And why would you expect that? Any basis for that expectation, or just what you hope or dream it to be. As to your laser gunning the system... it seriously sounded like fanboy's wetdream.
Space Warfare, Directed Energy Weapons, and other future military technology
- Thread starter rhino123
- Start date
And why would you expect that? Any basis for that expectation, or just what you hope or dream it to be. As to your laser gunning the system... it seriously sounded like fanboy's wetdream.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
I expect it will involve some technology about tieing a la
ser in to the X37s engine. I expect just to be used in space. Perhaps some small version of this system.
Also the fact that such weapons even MIGHT exist is a deterrent. Would a county want to risk war and retaliation by strikeing at US carriers if the attack may not be successful.
I expect it will involve some technology about tieing a la
ser in to the X37s engine. I expect just to be used in space. Perhaps some small version of this system.
Also the fact that such weapons even MIGHT exist is a deterrent. Would a county want to risk war and retaliation by strikeing at US carriers if the attack may not be successful.
Last edited:
Spartan95
Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Right. So let's take a look at conventional warheads than.
The old exocet missiles that sank British warships in the Falklands had a warhead of 360 pounds. This was sufficient to sink a Type 42 Destroyer that displaces 4,800 tons.
A Scud D (an old ballistic missile) is capable of carrying a conventional warhead of up to 2,000 pounds. How much more damaging do you think this larger warhead is?
Also, whilst China has a ASBM programme going on, they are not the only nation developing ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. The US is currently pursuing the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) programme that uses ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. With the freeze, down-scaling and even cutting of several defence projects by the Pentagon, why do you think the US military didn't cut PGS?
Regarding the anti-aircraft laser, it is made by Raytheon which is an American defence contractor. Doesn't it strike you as odd that:
1. Pentagon isn't buying it,
2. There are no export retrictions on it (if it indeed has cutting edge technology), and
3. it is offered for export?
Since when does American defence contractors offer cutting edge stuff (such as F-22) to others without the Pentagon buying it first or putting a export ban on it?
Regarding the X-37 mounting a laser, I'm assuming that the laser will need to have a decent range for it to be useful. Which brings me to the Air Borne Laser (ABL) project that the Pentagon recently downgraded. To carry the guidance systems and the laser itself requires an aircraft the size of a 747. And this is still at the experimental stage.
Honestly, do you think the X-37 is capable of even carrying an ABL half this size? Of are you expecting a future X-37 to be the size of a 747?
Right. So let's take a look at conventional warheads than.
The old exocet missiles that sank British warships in the Falklands had a warhead of 360 pounds. This was sufficient to sink a Type 42 Destroyer that displaces 4,800 tons.
A Scud D (an old ballistic missile) is capable of carrying a conventional warhead of up to 2,000 pounds. How much more damaging do you think this larger warhead is?
Also, whilst China has a ASBM programme going on, they are not the only nation developing ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. The US is currently pursuing the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) programme that uses ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. With the freeze, down-scaling and even cutting of several defence projects by the Pentagon, why do you think the US military didn't cut PGS?
Regarding the anti-aircraft laser, it is made by Raytheon which is an American defence contractor. Doesn't it strike you as odd that:
1. Pentagon isn't buying it,
2. There are no export retrictions on it (if it indeed has cutting edge technology), and
3. it is offered for export?
Since when does American defence contractors offer cutting edge stuff (such as F-22) to others without the Pentagon buying it first or putting a export ban on it?
Regarding the X-37 mounting a laser, I'm assuming that the laser will need to have a decent range for it to be useful. Which brings me to the Air Borne Laser (ABL) project that the Pentagon recently downgraded. To carry the guidance systems and the laser itself requires an aircraft the size of a 747. And this is still at the experimental stage.
Honestly, do you think the X-37 is capable of even carrying an ABL half this size? Of are you expecting a future X-37 to be the size of a 747?
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
It looks like you are a laser fan, so am I. I have great confidence in the potentials of laser weapons but space lasers (at least ones capable of physically harming other objects in space) are restricted by the two major factors:
1) Energy consumption: To be able to physically harm the enemy assets within a reasonable ammount of time you need a laser that is at least in the two digit kilowatt range (preferably megawatt). Huge amounts of energy are needed and you probably need square miles of solar panels, which is most often used to generate electricity by spaceships and satellites, to provide enough power for the weapon to fire in rapid successions. I expect nuclear power to be used by such weapons in the future.
