Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) UK-Japan-Italy

[red admiral]

You can have useful unmanned capabilities for a fraction of the cost of a manned platform. US $15 million seems to be the ‘benchmark’ price for attritable (not expendable) UAVs.

At that cost point then it's much less capable and much less survivable than GCAP. Those Ukrainian unmanned A22s are also "useful" and much cheaper than $15m, but there's no profit for the defence primes in doing that

We can’t afford not to have ACPs to augment the things that a manned platform can’t do, or that we won’t allow them to do because we can’t afford to lose them or their expensively trained pilots.

We can't afford not to have laser sharks either

If we're not going to risk manned platforms by actually using them then why are we wasting tens of billions on developing and buying them? I suppose they'll make good sunshades for the cocktail parties.

What makes them battle winning is the ability to use them well forward, penetrating airspace where you can’t risk a manned platform (you’ve heard of A2AD, right?). What makes them battle winning is their ability to provide mass that we can’t afford to provide conventionally. What makes them battle winning is their ability to cope in an increasingly contested battlespace.

So I guess these are highly survivable and highly expensive platforms then. How do we afford these in quantity to get combat mass? Sounds much more like simply having an unmanned GCAP would be better.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The advantage is I think our opponents culture is the very pposite of that needed to do likewise since success at this is founded on openness, transparency, free sharing (of data for instance) and quick readiness to accept something is wrong/change it and reacting without having to wait for approval. Although we knock ourselves for fails at all those bits, fundamentally we are very good at that vs what are very rigidly controlled/controlling societies. That’s my hope anyway!

That may be your ‘hope’ - and good on you for being such a sunny and optimistic Pollyanna, we need more optimism and hope!

But reality it isn’t. Our ‘open’, ‘transparent’, ‘sharing’ societies are unable to trust one another to iterate sovereign mission data on platforms we’ve bought and paid for, or to integrate our own weapons, or to have meaningful sovereign support arrangements. The ‘Land of the Free’ thinks that a three hour Mission Data cycle is a ‘moonshot’, and will never enable that for its allies anyway.

Which means we know in theory how to do it and it's just going to take a buttload of money to reduce it to practice.

 

[WatcherZero]

I have done. And spent yesterday afternoon chattting with BAE's 'main man' on ACPs. And then with Leonardo's GCAP campaign manager. CCAs and ACPs will require high level direction, not direct control.

Who mentioned direct control? I said AI would assign them tasks and elevate issues it couldnt handle or which the pilot had to know about for the pilots attention.

e.g. If a craft became engaged or was lost.

This has just happened on a test flight with one Banshee and several virtual ones being put under the command of an aircraft after launch and rendezvous, and then assigned tasks by it.

 

[Purpletrouble]

....if they’re any good kinematically and avioncis wise, they’re a duplicate level of cost and effort to the manned program, for vastly less flexibility.

You can have useful unmanned capabilities for a fraction of the cost of a manned platform. US $15 million seems to be the ‘benchmark’ price for attritable (not expendable) UAVs.

Noone has come close to fielding a UAS with avionic or kinematic capabilites even close to manned. Every attempt dies because the cost becomes the same.

Its a permament catch22. capable = expensive = not attritable.

Attritable = cheap = not capable.

We cant afford that. Well, maybe the US can a bit.

We can’t afford not to have ACPs to augment the things that a manned platform can’t do, or that we won’t allow them to do because we can’t afford to lose them or their expensively trained pilots.

Yes we can. We already do. I dont think the “lose pilots” thing is what it used to be tbh.

What makes that battle winning vs a manned fleet of more capable platforms with more flexibility?

What makes them battle winning is the ability to use them well forward, penetrating airspace where you can’t risk a manned platform (you’ve heard of A2AD, right?). What makes them battle winning is their ability to provide mass that we can’t afford to provide conventionally. What makes them battle winning is their ability to cope in an increasingly contested battlespace.

Why the patronising tone btw? Might work with children but not on a professional who is actually doing all this.

Except they dont provide mass because we dont have the mass of people to maintain/fuel/arm them and support the logistic tail, and again, if they are capable they are no less able to be “risk exposed” than manned.

The battlespace isnt increasingly contested. Density of systems and platforms is far less than the cold war europe. What it is is spread out more due to greater ranges.

When you ask pilots what they want from “CCAs” the consistent answer is just “a tanker that comes to me so I dont waste time in transit getting away from/to the fight”. Not extra weapons platforms, not EW, not bombers not any of that. Theyve got all that covered in their platform and can do that.i fond the MQ-25 Stingray interesting in this respect.

Nonsense! What pilots want is more weapons, more sensor range, and indeed anything that helps ensure mission success and their own safe return.

Ive asked a lot of them. I believe them as they do it for a living now and in the future.

There are a huge amount of solutions here and I’m not sure there is actually a problem for them to solve. I think we are only just starting to find our way out of a very confusing haystack that technology and our penchant for MS powerpoint have created for us.

More nonsense, I’m afraid. The problems are: A2AD. A more difficult and contested operating environment. A rapidly and dynamically evolving threat.

