CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[Kirkhill]

Click to expand...

F35 or StormShadow / Scalp / Taurus / LRASM etc

When faced with buying decisions and buying 100 F35s how many expensive F35s can be sacrificed to buy expensive loitering UAVs like these?

Yes the UAVs cost 3 million a piece and they are only used once.

And the F35s cost 100 million a piece but are used many times over. Hopefully. If the enemy co-operates.

But the F35 requires maintenance to offset the constant wear and tear caused by keeping the pilots and ground crew ready to fly. Which causes wear and tear on the ground crews and the pilots which have to be refreshed, which requires wear and tear on runways, barracks and runways etc.

The UAV sits on the shelf in a warehouse with no wear and tear and only requires an annual check up.

Sacrifice one F35 for 20 years and assume a 3:1 Operations to Capital Ratio and 1 F35 costs not 100 million but 400 million.

That 400 milllion buys you 100-150 UAVs that can be delivered by F35s, F18s, P8s, C130 or Ground Launcher

USAF hits maritime target with cruise missile launched from C-130​

The US Air Force has hit a target with a cruise missile launched from the ramp of a cargo aircraft for the first time as part of its Rapid Dragon programme.

www.flightglobal.com

Lockheed Martin Demonstrates LRASM Launch Capability from Topside Canister​

Lockheed Martin Demonstrates LRASM Launch Capability from Topside Canister
www.navyrecognition.com

AGM-158C LRASM - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

AGM-158 JASSM - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

Storm Shadow - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

KEPD 350 - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

Harpoon (missile) - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org


Stick a parachute on it and your 3 million dollar loitering munition becomes a reusable UAV launchable from anywhere.

And it requires neither a job for the spouse, a school for the kids or a pension plan.

 

[lenaitch]

F35 or StormShadow / Scalp / Taurus / LRASM etc

When faced with buying decisions and buying 100 F35s how many expensive F35s can be sacrificed to buy expensive loitering UAVs like these?

Yes the UAVs cost 3 million a piece and they are only used once.

And the F35s cost 100 million a piece but are used many times over. Hopefully. If the enemy co-operates.

But the F35 requires maintenance to offset the constant wear and tear caused by keeping the pilots and ground crew ready to fly. Which causes wear and tear on the ground crews and the pilots which have to be refreshed, which requires wear and tear on runways, barracks and runways etc.

The UAV sits on the shelf in a warehouse with no wear and tear and only requires an annual check up.

Sacrifice one F35 for 20 years and assume a 3:1 Operations to Capital Ratio and 1 F35 costs not 100 million but 400 million.

That 400 milllion buys you 100-150 UAVs that can be delivered by F35s, F18s, P8s, C130 or Ground Launcher

USAF hits maritime target with cruise missile launched from C-130​

The US Air Force has hit a target with a cruise missile launched from the ramp of a cargo aircraft for the first time as part of its Rapid Dragon programme.

www.flightglobal.com

Lockheed Martin Demonstrates LRASM Launch Capability from Topside Canister​

Lockheed Martin Demonstrates LRASM Launch Capability from Topside Canister
www.navyrecognition.com

AGM-158C LRASM - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

AGM-158 JASSM - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

Storm Shadow - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

KEPD 350 - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

Harpoon (missile) - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org


Stick a parachute on it and your 3 million dollar loitering munition becomes a reusable UAV launchable from anywhere.

And it requires neither a job for the spouse, a school for the kids or a pension plan.

Provided it lands on accessible and friendly ground.

Unless you are talking autonomy, somebody has to fly them, from somewhere, using a datalink that hasn't been compromised.

 

[YZT580]

Provided it lands on accessible and friendly ground.

Unless you are talking autonomy, somebody has to fly them, from somewhere, using a datalink that hasn't been compromised.

and compromised is the operative word. Russia has been spoofing GPS for years now. INS is self-contained but prone to unacceptable error over a prolonged flight so it needs updating periodically which again will provide opportunities for jamming or spoofing. Autonomous has the disadvantage in that once it is launched, there is no turning back unless you have provided a back channel: possibility of jamming then steps in. Much depends upon whether your systems have been compromised or not and both Russia and China have spent a lot of money on electronic eavesdropping.

 

[Quirky]

Unless you are talking autonomy, somebody has to fly them, from somewhere, using a datalink that hasn't been compromised.

