Nyt: F/a-22 Cut

[UN-Interested Observer]

Sorry to drift OT, but how do you compensate for divested or off-shore assets and income? I agree fully, that GDP is a fine measure, especially for ppl like me who have not room for a single extra forumla upstairs:) However it does lack in some areas. Way OT, pls disregard. (well not the part about the formulaic error, just the personal preference bit).

[pi]

I got it. And you can probably best take it back to the Reagan years, when Cap [formerly known as 'the knife' - ha!] Weinberg put out the word that we could count on a 5% per year ramp-up for the future years. Mr. Cheney remarked fairly recently that they learned in the Reagan years that 'deficits don't matter' but oh how they did, to the regret of Bush the First. As you so correctly point out, there is plenty of glory for all administrations [since Carter, I suppose] for failing to take the DOD bloat and pop it.  The procurement bulge has been a clearly observable freight train running w/o a crew down the tracks for many years. The treasure it will and has cost to terminate many projects at more advanced stages could have been well used elsewhere. Ken

128839[/snapback]

 

The way the deal for defence spending was done between Frank Carlucci and David Stockman in the Reagan admin shows you how ad-hoc a lot of the budget decision making in washington really is.

[Ken Estes]

I don't feel like writing the equation out here, but the reason you should not use this measure is because Government Spending is one of the principle components of GNP! Therein lies the problem, the military spending effects the GNP. You would have to compare GNPs with defence spending removed, to gain any insight. Just my 2c.

 

Joe and Ken, This cuts to the crux of my problem. Since the govt expenditure is about the largest single product in the entire GDP, and the character and expense of govt has changed so much in only a generation or two, is it not somewhat a doublespeak or voodoo econ measure to use it in the rhetorical way we all have with DOD/GDP-GNP?? Not that I have any ability to propose a better one, but is not the rhetorical Defense as a function of GDP gambit a little cooked? Ken

[swerve]

<snip> the reason you should not use this measure is because Government Spending is one of the principle components of GNP! Therein lies the problem, the military spending effects the GNP.

<snip>

BTW America uses GNP, GDP is for the other guys. GNP is slightly more inclusive. Bad to confuse the two.

 

It's not "more inclusive". Where GNP is bigger than GDP, e.g. the UK in 1913, it might appear to be "more inclusive". Where GDP is bigger than GNP, e.g. Namibia in the 1970s & 1980s, GDP looks to be "more inclusive".

 

USA (like everyone else) publishes figures for both, but (like almost everyone else) mostly talks about GDP. For big countries they generally average out the same in the long run.

 

Government spending appears in the calculation of both GNP & GDP, but including it doesn't affect the overall total. If the government takes 10% more of my income in taxes & spends it, government spending increases by the same amount as my spending decreases. GDP & GNP remain the same.

 

Kenneth,

 

for the USA to cancel the F-35 would involve paying back several countries that have contributed to development costs, but even so, I agree, it would save development money. However, I think the USN & even more the US Marines would fight tooth & nail to keep it.

 

In general - by about 2020 or 2025, if current trends continue, the GDP of China at PPP will overtake that of the USA. What implications for the current US military dominance does this have?

[Red Ant]

[...]and anyway I think that the F/A-35 program ought to be cancelled because the era of the manned fighter is ending as UCAVs become feasible. [...]

 

That's where I disagree. UCAV's aren't going to become a feasible replacement for manned fighter aircraft any time soon, if ever. Sure, they're nice for recon missions and maybe for precision strikes against point targets ... possibly you could even use them for BVR air-to-air engagements (though I'm rather sceptical on that one), but until computers become smart enough to actually think for themselves .... or until comms links becomes 100% resistent against jamming, UCAV's will merely play second fiddle to real, manned aircraft.

