User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 3:23:16 AM EDT
[#1]
If you yanked the fan, you'd have room for a sizeable generator, driven by the original gear box.
OTOH, it would probably weigh quite a bit more than the original fan... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 3:37:14 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you yanked the fan, you'd have room for a sizeable generator, driven by the original gear box. OTOH, it would probably weigh quite a bit more than the original fan... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 3:41:42 AM EDT
[#3]
They have a 737 with a laser on it.. that's been several years, not sure this is too far fetched
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 4:45:29 AM EDT
[#4]
directed energy weapons are fucking retarded.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:21:42 AM EDT
[#5]
Taking a B model and pulling its fan makes it rather worthless. But as I understand the A and C model engine configurations have the PTO capability when the technology catches up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:22:06 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
directed energy weapons are fucking retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:29:45 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
A while back I saw someone say that the F35B was designed so that the forward lift fan could be turned into a generator to provide power for future directed energy weapons, like a laser weapon or something along those lines. Is that BS? But it was entirely speculative then to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:31:37 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
directed energy weapons are fucking retarded. I think Boeing got the contract, but I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:34:06 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Today yes. Well, as an offensive weapon mostly yes. They can already track and detonate artillery rounds in flight, how long before they miniaturize it enough to allow individual Soldiers to where active protective gear that would disable or destroy incoming bullets? Who needs plate armor when your helmet shoots down every round fired at you? I think we're very close to this, if we aren't testing already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:35:43 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lots of potential has been demonstrated in the are of ant-projectile/anti-missile use for DE weapons. They can already track and detonate artillery rounds in flight, how long before they miniaturize it enough to allow individual Soldiers to where active protective gear that would disable or destroy incoming bullets? Who needs plate armor when your helmet shoots down every round fired at you? I think we're very close to this, if we aren't testing already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 6:07:13 AM EDT
[#11]
Yep, it's not too far off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 6:17:31 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lots of potential has been demonstrated in the are of ant-projectile/anti-missile use for DE weapons. They can already track and detonate artillery rounds in flight, how long before they miniaturize it enough to allow individual Soldiers to where active protective gear that would disable or destroy incoming bullets? Who needs plate armor when your helmet shoots down every round fired at you? I think we're very close to this, if we aren't testing already. The tech to power it in a portable size is what is missing. Light sabers, plasma guns, laser weapons, all that shit could have existed a decade ago if not longer, but we simply don't have the way to generate or store enough power in a small enough form factor yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 6:32:11 AM EDT
[#13]
Is there a kit to put this on a dji spark?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 6:55:31 AM EDT
[#14]
Given how effective the fan is at VTOL, I'd say a generator replacement would run an overhead projector.
F35 project was derated to STOVL years ago, and even then it's not meant to be used routinely or it wears out parts. They'd be better served installing a motor to help drive the turbine engine for better fuel economy 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 7:29:14 AM EDT
[#15]
I'm not sure how strong they can make a laser using a generator small enough to fit in a fighter jet. But if they can power it, it can work. Building a laser strong enough to knock down a missile or aircraft from hundreds of miles away is simple. Putting it on a platform that can track and keep the laser on a moving target from hundreds of miles is harder, but still very doable. The hard part is creating a power source that's small enough and light enough to be practical while still providing enough power.
It's pretty easy for a non-mobile ground-based laser. For something you want to drive around, or especially to fly around, it's a bit harder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 7:37:25 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given how effective the fan is at VTOL, I'd say a generator replacement would run an overhead projector. F35 project was derated to STOVL years ago, and even then it's not meant to be used routinely or it wears out parts. They'd be better served installing a motor to help drive the turbine engine for better fuel economy 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 7:43:59 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They have a 737 with a laser on it.. that's been several years, not sure this is too far fetched |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 7:48:26 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
directed energy weapons are fucking retarded. The tech just isn't quite there yet. The volume of space required to store energy seems to be a major hangup right now... Of all things that ARF hates, the push for electric cars could end up cracking that nut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 7:49:02 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was a 747, it was a chemical laser instead of solid state, and it's beer cans now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They have a 737 with a laser on it.. that's been several years, not sure this is too far fetched  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 8:12:02 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When the tech improves to the point that they can intercept ballistic shells and hypersonic missiles you may change your tune. The tech just isn't quite there yet. The volume of space required to store energy seems to be a major hangup right now... Of all things that ARF hates, the push for electric cars could end up cracking that nut. The last part will never change. If they were more efficient they may have more utility but very tactical and limited in scope. You aren’t going to vaporize a city or artillery pos with one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 8:18:09 AM EDT
[#21]
Thought this was a joke thread
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 8:27:19 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thought this was a joke thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 8:45:21 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The majority of energy is lost . Highly inefficient.And they can’t shoot into or out of defilade so they are worthless beyond point defense. The last part will never change. If they were more efficient they may have more utility but very tactical and limited in scope. You aren’t going to vaporize a city or artillery pos with one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: When the tech improves to the point that they can intercept ballistic shells and hypersonic missiles you may change your tune. The tech just isn't quite there yet. The volume of space required to store energy seems to be a major hangup right now... Of all things that ARF hates, the push for electric cars could end up cracking that nut. The last part will never change. If they were more efficient they may have more utility but very tactical and limited in scope. You aren’t going to vaporize a city or artillery pos with one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 9:15:55 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The majority of energy is lost . Highly inefficient.And they can’t shoot into or out of defilade so they are worthless beyond point defense. The last part will never change. If they were more efficient they may have more utility but very tactical and limited in scope. You aren’t going to vaporize a city or artillery pos with one. As long as there’s no treadmills... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 10:32:32 AM EDT
[#25]
Maybe the F-35 should have the unofficial nickname of "Homer."
