I find that many ideas proposed in SF like force fields to be rather extremely energy inefficient. For defense for example, it would be better to detect any incoming particle then knock it off with a direct energy blast.

Direct energy weapons are energy inefficient, subject to medium attenuation and the inverse square law. For this reason, projectile based weapons are far more efficient because a projectile or missile is able to ‘conserve’ energy into a package, and you can manipulate this package to the target with better accuracy. Thus in my view, the ‘future’ weapon is the electromagnetic railgun. Set in orbiting stations in space, large rail guns would snipe at anything they can see below, from air fields to cities to army bases. The aliens would have missiles too, just like us, except a lot smarter, more agile and energy efficient. Add to that would be the ability to jam or EMP anything that would use radar or electronics.

Force fields would be rudimentary for high-speed interplanetary travel (high speed meaning get to Jupiter in a matter of days) in the frame of general relativity, where the velocities are so high that particle clouds or space dust can make significant damage on the vessel’s structure through continuous exposure. Something to tighten the hull or to reflect the stuff.

In any case, direct energy weapons are energy inefficient now, because we cannot harvest large quantities of energy from low quantities of matter. With current rates of antimatter production, it’s only suitable for further research. In mid-term future, will get there too. With two kilograms of fuel you get 47MeV energy. The main disadvantage of railguns is that their power is somewhat proportional to their size. EM field strength inside a solenoid cored coil is proportional to the number of turns and solenoid dimensions. Besides, if we look at both matter-antimatter annihilation and nuclear fusion reaction, main products of both are high-energy gamma-ray photons (reffering to low-rate subatomic particle annihilation, faster rates with true atoms/counterparts produce heavier particles due to enough mass-energy). Channeling those high energy photons / particles in form of directed energy weapon would be more efficient than converting that energy to electric energy, then converting it to electromagnetic energy inside the coil, and then converting EM energy to kinetic energy.

Yet again, there is EM saturation, meaning you would need HUGE railgun with huge exotic solenoid to avoid saturation and to convert only a portion of 47MeV to kinetic energy for the payload. I’m sure that DEW would be smaller and more efficient. If you think that my referent number of 47MeV is excessive, it maybe somewhat, but it’s less than Tzar Bomba’s energy output. That kind of yield and destruction might be just average for futuristical technology and physical proportions of the domain (outer space).

Missiles (projectiles) are a somewhat of a same story. Range, in a way we perceive it today, is not important since it’s infinite because there is negligible drag/resistance in vacuum (in theory, if we rule of the gravitational effects of near-by celestial bodies). Personally, i don’t think that self-propelled missiles would be efficient. They should get their speed and initial kinetics from the powered launch vehicle (railgun would do well here). All onboard power or fuel should be used for manuevering. No drag, no energy loss (in aviation terms), hence you don’t lose speed while doing acrobatics. It’s just a simple matter of fuel and efficiency.

IMHO, the best way would be to use DEWs for close action, launch-boosted projectiles for longer action. Still the problem lies in how to be efficient while producing energy. We mastered nuclear fission, yet we still need to use shafts to convert it to usable form. Missing link would be fictional “dilithium” from Star Trek. Some kind of structure that can absorb and channel large amounts of photon-based energy.

Well our known laws of physics prevent us from traveling faster than ‘C’ in real space…

Not true. Laws of physics prevent objects with mass traveling larger faster than C, but they don’t prevent whole regions of spacetime with mass contained inside traveling larger than C. Google “Miguel Alcubierre”. If i wanted to explain in one sentence, it would be “supercavitation, it’s just that medium isn’t water, it’s STC, and it’s wholla lot more complicated and problematic”.

It’s rudimentary for FTL travel to get outside of bonds of special relativity (where you need log-increasing energy to get near C to “harvest” the advantages of time dilation), and get inside quantum mechanics.

It might be insanely out of our capability proportions, but there are some valid (for now) theories.

