General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gman on April 09, 2015, 11:42:41 AM
Title: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Gman on April 09, 2015, 11:42:41 AM
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 -
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:
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.
:aok
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: cpxxx on April 09, 2015, 12:54:03 PM
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?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Skyyr on April 09, 2015, 01:30:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Gman on April 09, 2015, 02:21:37 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 09, 2015, 03:28:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Gman on April 09, 2015, 06:15:30 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Rich46yo on April 10, 2015, 01:17:22 AM
Quote
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.
Quote
What they're not considering is the chance that these weapons will be rendered completely obsolete.
And whats going to do that?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 10, 2015, 07:13:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Saxman on April 10, 2015, 10:34:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Rich46yo on April 10, 2015, 03:28:28 PM
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?
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 10, 2015, 03:35:02 PM
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: artik on April 12, 2015, 05:03:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 06:41:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: artik on April 12, 2015, 07:05:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 07:46:16 AM
Still the gun looks pretty superfluous in the air to air role. Air to mud it is still a useful weapon though.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Saxman on April 12, 2015, 08:25:15 AM
Still the gun looks pretty superfluous in the air to air role. Air to mud it is still a useful weapon though.
So what do you do when you've used up all your missiles and there's no room to make a clean break, requiring you to fight your way out?
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 08:35:15 AM
Then I'd rather have a couple more dogfight missiles for the same weight of that gun+ammo. The situation you describe has not happened in the last 40+ years of air combat with American forces.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Saxman on April 12, 2015, 10:08:40 AM
Then I'd rather have a couple more dogfight missiles for the same weight of that gun+ammo. The situation you describe has not happened in the last 40+ years of air combat with American forces.
When was the last time the US engaged an opposing air force that was anything close to parity? About that same 40 years ago. Every other opponent since then the US has FAR outmatched technologically; the last "major" air force the US engaged was the Iraqis, and THAT Air Force was primarily annihilated on the ground during BOTH Gulf Wars.
I can only hope the Air Force brass isn't ANYWHERE near as naive as you're being when planning for potential combat against another air force of equivalent strength to the USAF.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 10:43:31 AM
So you'd rather have a gun with 5 seconds worth of ammo than more missiles? You see, that gun and ammo does not come free of a weight penalty to the airframe. An M61 + 500 rounds weigh about half a ton. You'd get four or five AIM-9X for that, or two or three AMMRAMs.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 10:52:17 AM
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Saxman on April 12, 2015, 11:27:52 AM
And that gun can be squeezed into a place that physically CAN'T carry more missiles, making for even more efficient armament loading for a given airframe:
So you'd rather have a gun with 5 seconds worth of ammo than more missiles? You see, that gun and ammo does not come free of a weight penalty to the airframe. An M61 + 500 rounds weigh about half a ton. You'd get four or five AIM-9X for that, or two or three AMMRAMs.
Tell this to all Phantom pilots carrying 4 AIM-7 and 4 AIM-9 and wanting a gun badly in fight against MiG-21 with 2 "AIM-9s" and a gun...
In more serious note... Ask real pilots if they want guns once they passed the merge (in training)... In how many cases Guns are actually useful after the merge? I think we would be surprised.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 11:41:22 AM
You don't need internal space to stick another missile on the plane. It's the weight that's important. A dogfight missile can be placed almost anywhere on a plane with little modification to the airframe itself. The internal space taken up by a gun can be better used for more internal fuel. Guns can be carried in pods if they're needed for a particular mission.
In more serious note... Ask real pilots if they want guns once they passed the merge (in training)... In how many cases Guns are actually useful after the merge? I think we would be surprised.
In 20-30 years time there might not be any combat pilots to ask.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: mthrockmor on April 12, 2015, 12:12:59 PM
The next big change that will completely transform design, deployment and strategy is the laser.
After that will be artificial intelligence. Then robotics, very much associated with AI.
Lasers are being tested for mounting on ships. Within a decade CWIS' will be replaced with nearly perfect results via ship borne lasers. In time, lasers power sources will be small and efficient enough that they will be mounted on F/A-18s, -16s, -35s, etc. At the same time they will be mounted on Hummers, etc. It will fundamentally change the nature of warfare.
AI will take the pilot mostly out of the loop. A single E-2 Hawkeye will be able to command 60-100 AI flown drones like the -47. Robotics will take this technology onto the battlefield with infantry.
The horizon is becoming clearer.
boo
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: artik on April 12, 2015, 12:15:56 PM
On serious note - there are still MiG-21s and F-5s flying around... not talking about Phantoms and other "old" planes.
