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

Random though while drinking a lot of wine. All of the loyal wingman type drones are presumably limited to subsonic speeds, because putting an augmentation on a light turbofan will add far too much weight, space, and cost. While the airframe shape and structure might support super sonic and the dry thrust could perhaps sustain it, you would have to use too much fuel/time/altitude for the acceleration to be practical or even possible, depending. Would it make sense to fit an 'attritable' drone with a single use JATO rocket as a way of kicking it into a super cruise, or alternatively giving one really hard escape maneuver defensively? I was thinking about the fact Lockmart claims that F-35s can reheat to super sonic and then throttle back to military power and maintain Mach 1.2, supposedly. I was thinking if you had a compartment for solid rocket somewhere in the back of a drone you could do the same thing (once): for air to air combat, give it a kick to supersonic that it can sustain in full dry thrust. It would definitely be a one turn aircraft, but it would make a lot of intercept geometry easier. Also if it was being used defensively it might allow for a quick last minute placement between itself and the controlling aircraft. If it survives, it gets reloaded with a fresh booster for the next mission, if it doesn't who cares.

Practical or too complex for the weight and expense?
 
I would say that using an afterburning variant of an engine is not really that much costly than a non-afterburning at all. Space is not usually constraint, as it doesn't add more than a meter or two, and that's is usually behind everything, where there's room.

Weight of the afterburner itself, and the addtional weight of achieving the balance in center of gravity, due to additional tail end weight - might be the biggest issue of the three. For a fairly small aircraft. Though by no means prohibitively big.

F110-GE-129 has a pretty big afterburner section
weight 1800 kg
length 460 cm
thrust 74 kn dry/ 129 kn maximum

F118 (F110 without afterburner)
weight 1500 kg
length 260 cm
thrust 85 kn dry

But there are smaller engines with smaller afterburner sections.
AI-222-25 (no afterburner)
weight 440 kg
length 232 cm
thrust 24 kn

AL-222-25F (with afterburner)
weight 560 kg
length 314 cm
thrust 41 kn
 
@Josh_TN : It's a good idea. Rocket pack were used in the 60's for high alt performance enhancement. I don't see why it wouldn't help here given that in overall there coukd be lighter than more traditional thrust augmentation.
It remain to be seen however how Loyal wingmen are to be used. If they already cruise at high altitude and high transonic speed, a quick nose over and dive would more simply do the trick.
 
Josh_TN said:
Random though while drinking a lot of wine.
Click to expand...
At least limited in time supersonic capability is greatly needed, since it greatly increases launching envelopes of weaponry. So you will either have your LW with supersonic dash capability or will suffer -20%(roughly speaking) range on any weapon employed .
 
These aren't fighters so I would assume the way they are treated, how they are employed will look slightly (to significantly) different than how fighters use these systems. They may even utilize different weapons, more tailored to their CONOPS. While a fighter needs the first shot, first kill, a four ship of LW probably does not. They can afford to "risk" attempting to get closer while a manned fighter would probably want that extra 20% to get the additional advantage and launch early.

There will be a fine line between keeping these systems affordable so that they can be built cheaply, discarded and fielded in numbers, and adding so many performance requirements that they are no longer "attritable" or at least worth risking in the dozens or more in the initial stages of a conflict. If the idea is, in an air-superiority mission, to overload the adversary with targets, and potential sensors and shooters then you probably don't need that very high end of the envelope. However, if the idea is to produce them in limited quality and be very close to a "fighter" in terms of performance then the cost and performance requirements will look a lot different. There is also the possibility that the work happening under Skyborg and other similar programs could potentially lead to more "fighter" like, AI driven, vehicles capable of going toe to toe with fighters. But those efforts will likely be separate to what the LW are doing. Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Release envelope affects not only things like head-on missile engagements, but NEZ on maneuvering target too. In quite a few cases missile launched at supersonic and subsonic will be a difference between missile reaching or not target at all.
 
Logically @GARGEAN, it would-be cheaper to add extra boost to a lighter missile than an heavier LW.

@bring_it_on : IMOHO LW will probably have a different cruise profile than fighters.. I completely agree with you on mission and engagement profiles.

For example if you have an overcast, it would seem logical to have LW flying below clouds level and thus complementing sensors of high flying fighters that would hence keep their radar turned off.
 
Last edited:
GARGEAN said:
Release envelope affects not only things like head-on missile engagements, but NEZ on maneuvering target too. In quite a few cases missile launched at supersonic and subsonic will be a difference between missile reaching or not target at all.
Click to expand...

