RAF Mosquito

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/30m-deal-to-build-britains-first-fleet-of-unmanned-fighter-drones-k0cdk8lds

£30m deal to build Britain’s first fleet of unmanned fighter drones

Britain’s first fleet of unmanned fighter aircraft will be developed in Northern Ireland following a £30 million investment by the Ministry of Defence. (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/army-faces-loss-of-10-000-soldiers-in-shift-towards-drones-w325r3cqb)

The “loyal wingman” aircraft, as it has been nicknamed, will be designed to fly at high speeds alongside fighter jets such as the Typhoon or F-35.

The contract to design and manufacture the prototype, which is expected to support 100 jobs, was handed to Spirit AeroSystems, an American company, in Belfast in a three-year deal.

Team Mosquito will develop the RAF’s Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (Lanca) technology, with a vehicle flight-test programme expected by the end of 2023. The MoD plans to start manufacturing the first aircraft by 2025.

Armed with missiles, surveillance and electronic warfare technology, it will be Britain’s first uncrewed aircraft able to target and shoot down enemy aircraft and survive against surface-to-air missiles. The crewed aircraft will be able to assign tasks such as electronic warfare, surveillance or bombing missions to the Lanca drones, increasing the air power at a lower cost and risk to RAF aircrew.......

Richard Berthon, director of the MoD’s Future Combat Air, said the RAF’s Lanca technology was a vital element of its future combat capabilities. “Autonomous ‘loyal wingman’ aircraft create the opportunity to expand, diversify and rapidly upgrade combat air forces in a cost-effective way, now and in the future,” he said.

Mike Wigston, chief of the air staff, said: “We’re taking a revolutionary approach, looking at a game-changing mix of swarming drones and uncrewed fighter aircraft . . . alongside piloted fighters like Tempest, that will transform the combat battlespace in a way not seen since the advent of the jet age.”......

[Wensleydale]

So as well as combat it can perform ISTAR roles as well? Why not call it the Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Identification Surveillance Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance, or "LANCISTAR" instead of Mosquito?

I'd like to see a fast jet pilot - in combat, flying both his own aircraft and a swarm of drones.......

[Bob Viking]

The whole point of AI is that it is pre-programmed to know what to do and follow a bunch of pre-determined parameters.

If it is well designed and well integrated the FJ pilot won’t need to do very much at all. The drones are just there as assets at his/her disposal. Like having extra missiles or a longer range sensor.

I really don’t think it will involve a pilot flying a Typhoon/F35/Tempest whilst simultaneously controlling a bunch of drones with a controller!

BV

[orca]

Spot on BV. And quite aside from AI an autonomous system can be wonderfully dumb - in a positive sense. No AI whatsoever required for the following:

Follow the ACO outbound to the millimetre.
Don’t run out of gas.
Don’t transgress any known ACM.
Don’t penetrate a known MEZ. (I’ll let you know by text if there are any new ones).
Don’t leave the FIR.
Don’t fly into me.
Don’t get more than 20nm from me.
Don’t employ without my say so.
If you’re near a POI and can capture an ISR product please do.
If we lose comms for X minutes go back to CAP, for Y minutes then RTB.
Go home obeying the ACO to the millimetre.

All things you might hope your manned wingy would achieve but that you could never guarantee - now simply check boxes on a mission planner.

[ORAC]

All things you might hope your manned wingy would achieve but that you could never guarantee - now simply check boxes on a mission planner.


https://youtu.be/HVK2YtNofeI

https://youtu.be/0d4EYFXKjLE

[just another jocky]

The whole point of AI is that it is pre-programmed to know what to do and follow a bunch of pre-determined parameters.

If it is well designed and well integrated the FJ pilot won’t need to do very much at all. The drones are just there as assets at his/her disposal. Like having extra missiles or a longer range sensor.

I really don’t think it will involve a pilot flying a Typhoon/F35/Tempest whilst simultaneously controlling a bunch of drones with a controller!

