7 ms·

The difference between lasers and railguns is the former would be revolutionary, while the later would be an incremental improvement over an already ancillary s

The difference between lasers and railguns is the former would be revolutionary, while the later would be an incremental improvement over an already ancillary system. If you could fit a multi-kilowatt laser on an F-35, and make it a practical thing (so no expendable chemicals being used up every shot, no having to gut air frame to fit all the laser equipment) it could radically alter how America fought its wars. Imagine a dozen F-35s flying over a combat zone, and killing individual enemy soldiers with literal laser precision - unlike with conventional munitions they can keep doing that for as long as their fuel supplies last. The sustained support laser-equipped planes could provide to ground forces is kind of amazing/terrifying when you really think about it. Contrast the rail gun. The primary naval weapon is missiles, whether launched by plane or by ship. Guns are secondary (tertiary if you count torpedoes) equipment, mostly used for warding off pirates or shooting down enemy missiles while they're coming in. The rail gun offers to replace the rarely used 5 inch gun on most destroyers with...a longer range gun that's also going to be seldom used. The original idea of using it for "shore bombardment" or that it can be a backup weapon for when the missile magazines run dry are both...kind of dubious ideas now that we're facing a resurgent China and Russia who aren't going to allow our ships to close to within rail range before destroying them with their own missiles.

sfifs 9y ago
> Imagine a dozen F-35s flying over a combat zone, and killing individual enemy soldiers with literal laser precision While I kind of agree with your point on the rail gun, manned aircraft loitering in any modern battlefront are essentially doomed. Anti aircraft missiles are a lot more effective and a lot cheaper with modern computers.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  well that and lasers will pretty much take the place of AA missiles. I think one of the Navy's biggest issue is railguns pretty much make large surface ships a detriment and they are very loathe to give up their carriers. Those are their "balance in importance" versus the Air Forces stealth bombers and missiles. The Navy has lived off its success since WW2 for far too long with this need for 10 full CV forces.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    I agree with your main point, but I think the naval equivalent of a B-2 is a long range nuke sub with Trident missiles.
- j9461701 9y ago
  A MANPAD can't hit a fast moving jet at 20k feet, and anything larger can be destroyed by conventional munitions. This is exactly what we saw during the first Gulf war, when Iraq - which had for the era had a very advanced IAADS - was torn to pieces by the teen fighters. A decent SEAD campaign + lasers = a new, scary kind of warfare. This is, incidentally, why the A-10 is obsolete. Trying to fly slow and low on a modern battlefield is indeed doomed. During the Gulf War, F-16s performed more CAS missions than A-10s did because the A-10 was simply not survivable against modern threats. To the extent they had to be withdrawn from known Republican hot zones because the danger was simply too great.
  - manicdee 9y ago
    By the time a weaponised laser is available for aircraft, we’ll have been using lasers to shoot down planes for years.
- riku_iki 9y ago
  > Anti aircraft missiles are a lot more effective and a lot cheaper with modern computers. I imagine it differently: lasers will make jets resistant to AA warfare, they potentially can shot down any incoming missile very efficiently.
sandworm101 9y ago
There are rules, conventions, against such things. Forget killing. Today it is very possible to build a laser capable of blinding a person at range. That wins any dogfight instantly. The first concepts of the f22 were to have an lcd cockpit to counter such threats. But nobody wants to fight a war where mass blinding is a thing. As with plastic shrapnel, some things are just too horrific. Nobody builds them and so even those without rules never get a chance to use them. There is no plastic shrapnel in even the most vicious of IEDs. (Plastic doesnt show on x-rays.)
- riku_iki 9y ago
  I believe blinding weapons are prohibited by international agreements.
  - sandworm101 9y ago
    Ie conventions.

sfifs 9y ago

> Imagine a dozen F-35s flying over a combat zone, and killing individual enemy soldiers with literal laser precision While I kind of agree with your point on the rail gun, manned aircraft loitering in any modern battlefront are essentially doomed. Anti aircraft missiles are a lot more effective and a lot cheaper with modern computers.

Shivetya 9y ago
well that and lasers will pretty much take the place of AA missiles. I think one of the Navy's biggest issue is railguns pretty much make large surface ships a detriment and they are very loathe to give up their carriers. Those are their "balance in importance" versus the Air Forces stealth bombers and missiles. The Navy has lived off its success since WW2 for far too long with this need for 10 full CV forces.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  I agree with your main point, but I think the naval equivalent of a B-2 is a long range nuke sub with Trident missiles.
j9461701 9y ago
A MANPAD can't hit a fast moving jet at 20k feet, and anything larger can be destroyed by conventional munitions. This is exactly what we saw during the first Gulf war, when Iraq - which had for the era had a very advanced IAADS - was torn to pieces by the teen fighters. A decent SEAD campaign + lasers = a new, scary kind of warfare. This is, incidentally, why the A-10 is obsolete. Trying to fly slow and low on a modern battlefield is indeed doomed. During the Gulf War, F-16s performed more CAS missions than A-10s did because the A-10 was simply not survivable against modern threats. To the extent they had to be withdrawn from known Republican hot zones because the danger was simply too great.
- manicdee 9y ago
  By the time a weaponised laser is available for aircraft, we’ll have been using lasers to shoot down planes for years.
riku_iki 9y ago
> Anti aircraft missiles are a lot more effective and a lot cheaper with modern computers. I imagine it differently: lasers will make jets resistant to AA warfare, they potentially can shot down any incoming missile very efficiently.

sandworm101 9y ago

There are rules, conventions, against such things. Forget killing. Today it is very possible to build a laser capable of blinding a person at range. That wins any dogfight instantly. The first concepts of the f22 were to have an lcd cockpit to counter such threats. But nobody wants to fight a war where mass blinding is a thing. As with plastic shrapnel, some things are just too horrific. Nobody builds them and so even those without rules never get a chance to use them. There is no plastic shrapnel in even the most vicious of IEDs. (Plastic doesnt show on x-rays.)

riku_iki 9y ago
I believe blinding weapons are prohibited by international agreements.
- sandworm101 9y ago
  Ie conventions.