I think you are jumping too far. If there would be no pilots I see the same story as there would be no ACM... :salute
Oh, I was talking about 1st world air forces. Sure there will still be many piloted combat aircraft in smaller air forces. As for the ACM thing, have you tried flying against Hitech's offline AI's? They fight better than 90% of the players in the MA. That's a relative simple game AI made by a couple of people in a small game studio in Texas.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: FBKampfer on April 12, 2015, 01:08:19 PM
I don't know if you guys have been following the development and sea trials of lazers and rail gun systems, but my take on this is that as time goes on, even small developing and 3rd world countries will acquire this technology, which basically blows the SAM out of the water. And given that your plane cannot be completely invisible unless it simply doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force, which as far as we know, all atomic matter does, overinvestment and reliance on stealth seems foolhardy, and irresponsible in the extreme.
I should make clear that, for the time being, it is still useful and worth pursuing. But as the F35 doesn't look like it will be properly ready for full-scale combat until at least 2020, and, and would likely be slaughtered by the Russians and Chinese, both of which have their share of capable engineers and designers, and are well aware of high frequency radar.
It seems to me that a much more sensible solution would have been to reuse F-22 geometry, and especially produce the conceptual FB-22. The reduced cost of having much of the design already completed, as we as having part commonality with the F-22 would reduce the long-term cost of both airframes, allowing larger numbers to be fielded.
Second, it seems to me that the only responsible move would be to have conventional backup designs for all roles intended to be taken by Gen 6 airframes, should stealth be rendered obsolete. The F-15S/MTD proved to be a highly maneuverable aircraft, and would work as a dedicated air superiority fighter. Similarly modified F-16's and F-18's would also be similarly capable, and at a lower cost than the mate-grey grey monstrosity we're dumping money into.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 01:13:19 PM
A rail gun slug is not much faster than an AA missile or SAM.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: FBKampfer on April 12, 2015, 01:34:47 PM
A rail gun slug is not much faster than an AA missile or SAM.
Well for starters, the test version already is hitting mach 7+. That's damn impressive for the first runoff of a new weapon.
Second, they'll cost dollars per round instead of millions. Any one round may not be any more effective, but you can afford to throw up one hell of a lot of rounds for the same cost as a single Patriot. Second, we're talking a 20kg slug you can hold in your hand instead of a missile the size of a light truck. The enemy may not see individual rounds outgoing until too late.
Thirdly, the lazers are further along, already undergoing sea trials.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 02:01:26 PM
The laser you're talking about (LaWS) is a weapon designed to take out small UAVs and blind people in small craft. It weighs one ton and has 30 kW power. That's 30,000 joules per second of fire. By comparison a typical 20 mm cannon has around 50,000 joules of energy at the muzzle. A M61 fires 100 rounds a second. A missile, even a small one, will deliver a destructive force in the millions of joules. And as I mentioned earlier in this very thread 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.
Even at Mach 7+ you'd have little chance of hitting an aircraft at any significant range with a rail gun. The Navy's rail gun program is aiming at replacing conventional rifles in the naval artillery role, not AAA. Back in the Cold War the Sprint ABM missile accelerated to Mach 10 in just 5 seconds. AMRAAM's fly at Mach 4 and some SAM systems boast speeds in excess of Mach 5.
Modern SAM systems are capable of hitting mortar rounds in flight, and the Israeli Iron Dome system does a fine job of it.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: FBKampfer on April 12, 2015, 02:09:19 PM
And again, is a prototype weapon for all intents and purposes. As I said, the question is not whether stealth is advantageous, only whether it will remain advantageous.
Unless you're operating under the assumption that technology will remain static for the next 10 years, I think it would be prudent to overestimate future capabilities rather than underestimate, as the US has had a history of doing.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 02:22:07 PM
We were talking weapons. Stealth is a factor in the sensor-ECM-ECCM war. No matter what you shoot with you need to know where to point it to hit your target. Stealth is important with today's sensors, and as sensors become more advanced stealth coatings and ECM can also be upgraded to counter them. The "wizard-war" is a constant and never ending ping-pong match.
Stealth is here to stay, no doubt about that.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: FBKampfer on April 12, 2015, 03:05:18 PM
Sensors will advance again and the war between ECM and ECCM will flip flop again, and current stealth systems will be rendered obsolete.
As I said, you would essentially have to manufacture the entire airframe out of neutronium to make it perfectly invisible to electronic sensors.
And as AA systems improve, coupled with new sensors, losses will become... Unacceptable. Especially given the price of these boondoggles.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 03:17:43 PM
Why do you assume stealth systems can't be upgraded?