BV
Hopefully that will stem all the usual naysayers who think we just can't manage without their insight since they left. :rolleyes:

[ORAC]

Mike Wigston, chief of the air staff, said: “We’re taking a revolutionary approach, looking at a game-changing mix of swarming drones and uncrewed fighter aircraft . . . alongside piloted fighters like Tempest, that will transform the combat battlespace in a way not seen since the advent of the jet age.”......https://youtu.be/OixSNQp0S_k

https://youtu.be/yforhA7d5MU

[safetypee]

Voice activated, secure data linked - 'echelon starboard go'; 'diamond nine go'; … …
Advanced formation flying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaUa-8wjYZY
Basic training
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5mqWy-_VXY

[Wensleydale]

At last - the movement of the Red Arrows to Waddington makes sense. One jet, eight drones and Red 1 flies his aerobatics routine with everything else on pre-programmed automatic pilot.

[Timelord]

The whole point of AI is that it is pre-programmed to know what to do and follow a bunch of pre-determined parameters.

If it is well designed and well integrated the FJ pilot won’t need to do very much at all. The drones are just there as assets at his/her disposal. Like having extra missiles or a longer range sensor.

I really don’t think it will involve a pilot flying a Typhoon/F35/Tempest whilst simultaneously controlling a bunch of drones with a controller!

BV
s
Indeed. According to Project Astra it will be so easy to fly manned and unmanned vehicles that “Other professions” will do it in their spare time.

[just another jocky]

s
Indeed. According to Project Astra it will be so easy to fly manned and unmanned vehicles that “Other professions” will do it in their spare time.

If technology could make it easy to fly, can you think of a reason why they shouldn't? Or should we purposely make aircraft difficult to fly?

Give me easy every day, then I can focus on the job at hand.

[Timelord]

No reason at all. My doubt is about operating them being a part time duty for “Other professions”. Astra seems to envisage your “Job at hand” rather differently.

[ORAC]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42299/new-unmanned-loyal-wingman-design-based-on-stealthy-son-of-ares-jet-emerges

New Unmanned Loyal Wingman Design Based On Stealthy “Son Of Ares" Jet Emerges

Scaled Composites, together with its parent company Northrop Grumman, has unveiled a new unmanned aircraft design, known as the Model 437, which could be configured as a "loyal wingman" intended to work networked together with manned platforms. As such, it could meet the requirements of various efforts seeking to develop, at least in part, this kind of capability, such as the U.S. Air Force's Skyborg program (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40465/air-force-conducts-first-test-flight-of-skyborg-computer-brain-on-loyal-wingman-drone) and the U.K. Royal Air Force's Project Mosquito (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38898/the-united-kingdom-has-chosen-who-will-build-its-first-prototype-loyal-wingman-combat-drone). The Model 437 is also notably derived from earlier stealthy Model 401 (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34201/stealthily-son-of-ares-mystery-jet-appears-with-odd-markings-and-nasa-f-15-escort), also known as the "Son of Ares (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20305/markings-on-scaled-composites-ares-confirm-its-connection-to-mysterious-model-401-jets)," which Scaled Composites has now confirmed is intended to be pilot-optional.......


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1631275650_dbdc3e6dd4c0e46d920a5df55f11e19858bc1e23.jpeg


https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1435681220550008832?s=20

[t43562]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tusLSnjS58&t=2607s

This is a long video but worth listening to IMO. I've put it at a point where you might get a sense of the state of the game in AI. Prof Furber is one of the creators of the ARM instruction set that's powering all your phones and he is now working on a project that has built a neuromorphic computer at Manchester University which has 1 million processors with an architecture that's designed for emulating spiking neural networks.

Elsewhere in the video you'll hear how a room--sized machine could now emulate a mouse brain if we knew enough about how it works to create a model.

This is not to be down on AI at all but I feel that those of us outside the field might not have a very good idea of the difficulty of the challenge.

[ORAC]

But they’re not looking at AI, just enough algorithmic ability to target independently and perform air combat.

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2020-08-26

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/09/these-three-companies-got-contracts-for-darpas-new-longshot-drone/

[Arclite01]

I am assuming they are cheaper to purchase.................

We are going to need large numbers of these and places to store them. I assume they launch from a runway too.

And large numbers of trained technicians to maintain what is in essence an airframe.

It'll be interesting to see these develop.

Arc

[ORAC]

We are going to need large numbers of these and places to store them. I assume they launch from a runway too.
Those such as Longshot are planned to be able to be air launched by the B-21 and perhaps underwing my other platforms. They could also possibly by ground launched by truck based launchers - g forces not being an issue.

