Strategic Multi-Role Interceptor: Possible 6th gen fighter

gardnerdesign

New Member
I propose bringing back the interceptor aircraft. An aircraft like the YF-12, MIG-31 or F-14, only take the concept of an interceptor and adapt it to current threats and trends. I would designate my concept as a Strategic Multi-role Interceptor. We already have low altitude air superiority fighters (the F-15 and F-22) as well as capable strike aircraft (F/A-18, F-16 and F-35) we need to develop next gen craft that can take the fight to extremely high altitudes and speeds. There are several capabilities that are on the DARPA wish list that can be encompassed by this concept.

The military is looking to further its capabilities in theses area:

Ballistic Missile Defense - an aircraft with powerful engines would be ideal for boost, midcourse and terminal interception depending on where it was located in the world.

Prompt Global Strike-an aircraft that was suborbital capable, especially flying a near hypersonic or hypersonic depressed ballistic trajectory would be able to meet the militaries requirement of hitting any target in the world in two hours.

Anti Satellite Warfare- an aircraft that can achieve suborbital altitude and can carry weapons capable of hitting ballistic missiles, would also make an ideal anti satellite platform.

High Altitude on Demand Recon- the ability to request up to date images of a battle field or warzone has long been desired by the military and has been a traditional role of this type of aircraft.

Orbital Capabilities- An aircraft that can meet those requirements can easily achieve orbit with little or no assistance which only strengthens its abilities to perform the for mentioned roles.


First we must think about the engines, as any good interceptor is designed around its engines. The engines need to be able to efficiently operate at a broad range of altitudes including in a vacuum. The ability to utilize atmospheric oxidizer is important in achieving a useful specific impulse. Finally running on molecular dense and energy dense fuels is important to reduce size, this is essential because drag becomes just as much of a hindrance as gravity when trying to achieve high supersonic and hypersonic speeds.

Technologies needed to achieve such an engine:

Hybrid rocket: Allows for easy throtalability and utilizes solid fuel which will reduce the overall volume of the vehicle and allow easy use of molecularly dense and energy dense fuels, such as powdered aluminum.

Oxidizer drop tank: Oxidizer used during takeoff is held in a drop tank and jettisoned when the vehicle reaches a speed were drag starts becoming a significant factor, as well as sufficient speed has been attained to open air inlets.

Variable geometry air Inlet: Allows the engine to take in atmospheric oxidizer when sufficient speeds are reached. Variable geometry air Inlet is closed during takeoff to allow engines to utilize pressurized oxidizer. Also variable geometry compressor surfaces in the air inlet would allow more efficient transitions from RAM to SCRAM speeds.

Internal oxidizer supply: After leaving the atmosphere the vehicle can switch back to a pressurized oxidizer carried internally for further acceleration or maneuvering. As well as providing a sort of after burning capability in atmospheric flight by allowing for oxidizer enrichment of the engines airflow.

Torodial aero-spike nozzle: The unique shape of this nozzle allows for efficient engine thrust at all atmospheric pressures. Necessary for a craft that is going to be operating in such a huge flight envelope.


Next we can begin to look at the design of the vehicle as a whole. Shape is a very important aspect to take in to consideration as well as internal technologies that improve flight performance. The vehicle will be subjected to high heat and high G forces on every flight. The ability to operate at high altitudes in the suborbital or orbital regions is required. It will require a robust avionics system that includes 360 degree battle space awareness and powerful communication capabilities.

Avionics: A combination of robust radar and IRST systems would be ideal for such a vehicle. Specifically a robust IRST system would be most useful, especially if it included infrared laser illuminators for active search and targeting, unjammable communication and infrared jamming (for more info see my post on IRST capabilities)

Regenerative Cooling: This is essential for a vehicle operating at high speeds and in orbit, (especially reentry) were a vehicle tend to collect large thermal loads. This is not only a structural integrity advantage but would also make a craft harder to detect by thermal sensors reducing it infrared cross section as well as providing a capability to deal with future tactile and strategic laser systems as these weapons work by overloading a vehicles thermal tolerance. This thermal mitigation technique would also make passive infrared sensors far more effective by cooling them to very low temperature, increasing their range and resolution. Using the liquid oxygen reserves of my proposed propulsion system would also be far more effective than regenerative cooling systems that have been designed, as liquid oxygen has a far lower temperature and therefore a greater ability to mitigate heat than a liquid hydrocarbon based fuel.

