RAF Mosquito
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.
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.
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
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022...-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.….
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.….
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.
Bob Viking
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
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 
. 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.
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
Bob Viking
Also, people are bloody expensive and take time to train and are a serious limitation due to their physical constraints and requirements.
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.….
. 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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
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…
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…
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?
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?
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.
.
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.
.
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
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...ongshot-drone/
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.
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...ongshot-drone/
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.
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?
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?
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/stor...issue-1/page/4
Don't forget the low end battle field option - https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/...vy-lift-drone/
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/stor...issue-1/page/4
Don't forget the low end battle field option - https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/...vy-lift-drone/
Similar indications from US
https://breakingdefense-com.cdn.ampp...n-concept/amp/
https://breakingdefense-com.cdn.ampp...n-concept/amp/
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...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.”……
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.”……
