Zitat:Feb 18 The U.S. Air Force is nearing completion of a study about U.S. air dominance in 2030 that will lay the groundwork for future purchases of a "family" of new combat weapons that could include a fighter jet, a top general said Thursday.

Lieutenant General Mike Holmes, deputy chief of staff of the Air Force for strategic plans and requirements, told reporters the study should be presented to top Air Force leaders next month. The next step would be a formal analysis of alternatives, which would pave the way for a new acquisition program in coming years, he said.

Lockheed Martin Corp, maker of the F-35 and F-22 fighter jets, Boeing Co, which builds the F/A-18E/F and F-15 fighter jets, and Northrop Grumman Corp, maker of unmanned planes and large parts of the F-35 and F/A-18 jets, are watching closely for clues about the future weapons program.

The Air Force is slated to declare an initial squadron of radar-evading, fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets ready for combat this August after 15 years of development work. But advances in radar technologies by Russia and China have prompted U.S. military leaders to start thinking about the next generation of combat planes beyond the F-35.

"It won't be just one airframe that comes out of it. It'll be a family of systems that helps us make sure we can guarantee the air superiority that the joint force depends on," Holmes told reporters after a speech hosted by the Air Force Association, a booster group for the service.

Holmes said the Air Force was also exploring potential electronic warfare capabilities as part of the effort.

Separately, Holmes said the Air Force planned to buy new helicopters to replace its aging fleet of 62 UH-1N helicopters built by Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc, which are used for security around Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile silos, and to provide VIP transports.

He said the Air Force's fiscal 2017 budget would start funding the effort, but decisions about how the acquisition would be structured have not yet been made.

Zitat:Evading air-to-air missile

Zitat:Missile evasion is a very important part of modern air combat, yet many people believe it is impossible. But this is false, for several reasons. First reason is that missile cannot turn tighter than the aircraft: in order to pull as tight turn as a fighter aircraft, missile has to pull amount of g that is amount of g’s aircraft can pull multiplied by factor of difference in speed squared. For example, Typhoon can pull 9 g at 360 kts, and IRIS-T can pull 60 g at Mach 3, or 1.984 knots. What this means is that IRIS-T will have 4,5 times as wide turn diameter. If target is pulling 9 g at Mach 0,9, then IRIS-T will still have 1,7 times as wide turn diameter, and if target is pulling sustained 5 g turn at 360 kts, IRIS-T will have 2,5 times as wide turn diameter.

Evasion is made easier in some situations by the fact that missile always attempts to lead the target. Thus if target changes heading, it will be hard pressed to correct. This is the case with BVR missiles, where target fighter aircraft can turn so that missile faces its side and only enter a turn once missile is close. Probability of BVR missile hitting is made worse by the fact that it is both faster and capable of pulling less Gs than WVR missile: AIM-120 can pull 40 g at Mach 4 (2.646 kts), which means that it will have 12,2 times as wide turn diameter as Typhoon in example above. Even if Typhoon turns at 5 g (maximum sustained g in AtG configuration), missile will still have 6,75 times as wide turn diameter. Also, when missile is tracking a maneuvering target, it bleeds off the energy.

Main problem with evading missiles is their speed, which makes timing somewhat difficult. However, even that is far less of a problem than commonly assumed, as missile will be closing at 1.200-1.400 meters per second in the best case. At 20 kilometers, this means 14-20 seconds to reach the target for a BVR missile, or 20-23 seconds for IR missile.

Thus there are several tactics to evade the missile, some of them very simple. First is a barrel roll. As missile is unable to track it, it will fly past and loose a lock in the process. Second is a simple turn, where pilot forces missile to follow it through a turn – this turn however must be well timed, and is very useful as an end move in more complex maneuvers designed to bleed off missile’s energy. It is also very useful in a dogfight, where rear-aspect shots are far more likely than front-aspect shots.

Zitat:If missile is fired head-on at BVR range, there are several ways to evade it. First is to turn hard to either left or right so as to fly at roughly 90 degrees angle to attacking aircraft. This forces missile to bleed off the energy and to lead the target; as a result, once target aircraft makes a hard turn to reverse a direction, missile – with its far larger turn circle – will be unable to compensate. A variation of this tactic is also useful for head-on WVR launches.

Zitat:Second tactic, which is also useful at short ranges, is jinking. Aircraft must be positioned so that it is at angle (30-60 degrees is optimum) relative to missile’s flight path; diving is recommended so as to keep energy and take advantage of ground clutter. Once missile gets closer, aircraft will make a hard turn in opposite direction; if missile follows, aircraft will immediately reverse the turn. As there is a lag between aircraft changing the direction and missile following (for several reasons, most important of which is missile’s inertia), this will cause missile to head in wrong direction until it manages to correct, and also to bleed off the energy. Eventually, it will fly past the aircraft and miss. A variation of this maneuver is to continue first turn into a barrel roll; missile will continue to track the aircraft, but in the end its lower turn rate will mean that it won’t be able to keep up.

Zitat:Third tactic is to turn away and dive for the ground, gaining speed and putting as much distance as possible between aircraft and the missile. This tactic is also useful for rear-aspect BVR shots, but is not useful on its own at shorter ranges, and pilot must evade the missile physically by pulling the aircraft into the turn and forcing missile to overshoot once missile comes sufficiently close. Importance of last part is well displayed in both Gulf wars, where Iraqi failures to time the evasion, or even try to outturn the missile, resulted in unusually high missile Pk. Similar situation, but with WVR missiles, happened in Falklands war.

Zitat:Fourth tactic, mostly useful at longer ranges, is to climb. Since at long range missile will have burned out its engine, it will rely on inertia to keep it flying, and climbing will mean that it will bleed off energy rapidly. Once missile reaches a close range (maybe around 1,500 meters), dive for the ground, then pull up. This will allow pilot to gain energy and using it to evade the missile.

Fifth tactic is to place the missile at 3 o’clock or 9 o’clock position, then maintain sufficient turn to keep the missile there. This tactic (which is also useful against WVR missiles) forces the missile to execute a continuous turn, bleeding the energy entire time, making it easier to outturn the missile once it comes close.

At very close range, missile will have poor maneuverability as it will not have picked up full speed which means it won’t be able to pull its “official” maximum number of g’s, and that pilot of targeted aircraft will have more time to react than maximum speed of missile might suggest. Missile’s maneuverability peaks at instant before motor burns out, as it will have lowest mass while still possessing motor thrust; this state is what is reflected in “official” statistics, and only under assumption that it did not have to maneuver beforehand.

Physically avoiding the enemy missile is not the only option. If missile is radar-guided, hard turns can cause it to loose lock and miss, regardless of wether it is guided by launch platform or is using its own radar; one of reasons is that most radar-guided missiles track target’s radar centroid, which changes with aspect, and as such target’s maneuvers can result in LOS jitter and return scillintation. It is also possible for a fighter to fly out of seeker’s FoV, regardless of wether missile uses IR or active radar guidance; this has greatest likelyhood of happening if fighter closes with missile at angle. Most modern missiles self-destruct if they have lost the lock. Maneuvers can cause degradation in performance of missile’s fuze, and if aircraft is low-flying, terrain can cause activation of proximity fuze. Jamming can also help evade radar-guided missiles, making acquisition of target difficult for the missile; chaff can also be used to deceive missile’s radar (active-radar missiles are unlikely to use AESA radar due to power and weight requirements) or fuze, forcing either a miss or a premature detonation.

Missile’s effective range is also dependant on altitude, relative speeds. As a rule of thumb, it doubles every 20.000 feet (6.100 meters) above the sea level. Speeds also have a major impact: if target is running away, then every 100 knots in speed advantage for target reduces missile’s range by 5-25%, depending on missile’s own speed. Large target speed advantage can also cause acquisition difficulties for Doppler-radar missiles fired from the rear.

Zitat:Die dritte Taktik ist die einzige die was bringt, ... davonfliegen, aber genau in dem Punkt lost das Legacy-Flugzeug jämmerlich gegen den Stealth-Jet ab. Aus der no escape zone gibt es keine Flucht, das müsste er dann mit seinen Traumschlössern 1 und 2 lösen

Zitat:A second project, called Miniature Self-Defense Munition (MSDM), is perhaps more game-changing – giving fighter aircraft the ability to target incoming missiles, like a ballistic missile defence system.