The advantage of such a platform is that it doesn’t need to practice to remain current so no training flights are required and they can be stored in hermetically sealed containers for prolonged periods negating the need for maintenance with software updates and power provided by umbilicals if necessary.

Build a version with folding wings and control surface and they could even be container launched by ships and submarines - a major factor in a region with long transit times such as the pacific.

[t43562]

But they’re not looking at AI, just enough algorithmic ability to target independently and perform air combat.

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2020-08-26

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/09/these-three-companies-got-contracts-for-darpas-new-longshot-drone/

I did read about that and I'm sure that impressive things will get done but I just caution that demos like this often include "simplifications" of one kind or another that don't get emphasised in the tests and billions have been and will be spent on things that have horrible behavior in edge cases. While you're busy thinking how amazing it is you should remember that it might be about as smart as e.g. a bee - if we're lucky. That leaves a *lot* of possible situations which it might not be able to handle. This is not forever - because the technology is advancing - it's just that it gets hyped so much that one tends to lose all sense of proportion. There is a debate you could have about Algorithmic approaches versus machine learning or deep neural networks but as I understand it many of the cool things that can be done (such as identifying things based on signals or images) will require ML or Neural nets and for these it is not easy to prove that there is no odd or unexpected behavior caused by biases in the training data. So I think it's still more the case that we'll be using humans-with-ai-assistance for a while. I'm not important in the field or anything like that all so FWIW my opinion doesn't carry any weight.

[Arclite01]

Those such as Longshot are planned to be able to be air launched by the B-21 and perhaps underwing my other platforms. They could also possibly by ground launched by truck based launchers - g forces not being an issue.

The advantage of such a platform is that it doesn’t need to practice to remain current so no training flights are required and they can be stored in hermetically sealed containers for prolonged periods negating the need for maintenance with software updates and power provided by umbilicals if necessary.

Build a version with folding wings and control surface and they could even be container launched by ships and submarines - a major factor in a region with long transit times such as the pacific.

That is actually really interesting - especially the storage aspects...... not sure we will ever have a platform to air launch ours though.

Arc

[Lookleft]

The “loyal wingman” aircraft, as it has been nicknamed, will be designed to fly at high speeds alongside fighter jets such as the Typhoon or F-35.


I know you Englishman think that anything worthwhile can only be built and operated by HM subjects but get onboard or get out of the way...if you wouldn't mind awfully.

https://www.airforce.gov.au/our-mission/loyal-wingman

[ORAC]

Such vehicles, just like their manned counterparts, will be designed around a threat and a theatre of operations - and the size, range and performance of that required by the RAF in the European theatre will probably be different to that required by the RAAF/USAAF/USN in the Pacific theatre.

That dichotomy was shown in the Cold War era when the RAF wanted a long range two seat interceptor to meet the SACLANT and manned bomber/QRA roles whilst everyone else was buying F-16s to counter the Central Region short range dogfight threat.

Now, that doesn’t mean that export potential and OOA concerns might not end up with both Tempest and Mosquito having long legs and being similar to the Loyal Wingman - but it does mean just buying off the shelf from Australia isn’t a given.

As for the idea the UK would only buy something designed in the UK, I’d point out we bought and operated the F-4 for decades, alongside the C-130, Chinook, Apache and many others, and have in the last couple of decades bought the F-35, C-17, P-8, Voyager, R1…. And of course the E-7 Wedgetail…..

My previous post #13 also pointed out that various Grumman and other designs are possible candidates for Mosquito, Spirit AeroSystems in Belfast may lead the programme, but I doubt they’ll be starting from scratch….

[Lookleft]

Well you did modify the F-4 significantly with the addition of the Speys but I was merely pointing out (in an epic fail attempt at UK-Oz banter) that the term "Loyal Wingman" was already taken. Just so you know even the name Wedgetail come from Australia. Its named after a very impressive indigenous eagle. :ok:

[rattman]

I dislike the name loyal wingman, maybe australia and UK can combine, we bring the flying hardware, they bring the name https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lwcjwPmwlE

[dctyke]

Will bring electronic warfare and hacking to a all new level. Will be a busy airspace when the opposition have of them as well.

