had a good one.
I developed a level shifter to get to the logic (non-standard) levels
of the barrels in the R&D gun.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 6:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/

Remove 333 to reply.
Randy

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.fluxeon.com
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.

Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from
Textron.

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM

I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground
vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it
sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot?

I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see
what they were hitting.

This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so
think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets
well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the
grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the
staging area well behind the front is devastated.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
Ignoramus32266 wrote:

I was thinking, about those smart fuzed bombs and such.

Are they actually effective against a smart opponent?

Could they be rendered useless by some simple tricks, like inflatable
tanks, spray painted tank outlines on the ground, or something else
that is cheap but can confuse those weapons?

Although not mentioned in the video, these can hit moving targets.

For stationary targets, I'm sure that self-heated decoys could work.

Basically, the original rationale was to break a mass of tanks flowing
through the Fulda Gap in Germany, from afar.

The Warsaw Pact had something like three or four times as many tanks as
Nato, so there was lots of attention spent on ways to even the balance.
Actually, The A-10 was one of these ways.

Joe Gwinn

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:19:05 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.

Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from
Textron.

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM

I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground
vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it
sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot?

I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see
what they were hitting.

This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so
think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets
well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the
grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the
staging area well behind the front is devastated.

To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about
4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on
any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing
was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the
one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too.

The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound
and fury of it all.

--
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:38:46 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus32266 wrote:

I was thinking, about those smart fuzed bombs and such.

Are they actually effective against a smart opponent?

Could they be rendered useless by some simple tricks, like inflatable
tanks, spray painted tank outlines on the ground, or something else
that is cheap but can confuse those weapons?

Although not mentioned in the video, these can hit moving targets.

For stationary targets, I'm sure that self-heated decoys could work.

Basically, the original rationale was to break a mass of tanks flowing
through the Fulda Gap in Germany, from afar.

The Warsaw Pact had something like three or four times as many tanks as
Nato, so there was lots of attention spent on ways to even the balance.
Actually, The A-10 was one of these ways.

I don't see why they want to replace the lovely and SUPER-EFFECTIVE
Warthogs. What's a little DU among friends?


--
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:54:04 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see
what they were hitting.

This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so
think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets
well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the
grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the
staging area well behind the front is devastated.

To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about
4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on
any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing
was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the
one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too.

The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound
and fury of it all.

Cluster bombs in general...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xiasPejyt4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmfbOwRreU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGwMYEDDRTc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhmXleZXAr0

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:55:31 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:38:46 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus32266 wrote:

I was thinking, about those smart fuzed bombs and such.

Are they actually effective against a smart opponent?

Could they be rendered useless by some simple tricks, like inflatable
tanks, spray painted tank outlines on the ground, or something else
that is cheap but can confuse those weapons?

Although not mentioned in the video, these can hit moving targets.

For stationary targets, I'm sure that self-heated decoys could work.

Basically, the original rationale was to break a mass of tanks flowing
through the Fulda Gap in Germany, from afar.

The Warsaw Pact had something like three or four times as many tanks as
Nato, so there was lots of attention spent on ways to even the balance.
Actually, The A-10 was one of these ways.

I don't see why they want to replace the lovely and SUPER-EFFECTIVE
Warthogs. What's a little DU among friends?

DU is only ONE of the rounds that can be fired from the A10

Its a very safe and VERY effective aircraft and should be retained.

Gunner

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:19:05 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.

Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from
Textron.

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM

I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground
vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it
sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot?

I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see
what they were hitting.

This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so
think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets
well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the
grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the
staging area well behind the front is devastated.

To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about
4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on
any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing
was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the
one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too.

The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound
and fury of it all.

You are missing something critical, the explosively-formed penetrators.
They are solid metal projectiles formed by specially-designed shaped
charges. The projectile will be going about 2 kilometers a second, and
is quite capable of devastating a tank. But it doesn't make that big a
blast.

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

..http://www.google.com/patents/US6186070

The most effective IEDs are EFPs from Iran.

..http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sees-new-weapon-in-iraq-iranian-efps/

It makes little difference that those tanks look OK from the outside.
The heavier the armor, the stronger the effect. The inside of a tank
hit by such a penetrator is dust and red mush.

Joe Gwinn

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:31:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:19:05 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:11:59 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.

Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from
Textron.

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM

I saw many dozens of skeet go off but only one explosion on a ground
vehicle in any of those shots. Doesn't look very effective, but it
sure looks and sounds impressive while it's being ineffective, wot?

