Military Review

The fighter of the new generation is created under the laser weapon

120
American corporations begin the first work on the creation of the next fighter, the sixth generation. It is assumed that he must replace all other existing American fighter jets (except F-35) and will be able to guaranteedly destroy super-maneuverable Russian combat aircraft. Bet on laser weapon.




The world media has repeatedly reported on numerous problems of the new American multi-purpose fighter F-35. The main ones are the lack of maneuverability in two of the three aircraft variants, as well as insufficiently effective armament, which in theory was supposed to ensure the F-35 victory over a potential enemy before the start of a maneuvering battle with him. The inability of the F-35 to resist in the “dog dump” the newest Russian Su and MiG, as well as the Chinese fighters copied from them, caused the Pentagon to consider resuming the production of modernized versions of the F-15 and F-16 fighters. It is cheaper than re-launching the conveyor, from which the much more modern and expensive F-22 aircraft, designed mainly for air combat, descended. Their release was discontinued in the 2011 year.

And in early February, it became known that the Northrop Grumman company, which entered into history By creating the first stealth bomber in the B-2 technology, she intends to introduce the concept of a sixth generation fighter. The show was timed to coincide with one of the most important events in the sports life of the United States - the American Football Super Bowl. A commercial appeared on the Internet, on which something resembling Star Wars equipment is being built in the workshops of the plant, and an airplane is sweeping across the sky, its form almost the same as the tip of a spear.
Northrop Grumman is not the only company creating the sixth-generation fighter, to which the Pentagon has been given the FX symbol. According to the American Internet resource Nextbigfuture.com, Boeing and Lockheed Martin are also working on the project. First in 2011, he announced that at his own expense he was designing a sixth-generation fighter for the Navy and Air Force. It is only known that he should be able to fly in a supersonic mode for a long time. Lockheed Martin, promulgating its version in 2012, works for a longer perspective. Her brainchild will be born no earlier than 2030 of the year. The company focuses on increased speed and range, enhanced stealth and durability.

Speed ​​and range will be increased with the help of new type of propulsion units, united by the common name “Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology - AVET). They will be installed on new fighters that will go into service with the naval forces in the 2028 year, and the air force in the 2032. As for the quality of "stealth", then Northrop Grumman designs his plane "tailless", which will make it even less noticeable to radar.

Kill in the blink of an eye


One of the main components of the protection of Su-type fighters from the striking fire of an enemy aircraft is their super-maneuverability. It is she who allows them to carry out effective anti-missile maneuvers - the enemy either cannot aim, or the missile fired by him loses the target. The missile launch warning system allows the pilot to track the missile flying behind him and take timely maneuvers to confuse him. But the advantage of super-maneuverability will go to zero if the plane is destroyed at the same second, when it will be in the crosshairs of the sight. There is only one weapon that can do this in the blink of an eye. Speech, as you might guess, is a laser.

Attempts to arm the aircraft with lasers have already been made. The United States created on the basis of "Boeing-747" a kind of loitering hunter YAL-1, armed with a laser gun. It was installed in the turntable in the nose of the aircraft. The task of YAL-1 was to shoot down Iranian or North Korean ballistic missiles immediately after launch. However, it turned out that the laser power will allow him to do this only if the aircraft will fly within the borders of these countries. In addition, for chemical pumping the laser required tons of special fuel. As a result, the project was abandoned. Only one plane was built, scrapped a couple of years ago.

Of course, about any installation of this type of fighter lasers could not speak. But advances in the field of laser technology allowed to return to this idea. Lockheed Martin in collaboration with the University of Notre Dame, the Agency for Advanced Defense Research Projects (DARPA), and the Air Force Research Laboratory have already begun flight tests of a new type of solid-propellant laser installed on a Dassault Falcon 10 business jet. This laser was named “Aero-adaptive, aero-optical, with controlled beam” (Aero-Adaptive, Aero-Optic Beam Control), or ABC.

These properties, according to the Lockheed Martin press release, help him focus on the target, regardless of its maneuvers or air turbulence. The laser itself will be located in a rotating turret mounted on the fighter, which allows shelling in the range of 360 degrees. In other words, it is not necessary for the pilot to perform “supermaneuvers” in order to get into the enemy plane. It will be enough for him to get close to him at a distance of the laser light. Accuracy of aiming will be provided with the help of a computer, it remains only to press the button. The same turret will provide all-round defense of the fighter from enemy fire. And in order to expand the combat capabilities of the sixth generation fighter, rocket weapons will be on board.

There is one problem with laser weapons - its use seriously reduces stealth, because when firing a laser gun, a large amount of heat is emitted, which is easily caught by infrared detectors. So, the fighters will have to install special heat sinks. But then the battle will be limited by the capabilities of this absorber. According to the American Internet resource Foxtrotalpha.com, Northrop Grumman is currently developing a technology that will avoid the release of heat into the surrounding air environment and dispense absorbers.

Do not repeat F-35 errors


By relying on the “universal” F-35, the United States would unwittingly find itself in the same position as in the times of the Hundred Years War (1337 – 1453) one of its participants would have been if they had fully relied on the firearm that had just appeared, having forgotten their armor , crossbows, sabers, swords and cavalry. It is hard to imagine how troops, having nothing but arquebuses, would be able to withstand the ranks of crossbowmen and an avalanche chained in armor, bristling with all kinds of edged weapons of horsemen. However, this does not mean that primitive arquebuses were a dead-end path for the development of weapons. Gradually evolving, they led to the emergence of such types of weapons, which forever sent knight armor and swords to museums.
Since the F-35 has some properties due to which the Pentagon retains interest in its use (vertical take-off and landing, the ability of large-scale "work" on ground targets, the possibility of improving destructive properties as a result of upgrading and even the ability to install an ABC type laser) It is not about FX replacing F-35. Before the fighter of the sixth generation, no one sets the task of being a universal means of warfare simultaneously for the Air Force, Navy and Ground Forces. Each type of armed forces will receive its own, individual type of multi-purpose fighter, which is created mainly to combat airborne targets.

With all this, it is obvious that the United States does not intend to return to the "classic" air battle, in which maneuverability was a key factor in victory. They continue to develop a direction in fighter technology that will ensure the destruction of enemy aircraft from a distance. And against such fighters, even the most ultra-manned aircraft will have no more chances to survive than a tiger against a hunter armed with a laser-optics gun.

Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/world/2016/2/8/792993.html
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. i80186
    i80186 14 February 2016 06: 22
    14
    That is, the only fundamental difference will be the presence of a laser? Here's the problem then. Screw the "turret with a laser rotating 27" to the SU-360, and the new FX will turn out to be more terrible than the F-35. winked
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 14 February 2016 06: 32
      +9
      According to the American Internet resource Foxtrotalpha.com, Northrop Grumman is currently developing a technology that will avoid the release of heat into the surrounding air and dispense with sinks.


      I got the impression that at every stage of the development of civilizations on planet Earth, there were Americans. The Sahara Desert is the result of tests of ultra-precise laser weapons of these "geeks" ... laughing

      But in reality it’s cool:
      Ultra-invisible high-speed laser ... F-35 SVL laughing laughing laughing
      1. bodzu
        bodzu 14 February 2016 09: 09
        11
        Even now, the efficiency of the laser is barely approaching 10%, as in the SGA they solve problems with energy, you cannot attach a cart with batteries or capacitors to an aircraft, so this is another cut of the "defense" budget by the Pentagon. Good luck to them in this business!
        1. smershxnumx
          smershxnumx 14 February 2016 09: 50
          +7
          In the near future, laser weapons on an airplane are nonsense.
          1. Starley from the south
            Starley from the south 14 February 2016 21: 42
            +2
            Quote: smerx24
            In the near future, laser weapons on an airplane are nonsense.