[ORAC]

Press release

Royal Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office announce review of Project Mosquito

Project Mosquito, the future uncrewed Combat Aircraft Technology Demonstration being explored by the Royal Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO), will not proceed beyond the design phase.

[rattman]

I was a going to say I can see the future, but lets be honest it was pretty obvious that the mosquito program was doomed from the start

[pr00ne]

£30m wasted!

[rattman]

£30m wasted!

300 million saved, last thing I read was 300 million for development between all 3 phases. Next was supposed be about 130 million

[The B Word]

Yup, predictable just like Taranis. Autonomous aircraft are so far away, despite what the progressive visionaries say, and I would be amazed if we saw a fully autonomous UCAV before 2050. Even then, I suspect it will always have a human “on the loop”. We don’t even have an uncrewed aircraft that can fly autonomously in unsegregated Class G airspace yet, so really the Mosquito was going to be little more than a radio controlled Hawk (wasn’t that a Jindivik?).

It will also put the mockers on Project VIXEN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vixen

[melmothtw]

I was a going to say I can see the future, but lets be honest it was pretty obvious that the mosquito program was doomed from the start

And yet no-one said it at the start.

[SLXOwft]

You never know this might actually be a way to obtain the same outcome with out spending money on a technology demonstrator deemed superflous to the end goals of LANCA by Project Mosquito Phase 1. (I may just be naïve.)

From the original Mosquito press release.

'Under LANCA, a technology demonstrator project known as ‘Mosquito’ has awarded contracts for Phase 1 of the work, which will produce a preliminary system design for an unmanned air vehicle and assessment of the key risk areas and cost-capability trade-offs for an operational concept.'

From the 24 Jun 2022 MoD press release:

'Air Commodore Jez Holmes, Head of the Rapid Capabilities Office said: Through Project Mosquito and other experimentation activities the Royal Air Force has made substantial progress and gained significant value in understanding and harnessing a range of future uncrewed capabilities. This decision maximises the learning accrued to date and enables a change of direction for the LANCA programme. The Rapid Capabilities Office will now quickly launch activities to aggressively pursue the RAF’s unchanged firm commitment to integrate advanced uncrewed capabilities into the near-term force mix with more immediate beneficial value.'

(My emphasis)

The press release also says:.

Deciding to not proceed with the specific manufacturing technology demonstrator will not impact on the wider intent to build the most capable and cost-effective force mix possible, or the “Loyal Wingman” concepts under investigation within the Future Combat Air System Enterprise. The programme remains focused on the post-2035 capability space, where integration through a system-of-systems approach has been a key requirement from the outset.

The decision was informed by parallel analysis and capability experimentation conducted by the RAF and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl). The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.

[Lima Juliet]

The market already has leaders in the tech that Mosquito hoped to be.

Kratos
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1080/image_f01a74a31fd62cd7252e9eb30eaf0c1993098b4d.jpeg

Ghost Bat
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1150x818/image_d1b6da8bdb08f1851df28231c428a958f4fc4e44.jpeg

Stingray
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1312/image_4658d4cffcd4b821b592901ee12658c5cf95b7fa.jpeg

[Jackonicko]

So:

The programme remains focused on the post-2035 capability space

The Rapid Capabilities Office will now quickly launch activities to aggressively pursue the RAF's unchanged firm commitment to integrate advanced uncrewed capabilities into the near-term force mix with more immediate beneficial value.'

Or is 2035 near term?

[Jackonicko]

I was a going to say I can see the future, but lets be honest it was pretty obvious that the mosquito program was doomed from the start

It wasn't obvious to me, nor to those who poured £30 million into it!

So what made it obvious to you?

[Jackonicko]

Yup, predictable just like Taranis. Autonomous aircraft are so far away, despite what the progressive visionaries say, and I would be amazed if we saw a fully autonomous UCAV before 2050. Even then, I suspect it will always have a human “on the loop”. We don’t even have an uncrewed aircraft that can fly autonomously in unsegregated Class G airspace yet, so really the Mosquito was going to be little more than a radio controlled Hawk (wasn’t that a Jindivik?).

It will also put the mockers on Project VIXEN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vixen

Is this why Taranis fizzled out?
Why have people tried so hard to produce aircraft in this class?
Are the Kratos aircraft, MQ-25 and Ghost Bat similarly 'doomed' do you think?