[Guest Lurch]

UCAVs are cheaper than manned aircraft. They are also more expendable. You don't need them to establish anything like a 1:1 kill ratio against enemy manned fighters. Likewise enemy fighters will be finite in number and have to operate from somewhere. These bases can be targeted relatively cheaply by standoff weapons. So can their supporting infrastructure and everything they are meant to be defending. I'm not even that sure about a human pilot being qualitatively better. Computers react much faster, impose lower G-limits on the vehicle and have no political cost if lost. Failing that, there's always the Mk1 rat brain.

[Red Ant]

UCAVs are cheaper than manned aircraft. They are also more expendable. [...]

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure UCAV's have their uses. They can very well supplement a manned force of fighters/attack aircraft/etc.

 

Computers react much faster, impose lower G-limits on the vehicle and have no political cost if lost.

All true. However, one feature they also have is the inability to THINK and make DECISIONS rather than just execute a set of conditional intructions, which is why, IMHO, UCAV's can't hold a candle to piloted aircraft.

 

Likewise enemy fighters will be finite in number and have to operate from somewhere. These bases can be targeted relatively cheaply by standoff weapons. So can their supporting infrastructure and everything they are meant to be defending.

 

Anything larger than a tiny recon UCAV or a Predator armed with a small loadout of hellfires is also going to have to operate from some kind of base. And if you want your UCAV's to be able to fly long-range air superiority missions, deep strike, or interdiction missions and what have you, they will almost certainly be in the same weight class as manned aircraft with similar tasks.

[EchoFiveMike]

Red Ant, UAV's have mission endurance measured in days, not so for aircraft. Manned aircraft are done.

 

Combine UAV's with directed energy weapons and manned aircraft are completely useless for anything other than transport. S/F...Ken M

[Red Ant]

Red Ant, UAV's have mission endurance measured in days, not so for aircraft.  Manned aircraft are done.

 

Some miniature recon UCAV maybe. I doubt the same would be true for designs whose job required a somewhat larger airframe .... unless some rather drastic advances in regards to engine technology were to be made in the next few years.

 

 

Combine UAV's with directed energy weapons and manned aircraft are completely useless for anything other than transport.

 

Directed energy weapons. That's another one of those fancy gadgets that I don't quite buy into yet. Does anyone seriously expect these to become widely used in the near future?

[Guest Lurch]

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure UCAV's have their uses.  They can very well supplement a manned force of fighters/attack aircraft/etc.

All true. However, one feature they also have is the inability to THINK and make DECISIONS rather than just execute a set of conditional intructions, which is why, IMHO, UCAV's can't hold a candle to piloted aircraft.

 

They won't have to. That's the point I was making.  Let's say that for some reason we allow the enemy to maintain air bases within range of where we want to operate (Vietnam style scenario). Manned fighters act as part of a system. They are directed to their targets by that system.  They try not to put their active radars on if at all possible.  Therefore all you need is something that can carry BVR AAMs to within range of the enemy fighter.  If, for some reason, enemy fighters get within dogfight range, the AI is going to be able to react much faster than a pilot to any enemy manoeuvre.  However, if you put 360 degree sensors on the UCAV and equip it with off-boresight capabile AAMs (or better still DEW), it won't need to manouvre to engage and the UCAV's structure can be built to withstand less G.

 

Anything larger than a tiny recon UCAV or a Predator armed with a small loadout of hellfires is also going to have to operate from some kind of base.  And if you want your UCAVs to be able to fly long-range air superiority missions, deep strike, or interdiction missions and what have you, they will almost certainly be in the same weight class as manned aircraft with similar tasks.

 

Even UCAV in the same weight class do not have to be built to the same standards as manned aircraft.  You can also rely more on networked sensors which will get the unit price down.  Endurance can be hugely more than for an equivalent manned aircraft.

 

 

129083[/snapback]

[Guest Lurch]

Some miniature recon UCAV maybe. I doubt the same would be true for designs whose job required a somewhat larger airframe .... unless some rather drastic advances in regards to engine technology were to be made in the next few years.

