A-X all over again - USAF pushes for A-10 replacement

[yasotay]

What I was on about is the ability of the aircraft to survive is NOT solely about the pilot/aircrew. In order for the aircraft to perform its role, it must survive long enough to do so and hopefully a lot more than once.

If you want a suicide drone (I know, crap description), you can get those just about anywhere for the price of a toilet seat on Air Force One.

At least in the European conflict neither side seems to be using manned platforms (almost exclusively SU-25) for traditional CAS at the moment. Both sides are building attack drones in a bewildering number of types and doing CAS (troops in contact) as well as BAI (operational distance interdiction) with them. Of note there are carboard drones hitting strategic depth targets as well. How many "RPG drones" and the like can you make for the cost of one KRATOS. Training cost are a lot less as well. As just demonstrated even Hamas has an Air Force.

 

[Foo Fighter]

You are missing the point but to go on another merry go round ride is pointless.

 

[Kat Tsun]

I'm not convinced that any single seater aircraft will be capable of wrangling drones. It's why I fully expect both USAF and USN 6th gen planes to be 2 seaters.

And F-35s don't have space for a second seat.

I don't disagree at all but Loyal Wingman is about building autonomous software more than it is about the actual drone aircraft.

I'm not sure that the VLO bomb bus @Kat Tsun is advocating for is going to be significantly cheaper than an F-35.

Kratos, who are saying they can produce a stealth UCAV for less than $10 million a piece, would disagree.

I'm hedging it by saying it can be 1/3rds to 2/3rds the cost of an F-35, at most. I don't think Kratos has the machinery in place to do a mass production run of aircraft, and they would be making a lot of bad ones to be scrapped, but whatever. This would be more expensive than a F/A-30, but probably still affordable and maintain a robotic aircraft's relatively higher flight rate.

VLO is not cheap, and requires special care and handling during maintenance.

It is when it doesn't have RAM. If that's "LO" rather than "VLO", apologies.

It doesn't need to be F-22 level of RCS reduction, just enough to make a Buk have trouble tracking it in a heavy ECM environment.

I think the only way we're going to get a cheap CAS plane (drone or manned) is to accept LO shaping with minimal RAM use.

This is what MQ-28 and MQ-58 both do: they lack RAM but still have shaping. For certain applications, perhaps a RAM equipped drone could be allocated to particular wings or something, such as for SEAD missions, like the -CJs.

I'm just pointing out both ATF and JSF are simply too expensive to lose in great quantity, and they will be lost in large numbers in a major war. This goes for nearly all manned modern aircraft, because making something like A-10 would be infeasible. A decent armed trainer might be a good substitute for the CAS job, at least if you can stomach the pilot losses, but I don't think there's an air force in the world that can do that.

 

[yasotay]

You are missing the point but to go on another merry go round ride is pointless.

Appologies, I thought I was agreeing with you.
*shrug*

 

[Foo Fighter]

I missed that, sorry.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't disagree at all but Loyal Wingman is about building autonomous software more than it is about the actual drone aircraft.

They're not there yet, and even with accelerated procurement options in place I don't see Loyal Wingman drones having the required levels of autonomy in the next decade.

So I'm hedging my bets. Besides, when the USAF 6th gen is likely to be a 100klb+ aircraft, a second seat is a trivial part of the costs. Even the USN's FAXX is highly likely to have a second seat, and it's "only" going to be in the 85klb range.

Kratos, who are saying they can produce a stealth UCAV for less than $10 million a piece, would disagree.

I'm hedging it by saying it can be 1/3rds to 2/3rds the cost of an F-35, at most. I don't think Kratos has the machinery in place to do a mass production run of aircraft, and they would be making a lot of bad ones to be scrapped, but whatever. This would be more expensive than a F/A-30, but probably still affordable and maintain a robotic aircraft's relatively higher flight rate.

Yeah, when you don't have landing gear and a bunch of other systems you might be able to make drones for $10mil each.

~$50mil at your upper end is only $10mil more than a new build AH-64E, the electronics needed to be able work over the FEBA or whatever the current acronym is for "on top of the front lines" add a lot of cost: MAWS, ECM, DIRCM, LWS, DAS, and a Sniper XR Pod equivalent, plus a decent SAR for when there's so much fog that IR and thermals are blocked. And a MMWR for avoiding things like power lines and phone/internet cables.