[ORAC]

Or is 2035 near term?
In military aircraft procurement terms it’s blindingly fast…

[rattman]

Is this why Taranis fizzled out?
Why have people tried so hard to produce aircraft in this class?
Are the Kratos aircraft, MQ-25 and Ghost Bat similarly 'doomed' do you think?

MQ-25 is a different catagory, its a tanker, a much simpler role to engineer for. Considering its already out, flying and giving fuel something will happen with it. I imagine there will be a lot of countries looking at it

Skyborg program (not kratos) and Ghost bat are inspirational programs but we will get something less in the end. I think they will be a dumber just advanced escorts for things like AWACS and tankers, at least initially then later possibility of a more heavy integration with fighters in combat

[The B Word]

rattman - agreed.

Jackonicko - the Stingray started off as the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) in 2010. It was then vaunted to have an AESA RADAR with AIM-120 with a robotic wingman notion for F/A-18 and F-35C. By 2016 it was all scaled down to Carrier Based Air Refuelling System (CBARS) and “a little ISR”. Also, they hurriedly recruited, trained and invented a whole new career field (737X) as Aerial Vehicle Operator (AVO) Warrant Officers - 450 of them. They join the Naval Aviators (Pilots), Naval Flight Officers (WSOs, EWOs, TACCOs, etc…) and Naval Aircrew (Crewmen, Cryptologists, EW Specialists, etc…) as a 4th flying badge that requires flying training. The AVO’s in depth aircrew training was required as the levels of autonomy originally envisaged were just not there. They have to complete Officers Candidate School, Ground School, Basic Flying Training and then MQ-25 specific training.

As for Taranis then again there was a great vision from the ever long Project CHURCHILL lead in. Taranis was always called a demonstrator and it cost the taxpayer ~£180M. Again, it was little more than a radio-controlled Hawk, with no ability to let it go “off tether” without a human tugging on its leash. I think it last flew 6 years ago and is effectively shelved. It also drew on Corax, Raven and HERTi - the latter being a pretty facsimile of what General Atomics had been producing for years.

Let’s fast forward to General Atomics Protector, with a semi-autonomous capability (auto take off and land), that programme is at the cutting edge of current uncrewed production aircraft. The tricky bit is making it certified with a suitable detect and avoid system - but again it requires human pilots and sensor operators to make it function. Granted, just like cars with ‘driver assist’ then I suspect that more and more autonomy will be built in. In the car industry there are 5 levels - 1 - no automation, 2 - hands on shared control, 3 - eyes off, 4 - mind off and 5 - no controls. At best in aircraftI believe we are at Level 2 and levels 3, 4 and 5 for a large aircraft in non-segregated airspace is 25+ years away. Then again, it won’t happen overnight. However, the various aircraft manufacturers will keep peddling ‘snake oil’ photos of fancy looking uncrewed concepts with bold claims of loyal wingmen and autonomous fighters - but with immature tech to back that up.

[steamchicken]

I think the problem may just be that if the "wingman" can do all this stuff, it costs nearly as much as a proper fighter but depends on one being nearby to operate, so it's not cheap and it's too valuable to take many more chances with.

If the improvements can go into sensors, countermeasures, or weapons that can be carried by the "formation leader", you could just do that and not bother building a whole second aircraft.

[Bob Viking]

There are other things to consider. Firstly it might be wingmen rather than wingman. That means a lot more weapons and coverage than one person in one aircraft could manage. Also, people are bloody expensive and take time to train and are a serious limitation due to their physical constraints and requirements.

I personally think unmanned/partially manned is the obvious future solution. It just needs proper investment early to sort it.

BV

[rattman]

I think the problem may just be that if the "wingman" can do all this stuff, it costs nearly as much as a proper fighter but depends on one being nearby to operate, so it's not cheap and it's too valuable to take many more chances with.

If the improvements can go into sensors, countermeasures, or weapons that can be carried by the "formation leader", you could just do that and not bother building a whole second aircraft.

Except do we know that, we have zero idea what the cost is going to, these also wont be suicide drones, you can take more risk, but you wont be suiciding them into hostile fighters

Where these will shine will be the other task. Escorting an awacs, a manned fighter with a pilot in it will need multiple shifts to keep a CAP near an awacs. A loyal wingman doesn't care, it doesn't need sleep. It just needs maintainence.