All of what youve written is basically just bad sounding words right off a powerpoint slide. It isnt reality. We’ve tied ourselves up unable to see what path we should take owing to the opportunities technology presents. Its hamstringing us, albeit its a victim of own success thing.

GCAP races ahead. Mosquito buzzed off. QED, again.

I personally think the future is going to look like the present but with a larger platform with huge EW capability and leveraging that plus connectivity to the rest of the military world to give it a far better understanding of the tactical situation and thus find a way to win it whilst the enemy is still blind to what is going on.

You’re dreaming. And ignoring the fact that you can’t do that in a heavily contested environment against an enemy who outnumbers you and economically overpowers you. You have to “box clever” and CCAs/ACPs help you do that.

Who overpowers the US? And the west in total?

“Boxing clever” is literally whet I described in gathring and using information. To do that requires a large platform for the antenna, power and processing.

Information Advantage. The actual definition of 6th gen…

Your solution is legacy, try and overwhelm with mass, and drop the quality line to acheive that. That aporoach can work, but usually it leads to failure.

CCAs just soak up precious design, build and maintenance/logistic resources to give very 2nd/3rd rate capabilities.

Blitzkreig of the air - overwhelm their forces by blanking out decision making by knowing far more than they do and being able to move to exploit that before they even know anythung about it. The actual exploitation being similar weapons to what we have now just employed far more effectively thanks to information dominance. Very difficult to do and wont show up in a single Janes spec point but will make or break any conflict.

True to a degree today, and against non peer opponents, but becoming less and less true with every passing day.

Today? Israel acheived it in 67, the coalition in 91. If nato went against russia in ukraine we’d see it there too.

The advantage is I think our opponents culture is the very pposite of that needed to do likewise since success at this is founded on openness, transparency, free sharing (of data for instance) and quick readiness to accept something is wrong/change it and reacting without having to wait for approval. Although we knock ourselves for fails at all those bits, fundamentally we are very good at that vs what are very rigidly controlled/controlling societies. That’s my hope anyway!

That may be your ‘hope’ - and good on you for being such a sunny and optimistic Pollyanna, we need more optimism and hope!

But reality it isn’t. Our ‘open’, ‘transparent’, ‘sharing’ societies are unable to trust one another to iterate sovereign mission data on platforms we’ve bought and paid for, or to integrate our own weapons, or to have meaningful sovereign support arrangements. The ‘Land of the Free’ thinks that a three hour Mission Data cycle is a ‘moonshot’, and will never enable that for its allies anyway.

Maybe, but i think you miss the point about a free society being able to innovate and share. My view is based on exposure to both sides, as I said, we have flaws but not critical ones.

And while we were sleeping, China (and to a lesser extent Russia) built up their air defence and A2AD capabilities to the point that we’re now on the back foot. China will soon have more 5th Gen fighters than the US. Russia has shown an ability to adapt and to adopt novel technologies at pace in Ukraine.

No they didnt. Russia already had a formidable air defence system and all china has done is catch up.

Russia has shown very little ability in Ukraine. Certainly not “adopt new tech at pace”.

 

[Jackonicko]

Which means we know in theory how to do it and it's just going to take a buttload of money to reduce it to practice.

And of course the UK already has a mission data cycle that's FAR quicker than that, and is looking at inflight Mission Data uploads...

 

[Jackonicko]

Who mentioned direct control? I said AI would assign them tasks and elevate issues it couldnt handle or which the pilot had to know about for the pilots attention.

e.g. If a craft became engaged or was lost.

This has just happened on a test flight with one Banshee and several virtual ones being put under the command of an aircraft after launch and rendezvous, and then assigned tasks by it.

The assignment of tasks will be by the CAOC, not by the pilot (human or AI) on scene.

 

[Jackonicko]

If we're not going to risk manned platforms by actually using them then why are we wasting tens of billions on developing and buying them? I suppose they'll make good sunshades for the cocktail parties.


So I guess these are highly survivable and highly expensive platforms then. How do we afford these in quantity to get combat mass? Sounds much more like simply having an unmanned GCAP would be better.

1) We're going to use GCAP, we're just not going to employ it too far up-threat, and we're not going to squander the aircraft when expendables and attritables are available.

2) No. But they will be attritable. An unmanned GCAP would be ten times the cost.

 

[Jackonicko]

Noone has come close to fielding a UAS with avionic or kinematic capabilites even close to manned. Every attempt dies because the cost becomes the same.

Its a permament catch22. capable = expensive = not attritable.

Attritable = cheap = not capable.

A CCA or ACP does not have to have the avionic or kinematic capabilities of a manned platform to be useful. There's a level of performance that is both affordable and attritable.

 

[red admiral]

And of course the UK already has a mission data cycle that's FAR quicker than that, and is looking at inflight Mission Data uploads...

Worth noting that some countries are way ahead of this e.g. demonstrated in flight software uploads and not just data. The big issue with any of this is the size of the "tail" (i.e. people) on the ground to do it, rather than tech.

