4 ms·

NGAD Fighters, 1k Advanced Drones in USAF’s Future Plans

rektide 4y ago
The article says Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones don't make sense to pair with the B21 because it wouldn't make sense to have something with comparative range and payload. But I more tend to imagine something like LongShot[1], where the B-21 is a carrier for a couple limited-endurance/potentially-disposable fighter CCA, which themselves then have some anti-air missiles. The turducken system: bomber->cca->missile. To be fair, probably make a ton of sense cramming a whole extra airframe inside as payload. ;) But I think the LongShot project is a notable mention for this discussion! It's early, but these CCA seem somewhat comparable in performance/size to a regular fighter craft, also have to run the same mission. Imagining smaller is interesting to me. [1] https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11/darpas-aerial-turducken-the-longshot-still-cooking-towards-2022-milestone/ https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11/darpas-aerial-turducken-... https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/darpa-moves-general-atomics-longshot-drone-pitch-to-phase-2/ https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/darpa-moves-general-atom...
- rektide 4y ago
  I also am curious/terrified to see what happens when/if we eventually decide to modernize the A-10 warthog, or more generally what next-gen/drone-ified ground-support looks like. After the Air Force threw a fit & got the Army's incredible (but also somewhat problematic) AH-56 Cheyenne gunship canned, the Air Force has had a huge responsibility for ground support, and the Army has had some ok Apache helicopters (way less capable guns than Cheyenne). But we're definitely nearing a shift, where new things might emerge, and they all seem quite-potentially horrifying & scary. Drones in the sky fighting each other is kind of neat & cool, because it's rather abstract, up in the air. And we certainly have all manners of small missile boat drones which can do ground support, which are ghastly & terrifying & loitering, but are limited by payloads (& the high cost of their missiles). But if one really is struggling to survive fighting a hostile force, and if one does have decent air support, a couple drones with huge cannons on them seem obvious & also obviously horrifying. Or if used aggressively, Geneva convention Never Again sort of shit horrifying. I, like, wish we wouldn't ever have this discussion, wouldn't see this. Be it an AC-130, an A-10, or something smaller, there's something ultra horrifying about a more enduring support ally in the sky. Having an unmanned modernized version definitely ticks my heavens no sensibility. But it feels like it's also only a matter of time.

The article says Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones don't make sense to pair with the B21 because it wouldn't make sense to have something with comparative range and payload. But I more tend to imagine something like LongShot[1], where the B-21 is a carrier for a couple limited-endurance/potentially-disposable fighter CCA, which themselves then have some anti-air missiles. The turducken system: bomber->cca->missile. To be fair, probably make a ton of sense cramming a whole extra airframe inside as payload. ;) But I think the LongShot project is a notable mention for this discussion! It's early, but these CCA seem somewhat comparable in performance/size to a regular fighter craft, also have to run the same mission. Imagining smaller is interesting to me. [1] https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11/darpas-aerial-turducken-the-longshot-still-cooking-towards-2022-milestone/ https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11/darpas-aerial-turducken-... https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/darpa-moves-general-atomics-longshot-drone-pitch-to-phase-2/ https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/darpa-moves-general-atom...

rektide 4y ago
I also am curious/terrified to see what happens when/if we eventually decide to modernize the A-10 warthog, or more generally what next-gen/drone-ified ground-support looks like. After the Air Force threw a fit & got the Army's incredible (but also somewhat problematic) AH-56 Cheyenne gunship canned, the Air Force has had a huge responsibility for ground support, and the Army has had some ok Apache helicopters (way less capable guns than Cheyenne). But we're definitely nearing a shift, where new things might emerge, and they all seem quite-potentially horrifying & scary. Drones in the sky fighting each other is kind of neat & cool, because it's rather abstract, up in the air. And we certainly have all manners of small missile boat drones which can do ground support, which are ghastly & terrifying & loitering, but are limited by payloads (& the high cost of their missiles). But if one really is struggling to survive fighting a hostile force, and if one does have decent air support, a couple drones with huge cannons on them seem obvious & also obviously horrifying. Or if used aggressively, Geneva convention Never Again sort of shit horrifying. I, like, wish we wouldn't ever have this discussion, wouldn't see this. Be it an AC-130, an A-10, or something smaller, there's something ultra horrifying about a more enduring support ally in the sky. Having an unmanned modernized version definitely ticks my heavens no sensibility. But it feels like it's also only a matter of time.