Taking working from home to a different level. Wake-up, make some coffee, self-brief, fire-up your Thrustmaster and drop a couple GBUs on the other side of the world all while sitting at home in your underwear.

 

[Kirkhill]

Provided it lands on accessible and friendly ground.

Unless you are talking autonomy, somebody has to fly them, from somewhere, using a datalink that hasn't been compromised.

Those cruise missiles are no different than these UAVv. They are turbojet powered aircraft launched by rocket boosters.

For navigation they fly pre-programmed courses which can be entered on the ground, in the air prior to launch by a mother ship or in flight.

Yes they can fly GPS through out the flight but, with the right technology, they can fly INS to get close enough for Millimeter Wave Radar to locate targets and discriminate between good and bad. That technology has been around since the 80s with the Merlin round for the 81mm mortar and the DAMASK seeker for aerial bombs. Brimstone uses the technology to permit salvo launches by Typhoons from 30 km. No designators.

Merlin smart mortar round

I haven't found a lot of info regarding this project. It first intrigued when I read about in BSP4. So I started browsing the web. Global Defence had this to say: The British Royal Ordnance 81mm Merlin millimetric radar guided round was one of the first- generation smart mortar rounds. It was...

www.secretprojects.co.uk

Direct Attack Munition Affordable Seeker [DAMASK]

www.globalsecurity.org

Brimstone (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Brimstone is a "fire-and-forget" missile, which is loaded with targeting data by the weapon systems officer (WSO) prior to launch. It is programmable to adapt to particular mission requirements. This capability includes the ability to find targets within a certain area (such as those near friendly forces), and to self-destruct if it is unable to find a target within the designated area.

In addition to the semi-autonomous ability to decide its own targets, the Brimstone has the capacity to determine where on a target to best impact causing the most damage. The missile's advanced sensor package includes its extremely high frequency millimetric wave radar, which allows the weapon to image the target and hence choose a target location. With as many as twenty-four missiles in the air, the missile's targeting system also required an algorithm to ensure that missiles hit their targets in a staggered order, rather than all simultaneously.

Brimstone can be fired in a number of attack profiles; direct or indirect against single targets, a column of targets or against an array of targets. The latter utilises a salvo attack capability for multiple kills per engagement. Once launched, the platform is free to manoeuvre away from the target area or engage other targets.[22]

Here's Why This New Mysterious Air Force Drone Contract Is A Big Deal (Updated)

The Off-Board Sensing Station combat drone, which will use a normal runway, focuses on affordability with an eye toward large-scale production.

www.thedrive.com

And if it does get shot down over inaccessible or unfriendly ground then at least there won't be a pilot that has to be recovered, and a CSAR team at risk.

 

[KevinB]

And if it does get shot down over inaccessible or unfriendly ground then at least there won't be a pilot that has to be recovered, and a CSAR team at risk.

I would suggest that you are dismissing the advantages of having a pilot in the chair to make judgements based on their experience at the moment in time.
Now those pilots ideally would have a lot of assets in hand and expendable Uncrewed systems to ‘take one for the team’ if need be, but I see those system you listed above as complementary to the Piloted Aircraft, not as a replacement.

 

[OldSolduer]

I would suggest that you are dismissing the advantages of having a pilot in the chair to make judgements based on their experience at the moment in time.
Now those pilots ideally would have a lot of assets in hand and expendable Uncrewed systems to ‘take one for the team’ if need be, but I see those system you listed above as complementary to the Piloted Aircraft, not as a replacement.

IMO piloted A/C will be needed for the reasons you just mentioned. Same with tank crews, etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

I would suggest that you are dismissing the advantages of having a pilot in the chair to make judgements based on their experience at the moment in time.
Now those pilots ideally would have a lot of assets in hand and expendable Uncrewed systems to ‘take one for the team’ if need be, but I see those system you listed above as complementary to the Piloted Aircraft, not as a replacement.

IMO piloted A/C will be needed for the reasons you just mentioned. Same with tank crews, etc.

I am not dismissing the value of the Mark One Eyeball. Nor am I dismissing the need for getting those eyes forwards. There will always be a need for closing with the enemy. But how many brave pilots and tank crews need to be sacrificed closing with well defended, well stocked, well supplied, well prepared defensive positions?