The assignment of tasks will be by the CAOC, not by the pilot (human or AI) on scene.

I think this comes in at different levels; e.g. the CAOC doesn't (usually) assign individuals tasks within a flight. Different levels of tasks e.g. sanitise area Vs engage specific target.

If CCAs / ACPs are "attritable" then you might as well just build target drones at much lower cost (or use unmanned microlights...) It's probably notable that the US is no longer using the attritable language for CCA.

 

[Jackonicko]

Why the patronising tone btw? Might work with children but not on a professional who is actually doing all this.

You mistake patronising for exasperated. Your opinions do not seem to be those of a 'professional', I'm afraid. You make a series of claims that make little sense, and that run counter to everything that I hear from senior programme insiders, aircrew, requirements managers, etc.

For example:

The battlespace isnt increasingly contested.

If you think that: A2AD. A more difficult and contested operating environment. A rapidly and dynamically evolving threat. are not real problems, and are just

bad sounding words right off a powerpoint slide

Then a) I can't help you.
and b) there's little point in doing anything more than pointing out some of the errors in your thinking.

~Who overpowers the US?

Economically? China. (And in terms of fighter numbers available in any realistic Taiwan scenario)

Information Advantage. The actual definition of 6th gen…

You won't get information advantage without offboard sensors in a networked family of sensors. And guess what can carry sensors further up-threat? Yep. CCAs and ACPs...

Israel acheived it in 67, the coalition in 91. If nato went against russia in ukraine we’d see it there too.

Egypt in '67 was not a peer opponent. Iraq in 91 was not a peer opponent. Russia would not be a peer opponent in Ukraine, though it would be near peer. Nor should you be too confident that NATO would have a walk over against Russia.

No they didnt. Russia already had a formidable air defence system and all china has done is catch up.

China has built up its Air Defence systems - new SAMs, new fighters, including 5th Gen, in large numbers. Russia has hardly increased its AD capabilities at all, and its overall A2AD capability is less worrying.

Russia has shown very little ability in Ukraine. Certainly not “adopt new tech at pace”.

No? No widespread adoption of FPV drones? No unparalleled use of loitering munitions? No Shaheds? No combat debut of winged bombs? No combat debut of hypersonics? They have adopted a lot of new-to-them technology at pace.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Going to be a lot of crossed fingers on the team. FCAS and the NGAD siblings seem pretty set on two seats, and that's with AI-enabled capabilities baked into their programs. I know the beancounters are probably loving the idea of leaving the second body at home, but there's going to be a whole lot going on in that cockpit.

I suppose it fully depends on how automated those escort drones are. From what I can gather, the US seems to prefer having some human input on the drones, at least for NGAD. Perhaps the GCAP partners will allow their drones to be more or less independent, simply following the fighters in and then performing tasks which are either preprogrammed with minimal human input, or controlled from further behind the lines, a la Predator/Reaper via satcom.

 

[Jackonicko]

I don't see a difference in fundamental philosophy, Jason, except at end of life. (US will deliberately attrit or expend, UK will recycle).

The purpose of CCAs and ACPs is to:

1) add mass - bringing more weapons, effectors, EA, EW, and sensors to the fight
2) operate further 'up threat'

My considered view is that:

"These CCAs and ACPs will be semi-autonomous, capable of “taking high level direction” from a pilot, and then “autonomously implementing this direction.” Such high level direction might consist of a set of instructions along these lines (provided by an experienced UK fast jet pilot with experience of Harrier, Sea Harrier and F/A-18): “Follow the ATO (air tasking order) outbound to the millimetre. Don’t run out of gas. Don’t transgress any known ACM. Don’t penetrate a known MEZ (Missile Engagement Zone). (I’ll let you know by text if there are any new ones). Don’t leave the FIR (Flight Information Region). 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 (Point of Interest) and can capture an ISR product please do. If we lose comms for X minutes go back to CAP for Y minutes then RTB (Return to Base). Go home obeying the ATO to the millimetre.”

There is broad agreement that ‘adjuncts’ to manned combat aircraft will need a degree of autonomy, as no-one envisages the pilot of a Typhoon, F-35, Tempest or NGAD operating his own aircraft whilst simultaneously controlling a formation of UCAVs with a controller, nor even giving them detailed instructions on a minute-by-minute basis! Rather those unmanned adjuncts will follow pre-determined parameters to achieve their assigned missions, and the fast jet pilot won’t need to do very much at all. The adjuncts will be there (or more likely far ahead in the battlespace) giving him extra firepower at greater range, and providing greater sensor coverage. (Adjuncts are defined as uncrewed aircraft systems specifically designed to work in conjunction with other aircraft or effectors to add to the effectiveness of the force mix).

In the long term, Western air forces plan to use these unmanned adjuncts to augment new sixth generation manned fighters (and even new bombers like the B-21 Raider), but some may be pressed into service in the near-to-medium term, operating in conjunction with today’s combat air platforms to disrupt and defeat enemy counterair operations, bringing more weapons to the fight, and ‘standing in’ in the most contested areas, where an allied air commander might be loathe to risk his manned assets.

