After years of Loyal Wingman proponents trumpeting the
ability of the unmanned drone to be expendable, thus saving manned aircraft,
the Air Force now says that the drone is not expendable.
As the Air Force notes,
_______________________________
The push for affordability “doesn’t mean… that this is an attritable type of platform,” Jobe [Maj. Gen. R. Scott Jobe], Director of Plans, Programs, and Requirements at Air Combat Command, said during a panel at the Air and Space Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium. “That’s a common misconception.”[1]Simple logic dictates that if the drone is not going to be expendable then it will have to be extremely capable, meaning on par with modern 5th generation fighters, in order to survive. If they aren’t equally capable, they won’t survive. Of course, simple logic also dictates that if they’re on par with 5th generation fighters, they’ll cost what 5th generation fighters cost and that violates another commonly touted characteristic: affordability.
Officials said a careful balance must be struck between their affordability and capability.[1]Of course, when was the last time the military was able to strike an appropriate balance between affordability and capability? Let me repeat … if you want survivability, you need 5th generation capability and that means 5th generation cost. This is pretty elementary logic.
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/cca-fighter-wingmen-drones-wont-be-attritable-despite-common-misconception-general/
I wonder how many F-22s could be purchased for the cost of this program?
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
Good question. A pity the Pentagon decided to close that production line, just as China test flew the J-20 and demonstrated we need more F-22s than we thought we needed. What's worse, the Pentagon's refusal to restart that production line, meant what F-22s we do have will never be upgraded to the level necessary to overmatch the J-20, while the latter will definitely get the necessary upgrades to overmatch the F-22.
Delete"On a closely related note, why have we already committed to a production run of at least a thousand drones before we’ve demonstrated the first proof of combat effectiveness?"
ReplyDeleteWell, when I was in industry, we had a saying that might be relevant: "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over"
"On a closely related note, why have we already committed to a production run of at least a thousand drones before we’ve demonstrated the first proof of combat effectiveness?"
ReplyDeleteCuz that's how they roll. They're adjusting the concept to fit what's been built, rather than building to the concept.
"On a closely related note, why have we already committed to a production run of at least a thousand drones before we’ve demonstrated the first proof of combat effectiveness?"
ReplyDeleteBecause the priority is to pay a contract with public funds, not create effective weapons.
Lutefisk
Much quicker way to explore the Combat UAV would be to take a couple squadrons worth of QF-16s, upgrade them to be combat worthy, and see how they do.
ReplyDeleteThe USAF and USN should've thought of this before wasting billions on immature technology.
DeleteThe Air Force never learned a lesson we see, as being hamstrung with sub 200 f-22 fighters, the value of which has been shown to be through the roof (sadly especially when you realize half are in maintenance), the Air Force comes out wanting 200, potentially less than their b-21 bomber, so let's repeat the failure and then depend on drones that don't remotely exist. meanwhile let's throw 5 billion plus into hypersonics, and we have what, no missiles even yet? Add in AETP engines that spent a huge sum to deliver none and you get why the military has shrunk and yet everything is over the horizon.
ReplyDeleteThey're gonna "f" this up. Count on it.
ReplyDeleteWhat starts of as simple and inexpensive ends in colossal cost and schedule overruns.