It is when it doesn't have RAM. If that's "LO" rather than "VLO", apologies.

It doesn't need to be F-22 level of RCS reduction, just enough to make a Buk have trouble tracking it in a heavy ECM environment.



This is what MQ-28 and MQ-58 both do: they lack RAM but still have shaping. For certain applications, perhaps a RAM equipped drone could be allocated to particular wings or something, such as for SEAD missions, like the -CJs.

Yes, that's LO not VLO.

And I don't believe that a medium altitude bomb truck like you want is going to be able to survive if it's without RAM.

I'm just pointing out both ATF and JSF are simply too expensive to lose in great quantity, and they will be lost in large numbers in a major war. This goes for nearly all manned modern aircraft, because making something like A-10 would be infeasible. A decent armed trainer might be a good substitute for the CAS job, at least if you can stomach the pilot losses, but I don't think there's an air force in the world that can do that.

And I think we're still going to have to put some pilots there whether we like it or not.

I still haven't seen anyone cough up a cost differential between a manned airframe and an unmanned one of the same capacity. I know that the USAF gave up on an unmanned B-21 since by the time you get that big the cockpit is a trivial cost even with the extra headaches of pressurization equipment and VLO windows.

 

[Kat Tsun]

They're not there yet, and even with accelerated procurement options in place I don't see Loyal Wingman drones having the required levels of autonomy in the next decade.

All the more reason to make it ground controlled and limited to short-range strike missions for support of ground troops.

Yeah, when you don't have landing gear and a bunch of other systems you might be able to make drones for $10mil each.

Do you expect airbases to survive? That's weird, considering the USAF doesn't.

~$50mil at your upper end is only $10mil more than a new build AH-64E, the electronics needed to be able work over the FEBA or whatever the current acronym is for "on top of the front lines" add a lot of cost: MAWS, ECM, DIRCM, LWS, DAS, and a Sniper XR Pod equivalent, plus a decent SAR for when there's so much fog that IR and thermals are blocked. And a MMWR for avoiding things like power lines and phone/internet cables.

Why would it need to "survive"? You're missing the point. It's like a DASH drone in that it's semi-disposable.

Unlike a DASH drone, it probably won't be lost as much in training, because its engine is reliable and its datalinks actually work.

Yes, that's LO not VLO.

And I don't believe that a medium altitude bomb truck like you want is going to be able to survive if it's without RAM.

Why? It would be furthest away from enemy air interceptors and radar guided SAMs on the frontlines. The deeper it goes looking for targets like tank battalions in assembly areas or whatever, the more exposed it will be to enemy radar guided systems.

And I think we're still going to have to put some pilots there whether we like it or not.

Probably, but one or two JSFs and half a dozen Q-58s is better than half a dozen JSFs committed to the same job.

I still haven't seen anyone cough up a cost differential between a manned airframe and an unmanned one of the same capacity.

It's not about cost. The main reason for a cheap drone is because drones can fly longer, turnaround faster, and operate more hours. The main reason the RAF purchased Predators/Reapers is because they were getting two to three times the airborne hours of a Tornado, Harrier, and Apache.

The lack of life support is partly for this but it's also because most drones are built with much less high performance.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Do you expect airbases to survive? That's weird, considering the USAF doesn't.

So now you need to include the cost of the ZELLs, plus a crane to load the drone onto the ZELL, plus disposable rockets for every single launch. And a parachute to recover the drone at the end, which based on Cirrus aircraft will result in your drone getting dragged into trees and totalled after landing.

Why would it need to "survive"? You're missing the point. It's like a DASH drone in that it's semi-disposable.

Unlike a DASH drone, it probably won't be lost as much in training, because its engine is reliable and its datalinks actually work.

If it gets blown out of the sky before it drops its load, it's useless.

Why? It would be furthest away from enemy air interceptors and radar guided SAMs on the frontlines. The deeper it goes looking for targets like tank battalions in assembly areas or whatever, the more exposed it will be to enemy radar guided systems.

How many of the Russian mobile SAMs are radar guided in some flavor? I mean the ones that are going to be advancing with the Operational Maneuver Group or lead Motor Rifle Regiment. SA-8s and their upgrades, Tunguska, Pantsir, etc. (Yes, SA-9s and SA-13s are IR or optically guided)

Nevermind the bigger systems guarding assembly areas etc that a plane doing BAI would have to deal with.