And no one is denying that. But there are multiple ways to skin that cat. You could launch well inside the weapon envelope which is going to be similar to launching from the very edge of the envelope and using speeed and altitude to provide additional capability. Or you could, as TomcatViP said, just seek the sort of envelope you need (from LW engagements) from weapons built for these systems. What is vital is to meet program goals, i.e. produce relatively affordable LW that can be produced, upgraded, and sustained cheaply and fielded in numbers. While attritable is a vague term, keeping it at a cost where you could consider these vehicles as "attritable" will probably be sevcerely challenged if you keep piling requirements on top what already exist. If speed, why not also the high altitude envelope of an interceptor and if that, why not the same sensor size as conventional fighters (after all if you can see farther out you can be in a better position to maximizing your NEZ)? Before you know it you''ll end up designing a small fighter. I suspect that they aren't taking this approach. How these are built and employed will be very different from manned or unmanned vehicles of the past.
 
Last edited:
GARGEAN said:
Zoomer said:
If we are going to call it 6th gen it must have:
Click to expand...
Because?..
Click to expand...
1. Do you disagree?

2. Basically, lasers are going to render all missiles useless. For radar guided missiles, the laser will melt the head, where the radar is located. For IR guided missiles, the laser will melt the booster, where heat is coming from. So, my question is:
How much energy do we need to melt a small part of a missile? Can the F135 generate the required energy for the beam and the cooling before the missile hits the plane?

PS: Loyal Wingmen are very good for basic AtG (CAS for example) and this is going to be their main mission (hence attritable). But for interdiction and air dominance, they just cannot work, hence the multiple airframes solution from the USAF (2 or 3 planes with different functions that, together, will be the 6th gen system). F35 + LW for everything else as a high-low mix, like F15 and F16.
 
Last edited:
Zoomer said:
GARGEAN said:
Zoomer said:
If we are going to call it 6th gen it must have:
Click to expand...
Because?..
Click to expand...
1. Do you disagree?

2. Basically, lasers are going to render all missiles useless. For radar guided missiles, the laser will melt the head, where the radar is located. For IR guided missiles, the laser will melt the booster, where heat is coming from. So, my question is:
How much energy do we need to melt a small part of a missile? Can the F135 generate the required energy for the beam and the cooling before the missile hits the plane?

PS: Loyal Wingmen are very good for CAS and this is going to be their main mission. But for interdiction they just cannot work, hence the multiple airframes solution from the USAF (2 or 3 planes with different functions that, together, will be the 6th gen system).
Click to expand...

It all depends on how much coverage an aircraft based anti-missile laser has.

If it can cover a 90-degree cone centered on the rear sector, missiles may be programmed to attack from the top.

If laser emitters are positioned covering most angles, that’s great - but maybe very expensive (money and power wise). And how does all that cabling and power requirement affect the other tasks the aircraft has to perform?

And heavens forbid that an anti-laser missile is developed!
 
What is an anti-laser missile? You can't dodge a laser beam so the only thing you can do is harden the missile. At close tactical range, an HEL beam will put a very intense focus onto a target so you will need a much thicker, heavier skin. That in turn will lead to lasers with more power just like every other arms race. I see self defense lasers working in conjunction with "active protection" mini missiles (like the anti torpedoes being developed). Optimizing against one makes the job easier for the other. Of course, all the existing inventory of AA missiles is rendered obsolete.
 
I wonder, seeing as laser is directed energy, if a second, dissecting laser illuminator can disrupt the first.
 
No optical system will want weapon level light coming into it. Aiming an HEL against another HEL would be interesting since you would be staring at a light source of immense power. It would be a question of who shoots first.
 
Zoomer said:
Do you disagree?
Click to expand...
I am disagreeing with someone throwing a bunch of buzzwords around hoping some of them will stick. Neither not having vertical tail has anything to do with being 6 gen, nor lasers are anywhere close to rendering missiles obsolete. There is not a single operational and only one entering serial production jet with DIRCM for the moment! What "melting enemy missiles" we are talking about?
 
Zoomer said:
PS: Loyal Wingmen are very good for basic AtG (CAS for example) and this is going to be their main mission (hence attritable). But for interdiction and air dominance, they just cannot work, hence the multiple airframes solution from the USAF (2 or 3 planes with different functions that, together, will be the 6th gen system). F35 + LW for everything else as a high-low mix, like F15 and F16.
Click to expand...