            That's right. Even if you install a nuclear reactor on an airplane. We already have experience with the reactor. The only place where laser weapons can be used is space, and even then it will not be soon, and even then its effectiveness is highly questionable.
          2. RDX
            RDX 16 February 2016 17: 17
            0
            a big question for laser operation in bad weather conditions, which is more promising to invest in railguns
        2. activator
          activator 14 February 2016 09: 56
          -6
          Quote: bodzu
          and so this is another cut by the Pentagon of the "defense" budget. Good luck to them in this business!

          Damn why so everyone else’s money thinks, and at the same time they’re gibbering. They do something and invest in development, and when they succeed, we will catch up again, but for twenty years we will invent excuses for ourselves why we don’t need it and we will go the other way for now we won’t do it, but when we do then, we will start shouting that the new time is dictating new requirements, well, we’ll come up with something to explain to ourselves why we suddenly needed it.
      2. varov14
        varov14 14 February 2016 09: 19
        17
        Well, when you have your own printing press, and you have a stupid opponent, you keep money, invent any toys.
        1. activator
          activator 14 February 2016 11: 17
          +6
          Quote: varov14
          Well, when you have your own printing press, and you have a stupid opponent, you keep money, invent any toys.

          And in Russia there is no printing press? Or have they leased to the Americans? The rules of the game need to be changed, or rather, to completely abandon the rules of those invented by amerikosy. Well, you need the will to return the central bank to the state, and how strange it turns out to put money in the closet which you are going to burn.
          1. Aqela
            Aqela 14 February 2016 11: 29
            +5
            That's all right. You asked an "idiotic question", but you just got to the point: 1) the Russian printing press is tied to the dollar mass, which means "America has a lease", 2) this dependence borders on stupidity, but so far there is little that can be done ...
            1. activator
              activator 14 February 2016 11: 44
              -1
              Quote: Aqela
              That's all right. You asked an "idiotic question", but you just got to the point:

              And as you always just start asking idiotic questions, how unshakable theories start to crack that someone came up with and explained why it is necessary. And for everyone to understand correctly, one would pay for understanding and remove the very dull ones. if they themselves adhered to them and did not change them along the way for others. As we are told, the market regulates itself nonsense. The market is primarily people, and people are manageable. The oil market has shown this.
            2. Alf
              Alf 14 February 2016 21: 28
              +1
              Quote: Aqela
              2) this dependence borders on stupidity, but so far little can be done.

              Not with stupidity, but with outright betrayal of the country's interests. In the days of the "bloody gebni" it would have passed under Article 64 as "treason to the motherland in the form of subversive actions." Now it is called "inclusion in the world economy".
              Where are you, Lavrenty Palych?
          2. Cat man null
            Cat man null 14 February 2016 11: 36
            0
            Quote: activator
            But in Russia there is no printing press?

            There is. Only he does not know how to print bucks, and for rubles in this world a lot is simply not for sale. It so happened.

            Quote: activator
            The rules of the game need to be changed or rather to abandon the rules invented by the Americans

            Suggest new "game rules", as you see them .. and at the same time, how do you propose to "introduce" them. Or stop talking already yes

            Quote: activator
            return the central bank to the state

            He is a state. Read about National Finance Council - Learn a lot of new things, I guarantee.

            Quote: Aqela
            the Russian printing press is tied to the dollar mass, which means - "America has a lease"

            There is no such link. At least the CBR is not obliged to follow this "rule". A hundred times have already chewed it, you, apparently, only write, and do not read .. my regrets wink
          3. Yars
            Yars 14 February 2016 15: 09
            +2
            Quote: activator
            Quote: varov14
            Well, when you have your own printing press, and you have a stupid opponent, you keep money, invent any toys.

            And in Russia there is no printing press? Or have they leased to the Americans? The rules of the game need to be changed, or rather, to completely abandon the rules of those invented by amerikosy. Well, you need the will to return the central bank to the state, and how strange it turns out to put money in the closet which you are going to burn.

            US Fed private structure!
          4. Boos
            Boos 14 February 2016 19: 08
            0
            National Bank...
          5. Dekabrev
            Dekabrev 14 February 2016 22: 21
            +1
            The problem is that only Russians buy Russian rubles, the American dollar - the whole world.
            that is, if the Russian state prints unsecured money, it seems to take material assets from its people for free and transfer them to state employees, including the defense industry, which sells for this unsecured money.
            And when the Americans print money, they seem to be taking away goods for free. The Chinese and other foreigners and it is not so important who the Fed belongs to - the state or not.
            and they also like to give out this unsecured money at interest.
            I also draw your attention to the fact that all dollar transactions are carried out through American banks, that is, American banks have a percentage for services from all over the world trade. From all these operations, of course, taxes are paid to the American budget. So the American machine tool is a brilliant invention. And this is not at all the same as the Russian printing press. I hope everyone understands that "printing press" is a very conditional concept - money has long been not paper money.
      3. vladimir_krm
        vladimir_krm 14 February 2016 11: 25
        +7
        "Solid fuel laser" also sounds :))
        In general, they did not teach physics: the energy of a hefty Boeing 747 is one thing, and the fighter is quite another. How to feed the laser? With such power, he needs to warm up the enemy for half an hour until he lights up :)
        1. Aqela
          Aqela 14 February 2016 12: 08
          +5
          I think it’s obvious that for military purposes only a laser with a chemical pump source (i.e. fuel of any kind) is fundamentally applicable, because only this way gives at least some sane energy carrier density; no battery or diesel generator will work here, because the whole thing will weigh many hundreds and thousands of tons ... The efficiency of laser installations is still negligible. So all these projects are fairy tales for "rich Buratin" to allocate and cut the budget.
          Who does not believe, an elementary calculation: in order to be guaranteed to destroy an aircraft with one hit, power is needed comparable to an 85-100 mm anti-aircraft gun. I will leave the recalculation of the power of explosives "outside the brackets", we will simply take the power of the shot of such guns as a basis (since even the experience of wars of the last 50 years has shown that the kinetics of 12,7-23 mm guns is clearly not enough for the effect of one hit).
          I will cite materials:
          1) 85-mm anti-aircraft gun model 1939 (52-K). The muzzle velocity of the projectile of the Armor-piercing caliber pointed-headed 800 m / s, The mass of the shell of the Armor-piercing caliber 9.2 kg.
          Total shot energy = 2944000 J = 2,9 MJ
          2) 100-mm anti-aircraft gun KS-19 (52-P-415). Projectile weight = 15.6 kg. Initial projectile speed = 900 m / s. Total shot energy = 6318000 J = 6,3 MJ.
          3) 130-mm anti-aircraft gun KS-30. Projectile weight = 33,4 kg. The muzzle velocity = 970 m / s. Total, shot energy = 15713030 J = 15,7 MJ.
          4) 88 mm FlaK 18/36/37/41 anti-aircraft gun. 1000 m / s and 9,4 kg => 4,7 MJ.
          Yes, all this is very rude. However, the laser (not in space) must also at least have comparable power, since, firstly, the target must be destroyed instantly in order to prevent it from responding; secondly, the atmosphere is far from transparent, there is a quite noticeable attenuation of the light pulse at the battle distance (for aviation it’s not one hundred and two hundred meters, but quite tens and hundreds of kilometers according to current realities, and even for air defense missile defense not less than 10- 15 km). With a laser efficiency, even in the long term, of about 10-15%, what kind of installation do you see in terms of size and weight for utilizing the energy of fuel combustion of about 50 megajoules per thousandths of a second? Something comparable to a 152 mm cannon + tank diesel generator?
          Substance / Calorific value, MJ / kg
          - Hydrogen / 120,9
          - Kerosene / 40,8
          - Peat / 8,1
          - Gunpowder / 3,8
          Yes Yes! Gunpowder is one of the worst fuels. In the book "Physics and Defense", it is clearly noted:
          "Would it be profitable to heat the furnace with gunpowder? What is its calorific value? Imagine that it is not more than conventional fuels, but even much less than theirs. Smokeless (pyroxylinic) gunpowder has a calorific value of 900 calories. That is, 1 kg This gunpowder, when burned, emits 90 calories of heat, and black military powder — even less: its calorific value is only 700 calories. In other words, gunpowder is about 11 times less profitable than oil. "
          1. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 14 February 2016 19: 02
            +5
            Quote: Aqela
            Substance / Calorific value, MJ / kg
            - Hydrogen / 120,9
            - Kerosene / 40,8
            - Peat / 8,1
            - Gunpowder / 3,8
            Yes Yes! Gunpowder is one of the worst types of fuel.