Initially, much attention was focused on what we would now term ‘classic’ loyal wingmen – autonomous unmanned fighter aircraft able to operate alongside and ahead of manned fighters, enjoying the same endurance, range, and performance characteristics, and with their own sensors and weapons, but 'tethered' to manned platforms in a relatively rigid fashion.

The problem with such a vehicle is that this degree of performance and capability will cost perhaps half as much as a manned fighter - which then makes the loyal wingman too valuable to be much more attritable than the manned formation leader. And while manufacturing technologies and autonomy will evolve and improve, and although the cost of high-end systems (which currently compare to the prices of more capable manned aircraft) will probably fall, they are unlikely to fall far enough to make these most capable CCAs attritable in any meaningful way."

Yes, that's a sneak preview of a forthcoming article...

 

[Jackonicko]

Worth noting that some countries are way ahead of this e.g. demonstrated in flight software uploads and not just data. The big issue with any of this is the size of the "tail" (i.e. people) on the ground to do it, rather than tech.

Mission data is of course more than data - more than just a threat library, and includes some machine instructions for different systems (software/firmware).

I'm not sure I've seen anyone ahead of the UK when it comes to the rapid iteration and upload of Mission Data, personally, but it's entirely possible.

If CCAs / ACPs are "attritable" then you might as well just build target drones at much lower cost (or use unmanned microlights...) It's probably notable that the US is no longer using the attritable language for CCA.

Attritable is very much still being used for US CCAs. Expendable less so.

Expendable adjuncts can indeed be based on target drones and other low cost platforms. Tier 2 CCA/ACPs less so.

Interestingly, one of the two down selected companies for CCA is offering a derivative of an ADAIR/Red Air UAV (Anduril's Fury began life as the Grackle), while in the UK QinetiQ's Jackdaw is to all intents and purposes an operationalised Banshee target.

 

[Jackonicko]

Interesting that at the recent GCAP drop in sessions in Whitehall, different companies were using models, logos and artwork based on different Tempest/GCAP concepts.

RR still favour Concept 5
Leonardo had a mix of Concept 5, GCAP and even Pregnant Pelican
BAE Systems featured two subtly different concepts

 

[red admiral]

@Jackonicko I think lots of the different names for these things are just a combination of semantics and PR for wanting to have something "new". Differences are more due to envisaged use rather than actual hard differences - and it'll probably be different uses for different countries anyway depending on what other aircraft they have in service.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03...ritable-despite-common-misconception-general/

USAF leadership definitely seem to have moved on from "attritable". Maybe they saw how much it would cost?

 

[Wyvern]

I assume that the concept art shown to the media is based at least somewhat off real design concepts, even if the final aircraft ends up being very different. GCAP will probably end up looking more similar to current "5th gen" than whatever the US Airforce's NGAD is.

That's pure speculation though.

 

[Jackonicko]

@Jackonicko I think lots of the different names for these things are just a combination of semantics and PR for wanting to have something "new". Differences are more due to envisaged use rather than actual hard differences - and it'll probably be different uses for different countries anyway depending on what other aircraft they have in service.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03...ritable-despite-common-misconception-general/

USAF leadership definitely seem to have moved on from "attritable". Maybe they saw how much it would cost?

ATTRITABLE and EXPENDABLE are two very different things, and my reading of what every senior US person has said (from Kendall downwards) so far is that CCAs will:

1) Not be expendable/disposable (though some adjuncts may be)
2) Not be so exquisite as to be unloseable
3) be somewhere between those polar opposites - eg attritable
4) be significantly more expensive than was originally set out by Will Roper.

I would commend the recent UK ACP Strategy to you - it has a very good set of definitions at the back. Read in concert with Knighton's remarks to HCDC it gives a good idea of what is currently being sought, and while Jobe and White prefer terms like 'Affordable Mass' and shy away from using the word attritable, the CONOPS associated with CCAs makes it clear that that is what they actually are.

Read all about it in the next Air International (not the issue that has just gone on sale).

 

[Jackonicko]

I assume that the concept art shown to the media is based at least somewhat off real design concepts, even if the final aircraft ends up being very different. GCAP will probably end up looking more similar to current "5th gen" than whatever the US Airforce's NGAD is.

That's pure speculation though.

The current 5th generation use relatively conventional designs, with twin vertical tails, and horizontal tailplanes. (F-22/F-35/KF-21/Kaan/Su-57 and even India's AMCA). All look a bit like an F-15 with edge alignment and stealthy intakes. The notable exception to this 'trend' is the J-20.

The various FCAS/Tempest/GCAP concepts look more radical than that, and more like what we've seen of the NGAD concept CGIs that we've seen so far. Big, possibly with canted tailfins, but without conventional horizontal tailplanes.

 

[Scott Kenny]

ATTRITABLE and EXPENDABLE are two very different things,

Agreed.