Zitat:..“SACM will support affordable, highly lethal, small size and weight ordnance with advanced air frame design and synergistic control capabilities for air dominance, enabling high air-to-air load-out,” the contract notice says...

Quintus Fabius schrieb:Ich habe zu wenig Wissen über den Luftkampf um so einen Artikel bewerten zu können und gerade eben um die Bewertungen anderer dazu zu erfahren stelle ich ihn hier rein.

Zitat:Eine unbemannte Luftüberlegenheitsdrohne aber könnte eventuell solche Manöver fliegen und damit den Raketen einfach ausweichen und sie ausmanövrieren. Und wenn das ginge, dann wäre das bemannte Stealth-Kampfflugzeug in einer schlechteren Position, den die Drohne könnte einfach vorstoßen - das Stealth Flugzeug aufdecken und dann selbst abschießen.

Zitat:Das wäre jetzt mal meine These dazu: dass bemannte Stealth Flugzeuge von auf extreme Wendigkeit und Geschwindigkeit ausgelegten Luftüberlegenheitsdrohnen gekontert werden könnten.

Zitat:Dazu treten dann noch Konzepte von Luft-Hardkillsystemen wie beispielsweise CUDA oder jetzt MSDM:

Zitat:Rein physikalisch ist es möglich Raketen im BVR Kampf auszuweichen bzw. diese auszumanövrieren. Das ist nur eine Frage der Taktik und der Physik.

Zitat:Solche Luftüberlegenheitsdrohnen könnten Stealth als Vorteil erheblich abschwächen bzw negieren, wenn sie auf große Geschwindigkeit und große Wendigkeit hin konzipiert sind.

Zitat:Luftüberlegenheitsdrohnen sind technisch hier und heute machbar und sie wären günstiger als bemannte Stealth-Kampfflugzeuge.

Zitat:Damit könnte man eine größere Anzahl davon beschaffen und sich allein durch diese höhere Quantität schon durchsetzen.

Zitat:Die Rakete berechnet in jeder 1000stel Sekunde den Standort des Flugzeugs in Relation zum Vektor, Geschwindigkeit und dann zur verbleibenden Zeit bis zum Einschlag ins Flugzeugs, sie steuert nicht auf den momentanen Standort des Flugzeug zu.

blasrohr schrieb:

Zitat:Die Rakete berechnet in jeder 1000stel Sekunde den Standort des Flugzeugs in Relation zum Vektor, Geschwindigkeit und dann zur verbleibenden Zeit bis zum Einschlag ins Flugzeugs, sie steuert nicht auf den momentanen Standort des Flugzeug zu.

Ich bin jetzt kein Raketenbauer, doch die beschriebene Ausführung hat einen Schwachpunkt, sobald das Flugzeug Manöver fliegt, in denen sich der Vorhaltpunktbeständig ändert, zum Beispiel bei einer Fassrolle. Die Rakete hat aufgrund ihrer Geschwindigkeit ebenfalls eine eigene Trägheit und das im Verbund mit entsprechenden Gegenmaßnahmen gibt dem Flugzeug immer noch gewisse Chancen zu entkommen.. .

blasrohr schrieb:Ich bin jetzt kein Raketenbauer, doch die beschriebene Ausführung hat einen Schwachpunkt, sobald das Flugzeug Manöver fliegt, in denen sich der Vorhaltpunktbeständig ändert, zum Beispiel bei einer Fassrolle Die Rakete hat aufgrund ihrer Geschwindigkeit ebenfalls eine eigene Trägheit ...

Zitat:Ich will den modernen Flugkörpern jetzt nicht ihre Leistungsfähigkeit absprechen, aber jede militärische Entwicklung zieht auch eine Gegenentwicklung mit sich.

Zitat:Solche Gegenentwicklungen gibt es halt auch gegenüber dem Stealthkonzept, weshalb es gefährlich wäre alles auf eine Karte wie in deinem Falle Stealth zu setzen.