            One maaalenky, but detail hi
            In a confined space (in this case, in the trunk), all of the above except gunpowder does not ignite - there is no oxygen!
            But if you add oxygen, then if you take the same gasoline with its 41,87 MJ, then for one kilogram of gasoline you need 15,5 kilograms of air - in total, the fuel-air mixture loses to gunpowder in calorie content - not such a bad gunpowder "fuel" otherwise everyone would have been using gasoline guns for a long time fellow
            Yes, and I do not quite see a direct connection between "heat" and muzzle energy, the expansion of gases (and this is also energy) when burning with gunpowder is again much more significant than the same gasoline - you also forgot this, but in general you are a big plus for the calculations hi
        2. Aqela
          Aqela 14 February 2016 12: 24
          +3
          I think it’s obvious that for military purposes only a laser with a chemical pump source (i.e. fuel of any kind) is fundamentally applicable, because only this way gives at least some sane energy carrier density; no battery or diesel generator will work here, because the whole thing will weigh many hundreds and thousands of tons ... The efficiency of laser installations is still negligible. So all these projects are fairy tales for "rich Buratin" to allocate and cut the budget.
          Who does not believe, an elementary calculation: in order to be guaranteed to destroy an aircraft with one hit, power is needed comparable to an 85-100 mm anti-aircraft gun. I will leave the recalculation of the power of explosives "outside the brackets" (moreover, the laser beam does not, strictly speaking, cause an explosion, but "drills a hole" in the target), we simply take the power of the shot of such weapons as the basis (since even the experience of the wars of the last 50 years has shown that the kinetics of the 12,7-23 mm guns is clearly not enough for the effect of a single hit).
          I will cite materials:
          1) 85-mm anti-aircraft gun model 1939 (52-K). The muzzle velocity of the projectile of the Armor-piercing caliber pointed-headed 800 m / s, The mass of the shell of the Armor-piercing caliber 9.2 kg.
          Total shot energy = 2944000 J = 2,9 MJ
          2) 100-mm anti-aircraft gun KS-19 (52-P-415). Projectile weight = 15.6 kg. Initial projectile speed = 900 m / s. Total shot energy = 6318000 J = 6,3 MJ.
          3) 130-mm anti-aircraft gun KS-30. Projectile weight = 33,4 kg. The muzzle velocity = 970 m / s. Total, shot energy = 15713030 J = 15,7 MJ.
          4) 88 mm FlaK 18/36/37/41 anti-aircraft gun. 1000 m / s and 9,4 kg => 4,7 MJ.
          Yes, all this is very rude. However, the laser (not in space) must also at least have comparable power, since, firstly, the target must be destroyed instantly in order to prevent it from responding; secondly, the atmosphere is far from transparent, there is a quite noticeable attenuation of the light pulse at the battle distance (for aviation it’s not one hundred and two hundred meters, but quite tens and hundreds of kilometers according to current realities, and even for air defense missile defense not less than 10- 15 km).
          With a laser efficiency of about 10%, even in the long run, what size and weight installation do you see for utilizing the energy of fuel combustion of about 50 megajoules per thousandths of a second? Something comparable to a 152 mm cannon (with a gun carriage) + a tank diesel generator? wassat
          For reference: 1 megajoule for 1 second = 1 megawatt, and for 0,01 seconds - 100 megawatts, and for 0,0001 seconds (the laser pulse is comparable in duration) = 10 gigawatts, i.e. = 13 horsepower (13,5 million bhp!).
          Even taking optimal values
          1) Magnetohydrodynamic generator of efficiency up to 65%
          2) Laser setting efficiency = 10%
          3) The output power of the shot is 10 MJ (which means pump = 100 megajoules)
          4) The pumping energy is accumulated in 1 min. (60 sec) =>
          The required power of the energy source is at least 1 megawatt wassat
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. atalef
            atalef 14 February 2016 12: 30
            -4
            Quote: Aqela
            Yes, all this is very rude. However, the laser (not in space) must also at least have comparable power, since, firstly, the target must be destroyed instantly in order to prevent it from responding; secondly, the atmosphere is far from transparent, there is a quite noticeable attenuation of the light pulse at the battle distance (for aviation it’s not one hundred and two hundred meters, but quite tens and hundreds of kilometers according to current realities, and even for air defense missile defense not less than 10- 15 km).

            Sorry, you are trying to compare soft to warm.
            The projectile is subject to completely different physical activities.
            1. Barrel pressure
            2 Explosive Transport
            3. Three in the atmosphere
            4 gravity
            An anti-aircraft gun shell does not hit the target with direct impact, but is detonated near the target.
            The laser is exposed to completely different principles.
            It's about killing a person by dropping an anvil on him or piercing with a rapier.
            The means and efforts are different - the result is one.
            Therefore, I'm sorry - the math is beautiful - a general conclusion to milk.
            1. Aqela
              Aqela 14 February 2016 12: 55
              +3
              No. I am comparing one joule of energy to another joule of energy. All this is delivered to affect the target. Therefore, I do not include the power of explosives and the like in the calculations. Therefore, for the 85-mm cannon I designate not an OFS, but a "blank".
              By the way, now for "Gaussian" projects the same calculation is carried out on the basis of kinetic energy. I indicated the presence of all these assumptions.
              I’ll also note: you do not take into account the heat of combustion of fuel in an airplane being destroyed or the combustion of paint and evaporating aluminum cladding when it affects a laser target? In general, what effect is taken into account when exposed to a laser? True - the amount of energy transferred. So its effect (in the absence of OFS brisance) is even lower. Plus loss on reflection + loss on dispersion in the atmosphere + loss on evaporation of protective shields (which 100% will be used in the presence of such weapons) ...
              So all comparisons are correct in the volume of the initial rough estimate, and not the technical design.
              PySy: About the anvil and the rapier, it sucks. Do not try to take me "as a fool" that now I will cry and be embarrassed in response to your "type of objection." The rapier has a much smaller area for reliable destruction of the enemy, a few percent of the body area. At the same time, the local pressure at the injection site is very high (naked physics - you can calculate). So you can compare, but you need to take into account the geometry of the weapon. But in the practice of hunting, where weapons of different calibers and with different characteristics of bullets are used, they quite successfully use the calculation of the energy received by the target when hit. By the way, about 1 kg-s per 1 kg of weight.
              1. atalef
                atalef 14 February 2016 13: 18
                -7
                Quote: Aqela
                Not. I compare one energy joule with another energy joule. All this is delivered to affect the target.

                What does it matter?
                Different physical principles, different conditions of defeat.

                Quote: Aqela
                Therefore, I do not include the power of explosives and the like in the calculations. Therefore, for the 85-mm cannon I designate not an OFS, but a "blank

                Does this disc hit the target? Or all the same, this blank is required to create a cloud of fragments and the more the better?
                Quote: Aqela
                By the way, now for "Gaussian" projects the same calculation is carried out on the basis of kinetic energy. The presence of all these assumptions, I indicated

                Of course, maybe there’s a direct shell hit.
                Quote: Aqela
                I’ll also note: you do not take into account the heat of combustion of fuel in an airplane being destroyed or the combustion of paint and evaporating aluminum cladding when it affects a laser target?

                What is this for ? What does heat mean when burning the insoles of a pilot?
                Quote: Aqela
                In general, what effect is taken into account when exposed to a laser?

                I do not think
                Quote: Aqela
                True - the amount of energy transferred. So its effect (in the absence of OFS brisance) is even lower.

