Designs: Systems of Drone Air superiority

[shin_getter]

As we know, drone air combat is currently being developed at a rapid rate, and it is a good time to speculate and form designs for drone air superiority aircraft.

The main lesson from drone air combat is that air combat works with different tiers and there is no universal air superiority aircraft that can cover everything that flies. As such, the first task is to break down coverage into different aircraft types:

Personally, I see the following categories in a air superiority role:
1. Tail sitter EVTOL with gun. (manpack-able) Leveraging electric aircraft's extremely low operating and production costs, VTOL capability and agility while maximizing speed and efficiency. It is hard to imagine another long range projectile or vehicle having significantly lower costs that can defeat such a vehicle.

2. Microturbojet RATO with gun. (launched from large pickup bed to 10ton truck) Electric aircraft is limited in stored energy, flying above its envelope is a logical way to bypass defense based on it. With very cheap medium and high attitude aircraft (perhaps air launched to cut engine and fuel requirements) it can be close to or cheaper than traditional rocket powered medium and high attitude missiles, and as such a reusable solution would be needed.

3. Low Observable Small Turbojet with high subsonic speed with 1 BVRAAM in payload bay. Previous class of drones generally do not threaten high performance targets, however this category can. In a lot of cases would operate with micromissiles to target smaller drones.

4. Traditionally scaled fighter aircraft, which may or may not be manned

Other, vehicles I'd expect in this air warfare environment:
1. Low cost attritable cost penetrating medium/high attitude recon/strike (see #2)
2. High-payload-Fast specialized "glide range booster" Cutting on board sensors/compute/agility/defensive systems for payload throughput.
3. VLO passive sensor craft operating on standoff supporting command and control of air war
4. Radar Emitter aircraft (separated out in its own role due to being more threatened: either attritable or packed with defenses)
5. DEW specialized aircraft (unique requirements and high cost of DEW means it probably need an airframe built around it)

So what do you think are the air platforms needed for air superiority in the drone age?

 

[Scott Kenny]

So what do you think are the air platforms needed for air superiority in the drone age?

In general, I think we're going to see EVTOL fighter drones as a thing. Probably ~10lbs payload, just big enough to carry a pair of MP7s or P90s; and their sensor is a wide FOV EO eyeball, maybe even comparable to the F35 DAS. Their targets are FPVs and ATGM-sized loitering munitions. Probably have 1-3 of these per squad of infantry. The wide FOV EO also helps with infantry scouting and situational awareness, but these are intended to be working Air Superiority. The grunts would have smaller drones for recon.

I'm doubting the microjet size would happen at all. I think it would be cheaper to build more of the Minijet (call it Q-58 sized) and arm with several packs of APKWS for the "flying over EVTOL altitudes" missions, or a pair of AAMs for larger targets. If we're trying to get this right with the first iteration, I'd make it have space for 1-2 BVRAAM and a pair of 7-shot APKWS pods (or built-in APKWS tubes in the bay doors). This is mostly because any drone big enough to get above EVTOL heights is likely going to take a lot of rifle-caliber shooting to knock down, but a single APKWS will do the job.

Traditional fighter-sized drones are assumed to happen, my guess on desired CCA end-state is for one manned plane to be able to control an entire fighter sweep or strike package. Probably starting at one manned plane with 3x CCA wingmen, so a single squadron is functionally closer to a wing in capability, USAF side. USN/USMC side they have maybe half the pilots in a typical Carrier Air Wing of today.

===========================
Low cost attritable recon/strike? So, Predator/Reaper? Probably. Need people whose attitude on hearing about one getting shot down is the Jeremy Clarkson "Oh no. So, anyways..." They'd need basic LO shaping and internal weapons, or else you have Houthis blowing them out of the sky.

Not exactly sure about a "bomber" drone. I mean, yes, the Army CAS will have such "flying spear carriers" to pack all the Hellfires etc. The USAF has not been talking about a bomber CCA.

I'm not sure about a VLO sensorcraft for air superiority, but I am absolutely expecting them for ground attack. It'd be a BSAX/TACIT BLUE type providing data to the Army's artillery and Air support. Possibly built on an AGM-158 airframe for stealth, and either catapult or RATO launched from the ground. I'm assuming Army controlled, with Army kicking USAF out of the Close Air Support business entirely. USAF keeps the Battlefield Air Interdiction role.

I think the AEW/radar emitter is going to be packed with defenses, because the radar proper is too expensive to be attritable.

We might eventually see DEW-armed aircraft, but I think it's going to take a while. We need another generational leap in laser/HPMW power density. Also, a DEW-armed aircraft would still need to get relatively close to the target to get enough energy on target. It'd just not need to get into a dogfight. I expect that you'd have the DEW set up to roll the airframe out of the way while it's shooting.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is slightly off-topic, but it's still "where I see drones/CCAs developing"

Army side:
Individual squads, maybe even individual fireteams, have their own fighter drone, plus tiny recon drones.
Platoons and Companies have loitering munitions and recon drones.
Battalion has recon drones like Gray Eagles.
Brigade owns the CAS and Attack Helos (which may be merged, or may be two separate battalions).