It's not about cost. The main reason for a cheap drone is because drones can fly longer, turnaround faster, and operate more hours. The main reason the RAF purchased Predators/Reapers is because they were getting two to three times the airborne hours of a Tornado, Harrier, and Apache.

The lack of life support is partly for this but it's also because most drones are built with much less high performance.

Ah, so we're saying that one drone of (type) can replace 2-3x older aircraft type and have the same amount of time in the air as all three older aircraft combined. That makes a difference, and allows a significantly more expensive and capable drone.

But if you're flying into A2AD airspace like the FEBA, I think that the drone needs to be of similar performance as the aircraft type it is replacing. Equally maneuverable at a minimum so it can jink etc.

 

[Kat Tsun]

So now you need to include the cost of the ZELLs, plus a crane to load the drone onto the ZELL, plus disposable rockets for every single launch. And a parachute to recover the drone at the end, which based on Cirrus aircraft will result in your drone getting dragged into trees and totalled after landing.

All of which are common and cheaply produced components that are substantially easier to supply than whatever JSF needs.

If it gets blown out of the sky before it drops its load, it's useless.

Yeah, and that's going to happen a lot, because modern air defense are extremely lethal.

Better to have something you can afford to lose rather than an expensive thing that can't.

How many of the Russian mobile SAMs are radar guided in some flavor? I mean the ones that are going to be advancing with the Operational Maneuver Group or lead Motor Rifle Regiment. SA-8s and their upgrades, Tunguska, Pantsir, etc. (Yes, SA-9s and SA-13s are IR or optically guided)

Given their performance in Syria against TB-2s, which anyone can view on Twitter as Tor and Pantsirs are obliterated by MAM-Ls, an actually stealthy drone might be even more lethal against them. They seem to have trouble attacking slow propeller powered drones with no stealth shaping whatsoever, who knows how poorly they'd struggle against a stealth aircraft at M0.7.

Well, we know how Pantsir would react, anyway. Storm Shadow isn't be that much different a target from a Q-58.

Nevermind the bigger systems guarding assembly areas etc that a plane doing BAI would have to deal with.

Why are we talking about "BAI"? I thought this was about "CAS".

JSF would kill the long range air defense, because it can actually muster enough jets to do that, instead of babysitting people who are busy losing a battle. Then presumably a mixture of Q-58 and JSF can destroy whatever target was being protected. Or a Typhon MRC or a Pershing III or whatever gets allocated to do the job.

Ah, so we're saying that one drone of (type) can replace 2-3x older aircraft type

No, I'm talking about virtual attrition and mission tasking.

A large number of generally disposable drones for the relatively unimportant job of CAS frees up actually useful aircraft for the relatively more important job of destroying air bases and hitting C3I posts. They would probably be useful for Package Q or Tidal Wave-type strikes that involve high risk, high loss rate sorties into extremely heavily defended air defense zones as well, since they could soak air defense systems and degrade their capacity prior to an assault by manned aircraft.

The latter is the main reason the USAF wants the Q-58 while the former is good for the Army having a few battalions of ZLL trucks carrying Q-58s to support a Corps in theater, and both are good reasons to have a cheap aircraft that can carry a small number of lethal weapons.

Eventually F-16, A-10, and F-15 will be replaced, and probably by JSF, because it's the only platform available. However, the USAF will almost certainly end up with a shortfall of JSFs and B-21s for its final target goals, just like it ended up with a shortfall of ATF and B-2, and something like the Q-58 will need to step in to allow a smaller number of ATF and JSF to do the job that requires literally hundreds more airframes, pilots, and ground maintainers to do.

Because the USAF ain't gonna have all that stuff in the future where it's getting fewer jets, fewer pilots, and fewer maintainers than it needs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why are we talking about "BAI"? I thought this was about "CAS".

JSF would kill the long range air defense, because it can actually muster enough jets to do that, instead of babysitting people who are busy losing a battle. Then presumably a mixture of Q-58 and JSF can destroy whatever target was being protected. Or a Typhon MRC or a Pershing III or whatever gets allocated to do the job.

Because the defenses that are sitting at the forming up points are still covering the FEBA.