Zitat:Man muss eine Balance aus Waffen, Sensorik, Flugleistung und Tarnung finden, die bisher meiner Meinung nach bei bemannten Luftfahrzeugen nur bei der B-2 und der Raptor gefunden wurde.

Zitat:US Air Force plans to insert a “brain” into current-generation fighter jets to create autonomous flying wingmen paired with the Lockheed Martin F-35 were given a bump today, with the Pentagon’s second-in-charge saying he expects to see “unmanned wingmen in the air” before convoys of driverless Humvees.

Deputy defence secretary Robert Work touted the long-considered “loyal wingman” concept at a forum hosted by the Washington Post in Washington DC on 30 March, where he explained that the air force will pair unmanned Lockheed F-16s with F-35s in future battles.

"You take an F-16 and make it totally unmanned," Work says. "The F-16 is a fourth-generation fighter, and pair it with an F-35, a fifth-generation battle network node, and have those two operating together.”

Work says he expects "unmanned wingman, unmanned undersea vehicles and surface vessels" as well as pilotless cargo helicopters for delivering supplies to troops on the battlefield to be introduced operationally before robotic military vehicles.

Work says the spread of autonomous technology and platforms "is inexorable". "It is going to happen," he says.

Zitat:The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), however, is now moving ahead with the development of autonomy algorithms to control pilotless fighter jets. Those algorithms would be hosted in “one or more line-replaceable units" or "brain" that could be transferred between aircraft with minimal effort.

“The onboard autonomy must be sufficient for the Loyal Wingman to complete all basic flight operations untethered from a ground station and without full-time direction from the manned lead,” the laboratory explains in a request for information (RFI) notice published in March.

A formal programme will be launched in fiscal year 2018 with flight demonstrations running through 2022. These demonstrations will culminate in a capstone proof-of-concept demonstration in 2022, when paired warplanes will conduct a ground strike mission in a hostile, well-defended environment, AFRL says. It did not nominate which fighter platform would be selected for the demonstration.

Zitat:The air force already operates unmanned QF-16 target drones, built by Boeing from retired A and C-model aircraft. First flight of that full-scale aerial target was in September 2013 and Boeing received its fourth production contract this week, valued at $34 million for 30 conversions.

In an email, Boeing confirmed that it's QF-16 team would support on Loyal Wingman-type activities, not its Phantom Works research and development arm. “We are proud of the capabilities we have contributed to the QF-16 programme. Should the US Air Force seek to leverage those capabilities in the Loyal Wingman or other programs, we stand ready to support them,” the company says.

DOD investment in Loyal Wingman technologies comes as the secretive Strategic Capabilities Office pursues an "arsenal plane". It would carry an array of long-range, precision weapons like cruise missiles, which would be assigned targets from the front lines by the F-35, F-22 and perhaps even the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber or spy satellites.

Work says the US military will not try to match potential adversaries like Russia and China "soldier-for-soldier" but will instead "offset" their strengths with innovative new weapons. Although many of those proposed devices will be controlled by autonomous computer systems, ultimate authority for the use of lethal force will reside with the human. “We will not delegate lethal authority,” Work says.

Quintus Fabius schrieb:Deputy defence secretary Robert Work touted the long-considered “loyal wingman” concept at a forum hosted by the Washington Post in Washington DC on 30 March, where [b]he explained that the air force will pair unmanned Lockheed F-16s with F-35s in future battles.

marcoB schrieb:

Quintus Fabius schrieb:Deputy defence secretary Robert Work touted the long-considered “loyal wingman” concept at a forum hosted by the Washington Post in Washington DC on 30 March, where [b]he explained that the air force will pair unmanned Lockheed F-16s with F-35s in future battles.

Was soll das denn bitte bringen? Damit macht man ja das Stealth der F-35 völlig nutzlos

srg schrieb:... Ich würde fast wetten, dass das ganze Projekt völlig sinnlos ist. Sobald die F-35 in Serie geht werden China oder Rußland bekannt geben, dass der Stealth nichts nützt.