Gen 6 USAF Fighter article

[Gman]

This is sort of the inverted or opposite of the "Ault Report" that helped spawn Top Gun.  In a nutshell, it is saying that speed, maneuverability, and all that is pretty much done for now, as sensors and especially weapon performance can do all that instead of the airframe launching them.  IE since getting into that cone of vulnerability isn't as critical, or even ranking so high as important any longer, building larger less maneuverable Gen 6 fighters which have less IR and Radar signature, but more room for fuel, sensors and weapons, is the way to go.

You can download the PDF here, again, excellent article on past, current, and future a2a combat IMO.  https://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/261173525?extension=pdf&from=embed&source=embed

Personally, I don't know what to think about this.  Historically in the 60s this theory was a disaster, not having a gun on the earlier Phantoms and more importantly not giving the pilots the training and knowledge on how to employ BFM and advanced ACM proved to be a big mistake.  I can understand however that IF you have the sensors and weapons which make it possible to not have to maneuver into that previously vulnerable cone behind a target, that this theory COULD have some points of merit.  With all the off axis IR missiles out there now, and even ones that can launch 180 degrees from where the nose is pointed, I do believe that getting "behind" or "in position" isn't as important as before, however that said, there is always something that comes along it seems which rebalances that equation, and makes being the most maneuverable and agile guy in the fight important again.  Either way, interesting subject IMO.

The author is a former USAF officer, now a PhD working for CSBA - some interesting stuff in his article, anyone interested in air combat history will find it interesting IMO.  One quote -

The difficulties and time required in attaining a good firing solution against a maneuvering target, combined with the decrease in SA due to the
need to fully concentrate on the target, caused many of the great aces of World War II to shun
maneuvering combat as a high-risk, low-payoff activity. Instead, they strove to achieve quick
surprise attacks, break away, assess the situation, and attack again if possible.

Link to the article and Breaking Defense's analysis below:


http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/should-future-fighter-be-like-a-bomber-groundbreaking-csba-study/

[Mar]

however that said, there is always something that comes along it seems which rebalances that equation, and makes being the most maneuverable and agile guy in the fight important again.

 

[cpxxx]

It was the mistaken and premature faith in missiles that led to the deletion of guns originally. Then Vietnam came along and the unreliability of missiles was highlighted. It wasn't the lack of guns that was the problem. Since then missiles have become reliable and in reality has their ever been a close in dogfight where guns were used? The Israelis have the most experience in this and just how often have they used a gun to shoot down an enemy aircraft after a furball?

many of the great aces of World War II to shun
maneuvering combat as a high-risk, low-payoff activity. Instead, they strove to achieve quick
surprise attacks, break away, assess the situation, and attack again if possible

This is true and you can go back to WW1 to find those tactics in use. Richthofen and Ball used the same method as did many others.

Then of course there's the drone generation.

[Skyyr]

In essence, he's stating that weapons are becoming more maneuverable and capable than the fighters that house them; ergo, the most maneuverable fighter is still at a disadvantage and therefore more effort should be put into defenses and payload. What they're not considering is the chance that these weapons will be rendered completely obsolete. Once that happens, you're back to ACM 101.

SSDD fifty years later.

Be on the watch for an upcoming "all aspect, all weather" defense system that is made to counter the "all aspect, all weather" weapons systems currently employed.

[Gman]

Pretty much what I think as well.  As I said, something always seems to come along and balance the equation out, and it's down to who can put their aircraft in the optimal position for attack first.

Be on the watch for an upcoming "all aspect, all weather" defense system that is made to counter the "all aspect, all weather" weapons systems currently employed.

I agree, some would say that the new Israeli self protection and ECM systems are coming close to doing that already.  So, this entire brief by CSBA is invalidated IMO if all the whizz bang sensors, and especially the weapons, are able to be defeated by modern or future defense systems. 

They article does discuss energy weapons, and IMO that's the future of the entire debate - you can't dodge a lightspeed laser weapon, and if they can minaturize the power systems, and get them above 100mw and mount them on fighters - at short to medium range, they will be able to insta-kill anything they can detect.  At longer ranges there are problems they are working to solve regarding the beam bending due to atmospheric issues and range, but there is progress in that regard.  Again, IMO in 10 or 15 years, missiles and guns may not even be used as the primary weapon for a2a combat. 

