Forum: General F-35 Forum

Quote:

As for a hypersonic bomber forget it, the technology isn't there yet which is why the X-30 was cancelled.

We are currently in the Wright Brothers era of hyper-sonics, around the time they were playing with advanced kites and engines.
The struggle continues to get a hyper-sonic test platform to perform the hyper-deed for more than a handful of moments.
Those test platforms are put into the best possible hyper-sonic ignition environment with the help of good ole' rocket motors.

When they can build an operational hyper-sonic missile, that can maneuver and seek a target, then you might take the next step and start thinking about an unmanned hyper-sonic craft of some kind that could execute a mission, and return to base.
When you succeed in getting that far then maybe you could convince congress to pay for a manned X craft, but it would be unlikely to be a green light for an operational heavy bomber that consumes the AF budget for a decade or so.

Can anyone explain why an anti-ballistic missile system couldn't engage a hyper-sonic craft? To a layman like me the difference appears to be just altitude, which seems to favor the interceptor.

F-16.net Sponsor

@archeman, go do some skeet shooting and keep moving the clay piegons farther back and launch them at ever increasingly faster speeds. Let me know how that works out for you.

alloycowboy wrote:

@archeman, go do some skeet shooting and keep moving the clay piegons farther back and launch them at ever increasingly faster speeds. Let me know how that works out for you.

How is that relevant?
The interceptors are guided. More range just gives them more time to orient on the target, and the speed of the target just makes it that less maneuverable.

@count to 10.....

The higher and faster the target flys the harder it is to hit because your timing and accuracy has to be that much more precise even with guide missiles. Small errors at launch mean large misses at altitude.

Throwing unlimited amounts of money at a problem does not necessarily solve it. Over thirty years ago (Reagan era) we started throwing literally trillions of dollars at the "Star Wars" program. There were eventually supposed to be orbiting "death stars" that would melt enemy warheads as they headed towards the US. After trillions of dollars and huge amounts of research and development, we've essentially got nothing. Human knowledge, science and technology simply aren't there yet. There are a few lonely missiles up in Alaska that might be able to hit a lonely Korean missile headed our way, but even the ABL just got parked. Regardless of the money spent, human brains just haven't come up with the right solutions yet.

Hypersonic aircraft are at the same impasse. Yes, there will probably be a hypersonic missile someday, and possibly even a manned hypersonic aircraft, but the number of problems that need to be solved before then is immense. There is simply too much that we don't know how to do yet.

Also, hypersonic aircraft and missiles may be good for fixed strategic targets, but the physics involved in using a vehicle travelling at Mach 5+ to do CAS or escort helicopters into an LZ or get into an air-to-air dogfight (many-vs-many scenario) would seem to be insurmountable. Remember, despite its stealth characteristics, the F-35 is an A-10 / AV-8 / F-16 / F-18 air-to-ground attack aircraft replacement. It is not a B-2 strategic bomber, or an F-22 air dominance fighter. A hypersonic vehicle might be a good B-1 / B-2 / ALCM replacement, but I don't see it replacing the tactical fighter any time soon.

alloycowboy wrote:

@count to 10.....

The higher and faster the target flys the harder it is to hit because your timing and accuracy has to be that much more precise even with guide missiles. Small errors at launch mean large misses at altitude.

That doesn't appear to be an issue.

alloycowboy wrote:

@archeman, go do some skeet shooting and keep moving the clay piegons farther back and launch them at ever increasingly faster speeds. Let me know how that works out for you.

acboy: I might be confused (has happened before!) or perhaps I asked the question incorrectly.
If you already have an anti-aircraft system that can intercept ballistic missiles, wouldn't a hyper-sonic aircraft be just as or more vulnerable to that system?
The hyper-sonic aircraft can't leave the atmosphere else it would starve it's engines so it will be at probably a lower altitude and AFAIK it isn't moving at a greater speed than the ballistic missile. Since it is an aircraft it will be considerably larger than a missile assuming it intends to return home which doesn't concern the missile.

Your skeet example seemed to me to support to the fact that hyper-sonics aircraft were more at risk.

I always learn far more in a debate when I am wrong! When I'm right, I end up walking away with nothing more than I arrived with....

Meteor wrote:

Hypersonic aircraft are at the same impasse. Yes, there will probably be a hypersonic missile someday, and possibly even a manned hypersonic aircraft, but the number of problems that need to be solved before then is immense. There is simply too much that we don't know how to do yet.

Also, hypersonic aircraft and missiles may be good for fixed strategic targets, but the physics involved in using a vehicle travelling at Mach 5+ to do CAS or escort helicopters into an LZ or get into an air-to-air dogfight (many-vs-many scenario) would seem to be insurmountable. Remember, despite its stealth characteristics, the F-35 is an A-10 / AV-8 / F-16 / F-18 air-to-ground attack aircraft replacement. It is not a B-2 strategic bomber, or an F-22 air dominance fighter. A hypersonic vehicle might be a good B-1 / B-2 / ALCM replacement, but I don't see it replacing the tactical fighter any time soon.

That's a pretty good answer. It's more less what I was thinking when I asked the devils advocate question. Still, it's intriguing. If you could eliminate an enemy's tactical air power on the ground and largely take down his air defense C2 with weapons of this type, then whatever CAS and BAI platforms you had (A-10s and 4th gen planes with smart weapons for example) could largely get the job done from there.

You're assuming that the best way to accomplish that task is through a kinetic kill, ie., blow it up. Based upon what's actually going on in the real (black) world out there, that's not the primary focus today. Cyberwarfare is "where it's at". The Israelis flew non-stealthy F-15Es through the Syrian IADs to take down a potential WMD site by inserting a bunch of ones and zeroes into where the Syrians didn't expect it. The Stuxnet and Flame viruses have wreaked havoc with their targets. The Chinese have apparently had great success with penetrating and compromising US systems.

Currently the best way to take down an enemy IADs (including fighters) is non-kinetically. In that sense, the EA-18G is probably the most valuable and effective aviation asset in the US inventory, with its ability to inject attack algorithims into enemy systems. If you can make the enemies' command and control network non-functional due to being made deaf, blind, and mute, your CAS and BAI forces can pretty much roam at will.

alloycowboy wrote:

Redbird.... You got to to stop listening to river otter as he isn't thinking through the problem clearly. He forgot why the F-35 has a spherical infared remote sensor system for a reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

As for a hypersonic bomber forget it, the technology isn't there yet which is why the X-30 was cancelled.

Ah, yes, the tired old infrared video.

Distance never exceeded two miles, the operators knew where the F-22 was at all times and had to aim the camera by hand, and it was a plane doing airshow maneuvers in airshow trim with (just like it wears a Luneberg lens) presumably none of its infrared countermeasures on to hide what its actual capability is. And the details of the video suggest the gain settings of the camera were all the way to 11; that big exhaust plume was no whiter in the image than a number of points on the fuselage itself. The camera was also zoomed all the way in to the F-22; worthless for scanning a volume of sky to find something. If that's what IR can see of an F-22, it's useful to make nice pictures of the plane up close if you already know where it is, but it's not really useful for finding the F-22 in the first place. I'm sure there are better IR systems than that camera. And IR gets harder to stealth up close. But it does not have the range of radar and will never replace the detection capabilities that stealth systems have taken away.

And that's my point: I didn't say you couldn't dogfight a stealth fighter with eyes or IR at point-blank ranges if you happen to already know where it is. I said you'd be running up against the law of diminishing returns trying to find it in the first place. You can't fill the sky with FLIR-equipped fighters at 2 mile intervals. Especially when those fighters are not stealth, and can be easily avoided by a plane that is. And when that stealth plane only needs to get within 20 miles of its target even when using gravity bombs. Even another stealth fighter would have to stumble upon the incoming stealth fighter by dumb luck in order to get it in range to "find" it by IR.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

More Bang For the Buck?