6th gen fighters

a reply to: Borys

They probably will have two 6th gens in the works, the FA-XX and the F-X. The Air Force and the Navy won't go into it together like the F-35 and might have very different requirements of their birds that call for very different proposals.

a reply to: Sammamishman

You should be a PAO. That's quite the gift for understatement you have. Ha.

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: pteridine

The IRFP hasn't been released yet but from what I've read it will still be a primarily a manned platform.

Manned platforms will eliminate a vulnerable control link at the expense of performance. This says that satellites are all vulnerable to shootdown. I suspect that there may be LOS control of high performance drones by subsonic stealth craft.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: pteridine

The IRFP hasn't been released yet but from what I've read it will still be a primarily a manned platform.

I suspect that there may be LOS control of high performance drones by subsonic stealth craft.

That would be a safe conjecture. They might, like the LRS, ask for a manned and un-manned version in the RFIP that could be slaved to the manned jet but again, it will come down to cost and whether the future economic conditions allows it.

a reply to: Sammamishman

The FA-XX and F-X will probably be different birds: much has been learned from the F-35 program. They will have some common weapons and engines, at a guess, but not a lot more. I also bet both are two seaters again: this is something Zaph and I disagree on though.

The navy will probably like Northrop's concept: they've already made a lot of noise to that effect.

The air force will probably go with something fast. The interesting bit will be how much they give up speed vs maneuverability. Give up on the latter, some, you can go faster and be bigger for more fuel, range, etc.

I want to emphasize again to folks that long range lasers carried by 'fighters' will really, really change how we do air battles. During the first Gulf War, an general stated, "If you can see it, you can kill it." Once laser weapons are in the air, the phrase will become "If you can see it, its dead." (at least for aircraft)

Interestingly, I *think*, if you have an aircraft designed for hypersonic speed, so long as you are going subsonic, the thermal protection systems may just protect the bird from continuous wave lasers. However, if you're going hypersonic speeds, the CW lasers would give enough additional thermal load to take out the aircraft. I'm unsure about pulsed lasers though: their kill mechanism is rather different than the CW lasers.

a reply to: anzha
There is no question on it , for a fighter you need the supersonic capability, you need going on the battelfield in a short time. To catch fighter penetrate ypu own territory you need to go supersonic to intercept the ennemy no matter if you have laser weapon , the range of the laser is less of a hundred of kilometers so you need to go in the area of the fighter in a short time , just the supersonic capability procure it.

I wonder how many satellites already have these or worse?

a reply to: Sammamishman

If they can share engines, basic radar and EW suites, central computers and fair bit of software encoding (that's an ever increasing cost of an aircraft) and other gear, then costs could be reasonable, perhaps allowing for two platforms to be affordable.

The one thing I wonder about is if the US will be willing to sell these premium platforms to allies. The F-22 is so damn good its, well too good for anyone else. But with Russia and especially China making strides, then there may be a need to loosen the tech leash a little, at least with the basic airframe and some tech.

a reply to: darksidius

Bull crap. You will find that most fighters out there don't go supersonic at any point in a fight.

Once again, supersonic means less time in a target area. The faster you go the less fuel you have. The less fuel you have the faster you're out of a fight and heading for a tanker or home. The faster you're out of a fight, the more aircraft needed to do the same thing.

a reply to: Borys

If they have some of the tech they are rumored to want on them, I think they'll be banned from export like the F-22's were.
They only way I see that not happening is if they use other countries for funding sources like the F-35 program. If they do, they might get watered down versions of the aircraft but that will make a hard sell to get the interest in the program they'd want to really keep domestic costs down.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The Navy is openly talking about a need for an Tomcat replacement now. Not just a Rhino replacement. The FA-XX is intended to be a the latter.

For a pure interceptor, I could see the need for speed. OTOH, I would argue (and have) they ought to do something different.

a reply to: anzha

Range is just as important. Give it a long range missile, with the sensor fusion they're looking at and speed becomes far less important.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Sammamishman

The FA-XX and F-X will probably be different birds: much has been learned from the F-35 program. They will have some common weapons and engines, at a guess, but not a lot more. I also bet both are two seaters again: this is something Zaph and I disagree on though.

The navy will probably like Northrop's concept: they've already made a lot of noise to that effect.

The air force will probably go with something fast. The interesting bit will be how much they give up speed vs maneuverability. Give up on the latter, some, you can go faster and be bigger for more fuel, range, etc.

Interestingly, I *think*, if you have an aircraft designed for hypersonic speed, so long as you are going subsonic, the thermal protection systems may just protect the bird from continuous wave lasers. However, if you're going hypersonic speeds, the CW lasers would give enough additional thermal load to take out the aircraft. I'm unsure about pulsed lasers though: their kill mechanism is rather different than the CW lasers.

Lasers need to couple to a surface to transfer energy. Paint is excellent for such energy transfer. Will we have very reflective aircraft or shaped reflective tiles? Reconciling stealth and anti-laser coatings may make for some tough decisions.

a reply to: anzha

There's always something hiding in the black world.