Regardless, the PDF is an excellent article on the history of a2a combat, weapons, and tactics, if nothing else.

[PR3D4TOR]

Pretty much what I think as well.  As I said, something always seems to come along and balance the equation out, and it's down to who can put their aircraft in the optimal position for attack first.

Attack with what? With weapon systems that do not need any particular position except 'be in range', and if these weapons are rendered useless what do you need to get into 'optimal position' with?

Personally I think that the age of the gun as an aircraft weapon is all but over. Vietnam was an era of radio tubes and primitive electronics. Modern weapons are marvels of the information age. Within the next 20-30 years even the pilot will be obsolete. Huge industrial alliances have already drawn up what the future will look like.

[Gman]

Attack with what? With weapon systems that do not need any particular position except 'be in range', and if these weapons are rendered useless what do you need to get into 'optimal position' with?

I think directed energy weapons would be filling that role IMO as I said, for a number of reasons, but also this one of yours - attack with what?!.  I do agree with you regarding the gun in terms of a slug/projectile throwing weapon - and I don't think railguns will have the rate of fire or capacity to fit on a fighter either, not before DE weapons will at least.  I think everyone is in agreement that maned fighter aircraft are ticking down to being gone, or at least be very limited.

Unmanned fighters will still have to fight other fighters, manned or otherwise, in order to get control of the airspace in any future conflict, especially vs peer nations that have close or the same level of tech and equal or more numbers than the USA/NATO.  And, if the trend continues that defensive ECM systems will eventually trump most offensive radar and IR guided weapons, what else is there other than direct energy or guns of some other type, with which to kill the other aircraft.

I will say though that the manned/unmanned argument could be similar to the whole "no gun" argument prior to Vietnam, and things won't work out the way many thought, and manned aircraft MAY be around for longer than anticipated.  Who knows.   Everyone and their dog was convinced a gun wouldn't be required, and while missiles according to the kill graphs in that CSBA paper have killed the majority of fighters in a2a combat since the 70s, the gun still did get kills, and with the Israelis quite a number of them.  I guess that since the CSBA article is making the case that the gun isn't nearly as important as missiles again, that if you take that, and then remove the missile lethality due to modern ECM systems, like Predator is saying, then what?  IMO it'll have to be an energy weapon, or something else completely new that can't be jammed, spoofed, or kept out of range from.

[Rich46yo]

In essence, he's stating that weapons are becoming more maneuverable and capable than the fighters that house them; ergo, the most maneuverable fighter is still at a disadvantage and therefore more effort should be put into defenses and payload.

He's right. The most maneuverable fighter will not win. "Maneuverable enough" will when its paired with superior stealth, avionics, defensive,weapons packages, and information processing.

What they're not considering is the chance that these weapons will be rendered completely obsolete.

And whats going to do that?

Once that happens, you're back to ACM 101.

There will be no more ACM 101. Theres really no more need for pilots anyways.

SSDD fifty years later.

Be on the watch for an upcoming "all aspect, all weather" defense system that is made to counter the "all aspect, all weather" weapons systems currently employed.

Well if you know of one, or one in development, then please tell us.

[PR3D4TOR]

I think directed energy weapons would be filling that role IMO as I said, for a number of reasons, but also this one of yours - attack with what?!.  I do agree with you regarding the gun in terms of a slug/projectile throwing weapon - and I don't think railguns will have the rate of fire or capacity to fit on a fighter either, not before DE weapons will at least.  I think everyone is in agreement that maned fighter aircraft are ticking down to being gone, or at least be very limited.

The problem with DE weapons is that they are for all intents and purposes clear weather weapons. A laser or particle beam will be absorbed or dissipated by rain, snow, dust, fog, smoke and other visual obstructions that a projectile would easily penetrate. Railguns or gauss rifles have impressive muzzle velocities of mach 5+, twice that of a conventional gun, but an AMRAAM missile flies at mach 4. It would be much easier to make a missile go just as fast than to use a complicated rail gun.

[Saxman]

The problem with DE weapons is that they are for all intents and purposes clear weather weapons. A laser or particle beam will be absorbed or dissipated by rain, snow, dust, fog, smoke and other visual obstructions that a projectile would easily penetrate. Railguns or gauss rifles have impressive muzzle velocities of mach 5+, twice that of a conventional gun, but an AMRAAM missile flies at mach 4. It would be much easier to make a missile go just as fast than to use a complicated rail gun.

