F-22A vs. 6th Gen Proposal

[element1loop]

WTF is a turbo laser? That term literally doesn't exist outside of Star Wars and Warhammer 40k.

I'm pretty sure Battlestar Galactica had those.

A laser with a gimballed mirror, plus a jet with enough yaw and AOA authority can point a laser in any direction desired within about two seconds. LM mounted a gimballed laser aperture on the door of a light business jet for goodness sake.

Word has it BVR radars and radar-guided AAMs are not effective against 5th-gens, even at WVR distances. Laser DIRCMs have been around for almost 15 years now. And compact 40 to 60 kilowatt solid-state lasers are reality, plus there's been much optimistic talk about fully achievable and much higher-energy lasers for at least 5 years now.

And I'm not accepting for one second that while having 4 ~50-kilowatt lasers dwelling on your canopy simultaneously, you're going to be just chewing on a ham sandwich and prosecuting a WVR attack against a target which has a 50 kilowatt laser pointed in your face.

I think you're deliberately trying to not, "get it", z1.

But I suppose one could put a crash test dummy in a full flight suit and helmet, within a real cockpit in a boneyard, and have it illuminated by a 50 kilowatt laser 10 km away, and see how long it takes for the dummy's face to become charcoal, or even incandescent?

Now do it with four of them, simultaneously.

[zero-one]

Fixed orientation laser? What?

Remember thats exactly how Northrop depicted their Directed energy weapon on their promotional video. It wasn't on a movable turret. it was so massive that it needed to be part of the the fuselage.

WTF is a turbo laser?

Its the term I like to use for a laser that can actually damage heavy fighters at considerable ranges. Right now, laser weapons are massive and have to be placed on ships or on large trucks and can only produce a 10 KW beam. In the future that may jump to 50 KW.

But in order to actually destroy fast and agile fighters, you'll need to inflict damage in a short period. 250 to 500 KW maybe. A.K.A. this type of weapon is still well within the realms of science fiction, hence the term Turbo lasers.

But thats just my opinion. If you can give examples of small turreted or gimbaled lasers within the 100 KW range under development then I'll eat my crow. Right now those devices are gigantic and they're not even that powerful.

[element1loop]

Right now, laser weapons are massive and have to be placed on ships or on large trucks and can only produce a 10 KW beam. In the future that may jump to 50 KW.

But in order to actually destroy fast and agile fighters, you'll need to inflict damage in a short period. 250 to 500 KW maybe. A.K.A. this type of weapon is still well within the realms of science fiction, hence the term Turbo lasers.

You better include bombers and drones on that list of possible platforms.

Lasers, Hypersonics, & AI: Mike Griffin’s Killer Combo

March 20, 2019

“More than any other of the areas in my portfolio,” undersecretary Griffin said, “I think the leverage of directed energy is so high … that it is right at the top of my investment priorities.”

“My principal goal for directed energy actually is to have it stop being ‘the technology of the future and already will be’ and move it into the fleet, move it into the field,” Griffin told the CSBA-BAH Directed Energy Summit here this morning. ” “We hope, by the end of another year or so, to have some of these things operational at the tens or low hundreds of kilowatts level on real DoD platforms. Put them into the field, try them out, see what they can do for us.”

“but I also believe in the value of 75 kilowatts on top of the Stryker, or 100 kilowatts on the Littoral Combat Ship, or a couple of hundred kilowatts on a KC-46 next-generation tanker so that it can self-defend.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/las ... ler-combo/

--

Bioengineering, lasers and more drones: Griffin outlines the Pentagon’s tech wish list

Sept 3rd, 2019

Directed energy: Griffin said laser weapons are the future of warfare, and always will be. But he believes certain systems are showing more promise than others. “We haven’t had money for everything that we might like to do, so we’re focusing on nearer-term applications of directed energy, particularly lasers of higher power than we currently have,” Griffin said. That means aiming for systems in the “hundreds of kilowatts” as well as investing in high-powered microwave technology, he noted.

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense ... -wishlist/

Pentagon Shifts Focus on Directed Energy Weapons Technology
By: Ben Werner September 5, 2019 11:51 AM

... The Navy, for example, plans to install a High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance (HELIOS) weapon system aboard a West Coast-based Arleigh Burke-class Flight IIA destroyer in 2021 ...

https://news.usni.org/2019/09/05/pentag ... technology

They are under rapid development, one to two years from deployment.

[disconnectedradical]

Remember thats exactly how Northrop depicted their Directed energy weapon on their promotional video. It wasn't on a movable turret. it was so massive that it needed to be part of the the fuselage.