Expendable to me says one time use. That's not a CCA, that's a loitering munition. Also, that's one time use regardless of cost. A Trident 2 missile is Expendable, despite the many millions of dollars that it costs. IIRC D-21 drones were expendable, despite their cost.

Attritable means if you lose it, oh well no great loss. This is where drones are supposed to be right now. Granted that there are some drones far too expensive to lose if you can avoid it (RQ170 and -180, probably RQ/MQ4s as well). Ryan Firebees were Attritable, the drone was intended to be recovered and reused if possible.

and my reading of what every senior US person has said (from Kendall downwards) so far is that CCAs will:

1) Not be expendable/disposable (though some adjuncts may be)
2) Not be so exquisite as to be unloseable
3) be somewhere between those polar opposites - eg attritable
4) be significantly more expensive than was originally set out by Will Roper.

I admit, my concern with where they'd drawn the line with the $15mil price was that it was too low to have any decent capabilities. Yes, Predators and Reapers are cheaper than that, but they're also prop driven and completely unstealthy.

We're looking at things in the same design class as the GA Avenger/Predator C and the old X-45/46/47 UCLASSs, probably $30mil each for a flying semi-LO weapons magazine.

 

[Hood]

Given how recent events in three fields of operation have shown that drones/UAVs are cannon/missile fodder I'm becoming doubtful about loyal wingmen, CCA's or whatever term is in fashion this week.

You might be better off putting up a screen of low cost target drones ahead to act as missile sponges to drain the enemy's aerial and SAM defences.

An AMRAAM costs $1 million - the question is, would having 15 more AMRAAMs for every CCA actually be more cost effective?

 

[Jackonicko]

Agreed.

Expendable to me says one time use. That's not a CCA, that's a loitering munition. Also, that's one time use regardless of cost. A Trident 2 missile is Expendable, despite the many millions of dollars that it costs. IIRC D-21 drones were expendable, despite their cost.

Attritable means if you lose it, oh well no great loss. This is where drones are supposed to be right now. Granted that there are some drones far too expensive to lose if you can avoid it (RQ170 and -180, probably RQ/MQ4s as well). Ryan Firebees were Attritable, the drone was intended to be recovered and reused if possible.




I admit, my concern with where they'd drawn the line with the $15mil price was that it was too low to have any decent capabilities. Yes, Predators and Reapers are cheaper than that, but they're also prop driven and completely unstealthy.

We're looking at things in the same design class as the GA Avenger/Predator C and the old X-45/46/47 UCLASSs, probably $30mil each for a flying semi-LO weapons magazine.

Expendable does not necessarily mean one-time use. Some Tier 1 expendables are recoverable and reusable, but probably for fewer than half a dozen sorties. They might not be effectors - they might carry sensors, for example.

 

[WatcherZero]

The assignment of tasks will be by the CAOC, not by the pilot (human or AI) on scene.

Thats the exact opposite of what's been trialled at the moment which is handing over control of a Banshee swarm from ground CAOC to the manned aircraft.

UK company demonstrates crewed-uncrewed teaming | Shephard

QinetiQ's aerial target drone, the Banshee, was modified to be controlled by a piloted aircraft.

www.shephardmedia.com

 

[Purpletrouble]

A CCA or ACP does not have to have the avionic or kinematic capabilities of a manned platform to be useful. There's a level of performance that is both affordable and attritable.

If it doesnt have either then its basically just a slow dumb target. Maybe that wastes their SAMs but chances are its cost us more to put it there.

The studies keep showing the triangle I illustrated:

Cheap = simple = attritable but limited value.
Adds value = complex = expensive and not attritable.

Without defensive sensors and systems no CCA is getting near the en. Again, its just throwing something away for poor return.


This technology has most value as better complex weapons that can report back what their targetting sensor sees on its way to the target to add to SA and the control software/system allows for more dynamic retargetting.

As “wingmen” loyal or otherwise, they make no sense because the development, build and sustainment cost is little different from a far more capable manned airframe and we can barely manage the technical resources or the finances to do one program.

 

[Jackonicko]

The studies keep showing the triangle I illustrated:

Cheap = simple = attritable but limited value.
Adds value = complex = expensive and not attritable.

Without defensive sensors and systems no CCA is getting near the en. Again, its just throwing something away for poor return.


This technology has most value as better complex weapons that can report back what their targetting sensor sees on its way to the target to add to SA and the control software/system allows for more dynamic retargetting.

As “wingmen” loyal or otherwise, they make no sense because the development, build and sustainment cost is little different from a far more capable manned airframe and we can barely manage the technical resources or the finances to do one program.

You really don't get it.

Small and cheap may also mean Low RCS, and hard to detect/engage. You can put them further up-threat than you could put an F-15EX or even an F-35, extending the effective reach of those platforms.

Small and cheap gives the opportunity to flood an enemy's defences. An enemy won't know if he's looking at a decoy, a stand-in jammer, a sensor platform, a bomber, a SEAD asset or an AAM carrier.

 

[Jackonicko]

And hardly anyone views CCAs or ACPs as 'Loyal Wingmen' - that's an archaic term for a dying concept.