You don't have DARPA size budgets without there bein' a little somethin' somethin' in the works. Now what it is? I certainly can't claim to know...and probably would know it if I saw it.

a reply to: pteridine


"Will we have very reflective aircraft or shaped reflective tiles? Reconciling stealth and anti-laser coatings may make for some tough decisions."

- metamaterials.

a reply to: pteridine

ok. I gotta stop this meme here. Reflective coatings have been tested already by the USAF against continuous wave lasers. They don't work. They even tried the spinning cylinder trick. Again. Doesn't work.

The reasons are multiple.

1. The mirrors are almost never perfect. Pits from sand, dust, etc or even dust, water, etc that stick to the skin of a reflector will convey heat. CW lasers are about conveying as much heat energy into the target as possible to cause the target to melt, cook off, catch fire, etc. Pulsed lasers are about evaporating a thin layer on the target to cause shock damage through a mini explosion. They are actually pretty stunning for what they do.

2. The mirrors have to be set for VERY specific wavelengths to work even close to perfectly: the mirrors for the laser in the beam director (or pointer tracker system), are meant for that wavelength. You don't get it exactly right - assuming a monochromatic laser - and you get heat dumped into you. Oops. You tune for one laser and a different one will get you easily.

3. Lasers are not monochromatic. Ideally, yes. Reality, no. They have a peak energy at a particular wavelength, but also deposit energy in lesser amounts in other wavelengths. This mucks with targets, too.

Its actually better to have something like the shuttle tiles that can take lots of heat and then get out of the way of the laser with your remaining eye. ahem.

Source: Me. I used to work on high energy lasers at white sands.

What about a stealthy swing wing design, tucked for supersonic, small green getaway juice tank.

I've just been on the Superman escape ride, how the hell a navy pilot can think straight on a 4g acceleration, take my hat off.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: pteridine

Source: Me. I used to work on high energy lasers at white sands.

Always good to hear from an expert.

Have you read anything about the 'coherent perfect absorption' phenomenon ??
en.wikipedia.org...

This
eprints.soton.ac.uk...

seems (from a none expert perspective) to be saying you could tune metamaterials to become an "anti laser" using some sort of weird time hack??

Forget reflecting and just absorb.
Maybe even dual purpose the material for offensive capabilities ( Laser/Anti laser in one skin/emitter)

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: pteridine

ok. I gotta stop this meme here. Reflective coatings have been tested already by the USAF against continuous wave lasers. They don't work. They even tried the spinning cylinder trick. Again. Doesn't work.

The reasons are multiple.

1. The mirrors are almost never perfect. Pits from sand, dust, etc or even dust, water, etc that stick to the skin of a reflector will convey heat. CW lasers are about conveying as much heat energy into the target as possible to cause the target to melt, cook off, catch fire, etc. Pulsed lasers are about evaporating a thin layer on the target to cause shock damage through a mini explosion. They are actually pretty stunning for what they do.

2. The mirrors have to be set for VERY specific wavelengths to work even close to perfectly: the mirrors for the laser in the beam director (or pointer tracker system), are meant for that wavelength. You don't get it exactly right - assuming a monochromatic laser - and you get heat dumped into you. Oops. You tune for one laser and a different one will get you easily.

3. Lasers are not monochromatic. Ideally, yes. Reality, no. They have a peak energy at a particular wavelength, but also deposit energy in lesser amounts in other wavelengths. This mucks with targets, too.

Its actually better to have something like the shuttle tiles that can take lots of heat and then get out of the way of the laser with your remaining eye. ahem.

Source: Me. I used to work on high energy lasers at white sands.

Thanks for the reply. Does it mean that the energies are so high that reflection doesn't matter at all or that it helps but not enough to offset the downside of not being radar stealthy? It would seem that the radar antireflective coatings might couple very well with laser energy as does white paint. Apparently, as weapons and sensors go simultaneously to multiple wavelengths, the problem becomes complicated. We may see silica tiles overlaying radar absorbent materials or a combined version. Plan B may be to design aircraft with redundant ablative structures for lasers to eat.
The pulsed version, which causes scabbing on the backsides of skin materials by shockwave generation may be a bigger problem, yet, because secondary projectiles are hard to plan for.

a reply to: Sammamishman

I guess it comes down to simply "How much breakthrough tech do we want, how much is it all going to cost, how much of this can we do ourselves over what time, what are we willing to give away and to whom are we willing to sell". Tough and very expensive questions.

The scary thing is if its only the US who will buy these planes, the per unit cost will be huge. But if the British, Australians, Canadians and perhaps the Japanese and Sth Koreans can be trusted with at least some of the technology, then its more high tech American jobs for maybe 40+ years total (development and support) and lower average costs. By then, hopefully everyone will have forgotten what happened to those Iranian F-14s when the Shah fell...