Weapons: Mini-missiles such as the multiple kinetic energy interceptors would provide effective offensive and defensive weapons capable of taking on all high altitude high speed targets and threats (including the ability to target weapons that are attempting to intercept the vehicle or vehicles it is protecting such as satellites or bombers). This system would be very interesting if it was pared with a set of turreted recoilless cannons. If flying in the atmosphere one would be oriented forward and one to the rear covering the most likely areas a missile will be coming from and in orbit or sub orbit were there will be less resistance from air flow the system could utilize its turrets more effectively.

Re-entry technique: If the vehicle is to be capable of reaching orbit than I think it is important to address how it would re-enter the atmosphere. I think it would be highly advantages to utilize a conical main fuselage and two conical nacelles. This would allow not only a very effective hypersonic shape wile in the atmosphere but the ability for all three pieces of the ship to separate and reenter tale first utilizing a much safer ballistic reentry technique (compared with the belly first techniques space plane like the shuttle utilize). This also reduces the amount of thermal shielding (especially when coupled with regenerative cooling) by reducing the surface area that will be exposed to the extremely high thermal loads experienced during reentry.
 

gardnerdesign

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #2
Does anyone else have any thoughts on the subject, beyond the normal analysis of a UCAV with 4+ and 5th generation tecnologies? ( Im defining generation as an integration of a set of new technologies to etablish dominance within a certain role ( Bomber, Fighter, Attack ect...)
 

the_big_m_in_ok

New Member
gardnerdesign:

With respect to your original post, I agree something new is needed to replace some aging aircraft. Have you heard of the yearly AIAA university undergraduate aerospace competition?
If you GOOGLize: "ntrs" and "nasa", the NASA Technical Report Server should be the first hit. Searching for something like "supersonic fighter theoretical proposed" should give you the titles of research papers written by students and archived by NASA.

I'll be up to 10 posts shortly and I might post a couple of representative titles myself. Google itself has more information, of course.
 

Kilo 2-3

New Member
I propose bringing back the interceptor aircraft. An aircraft like the YF-12, MIG-31 or F-14, only take the concept of an interceptor and adapt it to current threats and trends. I would designate my concept as a Strategic Multi-role Interceptor. We already have low altitude air superiority fighters (the F-15 and F-22) as well as capable strike aircraft (F/A-18, F-16 and F-35) we need to develop next gen craft that can take the fight to extremely high altitudes and speeds. There are several capabilities that are on the DARPA wish list that can be encompassed by this concept.
In a way, you wouldn't be "bringing back" the interceptor, you'd be creating an entirely new fighter air/spacecraft niche. This would of course merit its own new set of jargon. (I propose the "Aerospace Superiority Platform," ASP or Asp, after the highly venomous snake).

Prompt Global Strike-an aircraft that was suborbital capable, especially flying a near hypersonic or hypersonic depressed ballistic trajectory would be able to meet the militaries requirement of hitting any target in the world in two hours.
Ballistic Missile Defense - an aircraft with powerful engines would be ideal for boost, midcourse and terminal interception depending on where it was located in the world.
Ballistic missile defence/shield operations are already handled to some extent by a host of existing platforms (Patriot, SM-3/Aegis, etc). As well as a host of other programs which are still under or were under development such as the Airborne Laser (whose funding just got cut...), and the Alaska-based GMB/Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system for the protection of CONUS.

Now, the missile-defence net still has a massive amount of holes in it, and it is by no means a perfect system, but given the amount of research and work already being done, is the DoD likely to develop another platform/system to address the threat?