                You are so far from physics. Are you considering the heat ray area?
                Quote: Aqela
                So all comparisons are correct in the volume of the initial rough estimate, and not the technical design.


                Sorry . not.
                Answer me one question, why was it necessary to increase the caliber of anti-aircraft guns if a projectile with 30 mm could just as well bring down an aircraft? More precisely, not even by the projectile itself, but by its fragment.
                The difference in the 130mm anti-aircraft projectile and the laser beam is the difference between the 200 mi of sorties to destroy the bridge in the Second World War and one small high-precision missile today.
                1. Aqela
                  Aqela 14 February 2016 13: 30
                  +6
                  I'm not sorry, yes.
                  Just to reliably hit the target always requires accounting for the amount of damage. And not any damage will be critical. We are conducting a review precisely causing critical damage.
                  For example, if a rapier instantly kills only when it hits the heart, kidney, some parts of the brain; then a greater energy impact will give a 100% effect: when a 14,5-mm bullet hits, for a person it does not matter "where it came" - 100% lethality. That is why I indicated hunting calculations - they have a wounded animal considered bad practice, unlike a military sniper.
                  1. atalef
                    atalef 14 February 2016 13: 45
                    -6
                    Quote: Aqela
                    hit by a 14,5-mm bullet for a person does not care "where it came" - 100% mortality

                    And if in the heel?
                    Then bring 152 mm projectile - this is 100% defeat. Take its characteristics and take it as a constant - start telling that it is such energy that is required to defeat a person

                    Quote: Aqela
                    That's why I pointed out the hunting calculations - they have the presence of a wounded animal is considered bad practice, unlike a military sniper

                    You have not taken into account one more thing. and how many anti-aircraft shells (130mm) are required to destroy one aircraft? So the average value, and then multiply this number by your MJ - one shell.
                    I somehow didn’t see that there would be one shell, one plane.
                    And you never answered me. Why was it necessary to increase the caliber of anti-aircraft guns?
                    1. Aqela
                      Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 08
                      0
                      You simply have a remarkable ability to respond not essentially, to drive a blizzard.
                      And if in the heel?

                      Yes. In the heel - quite enough, because due to the high energy, it will simply tear off the whole leg. About the finger of the hand - I will not say, but, I believe, that there is a high probability of death from shock.
                      and how many anti-aircraft shells (130mm) are required to destroy one aircraft

                      One with a direct hit is definitely enough. And - with a good supply! fellow
                      By the way, the use of a fraction, as well as a beam of ready-made striking elements, serves the following tasks: 1) increasing the coverage area - the probability of hitting the target, 2) reducing the breakdown ability of each of the elements - increasing the proportion of energy that is transmitted to the target with an increase in the degree of destructive effect on the target . AND with a good degree of energy transfer to the target instead of through penetration and the removal of a large fraction of the energy to the "blue distance", there is no difference between a blank and a beam of submunitions in terms of the success of target destruction. Highlighted especially bold for talkers and verbiage, ignoring the meaning of what was said by the opponent and stuck on the form of phrases.
        3. Simple
          Simple 14 February 2016 14: 01
          0
          "How to feed the laser" ....
          Chemical oxygen-iodine laser (Chemical oxygen iodine laser, COIL)
          RADICL -20kW US Air Force Airborne Laser.
          1. Aqela
            Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 10
            0
            I think that the energy of iodine oxidation will still be not enough for real benefit. Well, maybe just to set fire to little things like tactical drones. request
        4. kamikaze
          kamikaze 20 February 2016 19: 23
          0
          They’ll carry these fighters behind themselves. lol laughing laughing laughing laughing
    2. Mahmut
      Mahmut 14 February 2016 06: 40
      13
      In sports, this is called a missed try. Unable to take one height, move it to the next. It is calculated that the opponent will flinch from these show-offs.
      1. Blondy
        Blondy 14 February 2016 08: 15
        +3
        Quote: Mahmut
        It is calculated that the opponent will flinch from these show-offs.

        And if these show-offs also cut ...
    3. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 14 February 2016 06: 52
      -5
      Quote: i80186
      That is, the only fundamental difference will be the presence of a laser? Here's the problem then. Screw the "turret with a laser rotating 27" to the SU-360, and the new FX will turn out to be more terrible than the F-35. winked

      Firstly, it is about developing a concept. It’s premature to even talk about the appearance of the sixth generation car. As for the F-35, this program is developing for itself.
      An increase in the number of fighter jets ordered in the form of a three-year order (2018-2020) could lead to a savings of $ 2 billion, flightglobal.com reports (February 12) .This statement was made this week by the head of the F-35 Joint Program, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan ( Christopher Bogdan) at a press briefing in Washington. .
      On February 9, the Pentagon announced that by 2018, $ 300 million will be allocated to prepare a three-year plan for the release of fighter jets with deliveries starting in 2019. Budget documents show that the US government intends to acquire 2019 fighters during these years (2020-2021-271), including 156 F-35A, 61 F-35B and 54 F-35C. .
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 14 February 2016 07: 44
        12
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        An increase in the number of fighter jets ordered in the form of a three-year order (2018-2020) could lead to a saving of $ 2 billion, flightglobal.com reports (February 12) .This statement was made this week by the head of the F-35 Joint Program, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan on press briefing in Washington.

        Remarkably, Gen. Leith. Bogdan is such a competent specialist. And with a strong nervous system, unlike Gen. Major Martin.
        1. General_colonel
          General_colonel 14 February 2016 15: 52
          +2
          This photo is just epic: D.
      2. i80186
        i80186 14 February 2016 11: 41
        +3
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        Firstly, it is about developing a concept. It’s premature to even talk about the appearance of the sixth generation car. As for the F-35, this program is developing for itself.

        To develop does not mean to be right and justifying costs.
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        An increase in the number of fighter jets ordered in the form of a three-year order (2018-2020) could lead to a savings of $ 2 billion, flightglobal.com reports (February 12) .This statement was made this week by the head of the F-35 Joint Program, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan ( Christopher Bogdan) at a press briefing in Washington. .

        Well, yes, given the cost of one aircraft of 100 million, and the number planned for production of 271 units, this is certainly an impressive saving. Yeah. Almost ten percent. Of course, this fundamentally changes everything. Just by the time of release of 4000 pieces, saving in this way, they will "beat off" funds for development, maybe.
      3. Wheel
        Wheel 14 February 2016 13: 13
        +2
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        As for the F-35, this program is developing itself.

        Israel urgently needs to triple the number of F-35s ordered. (Why, all the same, I’m free laughing )
    4. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 14 February 2016 07: 28
      0
      In this case, a fighter with stealth technology will have an undeniable advantage over a fighter with similar weapons, but without the "invisibility" properties.
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 14 February 2016 07: 55
        +3
        Quote: Nikolai K
        In this case, a fighter with stealth technology will have an undeniable advantage over a fighter with similar weapons, but without the "invisibility" properties.

        In general, the concept of a fifth generation fighter provides, as one of the main requirements, "invisibility". It seems that by the time this miracle weapon from the Northrop will enter service, the leading aviation powers will completely re-equip with, as you say so, "fighters with stealth technology." It remains only to screw the turret with the laser smile
    5. Archon
      Archon 14 February 2016 16: 14
      +6
      Well, or make the plane mirror and the laser will be beautifully reflected. Well, or some other special coating, for example superconducting, so that the energy of the beam is dissipated throughout the ship.
    6. Slarch
      Slarch 14 February 2016 21: 10
      0
      I have a question, but if our plane is coated with a mirror coating, will the laser damage it?
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 17
        0
        Well, given that the laser beams in laser systems are always focused precisely by mirrors, while the laser system does not tear to shreds, then a good quality mirror coating if it does not reflect the laser beam at all, it will certainly make its damaging effect much weaker. What is characteristic, a projectile is not so easy to flip away.
        PySy: I apologize for the frequent use of the word "laser" in one phrase, this is done for complete clarity and unambiguity, although it makes the style of the phrase dull.
      2. Archon
        Archon 17 February 2016 20: 10
        0
        purely theoretically, if you use a laser with a wavelength that coincides with the maximum absorption of the material with which the plane is covered, then the laser will be able to burn a hole.
        For example, if you cover a plane with a layer of silver, since silver has a maximum absorption in the 400 nm region in the UV spectrum, then you need to take a laser with a wavelength of 400 nm (this is the border of visible color and ultraviolet) and you can already try to do something with this laser .

