Two things strike me that haven’t been already mentioned.
I think a rear pointing laser would work. If not for hitting an enemy plane, maybe just for blinding the pilot or damaging equipment.
Rear-facing missiles wouldn’t be much use against ground-based anti-aircraft. Maneuverability might.
One note about agility : it’s not just about dogfights. In fact, these days it’s really not about dogfights since they happen very rarely, if at all - it’s all about BVR these days.
However, being able to do crazy tricks helps dodging long- and mid-range missiles if (… when) other countermeasures let one down.
Um, yeah, good luck with the power source for that laser. Last I knew, the USAF was fiddling around with an airborne laser carried by a 747. It’s *probably *possible to make a jet-sized one (IIRC they’re planning on shoving one inside the F-35 at some point), but I wouldn’t expect a rapid-firing 1920s style death ray within these parameters.
The article goes on about venting all that excess heat into the fuel tanks so as not to have an impact on stealth or IR signature… yeah that sounds safe as all hell. What could go possibly wrong with red-hot fuel tanks ? It’s not like they’re full of highly flammable ooze or anything.
The fuel capacity of the STOVL F-35 is 14,000 lb, or 6400 kg. The heat capacity of kerosene is 2 kJ/(kg-K). A 10-second laser shot at 0.9 MW is 9000 kJ. So, one shot will raise the fuel temperature by… 0.7 kelvin. Not really a big deal as long as you don’t overdo it. Of course in practice the heat won’t be instantly distributed in the tanks, so there will be local hotspots in the short term, and this heat flow would have to factor into the repetition rate. Plus the tanks may not be full. Regardless, it doesn’t seem like that particular aspect is a showstopper.
I’m not saying blowing up an enemy airplane. Just putting a laser on his windshield which might temporarily blind him or might mess up sensors and optics. He still has to be able to read his instruments. I’ve been hearing stories about people messing with commercial airlines by pointing lasers at the cockpits.
Fighters are a dying technology in the same way battleships are. The idea of air superiority is the ability to eliminate air support. We don’t need to sneak up on enemy aircraft, we need the ability to spot them. And once spotted it’s more cost effective to shoot them down with a missile launched from the ground or stand-off air platforms than from an expensive fighter. By that I mean the money spent should be in the missile and detection equipment and not the method of launching it.
He who can identify enemy aircraft from farther away and launch a weapon is the victor. It doesn’t matter if the missile came off the back of a truck, a bomber, or a fighter.
So the op’s idea is interesting. Time is everything in a dogfight so launching a missile backwards has merit. It could be a single stage continuous rod missile that detonates close enough to cut a plane up or a 2 stage missile that flies past an enemy plane and then fires a second stage heat seeking missile backwards upon passing the enemy plane.
\Beat me to it. All expenses paid trips to the Hague can be a bummer… read the fine print before committing.