No, I'm talking about virtual attrition and mission tasking.

Which is the same as saying "one drone can do the job of 2-3 manned aircraft."

A large number of generally disposable drones for the relatively unimportant job of CAS frees up actually useful aircraft for the relatively more important job of destroying air bases and hitting C3I posts. They would probably be useful for Package Q or Tidal Wave-type strikes that involve high risk, high loss rate sorties into extremely heavily defended air defense zones as well, since they could soak air defense systems and degrade their capacity prior to an assault by manned aircraft.

The latter is the main reason the USAF wants the Q-58 while the former is good for the Army having a few battalions of ZLL trucks carrying Q-58s to support a Corps in theater, and both are good reasons to have a cheap aircraft that can carry a small number of lethal weapons.

Eventually F-16, A-10, and F-15 will be replaced, and probably by JSF, because it's the only platform available. However, the USAF will almost certainly end up with a shortfall of JSFs and B-21s for its final target goals, just like it ended up with a shortfall of ATF and B-2, and something like the Q-58 will need to step in to allow a smaller number of ATF and JSF to do the job that requires literally hundreds more airframes, pilots, and ground maintainers to do.

Because the USAF ain't gonna have all that stuff in the future where it's getting fewer jets, fewer pilots, and fewer maintainers than it needs.

As if the Q58s or whatever aren't going to need maintainers, just half or a third the numbers compared to manned jets.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Because the defenses that are sitting at the forming up points are still covering the FEBA.

You're furthest away from the enemy's interceptors and long range SAMs on the FEBA than anywhere else. The only thing you have to really worry about are IR guided and laser guided SAMs, fired by infantry, which are lethal threats to any aircraft. These are typically cued by short-range, low to medium-powered X-band alerting radars.

It may not be long enough to get back to base 2/3 times, but that's okay, because it's a robot. You'd just have a "magazine" in the theater stockpile to be moved around to units who have lost their drones as replacement airframes.

Which is the same as saying "one drone can do the job of 2-3 manned aircraft."

No, it's the inverse. That's the point: You buy a lot of drones for the cost of one manned airplane, and you don't fret when the drones die.

As if the Q58s or whatever aren't going to need maintainers, just half or a third the numbers compared to manned jets.

No, it's more that a Q-58 will require fewer maintainers, because it's a simpler aircraft, and it's a robot? That should be obvious.

The maintainers will be working fewer man-hours for every flight hour, because it's a robot, so the same number of maintainers can be stretched further in terms of killing power and availability of sorties across a theater. The USAF doesn't expect its personnel issues to go away within the next decade, it also expects a war with China within the next half decade, but it's not really fully embracing either of these ideas.

I suppose if/when the next big one kicks off there will be a flurry of activity as right now it seems to be mostly hedging its bets.

 

[jsport]

US special ops may be buying too many Armed Overwatch planes, says GAO

The Sky Warden aircraft is intended to carry out close air support, strike and ISR missions against violent extremist groups in permissive areas.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

US special ops may be buying too many Armed Overwatch planes, says GAO

The Sky Warden aircraft is intended to carry out close air support, strike and ISR missions against violent extremist groups in permissive areas.

www.defensenews.com

Let the Spec Ops guys buy however many planes they think they need to do their job.

 

[Artivag]

The Sky Warden is an interesting platform however I think smaller UCAVs with the ability to knock out 1-2 AFVs or strike a single target before being pulled back is going to be the way of things from here forward. Even then they should be of a type that can fly NOTE so they don't get knocked out by SAMS/MANPADS. That's just my humble opinion though. It seems like Frogfoots are getting chewed to pieces in Eastern Europe & while my American bias says that the A-10 could do it better; I'm not so delusional to think that they'd get away without losses.

 

[TomS]

The Sky Warden is an interesting platform however I think smaller UCAVs with the ability to knock out 1-2 AFVs or strike a single target before being pulled back is going to be the way of things from here forward. Even then they should be of a type that can fly NOTE so they don't get knocked out by SAMS/MANPADS. That's just my humble opinion though. It seems like Frogfoots are getting chewed to pieces in Eastern Europe & while my American bias says that the A-10 could do it better; I'm not so delusional to think that they'd get away without losses.