        But how well this beam will pass through the atmosphere, what power is required and how accurately the material will react, I can’t say for sure.
  2. evil partisan
    evil partisan 14 February 2016 06: 52
    +8
    Even did not understand what ... It seems that I have not heard about any breakthroughs in the creation of laser weapons lately. There was a video with a drone destroyed (at a direct line of sight ...), and a message about the destruction of a mortar mortar in flight, and that’s all ... It turns out that the plane is being made into a promising weapon, or what? And if it works out like with Kurchevsky’s guns with us, i.e. no way? So where did the dog rummage, who knows? Thanks in advance. hi
    1. Alf
      Alf 14 February 2016 08: 43
      +8
      Quote: Angry Guerrilla
      I didn’t understand ... It seems that I have not heard about any breakthroughs in the creation of laser weapons lately.

      Everything is just clear.
      Her brainchild will be born no earlier than 2030.

      Not earlier, but later. And there, either the donkey will die or the paddies, and the budget can be cut fine.
      1. evil partisan
        evil partisan 14 February 2016 08: 59
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Everything is just clear.
        Her brainchild will be born no earlier than 2030.

        Yes, as it were until 2030. not much time left. They that: hope during this time to make discoveries, create technology, create a prototype, conduct tests and put a series, or what? what It’s problematic to plan discoveries request ... Or do they already have something for their soul?
        1. Alf
          Alf 14 February 2016 21: 24
          0
          Quote: Angry Guerrilla
          Yes, as it were until 2030. not much time left. They that: hope during this time to make discoveries, create technology, create a prototype, conduct tests and put a series, or what? It would be problematic to plan discoveries ... Or do they already have something for their soul?

          I think that everything is much simpler. Until 2030, they will process the allies to finance the program and further acquire what will come out as with the F-35. And then it will go on the thumb.
        2. Aqela
          Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 20
          0
          And count how many presidential administrations will change during this period! belay Moreover, each will have its own political platform and program for the development of the armed forces! belay good Drank and drank - no one has yet canceled! fellow drinks good laughing
      2. Starley from the south
        Starley from the south 14 February 2016 21: 54
        0
        But I remember what discussions were about the use of lasers in the SDI system in the 1986-1988 years. Then they wanted to shoot down our ICBMs with lasers on satellites, apparently people were smarter then. So our scientists, even then proposed several cheap and effective ways to protect missiles from lasers. During this time, nothing fundamental happened in laser technology.
        1. Aqela
          Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 26
          0
          The easiest to implement: 1) mirror coating, 2) application of screens evaporating during laser irradiation (in space, this "smoke screen" is not blown away by the wind, by the way), 3) generally chic and shiny - giving the warhead a rotational motion, which does not allow properly heat the casing to damage it. 4) By the way, the cooling system of the heated shell has not been canceled either. 5) The use of refractory ceramic coatings is perfectly acceptable!
          This is at the level of reasoning with the basis of physics for high school. smile
          Professionals probably still dof-yoke how much they can come up with. fellow
      3. Aqela
        Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 18
        0
        Hodja Nasruddin - Steers!
    2. kitamo
      kitamo 14 February 2016 10: 52
      +2
      Quote: wicked partisan
      Even did not understand what ... It seems that I have not heard about any breakthroughs in the creation of laser weapons lately. So where did the dog rummage, who knows? Thanks in advance. hi


      the dog rummaged in the fact that the Americans have no corruption, they call it lobbying and it is quite legal, but the essence, for sawing a female dog’s budget, does not change in any way from a name change, so they dig ...
  3. Siberia M 54
    Siberia M 54 14 February 2016 06: 53
    +2
    We’re dumber than Zadornov speaks of them. We didn’t give the fighter the 5th generation, but already took up the sixth. This is the same bullshit as the SDI at the time. I hope now our rulers will not buy it like a hunchback once.
  4. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 14 February 2016 06: 56
    +1
    Development of the 6th is being carried out everywhere, including here. We still have brains, but not enough. We have a lot of work, little money, and they "saw". Americans have too much money, even more brains who are happy to "saw" this money.))
    Firstly, it is about developing a concept. It’s premature to even talk about the appearance of the sixth generation car.
    I agree one hundred percent!
  5. Mera joota
    Mera joota 14 February 2016 07: 08
    0
    One of the main components of the protection of Su-type fighters from the firing fire of an enemy aircraft is their super maneuverability. It is it that allows them to carry out effective missile defense maneuvers - the enemy either cannot aim, or the missile launched by him loses its target.

    The author lives in the past, super-maneuverability would be salvation if airborne radar and airborne missiles remained at the level of the early 90s. When the missiles needed constant guidance from the radar, and the missiles with the TGSN had a narrow field of "view" and all-aspect ratio was relative. At present, airborne radar with AFAR, airborne missiles with ARLGSN and multi-range TGSN with a wide "field of view" will give a "super-maneuverable" fighter very little chance of continuing air combat.
    1. ILDM1986
      ILDM1986 14 February 2016 09: 36
      +4
      for every tricky ass there is a bolt with a thread. EW tools will work against such missiles - blinding, creating false targets, disrupting the aiming systems of missiles and aircraft giving the super-maneuverable fighter seconds and meters in order to avoid defeat.
      in my opinion, betting on a laser is not entirely a failure, even if a small laser’s power is not enough to destroy a full-fledged aircraft at long distances, but it will be able to shoot down missiles and blind the enemy’s board in ten years.
      super-maneuverability is ultimately also limited by the capabilities of the human body. so the future (after 50-100 years) belongs to "invisible" unmanned hypersonic super-maneuverable multifunctional functions stuffed with lasers, missiles, electronic warfare systems, connected to each other into a single network. in general, ugly am
      although I generally have little idea of ​​hypersound and super-maneuverability with a rotating turret lol
    2. zulusuluz
      zulusuluz 14 February 2016 21: 21
      0
      And what do you think about how the plane evades the missile using the "Pugachev cobra"? Indeed, at this time he is turned towards her by the area of ​​his "shadow". In this case, the RCS is maximum, the automation in the rocket suppresses the sensitivity of the input stages, and at this moment the plane "disappears". But in reality, it simply moves aside with a sharp decrease in ESR (its irradiated profile is minimal). So this maneuver has some value. The main thing here is to complete it on time.
  6. Mera joota
    Mera joota 14 February 2016 07: 11
    +1
    The laser itself will be located in a rotating turret mounted on the fighter, which allows firing in the range of 360 degrees. In other words, the pilot does not have to perform “super-maneuvers” to get on the enemy’s plane.

    If lasers do appear, they will have more anti-ballistic missile function, bring down attacking missiles, this is more promising.
  7. afrikanez
    afrikanez 14 February 2016 07: 15
    +3
    Well, if the Americans were still planning to install the laser on fighters, then 2032 will have to be moved at least another 50 years. Fantasy is certainly good, but the reality is harsher. Yes, it’s not clear yet, they decided to skip the fifth generation or what? Well, they didn’t succeed. what
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 February 2016 11: 38
      +1
      What does it mean they decided to skip the fifth generation - the F 22 has long been in service, in the amount of 180 aircraft, now they have decided to produce 500 F 35A fighters, and they have been working on the sixth generation of fighters for several years now, it will be much easier to make a new fighter with new technologies.
  8. Odysseus
    Odysseus 14 February 2016 07: 18
    10
    Lasers in the atmosphere? Yes, and as the main weapon? This is, son, fiction. smile
    No, work on the next generation as soon as the production of the previous one is launched is normal practice, but lasers as a main weapon are, in my opinion, a false trace.
    1. sabakina
      sabakina 14 February 2016 09: 15
      +3
      Quote: Odyssey
      Lasers in the atmosphere? Yes, and as the main weapon? This is, son, fiction. smile
      No, work on the next generation as soon as the production of the previous one is launched is normal practice, but lasers as a main weapon are, in my opinion, a false trace.