What promo video? Generating a laser can take up a lot of space in the fuselage, but directing the beam is easily done with lenses, mirrors, and fiber optics. A laser is not like a "gun". Again, look at YAL-1 or even smaller scale laser designators like in targeting pods.

Its the term I like to use for a laser that can actually damage heavy fighters at considerable ranges. Right now, laser weapons are massive and have to be placed on ships or on large trucks and can only produce a 10 KW beam. In the future that may jump to 50 KW.

But in order to actually destroy fast and agile fighters, you'll need to inflict damage in a short period. 250 to 500 KW maybe. A.K.A. this type of weapon is still well within the realms of science fiction, hence the term Turbo lasers.

But thats just my opinion. If you can give examples of small turreted or gimbaled lasers within the 100 KW range under development then I'll eat my crow. Right now those devices are gigantic and they're not even that powerful.

See the links element1loop posted above.

[zero-one]

What promo video?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/6th-generation-fighter/

See the links element1loop posted above.

I already saw them, Helios currently generates a 10KW laser, the goal is to eventually jump to 50KW by 2021. Maybe someday this can be be used to generate a 100KW laser, but this is not the goal as of now, the goal is to have HELIOS produce a 50KW beam by 2021.

I have not seen current projects to produce Turbo lasers (>250 KW range) at this point.
If you have a link then please share. The most powerful currently in development is Raytehon's FEL which is a 100 KW laser

https://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/ret ... ser-drone/

The Airborne Laser took 55 kilograms (about 120 pounds) to generate a kilowatt
Syring said, which is why a megawatt (1,000 kW) took a 747 Electric lasers currently in the lab take 35-40 kilograms per kilowatt,

So if you were to build a 500KW laser now. it would weigh 17,500 - 20,000 lbs empty. And thats not the only problem.
http://www.airborne-laser.com/how_does_it_work.php

The manned Airborne Laser maxed out at an altitude of about 40,000 feet, where clouds and turbulence made it harder to keep the beam on the target. “65,000 feet is where we think we need to be,”

Air turbulence deflects and distorts the laser beam.
The main laser, located in a turret on the aircraft nose, is fired for 3 to 5 seconds, causing the missile to break up in flight near the launch area.

The ABL is not designed to intercept TBMs in the terminal, or descending, flight phase.
Thus, the ABL must be within a few hundred kilometers of the missile launch point. All of this occurs in approximately 8 to 12 seconds.

Current plans call for each 747 to carry enough laser fuel for about 20 shots

what worries me is that even with a 1 MW "Turbo laser", it could take up to 5 seconds to destroy non maneuvering missiles. Fighters are far more resistant to damage than missiles, I mean just judging by how F-4s survived missile detentions from close proximity and all the stories of how an F-15 landed with 1 wing missing.

I know what you're thinking. All of these problems and shortcomings will be resolved if you throw enough dollars and time at it. But the link I posted was clear in that the USAF does not want to another 10 year development cycle, they want to use existing, mature systems. So the B-21 and F-35 are leading candidates for the PCA's manned component.

[botsing]

"Turbo laser"

Please stop using this wrong term, you are watering down the discussion with it. It's as wrong as calling the F-22 engine a "supercharged V8" .

Call it "in the 10kW, 100kW, 1MW, etc. range".

[disconnectedradical]

What promo video?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/6th-generation-fighter/

That video doesn't work. I don't see any videos showing a laser that only points forward. Are you talking about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsfypEJYqXU

Because that video doesn't have any lasers.

So the B-21 and F-35 are leading candidates for the PCA's manned component.

This is just one of many ideas for PCA. Just like for ATF there were many proposals during RFI, some were even faster and more maneuverable than F-22 but not so stealthy, some were subsonic flying wing, some were nearly Mach 3 interceptors. Right now they're looking at all options for what PCA will be, so getting hung up on just one of the ideas isn't productive especially when we know much less than people actually in the program.

[zero-one]

Because that video doesn't have any lasers.

Its my fault, I'm getting the videos mixed up. It was a USAF promotional video not Northrop.

So the B-21 and F-35 are leading candidates for the PCA's manned component.

This is just one of many ideas for PCA.

[/quote]

Yes but it was just to emphasize the point that PCA is meant to look like a SuperHornet type of program and not an ATF or JSF type.

[disconnectedradical]

How is PCA meant to look like a Super Hornet program? Just because some ideas involve using modified version of existing aircraft? That's just one of many ideas, again everything is still in conceptual stage.

I also wouldn't use concept art as proof of anything. Just look at all the concept art of the ATF in early 1980s and see how different they are from F-22. I can also show you a Northrop concept of F/A-XX with gimballed laser.



You'll notice that a recurring theme of PCA is tailless supersonic aircraft. That seems to be what Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing are all pursuing, at least if going by their concept art, and even USAF concept art. I personally think that's really cool concept and would be amazing if they can make it happen. But even then that's not guarantee PCA will look like that. Just like how a lot of ATF concepts had canards.

[zero-one]

Okay, but there has to be a noticeable difference between the ATF program and PCA program.

ATF: Develop revolutionary technologies, non existent during the 1980s but plausible in the 2005 time frame.
(According to Paul Metz)

PCA:Use existing, mature technologies and avoid protracted development cycles.

Can you envision a clean sheet design not requiring a 10 year development cycle. Remember PCA is leaning more towards a family of systems approach rather than a single super jet.

So if the manned component happens to be a B-21 or F-35E or F-22C then they'll still need to develop the unmanned and support components.

[element1loop]

I already saw them, Helios currently generates a 10KW laser, the goal is to eventually jump to 50KW by 2021.

When ABL was under development testing the actual output was very much under wraps but 100 kilowatts was mentioned a lot, and development blurbs mentioning the possibility of eventually reaching 200 kilowatts being "achievable" were floated at the time, but not confirmed, IIRC.

Now we see figures of ABL being 1-megawatt discussed in the open, so I don't think we know what Helios output is planned to be in 2021, so I'll go along with the Griffin suggestion that DoD is planning to field a "hundreds of kilowatts" laser on a real operational platform by 2021.

But the link I posted was clear in that the USAF does not want to another 10 year development cycle, they want to use existing, mature systems. So the B-21 and F-35 are leading candidates for the PCA's manned component.

This is not correct, as I already pointed out yesterday, the platform(s) can be bought into service without the laser, and have it integrated after the initial platform is made fully operational. They don't get developed together but they do get developed to be plug-'n-play integrated.

So if you were to build a 500KW laser now. it would weigh 17,500 - 20,000 lbs empty. And thats not the only problem.

This is no impediment, B-2 carries 60,000 lb of 2 x MOP. An initial 250 kilowatt laser may use only 1/4 of its available weapon payload. In terms of crawl->walk->run, this is what I had in mind as the crawling stage with an operational system. It's 'walk' is 500 kilowatts for same size and weight. And 3/4 of payload is still available for internal missiles and bombs.

The manned Airborne Laser maxed out at an altitude of about 40,000 feet, where clouds and turbulence made it harder to keep the beam on the target. “65,000 feet is where we think we need to be,” ... Air turbulence deflects and distorts the laser beam. ... The ABL is not designed to intercept TBMs ...

... Fighters are far more resistant to damage than missiles ... So the B-21 and F-35 are leading candidates for the PCA's manned component.

Tougher solid-fueled ICBM destruction range would likely be limited to 300 km, too short to be useful in many scenarios, according to a 2003 report by the American Physical Society on National Missile Defense. http://www.airborne-laser.com/how_does_it_work.php

Firstly, this aircraft will not aim for a 300 km effective range against a TBM (maybe later).

It's more like a maximum of ~125 km range engagements, so a lot less path-distortion is involved. You would only light-up an aircraft that can't be avoided from detecting or tracking you, within the range of your own passive detection and engagement sensor-array. Or else you aim at damaging its weapons at closer range. The closer the aircraft or weapon approaches, the better the beam quality and pointing, and the sooner what you specifically aim at is degraded to destruction.

Operating effectively at common tactical altitudes is not a problem for beam-quality and the range you need to operate it out to (limited by your passive sensors, of which the laser aperture will be one).

As for hitting an armored vehicle or ground target, contrary to one of your links, the same applies. If you're an unmatched quality VLO stealth platform, you can approach closer and have a shorter path to a ground target. And the vehicle itself may survive superficially, but will its systems, sensors and antennas? Such as a driver's optics? Aiming system? You may not kill the vehicle but you can make it ineffective and a sitting duck, via selective targeting parts of it, thus delivering your own ground forces major advantages.

Plus a TBM is narrow and fast moving. Many aircraft are larger and all are slower and exposed for longer, with a much longer time to approach. There will be more than enough time to engage them with multiple laser strikes. You don't have to burn a wing off or cut through the structure. Sensors and comms antennas (sometimes the same things) are more vulnerable than the skin and structures. But lose those and it's probably done in a fight. Or at least it is now highly vulnerable to a single AAM attack to finish it off.

A cockpit, and what's in it, is likewise highly vulnerable and it's the most easy to access and contains the most fragile and exposed components to any direct energy attack. Even if the pilot is shielded, the damaging and distorting of a canopy frame, and the 'plexiglass' layering may cause so much damage or heat and smoke from seals that the pilot is forced to turn away, is incapacitated, or must eject. This will also induce serious shock-heating and cooling stresses in the canopy, and possibly delaminate or collapse it depending on energy levels.

If 250,000 watts hits a fan face on an Su57's engine for 2 seconds that fan is likely to have some distortion and terminal perimeter clearance issues. Performance suddenly drops, the jet starts to crab-walk. It's now highly vulnerable to being picked-of and you're probably no longer the pilot's first priority ... suddenly discovers he needs to be somewhere.

The survivability of the 'B-21' has been much increased by the laser and even if what it shoots at does not die, it can complete its mission that day, and the next.

[zero-one]

HELIOS is a US navy project meant to be installed on ships not aircraft. The highest estimate I've seen for HELIOS is to eventually reach 150KW. (https://www.laserfocusworld.com/lasers- ... ans-expand)

If they are already struggling to go to 50 KW, what makes us think they can go to 1MW with a practical system within the short development cycle the USAF is requesting for. YAL-1 was canceled for a reason, it was impractical, according to Def Sec. Gates. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1)

So if the plan is to simply dazzle or damage sensors before finishing them off with missiles, then the aircraft will still need some speed and maneuverability.

The moment, you cook off an opposing fighter's sensors, it can still fight by using targeting data from other fighters via data link. If each fighter requires a 5 second burst, then how many can you cook off before you are within range of their weapons. Isn't your orientation relative to the target a factor, what if the enemy is pointed away from your laser, will it still fry the cockpit or the IRST you're trying to fry.

Having a sluggish, non maneuverable bomber type platform armed with these dazzlers looks too risky, thats all I'm saying.
If they can get a clean sheet or F-22/35 type design that can fight with lasers, dazzlers, missiles and guns then fine, but removing a hundred years worth of fighter capabilities because of an over reliance on new untested technology seems too risky

[element1loop]

HELIOS is a US navy project meant to be installed on ships not aircraft. The highest estimate I've seen for HELIOS is to eventually reach 150KW. (https://www.laserfocusworld.com/lasers- ... ans-expand)

So it's gone up from 50 kW to 150 kW, in just a few hours?

I'm sticking with what Griffin says in plain English.

Lasers, Hypersonics, & AI: Mike Griffin’s Killer Combo - March 20, 2019
... “We hope, by the end of another year or so, to have some of these things operational at the tens or low hundreds of kilowatts level on real DoD platforms. Put them into the field, try them out, see what they can do for us.” “but I also believe in the value of 75 kilowatts on top of the Stryker, or 100 kilowatts on the Littoral Combat Ship, or a couple of hundred kilowatts on a KC-46 next-generation tanker so that it can self-defend.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/las ... ler-combo/

If they are already struggling to go to 50 KW, what makes us think they can go to 1MW with a practical system within the short development cycle the USAF is requesting for.

Who mentioned going to 1 megawatt? Only you.

And how do you know what a "practical" laser attack weapon is against an aircraft? If I point 4 separate networked 250 kilowatt lasers at your cockpit, simultaneously, would this be sufficiently practical enough to admit those can burn your head clean off your shoulders, with one shot, at the speed of light?

I'm speaking of hundreds of kilowatts because Griffin says that's realistic, and also what they're going to do with the highest of budget priorities. I'm not going to try to misconstrue that into something else.

So if the plan is to simply dazzle or damage sensors before finishing them off with missiles, then the aircraft will still need some speed and maneuverability.

" ... or a couple of hundred kilowatts on a KC-46 next-generation tanker so that it can self-defend. ..."

That's where the money is going, tankers that can self-defend against BVR fighters and their missiles, using a laser who's added weight and space is not detracting much from off-load capacity.

The moment, you cook off an opposing fighter's sensors, it can still fight by using targeting data from other fighters via data link.

I said sensors and antenna.

If each fighter requires a 5 second burst, then how many can you cook off before you are within range of their weapons.

Once! Four separate simultaneous 250 kW lasers with adaptive optics use the type classification provided by the data fusion-engine, to inform using MDFs data to auto-focus on the weakest available kill point - its cockpit.

Does this need to be repeated several more times yet?

(psst: I hear this sort of energy level can implode a boost-phase theater ballistic missile's structure in 3 seconds of dwell, so should clear up a runny sinus problem nicely.)

Isn't your orientation relative to the target a factor, what if the enemy is pointed away from your laser, will it still fry the cockpit or the IRST you're trying to fry.

What do I even care, it doesn't like me and is going away. If it points its butt at me I'll melt its hot-section turbines and turn it into a glider, I'm flexible!

Having a sluggish, non maneuverable bomber type platform armed with these dazzlers looks too risky, thats all I'm saying. If they can get a clean sheet or F-22/35 type design that can fight with lasers, dazzlers, missiles and guns then fine, but removing a hundred years worth of fighter capabilities because of an over reliance on new untested technology seems too risky

Sorry, this does not compute. How is giving the world's most advanced (and fastest) A2A capability to a stealth bomber, which was previously defenseless, taking something away from its air defense? You seem to struggle with this basic phased-adoption concept of crawl->walk->run?

And who said anything about removing fighter capabilities? Only you ... once again.

[zero-one]

So it's gone up from 50 kW to 150 kW, in just a few hours?

Thats the optimistic range. The realistic target is 50KW but hey if they can go up to 150 why not.

Who mentioned going to 1 megawatt? Only you.

Because if it takes 5 seconds for a 1 MW laser to damage fragile TBMs, then how much longer will it take a 250 KW laser to do the same to fighters which can survive with 1 wing sheered off, 20 seconds?

And how do you know what a "practical" laser attack weapon is against an aircraft?

Those are not my words, its from Robert Gates.

So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept."

Remember this is even with a 1 MW laser. The ones you are hoping for are just hundreds of kilowatts hopefully and just 50 kilowatts realistically.

Once! Four separate simultaneous 250 kW lasers with adaptive optics use the type classification provided by the data fusion-engine, to inform using MDFs data to auto-focus on the weakest available kill point - its cockpit.

So 4 aircraft will do what 1 fighter use to do. What about the wing man or other flight elements? Are we going to assume that he won't get close and gun down the 4 lumbering bombers that can't run.

What do I even care, it doesn't like me and is going away.

So you can only attack things that are pointed at you?

If it points its butt at me I'll melt its hot-section turbines and turn it into a glider, I'm flexible!

Well thats if the butt is pointed directly at you? and since you're a bomber that can't turn or run, well tats going to be difficult. Congratulations, we successfully took away all aspect targeting capability.

And who said anything about removing fighter capabilities? Only you ... once again.

[/quote]
Did you even read my link, it says that one of the angles being looked at is to use the B-21 as the manned component of PCA.

Thats my entire argument I'm not against lasers.
I'm against turning the B-21 into the PCA. The B-21 is a bomber, even if it had a 300 KW laser on it, that would only give it added offensive/defensive capabilities but it won't be a fighter.

If you can put that laser on an F-35E or better yet an F-22C then I'm all for it. but using the B-21 and saying its a fighter is just ridiculous.

P.S. If I said that we can keep the F-22 and just slap on ADVENT engines that will eventually give it 500% more range, people will call me out on it. So whats the difference between HELIOS that currently only produces 10 KW, targeting 50 KW by 2021 and hopefully someday, in 2050 maybe it can reach hundreds of kilowatts, maybe 500.

Remember the YAL-1, it had a 1MW laser, but was considered impractical because you needed 20 or more to be inside Iran just to shoot off fragile TBMs. By the way the TBM needed to be in its launch phase, the ABL cannot intercept it while in its terminal phase.

[element1loop]

If you can put that laser on an F-35E or better yet an F-22C then I'm all for it. but using the B-21 and saying its a fighter is just ridiculous.

Oh please. I think I can tell the difference between a fighter, and a bomber which has a laser self-defence capability against fighters and their weapons, or else SAMs. Mutually supporting fields of fire are not new to bomber operations when defending against flights of fighters, and lasers can do it much faster and more efficiently with scale-able output and effects. And of course the role of a loyal-wingman was also discussed within that context, which you also seem keen to avoid acknowledging.

At no point have I discussed fighters with lasers on them. But don't stop yourself from pretending that this is what the discussion is about. It isn't, but I'm sure at this point that you can't (or won't) comprehend the difference.

But if you think that a bomber becomes a fighter just because it has a laser defense against fighters, then that's your problem, not mine. A Lancaster with machine guns that killed fighters, was also not a fighter, it was a bomber with an A2A self-defence capability. A fighter pilot with a boiled brain after the first shot, is going down, and the BOMBER that did it will carry on its mission.

Apologies if the pending advent of high-energy lasers on bombers and tankers interferes with the much anticipated mid-21st century WVR gun-fight renaissance.