 

[Purpletrouble]

I don't see a difference in fundamental philosophy, Jason, except at end of life. (US will deliberately attrit or expend, UK will recycle).

The purpose of CCAs and ACPs is to:

1) add mass - bringing more weapons, effectors, EA, EW, and sensors to the fight

Nope. Its a lovely idea but it fails reality.

Weapons are expensive. We already dont have enough for our existing manned fleet. We also dont have the people to support and load these weapons to an imaginary fleet of weapon carriers.

The people bit of this is essential but always ignored by those on the powerpoint, cool aid and lots of hot air.

If you seriously think a UCAS is going to launch weapons and conduct EW then you are in fantasy world. Just where is the saving? Because that’s a £5 billion development program and it has taken years to add weapons to platforms and to then expand envelopes to make their utilisation effective. EW is legendearily difficult to do, and now we’re trying to make multiple platforms do it. Again, the development, test and evalauation program is beyond our resources.

2) operate further 'up threat'

Nope. Because they dont have the LO or the ESM or the defensive countermeasures the main platform has. Hence if they try to push they get shot down for no gain (ok we see a launch site?. Benefit doesnt remotely justify cost.

If they do get all that = cost, size and complexity of manned platform.


Again, what is transformational is mobile fuel tankers to keep manned jets up threat. Ala MQ25* they are losable as there is no real complexity to them, also doable in terms of design, development and test but they keep the manned platform in the fight rather than losing what, a third of its time repositioning.

Again, thats what the professionals who do this for a living want. Weapons and sensors and EW they have to have themselves anyway and thats what they do well, so put the investment into making those the best they can be (ala GCAP).

* which illustrates this nicely. Clearly a platform spec’d for penetration and sensors and weapons, but abandoned all of that as the cost to get there would be huge. A purpose designed mobile tanker would be simpler and cheaper.

In a resources free world yeah sure we’d have some unmanned wingmen, but when you really crunch this, with (very) limited resources you focus that on the thing you have to do

 

[Purpletrouble]

You really don't get it.

No. And no amount of rudeness covers that you dont and probably wont. Nor will re posting journalists articles or the titbits and crumbs youve picked up.

Small and cheap may also mean Low RCS,

Nope. That’s not remotely how LO works. That’s not even schoolboy level understanding! If you want LO, prepare for a maintenance burden.

and hard to detect/engage. You can put them further up-threat than you could put an F-15EX or even an F-35, extending the effective reach of those platforms.

No you cant. Because they lack sensors to know what is happening around/to them and so die pointlessly, or if they do have that, their cost goes through the roof.

Small and cheap gives the opportunity to flood an enemy's defences.

Small and cheap means short ranged and so the certainty that its flooded your logistics and swamped your C4 ability. Against A2D capabilites that can shoot down X00ft high targets at 100s of miles, your small and cheap arent going to even get there.

An enemy won't know if he's looking at a decoy, a stand-in jammer, a sensor platform, a bomber, a SEAD asset or an AAM carrier.

But you’ve got to be able to find and hit the en. And yet we can tell what things are with extant radars, so yes, you can. Plus a sensor platform emits, the rest their flight profile gives them away.

What matters is what you do to stop them seeing you properly or at all - that takes high end LO and defensive electronics (expensive ones requiring large airframes). If your semi dumb UCAS cant do that it dies pointlessly again.

Small/cheap = doesnt do anything useful.
does something useful = expensive.

Its like the iron triangle, the other problem being we can barely afford one program, let alone multiple.

 

[Purpletrouble]

And hardly anyone views CCAs or ACPs as 'Loyal Wingmen' - that's an archaic term for a dying concept.

Dying concept sums it all up nicely.

As ever, there is no point in having 2nd/3rd rate platforms - put your resources into your 1st rate.

 

[Wyvern]

What about a mixed high/low approach? I'm not sure if that makes that much sense from a cost prospective.

 

[Purpletrouble]

What about a mixed high/low approach? I'm not sure if that makes that much sense from a cost prospective.

Low as in F16 if you can fund both that and your high end F15 yes certainly.

But the US stopped being able to do that decades ago, and the F16 only became useful because a lot of money was spent on developing it to be near high end anyway. Plus relatively speaking it was always high end, supersonic, high G, radar and development program to boot.

And thats the rub, want your unmanned thing to be useful, and it has to carry expensive sensors with associated impact of power, processing and needing kinematics to make the most of it. It needs to be recoverable and it needs technicians (who we dont have enough of now, witness F35 fleet issues) to support it. It comes with a major development and test program. It isnt cheap in any way at all. This is the issue all these fall at.

Go for cheapo swarm sure, but you have to store, transport and deploy said swarm. Just like various powers had to feed, clothe and transport their mass of semi/un-trained soldiers for mass attacks, and that never really worked either.

The powerpointers always omit these aspects. I’d say they were trying to hide it, but experience of being in many meetings with them is that they simply have no idea. Well intentioned but ignorant of how air power is actually generated. The smart ones listen and learn. Some don’t.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You really don't get it.