      Wait, colleague! And in your aliens shoot 30 mm shells and missiles BB?
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 14 February 2016 10: 35
        +7
        Quote: sabakina
        And in your aliens shoot 30 mm shells and missiles BB?

        You are far behind the times. Everyone already knows that aliens shoot concentrated gravitational waves the other day "discovered by American scientists." And they do it exclusively from hyper-space laughing
  9. alex_V15
    alex_V15 14 February 2016 07: 37
    0
    Just wait! What is wait? Amers already has no dough for everything! Next is war and devastation. And, most likely, the slide into the category of regional powers, since patents will also be withdrawn, and therefore - the most important weapon - keeping technologies in their own hands and preventing their distribution will be leveled.
  10. SIMM
    SIMM 14 February 2016 07: 37
    +6
    It will be interesting to see how it all ends ...
    All this, of course, is being developed in our country, but ours would not be ours if they did not answer in their own style, i.e. "asymmetric".
    As a fantastic example: on their laser weapon - our "mirror" plane - here's the pin..dos oh ... yut))))))
    1. Lekov L
      Lekov L 14 February 2016 11: 55
      +3
      our "mirror" plane - here's the pin..dos oh ... yut

      And if even with the smoke in the stern! wink
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 14 February 2016 19: 02
      +1
      "All this, of course, is being developed here too, but ours would not be ours if they did not answer in their own style, that is," asymmetrically "." /////

      Russia responds to all threats absolutely symmetrically.
      Although (for economic reasons) and with some delay.

      To the Tomahawks answered Caliber.
      On the stealth F-22 and F-35 answered stealth T-50.
      Aegis responded to the S-500.

      Laser weapons will no doubt be answered by laser weapons.
      The main thing is not to be late.
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 35
        0
        Well, the properties of "stealth" for the F-35 have not been proven, and there is no doubt that its real combat capability, as a combat platform, does not exceed the 4+ generation. Let me remind you that the F-22 was supposed to build more than 2000 units and remove all F-15s from the US Air Force, and the F-35, in number under 3000, should have long ago replaced all Harriers, F-16, F-18, A -ten. Something all this is not to be seen. Or should I wipe my glasses? bully
  11. sa-ag
    sa-ag 14 February 2016 07: 39
    +5
    the yacht "Arizona", two lattice turrets of hyperboloids, a solid-fuel laser, is it definitely a solid-fuel one, not a solid-state one?
    1. Lekov L
      Lekov L 14 February 2016 11: 54
      +3
      But is it exactly solid, and not solid?

      Right, right! On raw aspen wood!
      laughing
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 36
        0
        No! First-class anthracite or even high-quality coke will be purchased! (black, not white!) laughing
  12. Kazakh 14
    Kazakh 14 14 February 2016 08: 23
    +1
    They are prescribed in life, to be dumb))) Turret, laser, dance :)
  13. tchoni
    tchoni 14 February 2016 08: 52
    +1
    the article is somehow raw, or something. I don't even know how to describe it exactly. Probably the expression "ahi-fears based on violent imagination" will be suitable.
    Yes, Americans are a generation ahead of us in aircraft manufacturing. Yes, they have almost ten years of experience in military operation of the fifth generation of fighters. They have practical experience of using stealth machines in real conflicts. But, as we can see, this does not give them decisive political advantages. If I were the author, I would be much more worried about the American missile defense system.
  14. sabakina
    sabakina 14 February 2016 09: 11
    +9
    The laser itself will be located in a rotating turret mounted on the fighter, which allows firing in the range of 360 degrees.

    Twenty years have passed. And only the Russian engineer Garin managed to shove the laser into his grandmother's chest ...
  15. GSVG 86-88
    GSVG 86-88 14 February 2016 09: 23
    +3
    The appearance of the next miracle plane coincides surprisingly with the release of a new episode of Star Wars, or vice versa.
  16. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 14 February 2016 09: 40
    +4
    Fantasy does not hurt anyone!
    But to solve the engineering problem of creating the most powerful energy storage devices, removing the colossal amount of heat instantly released, focusing and "burning" the atmosphere with a beam, "non-melting" of mirrors and prisms of the guidance and focusing system - these are real tasks.
    Maybe nano-technologies will break into the 22 century, but for now it is so cumbersome that it is too early to talk about the classic, small, brisk fighter.
    A flying platform ... it will not conduct a maneuverable all-round battle. Therefore, we have what we have ... And we are going to apply in realities, and not project-vertically.
    Laser weapons are by far the most promising direction among missile defense systems. And the ongoing work on the Sokol-Echelon project is another confirmation of this. In the future, several flying laboratories equipped with combat lasers will be able to contain any missile weapons, including intercontinental ballistic missiles.
    http://rueconomics.ru/100447-sokol-eshelon
    So, we will see.
  17. igordok
    igordok 14 February 2016 09: 54
    +1
    Kill in the blink of an eye

    In order to destroy (melt) the target takes time (exposure). It is difficult to get and keep the beam in one place of a maneuvering target from a moving platform, at the moment it is not likely.
    But someone wants to make money on it.
    1. Sssrkz
      Sssrkz 14 February 2016 10: 52
      +1
      The story with SDI is repeated, they want to drag us into the race.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 14 February 2016 14: 38
      +1
      Quote: igordok
      It is difficult to get and keep the beam in one place of a maneuvering target from a moving platform, at the moment it is not likely.

      The video is somewhat contrary to your statement
      1. igordok
        igordok 14 February 2016 16: 04
        +1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        The video is somewhat contrary to your statement

        I saw a video of "flying saucers". And what does this prove?
      2. Aqela
        Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 41
        0
        As soon as the destruction of the tossed can with beer is shown, I’m ready to immediately be seriously puzzled. And so ... You just count the time of putting into alert and aiming at the target by the speed of the radar antenna ... That's the thing for destroying cruise supersonic missiles good
  18. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 14 February 2016 10: 23
    +4
    The laser has so many problems - power consumption, heat dissipation, weight, dependence on weather conditions, that all this looks like a natural cut.

    Airborne radars detect the enemy over hundreds of kilometers and determine the type of aircraft by profile. And what is interesting outdated will they do when they discover a laser fake at a distance at which any laser turns into a flashlight? Wait until he gets closer? Hang in place so that the adversary gets the necessary exposure?
    1. ILDM1986
      ILDM1986 14 February 2016 10: 29
      +3
      Nope, they will fly invisibly, invisibly fly, invisibly melt, and then fly invisibly. visionaries in general.
  19. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 14 February 2016 10: 37
    0
    Complete nonsense. Not those powers, not those sights. Yes, and the atmosphere would be canceled. And the atmosphere does not want to transmit laser beams with a certain power density. Moreover, no one has yet managed to deceive this law of nature. It’s easier to repeal the law of gravity.
  20. 2s1122
    2s1122 14 February 2016 10: 51
    0
    Normal article, voiced the trends in the development of air combat. But for some reason, in the ShA they think that only they are developing in this area, then they have a super-duper fighter and the rest of the U-2 have 30 years.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 49
      0
      The funny thing is that the U-2 fought in World War II unsuccessfully, while the newer TB-3 did not shine.
      U-2 or Po-2 is a multi-purpose biplane created under the leadership of N. N. Polikarpov in 1927. One of the most massive aircraft in the world.
      Maximum speed: 152 km / h
      Cruising speed: 110 km / h
      Start of operation: 1929

      And about the other:
      TB-3.
      First flight December 22, 1930
      Start of operation 1932
      End of operation January 1946