 

Nothing miniature about this

 

"Global Hawk, which has a [red]wingspan of 116 feet (35.3 meters) and is 44 feet (13.4 meters) long[/red], can range as far as 12,000 nautical miles, at altitudes up to 65,000 feet (19,812 meters), flying at speeds approaching 340 knots (about 400 mph) [red]for as long as 35 hours[/red]. During a typical mission, the aircraft can fly 1,200 miles to an area of interest and [red]remain on station for 24 hours[/red]. Its cloud-penetrating, Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator, electro-optical and infrared sensors can image an area the size of Illinois (40,000 nautical square miles) in just 24 hours. Through satellite and ground systems, the imagery can be relayed in near-real-time to battlefield commanders.

 

When fully-fueled for flight, [red]Global Hawk weighs approximately 25,600 pounds (11,612 kilograms)[/red]. More than half the UAV's components are constructed of lightweight, high-strength composite materials, including its wings, wing fairings, empennage, engine cover, engine intake and three radomes. Its main fuselage is standard aluminum, semi-monocoque construction.

The principal contractors for Global Hawk are:

 

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175

 

Directed energy weapons. That's another one of those fancy gadgets that I don't quite buy into yet.  Does anyone seriously expect these to become widely used in the near future?

 

The people who are designing JSF (allegedly)

 

"The F-35 fighter, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), intended to enter U.S. service sometime around 2010, may be armed with a high-power laser, according to a proposal made by manufacturer Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon."

 

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.htm...60,656,164,1664

 

 

129089[/snapback]

[Red Ant]

They won't have to. That's the point I was making.  Let's say that for some reason we allow the enemy to maintain air bases within range of where we want to operate (Vietnam style scenario). Manned fighters act as part of a system. They are directed to their targets by that system.  They try not to put their active radars on if at all possible.  Therefore all you need is something that can carry BVR AAMs to within range of the enemy fighter.  If, for some reason, enemy fighters get within dogfight range, the AI is going to be able to react much faster than a pilot to any enemy manoeuvre.  However, if you put 360 degree sensors on the UCAV and equip it with off-boresight capabile AAMs (or better still DEW), it won't need to manouvre to engage and the UCAV's structure can be built to withstand less G.

Give me a shout when the day has come that someone can program an AI which can consistently beat trained fighter pilots.

Also, there's no reason why off-boresight capable AAM's can't be installed on manned fighters as well, and in fact they are (HMS + R-73 combo). What's more, having off-boresight capable missiles is nice, but it doesn't free you from having to maneuver to get a solid solution on the target. Shots fired off-angle incur a reduced pk. Firing your missile at a target that is flying behind you probably isn't going to yield favorable results unless the guy on your six is a complete sleeping pill.

And what do you mean, they won't have to make decisions? Unless the thing is going to be remote-controlled during the entire flight/engagement, which fails the moment you go up against someone with decent EW capabilities, the UCA will almost certainly have to make its own decisions. In many cases a solid understanding of the battlefield is absolutely required. There may be non-combatants or friendly forces in the area. Intel reports on mission objectives may turn out to be incomplete our outright false ... how do you react? Granted, humans make mistake sometimes, but at least they can ponder the consequences of their decisions before they make them. Computers can't. And they won't be able to for a looong time.

 

Even UCAV in the same weight class do not have to be built to the same standards as manned aircraft.  You can also rely more on networked sensors which will get the unit price down.  Endurance can be hugely more than for an equivalent manned aircraft.

 

Okay, I agree with you in that UCAV's can be somewhat smaller/lighter than their manned counterparts, but not drastically so. They'll still need fuel tanks, engines, wings ... all the stuff planes need to get airborne and stay aloft. Just leaving out the pilot space won't save you more than 15 to 25% (numbers pulled out of my ass, but they seem reasonable to me), which while it's a nice improvement, still means the UCAV will end up in the same weight class as a similar manned aircraft.

This may not be true for very small UCAV's since frankly it's not feasible to build manned aircraft that small, but I believe it applies to UCAV's with missions that require hauling heavy loads of ordnance over long distances.