Anti Satellite Warfare- an aircraft that can achieve suborbital altitude and can carry weapons capable of hitting ballistic missiles, would also make an ideal anti satellite platform.
There's a few ASAT/platforms adaptable to ASAT already out there. The USAF has a microsatellite which has demonstrated the ability to intercept larger satellites while in orbit. It's currently just a technology demonstrator, but I think the potential application here is obvious (not to say it doesn't have peaceful applications as well).

Back in the 1980s, iirc, the USAF experimented with a satellite-killer missile for the F-15, but only one test was made before the project was cancelled. Should a similar weapon be revived, it would be a fairly cost-effective way of band-aiding


High Altitude on Demand Recon- the ability to request up to date images of a battle field or warzone has long been desired by the military and has been a traditional role of this type of aircraft.
U-2s and GlobalHawks already do something similar to this this and do it fairly well. Real-time surveillance can be done by cheap UAVs at a very, very small fraction of the cost of a bulky, high-altitude spaceplane. Plus, the existing spy satellite network also can contribute to this recon role.

Orbital Capabilities- An aircraft that can meet those requirements can easily achieve orbit with little or no assistance which only strengthens its abilities to perform the for mentioned roles.
Runway-to-orbit has never been done before. You'd need incredibly powerful (and heavy engines), massive runways or ground bases, and you'd have weight constraints in non-Equatorial operations. True, you could piggyback on a 747 to launch altitude, but that adds to your support demands.

Plus, the orbital missions would have a long time between missions for overhaul of the airframe (replacement of ceramic tiles, etc.). This quickly adds a limit on max sustainable op tempo. You'd need to find a way to allow the air/spacecraft a way to be launched into orbit, land, be overhauled, and launched again on a fairly rapid basis and still have the air/spacecraft have a reasonably long lifespan.

Plus, the single stage to orbit goal is a road upon which the bodies of many engineers lie. It's very, very difficult to do. Not impossible, but could it be done practically and cost-effectively and still carry a reasonable payload?

Next we can begin to look at the design of the vehicle as a whole. Shape is a very important aspect to take in to consideration as well as internal technologies that improve flight performance. The vehicle will be subjected to high heat and high G forces on every flight. The ability to operate at high altitudes in the suborbital or orbital regions is required. It will require a robust avionics system that includes 360 degree battle space awareness and powerful communication capabilities.

Avionics: A combination of robust radar and IRST systems would be ideal for such a vehicle. Specifically a robust IRST system would be most useful, especially if it included infrared laser illuminators for active search and targeting, unjammable communication and infrared jamming (for more info see my post on IRST capabilities)

Regenerative Cooling: This is essential for a vehicle operating at high speeds and in orbit, (especially reentry) were a vehicle tend to collect large thermal loads. This is not only a structural integrity advantage but would also make a craft harder to detect by thermal sensors reducing it infrared cross section as well as providing a capability to deal with future tactile and strategic laser systems as these weapons work by overloading a vehicles thermal tolerance. This thermal mitigation technique would also make passive infrared sensors far more effective by cooling them to very low temperature, increasing their range and resolution. Using the liquid oxygen reserves of my proposed propulsion system would also be far more effective than regenerative cooling systems that have been designed, as liquid oxygen has a far lower temperature and therefore a greater ability to mitigate heat than a liquid hydrocarbon based fuel.

Weapons: Mini-missiles such as the multiple kinetic energy interceptors would provide effective offensive and defensive weapons capable of taking on all high altitude high speed targets and threats (including the ability to target weapons that are attempting to intercept the vehicle or vehicles it is protecting such as satellites or bombers). This system would be very interesting if it was pared with a set of turreted recoilless cannons. If flying in the atmosphere one would be oriented forward and one to the rear covering the most likely areas a missile will be coming from and in orbit or sub orbit were there will be less resistance from air flow the system could utilize its turrets more effectively.

