Wild speculation: APS on helicopters and aircraft.

[agusto]

This question is not specifically about CMBS but more of a general question on APS systems. I mean, why not?

[c3k]

Speeds.

 

It's one thing to launch an explosive from a stable, armored, platform. It's another to launch it from an aluminum skinned (like aluminum foil skinned), 600 knot, 7 g, maneuvering platform. (Trophy uses EFP style intercept, very energetic. Arena uses launched claymores (roughly). Trophy puts a hard hit against whatever it launches from, Arena has a lot of mass. That mass is subject to F=m*a. To have it keep up with aircraft/helo speeds would be a non-trivial problem.)

 

A lot of defensive suites work on the jamming/blinding concept. Laser turrets are the in-thing. Detect the incoming, scan it, assess what weapon it is, fire a tuned laser at the seeker, and send it away. (Spoofing is far easier than brute-force burning out.) The seeker aperture is, literally, a window into the insides of the missile. Advanced techniques use that opportunity to mess with it. The benefit is that the warhead does not get near the aircraft. Fragments which would scratch the paint on a tank or armored vehicle could bring down an aircraft. The goal is to keep those warheads FAR away.

 

Ken

[Skwabie]

Well the ABL laser does burn out the missile albeit ICBMs... one day it's bound to get small enough to mount on tactical aircraft againt tactical missiles. Missile launch/approach warning systems are already operational these days. I'm sure used a few years earlier, gamers would call these gadgets cheating.

[c3k]

Nah, no need to burn through casings. The laser dazzles the seeker. Specific waveform/digital input. Knowing how seekers operate, spoofing is possible. For example, make it think the target aircraft is moving to its left. Missile takes a hard turn, faces open air, loses any lock (if command guided, then it loses energy and can't make it up to re-engage). 

[Skwabie]

Well...Ken...what if it's radar guided. The laser will just reflect off the opaque head of the missile i reckon, hence need of something stronger. But maybe something else, like concentrated waveform etc to jam it.

[agusto]

Speeds.

 

 

I disagree. You mentioned F=m*a, implying that it would take significant amounts of energy to keep an APS' projectile on its course towards the incoming missile due to the aircrafts speed. But all mass is also prone to F=p'=mv', which means  that unless an external force (like air resistance) is applied, the APS' projectile fired from an aircraft flying straight on the y-axis with speed s will continue to fly in y direction with speed s for eternity. Given that an APS projectile moves with speeds that are high compared to the relative speed of the warhead approaching the target and given that the distance the APS projectile has to travel on a ballistic flight path until it hits is target is small (a few meters), the effects of air resistance can be neglected, so the high speed of the aircraft and the incoming missiles are unlikely to be a problem for an APS system.

 

It's one thing to launch an explosive from a stable, armored, platform. It's another to launch it from an aluminum skinned (like aluminum foil skinned), 600 knot, 7 g, maneuvering platform. (Trophy uses EFP style intercept, very energetic. Arena uses launched claymores (roughly). Trophy puts a hard hit against whatever it launches from, Arena has a lot of mass.

 

 

That could be more of problem than high speeds. It would suck if the warhead is successfully intercepted but the aircraft is destroyed by the explosion of the APS, wouldnt it? But at least the enemy was denied the kill . Some helicopters like the M-24 Hind though are heavily armoured (bullet proof up to 12,7mm), so their airframe could possibly withstand the force of the APS going off. In general i lwas ess thinking of supersonic interceptors but of slow & low, armored CAS helicopters when i thought about putting APS on aircraft.

[akd]

Lockheed reveals small self-defence weapon for fighters

[Codename Duchess]

Most, but not all, anti-air missiles do not actually impact the aircraft, but rather explode in proximity and hurl nasty shrapnel at the aircraft. This means that you need to either intercept every fragment (not feasible) or to intercept the missile before it explodes. Doing this second part necessitates a bigger interceptor due to range. This then creates a weight issue, and possibly an aerodynamic compromise. Aircraft don't exactly have a lot of free space left over. So a laser or a spoofer is a much better option than a hard kill.

[Skwabie]

Lockheed reveals small self-defence weapon for fighters

Wow. Bad-ass stuff. I remember half a century ago USAF was trying on active radar seeker on the AIM-9 Sidewinder inception but failed due to tech constraints, as it was too large to put on a missile. But now they're making it small enough for an APS projectile.....

[c3k]

So, reading that, the self-defense weapons takes the place of any offensive ordnance??? The reason the plane launches is to defend itself? Um, I seem to be missing something...

 

The future of weaponology in aircraft is directed energy. Sure, bombs need to be dropped. But for air-to-air (including defensive systems against missiles) energy travels at the speed of light, is rechargeable, and reusable. You don't run out. There's a reason the USAF is hot to trot with the F-35's clutch technology. Tap off some of the energy from that 35,000 lbf engine, and you can get some impressive beams zapping stuff. The USMC lift rotor (which is missing in the USAF/USN versions) makes a large volume available...for stuff.

 

We're a bit lazy when it comes to power and energy. I had my wife drive an SUV, 4 wheel drive, chained to a tree I was cutting down. It needed to be very precisely dropped. 70' tall, 30' from the house. Well, she was very enthusiastic about applying the gas when I started the back-cut. I asked her, later, to imagine a team of 200 horses (the engine is rated at 250 bhp, but SAE horsepower is less than what a horse can produce), hooked to the tree. That's what she had on tap with the pressure of her toe. That's a 3.5L 6 cylinder engine. A 35,000 lbf turbofan puts out power which is almost beyond comprehension.

[Skwabie]

^But the Frog is already overheating!

Last I read it needed fuel to cool down avionics and the AF decided to paint fuel trucks white and reduce their sun exposure time to keep the fuel cool enough.