[Red Ant]

Nothing miniature about this smile.gif

 

"Global Hawk, which has a [red]wingspan of 116 feet (35.3 meters) and is 44 feet (13.4 meters) long[/red], can range as far as 12,000 nautical miles, at altitudes up to 65,000 feet (19,812 meters), flying at speeds approaching 340 knots (about 400 mph) [red]for as long as 35 hours[/red].[...]

129095[/snapback]

 

Okay, that's not bad I guess. However, if you wanted to build a manned aircraft that fly at relatively low speeds at very high altitudes with potential loiter times of 24 hours, you could do that as well. It would probaby turn out a little heavier and the limiting factor would be crew fatigue rather than fuel reserves, but at the end of the day I don't see how this example proves the superiority of UCAV's over manned aircraft. Granted, for certain missions they may be more suitable. The thing in your quote seems to be some kind of recon plane ... maybe with an optional loadout of PGM's, I dunno. At any rate, this thing isn't going to fly CAS missions with friendly ground troops separated from the enemy by only a few hundred feet. It isn't going to engage in air-to-air combat with anyone. So I guess that particular niche can well be filled by unmanned aircraft.

 

 

 

 

The people who are designing JSF (allegedly) smile.gif

 

"The F-35 fighter, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), intended to enter U.S. service sometime around 2010, may be armed with a high-power laser, according to a proposal made by manufacturer Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon."

 

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.htm...60,656,164,1664

 

"may" and "according" are keywords here. From everything I've read so far, it would appear that with our current technology, laser weapons are little more than a fancy toy with potential for future development ... if we can make it work.

[swerve]

UCAVs are cheaper than manned aircraft. They are also more expendable. You don't need them to establish anything like a 1:1 kill ratio against enemy manned fighters.

 

Depends on the UAV. Global Hawk recce UAV is more expensive than an F-15, according to the US Congress audit body, the name of which escapes me.

 

There aren't any UCAVs operational at the moment except slow, vulnerable recce UAVs carrying a small ground attack payload, so nobody knows what a "real" UCAV will cost. The currently existing ones can easily be shot down by aircraft of the L-159/Hawk/A-4 class, & have no way of shooting back. Kill ratio therefore will be n:0. Over Yugoslavia, UAV losses were in tens, mostly to ground fire, a few to aircraft, including helicopters.

 

They're useful, & maybe one day will replace manned aircraft completely, but not yet. So far I'd say they've successfully replaced manned aircraft in certain recce & ELINT roles - & that's it.

[swerve]

Anything larger than a tiny recon UCAV or a Predator armed with a small loadout of hellfires is also going to have to operate from some kind of base.  And if you want your UCAV's to be able to fly long-range air superiority missions, deep strike, or interdiction missions and what have you, they will almost certainly be in the same weight class as manned aircraft with similar tasks.

 

A Predator needs a runway. It's relatively big.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Joe Brennen is the economic expert? I would have to mention that military spending as % GNP is the ROUGHEST measure you coul use. It is meant for simple math questions for grade-school kids.

 

BTW America uses GNP, GDP is for the other guys. GNP is slightly more inclusive. Bad to confuse the two.

 

as far as me being the expert, but your campaign for the title isn't off to a good start with a blooper like "'America' uses GNP" GDP attributes output to where it happens, GNP to the nationality of the producer, for example foreign companies' output in the US was not part of GNP but is part of GDP, flip side US oversears co's. The net difference was on the order of 1/1000th of the US economy when GDP became the official US stat in 1991, though the difference is bigger for some countries, developing ones often for example.

 

On grade school, I think people often get themselves tied in knots making economic things more complicated than they really are. The fact that govt expenditure is itself a component of GDP doesn't make it invalid to judge its relative size as a % of the total, we do that with lots of other components too, how much of the activity is concentrated in that component?

