US UAV and UCAV Technology

[TomcatViP]

Are you sure? To me the bloated ventral volume is all fuel, hence quite a descent amount for a such propulsion.

 

[VTOLicious]

Small wings, external weapons... Enough to keep up with the combat range of manned fighters?

 

[TomcatViP]

Yes, external carriage would be a nay-sayer unless they have the math for it. But are we sure the late Fury doesn´t have any wb?

 

[Explorer121]

Yes, external carriage would be a nay-sayer unless they have the math for it. But are we sure the late Fury doesn´t have any wb?

It could be primarily intended as an off board sensing station and decoy, and if they use peregrines for the external weapons it might make more sense. (Replace AMRAAM in picture with peregrine)

 

[TomcatViP]

Experts: CCA Drones Could Cost Less Than $1,200 per Pound

Contractors want Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) to cost less than $1,000 per pound, panelists said at the Air, Space & Cyber Conference.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Interesting info at the bottom of that report:

Even if CCAs were not “affordable mass,” they would be worth pursuing because they open up new tactical possibilities and allow the Air Force to “take risks we wouldn’t take with something that has a person in it.”

Kunkel noted that an experimental unit has been created at Nellis Air Force Base to put CCA technology in the hands of operators and let them experiment with it to find new possibilities for battlefield use.

“This is not a test unit, this is an operational unit. And the thought is, bring in our warfighters that have some experience with this from all different backgrounds. And not only the flyers that would actually fly and develop tactics, but also folks on the ground, so we can learn exactly what we need from an autonomy perspective.”

Also

View: https://youtu.be/opGGj1ViJos

 

[flateric]

Fury never was an OBSS platform. Changing AMRAAMS for [non-existent] Peregrines will add a little + in terms of Cx and RCS if any.

 

[Explorer121]

Fury never was an OBSS platform. Changing AMRAAMS for [non-existent] Peregrines will add a little + in terms of Cx and RCS if any.

And XQ-67 was never A2A, but here we are. This all honestly makes me feel a bit nervous about the effectiveness of increment 1, but I guess the goal here is to drive down costs as much as possible and get started on doctrine and strategy for the whole kill-web thing, not create the best possible version of it by 2040.

 

[flateric]

And XQ-67 was never A2A, but here we are.

Here? Are there any proof or statements on weapons carriage provisions for -67?

 

[Explorer121]

XQ-67 was for OBSS, but demonstrated the 'genus' system's common drone core. The Fury was a target drone/simulated enemy but integrated Anduril's Lattice AI hardware. They're both being shown off as CCA's but they were originally designed for similar but different roles. The thing that was supposed to tie them all together was the NGAD manned component, but that seems to have fallen through or been delayed. Nothing says that an airframe has to do the job it was designed for, but if it was designed for the job it's doing it'll probably do it better. I'm somewhat optimistic about the gambit system allowing GA to upgrade the airframe separately from a full procurement round.

 

[raptor82]

CCA Contract Expected in Fall; First Versions Under Construction

The Air Force is expected to award one or two Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) contracts this fall, toward fielding hardware in two years.

www.airandspaceforces.com

An industry source said AFRL also planned an Off Board Weapon Station (OBWS) program that would partner with the OBSS as a hunter-killer two-aircraft system—but that has been subsumed into the CCA effort.

 

[dark sidius]

And XQ-67 was never A2A, but here we are. This all honestly makes me feel a bit nervous about the effectiveness of increment 1, but I guess the goal here is to drive down costs as much as possible and get started on doctrine and strategy for the whole kill-web thing, not create the best possible version of it by 2040.

They must stop thinking that CCA is the holy Grail , Lockheed say thay will not survive in a contested conflict if they have not a high degre of stealth, they must put the budget on the NGAD fighter what ever it is.

 

[Hydroman]

CCA's could be tied to any platform provided the host platform has the avionics and software to support the CCA mission package(s), not just the NGAD, whenever NGAD occurs. Hopefully, the CCA mission or missions are defined well enough. CCAs will probably be available well before an NGAD contract is let.

CCA is turning out to be much smaller UCAV-type air vehicles and "potentially" attritable. Definitely for air to ground, a standoff platform type of remote interceptor or ISR potentially. I know Long Shot or the Flying Missile Rail are also other mission aspects as well.

Then you have CCA Increment II which Boeing, NG and LM will be pursuing and probably will be larger airframes with more range and payload. It will be interesting to see how these programs progress. I still believe the disruption in the NGAD decision or it's configuration still may be smoke and mirror disinformation for our enemies, there have been some very large company infrastructure projects at LM and Boeing so NGAD may more along than anyone knows.