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/The_Homer |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 10:40:45 AM EDT
[#26]
That is BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 10:58:05 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The majority of energy is lost . Highly inefficient.And they can’t shoot into or out of defilade so they are worthless beyond point defense. The last part will never change. If they were more efficient they may have more utility but very tactical and limited in scope. You aren’t going to vaporize a city or artillery pos with one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: When the tech improves to the point that they can intercept ballistic shells and hypersonic missiles you may change your tune. The tech just isn't quite there yet. The volume of space required to store energy seems to be a major hangup right now... Of all things that ARF hates, the push for electric cars could end up cracking that nut. The last part will never change. If they were more efficient they may have more utility but very tactical and limited in scope. You aren’t going to vaporize a city or artillery pos with one. Energy storage IS changing with the advent of graphene capacitors and other hi tech solutions. I don't think we should relegate ourselves to dismissing entire fields of technology just because they haven't proven themselves yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 4:26:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Direct fire weapons are worthless. I learn something new every day. They worked well on ballistic missiles because they follow a predictable path and have mm thick skin and their fuel is incredibly volatile, and artillery shells are packed with tnt. This ranks up there with the stupid kinetic bombardment threads that get brought up once a year where everyone thinks its a great idea to haul a 300,000 lb tungsten telephone pole into orbit atop a saturn v. Because its not nuclear.... which means that russia or china wouldn't launch every nuke they have on us if we ever used one against them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 4:28:48 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i just have a hard time imagining something like an abrams sitting still long enough for something like the ABL to take 30 minutes to burn a hole through its armor. They'd have to become much more powerful, and several orders of magnitude more efficient. Either that or our energy generation ability would need to jump 300 years into the future before you could use them very offensively I would think. Maybe if every plane had a mister fusion in the cockpit. They worked well on ballistic missiles because they follow a predictable path and have mm thick skin and their fuel is incredibly volatile, and artillery shells are packed with tnt. This ranks up there with the stupid kinetic bombardment threads that get brought up once a year where everyone thinks its a great idea to haul a 300,000 lb tungsten telephone pole into orbit atop a saturn v. Because its not nuclear.... which means that russia or china wouldn't launch every nuke they have on us if we ever used one against them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Direct fire weapons are worthless. I learn something new every day. They worked well on ballistic missiles because they follow a predictable path and have mm thick skin and their fuel is incredibly volatile, and artillery shells are packed with tnt. This ranks up there with the stupid kinetic bombardment threads that get brought up once a year where everyone thinks its a great idea to haul a 300,000 lb tungsten telephone pole into orbit atop a saturn v. Because its not nuclear.... which means that russia or china wouldn't launch every nuke they have on us if we ever used one against them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 4:30:02 PM EDT
[#30]
Exactly how would it be a generator? Wouldn't it have to turn?