 

With any measure of anything economic, or otherwise, if people get into a prolonged debate of whether 4.2% of one year's GDP was really a lot different than 4.5% of another's, decades later, they are simply being pedantic. If you make the measure more complicated they'll just have a more complicated pedantic discussion.

 

Anyway a specific overcomplication that keeps seeping into this discussion is the one about comparing total economy size from one time to another. Sticking with expenditure and "inflation adjusting" does not get around the issue of changes in economic structure over time because the inflation indices are determined by assumptions about the meaning of changes in mix and quality of goods and services over time. Comparing defence activity relative to total activity at one time v. another, cancels most of the intertemporal issues out. Unless again it could be argued that a given % of total activity devoted to defense at one time, in money terms remember not unit terms, had a much different impact than the same % at another time. Only that argument would broadly invalidate measuring according to total economy size at the time, and it hasn't been made.

 

Whereas meauring according to expenditure "inflation adjusted" is clearly misleading in everyday cases. China's economy is doubling on order of once a decade. A baseline assumption of their defense spending remaing "inflation adjusted" constant for 20yrs would be pretty foolish.

 

Joe

[schering]

More broadly, I don't think that the United States should totally shape its force structure around the War on Terror (more accurately, the War on Radical Islam and those who tolerate, incite, condone or support it). This is a important war, but the enemy is in many ways weak. We can win anytime we decide that we want to win, and the constraint is not military capability but national will. As soon as we decide to get ruthless to the necessary degree, that war will end shortly thereafter. If not, it will dribble on. Either way, I don't see it as something that ought to drive military force structure for decades to come, which is what the F/A-22A decision is all about. In general, the only things of interest about the stretch of land between Morrocco and Pakistan are all the bad things associated with radical Islam and oil. Other than that, who cares? From a economic perspective, it's a wasteland. Israel is the exception, the only First World economy in the region, but that is such as outlier that it doesn't really count.

128986[/snapback]

 

The problem is that military means won't win the war on terror; the further use of military means might compromise a future success in the war on the terror; but for various reasons we still have to allocate a great deal of military assets to the war on terror.

 

For instance, if Egypt, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia were to fall under insurrectional pressure, we would quickly be confronted with very difficult dilemmas and possibily significant economic instability. Certainly, in the case of Saudi Arabia, the effects would be felt worldwide. I doubt our strategic relations towards China and Europe would be left unaffected.

 

IMO the war on terror really affects our global interests and it is sufficiently explosive to warrant that we make it our number one priority.

 

What interests me, and ought to interest the United States, is Asia and the Pacific. What an region of exciting possibilities!

128986[/snapback]

 

I wholeheartedly agree, and that is why I want to win the war on terror first.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

schering, I don't disagree with your individual points, just the implication that the United States has the luxury of just fighting the current war and not preparing for other scenarios in the future. We have to do both. That is something that a wealthy global superpower can do and should do.

[swerve]

"GDP attributes output to where it happens, GNP to the nationality of the producer, for example foreign companies' output in the US was not part of GNP but is part of GDP, flip side US oversears co's."

 

Not quite true, Joe, at least not as you say it. It's the income accruing to the overseas producer that isn't part of GNP, not the gross product of the foreign owned enterprise. Perhaps that's what you meant. Any profits sent abroad to foreign owners are part of the GNP of the owners country, not the producers - & that includes dividends foreign minority shareholders receive. Any income from the enterprise which stays in the producing country, e.g. the wages of the workers, is part of the producing countries GNP.

[gewing]

Okay, that's not bad I guess. However, if you wanted to build a manned aircraft that fly at relatively low speeds at very high altitudes with potential loiter times of 24 hours, you could do that as well. It would probaby turn out a little heavier and the limiting factor would be crew fatigue rather than fuel reserves, but at the end of the day I don't see how this example proves the superiority of UCAV's over manned aircraft. Granted, for certain missions they may be more suitable. The thing in your quote seems to be some kind of recon plane ... maybe with an optional loadout of PGM's, I dunno. At any rate, this thing isn't going to fly CAS missions with friendly ground troops separated from the enemy by only a few hundred feet. It isn't going to engage in air-to-air combat with anyone. So I guess that particular niche can well be filled by unmanned aircraft.