Are you trolling? Loyal wingmen aren't even in production to develop doctrine with, and you're assigning absolutes to what they are good and not good with?
 
fredymac said:
What is an anti-laser missile? You can't dodge a laser beam so the only thing you can do is harden the missile. At close tactical range, an HEL beam will put a very intense focus onto a target so you will need a much thicker, heavier skin. That in turn will lead to lasers with more power just like every other arms race.
Click to expand...

The current laser power scaling trends really don't seem to favor the missile designer at all.
Maybe it's reminiscent of the battleship AP round vs. battleship armor race which armor lost.
 
I should not respond to InADream and Gargean because they are offensive but whatever.

1. What could possibly be their use other than simple AtG? You can't send F35s to do it, because of thousands of manpads and shorads on the ground. A single F35 will fly with them so it can dictate the targets but from further away and higher. Some LW will get shot down. Some will return. Not a big deal. This is going to be the doctrine. If a 20 yo (me) can figure it out, I would guess it's common knowledge.
2. Also, yes, lasers are the next big thing. Deal with it. Missiles made cannons obsolete. It took some decades but they eventually did it. It's like saying:
- We need F4s with cannons cause missiles are trash.
- OK then we need more money to develop better missiles, right?
- No. Missiles bad, cannons good.

That's literally your logic.
"Lasers trash, missiles good"

Anyway, the ultimate question is:
If lasers are going to render missiles (and even artillery shells) obsolete, then how are future wars going to be fought? I guess we will go back to who has the most infantry men and the only option will be to use local EMPs.

As for the NGAD:
B21 + NGAD is going to be the ultimate weapon. Like the B2 + F22 atm. Only this time, the NGAD will probably get AtG modes (hence the need for multiple airframes) in order to perform interdiction and deep strike = too costly to be done by the B21 but impossible to be done by the F35. So it's gonna be a replacement for the F22/F15 + the F15E. My guess.
 
Last edited:
Zoomer said:
I should not respond to InADream and Gargean because they are offensive but whatever.

1. What could possibly be their use other than simple AtG? You can't send F35s to do it, because of the thousands of manpads and shorads on the ground. A single F35 will fly with them so it can dictate the targets but from further away and higher. Some will get shot down. Some will return. Not a big deal. This is going to be the doctrine. If a 20 yo (me) can figure it out, I would guess it's common knowledge.
2. Also, yes, lasers are the next big thing. Deal with it. Missiles replaced cannons on air to air combat several decades ago. It took some decades but they eventually did it. It's like saying:
- We need F4s with cannons cause missiles are trash.
- OK then we need more money to develop better missiles, right?
- No. Missiles bad, cannons good.

That's literally your logic:
"Lasers trash, missiles good"

Anyway, the ultimate question is:
If lasers are going to render missiles (and even artillery shells) obsolete, then how are future wars going to be fought? I guess we will go back to who has the most infantry men or the only option will be to use local EMPs.
Click to expand...

That is an oversimplification of the argument, guns are, and will continue to be an important weapon for CAS and close in dogfighting. Lasers have a bright future but are limited to line of sight and degrade with distance. Missiles add another option to the toolbox, their continued improvements will keep them relevant for at least the next decade while lasers come into their own.
 
Ofc Helix. It's a gradual process. But eventually you won't be able to shoot down an aircraft with a missile because it will have lasers to defend itself. You can overwhelm it with missiles but it only takes a few seconds to open a hole on a missile (even fewer to burn a seeker). Then the missile will tear itself apart because of the speed. And ofc they are going to be another tool in the box. Besides, we haven't stopped using artillery. It's cheaper than MLRS :)

I disagree on the rest. Dogfights just do not happen anymore. As for cannons and CAS. Well, if your enemies are rebels with Toyotas, it's fine. Is your enemy is a normal army, then you can't really do CAS anymore. Unless you implement the strategy I already mentioned (LW etc).
Also, "lasers are limited to line of sight and degrade with distance". Yes. For now. Like the early missiles.
 
Last edited:
Zoomer said:
Also, "lasers are limited to line of sight and degrade with distance". Yes. For now. Like the early missiles.
Click to expand...
So you imply they won't be limited by LoS and will not degrade in atmosphere after some "bright advancements in technology"?
 
GARGEAN said:
Zoomer said:
Also, "lasers are limited to line of sight and degrade with distance". Yes. For now. Like the early missiles.
Click to expand...
So you imply they won't be limited by LoS and will not degrade in atmosphere after some "bright advancements in technology"?
Click to expand...
Maybe mirrors will be on the missiles, so we can shoot lasers round corners......

As for distance, maybe we could mount the laser in like a big Jumbo jet or something.....
 