Whats the limit on a pilot, 8-12 hours mission then at least 12 hours rest, probably more. A drone missions would be limited by the hardware capababilites, we are already seeing it now, RQ-4 airborne for days. Get ghostbat/skyborg, if it doesn't use it weapons and doesn't need maintainence you can use an MQ-25 to keep it airborne for days if needed

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/06/27/air-force-acquisition-chief-talks-drone-wingmen-supply-chains-and-the-b-21/

Air Force acquisition chief talks drone wingmen, supply chains, and the B-21

…….One of the Air Force’s more ambitious recent programs has been to develop a series of autonomous drones that could serve as wingmen for manned fighters or other aircraft flying in combat. Hunter said the service is now trying to focus on moving beyond demonstrations and actually fielding something that could serve in this role, which the service is now referring to as collaborative combat aircraft.

There will still be a need for demonstrations in areas where the technology needs further refining, such as in swarming drones, Hunter said, and work on smaller drones that could be relatively expendable will continue. But for the most part, the service is going to concentrate its efforts toward delivering something that could be operationally deployed in time to fight the next potential war.

The timeline and acquisition strategy for fielding this program is still being worked out, Hunter said. But the Air Force would probably involve multiple contractors instead of a single prime, and take advantage of the growth in competition providing autonomy core systems in industry.

Hunter said the Air Force wants to have a drone wingman ready to use with the Next Generation Air Dominance program by the time it reaches initial operating capability, which it hopes to have reached by the end of this decade.….

[Lima Juliet]

rattman

Whats the limit on a pilot, 8-12 hours mission then at least 12 hours rest, probably more. A drone missions would be limited by the hardware capababilites, we are already seeing it now, RQ-4 airborne for days. Get ghostbat/skyborg, if it doesn't use it weapons and doesn't need maintainence you can use an MQ-25 to keep it airborne for days if needed

True, but the RQ-4 and MQ-9B are built to be Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) and are slow and not very manoeuvrable. If you build a supersonic and high-G capable loyal wingman it will likely have the same 1-3 hours of endurance. If you need it to stay capable of making a supersonic dash for High Value Asset Defence (HVAD) then it will need to keep going to a tanker to top off.

Bob Viking

Also, people are bloody expensive and take time to train and are a serious limitation due to their physical constraints and requirements.

Again, true, but AI systems also take time to be programmed, tested and assured. Further, performance past human physical constraints and requirements still comes at a price - more bandwidth, control of the EM and cyber spectrums, expensive high-fidelity sensors and computers replacing potentially cheaper humans (remember Chernobyl’s “human robots”?) and the will to have autonomous killing machines on the battle field taking human lives (a constant moral maze over the years).

ORAC

Hunter said the Air Force wants to have a drone wingman ready to use with the Next Generation Air Dominance program by the time it reaches initial operating capability, which it hopes to have reached by the end of this decade.….

I’m sure a graduate of Social Studies from Harvard and post-graduate of Economics from Johns Hopkins is at the forefront of front line requirements and capabilities :p. To me this is the “emperor’s new clothes” all over again with industry telling Defence what it needs (this time through the SAF of acquisition, tech and logs) - and of course it will because the companies get more sales from something that Defence gets convinced it needs. I have absolute belief that drones/RPAS/UAV/UCAV have their place but there is a cost/benefit line that needs to be considered against the real-world likelihood of developing something you are willing to use, or be able to use, against that of someone developing something to counter something that may become very inflexible to field.

[ORAC]

Lima Juliet,

The average age of the F-16 fleet is now 30 years. The average age of the F-15C fleet is now 38 years.

The replacement F-15EX buy has cut and capped at 80, now earmarked to carry the new HACM (echoing the M31 and Kinzhal) with the Sec of State for the AF informing Congress in April that, as airframe life runs, the remains F-15C units will either be replaced by unmanned aircraft - or not at all.

I get the impression the USAF has reached an equivalent of the 1957 Duncan Sandys defence white paper moment - but with UCAVs instead of missiles…

[Lima Juliet]

ORAC

Here is what “Q” Brown is saying. The decision on which fighter jets to buy is part of the service's plan to cut its tactical air fleet from seven platform types to around four in what Gen Brown calls the “4+1” initiative. The plan would include the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II close air support (CAS) aircraft and a fighter from the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform, the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the F-15EX, and the Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon.