Small and cheap may also mean Low RCS, and hard to detect/engage. You can put them further up-threat than you could put an F-15EX or even an F-35, extending the effective reach of those platforms.

Small and cheap gives the opportunity to flood an enemy's defences. An enemy won't know if he's looking at a decoy, a stand-in jammer, a sensor platform, a bomber, a SEAD asset or an AAM carrier.

The only way you get small and cheap Low RCS is pure shaping. little to no use of RAM, and what you do use is in protected places only so that you don't need to spend time maintaining it. So RAM in the inlet and on the radar bulkhead, that's it.

Basically, F117s sandblasted to bare metal.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What about a mixed high/low approach? I'm not sure if that makes that much sense from a cost prospective.

That's how I was seeing the CCAs, and they're simply less expensive than your F35s/NGADs. Which still means something a lot closer to 80mil a copy than 15mil.

 

[Purpletrouble]

That's how I was seeing the CCAs, and they're simply less expensive than your F35s/NGADs. Which still means something a lot closer to 80mil a copy than 15mil.

Agreed, but the killer cost is the development cost*, and the technical resource needed. It takes billions and billions to turn a powerpoint into a certificated production aircraft, and 1000s of people. We don’t have enough tbh to do our core projects, let alone add ons.

*and the running costs. Lifetime costs dwarfing development.

The ACP stuff is a fad just like VSTOL was where runways were history, everything was going to operate from clearings in the forest and we’d have a couple on every warship that had cranes that captured them and so on. Until it falls apart as utterly unrealistic let alone not even remotely supportable. See also tilt rotors where we were going to have tilt rotor transport aircraft and business jets and we dont because they are a very expensive maintenance nightmare that dont justify their benefits and crash too often. See also flying cars and rotodyne type things which deafen the world.


But an uber fuel truck ala purpose designed MQ25, that literally gives legs. Legs are what we want and it doesnt require LO, high performance or offensive/defensive sensors - thus we focus our resources and investment in these areas on our core platform.

It’s not sexy enough for the powerpointers & fellow travellers so it’ll get overlooked however.

 

[Jackonicko]

"The powerpointers & fellow travellers" you sneer at are the Operational Requirements people and Requirements Managers who tend to be former QWIs and AWIs with a 5th Gen background - the best qualified and most experienced warfighters.

Whose expertise vastly overpowers yours and mine. The difference is that I have just enough humility to acknowledge that and to listen to those who really do know what they're talking about.

And they believe that:

1) We face a rapidly and dynamically evolving threat which will outpace any effort to meet/match/outmatch it through conventional development programmes

2) We face a critical lack of mass that we cannot overcome through the procurement of sufficient conventional platforms (the USAF needs to acquire 72 new fighters per year just to stand still).

3) That China's A2AD capabilities represent a paradigm shift that requires innovative technology, doctrine and tactics to overcome.

4) That the operating environment is becoming more highly contested, difficult and dangerous than anything we have seen before.

5) That CCAs and ACPs represent a disruptive technology that will help to address 1-4 above, helping manned platforms to do their job.

A conservative distrust of new technologies, married to a faith in the innate superiority of 'free societies' to innovate better than authoritarian ones is dim-witted, if not utterly asinine.

Your admiration for the MQ-25 (an extremely modest RPAS) is instructive.

 

[Jackonicko]

Agreed, but the killer cost is the development cost*, and the technical resource needed. It takes billions and billions to turn a powerpoint into a certificated production aircraft, and 1000s of people. We don’t have enough tbh to do our core projects, let alone add ons.

*and the running costs. Lifetime costs dwarfing development.

These will not be certificated aircraft. They will be developed quickly and cheaply using digital engineering, additive manufacturing, and other bleeding edge techniques. No human pilot will be at risk, so they won't need to be as rigorously tested as the next gen manned fighter.

Nor will they have ferocious running costs. They'll live in their crates, connected to an umbilical, and they'll fly only when needed - not for training. And they'll fly so little that they will never need a 'major overhaul' - at that point they'll be expended or stripped for their high value components.

 

[Jackonicko]

If you seriously think a UCAS is going to launch weapons and conduct EW then you are in fantasy world. Just where is the saving? Because that’s a £5 billion development program and it has taken years to add weapons to platforms and to then expand envelopes to make their utilisation effective. EW is legendearily difficult to do, and now we’re trying to make multiple platforms do it. Again, the development, test and evalauation program is beyond our resources.

EW can be done (and done cheaply) using even small expendable drones, and has already been demonstrated.

See: https://asiatimes.com/2020/10/test-of-raf-drone-swarm-seen-as-game-changer/


Most of the journalists articles I post are my own work. As to the "titbits and crumbs" I've picked up, I pick them up talking to experts. Last week, just for example, I spoke to Leonardo's GCAP campaign manager (a former student on London UAS with me!), BAE's Combat Air Strategy Director (an ex Harrier and Typhoon pilot), BAE's Director for CPAs (a former Tornado and Typhoon pilot), Rolls Royce's main engine man for GCAP, a current Typhoon test pilot, and an F-35 pilot, as well as people from Cranfield who are working on an AI dogfighting programme.