Remember that the Armed Overwatch (AOW) platform is designed for an almost completely permissive air defense environment. The only real air threat should be MANPADS and heavy machine guns. This is mainly for sub-Saharan Africa and maybe the Philippines, not a Ukraine-style conflict.

One major role for this aircraft is intelligence preparation of the battlespace for SOCOM ops. Making it manned actually serves an organizational purpose -- the big unmanned platforms like the Predators are assigned to specific missions (orbits) at the COCOM level. AOW will be organic to the local SOCOM force and not readily retaskable by the COCOM.

AOW's major shooting job is to cover the exfil of a special ops team after they've completed a raid on a target like a terrorist camp or hostage site (probably based on data collected.in earlier AOW surveillance missions). That means it needs some depth of magazines, but not a lot of heavy weapons. The heaviest vehicles it's likely to encounter are technicals, possibly with improvised armor.

 

[TomcatViP]

I see the GAO didn't factor the lack of play in redeploying the platform across the area of operations. Cross Atlantic of Trans-pacific redeployment potentials are, for example, essentially nil. SOCOM probably needs resident airframe. Hence the inflated number.

 

[TomS]

I see the GAO didn't factor the lack of play in redeploying the platform across the area of operations. Cross Atlantic of Trans-pacific redeployment potentials are, for example, essentially nil. SOCOM probably needs resident airframe. Hence the inflated number.

The actual report does not say that. Really, all it says is that SOCOM appears to have picked the procurement target out of thin air and cannot provide any analytic basis for it. And that when GAO ran SOCOM's own force planing metrics against the approved mission needs, they get a smaller number than SOCOM has asked for. It's with noting that the planned 75 AOW aircraft replace less than 45 existing MC-12 and UC-28 airframes.

If folks would like to read the actual report instead of hypothesizing off one news article, it is available here:

Special Operations Forces: DOD Should Slow Acquisition of Armed Overwatch Aircraft Until It Conducts Needed Analysis

The Department of Defense is buying 75 new airplanes to support special operations missions. DOD plans to acquire the planes in stages through FY 2029...

www.gao.gov

 

[TomcatViP]

MC12 can cross body of waters easier than a Sky Warden.

 

[Scott Kenny]

MC12 can cross body of waters easier than a Sky Warden.

Depends on how many of those pylons on the Sky Warden are plumbed for fuel.

Being able to carry an extra ~5000lbs of fuel (in 1000lbs of fuel tanks) would probably give that Air Tractor longer legs than a PC12.

Besides, I get the picture that Sky Wardens are intended to be forward deployed assets, scattered around the world and waiting for a team to come to them.

 

[TomS]

Depends on how many of those pylons on the Sky Warden are plumbed for fuel.

Being able to carry an extra ~5000lbs of fuel (in 1000lbs of fuel tanks) would probably give that Air Tractor longer legs than a PC12.

Besides, I get the picture that Sky Wardens are intended to be forward deployed assets, scattered around the world and waiting for a team to come to them.

You can take one apart and shove it in the back of a C-130.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You can take one apart and shove it in the back of a C-130.

And since you need to get your team in country somehow, that's the easy way. Team shares space with a Sky Warden or two.

If Sky Wardens are forward deployed assets, the team doesn't need a C-130 announcing its presence at the airport and can come in on a PC12 or whatever.

 

[TomcatViP]

Exactly. That is what GAO probably didn't take into account. Just like when comparing F-35 strike package Vs 4th Gens.

Regarding air cargo transport, think that disassembling and assembling an aircraft takes time and a bit of infrastructure. Probably not something always available within SOCOM time line.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Exactly. That is what GAO probably didn't take into account. Just like when comparing F-35 strike package Vs 4th Gens.

Regarding air cargo transport, think that disassembling and assembling an aircraft takes time and a bit of infrastructure. Probably not something always available within SOCOM time line.

I mean, bolting the outer wings on a cropduster is relatively easy (probably 3-4 bolts per, on the two spars), but you still need some rolling jacks to hold the wings up long enough to get the bolts through the holes. Then connect the fuel and electrical.

Done it on Cessnas before. 4 bolts, two on the spars and two on the struts. Needed 4 guys to hold the wings in place because of how high they were overhead.

 

[rpawloski]

There's a guy on Aliexpress can do a good deal...

Blitzfighter.... is the right solution

 

[Firefinder]

Needs to be remembered that the plane the Warden is based on?

The Air Tractor AT-802?

Is literally design to be movable by 3 guys and pickup truck trailer. You can literally have the thung flying with the wings bolt on within a hour with 3 idiots with common tools in a field.

So 15 minutes with train personal.

I be shocked if they didn't keep that.

 

[Artivag]

Remember that the Armed Overwatch (AOW) platform is designed for an almost completely permissive air defense environment. The only real air threat should be MANPADS and heavy machine guns. This is mainly for sub-Saharan Africa and maybe the Philippines, not a Ukraine-style conflict.

One major role for this aircraft is intelligence preparation of the battlespace for SOCOM ops. Making it manned actually serves an organizational purpose -- the big unmanned platforms like the Predators are assigned to specific missions (orbits) at the COCOM level. AOW will be organic to the local SOCOM force and not readily retaskable by the COCOM.

AOW's major shooting job is to cover the exfil of a special ops team after they've completed a raid on a target like a terrorist camp or hostage site (probably based on data collected.in earlier AOW surveillance missions). That means it needs some depth of magazines, but not a lot of heavy weapons. The heaviest vehicles it's likely to encounter are technicals, possibly with improvised armor.

You've got a real good point. AFAIK that's actually the detrimental thing in Ukraine for close air support or attack missions though - the omnipresence of MANPADS. However if it's used in low intensity/low density battlespaces, as I assume those in sub-Saharan Africa or the Philippines would be, then I presume these would work out just fine. What do you envision as the future of air support & strike missions in situations where we are not assured air dominance or air superiority? Surely our MIC is already chewing over what they can sell to small countries that expect they might have to buck up against the Russians or Chinese.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Needs to be remembered that the plane the Warden is based on?

The Air Tractor AT-802?

Is literally design to be movable by 3 guys and pickup truck trailer. You can literally have the thung flying with the wings bolt on within a hour with 3 idiots with common tools in a field.

So 15 minutes with train personal.

I be shocked if they didn't keep that.

Just has more wires to connect (I'd assume in the form of a single big plug) and test once you bolt the wings back on. Testing the weapon pylon connections will eat up some time.

What do you envision as the future of air support & strike missions in situations where we are not assured air dominance or air superiority? Surely our MIC is already chewing over what they can sell to small countries that expect they might have to buck up against the Russians or Chinese.

Drones. Lots and lots of drones.

 

[uk 75]

The A10's main role in its heyday was to kill Soviet armoured vehicles and their support taking advantage of the hilly terrain in the Fulda and Hof Gaps with UK based USAF EF111s helping them by jamming air defence systems.
Any future war in Europe is not going to be like this as the Russians have upped their air defence systems since 1991.
However, in more limited warfare against terrorist groups without access to numerous Manpads a classic COIN aircraft may still have a role. On the other hand they expose pilots to capture if shot down which Predators and drones do not.
On the whole I think the A10 format has had its day.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The A10's main role in its heyday was to kill Soviet armoured vehicles and their support taking advantage of the hilly terrain in the Fulda and Hof Gaps with UK based USAF EF111s helping them by jamming air defence systems.
Any future war in Europe is not going to be like this as the Russians have upped their air defence systems since 1991.
However, in more limited warfare against terrorist groups without access to numerous Manpads a classic COIN aircraft may still have a role. On the other hand they expose pilots to capture if shot down which Predators and drones do not.
On the whole I think the A10 format has had its day.

I disagree, if only because the current drones require way too much operator intervention to fly them and the plane the operator is in.

I see a semi-LO, 2 seater with a GAU12 or -22 for the gun, quarterbacking half a dozen drones as the next evolution of the dedicated CAS plane. Semi-LO meaning edge aligned and sawtooth doors, hidden fans, maybe Have Glass V coatings. NOT the full RAM skin like an F-35 or B-21.

One drone looking a lot like a JASSM or a mini sized TACIT BLUE, the others packing various bombs, rockets, JAGMs, and even some new-production SideARMs.

 

[BlackBat242]

I disagree, if only because the current drones require way too much operator intervention to fly them and the plane the operator is in.

Funny, most of our drones are operated from places like Nellis AFB in Nevada, military bases on the East coast, mobile ground stations parked somewhere miles from the fighting, etc.