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: FBKampfer on April 12, 2015, 03:29:18 PM
I'm sure they can. Can they and the entire US airfleet be upgraded faster than the sensors? Probably not.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 04:48:18 PM
Another assumption. Based on what I wonder?
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: FBKampfer on April 12, 2015, 05:59:11 PM
The fact that we have yet to fully upgrade the USAF 10 years after the introduction of the first generation 6 fighter, that theres less than 200 in service after 10 years, and likely won't be significantly more until the mid 2020's
If it takes us 20 years to upgrade our aircraft, there's no way we CAN stay ahead.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Zimme83 on April 12, 2015, 06:17:03 PM
:rofl So F-22 is a gen 6 fighter now? Started as a gen 4. I belive its time to let someone else than Lockheed Martin decide how we define fighter generations... The first definition i saw in mid 90:s, and the one im following is: (for jets)
Gen 1. Subsonic with all analog systems and unguided weapons (MiG-15, F-86) Gen 2. Supersonic, guided weapons but still analog systems. ( F-4 Phantom, Mig 21) Gen 3. As gen 2 but with computers, still conventional control system. F/A-18 A-D, JA-37) Gen 4. Digital systems, fly-by-wire and relaxed stability (EF 2000, Rafale, JAS-39, F-22) Gen 5. CUAV?
The problem with using stealth to define generation is that there is no clear definition of what "stealth" is. Planes like Rafale, JAS-39 use a lot of stealth technology compare to earlier fighters. And also if a stealth plane can be detected with new radar tecnology, is it still stealth?
(and yes, late versions of a plane did in some cases get features from a later generation, AAM on F-86 for ex)
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 08:08:38 PM
Upgrading is not the same as replacing. The F-22s in service have already undergone several upgrades. F-22 is a fifth generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 12, 2015, 08:15:27 PM
That's why they call the Gripen, EF and Rafale 4.5 generation, Zimme.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Zimme83 on April 12, 2015, 08:59:55 PM
How can there be a half generation? Neither EF, Gripen or Rafale are upgrades from earlier models, I can buy that super Hornet is a ".5" even dough i concidered it as a new plane compare to the earlier Hornet but none of the European fighters are upgrades.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: Zimme83 on April 12, 2015, 09:29:36 PM
The present generation definition is pretty much made only by USAF and Lockheed Martin, even USN and Boeing have contested it, not to speak of the European manufacturers. It pretty much only about marketing your own fighter as the newest generation and as long as there isnt a standardize definition everyone will have their own. Thats why i will go after the "old" one.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: icepac on April 12, 2015, 09:45:41 PM
Depending on whether anybody observes rules, lasers will be used for blinding people and sensors rather than destruction of a vehicle.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: FBKampfer on April 13, 2015, 01:18:35 AM
Considering that some in the USAF are already talking about strapping them onto fighters, I find that rather unlikely.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: bozon on April 13, 2015, 05:08:47 AM
The cannon is not dead yet. All missiles have counter measures and the balance between the two keep shifting. Who currently has the upper hand is a big unknown because ECM and other special counter devices are closely kept secrets. The problem is that if a weapon system is countered, more of it will not help much - so if your missiles fail, taking more of them instead of a cannon will not help.
Lasers are interesting, but as mentioned the have "weather" problems. In addition, lasers can be easily defeated by various coatings. Therefore I do not expect to see wide spread use of lasers anytime soon.
Cannons still have room for development. It will always be a short range weapon, but it does not have to be a boresight weapon. They can be gimbaled at least to a certain degree to allow a wider envelope of threat. There are talks of guided munitions to cannons. This is a limited guidance system either in closed (inflight continuous corrections) or open (pre launch maneuver command) control loops. 100 bullets are harder to counter than 1 missile even and sometimes because their guidance is simple. They will rely on sensors carried by the jet which are better than what can be carried by a kill vehicle itself.
Such smart cannons will still be limited in their envelope and will never be an all aspect weapon, but on the other hand they are nearly impossible to counter - except by maneuvering out of their envelope. In such a case, maneuverability is till important both offensively and defensively.
Title: Re: Gen 6 USAF Fighter article
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 13, 2015, 05:24:12 AM
The present generation definition is pretty much made only by USAF and Lockheed Martin, even USN and Boeing have contested it, not to speak of the European manufacturers. It pretty much only about marketing your own fighter as the newest generation and as long as there isnt a standardize definition everyone will have their own. Thats why i will go after the "old" one.