That means doors open....in full speed forward flight. I'm going to go with BS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 4:33:26 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How long would it take to burn out its optics? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 4:38:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are looking at it more as a counter measure system which is the only real merit they have I think. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How long would it take to burn out its optics? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 4:41:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was a 747, it was a chemical laser instead of solid state, and it's beer cans now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 4:59:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i just have a hard time imagining something like an abrams sitting still long enough for something like the ABL to take 30 minutes to burn a hole through its armor. They'd have to become much more powerful, and several orders of magnitude more efficient. Either that or our energy generation ability would need to jump 300 years into the future before you could use them very offensively I would think. Maybe if every plane had a mister fusion in the cockpit. They worked well on ballistic missiles because they follow a predictable path and have mm thick skin and their fuel is incredibly volatile, and artillery shells are packed with tnt. This ranks up there with the stupid kinetic bombardment threads that get brought up once a year where everyone thinks its a great idea to haul a 300,000 lb tungsten telephone pole into orbit atop a saturn v. Because its not nuclear.... which means that russia or china wouldn't launch every nuke they have on us if we ever used one against them. Compared to fiber lasers, the ABL chemical laser was a Rube Goldberg contraption. It's like ancient one-pixel and spinning rotor wheel missile seekers vs an imaging array. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:01:47 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
directed energy weapons are fucking retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:02:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: chemical laser size and weigh makes it a dead end for portable weapons systems. The AF is pouring shit tons of money into laser diode research. If that follows LED technology's progress over the past decade we're going to see some powerful solid state lasers debuted in the next few years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:10:16 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The majority of energy is lost . Highly inefficient.And they can’t shoot into or out of defilade so they are worthless beyond point defense. The last part will never change. If they were more efficient they may have more utility but very tactical and limited in scope. You aren’t going to vaporize a city or artillery pos with one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: When the tech improves to the point that they can intercept ballistic shells and hypersonic missiles you may change your tune. The tech just isn't quite there yet. The volume of space required to store energy seems to be a major hangup right now... Of all things that ARF hates, the push for electric cars could end up cracking that nut. The last part will never change. If they were more efficient they may have more utility but very tactical and limited in scope. You aren’t going to vaporize a city or artillery pos with one. Your comment against direct fire is silly. Tell us more about how these newfangled aeroplanes will never hurt a battleship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:15:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The majority of energy that an M4 Carbine or M61 Vulcan generates isn't transferred to target either. Your comment against direct fire is silly. Tell us more about how these newfangled aeroplanes will never hurt a battleship. how do you shoot a battle ship over the horizon with a ray gun. the last thread had guys talking about using blimps and mirrors |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:26:32 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A 1MW heat ray style laser (IIRC ABL was 1-3MW) is enough to melt through the roof armor in less than a minute - comparable to AGTM or bomb flight time. No vehicle is going to "dodge" modern adaptive optics. Compared to fiber lasers, the ABL chemical laser was a Rube Goldberg contraption. It's like ancient one-pixel and spinning rotor wheel missile seekers vs an imaging array. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:27:49 PM EDT
[#40]
Energy is quickly lost through atmosphere (absorption, reflection, beam waste, inverse square law)....
Until they figure out a way around that, directed energy weapons on relatively low flying aircraft are stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:29:45 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i pointed out their inability to to perform indirect fire as one of their biggest weaknesses, because it is. how do you shoot a battle ship over the horizon with a ray gun. the last thread had guys talking about using blimps and mirrors Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The majority of energy that an M4 Carbine or M61 Vulcan generates isn't transferred to target either. Your comment against direct fire is silly. Tell us more about how these newfangled aeroplanes will never hurt a battleship. how do you shoot a battle ship over the horizon with a ray gun. the last thread had guys talking about using blimps and mirrors "It can't replace both the Phalanx CIWS and Minuteman ICBM, it's worthless!" --- You, 2018. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:31:01 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Energy is quickly lost through atmosphere (absorption, reflection, beam waste, inverse square law).... Until they figure out a way around that, directed energy weapons on relatively low flying aircraft are stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:33:15 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Strawman argument that has nothing to do with the question at hand. "It can't replace both the Phalanx CIWS and Minuteman ICBM, it's worthless!" --- You, 2018.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:33:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Lasers aren't the future.
It's plasma and other forms of energy that can be propelled. Proton torpedos! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:34:59 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Strawman argument that has nothing to do with the question at hand. "It can't replace both the Phalanx CIWS and Minuteman ICBM, it's worthless!" --- You, 2018. right back at you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:35:20 PM EDT
[#46]
how do you imagine a laser weapon system employed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:35:43 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Inverse square law doesn't really apply to a focused beam, but thanks for playing. Show me a laser with zero beam divergence.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:36:16 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're the guy arguing about line of sight and inability to melt cities in a thread about putting a laser on a fighter jet. right back at you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:36:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
how do you imagine a laser weapon system employed. Well, blinding sensors first, but we're already there, so... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2018 5:40:21 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lasers are not “perfect” beams... so it does. Show me a laser with zero beam divergence.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Inverse square law doesn't really apply to a focused beam, but thanks for playing. Show me a laser with zero beam divergence.. The inverse square law is much more applicable to unfocused energy releases, like bombs, nukes, stars, non-directional antennas. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