I think that 4+1 is fairly clear and it doesn’t involve scores of autonomous drones? :ok:

[rattman]

rattman


True, but the RQ-4 and MQ-9B are built to be Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) and are slow and not very manoeuvrable. If you build a supersonic and high-G capable loyal wingman it will likely have the same 1-3 hours of endurance. If you need it to stay capable of making a supersonic dash for High Value Asset Defence (HVAD) then it will need to keep going to a tanker to top off.
.

How do you figure that, F-16 were doing 8+ hour sorties from aviano to serbia

modern fighters combat mission is limited by 3 things, the biggest is the squishy human meat bag, weapons and fuel. Fuel depending on tanker availability becomes a non issue, part of why I think MQ-25 will be a major seller allows manned and unmanned fighters to refueled. Drones wont have the squishy meatbag that needs sleep and food. That will only leave weapons expenditure and maintainence / service schedules now coming in as a consideration

[unmanned_droid]

I always thought this was an interesting but odd program. Good for learning things but seemingly going nowhere. I think the last picture of a demonstrator used in parts of this program I saw was using string to restrain the wing against upbend. I believe there is/was a strong drive for additive manufacturing for projects like this.

We definitely should investigate where additive manufacturing can fit in the defence space, and I would say it's a part of rapid smart assembly, but, my experience suggests it is not in major airframe components and aerodynamic surfaces. The effort here should be spent in other directions. We only find out by doing in some cases, but I don't think anyone needed to here - a good industry day/workshop involving airframe stress engineers and AM people willing to be honest would have got most of the points across.

The 'issue' with loyal wingmen is that they are supposed to be relatively expendable. That suggests relatively cheap, easy to make and simple airframes that you really don't care if it makes it back or not. Then you put the expensive bits in, and suddenly you want it back, maybe because you can't make the expensive bits locally (electronics....), maybe because the expensive bits contain a lot of sensitive info (ai...) or maybe because an accountant said: 'that cost 5mil, you signed for it, you break it, you bought it (side thought, who signs out on an F700 of an uncrewed combat aircraft? The guy who directs 3 or more of them in the air? Some new authoriser role on a new format squadron or a mission commander somewhere nowhere near the units?).

Then you have to get your flock to where you want it to be. The flock is now required to have the same kind of range and/or endurance as a crewed aircraft. Could refuel them on the way. Costs money in systems and support to do that. So you might want to carry your flock to its launch point. This makes them smaller = cheaper. Means you need a larger aircraft (you have them, presumably they're quite busy supplying the war...). These smaller uncrewed vehicles can be sent on their way to do their job independent of other elements of a strike and then return to be retrieved by the mothership (already demonstrated - can be done).

Of a few Loyal Wingmen -esque projects, DARPA LongShot is an example of where my thinking got me. You're gonna need a design that can carry at least 2 AMRAAMs or their successor (potentially more of the successor) that can quickly get down range of a strike or sweep and start upsetting large groups of enemy aircraft. Then we need to go back to looking at how we deal with all sorts of questions around a missile carrier loyal wingman (do you really want to retrieve a drone that contains a couple of air-to-air missiles?!!, can you use the missile avionics to control your drone? should you?!). The picture of a LongShot concept shows Pylon mounting rings/shackles, so this is likely an external load on an aircraft (F22 or F-15 variant). Potentially could be dropped out the back of a large ramp equipped aircraft that has a beam crane.


https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2021-02-08
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/09/these-three-companies-got-contracts-for-darpas-new-longshot-drone/
https://twitter.com/MIL_STD/status/1228840040303878145?s=20&t=cSnoRX4iR2BAMQ50h2oYNA

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1999x990/qp6kbb5zmre6xcbpx2qe76ogli_e05d101c4b8256b607f2ac97b1fd71bac af0c891.png

In my opinion, the Boeing Ghost Bat and Kratos XQ-58 Loyal Wingmen are a slightly different kettle of fish to small light weight truly expendable drones (which is what LANCA seemed to be, to me). The Boeing design is definitely going all the way with the package, going up threat, doing what it does, and then trying to make it home. The MQ-25 will be very successful, and seems to be getting very positive write-ups. Refuelling, as I suspected early on, is the tip of the iceberg for the MQ-25.