:D

Auxiliary stuff on hardpoints seem to be surfacing recently, like the IRST pod for the super hornet and Legion pod for the F-16. Looks weird for me indeed as I'd rather have dope and beer instead, or not have all that deadweight when dodging a missile...

And agree that energy weapons is actually better. Probably it's size that matters or in this case.. still too big.(?)

[dan/california]

 

 

The future of weaponology in aircraft is directed energy. Sure, bombs need to be dropped. But for air-to-air (including defensive systems against missiles) energy travels at the speed of light, is rechargeable, and reusable. You don't run out. There's a reason the USAF is hot to trot with the F-35's clutch technology. Tap off some of the energy from that 35,000 lbf engine, and you can get some impressive beams zapping stuff. The USMC lift rotor (which is missing in the USAF/USN versions) makes a large volume available...for stuff.

 

 

I agree with you that directed energy weapons are very important to the future of military aircraft. But I think the basic physics of flying objects vs ground based ones mean that if beam weapons become sufficiently capable aircraft are just done.  You can put a bigger laser, and a bigger generator on a ground based platform, and least some armor.  The navy will be the first beneficiary of course, they have some LARGE power plants to play with.  If the conversion efficiency of electricity into beam power is high enough then things are just going to start falling out of the sky like they mean it.

Edited February 25, 2015 by dan/california

[akd]

Ahem...

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150224005136/en/Orbital-ATK-Completes-Key-Test-Helicopter-Active#.VO3KHCe9KSN

[c3k]

I agree with you that directed energy weapons are very important to the future of military aircraft. But I think the basic physics of flying objects vs ground based ones mean that if beam weapons become sufficiently capable aircraft are just done.  You can put a bigger laser, and a bigger generator on a ground based platform, and least some armor.  The navy will be the first beneficiary of course, they have some LARGE power plants to play with.  If the conversion efficiency of electricity into beam power is high enough then things are just going to start falling out of the sky like they mean it.

 

Clouds, man, clouds! Why do you think the CIA has been so focused on changing the weather? First, your secret agents create rain, THEN your planes rule the skies! Or paint them silver.

 

Heat and the F35: yeah, the fuel is a heat dump. They designed this one too close to the bone, IMHO. They're actually cooling the fuel down before loading it. C'mon.

[MikeyD]

You watch the Youtube clips of Russian Arena exploding over a tank and you'll see the tank get rocked back on its suspension by the force of he blast. The blast would probably break a helicopter right in half.

[gunnersman]

 Fragments which would scratch the paint on a tank or armored vehicle could bring down an aircraft. The goal is to keep those warheads FAR away.

 

Ken

 

As a civilian rotorwing/fixedwing pilot (mostly helicopter) the idea of things exploding around me freaks me out.  Anything APS like in its current form I would not think would work too well. Any explosive interception would need to be well away from the aircraft, rotor blades and all. 

 

And then there is sucking any FOD into the turbine inlets. Most turbine helicopters have excellent filters systems...but airplanes...not so much. So in the case of airplanes, all explosions would need to be above, below or behind the aircraft.

 

So, reading that, the self-defense weapons takes the place of any offensive ordnance??? The reason the plane launches is to defend itself? Um, I seem to be missing something...

 

The future of weaponology in aircraft is directed energy. Sure, bombs need to be dropped. But for air-to-air (including defensive systems against missiles) energy travels at the speed of light, is rechargeable, and reusable. You don't run out. There's a reason the USAF is hot to trot with the F-35's clutch technology. Tap off some of the energy from that 35,000 lbf engine, and you can get some impressive beams zapping stuff. The USMC lift rotor (which is missing in the USAF/USN versions) makes a large volume available...for stuff.

This is fascinating. It would explain why the Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10 so bad.  Directed energy weapons for CAS? Is that the future too? 

[dan/california]

Ahem...

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150224005136/en/Orbital-ATK-Completes-Key-Test-Helicopter-Active#.VO3KHCe9KSN

Clearly there are going to be more choices in the APS  area pretty soon.  If a helicopter can carry it an Abrahms sure as heck can as well.

[c3k]

 

This is fascinating. It would explain why the Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10 so bad.  Directed energy weapons for CAS? Is that the future too? 

 

 

Directed energy for CAS? No.

 

Blinding is bad press. It's easier to damage eyes than it is to burn. That's pretty bad press, too. As far as equipment, there is a HUGE difference between cutting the stressed aluminum skin of a missile or aircraft, and burning through the steel of a tank.

[dan/california]

Directed energy for CAS? No.

 

Blinding is bad press. It's easier to damage eyes than it is to burn. That's pretty bad press, too. As far as equipment, there is a HUGE difference between cutting the stressed aluminum skin of a missile or aircraft, and burning through the steel of a tank.

Hence the near demise of aircraft if beam weapons really come on line.  Current conversion efficiencies are at best a few percent for high power electrically pumped lasers so you are putting megawatts in to get a few kilowatts out. in addition to the power generation you have to deal with the waste heat, which is not a trivial problem.  A LOT of money is being thrown at this problem though and it will get solved sooner or later.  When two or three megawatts of electrical power can put out a megawatt beam you just won't be able to fly into line of sight of the system.

Edited February 26, 2015 by dan/california

[agusto]

The energy supply problem could be (but wont be, due to political constraints) solved by using a nuclear reactor for powering the plane. The Cold War produced several designs for such aircraft that could be recycled and used to create a plane quipped with a laser that can circle in enemy airspace for an almost unlimited amout of time, wreaking havoc upon anything it sees.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95LAL

 

The Project Pluto article is worth reading. It is absolutely insane IMO, it is probably the most deadly unmanned weapon system that has been designed yet.