Thanks for your expert opinion as to how LO works. LO coatings may impose a maintenance burden, but LO structures, and shapes do not. Small, well designed UCAVs can be very stealthy.

They can be placed further up threat because they are harder to detect, harder to engage, and cheap enough to saturate enemy defences and you don't care if they are expended in the course of their mission.

You say that small and cheap means short ranged - the current BAE ACP concept has a radius of about 750 nm. CCAs and ACPs won't "flood your logistics and swamp your C4 ability." People have looked hard at the logistics and C4 implications.

It's hard to tell whether a Gambit (for example) is configured as a sensor platform (with a passive sensor or an LPI radar), jammer, a decoy, an AMRAAM carrier, a bomber or a SEAD platform, and the enemy may find himself facing dozens of these, while the NGADs and F-35s hang back until the defences are degraded.

 

[Purpletrouble]

These will not be certificated aircraft. They will be developed quickly and cheaply using digital engineering, additive manufacturing, and other bleeding edge techniques. No human pilot will be at risk, so they won't need to be as rigorously tested as the next gen manned fighter.

Better tell the MAA about that. Regurgitating pop phrases is unlikely to cut it but good luck anyway. Oh and enjoy the reaction when trying to convince the Seniors / SoS to own that risk. These are people whose approach to risk is best described as "averse".

As a clue, we don't certificate something just because there is a person or persons in it.

We certificate them also because there are lots and lots and lots of persons underneath it. Perhaps you need to hang on some people who certificate things before you can write about this? I don't, because I have and do.

If you doubt that, look into the Protector project. A small fortune spent certificating a system that despite there only being a slack handful was worth spending that to get round the onerous operating restrictions and risk being held. Ponder that and then come back to me about hordes of these uncertificated things being thrown around like confetti.

You may also have noticed civillian drone legislation is growing, not shrinking...

Nor will they have ferocious running costs. They'll live in their crates, connected to an umbilical, and they'll fly only when needed - not for training. And they'll fly so little that they will never need a 'major overhaul' - at that point they'll be expended or stripped for their high value components.

How do we train the manned component, or the people tasked with launching them if we never use them? Where will those people come from? What will these people do and how will they know how to service and fix them if they rarely get to do it? How will we even know what goes wrong with them and what is/isn't needed if we have no evidence from a usage database?

Air forms one part of a complex military capability. How will our land forces and naval forces train and understand what air can/cannot do if it doesnt train with them (hint this is a large component of peacetime activity in terms of flying hours).

Major overhauls are not that expensive that you redesign your system to avoid them. They are also where you put your upgrades in so unless you plan to stick with the V1 forever (which nobody does or can), you are going to be putting it into depth one way or another. Not least as maintenance of mechanical and electrical things is based on both calendar and condition. You will need to maintain these regardless of whether you use them. Just as weapons are, especially complex ones.

There is a maxim with military kit that those who use it know very well (and very painfully). If you want it to work, use it often. If you want it not to work, don't use it. Just ask anyone who has tried to take something out of even the best storage - it's always a hill to climb to get it going again - much preferable to take something used every day. This is reality vs PR, I appreciate you may think a well worded PR sentence or two will unmake that reality, safe in the knowledge you'll never have to actually deal with it.

Fortunately training for the entire system requires you use system elements frequently. Hence why ambitions of 20% live flying are as nonsensical as "break glass for war only". But even some of the seniors appear to believe that cool aid, although I dont think they atually do, they just pretend to in order to cover over cracks and try and convince the treasury they are doing something about this being a very expensive business.

Your use of the word "convince" is interesting. I'm not a journalist. I'm not ex-military turned executive whose position and bonus depend on contracts and sales. I don't need to convince anyone. I just need to make these things work to achieve outcomes, which is what I do, very, very well.

We'll put everything into doing GCAP (rightly, and that will take everything we have) and ACPs will fall by the wayside barring some of the technology going into the next generation of complex weapons (which will do more than traditional weapons do). It wont be admitted for some time yet because politics (FCAS sold in Whitehall as a system, the RN making the same mistake with its T45 replacement), but they already resemble the Norweigen Blue. File them with "everything must be uber supersonic, subsonic things need not apply", "its missiles only from now", "everything will be VSTOL, we dont need airfields anymore" or even "where we're going, we don't need roads".

Although a UCAS tanker would be very useful. Just not sexy enough to get attention.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Gotta agree with Purpletrouble on this. Those drones will have to get some flying, to get their ground crews trained to refuel and reload them and the pilots in the controller planes used to working with them.

But it'll be range trips only, not building hours for pilots. So probably 1/3 or less the flying time for the drones compared to an F35. (How often do fighters/bombers make range trips and actually drop ordnance?)

The only "wooden rounds" you have are missiles. Drones aren't that easy to work with.