Rail guns are actually very simple weapons. Hell, people have made them with junk lying around the house. Their problems are:

Power draw - A weapons-quality rail gun requires an ENORMOUS amount of power.
Heat generation - Firing one will light you up like Time's Square on IR (not to mention the EM spectrum).
Size - Weapons-scale guns right now are much too large to fit on a small fighter. This is about the only flaw that I can foresee being easily addressed.
Rate of Fire - It takes time to charge the rails between shots, leading to slow rates of fire.
Maintenance - The rails are only good for a few shots, and need constant replacement.

I don't see any reason why advanced conventional kinetic weapons won't remain perfectly viable alongside directed energy weapons. Especially in situations where power is at a premium.

[Rich46yo]

When an advanced AMRAMM can easily take out a fixed wing that costs 20x + its price I dont think there will be any great howl for rail guns on aircraft. Compared to current platforms the technological gap to put such a weapon on a small, fragile fighter plane is huge and the need for such a weapon really doesnt exist. I dont know what the future will bring but we'll all be worm food before rail guns or lasers takes the place of ATA missiles on fighter planes.

Right now AMRAMM's like AIM-120 and Meteor are so lethal when combined with the avionics packages of NATO standard aircraft I can really see the comparison with throwing the same package on a Humvee and letting it do its thing. Most of all with other more powerful detection assets in the network. The launch platform is not on its own, even tho it can be if it has to. It will have access to far more powerful detection assets in the network.

This my friends is why I have always believed in the theory behind the F-35 despite the problems in develpment. Simply put, "fast" is fast enough, "maneuverable like a F-16" is maneuverable enough. And who gives a sheet how fast the other plane is when its running back to an airfield that has already been clobbered within 3 meters of where we wanted to hit it?

[PR3D4TOR]

 

[artik]

Ok...

Interesting... the author mentioned ECM 4 times in the article. Tells a lot about it.


Today many like to talk about BVR... forgetting that every type of "Weapon" has its countermeasure that always improve...


Battle of radar missiles: first missile -> just turn and it wouldn't fallow/ be behind the horizon > Look-down/shoot down -> 90 degree break + chaff -> more improvments (AMRAAM) -> ECM/DRFM/Stealth...

Battle of IR missiles: first missile -> break -> improved manuverability -> don't show tail -> all aspect seeker -> flares / DIRCM -> imaging seeker/HMD -> ??? (but will be, maybe anti-missile missile or laser)

The only weapon that has no efficient/practical countermeasure is GUN... but you need to get close.

Looking at the fact that everybody knows to build DRFM and Russians produce ECMS with anti-AMRAAM capabilities, taking in account that not long ago US missiles were eating Russian build flares (interesting story about how USAF tested USSR MiG-23 flares and discovered that US missile follow them without problems while ignoring US made flares).

I assume that the VVR and close range battle is far from being over especially for every weapon a countermeasure is developed - and for every countermeasure a weapon.

So finally you'll have to get the the target and finish it off with a short burst of 20/30mm rounds at least in some cases, because... armor is just too heavy countermeasure.

[PR3D4TOR]

Made a quick search and to my knowledge the last time an American combat aircraft shot something down with a gun was an A-10 gunning down a helo in the Gulf War 24 years ago. The last time an American fighter shot down an aircraft using a gun was during the Vietnam War more than 40 years ago. Most American fighter pilots flying today weren't even born when an American fighter pilot last had to resort to using the gun. I know the Israelis had a couple of gun kills in the Lebanon conflict in the early '80s, 30 years ago, but nothing since, I think. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[artik]

In the 80s was the last major conflict were IAF opposed a viable air force (Syrian) since that Syria does not bother to tinker with Israel too much and recently a single MiG-27 IIRC that crossed a board by few hundred meters was just down by Patriot SAM.

The last publicized "air-to-air" kill was a kill of a drone by F-16 with a Python 5 (which was especially designed to handle drones with very small heat signature easily).

So there were no opportunities to actually use the gun. But IAF is very commited to VVR dues to simple reason there is no much space around for proper BVR. At the day first F-15 got its air-to-air victory another F-15 shut down MiG-21 with a gun several minutes later.

So probably GUN isn't that "dead" - but it depends on the situation.