Yes. Electric cars are the same. Everyone was saying "they have limited range". Battery tech has evolved and now they are almost going to surpass ICE cars. Ofc they will never be good at transporting heavy stuff.

Besides, it's not a replacement for long range air defences but for shorads and CIWS. It's just that lasers are going to be so effective up close that nothing will get through. It's like the machine gun in WW1. Nothing could get through. Artillery shells could, but lasers can take them out as well. Until ofc the invention of the tank and so forth.

Mirrors can become pretty hot too afaik. Flying mirrors or flying lasers for area defence is an interesting concept indeed.
 
Talk of lasers for the new gen fighters and USAF testing some, Pentagon over the last thirty years has invested ~$12 billion and as yet has failed to deploy a single weapon system, one of the main reasons lasers up against one of the laws of physics, the inverse square law, stating that a specified physical quantity, in this case emf/photons, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity, so the laser power/heat generated on target falls off dramatically with increasing distance.

Minimum energy/heat generated on target missile to burn thro measured in J/cm2, minimum required said to be ~ 10kJ./cm2. So would expect fighter would need min of ~ 1 MW electric power for decent range laser, don't know if fighter will have the generating capacity, lower power would require longer dwell times on target and a future enemy AA missile will have laser hardening built in eg ablative surfaces to mitigate effects of laser, meaning that very a short range anti AA missiles look the more effective/lower cost option to USAF than a laser as they awarded initial $93million of max $375 million contract to Raytheon this July to develop a miniature self defense missile mini-missile.

After thirty years in research there is the saying, lasers are the weapons of the future and always will be.
 
Cordy said:
Talk of lasers for the new gen fighters and USAF testing some, Pentagon over the last thirty years has invested ~$12 billion and as yet has failed to deploy a single weapon system, one of the main reasons lasers up against one of the laws of physics, the inverse square law, stating that a specified physical quantity, in this case emf/photons, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity, so the laser power/heat generated on target falls off dramatically with increasing distance.

Minimum energy/heat generated on target missile to burn thro measured in J/cm2, minimum required said to be ~ 10kJ./cm2. So would expect fighter would need min of ~ 1 MW electric power for decent range laser, don't know if fighter will have the generating capacity, lower power would require longer dwell times on target and a future enemy AA missile will have laser hardening built in eg ablative surfaces to mitigate effects of laser, meaning that very a short range anti AA missiles look the more effective/lower cost option to USAF than a laser as they awarded initial $93million of max $375 million contract to Raytheon this July to develop a miniature self defense missile mini-missile.

After thirty years in research there is the saying, lasers are the weapons of the future and always will be.
Click to expand...
...That's true for unfocussed light from a point source. There's a reason so much work is being done in adaptive mirrors and lenses such. It's to make sure lasers don't suffer from the inverse square law.
 
fredymac said:
No optical system will want weapon level light coming into it. Aiming an HEL against another HEL would be interesting since you would be staring at a light source of immense power. It would be a question of who shoots first.
Click to expand...

Not talking of aiming at the source of the laser but the beam itself at a tangent. Would it attenuate the power of the laser sufficient to remove it as a threat?

As for hitting someone over the head with a laser unit, surely sticking the laser somewhere dark would do the job?

Edit. Turn it on AFTERWARDS.......
 
Foo Fighter said:
fredymac said:
No optical system will want weapon level light coming into it. Aiming an HEL against another HEL would be interesting since you would be staring at a light source of immense power. It would be a question of who shoots first.
Click to expand...

Not talking of aiming at the source of the laser but the beam itself at a tangent. Would it attenuate the power of the laser sufficient to remove it as a threat?
Click to expand...

Nope. Lasers won't cancel each other except under very special conditions (exactly the same frequency, exactly 180 degrees out of phase, aimed in exactly reciprocal directions, etc.). Just shooting one laser so it crosses another laser's path will do basically nothing to either of them.
 
MihoshiK said:
Cordy said:
Talk of lasers for the new gen fighters and USAF testing some, Pentagon over the last thirty years has invested ~$12 billion and as yet has failed to deploy a single weapon system, one of the main reasons lasers up against one of the laws of physics, the inverse square law, stating that a specified physical quantity, in this case emf/photons, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity, so the laser power/heat generated on target falls off dramatically with increasing distance.