Su-27. It might not be responsive and fiercy as smaller fighters (Mirage, F-16, MiG-29), but it can maintain high AoA without it’s energy bleeding all over the place. And it can probably stay three times longer in action with full afterburners on.

Of course. India will sell their Su-30MKIs in the process of turning it’s back to the Russia. 🙂

Could happen with any conflict if a plane gets shot down. Besides, the SH isn’t exactly special the way the F-22 or F-35 are. And I don’t think there will be an open armed conflict in the next decade.

So, I still wouldn’t be surprised if the SH went there. F-16 seems just as possible to me though, and as I said: I think it depends on how much the US really want to commit to this.

That’s the reason why U.S. sold severely downgraded articles to some countries (Saudi Arabia comes to mind). Georgia (whole of Kavkaz) is a highly volatile zone. They could be in NATO, receive F-18, and then on next elections a pro-Russian government could come to power. That would give Russians an opportunity to examine those planes first hand.

Super Hornet doesn’t have anything that Russians aren’t able to produce. However, seeing communication, computer and fire control systems first hand would be quite of advantage.

Keep in mind if Russia attacked Gerogian airbases from standoff with surface to surface missiles, base would be wasted and abandoned but some aircraft could be left intact (or almost) intact in mountain sheltered hangars and such. Same thing happened to Serbia 1999. I think there was a Tomahawk strike on one airfield in Montenegro, base was wasted, personnel escaped, but serveral intact craft were found sheltered nearby. They were Soko G-4 Super Seagulls.

Yet again, i don’t see any reasoning in fancy weaponry orders for Georgian Army. Even if they got F-22’s, the quantity they could operate plus the size of their country and the distances between airbases would render them useless. Half of them would be destroyed on the ground, other half wouldn’t even manage to take-off properly and they’d find themselves in WVR combat against Flankers or whatever, outgunning them XY:1.

It’s not the matter of getting good aircraft, same thing would happen if they got BF-109. It’s matter of numbers, power and strategical planning.

Besides, Russia now fought with T-72s and T-80s, infantryman, Frogfoots, Hinds and Tochkas. If Georgia managed to modernize their army and have true airforce, Russia would drag big guns in and they’d have same result.

Having said that, investing in a true fighter would really be nonsense. Like i already said, bringing morale, equipment and capability to their ground forces would be top priority. Second priority would be capable low and mid ranged netcentric portable A2A systems. They are more likely to face Abkhazian and South Ossetian infantry, tanks, Hinds and Frogfoots, than VVS Flankers or Tupolevs.

What Sakasvili needs to see is that Abkhazia and Ossetia aren’t going to be Georgian anytime soon and that his military initiative just made a worse situation. Georgia needs to take care of it’s people right now, not it’s army. They can be open to the west, western capital and investment, and still not be part of the NATO. They need to stabilize their own state, and when the living standard jumps highly above those of renegade regions, the unionist support in those regions will surely rise.

There are few Kavkaz and adjacent countries which are making a helluva economic progress by smart politics, neither they’re allied with the West, and neither they are allied with Russia. Go figure.

They have a duly elected government that won office in a legitimate electoral process (unlike Russia unfortunately)

Mind backing up that stupid claim with non-biased data? As far as i know, there have been minor errors observed by non-government agencies, but nothing out of the domain of normal elections in a democratical state.

You don’t like their leaders, majority (and a big majority) of Russians do. Tough **** for you.

They’ll have F-16s, then they will push again, and then in matter of three days they won’t have F-16s.

What’s the point?

You’d need hundreds of those Falcons to become a serious threat to the VVS. And keep in mind that Georgia is a very small country. If they even had 1000 F-16s, half of ’em would have been destroyed on the ground in the first campaign day by long-range standoff strikes from air and surface-to-surface missiles.

First thing that Georgia needs to do is to reassemble it’s basic military assets. Ground personnel and armor. They have been left demoralized and scattered in a four day war.