I saw that too, but the picture resolution was not sufficient to see
what they were hitting.

This weapon is intended to devastate a mass of tanks attacking, so
think of it as a hi-tech kind of grapeshot, one that works on targets
well beyond line of sight. They probably don't care that not all the
grapeshot hits something, so long as the attack is broken, or the
staging area well behind the front is devastated.

To have been impressed by that video, I would have needed to see about
4x the kills they got from the ordnance. Seeing only one effect on
any of the ground vehicles/targets per instance left me flat. Nothing
was blown off any tank or target, no targets fell over, etc. Just the
one explosion per. I'll bet the designers were underwhelmed, too.

The armchair generals (and other politicians) probably loved the sound
and fury of it all.

You are missing something critical, the explosively-formed penetrators.
They are solid metal projectiles formed by specially-designed shaped
charges. The projectile will be going about 2 kilometers a second, and
is quite capable of devastating a tank. But it doesn't make that big a
blast.

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

.http://www.google.com/patents/US6186070

The most effective IEDs are EFPs from Iran.

.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sees-new-weapon-in-iraq-iranian-efps/

It makes little difference that those tanks look OK from the outside.
The heavier the armor, the stronger the effect. The inside of a tank
hit by such a penetrator is dust and red mush.

Joe Gwinn

Ayup...bounce a 5 oz piece of copper around the inside of a tank at
2000 feet per second..and there isnt much left of the crew or the
controls. It bounces around like a Ronco Slice and Dice.

On 9/26/2015 2:23 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:55:31 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:38:46 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus32266 wrote:

I was thinking, about those smart fuzed bombs and such.

Are they actually effective against a smart opponent?

Could they be rendered useless by some simple tricks, like inflatable
tanks, spray painted tank outlines on the ground, or something else
that is cheap but can confuse those weapons?

Although not mentioned in the video, these can hit moving targets.

For stationary targets, I'm sure that self-heated decoys could work.

Basically, the original rationale was to break a mass of tanks flowing
through the Fulda Gap in Germany, from afar.

The Warsaw Pact had something like three or four times as many tanks as
Nato, so there was lots of attention spent on ways to even the balance.
Actually, The A-10 was one of these ways.

I don't see why they want to replace the lovely and SUPER-EFFECTIVE
Warthogs. What's a little DU among friends?

DU is only ONE of the rounds that can be fired from the A10

Have you got any of your heaps back on the road yet? If not, then quit
****ing around here and get busy on one of them.

You can shoot the moon and get the reflection. It is all in the quality
of signal beam. It is parallel light.

They were developed for subs to shoot out an optic and cut the waterline
or hit the magazine. All sorts of tricky stuff.

These are not the simple ones you hold. These are large units.

I knew a guy working on them in a puff plane. That type. They used
a 707 since they were cheap and could use newer engines for more power.

The coolant tank was baffled to prevent waves while flying. The baffles
broke down and the plane was having problems with shifting center of
gravity. Kinda dangerous.

Battle ships were fitted as well.

Martin

On 9/25/2015 8:40 AM, Ignoramus32266 wrote:
On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i


On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:26:05 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

The cannon as I recall was intended for ICBM intercept. MIRV bodies...
The cannon is likely very close to the one I consulted about with
the R&D/E company as they needed a fanout buffer and we had a good one.
I developed a level shifter to get to the logic (non-standard) levels
of the barrels in the R&D gun.

Martin

On 9/22/2015 6:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...apons-by-2020/

Remove 333 to reply.
Randy

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Martin

On 9/25/2015 9:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.

Cool new toys. R&D figured out some more stuff.
Some of this design concepts were released as a deterrent force.
And why not.

Martin

On 9/25/2015 10:11 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:40:25 -0500, Ignoramus32266
wrote:

On 2015-09-25, Randy333 wrote:
ICBM's are rather fragile things and I think a laser could do some
damage. An A-10 is a tank buster, what can a laser do to 10" plus of
armor plate?

500LB laser guided bombs might be the replacemnet for an A-10. They
did use these in the gulf war for killing tanks.

I thought that lasers only operate at a small radius, under a few
miles.

It takes an ICBM a few seconds to fly that distance.

i

Lasers are nowhere near capable of taking out an ICBM today, or a
tank. Maybe in the future. For now, as Randy says, it's the new
super-smart bombs that are the tank killers.

Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, how to break a massed tank assault. This from
Textron.

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM

Joe Gwinn