2) Cooling: Lasers, as of now, are far from efficient. A great deal of heat is generated as the weapon is fired and in the near vacuum of space, you can only get rid of the heat through radiation. Massive radiators not present on the X-37b will be needed to cool the weapon for it to remain operational in a long time. A heatsink could definitely be used but 1) you will need to get rid of the heat eventually 2) the firing time of the laser is greatly limited.
Carrying an anti-satellite laser aboard a spacecraft definitely has its advantages compared to their ground-based counterparts. First and foremost the "weather" is always perfect in space and there is no risk of the odd chance that clouds will block the laser. There is also no atmospheric distortion/blooming that will alter the laser's path/reduce the beam intensity.
Looks like we are agreeing on something for once. Hurray.
It looks like you are a laser fan, so am I. I have great confidence in the potentials of laser weapons but space lasers (at least ones capable of physically harming other objects in space) are restricted by the two major factors:
1) Energy consumption: To be able to physically harm the enemy assets within a reasonable ammount of time you need a laser that is at least in the two digit kilowatt range (preferably megawatt). Huge amounts of energy are needed and you probably need square miles of solar panels, which is most often used to generate electricity by spaceships and satellites, to provide enough power for the weapon to fire in rapid successions. I expect nuclear power to be used by such weapons in the future.
2) Cooling: Lasers, as of now, are far from efficient. A great deal of heat is generated as the weapon is fired and in the near vacuum of space, you can only get rid of the heat through radiation. Massive radiators not present on the X-37b will be needed to cool the weapon for it to remain operational in a long time. A heatsink could definitely be used but 1) you will need to get rid of the heat eventually 2) the firing time of the laser is greatly limited.
Carrying an anti-satellite laser aboard a spacecraft definitely has its advantages compared to their ground-based counterparts. First and foremost the "weather" is always perfect in space and there is no risk of the odd chance that clouds will block the laser. There is also no atmospheric distortion/blooming that will alter the laser's path/reduce the beam intensity.
Looks like we are agreeing on something for once. Hurray.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
By now in open, black and other means the Pentagon has spent about 25 billion in space based weapon research, one would hope they got something out of it.
By now in open, black and other means the Pentagon has spent about 25 billion in space based weapon research, one would hope they got something out of it.
Spartan95
Junior Member
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Do you have a credible source for that?
Would love to see how all those money and spent, and who are the contractors who spent it.
Do you have a credible source for that?
Would love to see how all those money and spent, and who are the contractors who spent it.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
"The Pentagon also would spend $9.9 billion on ballistic missile defense programs, up from $9.2 billion. The funding includes $1.56 billion for Lockheed's Aegis missile defense system, $1.3 billion for the company's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system and $1.3 billion on a ground-based midcourse defense program run by Boeing."
The Aegis are more and more deployable anti missile systems now days. There are land based systems going in Alaska and Calfornia that can take out 30 missiles which is more then a random shots from N Korea or Iran.
New GPS system which is essential to the military is just going into orbit. "GPS IIF satellites offer new and enhanced capabilities, including a jam-resistant military signal" I would expect it to be harden against EMP.
Heres ten billion alone, a billion here and a billion there add up as they say.
I have seen sources that said 20 billion on space based alone as of 2005, I just added another 5 billion. The source was not all that military friendly and its hard to tell the differances between military and civilian in a lot of cases. I guess the X37b would be a good example.
"The Pentagon also would spend $9.9 billion on ballistic missile defense programs, up from $9.2 billion. The funding includes $1.56 billion for Lockheed's Aegis missile defense system, $1.3 billion for the company's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system and $1.3 billion on a ground-based midcourse defense program run by Boeing."
The Aegis are more and more deployable anti missile systems now days. There are land based systems going in Alaska and Calfornia that can take out 30 missiles which is more then a random shots from N Korea or Iran.
New GPS system which is essential to the military is just going into orbit. "GPS IIF satellites offer new and enhanced capabilities, including a jam-resistant military signal" I would expect it to be harden against EMP.
Heres ten billion alone, a billion here and a billion there add up as they say.
I have seen sources that said 20 billion on space based alone as of 2005, I just added another 5 billion. The source was not all that military friendly and its hard to tell the differances between military and civilian in a lot of cases. I guess the X37b would be a good example.
Last edited:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
First off, laser is definitely a valid items for anti-missile shield and it had been demonstrated often. What I reply in your previous thread is that laser might not be placed on the X-37, unless it is officially reported and shown.
