What if airpower became obsolete?

[Marko Dash]

Lets say that for some reason, such as lasers becoming widely used, that modern air power is no longer feasible. For the situation proposed, lets say that these lasers can quickly target and destroy lightly armored threats like aircraft and missiles, but lack the punch required to do anything more than scorch heavy armor.

How would this affect the way modern wars are fought? Would we see tanks and battleships become the weapons of choice? Would the infantry man become obsolete as well?

[SeeingRed]

Lets say that for some reason, such as lasers becoming widely used, that modern air power is no longer feasible. For the situation proposed, lets say that these lasers can quickly target and destroy lightly armored threats like aircraft and missiles, but lack the punch required to do anything more than scorch heavy armor.

How would this affect the way modern wars are fought? Would we see tanks and battleships become the weapons of choice? Would the infantry man become obsolete as well?

It would just mean that sea power would become even more important than it already is, along with whatever mechanism is used to deploy this new technology that made air power obsolete in the first place.

To use your example, if the lasers can scorch heavy armor, the easiest place to beef up armor to the point where the lasers can't hurt it too much would be on naval vessels, I would think. Also, wouldn't a technology like that favour small, fast-moving machines that could potentially escape having the laser energy concentrated on it for whatever length of time is necessary to do damage?

[CJvR]

No even perfected laser systems would not make infantry, aircraft and missiles obsolete. Lasers are restricted to a LOS firing arc, a distinct disadvantage.

Stealth would defeat Laser defences and even if most modern missiles would be obsolete it would be relatively easy to design missiles that are not even if it will cost them some payload.

[Knife]

Until you find a way to own a chunk of ground, you can't get rid of infantry. As far as airpower is concerned, you'd just be switching to orbital power, and in essence the same thing.

[Patrick Degan]

The other problem with this idea is that you could never have enough lasers to equal large numbers of deployable aircraft. Lasers are expensive, require lots of onboard fuel, and are limited by their orbital periods (if we're talking about spaceborne weapons) over the battlezone. The same money would buy you a dozen fighter planes.

If we're talking about ground-based lasers, they're limited to LOS and atmospheric attenuation, and it's cheaper to build enough missiles to saturate the laser defence. Or fighters.

[K. A. Pital]

If we envision the suppression of light aerial power (reasons are irrelevant even if unrealistic - lasers can't realistically supress the usage of light aerial power, there will be heavy aerial power to rise in it's place. Heavily armored aerial "battleships" in the form of massive heavy helicopters and planes, etc.

[defanatic]

I think everyone is missing the point here. The question was if, for whatever reason (e.g. LASERs, or anything else you can think of), airpower became obselete, how would wars have been changed?

[CJvR]

Well if you have something powerful enough to do that then you will basically reduce warfare to a direct fire clash along the frontlines. No aircraft, no missiles, no artillery & certainly no orbital weapons platforms. At sea subs would be the norm perhaps backed by a few gunboats.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

If, theoretically, airpower was eliminated as a threat (through the deployment of x number of Deus Ex Machina that cost all of twelve cents a piece)
then ground combat would not shift drastically. More weight would be placed on artillery and thats just about it.

[phongn]

If we envision the suppression of light aerial power (reasons are irrelevant even if unrealistic - lasers can't realistically supress the usage of light aerial power, there will be heavy aerial power to rise in it's place. Heavily armored aerial "battleships" in the form of massive heavy helicopters and planes, etc.

I don't think you could armor it enough to make a difference, and even if you could the mass penalty will make the targets much more vulnerable to battlefield SAMs.

If we're talking about ground-based lasers, they're limited to LOS and atmospheric attenuation, and it's cheaper to build enough missiles to saturate the laser defence. Or fighters.

Well, it certainly would make strike planning rather harder if you could have reasonably cheap yet effective battlefield laser AA. Even basic artillery attacks would have to have sophisticated planning to ensure that enough damage is done.