Minimum energy/heat generated on target missile to burn thro measured in J/cm2, minimum required said to be ~ 10kJ./cm2. So would expect fighter would need min of ~ 1 MW electric power for decent range laser, don't know if fighter will have the generating capacity, lower power would require longer dwell times on target and a future enemy AA missile will have laser hardening built in eg ablative surfaces to mitigate effects of laser, meaning that very a short range anti AA missiles look the more effective/lower cost option to USAF than a laser as they awarded initial $93million of max $375 million contract to Raytheon this July to develop a miniature self defense missile mini-missile.

After thirty years in research there is the saying, lasers are the weapons of the future and always will be.
Click to expand...
...That's true for unfocussed light from a point source. There's a reason so much work is being done in adaptive mirrors and lenses such. It's to make sure lasers don't suffer from the inverse square law.
Click to expand...


Must admit think that sounds totally implausible that the the physics of the inverse square law will not be applicable to any new gen lasers, presume better laser tech will improve the originating source of the emf, electromotive force, creating the laser photons but it will be still subject to the inverse square law in which energy/heat on the target falls off dramatically with increasing distance.

Note: inverse square law also applies to all electromagnetic radiation eg as used by radar and after 70 plus years of research no one has ever hinted that it can be overcome, I wonder why :).
 
Yeah. There is no way to deal with inverse square law of electromagnetic wave.

Lenses, mirrors etc are help to focus the beam and make it narrow but like Radar antenna gain, wanting a narrow beam = bigger mirror or bigger frequency (shorter wavelength) or even both which not necessarily equates more power being put on target unless it's in space. High altitude air combat may help with propagation issue but still How big the director would be is the question.

For what i see tho is that cooling remains the primary issue. Generation for Megawatt class electric power for airborne platform is feasible for decades. Big platform can afford for big laser head and cooling it off but for something Fighter sized e.g F-22 or F-15. 300 KW laser would waste about 290 KW of heat (not including any other components e.g power supply) This needs to be cooled. + the avionics (radar etc) may release some additional 20-30 KW So one would need to deal with at least 310 KW. The cooling equipment weight is then about 421 Kg.
 
Cordy said:
Talk of lasers for the new gen fighters and USAF testing some, Pentagon over the last thirty years has invested ~$12 billion and as yet has failed to deploy a single weapon system, one of the main reasons lasers up against one of the laws of physics, the inverse square law, stating that a specified physical quantity, in this case emf/photons, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity, so the laser power/heat generated on target falls off dramatically with increasing distance.

Minimum energy/heat generated on target missile to burn thro measured in J/cm2, minimum required said to be ~ 10kJ./cm2. So would expect fighter would need min of ~ 1 MW electric power for decent range laser, don't know if fighter will have the generating capacity, lower power would require longer dwell times on target and a future enemy AA missile will have laser hardening built in eg ablative surfaces to mitigate effects of laser, meaning that very a short range anti AA missiles look the more effective/lower cost option to USAF than a laser as they awarded initial $93million of max $375 million contract to Raytheon this July to develop a miniature self defense missile mini-missile.

After thirty years in research there is the saying, lasers are the weapons of the future and always will be.
Click to expand...


Holy cow. Inverse square law refers to spherical propagation. Lasers are plane waves. Laser spot size on the target is determined by diffraction limits set by the diameter of the emitting aperture.
 
Zoomer said:
Yes. Electric cars are the same. Everyone was saying "they have limited range". Battery tech has evolved and now they are almost going to surpass ICE cars. Ofc they will never be good at transporting heavy stuff.

Besides, it's not a replacement for long range air defences but for shorads and CIWS. It's just that lasers are going to be so effective up close that nothing will get through. It's like the machine gun in WW1. Nothing could get through. Artillery shells could, but lasers can take them out as well. Until ofc the invention of the tank and so forth.

Mirrors can become pretty hot too afaik. Flying mirrors or flying lasers for area defence is an interesting concept indeed.
Click to expand...
mmm, kind of thinking, I fire a fragile missile at you, you make it dumb using a laser, it falls out of the sky. You assume I will keep making fragile missiles, with onboard guidance. Maybe I just make a giant 'shotgun' and fire it in your general direction. One of them will hit you.

There are always countermeasures, hence why machine gun is no longer the master of the battlefield, as everyone now carries the equivalent to that old hotchkiss.

I'm a little doubtful that lasers can take out artillery's shells, if we talk about unguided shells. Of course with enough power anything is possible, but range of your laser/size of battlefield comes into this.

For sure, laser is probably the main current answer to AAM and ATGM. But note current.
 
Some of the criticisms of close-in defense with laser weapons amount to criticizing CIWS performance
against constant-bearing-decreasing-range targets on the basis that their projectile velocities decrease with range.

Well..yeah..but..wait.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom