F-22A vs. 6th Gen Proposal

[zero-one]

This thread was dead, the last post was in 2015.
Then I posted on it with this argument

This was what I was afraid of. A lumbering slow moving target that needs to rely on standoff weapons and escorts.

That was my opening argument. To which you responded with.

Having air-to-air capabilities does not mean missiles. it more likely refers to high-energy lasers in a platform that's large enough to support 360 degree coverage via such a laser, plus a lot of fuel, and embodies the most advanced VLO tech available...

As regards kinematic performance being sacrificed, this has been discussed at length for years,

You were actually implying that a slow bomber with no missiles can be used as an air to air fighter...
Now you're saying, nobody said anything about removing capabilities, Actually you did or at least implied that its okay.

The problem is whenever someone advocates that Kinematics still have their place in modern air combat, you automatically associate them as being unable to move on from WW2 gun fights.

Sorry no, BVR needs speed and maneuverability too.
F-35 and F-22 test pilot Tom Morganfeld can be quoted as saying "maneuverability will always be important in a fighter" as a response to how HOBS will affect modern air combat.

[garrya]

Sorry no, BVR needs speed and maneuverability too

Technically speaking Arleigh Burke has neither but it is an extremely dangerous BVR platform

[zero-one]

Technically speaking Arleigh Burke has neither but it is an extremely dangerous BVR platform

In theory sure. but I'd still take an F-15 over it as I'm sure everyone else will.
How many BVR kills does the Burke have? (Legit question, I really don't know). I hope it wasn't just the airliner.

[element1loop]

You were actually implying that a slow bomber with no missiles can be used as an air to air fighter...

I did not respond to any of your remarks, I responded in a general way to this text, which I first quoted:

“A B-21 [Raider stealth bomber] that also has air-to-air capabilities” and can “work with the family of systems to defend itself, utilizing stealth – maybe that’s where the sixth-generation airplane comes from.” https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... air-combat

I did not quote you at all, nor was I responding to you. You've assumed wrongly from the beginning.

Now you're saying, nobody said anything about removing capabilities, Actually you did or at least implied that its okay.

Nope, I said an added air defense capability does not have to be assumed to be missiles, it can be a laser defense, which is being referred to by U.S. Air Force Major General Scott Pleus. That's the first thing I said.

Here it is again, my first remark:

Having air-to-air capabilities does not mean missiles. it more likely refers to high-energy lasers in a platform that's large enough to support 360 degree coverage via such a laser, plus a lot of fuel, and embodies the most advanced VLO tech available.

You've assumed, ... “A B-21 [Raider stealth bomber] that also has air-to-air capabilities” ..., will mean missiles alone. But you were not paying attention to what I wrote.

Given no bomber has either AAMs or a H-E laser, how could that possibly be construed as my, "removing capabilities"?

Zero, honestly mate, your assumptions, avoidance and tangential accusations do my head in.

[zero-one]

Given no bomber has either AAMs or a H-E laser, how could that possibly be construed as my, [i]"removing capabilities"

This whole thread is about the F-22 vs 6th gen proposals or PCA. And in more than 1 occasion you implied that having a B-21 as the basis for the PCA is okay as long as it has lasers.

In fact your beliefs on lasers are still based on science fiction. Just like when you said this

And compact 40 to 60 kilowatt solid-state lasers are reality,

Really? give us examples of that.

[marsavian]

I don't think a billion dollar B-21 with air to air capability is very export friendly which is why PCA should still resemble a fighter albeit a big and rangy one. The B-21 may still develop A-A capability but only for enhancement of existing fleet.

[element1loop]

Given no bomber has either AAMs or a H-E laser, how could that possibly be construed as my, [i]"removing capabilities"

This whole thread is about the F-22 vs 6th gen proposals or PCA. And in more than 1 occasion you implied that having a B-21 as the basis for the PCA is okay as long as it has lasers.

In fact your beliefs on lasers are still based on science fiction. Just like when you said this

And compact 40 to 60 kilowatt solid-state lasers are reality,

Really? give us examples of that.

Frankly your comments are so far wide of the mark at this point I don't really care what you have to say on the topic.

Solid-State High-Energy Laser Systems

Gamma [13.5 kW]

... Gamma is the first product in Northrop Grumman's next-generation FIRESTRIKE Developed with internal funding, Gamma's real achievement is in its packaging and ruggedness. The Gamma demonstrator is built in a form factor that implements the size and weight reduction goals of the FIRESTRIKE™ design, which cuts the weight of the finished laser chain to 400 pounds and shrinks the volume to 23 inches by 40 inches by 12 inches, or about the size of two countertop microwave ovens.

The Gamma demonstrator is a single "chain" or building block that is designed to be combined with other chains to create laser systems of greater power, as was demonstrated in Northrop Grumman's 105 kilowatt Joint High Power Solid State Laser .

The laser has also been ruggedized to demonstrate readiness to begin transition to operational use.

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... fault.aspx

It takes 8 Gamma blocks to create this 105kW solid-state laser the physical size of 16 microwave ovens, and it weighs 8 x 400 lb = 3,200 lb. That is small enough and light enough to fit in a pod on a fighter's wing.

US Army to Test Powerful New Truck-Mounted Laser ‘Within Months’

MARCH 16, 2017

New solid-state lasers plus ever-more-powerful mobile generators brings directed energy weapons a big step closer to reality.

Progress in battlefield lasers is exceeding some of the most optimistic expectations of just a few years ago. The latest evidence comes from Lockheed Martin, which on Thursday announced a new record:: 58 kilowatts of direct power from a solid-state fiber laser. Lockheed will send it to the Army in a matter of months for testing on a High Energy Laser Mobile Test Truck, or HELMTT, according to Lockheed’s Robert Afzal, a senior fellow for laser and sensor systems. But Afzal says that the scalability of the laser opens up use on everything from drones to massive ships and at different levels of power.

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2 ... earch_navy

... you implied that having a B-21 as the basis for the PCA is okay as long as it has lasers.

And that's just BS, what you have to say is being "implied" is only because you can't get anything right about what I've actually said, so you're just making stuff up.

[garrya]

In theory sure. but I'd still take an F-15 over it as I'm sure everyone else will.
How many BVR kills does the Burke have? (Legit question, I really don't know). I hope it wasn't just the airliner.

If by "everyone" you mean only internet enthusiasts then I totally agree, F-15 has better cool factor. However any general or air defense expert would rather having a Burke defense his base than an F-15.
I don't know how many BVR kills does Burke has, but I don't think kills is neccessary the good way to evaluate the effectiveness of a weapon over another. Little boys bomb killed so many people while nuclear ICBM haven't kill any. Which is more effective killing machine

[botsing]

If by "everyone" you mean only internet enthusiasts then I totally agree, F-15 has better cool factor. However any general or air defense expert would rather having a Burke defense his base than an F-15.
I don't know how many BVR kills does Burke has, but I don't think kills is neccessary the good way to evaluate the effectiveness of a weapon over another. Little boys bomb killed so many people while nuclear ICBM haven't kill any. Which is more effective killing machine

Also none of the professional users would just pick "one" of these assets and let it out on it's own.

[zero-one]

Gamma is not exactly an example of a 40 to 60 KW solid state laser.
Its a series of weak lasers that can be combined into a building block format to create a 50 - 60 kw lasers
I admit I did not know that was possible. But I'm curious as to why they didn't add more or develop this concept in order to link more. why stop at 100 kw.

HELMTT on the other hand is not compact, its on a truck, a 58KW laser on a truck. yes it can be carried by a plane, but its too big and too weak to be a practical long range weapon.

When I read your post, I have the impression that you are on-board with the USAF proposal to base the PCA on a B-21 air frame so long as it is armed with lasers. So just to settle this, do you agree with that or do you agree with me that even with lasers, PCA would still need kinematics. That an F-35, F-22 or a clean sheet design which can still pull Gs and accelerate to mach quickly is still needed.

[zero-one]

If by "everyone" you mean only internet enthusiasts then I totally agree, F-15 has better cool factor. However any general or air defense expert would rather having a Burke defense his base than an F-15.

Not just internet enthusiast.
Carrier battle groups are set up to have F-14s or F/A-18s to perform first line of defense in what they call the Outer air battle, with Aegis equipped Burkes and Ticcos in the inside in what they call the inner air air battle.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Carr ... air_battle)

And BVR is not just, defense, in offensive BVR, give me a squadron of F-15s or F-14s you can have the Burke.

but I don't think kills is neccessary the good way to evaluate the effectiveness of a weapon over another. Little boys bomb killed so many people while nuclear ICBM haven't kill any. Which is more effective killing machine

But then again there were weapons out there that should have performed a certain way in theory but did not. I'm not saying I don't agree with you, the F-22 is an airplane that should dominate in theory but has 0 kills so far.

[element1loop]

Gamma is not exactly an example of a 40 to 60 KW solid state laser.
Its a series of weak lasers that can be combined into a building block format to create a 50 - 60 kw lasers. I admit I did not know that was possible. But I'm curious as to why they didn't add more or develop this concept in order to link more. why stop at 100 kw.

Gamma is an in-house development, they demonstrated how solid-state lasers could be scaled to purpose. I guess they decided they'd spent enough of the company's money at 105 kW, and had demonstrated the potential of their compact modular solid-state lasers.

HELMTT on the other hand is not compact, its on a truck, a 58KW laser on a truck. yes it can be carried by a plane, but its too big and too weak to be a practical long range weapon.

It's a small truck and demonstrates clearly that compact 60 kW solid-state lasers are not "science fiction", they're real.

When I read your post, I have the impression that you are on-board with the USAF proposal to base the PCA on a B-21 air frame so long as it is armed with lasers. So just to settle this, do you agree with that or do you agree with me that even with lasers, PCA would still need kinematics. That an F-35, F-22 or a clean sheet design which can still pull Gs and accelerate to mach quickly is still needed.

I have not been specifically discussing PCA or any fighters, I have discussed B-21 with a laser A2A self-defense, working with an agile 'loyal wingman', supported by an autonomous drone tanker. That may be enough to allow B-21 to achieve its penetrating bombing attack in contested OPFOR airspace.

As far as I'm concerned 'PCA' (Penetrating and Countering enemy Airpower) in fighter terms is a large agile supersonic multirole fighter (optionally manned) that counters all OPFOR aircraft in air and especially on the ground, over a heavily defended enemy mainland, in a conventional strategic attack.

B-21 could attack air-power and its enablers on the ground with missiles and bombs, and defend itself in the air if tracked but will never be a platform of choice for air intercept or hunting for and eliminating fighters, in the air. Though it would clearly overlap with PCA objectives in its ability to destroy enemy airpower quickly on the ground. And it's not clear that even a heavy fighter would be as good at doing that in the shortest possible timeframe.

However, B-21 could one day be used to hunt support aircraft, or even maritime patrol aircraft, if its laser scaled-up suitably to provide more energy at higher ranges. Which may be useful if a USAF PCA system-of-systems could not get out to those larger wider ranging aircraft due to range limitations or a lack of AAR resources, due to attrition.

It's been made more than clear that PCA may not be a single platform and most probably won't be, so I won't insist it be specifically a manned fighter, when all it has to do is penetrate and kill OPFOR air power and survive doing that. PCA defines a desire for an evolving system-of-systems which can achieve eliminating enemy airpower at greatly extended range as technology evolves over decades.

B-21 and its weapon mix would quite obviously be a major component of that penetrating and air-power killing force (and it's pointless to deny that it would be). Hence why a Major General is considering B-21 with an air-to-air self-defense capability to aid its own survival. And it should not be merely presumed that he means B-21's using BVR AAMs against fighters.

Which was the whole purpose of my first comment.

[garrya]

Not just internet enthusiast.
Carrier battle groups are set up to have F-14s or F/A-18s to perform first line of defense in what they call the Outer air battle, with Aegis equipped Burkes and Ticcos in the inside in what they call the inner air air battle.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Carr ... air_battle)
And BVR is not just, defense, in offensive BVR, give me a squadron of F-15s or F-14s you can have the Burke.

The point is that you don't need to have speed or maneuverability to have a BVR platform, even a very lethal one, speed and maneuverability are nice to have but not a must.
If they have to choose one over another, 1 Aegis equipped Burkes or 1 F-15, no one will choose the F-15.

[zero-one]

The point is that you don't need to have speed or maneuverability to have a BVR platform, even a very lethal one, speed and maneuverability are nice to have but not a must.
If they have to choose one over another, 1 Aegis equipped Burkes or 1 F-15, no one will choose the F-15.

Well, AESA is just nice to have, Stealth is also nice to have, SM-6 is nice to have, but if you strip it down to its bare bones, you can actually perform BVR combat with an SA-2. Its also very lethal, just ask any Vietnam war vet.

[vilters]

Not just internet enthusiast.
Carrier battle groups are set up to have F-14s or F/A-18s to perform first line of defense in what they call the Outer air battle, with Aegis equipped Burkes and Ticcos in the inside in what they call the inner air air battle.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Carr ... air_battle)
And BVR is not just, defense, in offensive BVR, give me a squadron of F-15s or F-14s you can have the Burke.

The point is that you don't need to have speed or maneuverability to have a BVR platform, even a very lethal one, speed and maneuverability are nice to have but not a must.
If they have to choose one over another, 1 Aegis equipped Burkes or 1 F-15, no one will choose the F-15.

This is one post that makes sense. => You don't need speed, and you don't need maneuverability.
The F-14 had 150 miles missile range.

Hang them under an AWACS, a STARS, a B-737 with an A2A radar for my part, and you are BVR capable.