[Jackonicko]

BAE Systems unveiled a new 'Loyal Wingman' at RIAT.

I don't recall ever seeing any performance specs for Mosquito, or indeed for MQ-28, or Skyborg, so it's a bit hard to see where this fits in?

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1056x565/screenshot_2022_07_15_at_22_36_51_e2f8d87e46c4da8b62d275bda1 7d11a1e8072229.png
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1125/fxudxi4uyaatndh_c0aa2a59dd7b7c459f7e05743bac9e2b993fd868.jpe g
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1125/fxudxi5vqai2_ct_59d700d6e66258723ce0d7d903dc56bf53d81710.jpe g

[Jackonicko]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/536x755/screenshot_2022_07_15_at_22_47_08_45795f966131d52b9d66cc8575 473c8a67c6a225.png

Performance figures.

[Jackonicko]

And there's yet a third new 'adjunct' on show at Farnborough -

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/bae_adjunct_fx7baygxwaem_tf_d0d57d86fce3dddc6d3bbef8fbb1c6d3 f976d603.jpeg

[safetypee]

The change of plan - no Mosquito, also suggests dumping ‘loyal wingman’ as the primary concept.

More affordable vehicles, more of them, interlinked with the independent capabilities of F35, AEW, P8, … Tempest, freeing those manned aircraft to work in their best environment, and thence enabling the ‘other vehicles’ (UAS) to do their own thing in their best environment.
Range - speed performance no long tied to the lead aircraft, optimised for the task - variable, flexible options for remote or limited autonomous activity.

https://informamarkets.turtl.co/story/farnborough-airshow-issue-1/page/4

Don't forget the low end battle field option - https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/09/16/british-electric-heavy-lift-drone/

[safetypee]

Similar indications from US
https://breakingdefense-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/breakingdefense.com/2022/07/exclusive-air-force-scraps-b-21-drone-wingman-concept/amp/

[rattman]

Similar indications from US
https://breakingdefense-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/breakingdefense.com/2022/07/exclusive-air-force-scraps-b-21-drone-wingman-concept/amp/

Not really the american program in question was basically an unmanned B-21, the a meatbags and whats required to keep them alive is relatively little % wise of a bomber compared to fighters

[unmanned_droid]

Not really the american program in question was basically an unmanned B-21, the a meatbags and whats required to keep them alive is relatively little % wise of a bomber compared to fighters

There were some comments regarding the B-21 being able to be optionally crewed. I suggest this option might not have gone away and that we could see an unmanned B-21 on first night type strikes or for particularly long endurance missions which are reasonably well defined.

[ORAC]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-launches-new-combat-drone-project/

Britain launches new combat drone project

The new project comes after Project Mosquito and Project Alvina were cancelled and is a follow on to the LANCA programme.According to a Prior Information Notice published by the Ministry of Defence:

“Following the lessons learned from Project MOSQUITO, Project ALVINA, and wider Uncrewed Air Systems (UAS) experimentation, the Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) and Air Capability are considering how to best exploit Low-Cost UAS to support the Combat Air Force Mix as part of follow on LANCA activity and wider Uncrewed System Development.

The Authority will be holding an engagement day on Tuesday 29th November 2022 to inform Industry of Air’s intent for additive/adjunct capability in the Combat Air Force Mix, and to provide Industry Partners with the opportunity to consider how they could best contribute to Air’s intent within a subsequent R&D portfolio.

This engagement will likely be of interest to Industry Partners who specialise in any of the following: UAS design and manufacture, propulsion, systems integration, navigation, communication, Electronic Warfare (EW) payloads (active and passive), autonomy, command and control, airworthiness and certification.”……

[Jackonicko]

A new autonomous collaborative platform concept was revealed by BAE Systems at World Defense Show in Riyadh.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1417x1063/img_7608_small_3ff6c363d0eac90fe220cba99fcadcfe38c0bea9.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1063x1417/img_8207_small_c6a8d764497679d1431172736c5c6e98bd3fc77e.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1417x1063/img_8212_small_afcadf63e9e9f7c8f13a4ac4d8cabce90800381d.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1417x1063/img_8211_small_fd486a9be14cc14d1d463cf520daff827712f466.jpg