Even the ones that are supposed to work with manned aircraft need very little "control" - mostly things like: mark the target on your radar screen and push the button to hand it off to the "loyal wingman", then go back to your own flying & fighting.

 

[uk 75]

My reservations are based on the need to preserve human pilots where they can make a real difference.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Funny, most of our drones are operated from places like Nellis AFB in Nevada, military bases on the East coast, mobile ground stations parked somewhere miles from the fighting, etc.

Even the ones that are supposed to work with manned aircraft need very little "control" - mostly things like: mark the target on your radar screen and push the button to hand it off to the "loyal wingman", then go back to your own flying & fighting.

The MUMT experiments with AH-64Es and MQ-1Cs have shown that it's too much for a single pilot to both fly his plane and fly the drones.

My reservations are based on the need to preserve human pilots where they can make a real difference.

Understood.

 

[yasotay]

The ongoing work with the US FVL effort, namely the FARA program, is working at reducing the workload on the aircrew in managing the small UAS associated with the program.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The ongoing work with the US FVL effort, namely the FARA program, is working at reducing the workload on the aircrew in managing the small UAS associated with the program.

I'm just not convinced that it will be done in time to make a single seat drone quarterback viable for 6th generation aircraft. 7th, sure.

 

[quellish]

Semi-LO meaning edge aligned and sawtooth doors, hidden fans, maybe Have Glass V coatings. NOT the full RAM skin like an F-35 or B-21.

You can get very low signatures without covering the whole aircraft in a RAM coating. But to get even moderate LO you need to address the cockpit/canopy and all cavities , which requires RAM or other special materials.

A modern aluminum aircraft with treated canopy, inlet, exhaust, and edges could beat an F-117 on the pole. Would it make a good CAS platform? Almost certainly not. It would not be survivable at all

 

[Scott Kenny]

You can get very low signatures without covering the whole aircraft in a RAM coating. But to get even moderate LO you need to address the cockpit/canopy and all cavities , which requires RAM or other special materials.

Granted. Trying to keep the sensitive materials down to a minimum to help keep costs down. And not worrying about the exhausts from an RCS perspective, just IR signature. If things done to improve IR sig can also improve RCS, score. If things done to improve IR sig can be modified a bit to also improve RCS, let's run a cost-benefit before jumping in on those modifications.

I'm only after the low hanging fruit here, the stuff that is fairly easy to get done. I'm not after an RCS 1/100 of the A-10 necessarily, I'll take one that is 1/10 or maybe even 1/5. Make it so that the big radar-guided systems lurking at the forming up points and river crossings can't really see the plane that is 30km away. At least not see the plane well enough to get a weapon lock.

A modern aluminum aircraft with treated canopy, inlet, exhaust, and edges could beat an F-117 on the pole. Would it make a good CAS platform? Almost certainly not. It would not be survivable at all

Right, but you can use stand-in jamming and other tools for improving your survivability because you're not trying to be a ninja mugging the oblivious. A CAS plane is like a wizard with a couple items of displacement, that reduce the chances of being hit in the first place. The enemy knows you're there but you have some tricks that make the enemy miss you 75% of the time.

 

[Ainen]

All the same building techniques from JSF can be reapplied to A-X.
The former doesn't exactly have an overly expensive airframe.

 

[Scott Kenny]

All the same building techniques from JSF can be reapplied to A-X.
The former doesn't exactly have an overly expensive airframe.

I actually question the X-32 wing a bit. Cheap to make as basically a giant blow-molded chunk of plastic, but how easy is that to repair? And how do you repair it without destroying the RCS?

 

[quellish]

Right, but you can use stand-in jamming and other tools for improving your survivability because you're not trying to be a ninja mugging the oblivious. A CAS plane is like a wizard with a couple items of displacement, that reduce the chances of being hit in the first place. The enemy knows you're there but you have some tricks that make the enemy miss you 75% of the time.

Survivability is more than stealth.
The primary threats for aircraft performing CAS are AAA, small arms, and MANPADS. You need an aircraft that can take a punch and stay in the fight.

 

[FighterJock]

That is so true quellish. The A-10 is just such an aircraft, unique in it's ability to take hits and still keep flying even with gapping holes in the airframe. Show me another aircraft that can survive like that.