"may" and "according" are keywords here. From everything I've read so far, it would appear that with our current technology, laser weapons are little more than a fancy toy with potential for future development ... if we can make it work.

129105[/snapback]

 

 

 

I don't think you have been reading the same stuff I have. Do a google on Airborne tactical laser. (I think that was the name) or check on Boeing's web site.

[JOE BRENNAN]

"GDP attributes output to where it happens, GNP to the nationality of the producer"

 

It's the income accruing to the overseas producer that isn't part of GNP, not the gross product of the foreign owned enterprise. Perhaps that's what you meant.

 

It's net output or value added that's counted in either GNP or GDP; it wouldn't generally be the gross output of the enterprise, sales volume, for either measure. Output alone is maybe unclear word though. Assume starting with GDP, all economic activity located in the country, however it's added up: add up all domestic incomes (profits, etc), *or* add up all domestic expenditures *or* add up all domestic net value added to goods/services (gross output of each operation would create lots of double counting). Same answer by definition each way if counted correctly (confusion on that before I remember ). Working that way GNP is arrived at by correcting GDP for value added, (net output, income) of specifically foreign inputs, to outputs occuring in your country (and vice versa yours in foreign countries). Profits of foreign owned ops (the income or net output of the property itself), also incomes of expatriate workers get put with the "resident" country, not country where the income (net output) from those specific inputs happen.

 

To review for the bored a .3% difference for the US 3rd Q 2004 for example, though not always that small in all cases.

 

Joe

[UN-Interested Observer]

Yes! I think we all pretty much agree, and you are right, for the current circumstance the differences are petty. My fault.

 

I still insist that defence spending as a percentage of GDP is a faulty model. You can do ok work with CPI, but the GDP deflator shines for this experiment. There are books with nothing but prices in them in the library, 1000's of pages of prices... sigh:/

 

Want to hear the really crazy bit? Lol, even if we use the GDP deflator to compare annual spending totals we haven't touched the deffered-costs! It would take weeks to get the data together! Then the funny thing is that the interest rate is a product of deficit spending, which is currently financed by China to maintain low interest rates in America so that Consumer spending remains high and CS finances the Chinese Economic growth! Interest rates and inflation being intrinsically linked we used an inflation-corrected data comparison to compare the very data that caused the inflation!

 

As for UAV prices, wouldn't barrage balloons count? How about if you mounted an IFF Stinger on each one?

[swerve]

It's net output or value added that's counted in either GNP or GDP; it wouldn't generally be the gross output of the enterprise, sales volume, for either measure. Output alone is maybe unclear word though. Assume starting with GDP, all economic activity located in the country, however it's added up: add up all domestic incomes (profits, etc), *or* add up all domestic expenditures *or* add up all domestic net value added to goods/services (gross output of each operation would create lots of double counting). Same answer by definition each way if counted correctly (confusion on that before I remember  ). Working that way GNP is arrived at by correcting GDP for value added, (net output, income) of specifically foreign inputs, to outputs occuring in your country (and vice versa yours in foreign countries). Profits of foreign owned ops (the income or net output of the property itself), also incomes of expatriate workers get put with the "resident" country, not country where the income (net output) from those specific inputs happen.

 

To review for the bored a .3% difference for the US 3rd Q 2004 for example, though not always that small in all cases.

 

Joe

129220[/snapback]

 

To sum up & hopefully clarify (or confuse further) for those who've read this far - Net Output = Gross Value Added, i.e. the difference between bought-in inputs & gross output. Includes profits of a business & compensation of workers (pay & other benefits). GDP attributes all GVA to where it is produced, GNP to where it is received.

[Red Ant]

I don't think you have been reading the same stuff I have.  Do a google on Airborne tactical laser.  (I think that was the name) or check on Boeing's web site.