X-37 is an experimental concept, that is why it carried the letter 'X' on it. And what you expect, really have no ground on it.
That said, X-37 might only be the initial phase of what might be the future of US's military hardware. It prove that a satellite could change course and so will be very difficult to intercept.
As to arming a satellite with weaponries... it will be done... in the course of military hardware advancement.
I do agreed that laser system is a good anti-missile shield system... and that is something that we can all agreed upon.
Like what Siegecrossbow had said... Hurray.
Bro, what you say is true. The energy problem with the laser however would be solved quite easily. True, it would need huge number of solar panels when collecting solar energy on Earth. The reason is the layers of gases in all level of atmosphere that actually reduce the energy and by the time it reached the solar panel, only a few percentage of such energy still exist... plus energy lost along the way.
However, if the solar energy was to be collected when the spacecraft was in space, it would be a direct radiation collected on the solar panels, which will therefore collect more. Plus there will be very little wastage of the panel as the weapon might be very close to the panels.
When use against missiles it might be very useful because the laser (being practically a very concentrated beam of light) will burn through the metal skin of the missile and reach the interior of the missile. Its heat will detonate the explosive in it and destroy the missile.
However if it was use against a satellite, it might burn a hole through the satellite, but would not necessary destroy it... unless the hole is big enough to rip the entire satellite apart, acting like a kinetic round.
What I can see of the laser usage against satellite was by using the laser to fry the optic within the satellite, thus rendering some of its function useless and not to totally destroy the satellite.
Anyway, by looking at this example, I am not seeing a armed spaceship being able to replace a carrier...
First off, laser is definitely a valid items for anti-missile shield and it had been demonstrated often. What I reply in your previous thread is that laser might not be placed on the X-37, unless it is officially reported and shown.
X-37 is an experimental concept, that is why it carried the letter 'X' on it. And what you expect, really have no ground on it.
That said, X-37 might only be the initial phase of what might be the future of US's military hardware. It prove that a satellite could change course and so will be very difficult to intercept.
As to arming a satellite with weaponries... it will be done... in the course of military hardware advancement.
I do agreed that laser system is a good anti-missile shield system... and that is something that we can all agreed upon.
Like what Siegecrossbow had said... Hurray.
Bro, what you say is true. The energy problem with the laser however would be solved quite easily. True, it would need huge number of solar panels when collecting solar energy on Earth. The reason is the layers of gases in all level of atmosphere that actually reduce the energy and by the time it reached the solar panel, only a few percentage of such energy still exist... plus energy lost along the way.
However, if the solar energy was to be collected when the spacecraft was in space, it would be a direct radiation collected on the solar panels, which will therefore collect more. Plus there will be very little wastage of the panel as the weapon might be very close to the panels.
When use against missiles it might be very useful because the laser (being practically a very concentrated beam of light) will burn through the metal skin of the missile and reach the interior of the missile. Its heat will detonate the explosive in it and destroy the missile.
However if it was use against a satellite, it might burn a hole through the satellite, but would not necessary destroy it... unless the hole is big enough to rip the entire satellite apart, acting like a kinetic round.
What I can see of the laser usage against satellite was by using the laser to fry the optic within the satellite, thus rendering some of its function useless and not to totally destroy the satellite.
Anyway, by looking at this example, I am not seeing a armed spaceship being able to replace a carrier...
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Wonder what a hundred lb Rods from God from a X37b would do if it would hit the nuclear reactor on a aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine. I would think the X37b would do well in a near stationary orbit over say a fleet of ships. Then other weapon systems could be brought to area. The main advantage a fleet of ships have is that the enemy does not know where they are.
Wonder what a hundred lb Rods from God from a X37b would do if it would hit the nuclear reactor on a aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine. I would think the X37b would do well in a near stationary orbit over say a fleet of ships. Then other weapon systems could be brought to area. The main advantage a fleet of ships have is that the enemy does not know where they are.
Last edited:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
I think it is a bit ironic that you believe in the lethality of the kinetic energy of metal rods falling from space but not the lethality of Ballistic missile fragments falling from similar heights.
You seem to have a fascination with SDI concept weapons (as do I). Are we going to bring up particle beam and nuclear pumped X-ray lasers next?
I think it is a bit ironic that you believe in the lethality of the kinetic energy of metal rods falling from space but not the lethality of Ballistic missile fragments falling from similar heights.
You seem to have a fascination with SDI concept weapons (as do I). Are we going to bring up particle beam and nuclear pumped X-ray lasers next?
Last edited: