USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

[starviking]

But the trials and certification and training will still take time before you reach IOC. Roper is talking about rapid fleet changes, you might only just be getting the bugs ironed out of the F-37A before your churning out the F-38 and starting all over from scratch.

I guess it depends on what's under the hood, computing-wise. If the plane can take user inputs, and instead of just performing them, gives them what they want - that could cut down things like certification when such systems are mature.

 

[marauder2048]

Trouble is what if it doesn't work out cheaper?

It's been acknowledged that it won't be.

“You want the cost of ownership to be roughly the same, but change the flow of that money, so maybe more up front,” Brown said

 

[Cordy]

USAF Roper looking options for reducing demand on tankers the due to their vulnerability, "how to solve a yawning gap between refueling capacity and operational need for inflight refueling, especially at the forward edge of a ring of contested airspace, where large and, for now, relatively defenseless aircraft such as the KC-46 are most vulnerable."

1. New fighter is designed to carry more fuel.
2. Micro tankers,
3. Small and stealthy tanker
4. A larger aircraft than the KC-46 that could carry more fuel but needs to stay farther away from potential threats
5. Weaponizing the Boeing KC-46 fleet

Thoughts on option option 1. New fighter is designed to carry more fuel.

From <https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...m=email&elq2=14f3279d99ec476caeaeb322a20d5021>

 

[bring_it_on]

It comes down to performance, capability and cost. Unless you make a generational leap in efficiency you are still trading size and performance for cost. So sure, all things constant, you could design a larger fighter for more range and push the limits of pilot endurance (in the fighter context). But then you better be prepared to pay a lot more for it especially so if you desire similar to F-22 level of supersonic performance and envelope and have a set number of sorties you want to generate.

 

[Josh_TN]

Well one issue that the USAF is going to have is that it doesn't employ probe and drogue refueling. Putting a boom on a small or stealthy tanker is probably difficult and results in a lot of dead weight on a small airframe. The cheapest option that comes to mind is make fighters dual capable of boom or drogue and adopt the MQ-25 off the shelf. Cost effective, potentially expendable small tanker. Longer term one might want to explore a drone that doesn't use podded systems such that it could be made with a lower RCS. Something like an X47B only with the bomb bay area filled with the fueling equipment.

 

[Josh_TN]

At some point in the KC-46's lifetime I think it will see hard kill defensive laser installed.

 

[marauder2048]

Well one issue that the USAF is going to have is that it doesn't employ probe and drogue refueling. Putting a boom on a small or stealthy tanker is probably difficult and results in a lot of dead weight on a small airframe. The cheapest option that comes to mind is make fighters dual capable of boom or drogue and adopt the MQ-25 off the shelf. Cost effective, potentially expendable small tanker. Longer term one might want to explore a drone that doesn't use podded systems such that it could be made with a lower RCS. Something like an X47B only with the bomb bay area filled with the fueling equipment.

Given the glacial fuel offload rates from the buddy refueling pod on the MQ-25, large aircraft (including big fighter) refueling would take forever.

 

[Josh_TN]

Well one issue that the USAF is going to have is that it doesn't employ probe and drogue refueling. Putting a boom on a small or stealthy tanker is probably difficult and results in a lot of dead weight on a small airframe. The cheapest option that comes to mind is make fighters dual capable of boom or drogue and adopt the MQ-25 off the shelf. Cost effective, potentially expendable small tanker. Longer term one might want to explore a drone that doesn't use podded systems such that it could be made with a lower RCS. Something like an X47B only with the bomb bay area filled with the fueling equipment.

Given the glacial fuel offload rates from the buddy refueling pod on the MQ-25, large aircraft (including big fighter) refueling would take forever.

It would have the advantage of being an off the shelf, if sub optimal, solution. If its good enough for F-35Cs, presumably it will work with F-35As. But I think a dedicated low RCS drone is probably a better idea. Either way, it would hinge on future fighters being probed.

 

[marauder2048]

If its good enough for F-35Cs

It's not. It was designed for the Super Hornet. That's been part of the criticism.
But I don't argue that activating the probe volume on the F-35A and acquiring on the MQ-25 would be the
fastest way to realize better resiliency.

 

[trose213]

Well one issue that the USAF is going to have is that it doesn't employ probe and drogue refueling. Putting a boom on a small or stealthy tanker is probably difficult and results in a lot of dead weight on a small airframe. The cheapest option that comes to mind is make fighters dual capable of boom or drogue and adopt the MQ-25 off the shelf. Cost effective, potentially expendable small tanker. Longer term one might want to explore a drone that doesn't use podded systems such that it could be made with a lower RCS. Something like an X47B only with the bomb bay area filled with the fueling equipment.

Given the glacial fuel offload rates from the buddy refueling pod on the MQ-25, large aircraft (including big fighter) refueling would take forever.

Or they'll put a boom on the MQ-25.

 

[Sundog]

They're already talking about A2A weapons systems on the KC-46 for self defense. They haven't revealed how they would mount the targeting system(s). I assume in pods.

 

[sublight_]

At some point in the KC-46's lifetime I think it will see hard kill defensive laser installed.

Yes, and becomes defenseless when flying in clouds.

 

[TomS]

At some point in the KC-46's lifetime I think it will see hard kill defensive laser installed.

Yes, and becomes defenseless when flying in clouds.

Because no one ever took that into consideration when designing a high-energy laser system.

For example: https://newatlas.com/boeing-laser-directed-energy-weapon-fog/33672/

 

[Josh_TN]

If its good enough for F-35Cs

It's not. It was designed for the Super Hornet. That's been part of the criticism.
But I don't argue that activating the probe volume on the F-35A and acquiring on the MQ-25 would be the
fastest way to realize better resiliency.

Is the issue that the F-35 takes on fuel more slowly than F-18 or that it carries more fuel? If the problem is the latter, presumably the Block III hornets will have a similar issue.

 

[Josh_TN]

At some point in the KC-46's lifetime I think it will see hard kill defensive laser installed.

Yes, and becomes defenseless when flying in clouds.

Because no one ever took that into consideration when designing a high-energy laser system.

For example: https://newatlas.com/boeing-laser-directed-energy-weapon-fog/33672/

More over a tanker can pretty much pick its operating altitude; it doesn't have to match a targets altitude or weapon envelope. So much like a civilian airliner, it can probably operate above significant weather in its refueling track. It looks like the SHiELD program is having some technical problems, but presumably at some point something like it could be retrofitted to a large, unstealthy aircraft.

 

[marauder2048]

If its good enough for F-35Cs

It's not. It was designed for the Super Hornet. That's been part of the criticism.
But I don't argue that activating the probe volume on the F-35A and acquiring on the MQ-25 would be the
fastest way to realize better resiliency.

Is the issue that the F-35 takes on fuel more slowly than F-18 or that it carries more fuel? If the problem is the latter, presumably the Block III hornets will have a similar issue.

It's the internal fuel issue. CBARS was conceived before the Block III program back when the Navy thought they weren't getting
anymore Super Hornet milkcows.

 

[marauder2048]

At some point in the KC-46's lifetime I think it will see hard kill defensive laser installed.

Yes, and becomes defenseless when flying in clouds.

Because no one ever took that into consideration when designing a high-energy laser system.

For example: https://newatlas.com/boeing-laser-directed-energy-weapon-fog/33672/

More over a tanker can pretty much pick its operating altitude; it doesn't have to match a targets altitude or weapon envelope. So much like a civilian airliner, it can probably operate above significant weather in its refueling track.

The larger issue is that the MLDs will be impacted by weather so the tanker needs to be networked to take cues from assets
that have unobstructed views. Or they need to go for some type of RF missile launch/missile tracking scheme.

 

[Firefinder]

At some point in the KC-46's lifetime I think it will see hard kill defensive laser installed.

Yes, and becomes defenseless when flying in clouds.

Because no one ever took that into consideration when designing a high-energy laser system.

For example: https://newatlas.com/boeing-laser-directed-energy-weapon-fog/33672/

More over a tanker can pretty much pick its operating altitude; it doesn't have to match a targets altitude or weapon envelope. So much like a civilian airliner, it can probably operate above significant weather in its refueling track.

The larger issue is that the MLDs will be impacted by weather so the tanker needs to be networked to take cues from assets
that have unobstructed views. Or they need to go for some type of RF missile launch/missile tracking scheme.

Can the Tankers even do their primary job, refuel planes, in anything other then clear weather?

IRCC they cant do to safety reasons its likely one of those trade offs where while it is an issue.

It can be plan around and if it happens someone fuck up somewhere. So they not doing it so they dont have to spend more money.

Which knowing the 4 Laws of Planing.
Make the plan
Execute the plan
Expect the plan to go off the rails
Throw away the plan.

its going to happen at least once.

 

[Flyaway]

Seems to be some pretty spurious logic at work in this article as regards supporting their central assertion.

We Could See the Air Force's Secret New Fighter Jet Very Soon

Here's how the presidential election could force everyone's hands.

www.popularmechanics.com

 

[sferrin]

At some point in the KC-46's lifetime I think it will see hard kill defensive laser installed.

Yes, and becomes defenseless when flying in clouds.

And that's worse than being defenseless all the time because. . .?

 

[fredymac]

The whole DIRCM market has been rendered useless under that observation. Hard kill lasers are just DIRCM's with enough watts to do more than blind or fry an IR sensor. I would guess they will find as much utility as laser guided bombs and IR seeking missiles.

 

[marauder2048]

The whole DIRCM market has been rendered useless under that observation. Hard kill lasers are just DIRCM's with enough watts to do more than blind or fry an IR sensor. I would guess they will find as much utility as laser guided bombs and IR seeking missiles.

But I think a central assumption for DIRCM is that they are facing LOBL IR missiles.

IOW, they can see your aircraft but you can see their missile launch which in turn gives the
DIRCM system enough time to slew, acquire, track and laze the missile.

If you are facing something like say an AIM-9X Block II threat where they can LOAL from
under cloud cover and the radar uplinks the aircraft position to the IR Seeker you
are going to be facing a *much* more compressed timeline.

 

[Moose]

Seems to be some pretty spurious logic at work in this article as regards supporting their central assertion.

We Could See the Air Force's Secret New Fighter Jet Very Soon

Here's how the presidential election could force everyone's hands.

www.popularmechanics.com

Some of the conclusions are a bit wonky, I've read better from Kyle. That said, I agree with the notion that the services(s) will need to show more, a lot more, before legislators will be willing to open the taps. But that's true regardless of the current political drama. Unless one side or the other makes it a campaign plank, one candidate or the other is tied to some sort of corruption scandal involving the tech demonstrator's construction, or someone puts it in a campaign ad to show off, Congress matters more than the presidential election in this instance.

 

[fredymac]

The whole DIRCM market has been rendered useless under that observation. Hard kill lasers are just DIRCM's with enough watts to do more than blind or fry an IR sensor. I would guess they will find as much utility as laser guided bombs and IR seeking missiles.

But I think a central assumption for DIRCM is that they are facing LOBL IR missiles.

IOW, they can see your aircraft but you can see their missile launch which in turn gives the
DIRCM system enough time to slew, acquire, track and laze the missile.

If you are facing something like say an AIM-9X Block II threat where they can LOAL from
under cloud cover and the radar uplinks the aircraft position to the IR Seeker you
are going to be facing a *much* more compressed timeline.

I assume being radar tracked would let you know something bad is about to happen and let you get the system ready except for pointing direction. As for slew rate, I am going to guess something like a DIRCM can slew 45 deg/sec or faster (maybe much faster). Again, this all assumes you are on your own with no networked information giving you situational awareness. As I said, the DIRCM market speaks for itself.

 

[Firefinder]

The whole DIRCM market has been rendered useless under that observation. Hard kill lasers are just DIRCM's with enough watts to do more than blind or fry an IR sensor. I would guess they will find as much utility as laser guided bombs and IR seeking missiles.

But I think a central assumption for DIRCM is that they are facing LOBL IR missiles.

IOW, they can see your aircraft but you can see their missile launch which in turn gives the
DIRCM system enough time to slew, acquire, track and laze the missile.

If you are facing something like say an AIM-9X Block II threat where they can LOAL from
under cloud cover and the radar uplinks the aircraft position to the IR Seeker you
are going to be facing a *much* more compressed timeline.

I assume being radar tracked would let you know something bad is about to happen and let you get the system ready except for pointing direction. As for slew rate, I am going to guess something like a DIRCM can slew 45 deg/sec or faster (maybe much faster). Again, this all assumes you are on your own with no networked information giving you situational awareness. As I said, the DIRCM market speaks for itself.

That is assuming that the Radar cant be spoofed and the like.

Modern Fighters have more ECM gear in them then Desert Storm Era EWAR jets like the EF111 Raven did just to mess such tracking and the like for both Missile defense and offensive.

It very likely that you need a sensor fusion of IR, Radar and lords knows what else to ensure it at least 90% at all times in all weather.

The War of the Black boxes be strong in the next medium to big one....

 

[marauder2048]

I assume being radar tracked would let you know something bad is about to happen and let you get the system ready except for pointing direction. As for slew rate, I am going to guess something like a DIRCM can slew 45 deg/sec or faster (maybe much faster). Again, this all assumes you are on your own with no networked information giving you situational awareness. As I said, the DIRCM market speaks for itself.

The radar track quality required to put a commercial widebody within the field-of-view of an AIM-9X or similar IIR seeker is not all
that great; it might not even register as a fire-control quality track. Of course, there's nothing preventing the tanker from carrying
big on-board and off-board jammers.

This is data from navy DIRCM pod test from more than a decade ago; missile warning track is pretty much right
on top of the missile plume generation implying very clear conditions. The purple line is when the laser started jamming
so slew and other delay is implied there.

 

[fredymac]

There are a ton of scenarios you could postulate where the DIRCM has minimal warning but how many of them actually have historical backing? The same case was made prior to laser guided bombs being used in mass. The weather and enemy countermeasures would render them almost useless (hence the charge of rigged tests without real world considerations).

Modern DIRCMs are now probably (not sure) fiber laser based and can probably be turned on instantly. Slew rates for small gimbals can be made incredibly fast so the main thing is knowing where to point. Anything that bothers the DIRCM will also bother an IR seeking missile. The SHIELD laser is strong enough that it can "burn" through a lot more atmosphere and also go after radar guided missiles with a hard body kill.

Yes you can theorize scenarios where the DIRCM or any laser will be at a disadvantage but they will probably be a minor percentage of actual conditions. In those cases, air tasking plans would theoretically (if competent) arrange for local air superiority (I assuming we are talking about non stealth tankers or helicopters, etc).

 

[marauder2048]

There are a ton of scenarios you could postulate where the DIRCM has minimal warning but how many of them actually have historical backing?

How many LOAL, datalinked, IIR-guided SAMs have been fired at DIRCM equipped aircraft?

A reasonable threat SAM would look something like SM-2 Block IIIB.

The same case was made prior to laser guided bombs being used in mass. The weather and enemy countermeasures would render them almost useless (hence the charge of rigged tests without real world considerations).

JDAM was invented precisely because weather and countermeasures either intentional or unintentional did severely degrade LGBs.
LGBs (GBU-49, LJDAM, LSDB) have pretty gone dual-mode for the above reasons.

Anything that bothers the DIRCM will also bother an IR seeking missile.

It's easier for the missile designer to add more wavelengths to the the seeker than it is for the laser designer
to add greater spectral coverage while retaining good J/S.

But in the main, you are right; DEWS will ultimately rock the world of conventional infrared missiles.

But an unconventional seeker installation like SM-2 Block IIIB would require a very large laser spot
size to destroy the seeker since, IIRC, it's protected by a dome cover until handover which could be
very late.

So it becomes a question of how laser hardened you can make the rest of the missile and what the timelines are for the DEWS.
Which goes back to the DIRCM detection/declare/acquire lag time, the environment and DEWS power.

 

[Rhinocrates]

The Nearly Decade-long Story That Led To NGAD Flight Demonstrator | Aviation Week Network

How a massive budget cut, a DARPA program and a lengthy internal debate transformed the NGAD program.

aviationweek.com

That's a pretty good article by Steve Trimble, sticking to the facts

Arguably, the weapons that won the Battle of the Atlantic were the shipyards that built the Liberty Ships. If Roper's doctrine is to have multiple types of aircraft in a system, with quick, production, then the first priority is to prove a capacity to get new aircraft from PowerPoint to runway in time to respond to the changing strategic climate. This demonstrator may have all the aerodynamic and fighting qualities of an ice cream van, but the point will be to prove the digital design to manufacture process in quick time and low cost. Remember the joke that by 20XX the entire defence budget would pay for one plane, shared between the Air Force and Navy on alternate weekdays while the Marines had it on weekends? My bet is that the 'records' relate to time, cost and manufacturing flexibility. Other demonstrators will prove things like thermal management and lasers.

Looking at a broader policy, this article (https://www.defensenews.com/breakin...ll-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/), with this quote (I have to imagine there will be a lot of engineers — maybe famous ones with well-known household names with billions of dollars to invest — that will decide starting the world’s greatest aircraft company to build the world’s greatest aircraft with the Air Force is exactly the kind of inspiring thing they want to do as a hobby or even a main gig), linking to this article (https://www.defensenews.com/digital...-air-force-the-era-of-fighter-jets-is-ending/) is very significant in showing what Roper's thinking.

Things to note: Elon Musk really likes blowing things up. That is, he's really devoted to 'build a little, fly a little (and then test to destruction)'. That's an ethos that's come out of Silicon Valley for sure. It greatly frustrates computer and software buyers ('the fucking piece of shit fucking crashes every fucking day, fuck it!'), but rather than paralysis by analysis, you proceed into testing in the real world immediately and you're committed to perfecting the product because you're already invested in the game. I remember Ben Rich writing in his memoir that they should be building planes like Chevrolets rather than Cadillacs...

Seeing how Spacex has been aggressively willing and able to challenge Boeing/Lockmart/ULA on the launchpads and in court, vertically integrate and move fast with its launchers, Roper probably wants to light a fire under the traditional contractors by signalling that he's looking outside the usual club. Expect innovative outsiders like General Atomics to get more attention - remember, NGAD is not a platform, but a system.

There have long been concerns about maintaining an industrial base and having a system-focussed programme rather than a platform-focussed one allows the lesser players to remain viable.

In the future, I can imagine squadrons not being monolithic single-type groups, but Ocean's 11-like ensembles. Training them to work as teams will be a major challenge, along with an awareness of the pools of talent that's going to be available. This will affect recruitment policy. Expect ad campaigns aimed at gamers used to teams with druids and bards along with the usual fighters and so forth going on quests. This is what the NSA has been doing for years now.

In the meantime, most of the press will focus on individual items of hardware, completely missing the point.

 

[Zoomer]

Hello guys, I'm new to this forum. I have some questions about this project and I would really to help me:

1. I've seen pictures of this NGAD/PCA thing. It doesn't have a tail. It almost looks like a flying wing or a mini B-21 if you like. And it makes sense. You don't really need a tail for a 6th gen aircraft (idk, correct me if I'm wrong). We are talking about a super stealthy design and advanced sensors, so you are never going to be in a dogfight situation. Ofc you need speed but that what the new gen engines are for. My question is. Why did the Europeans decide to put a V tail to their 6th gen aircraft (FCAS/Tempest). Yeah I know, it's almost like asking "why did they put canards on their 4th gen planes". I guess they are not really building true 6th gen, more like 5+ gen, right?

2. What's the plan? A common design for the USAF and the USN but with different versions, like the F35, right? I don't think a F14/F15 solution is going to succeed.

3. Is it exportable? I mean, are we going to see international partners or it's not even gonna be exported at all because of the advanced tech?

4. What about the "century series" logic. Yes, it's going to be a system. A fighter jet with its loyal wingmen (for bombs and possibly refueling), integration with other EW platforms like flying radars, UAVs etc. I can see this happening. But idk about this whole "multiple airframe designs that will be scrapped after 15-20 years of service". This literally happened with the century series and it was a mess. Until we found a thing that truly works (the F4).

5. Is it gonna be AtG or AtA only? I guess the loyal wingmen will carry bombs and stuff but the fighter will be AtA only, right?

 

[fredymac]

...........

I have not seen any detailed accounts of DIRCM actions (probably due to OPSEC) but I have seen statements that they have been successfully used. I would guess all were against MANPADS IR missiles (which usually means close range and minimal response time). It would be a turning point if a DIRCM was actually used against an AA missile during a dogfight. It doesn't take much to blind/fry an IR sensor. If you don't care, you can take your cell phone camera and aim a 1mW (0.001 W) pointer laser at it and see what happens. The camera optics helps to kill the sensor as it focuses the laser onto the sensor. If you have ever worked with a laser, you know that a 1 W beam focused onto your hand will sting and it will permanently kill a sensor.

Once you are talking about radar or dual mode missiles, you have to move up to hard kill HEL lasers. Its been a while but I thought a surrogate SHIELD test was already conducted at WSMR using a ground based beam director against a variety of representative missile targets (flying at speed). Now you are talking many thousands of Watts.

Again, you can postulate scenarios where lasers are degraded by weather but planning and tactics can offset some of that. Lasers are day/night weapons but will always be subject to weather constraints. Worst case is a weather delay for the mission or re-routing out of bad weather zones. All that said, an air asset with a self defense laser will be more survivable than one without it.

 

[sferrin]

My god. Clouds or no, having a DIRCM or defensive laser is better than NOT have them.

 

[Moose]

Hello guys, I'm new to this forum. I have some questions about this project and I would really to help me:

Welcome.

1. I've seen pictures of this NGAD/PCA thing. It doesn't have a tail. It almost looks like a flying wing or a mini B-21 if you like. And it makes sense. You don't really need a tail for a 6th gen aircraft (idk, correct me if I'm wrong). We are talking about a super stealthy design and advanced sensors, so you are never going to be in a dogfight situation. Ofc you need speed but that what the new gen engines are for. My question is. Why did the Europeans decide to put a V tail to their 6th gen aircraft (FCAS/Tempest). Yeah I know, it's almost like asking "why did they put canards on their 4th gen planes". I guess they are not really building true 6th gen, more like 5+ gen, right?

You've likely seen artwork based on guesses, marketing departments looking to turn heads, and the like. It's hard to draw conclusions based on these as they do not necessarily reflect reality. But differences between 6th-gen platforms are likely, regardless of current artwork, and in most cases the answer to the question of "why" will be "because they analyzed their needs and capabilities and decided to do it this way."

2. What's the plan? A common design for the USAF and the USN but with different versions, like the F35, right? I don't think a F14/F15 solution is going to succeed.

At the moment, USAF and USN programs are separate. There may be significant cross-pollination of things like engines and avionics even if the airframes are decidedly different. The plan is hard to articulate because both are severely lacking in the detail department and one must read a lot into not a lot of data. Thus far, the sea service seems to be developing a multirole aircraft while the light blue uniforms are looking at potentially multiple more specialized platforms build in a sequence of short production runs.

3. Is it exportable? I mean, are we going to see international partners or it's not even gonna be exported at all because of the advanced tech?

Neither program appears to be prioritizing export at this time, though that could change. Ultimately, the export question is one which Congress must answer before we know for sure.

4. What about the "century series" logic. Yes, it's going to be a system. A fighter jet with its loyal wingmen (for bombs and possibly refueling), integration with other EW platforms like flying radars, UAVs etc. I can see this happening. But idk about this whole "multiple airframe designs that will be scrapped after 15-20 years of service". This literally happened with the century series and it was a mess. Until we found a thing that truly works (the F4).

The desire expressed by those promoting the idea is to avoid the massive upfront costs of designing a 35+year service life multirole aircraft and the negative impact on losing industry teams by having a series of more specialized aircraft built in shorter runs by (potentially) multiple winners. It remains to be seen if this is actually going to have a cost advantage and if it makes sense operationally, but the positive industry impact is plausible if the program is well run.

5. Is it gonna be AtG or AtA only? I guess the loyal wingmen will carry bombs and stuff but the fighter will be AtA only, right?

See above, the Navy at least seems to prefer a multirole platform, hence "F/A."

 

[marauder2048]

it doesn't take much to blind/fry an IR sensor.

DIRCM lasers tend to be in the single Watt category; they are achieving optical break lock through jamming
codes that exploit the modulation schemes used by non-imaging seeker.

You need hundreds of Watts to begin to reliably damage a focal plane array of the type you would
find in say AIM-9X or SM-2 Block IIIB. The damage threshold estimate, from Caplan, is a
power density 10,000 W/cm^2 under CW illumination.

Imaging infrared seekers will need to be uniformly saturated to prevent them from homing-on-jam.
Since all DIRCM installs to date are onboard jammers, i.e. no "towed" DIRCM, the IIR HOJ
mode will just track the beam center all the way back to lasing aircraft.

So DIRCM is just going to be a beacon in that case.

Uniformly saturating an FPA requires power levels on the order of what is required to begin to damage an FPA.

But since you are seeing power levels for SHiELD orders of magnitude greater than the damage threshold
for FPAs, the laser weapon is going to win in the end provided there's enough time.

Which goes back to the original point of requiring a network or sensor suite such that the laser
and the adaptive optics have the time to compensate for things like weather.

 

[fredymac]

DIRCM lasers tend to be in the single Watt category; they are achieving optical break lock through jamming
codes that exploit the modulation schemes used by non-imaging seeker.

You need hundreds of Watts to begin to reliably damage a focal plane array of the type you would
find in say AIM-9X or SM-2 Block IIIB. The damage threshold estimate, from Caplan, is a
power density 10,000 W/cm^2 under CW illumination.

Imaging infrared seekers will need to be uniformly saturated to prevent them from homing-on-jam.
Since all DIRCM installs to date are onboard jammers, i.e. no "towed" DIRCM, the IIR HOJ
mode will just track the beam center all the way back to lasing aircraft.

So DIRCM is just going to be a beacon in that case.

Uniformly saturating an FPA requires power levels on the order of what is required to begin to damage an FPA.

But since you are seeing power levels for SHiELD orders of magnitude greater than the damage threshold
for FPAs, the laser weapon is going to win in the end provided there's enough time.

Which goes back to the original point of requiring a network or sensor suite such that the laser
and the adaptive optics have the time to compensate for things like weather.

Well I read the PDF and I am wondering what the hell. I had to repair an IR sensor when operators forgot to install attenuating gratings into the line of sight. The sensor was looking directly at a 100W beam and the gratings reduced that 10,000 times. Not only was the sensor destroyed, the upstream optical prisms were literally reduced to pitted glass. with a dust layer of melted glass on everything else.

Here is a line from the PDF that is amazing:
Also indicated with a horizontal line of triangle points is the nominal irradiance that would be required to damage the focal plane, around 10,000 (W/cm2 ). This is derived from the Bartoli model10, under continuous wave illumination.

10,000 W/cm2 will cut through steel (your typical industrial cutting laser is usually less than this). The author talks about a beam with 1mrad divergence at 1KM so he is talking about a spot size of 1 meter or 7854 cm2. Even if you assume he mis-wrote and meant 10,000 W spread over 7584 cm2 or 1.2W/cm2 it still doesn't conform to what I know. An IR seeker consists of a gimbaled mirror which focuses the light onto the sensor. Assuming 2cm2 for the collecting area of the mirror (I assume it may be more than that), that would be enough power to burn wood at the focus. It will melt plastic with ease.

 

[fredymac]

Correction on the industrial laser. The lasers are less than 10KW but they focus very tight (sub millimeter). This allows them to have very fast cutting times. Still, 10,000W/cm2 is seriously strong and will cut metal.

 

[TomcatViP]

@Zoomer : Point 5
You absolutely nailed it with that question. As said by @Moose , it's probable that the Navy would want to keep buying multi-mission platforms but for the USAF, the question remains absolutely open.
Exacerbating that thoughts, I would say that the AF will probably want to offset the maximum of weapon carriage into the drone, leaving only critical mission like A2A and Nuke.
That way, an identical airframe can do a lot of specialized things only by swapping mission software and pilots and remain simple and cheap enough to be pushed out of service when air dominance could not be achieved at minimal cost.
That means probably a lot of iterations per type of drone assigned a certain mission (obsolescence is aggravated by automation) hence an increased number of type introduction.

Let's hope that server's cooling fan technology will be able to keep up with the rapid output needs of the new e-serie!

 

[marauder2048]

Well I read the PDF and I am wondering what the hell. I had to repair an IR sensor when operators forgot to install attenuating gratings into the line of sight. The sensor was looking directly at a 100W beam and the gratings reduced that 10,000 times. Not only was the sensor destroyed, the upstream optical prisms were literally reduced to pitted glass. with a dust layer of melted glass on everything else.

Here is a line from the PDF that is amazing:
Also indicated with a horizontal line of triangle points is the nominal irradiance that would be required to damage the focal plane, around 10,000 (W/cm2 ). This is derived from the Bartoli model10, under continuous wave illumination.

10,000 W/cm2 will cut through steel (your typical industrial cutting laser is usually less than this). The author talks about a beam with 1mrad divergence at 1KM so he is talking about a spot size of 1 meter or 7854 cm2. Even if you assume he mis-wrote and meant 10,000 W spread over 7584 cm2 or 1.2W/cm2 it still doesn't conform to what I know. An IR seeker consists of a gimbaled mirror which focuses the light onto the sensor. Assuming 2cm2 for the collecting area of the mirror (I assume it may be more than that), that would be enough power to burn wood at the focus. It will melt plastic with ease.

Per Figure 7, a 100W beam at meters will destroy the sensor. No question. The damage mechanisms vary but the more common ones are damage
to the bulk material in the photodetector and damage to the ROIC through current overload. You don't need to melt the material to
destroy the seeker's utility.

 

[Zoomer]

Thanks Moose and Tomcat!

Another question:

If we are going to call it 6th gen it must have:
- Super stealthy tailless airframe (flying wing)
- Super long range and extreme straight line performance with supercruise capability (next gen variable cycle engines and better fuel)
- Advanced sensors, even better than the F35 at least (GaN radar with huge cooling capacity and mapping capability to utilize next gen long range missiles like AIM-260 and perform the most difficult AtG missions on a very dangerous environment deep into chinese territory, a laser and a very advanced active protection system in general, AI/Data Fusion so it can control other aircraft and communicate with them, huge computional power in order to do all the above etc)

You are supposed to include all those 3 things in 1 platform to call it 6th gen. How is this "Ocean's 11" thing going to work if you have different platforms? Something is going to get jammed, something is going to be shot down, something is going to run out of fuel. Yeah idk. That's not how interdiction works (which, I assume, will be the main role of this beast along with air superiority). Unless, instead of making 1 platform, they make 2. For example: One aircraft will carry the weapons and the other will carry the sensors and the pilot. Because having a big weapons bay is going to make the aircraft less stealthy with less fuel. So they are gonna split it in order to get the best of both worlds. This is probably the logic of the USAF (they might even go for a third plane to carry additional fuel and weapons so you can reach China or Russia from North America!), but the USN cannot afford having 2 planes (lack of space, and they already have the F35), that's why they are going for a single platform, hence F/A-XX. But it doesn't matter, because only the airframe will be different. Engines, radars, sensors, weapons etc will be the same so it's not a big deal in terms of costs. Ah, it all makes sense now! What do you guys think?

PS: Sorry for my English. Not my first language.

 

[bobbymike]

Shouldn’t the “constituency” be the America people?

Next-Gen Air Dominance Lacks ‘Constituency’

Next-Gen Air Dominance Lacks ‘Constituency’

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org