129208[/snapback]

 

 

"A revolutionary laser weapon designed to shoot down incoming cruise missiles, artillery projectiles or surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), is being tested by Boeing Rocketdyne. The airborne tactical laser (ATL) is a scaled-down derivative of the airborne laser (ABL) system currently under development by the US Air Force (USAF). The ATL could be mounted aboard various platforms, including V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and CH-47 Chinook helicopters, said company officials.

 

"We're developing ways to make the laser stronger while also keeping it small enough and light enough for the roll-on, roll-off capabilities of the Ospreys and Chinooks," Dan Beck, spokesman for Boeing Rocketdyne said.

 

Like the ABL, which requires a Boeing 747-400F aircraft to carry a laser strong enough to shoot down theatre ballistic missiles in boost phase, the ATL uses a chemical oxygen-iodine laser (COIL). However, instead of pumping exhaust gas from the COIL out of the aircraft as the ABL is designed to do, the ATL collects the exhaust with a sealed exhaust system. "The sealed exhaust system keeps the size and the weight down," said Beck

 

The ATL, designed to weigh between 4,500kg and 6,750kg, can fit into Ospreys and Chinooks without altering them, according to Don Slater, Boeing Rocketdyne systems engineer for the ATL project.

 

With modifications, it could also be carried aboard a wide range of other platforms, such as US Navy (USN) P-3 maritime patrol aircraft and USAF C-130 transports. The ATL could also be installed aboard US Army wheeled or tracked vehicles, Slater said.

 

"It would be more effective aboard an airborne platform," he said, noting that aircraft have more mobility and are harder to hide from.

 

The primary mission of the ATL would be to defend against cruise missiles, but it could also intercept incoming artillery shells of up to 300mm, Slater said. In addition, ATLs could accompany strike aircraft and knock out SAM sites, at a maximum range of about 25km, he said. So far, the USN has expressed the most interest in the ATL, with other services also considering the system, according to Slater. The USN and the USAF Special Operations Command plan to purchase the V-22 Osprey, the ideal platform for ATL, he said.

 

The ATL has also caught the attention of Gen John Tilleli, commander of US forces in South Korea, because the US Army has no countermeasure to the North Korean 240mm artillery aimed at US forces near the demilitarised zone, Slater said.

 

The ATL is designed to fire up to 100 shots without reloading. While the ATL would operate in turbulence at low altitude, Rocketdyne officials believe that state-of-the-art stabilisation for the laser will be enough to reduce jitter sufficiently to keep the COIL's beam concentrated long enough to cause a catastrophic kill on most cruise missiles.

 

The first live-fire test of the ABL is not expected until 2003, and it is expected to be operational by 2006. The smaller ATL, according to Slater, could be ready at about the same time. "I think we can do it in four or five years if we get the go-ahead," he said."

 

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/abl/abl023.htm

 

To me, this doesn't sound like a weapon you want to install in an F-35 or a UCAV for that matter. Also, how effective are laser weapons against targets with reflective surfaces?

[pluto77189]

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/abl/abl023.htm

 

To me, this doesn't sound like a weapon you want to install in an F-35 or a UCAV for that matter. Also, how effective are laser weapons against targets with reflective surfaces?

129341[/snapback]

 

 

The ATL isn't anything like what they're planning on sticking in the F-22 or F-35.

They are chemical lasers, and are far too bulky and cumbersome for fighter use.

 

Solid State lasers are being developed, and used by the military right now. they're using them in Afghanistan for destroying roadside bombs.

 

Currently, they're about the size of a small refrigerator, and output 20-40 kW of light--about half what the military wants in an effective laser weapon.

 

these things are basically a high powered laser diode, solid state, no chemical fuels, poison gasses, etc. Electricity in laser light and heat out. Do a google search on the SSHCL solid state heat capacity laser. There were "talks" of sticking on in a c-130 for ground attacks.