Why wouldn't you starting knocking off the known knowns as quickly as possible?
Why wouldn't you do it from stand-off distances if you can?
Why wouldn't you let the support do as much as it can before you close?

That way you reduce the number of pilots and tank crews at risk.
And the piloted aircraft and crewed tanks can be spread out and made more effective over a broader front.

I am not calling for penny packeting. That suggests that every section commander gets his own tank and every company commander gets his own helo and that both of them get to control those vehicles.

I'm looking at Ukraine and saying that the Tank Regiment's frontage is being extended by an order of magnitude. Not 5 km but 50 km.
Those troops are operating while relying on long range fire support rather than mutual support from their own regiment's guns. That support comes from people in pickup trucks flying Quadcopters and calling in Brimstone salvos on concentrations of enemy tanks and HIMARs and Stormshadow strikes on C2 and Log concentrations.

Mark One eyeballs, and the brains they are attached to, are always going to be the deciding factor. The Quadcopter continues the evolution of the telescope, the binoculars, the range finder and the periscope. It allows more to be seen without being seen.

The Quadcopter also does what the rifle, the minie ball, smokeless powder, the scope and EOs do. It allows more to killed from farther away.

And when you can push those capabilities all the way forwards to the front trenches then you keep the enemy farther away from your front trenches.

The more killing your support can do while drinking coffee in their pyjamas and fluffy slippers the less need their is for your own forces to get out of the trenches and advance to contact where the enemy gets an opportunity to engage you with effective fire.

 

[GR66]

I am not dismissing the value of the Mark One Eyeball. Nor am I dismissing the need for getting those eyes forwards. There will always be a need for closing with the enemy. But how many brave pilots and tank crews need to be sacrificed closing with well defended, well stocked, well supplied, well prepared defensive positions?

Why wouldn't you starting knocking off the known knowns as quickly as possible?
Why wouldn't you do it from stand-off distances if you can?
Why wouldn't you let the support do as much as it can before you close?

That way you reduce the number of pilots and tank crews at risk.
And the piloted aircraft and crewed tanks can be spread out and made more effective over a broader front.

I am not calling for penny packeting. That suggests that every section commander gets his own tank and every company commander gets his own helo and that both of them get to control those vehicles.

I'm looking at Ukraine and saying that the Tank Regiment's frontage is being extended by an order of magnitude. Not 5 km but 50 km.
Those troops are operating while relying on long range fire support rather than mutual support from their own regiment's guns. That support comes from people in pickup trucks flying Quadcopters and calling in Brimstone salvos on concentrations of enemy tanks and HIMARs and Stormshadow strikes on C2 and Log concentrations.

Mark One eyeballs, and the brains they are attached to, are always going to be the deciding factor. The Quadcopter continues the evolution of the telescope, the binoculars, the range finder and the periscope. It allows more to be seen without being seen.

The Quadcopter also does what the rifle, the minie ball, smokeless powder, the scope and EOs do. It allows more to killed from farther away.

And when you can push those capabilities all the way forwards to the front trenches then you keep the enemy farther away from your front trenches.

The more killing your support can do while drinking coffee in their pyjamas and fluffy slippers the less need their is for your own forces to get out of the trenches and advance to contact where the enemy gets an opportunity to engage you with effective fire.

As noted one type of platform can't replace another. It's a system of systems that complement each other. The side with the advantage could quite possibly be the one that has the better overall system rather than the better individual platforms. One could argue that was the case with the German Army in 1940. They didn't have the best tanks or aircraft, etc. but the system they put together allowed them to defeat a better armed enemy.

Both manned and unmanned systems are necessary parts of the system. I think with current technology that unmanned systems are best used/most useful when enemy dispositions are not clearly defined and therefore the threats posed against your own forces are not clear. Let the early attrition of your forces (the losses that happen before the enemy threat/disposition is clearly defined) come to your unmanned elements.

As your picture of the enemy becomes clearer and clearer you can better tailor your specific force composition to face the specific threat in a way that minimizes your own losses and maximizes the desired effects on the enemy. At this point manned (including remotely manned) forces will likely be most prevalent as humans I believe are still more intuitive and flexible in rapid decision making than autonomous systems. Will AI eventually reach a point that this is no longer the case? Who knows.

The question is, are we thinking enough about our overall "system" (doctrine) with these ideas in mind, or are we more focused on the individual elements within that system?

