6 generation fighter

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 1,081

Would laser weapon change the face of future air combat ?
Do you think future fighter would look something like this
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/B-1_Afghanistan_December_08.JPG

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/11/090618-f-0000x-101.jpg
http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/05/sto_hellads_credit_darpa-100587047-primary.idge.jpg

Original post

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 1,542

I would expect a stealthy, tail-less design like Taranis, with a large multirole ventral energy weapons system, and a smaller dorsal system for self defence.

But... that will depend on the legalities of using energy weapons against people. Is this permitted?

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

A laser mounted on a B-1 might not cook a human, but it cooks popcorn well in the movies.

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 999

Why B-1 and C-130 laser are not in their nose like YAL-1 but under the belly ?
http://www.mda.mil/global/images/system/altb/unstow.jpg

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

Flying laser system are around from almost thirty years still no one of them has even had an operational role.
Now, if something that doesn't worked fine when istalled a Boeing airliner would instead do it into a fighter sized plane is out of me.

And even if it would work, what advantage it woud gain from being installed on a supersonic fighter instead than on an transport plane like let say on a C-27 or an AN-72?

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Now, if something that doesn't worked fine when istalled a Boeing airliner would instead do it into a fighter sized plane is out of me.

- No one is even thinking about putting up a COIL on a fighter

- No one is even thinking about putting up a mega watt class laser on a fighter, with the aim of shooting down boost-phase ballistic missiles from hundreds of km's away

And even if it would work, what advantage it woud gain from being installed on a supersonic fighter instead than on an transport plane like let say on a C-27 or an AN-72?

Give the fighter both defensive, and offensive capability. A directed energy weapon on a fighter would not solve all of its defensive or offensive concerns however it will play a part along with EW suites, missiles etc.

Why B-1 and C-130 laser are not in their nose like YAL-1 but under the belly ?

Mission dictates design.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 3,381

It took hundreds of years for gunpowder-derived projectile weapons to replace medieval weaponry across all applications. DEW will get there eventually. In time for "6th Gen" in 2030s? I doubt it.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Directed Energy weapons will be on the front lines on combat aircraft, in some shape or form much before 6th generation fighters are operationalized. Today, the problem isn't getting one on a C-130, or a V-22, or even a Predator, but which one to prioritize for the long term development projects with an eye on future bomber and fighter applications. If the aim is to get a 50-150KW SSL on an aircraft for strike and perhaps self defense, you can do it relatively quickly without much risk. The AC-130 is getting on fairly soon. The challenge is to tie a decent size DEW, into the overall architecture of a future combat fighter designed to support one from the ground up. Major problems like generation, beam control etc are now well understood, its the integration portion that is going to be challenging with competing priorities.

Even getting a relatively modest offensive/defensive podded DEW on an F-15 or F-18 isn't very very challenging or risky. They should do that in the next 5-6 years for demonstration purposes. Its merging a bunch of other requirements, when it comes to RF and IR signatures, competing sensor demands (power) and SWAP (size, weight and Power) that is going to be the main challenge

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 137

I don't believe it. DEW needs too much energy no aircraft can deliver it for sustained shoots. Laser is still prone for atmospheric disturbances like fog or clouds. It is a sun shine weapon but not a weapon for use in all instances. It can be defeated by simple methods (like highly reflective coatings or fog around the target). DEW is still a toy and not a real weapon.

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 815

I don't believe it. DEW needs too much energy no aircraft can deliver it for sustained shoots.

DEW has come a long way in the last 10 years with solid state lasers that are pumped by fibre providing significant increases in power and efficiency. A fighter jet sized engine to provide more than enough power while the atmosphere will likely provide sufficient cooling as well. As Bring It On said though, there are RCS and IR factors that would need to be mitigated.

Laser is still prone for atmospheric disturbances like fog or clouds.

