Gen 6 USAF Fighter article

[FBKampfer]

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.

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

[FBKampfer]

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.

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

[FBKampfer]

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.

[PR3D4TOR]

Why do you assume stealth systems can't be upgraded?

[FBKampfer]

I'm sure they can. Can they and the entire US airfleet be upgraded faster than the sensors? Probably not.

[PR3D4TOR]

Another assumption. Based on what I wonder?

[FBKampfer]

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.

[Zimme83]

  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)

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

[PR3D4TOR]

That's why they call the Gripen, EF and Rafale 4.5 generation, Zimme.

[Zimme83]

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.

[Zimme83]

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.

[icepac]

Depending on whether anybody observes rules, lasers will be used for blinding people and sensors rather than destruction of a vehicle.