Loyal wingman - new drone revealed by Boeing in Australia
Boeing has withdrawn from Skyborg, but has an MQ-28 in the US atm
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-is-in-the-u-s
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-is-in-the-u-s
Thread Starter
Ghost Bat - titter.
A RAAF insider told me the Spams were warned what it meant but proceeded anyway.
Loyal Wingman sounds a lot more `murican.
Or Loyal Wingperson...
A RAAF insider told me the Spams were warned what it meant but proceeded anyway.
Loyal Wingman sounds a lot more `murican.
Or Loyal Wingperson...
Can’t use wingperson as it has the word “son” in it… 
I believe that closed compound words should be fine as per human and mankind. The issue is when they are not. So really airman, wingman and also woman should all be just fine!
I believe that closed compound words should be fine as per human and mankind. The issue is when they are not. So really airman, wingman and also woman should all be just fine!
Pentagon is going to be buying for Research and Engineerng usage
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/10/...ost-bat-drone/
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/10/...ost-bat-drone/
The Warzone linked an interesting tweet. It has CGI picture of an MQ-28 doing an arrested landing on a QNLZ 2 carrier
Exerpt from the article
Exerpt from the article
Just this week, Rear Admiral James Parkin, the Director Develop with the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom, showed an artist's conception of a carrier-based variant or derivative of the MQ-28 as part of a larger presentation at the International Military Helicopter conference in London. Boeing confirmed to The War Zone that this is an official company rendering, but could provide no additional information.
how does loyal wingman with a pilot in a lead aircraft (F18/F35) controlling a drone swarm differ from a pilot in a portacabin at Creech controlling a drone swarm? I don't really see the advantage, in fact having somebody fly a plane and be cognizant of threats to their aircraft at the same time as executing a battle plan over the horizon seems a lot of work for not a lot of advantage. And all this relies on good comms links, are they assured against a decent opponent with EW/satellite shoot down capability? And comms bandwidth and versatility on a fighter aircraft (or even a widebody AWACS) is never going equal the comms available to a portacabin..
how does loyal wingman with a pilot in a lead aircraft (F18/F35) controlling a drone swarm differ from a pilot in a portacabin at Creech controlling a drone swarm? I don't really see the advantage, in fact having somebody fly a plane and be cognizant of threats to their aircraft at the same time as executing a battle plan over the horizon seems a lot of work for not a lot of advantage. And all this relies on good comms links, are they assured against a decent opponent with EW/satellite shoot down capability? And comms bandwidth and versatility on a fighter aircraft (or even a widebody AWACS) is never going equal the comms available to a portacabin..
https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...ical-aircraft/
AI can fly a fast jet whilst the fast jet pilot manages the loyal wingmen, makes sure the UAV tanker is on the way to the rendevous point etc.
Years ago DERA or similar found that your average FJ pilot could manage 3 other aircraft at the same time.
AI can fly a fast jet whilst the fast jet pilot manages the loyal wingmen, makes sure the UAV tanker is on the way to the rendevous point etc.
Years ago DERA or similar found that your average FJ pilot could manage 3 other aircraft at the same time.
how does loyal wingman with a pilot in a lead aircraft (F18/F35) controlling a drone swarm differ from a pilot in a portacabin at Creech controlling a drone swarm? I don't really see the advantage, in fact having somebody fly a plane and be cognizant of threats to their aircraft at the same time as executing a battle plan over the horizon seems a lot of work for not a lot of advantage. And all this relies on good comms links, are they assured against a decent opponent with EW/satellite shoot down capability? And comms bandwidth and versatility on a fighter aircraft (or even a widebody AWACS) is never going equal the comms available to a portacabin..
a controlling plane would use radio/satellite to communicate with the drones (giving away all their positions if radio) whilst the portacabin 10,000km away is satellite only. Radio can be jammed just as well as satellites, if not more so by decent EW., If the opposition can disable satellites they can certainly jam radio/spoof GPS over the ground targets. The difference is satellites can have multiple redundancies (starlink, there's a a lot to knock down....). This loyal wingman concept still strikes me as old Air Force trying to keep manned planes for the sake of it
For starters all the F-18 in the RAAF have a second crewman so that crewman would be available to control them. Also its a strong rumor that the E-7's are more getting consoles from which these can be controlled. Also rumored the tankers will be getting a station as well. At least intitially I think these aircraft primary role will be a escort of larger assets (awac/tankers) or CAP over ground facilites like forward airfields freeing up manned fighters. later if/when the technology matures maybe they will be escorts for other fighters like the F-35 / NGAD
Last edited by golder; 26th Feb 2023 at 07:54.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The difference is between the broad beam transmissions required between a satellite and an aircraft which can be detected and the tight beam directional stealthy transmissions which link the aircraft in a swarm. e.g.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...0/1/012058/pdf
That may change with LEO constellations such as Starshield which use lasers for secure comms inside the constellation and directional beams to receivers with low latency - but that will be next generation.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...0/1/012058/pdf
That may change with LEO constellations such as Starshield which use lasers for secure comms inside the constellation and directional beams to receivers with low latency - but that will be next generation.
a controlling plane would use radio/satellite to communicate with the drones (giving away all their positions if radio) whilst the portacabin 10,000km away is satellite only. Radio can be jammed just as well as satellites, if not more so by decent EW., If the opposition can disable satellites they can certainly jam radio/spoof GPS over the ground targets. The difference is satellites can have multiple redundancies (starlink, there's a a lot to knock down....). This loyal wingman concept still strikes me as old Air Force trying to keep manned planes for the sake of it
There's a distinct radiated power Vs distance advantage to an airborne platform 50 miles behind a UCAV, plus the tight beam advantage mentioned by someone above. Don't get me wrong, a portacabin has it's place, but an EW heavy environment I'd say isn't one. As for GPS, pretty sure no one is building any UCAVs that are going to be dependent on it, the vulnerability there is pretty obvious!
Australian government is looking at expedited delivery of 'block 2' ghost bats
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...st-bat-program
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...st-bat-program