Re-entry technique: If the vehicle is to be capable of reaching orbit than I think it is important to address how it would re-enter the atmosphere. I think it would be highly advantages to utilize a conical main fuselage and two conical nacelles. This would allow not only a very effective hypersonic shape wile in the atmosphere but the ability for all three pieces of the ship to separate and reenter tale first utilizing a much safer ballistic reentry technique (compared with the belly first techniques space plane like the shuttle utilize). This also reduces the amount of thermal shielding (especially when coupled with regenerative cooling) by reducing the surface area that will be exposed to the extremely high thermal loads experienced during reentry.
A lifting-body design similar to the one seen in the X-33, would probably end up being incorporated into the basic aircraft design. The Common Aero Vehicle design (a broadly similar design to the one you describe) used a lifting body.

Heat-proofing for re-entry is a tremendous issue, especially when you need a platform that can be ready to fly practically on-demand. Tiles like the ones used on the Space Shuttle are extremely costly, and often have to be checked and replaced after every flight, that add massive operating costs and huge ground crew demands.

I guess my overall perspective on this issue is that you're dealing with a tremendous amount of consolidation. This air/spacecraft would replace or succeed a tremendous amount of existing systems and platforms via totally non-traditional, very new, and highly risky pathway. You're looking at going after the global strike/strategic role of the B-1B, the recon capability of the U-2 and GlobalHawk, and the ASAT and BMD mission of a variety of a few systems which are still in development. Giving one platform all of these roles is extremely risky, especially since such a radical craft has never been done successfully. If it turns out not to be workable well down the road, a lot of eggs could have been put in one basket

Remember what happened to the National Aerospace Plane and the SST? They're rough analogies to be sure, but they do offer some precedent into this issue. Space is a hazardous frontier, and not every platform or system can meet its demands. Unfortunately, for this air/spacecraft, failure just might not be an option
.
 

the_big_m_in_ok

New Member
In a way, you wouldn't be "bringing back" the interceptor, you'd be creating an entirely new fighter air/spacecraft niche. This would of course merit its own new set of jargon. (I propose the "Aerospace Superiority Platform," ASP or Asp, after the highly venomous snake).
I agree. There are a fair number of research papers on the 'Web to download for the cost of printing:

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch12.pdf

The link above is merely one example. Some of these might also be modified, with the addition of second stage rocket engines, to create a version of a two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) launch vehicle.
Ballistic Missile Defense - an aircraft with powerful engines would be ideal for boost, midcourse and terminal interception depending on where it was located in the world.
Ballistic missile defence/shield operations are already handled to some extent by a host of existing platforms (Patriot, SM-3/Aegis, etc). As well as a host of other programs which are still under or were under development such as the Airborne Laser (whose funding just got cut...), and the Alaska-based GMB/Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system for the protection of CONUS.
I've heard of some of these systems, but not all. They're designed to shoot down both ICBMs and aircraft as well.
Now, the missile-defence net still has a massive amount of holes in it, and it is by no means a perfect system, but given the amount of research and work already being done, is the DoD likely to develop another platform/system to address the threat?
I've heard a discussion on another blog site similar to this one that covered space-related subjects as such.
A former NASA employee writing on that site maintained if there is no political will and the money to be spent on the R&D, the system proposed system(s) will go nowhere. It's *politics as usual*.
There's a few ASAT/platforms adaptable to ASAT already out there. The USAF has a microsatellite which has demonstrated the ability to intercept larger satellites while in orbit. It's currently just a technology demonstrator, but I think the potential application here is obvious (not to say it doesn't have peaceful applications as well).
Sounds good to me. I'm not familiar with it, though.
Back in the 1980s, iirc, the USAF experimented with a satellite-killer missile for the F-15, but only one test was made before the project was cancelled. Should a similar weapon be revived, it would be a fairly cost-effective way of band-aiding
The F-15 was deliberately designed to counter the speed of the Mig-25 and later Mig-31:

F-15 Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mig-25 vs SR-71, page 10
(Posts #4,5, & 6, on that page dealing with a potential dogfight between an F-15 and a Mig-25.)
One thing: the F-15 can carry the newest missiles to shoot down either opposing missiles or planes.
U-2s and GlobalHawks already do something similar to this this and do it fairly well. Real-time surveillance can be done by cheap UAVs at a very, very small fraction of the cost of a bulky, high-altitude spaceplane. Plus, the existing spy satellite network also can contribute to this recon role.
I agree. Much cheaper. But a UAV uses fuel that may be in short supply in the future. A orbiting satellite uses no fuel, but is still constrained by it's orbit. Mission requirements present possiblly conflicting heuristics in that regard.
Runway-to-orbit has never been done before. You'd need incredibly powerful (and heavy engines), massive runways or ground bases, and you'd have weight constraints in non-Equatorial operations. True, you could piggyback on a 747 to launch altitude, but that adds to your support demands.
Right. The TSTO, as I mentioned above. Also, horizontal takeoff launch vehicles have to contend with a runway that limits its size.
Plus, the orbital missions would have a long time between missions for overhaul of the airframe (replacement of ceramic tiles, etc.). This quickly adds a limit on max sustainable op tempo. You'd need to find a way to allow the air/spacecraft a way to be launched into orbit, land, be overhauled, and launched again on a fairly rapid basis and still have the air/spacecraft have a reasonably long lifespan. ... Plus, the single stage to orbit goal is a road upon which the bodies of many engineers lie. It's very, very difficult to do. Not impossible, but could it be done practically and cost-effectively and still carry a reasonable payload?
I presented a proposal (later deleted) on Space-Talk : The Forum for Astronomy, Space and related topics. to that effect which involved Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) launch vehicles that would address these problems if the money was spent on R&D.
You're correct, the payload to weight ratio of the SSTO is very, very poor. However, the cost of avionics, engines and fuselage components is so high, it might be worth the effort. especially avionics. Many thousands of dollars/pound into orbit.
A lifting-body design similar to the one seen in the X-33, would probably end up being incorporated into the basic aircraft design. The Common Aero Vehicle design (a broadly similar design to the one you describe) used a lifting body.
Well, some critics of the X-33 indicate with their research that a cylindrical tube with wings, engines and tail on the aft end are just a efficient. This involves distinct R&D engineering. I don't know for sure which is better.
Heat-proofing for re-entry is a tremendous issue, especially when you need a platform that can be ready to fly practically on-demand. Tiles like the ones used on the Space Shuttle are extremely costly, and often have to be checked and replaced after every flight, that add massive operating costs and huge ground crew demands.
The former NASA employee mentioned above said, I believe, that a one-piece nose reentry heat shield was considered for installation on the Space Shuttle. Really. It was later scrapped for the present system. Whether or not it would have been more efficient is moot now. More R&D is needed now to resolve the issue, if those involved want to spend the money.
I guess my overall perspective on this issue is that you're dealing with a tremendous amount of consolidation. This air/spacecraft would replace or succeed a tremendous amount of existing systems and platforms via totally non-traditional, very new, and highly risky pathway. You're looking at going after the global strike/strategic role of the B-1B, the recon capability of the U-2 and GlobalHawk, and the ASAT and BMD mission of a variety of a few systems which are still in development. Giving one platform all of these roles is extremely risky, especially since such a radical craft has never been done successfully. If it turns out not to be workable well down the road, a lot of eggs could have been put in one basket
Overall, I agree. There is no easy answer. Money has to be spent on the most viable system, whatever that becomes after R&D.
Remember what happened to the National Aerospace Plane and the SST? They're rough analogies to be sure, but they do offer some precedent into this issue. Space is a hazardous frontier, and not every platform or system can meet its demands. Unfortunately, for this air/spacecraft, failure just might not be an option
.
Politics happened to those canceled systems. But, I agree with your assessment. We need something that works for the money we can afford.
 
Top