Sure but so is an IR missile and planes still fly around with those. From an A2A perspective the higher the firing platform the less dense the atmosphere and therefore likely longer range and more power on target. A2G will still have the denser atmosphere at ground level to deal with but could still be effective depending upon power output and range to target.
It can be defeated by simple methods (like highly reflective coatings or fog around the target).

While they are potential countermeasures I doubt their effectiveness. Are you going to fly your fighter around like a WWII B-17 polished up? Fogging up every ground target presents its own issues, especially if that target is for example a tank or other vehicle trying to engage in combat at the same time it is being targeted from the air.
DEW is still a toy and not a real weapon.

The Israelis don't think so. They are apparently deploying Iron Beam this year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 1,081

-.

Mission dictates design.

What kind of mission that would make putting laser under the belly be better than at the nose ? much smaller FoV

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

What kind of mission that would make putting laser under the belly be better than at the nose ? much smaller FoV

The nose houses a radar that the B-1 relies on for targeting. An air to ground strike laser is perfectly fine under the belly. If you want to intercept ballistic missiles however, that may be above you, you may need to put it on the nose ir on a wing etc and you would be challenged in certain scenarios if you put it on the belly.

EDIT [ clarification ] : There is no ABM mission envisioned for the B-1 and there was no A2G mission envisioned for the YAL.

In any event, the B-1 laser image was a HELLADS notional placeholder image for a potential application. Plenty of challenges would essentially drive any B-1 HELLADS adoption towards a heavily podded direction and primarily as a self-defense tool to aid survivability. No one is going to be taking apart B-1's and doing a major rebuild to overhaul its weapons system. The AC-130 is getting a DEW which unlike previous COIL application on the platform is aimed at at least partially (if not fully) at a self-defense capability to provide enhanced survivability. We also know that this is happening fairly quickly (5-6 years). The LRS-B would also most likely either have a DEW (less likely) or would have provisions for it (as an upgrade) designed from the very start. With an open missions architecture, it would be much better to create an offensive DEW on that platform since its going to be much easier from an integration perspective.

For fighters - we know that the F-15E is most likely going to be demo a podded DEW by around 2020 and that will dictate or at least influence future DEW requirments for other similar tactical aircraft. Besides this, there have been industry funded work on putting one on the Predator-C but for AFRL, DARPA and the USAF its a fine line when it comes to spending too much money on demonstrating capability as opposed to developing the capability for more permanent options. With 4 fully funded teams working on SSL's for tactical applications there comes a point where you either cut the list down to 2 or only demo a couple of designs and continue to spend money on developing all 4. Demo's aren't cheap in terms of cost and time.

Much of this has been written about, linked and discussed in the old 6th generation fighter thread - that has archived most of the 6th generation aircraft development activities over the last few years and has some very good discussions. It would be best to go over it and perhaps move the discussion over to that thread since it is a good place to archive all discussion on a subject.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?123081-Rise-of-the-6th-Generation-Fighter

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 999

The nose houses a radar that the B-1 relies on for targeting. An air to ground strike laser is perfectly fine under the belly. If you want to intercept ballistic missiles however, that may be above you, you may need to put it on the nose ir on a wing etc and you would be challenged in certain scenarios if you put it on the belly.

Can the radar of B-1 deal with airborne target ?
May be it better to have radar on top like this
http://aeromil-yf.pagesperso-orange.fr/Suede%20Awacs%20decolle.jpg
the laser on the nose can be used as self defense again missiles too
What is the range of 150 kw laser ?

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

^ Hopefully that wasn't serious

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 906

Well i were happen to make an excel spreadsheet for hmm help predicting laser range and roughly how long the laser have to be aimed.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/r25cdq2f6xkokra/LaserCalc.xlsx

Based on D Hafemeister's Physics of Societal Issues Calculations on National Security,Environment, and Energy second edition.

So basically the calculator will calculate and roughly determine whether the laser can destroy the target or not. Based on the user input the calculator will determine the beamspot area, absorbed power within the beam diameter at the target, determine beam fluence per seconds of engagement and beam fluence received by target at xxx engagement time specified by user.

Oh anyway this calculator will unfortunately Not consider beam broadening caused by "Tropospheric soup" Thus be careful when sizing Naval laser with this calculator.

Parameters considered are :
-Mirror diameter (The one which focus the beam) or equivalent diameter of the "laser array" (e.g excalibur)
-Emitted power (Pulsed or CW doesn't matter)
-Dwell time (How long the laser need to dwell to the target)
-Absorbance of the material toward laser beam (This need a chart..I'll provide it below)
-Target hardness :
[*]Aircraft : 25 Kj/sqcm
[*]Ballistic Missile (Solid fueled): 24 Kj/Sqcm
[*]Ballistic Missile (Liquid Fueled): 3 Kj/Sqcm
[*]Ballistic Missile (Liquid Fueled)With some hardening and rotation : 10 Kj/Sqcm
[*]Re-Entry Vehicle of Ballistic Missile : 100 Kj/Sqcm

Chart of laser radiation absorbtion of some material (unfortunately..no composite..)
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2015/033/a/0/wavelength_by_stealthflanker-d8gdr1k.png

The value inputted at the calculator is example for YAL-1ABL.

For possible fighter based application however my assumption is as follows :

Assume turreted arrangement with director's mirror diameter of 20 cm. Due to aerodynamic or RCS constraint (well i think 20-30cm of "bulb turret" will kind of disturbing)
The laser emitted power would be in range of 150 Kw. Probably more could be possible if with super capacitor.

Engagement time must be as short as possible, here i choose 1 seconds. The operating wavelength is chosen as 1.3 micron. target material is assumed to be aluminum skin of aircraft where it will absorb 15% of the beam power. Aircraft target have hardness value of 25 Kj/Sqcm

The result :

Engagement time : 1 seconds.
Half Angle Beam :6,5 urad
Beam Area :0,0005 Sqm
Beam Diameter :0,03 m

Range : 2 km
Fluence received :42,4 Kj/sqcm

So basically the laser can put 3 cm hole on an aircraft. with beamwidth of 6.5 micro rad.

Maybe more exposure time can help but.. given fighter is an agile target.. i kind of doubt that the laser can keep pace (unless we have Electronically Scanned Laser)

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 999

Well i were happen to make an excel spreadsheet for hmm help predicting laser range and roughly how long the laser have to be aimed.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/r25cdq2f6xkokra/LaserCalc.xlsx

Based on D Hafemeister's Physics of Societal Issues Calculations on National Security,Environment, and Energy second edition.

So basically the calculator will calculate and roughly determine whether the laser can destroy the target or not. Based on the user input the calculator will determine the beamspot area, absorbed power within the beam diameter at the target, determine beam fluence per seconds of engagement and beam fluence received by target at xxx engagement time specified by user.

Oh anyway this calculator will unfortunately Not consider beam broadening caused by "Tropospheric soup" Thus be careful when sizing Naval laser with this calculator.

Parameters considered are :
-Mirror diameter (The one which focus the beam) or equivalent diameter of the "laser array" (e.g excalibur)
-Emitted power (Pulsed or CW doesn't matter)
-Dwell time (How long the laser need to dwell to the target)
-Absorbance of the material toward laser beam (This need a chart..I'll provide it below)
-Target hardness :
[*]Aircraft : 25 Kj/sqcm
[*]Ballistic Missile (Solid fueled): 24 Kj/Sqcm
[*]Ballistic Missile (Liquid Fueled): 3 Kj/Sqcm
[*]Ballistic Missile (Liquid Fueled)With some hardening and rotation : 10 Kj/Sqcm
[*]Re-Entry Vehicle of Ballistic Missile : 100 Kj/Sqcm

Chart of laser radiation absorbtion of some material (unfortunately..no composite..)
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2015/033/a/0/wavelength_by_stealthflanker-d8gdr1k.png

The value inputted at the calculator is example for YAL-1ABL.

For possible fighter based application however my assumption is as follows :

Assume turreted arrangement with director's mirror diameter of 20 cm. Due to aerodynamic or RCS constraint (well i think 20-30cm of "bulb turret" will kind of disturbing)
The laser emitted power would be in range of 150 Kw. Probably more could be possible if with super capacitor.

Engagement time must be as short as possible, here i choose 1 seconds. The operating wavelength is chosen as 1.3 micron. target material is assumed to be aluminum skin of aircraft where it will absorb 15% of the beam power. Aircraft target have hardness value of 25 Kj/Sqcm

The result :

Engagement time : 1 seconds.
Half Angle Beam :6,5 urad
Beam Area :0,0005 Sqm
Beam Diameter :0,03 m

Range : 2 km
Fluence received :42,4 Kj/sqcm

So basically the laser can put 3 cm hole on an aircraft. with beamwidth of 6.5 micro rad.

Maybe more exposure time can help but.. given fighter is an agile target.. i kind of doubt that the laser can keep pace (unless we have Electronically Scanned Laser)

Great calculation , even though in my opinion laser should be able to keep track of target for much longer than 1 second
Range of only 2 km is rather short , didn't YAL-1 has somewhere like 500 km range ? ( yes I know YAL-1 is much more powerful but still )

Member for

16 years 5 months

Posts: 305

There was a rumour years ago that the USAF was developing a podded based laser system for use for fighters such as F-35 and F-22, I was wondering what ever came of the program or indeed if there ever was such a program?

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

There was a rumour years ago that the USAF was developing a podded based laser system for use for fighters such as F-35 and F-22, I was wondering what ever came of the program or indeed if there ever was such a program?

Not for F-35, or F-22 but a test program for legacy fighters. They are still working on it with a demo in the 2020-2023 time-frame. More information in the 6th generation thread linked above.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

Not for F-35, or F-22 but a test program for legacy fighters. They are still working on it with a demo in the 2020-2023 time-frame. More information in the 6th generation thread linked above.

The F-35 has been mentioned as well. Few details so far, but you can bet if a pod is developed for 4th generation types that a version will follow shortly for the F-35.

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 906

Great calculation , even though in my opinion laser should be able to keep track of target for much longer than 1 second
Range of only 2 km is rather short , didn't YAL-1 has somewhere like 500 km range ? ( yes I know YAL-1 is much more powerful but still )

Well first of all..YAL 1 have over 3MW of Power and Mirror diameter of 1.5 meter. and you still wonder why it can have range of 200-500 km against BM ?

Another thing is that The longer you aim your laser..then... assuming you only have one laser turret... You cannot engage other target before your previous target is destroyed. The faster you can destroy your target... the faster you can engage another target..Thus you can take out multiple target at once. You can of course have 2nd turret.. But.. if that 2nd turret also engage target 50 km at 8 minutes... well Third hostile aircraft or missile will get you by then.

Of course with the same laser as my example... extending the exposure time to 8.3 minutes.. you can engage aircraft target at 50 Km. But can you tell me what kind of aircrafts especially fighter aircrafts used today that will calmly stay and keep on moving steadily ? Well airliner or drone maybe but not agile fighters.. Plus they might have LWR.

My expectation is that those kind of targets will violently maneuver. Unless the laser is electronically steered.. i don't think it will be able to keep track on agile target. Thus fast engagement time is the key parameter here. and it can be achieved with either more powerful laser or having larger mirror/ laser focusing aperture

----
My view on this "Laser weapon" on Gen 6..is more like a defensive purpose... shooting down inbound missiles. 2 Km destruction range is i see acceptable given that effective warhead of AAM usually only have effective radius of several hundred meters. it'll keep away the protected aircraft from harmful fragments.