 

[Kirkhill]

As noted one type of platform can't replace another. It's a system of systems that complement each other. The side with the advantage could quite possibly be the one that has the better overall system rather than the better individual platforms. One could argue that was the case with the German Army in 1940. They didn't have the best tanks or aircraft, etc. but the system they put together allowed them to defeat a better armed enemy.

Both manned and unmanned systems are necessary parts of the system. I think with current technology that unmanned systems are best used/most useful when enemy dispositions are not clearly defined and therefore the threats posed against your own forces are not clear. Let the early attrition of your forces (the losses that happen before the enemy threat/disposition is clearly defined) come to your unmanned elements.

As your picture of the enemy becomes clearer and clearer you can better tailor your specific force composition to face the specific threat in a way that minimizes your own losses and maximizes the desired effects on the enemy. At this point manned (including remotely manned) forces will likely be most prevalent as humans I believe are still more intuitive and flexible in rapid decision making than autonomous systems. Will AI eventually reach a point that this is no longer the case? Who knows.

The question is, are we thinking enough about our overall "system" (doctrine) with these ideas in mind, or are we more focused on the individual elements within that system?

I can see a single platform being used in a variety of roles.

Inhabited and Piloted
Remotely Piloted
Autonomous
Inhabited

And perhaps the inhabitant has command, if not control.

Scenarios -

Pilot is a Pilot and flies and fights his aircraft from the ejector seat.
Pilot is an operator and flies and fights his aircraft from an accompanying aircraft, the launching carrier, or a Pentagon desk.
There is no pilot and the aircraft flies autonomously
There is no pilot on board but there is a infantry Major getting a good look at the battlefield. The pilot is back at the airfield.

Or, in a serious slingshot operation against an extremely high value target a KC-10 refuels an MQ-25 and an F-35. MQ-25 keeps the F-35 in the air as long as it can and sacrifices itself by transferring every drop of gas it has. The F-35 uses every drop of gas it has to reach its launch point where it releases its JASSM-ERs and MALDs and thunders in.

The missiles have a range of 900 km

The F-35 has a one way range of about 2500 km with weapons on internal fuel

• Range: 1,500 nmi (1,700 mi, 2,800 km)
• Combat range:669 nmi (770 mi, 1,239 km) on internal fuel
• Fuel capacity: 18,250 lb (8,278 kg) internal

The MQ-25 has a one way range of about 1800 km when delivering another tank of gas to the F-35, effectively doubling its one way range from 2500 km to something like 5000 km. Add in the 900 km missiles and you are looking at a 6000 km strike mission starting the point at which the KC-10 can safely operate. And it is a 10 to 12 hour mission.

A Hypersonic Intermediate Range missile can get you about half that distance, up to 2500 km in 7 or 8 minutes.

Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

AGM-158 JASSM - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

ADM-160 MALD - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Boeing MQ-25 Stingray - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extender - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

Anchorage to Moscow Flight Time, Distance, Route Map

Flight Time from Anchorage to Moscow, Flight Distance Between Anchorage, United States and Moscow, Russia, Flight Duration, Anchorage to Moscow Flight Route Map

www.airportdistancecalculator.com

 

[Good2Golf]

IMO piloted A/C will be needed for the reasons you just mentioned. Same with tank crews, etc.

Drones do a horrible job bragging about themselves at a bar…or funeral, even…

 

[Fishbone Jones]

OK, that was pretty friggin' funny. The situational awareness is spot on!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Did we ever put any of our Aussie garage sales planes into service? Or are they sitting in a field covered in shrink wrap?

 

[dapaterson]

Did we ever put any of our Aussie garage sales planes into service? Or are they sitting in a field covered in shrink wrap?

In service, and flying operationally.

 

[armrdsoul77]

L3Harris delivers first aircraft of Hornet Extension Project - Skies Mag

 

[Quirky]

Makes me wonder how mich longer they’ll keep them operational once all 88 F-35s are delivered.

 

[KevinB]

Makes me wonder how mich longer they’ll keep them operational once all 88 F-35s are delivered.

I’ll still be flabbergasted if they are still flying by then…

 

[dimsum]

I’ll still be flabbergasted if they are still flying by then…

We're still flying Tutors.

 

[KevinB]

We're still flying Tutors.

Point taken.