      By the way, the completion of operation of the TB-3 azhnik in 1946 greatly surprised me.
      TB-3 took part in all the important battles of 1941 — 1943, including the Battle of Smolensk, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad, the breaking of the siege of Leningrad and the Battle of Kursk. By 1 July 1945, the 18 airborne division still had ten TB-3 airplanes on alert.
      For a long time, the TB-3 was used as a cargo and landing aircraft, capable of taking on board up to 35 soldiers.
      belay
  21. Buck
    Buck 14 February 2016 11: 52
    0
    One more thing they didn’t bring to mind took up another.
  22. Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 14 February 2016 12: 02
    +3
    To shoot down aircraft with a laser, you need power from 10 MW and higher, and you need to take into account the efficiency of the laser, weather conditions, the coating and material of the aircraft, speed and maneuverability, and a bunch of other things. Now the question is, where will nimblers find power generators of such power in a compact version? Further, with such capacities, what focusing systems will stand if the current ones do not provide reflection and transmission of such capacities? Yes, if you think about it and soberly evaluate this news, then the scam with the "Star Wars" under Reagan instantly pops up, in which the old men from the Politburo believed. This news is from the same opera. For an ordinary American who does not know the multiplication table, this is enough, but for Russian, who has not yet been completely poisoned by the EGE and taught physics and chemistry with mathematics, understand the next planned cut in the United States.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 14 February 2016 13: 17
      +1
      I have made a detailed analysis of this issue above. It turns out that the laser output power is at least 10 megawatts, and for reliability - all 50, which means that the pump source is about 10-20 times more powerful, i.e. from 0,1 to 10 gigawatts. fellow
      Those. about a million "horses" and more ... Considering that the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan
      Engines - 2 reactors, 4 turbines
      Power - 260 liters. with. (000 MW)
      It turns out ...
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 14 February 2016 14: 05
        0
        It is interesting how much energy two jet engines can produce if windings and magnets are mounted on shafts there - a combined power plant is installed on the principle of a generator.
        1. Aqela
          Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 54
          0
          Considering that steam also turns turbines in a nuclear installation, I think the difference will not be very striking. In any case, even the most powerful jet aircraft engines in the amount of 4 pieces will not accelerate a mass equal to some Ohio submarine to a speed of 30 knots in water with a displacement of 17 thousand tons ...
  23. nikolai.soot
    nikolai.soot 14 February 2016 12: 13
    -2
    It’s simpler and cheaper to create a projectile with a speed close to the speed of light, which will be like a laser.
    1. evil partisan
      evil partisan 14 February 2016 17: 13
      +2
      Quote: nikolai.soot
      It’s simpler and cheaper to create a projectile with a speed close to the speed of light, which will be like a laser.

      To you gridasov -y yes Indeed, he will theoretically justify this idea ... fool
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 14 February 2016 17: 18
        +2
        Quote: nikolai.soot
        It’s easier and cheaper to create a shell with speed close to the speed of light

        Mdya .. this is how much will be in Machs .. 880991,09 somewhere.

        Nifigase belay laughing

        Quote: Angry Guerrilla
        You to gridasov

        10000
  24. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 14 February 2016 12: 40
    0
    In the USSR, we were not inferior to adversaries in the field of lasers. Then they cut funding. What situation I can’t judge now. For some reason, there is confidence that we will find a worthy answer.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 14 February 2016 13: 34
      +1
      In my memory, in 1997, the Japanese came to Ulyanovsk to a radio-tube plant about laser technology. So even after the USSR, the brand was kept for a very long time ... sad
      1. 73petia
        73petia 14 February 2016 21: 13
        0
        On the site of the Ulyanovsk radio tube plant, the Zvezda shopping center has long been. There is no such factory anymore.
        1. Aqela
          Aqela 16 February 2016 01: 55
          0
          I know. A conversation about the affairs of 20 years ago. Pro-s-r-at - this is not a tricky business.
  25. aleksey980
    aleksey980 14 February 2016 13: 20
    +2
    They showed a good animation. So what is what, but in "PR" they are real pros.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 14 February 2016 13: 32
      0
      Yeah. Cartoons for children and adults. This is not to take away!
  26. ltx777
    ltx777 14 February 2016 13: 47
    0
    "Never fight the Russians. They will respond to every military trick of yours with unpredictable stupidity" - Otto von Bismarck
  27. rubin6286
    rubin6286 14 February 2016 13: 52
    0
    Authors need not only to retype ("tear") information on a particular topic from foreign sources, but, analyzing them, in an accessible form, talk about new design ideas abroad, achievements, emerging problems and ways to overcome them. Only in this way can one count on attracting a wide circle of readers to the discussion of the article, from schoolchildren to specialists.

    The 6th generation FX fighter being developed in the United States will have increased speed and range, enhanced by stealth and survivability. Speed ​​and range will be increased with the help of propulsion systems of a new type, created and planned for adoption in service in 2028-2032.
    The requirements for the aircraft, initially, are always controversial and its design, in the end, is a well-known compromise between the desired and the possible. In this regard, it seems to me that an increase in speed and range, changes in the composition of armaments, on-board equipment will lead to an increase in the mass-geometric characteristics of the machine (the aircraft will become complex, large and heavy). His own maneuverable qualities will leave much to be desired. Ultimately, the FX will not be a fighter for gaining superiority in the air, but, at best, a long-range barrage fighter-interceptor with a combat laser on board.

    The accelerated development of air defense systems by 2030 may lead to the fact that the very concept of “maneuverable air combat” will become obsolete, but interception of air targets over the entire range of heights at various ranges will remain relevant. It has already been established that the use of "stealth technologies" makes a car made according to the "tailless" scheme not absolutely, but only slightly less noticeable for radars.
    Success in the development of an aero-optical solid-fuel laser with a controlled beam (ABC laser) that can focus on the target regardless of its maneuvers or air turbulence can lead to changes in tactics of air combat. To defeat the enemy’s aircraft, it will be possible to no longer perform “super-maneuvers”, but simply draw closer to it at a distance of the laser installation fire. Aiming accuracy will be ensured using a computer, you just have to press the button. It seems to me that the FX could very well become unmanned.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 16 February 2016 02: 00
      0
      In the 1970s, it also seemed that hypersound was just around the corner. The "Valkyrie" and "Blackbird" flew, and the projects of the Lavochkin Design Bureau were also quite alive ("Cyclone", it seems? Too lazy to look for clarification now) ... The same F-35 was planned to be adopted ten years ago ... plans were announced ... But somehow it didn't work out.
      In general, I liked your reasoning. There is some reasoning and solidity in them. From me - "plus".
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. oxotnuk86
    oxotnuk86 14 February 2016 16: 39
    0
    What is the point of discussing a 6-generation aircraft when there is no weapon for it. To understand what kind of laser is needed (power, range), put an airplane with a working engine on the ground and fire it until it is destroyed. It will immediately become clear after how many years it is possible for this type of weapon to appear. I think this is another Amer crap. And one more thing to work out when defending a target. There will probably be something over time, but it will work completely on other principles.
  30. General_colonel
    General_colonel 14 February 2016 16: 40
    0
    How is the aiming of missile weapons at the aircraft in "stealth mode"? I understand that it seems like from an AWACS aircraft. And if he was shot down or interfered with, how then? It's just that if you turn on the radar, then you already discover yourself. And if you do not turn it on, how then to carry out the guidance of missile weapons without AWACS? It's just that then the only plus is obtained in the work on air defense systems from stealth. Or not :)? Who knows :)
  31. Slippery
    Slippery 14 February 2016 18: 36
    0
    We will make a 100 mm armor belt on the SUSHKs, they will get tired of burning. wink
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 16 February 2016 02: 04
      0
      I think that the aluminum film on top of the ceramic-metal plates with the underlying asbestos layer will be much more reliable and easier.
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 16 February 2016 02: 13
        0
        Quote: Aqela
        aluminum film on top of cermet plates with the underlying asbestos layer

        Mdya .. (all the materials you listed - held in my hands repeatedly, even know what it is made of laughing )

        Quote: Slippery
        We will make the armor belt 100 mm on SUSHK, get tired of burning

        And then it will fly up ?? belay
  32. Kenneth
    Kenneth 14 February 2016 18: 46
    0
    It is interesting, but how to shoot down an adversary with a laser for 100 and 200 km. And if he is at all over the horizon. It seems that in the future, super inconspicuous aircraft will be forced to approach each other with reliable visual identification and arrange dog dumps at distances of up to 1 km. Because the beam cannot be fixed in a different way from a moving platform on a moving target, because it is not a ballistic missile. So again, over-maneuverability will be needed.
  33. DM51
    DM51 14 February 2016 20: 03
    +1
    Or maybe by 2030 they will make a hypersonic air-to-air missile and then a laser into the furnace?
  34. himanru
    himanru 14 February 2016 20: 06
    0
    From the concept to the final product, there are still not one thousand steps - not the fact that they will reach
  35. Sakh
    Sakh 14 February 2016 21: 04
    0
    The use of radio-optical phased antenna arrays (ROFAR) will reduce the weight and size characteristics of radio electronic equipment by 5-7 times, the functions of all modern antennas will be performed by one promising locator, Vladimir Mikheev, advisor to the first deputy general director of Concern Radioelectronic Technologies (KRET), told reporters on Saturday.
    KRET: new radars will be able to look into the plane at a distance of 500 km
    Radio-optical phased antenna arrays will significantly expand the capabilities of modern communication facilities and radars - their resolution will increase tenfold. 
    http://www.ria.ru/defense_safety/20160109/1356747396.html
  36. geolive
    geolive 14 February 2016 21: 32
    0
    Americans obviously have seen enough of Star Wars! Could the experience with the F-35 teach them nothing? Again, after all, they get into the full, not otherwise! Dreamers!
  37. Olegi1
    Olegi1 15 February 2016 02: 44
    0
    Quote: 2s1122
    Normal article, voiced the trends in the development of air combat. But for some reason, in the ShA they think that only they are developing in this area, then they have a super-duper fighter and the rest of the U-2 have 30 years.



    But I recently listened to the expert on the radio, there will be no links, sorry. On the topic that Russia is ahead of the whole planet in the field of laser technology. Well, he outlined a few topics there, where we are still ahead, looked objective, believed in general. So, based on this, plus my education, I think that the Americans just need to throw a hundred yards into this project now. If they make such a decision, I will sleep even more calmly. winked
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 15 February 2016 11: 33
      0
      "On the topic that Russia is ahead of the entire planet in the field of laser technologies." ////

      Ahead ... USSR in the 80s. But then I came across problems that
      considered insurmountable, and closed the development.
      But the Americans in the 90s overcame these problems (lossless capacity building)
      and went forward.
      Now Russia will have to take out of its "closet" old practices and urgently close the gap.
  38. Horn
    Horn 15 February 2016 07: 07
    +1
    No, guys, I think Russia won't buy the new SDI! "USA - forward!" Flag in your hands and a drum with a cable around your neck.
  39. jonht
    jonht 15 February 2016 08: 37
    0
    In my opinion, there is an option to use the so-called hard radiation (such as x-rays). True, the question of pumping the radiation source still remains open. The amazing effect is precisely the radiation that kills the pilot, the burning equipment. As an option, a compact particle accelerator .... But the problem with energy still remains ....
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 16 February 2016 02: 09
      0
      An x-ray is not for nothing that the rails shine through. So there will undoubtedly be 2 difficult tasks: 1) how to focus and direct, 2) how to ensure maximum transfer of energy to the target. After all, it’s necessary not to investigate the framework, but to destroy the equipment ... It’s not even worth talking about the required power level. The desired accumulation is even unimaginable at the moment.
  40. The comment was deleted.
  41. Velizariy
    Velizariy 15 February 2016 12: 29
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "On the topic that Russia is ahead of the entire planet in the field of laser technologies." ////

    Ahead ... USSR in the 80s. But then I came across problems that
    considered insurmountable, and closed the development.
    But the Americans in the 90s overcame these problems (lossless capacity building)
    and went forward.
    Now Russia will have to take out of its "closet" old practices and urgently close the gap.

    Why a closet? Why old? There is no secret that cannot be stolen! spies have so many worms in their history! So we’ll climb into the front closet of Amerostan and pick up the achievements.
  42. Mentat
    Mentat 15 February 2016 19: 03
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "On the topic that Russia is ahead of the entire planet in the field of laser technologies." ////

    Ahead ... USSR in the 80s. But then I came across problems that
    considered insurmountable, and closed the development.
    But the Americans in the 90s overcame these problems (lossless capacity building)
    and went forward.
    Now Russia will have to take out of its "closet" old practices and urgently close the gap.

    Actually, the matter was completely different. The United States did not have any "bridging" that would ensure the real military use of precisely lasers, there is not and cannot be for the fundamental reasons why the "laser programs" in the USSR were stopped.

    All these screams about the laser weapons of the future are pure PR, image programs, at best developments for the future on the use of emitters of the next generations.

    Everyone, except the illiterate populus, is understandable, and such cries of the United States can only cause a reaction "what, again?"
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 16 February 2016 02: 13
      0
      Here’s what I think: the laser itself is garbage, it simply cannot be able to provide the necessary energy beam density with the required exposure to destroy an armored object, but can it, for example, provide an ionization channel in the atmosphere through which it will be possible to beat it with plasma or electric discharge? After all, there will be more efficiency than 10% ...
  43. Cat man null
    Cat man null 16 February 2016 02: 08
    0
    Here's a joke for the sake of: let's prove that laser weapons (hitting a la-missile-missile mean ... Shtora-Sanya - not to remember) -

    In general - is it possible? At this technological level, and in the atmosphere, not in space?

    Thank you hi
  44. fzr1000
    fzr1000 16 February 2016 02: 11
    0
    And why doesn’t anyone surprise the appearance of this aircraft? Tailless. B-2, they say, in a straight line on subsonic flies only thanks to sophisticated electronics, and here is a supersonic fighter. Something is not clear.
  45. neo1200
    neo1200 18 February 2016 11: 46
    0
    The aircraft of the sixth generation will appear no earlier than the 30s of the 21st century, and all these statements by the Americans, and their incredible technological superiority, are worth nothing. Their Raptor has a bunch of defects that need to be fixed. The Raptor is armed with AIM-120, which is "a hundred years old at lunchtime", with a range of 120 km. rake with a range of 180 km. only recently passed tests. Apro lasers are completely nonsense. The Americans tested the laser on a Boeing, the first time successfully, having trumpeted the whole world about it. After that, they did not hit the target from the laser at all. The program was quietly closed, but the Americans persistently insist that they are about to have laser weapons and hypersonic missiles and aircraft. But this "just about" has already been going on for too long, and laser weapons, hypersonic missiles and planes still do not appear.
  46. dimaz
    dimaz 18 February 2016 12: 39
    0
    Hello gentlemen, article writers! Your articles are very interesting !!! I read with pleasure !!! A huge request !!!!!!!!!!
    Please write an article about the T-50 PAK FA, ARMAT and so on. etc. (Latest news)! And write more often!
  47. otter.1
    otter.1 24 February 2016 12: 47
    0
    Quote: activator
    Quote: bodzu
    and so this is another cut by the Pentagon of the "defense" budget. Good luck to them in this business!

    Damn why so everyone else’s money thinks, and at the same time they’re gibbering. They do something and invest in development, and when they succeed, we will catch up again, but for twenty years we will invent excuses for ourselves why we don’t need it and we will go the other way for now we won’t do it, but when we do then, we will start shouting that the new time is dictating new requirements, well, we’ll come up with something to explain to ourselves why we suddenly needed it.

    Well, firstly, no one has turned off the laser program for military applications, and secondly, this is our business - we want to count other people's money, we want to not count, what’s the matter to you? Consider yourself, it will be more productive.