Army CAS has a drone quarterback in whatever replaces the Apache (probably a skinny-fuselage V280). The quarterback has a gun for those times troops are within danger close. There is a VLO recon drone or two orbiting overhead, in the BSAX/TACIT BLUE role, providing radar targeting data for artillery and the CAS drones. The CAS drones may be as big as an Apache/replacement, packing ~8x ATGMs or ALEs, ~38x APKWS, and a pair of small fast ARMs like Sidearms. I'm expecting the quarterback and CAS drones to be tiltrotors, not helicopters, but UCAR might make a return.

Air Force tactical CCAs, as I mentioned in my previous post, are built around the idea of a single manned fighter quarterbacking the entire strike package, on the level of a full squadron or more of CCAs per quarterback. Quarterback and a trio of fighter CCAs for air cover, at least 4x strike CCAs for the mission, a couple of VLO recon birds for pre/post strike, plus a stand-in EW CCA or two with ARMs. I expect the fighter CCAs to have about the same radar return as the quarterback, even if they're physically smaller aircraft. Strike CCA and stand-in EW CCA could share the same airframe, they both need to carry 2-4x weapons the size of AARGM-ERs.

I think that the USArmy and USAF VLO recon bird will not be the same design, because the Army doesn't need the same range as the USAF. The Army recon bird could be as simple as a modified AGM-158 airframe, with a radar installed in place of the warhead and a recovery system added, and I'd expect it to look a lot like the AGM158 or TACIT BLUE anyways. I'd expect the USAF bird to be a flying wing.

Air Force strategic CCAs are likely to be two options. One is a subsonic VLO extreme altitude recon bird like a U2, but intended for penetrating into defended airspace to find the road-mobile ICBMs. The other is a supersonic (V)LO extreme altitude recon like the SR-71, but probably only M2.5ish cruise to reduce themal signature. So that when it launches at the same time as the B-21s, it can get ahead of them. The supersonic bird may not be VLO, but I'm sure the USAF would prefer it to be. Tankers may end up as drones as well.

US Navy CCAs. The Navy can't go as deep into CCAs as the USAF because the Navy has limited space on the flight deck. So I'm leaning towards a flip of the USAF tactical package: Quarterback with the strike CCAs, flights of fighter CCAs without a manned plane, stand-in EW CCA with some ARMs, VLO recon for BDA, unmanned tankers.

I expect pretty much all militaries to organize about like the Army and Air force writeups. I'm not sure how the PLANAF carrier wings will end up, they're writing their own doctrine.

 

[Null]

I think it would be the unmanned Su-75 for point number 4 or any country pursuing the same thing might find similar solutions the Russians might be implementing on their own large UAV project.

By default, an unmanned stealth aircraft will always have far superior stealth than a manned stealth aircraft in air superiority because of the absence of a cockpit and cockpits offer a lot of surface area. Also, stealth UAVs would get more aircraft fuel storage that could be used for further flights since the replacement of no cockpits. Maneuverability is still important to position your aircrafts at a better stealth angle in comparison to the adversary aircraft so with the absence of a pilot and depending how good the body of the aircraft is, it can perform maneuvers with G-loads a human can't handle regardless of special suits used.
However, with the recent crash of the Su-70, a lot of difficulty for a supersonic stealth aircraft to function properly before hitting the production stage will push dates far back but exactly how far back can we estimate the time frame.

Electronic systems the Russians are developing and need in order to achieve a functional supersonic stealth UAV for set production.

1. https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/11935661 https://vz-nn.ru/news/promyshlennost/60404/?ysclid=m9dqo0835d622890999
Currently the S-111 is stated to use 1,500 km communication range in HF-VHF frequency but data rate bit exchange is unknown. The same company Polet that made the S-111 made a breakthrough last year that makes communication possible at a 6,000 km range to be handled with better noise immunity and reliability. This would allow an airbase or another aircraft, drone to communicate with the Su-75 for mission planning on what actions to take.

2. https://tass.com/science/1932217 https://tass.com/science/1905195 https://russianelectronics.ru/2025-03-13-mfti/
Major satellite production is ensured to happen between this year to 2030 and funding is taking place to allow satellites to communicate with UAVs. The third article states electric propulsion engines for microsatellites and using AESA arrays for communication.

3. https://nauka.tass.ru/nauka/23616409?ysclid=m9abs197e5725330368 https://www.cnews.ru/news/top/2024-08-30_v_rossii_sozdali_analogovogo?ysclid=m9dsui34zl682254280
A photonic computer is to be created in 2027 and such computers allow processing speeds in finding solutions to problems 100-1000 times faster than traditional computers using GPU/CPUs. Can recognize and classify objects in a live video stream 100's of times faster than current computers. Based on the performance of the avionics used on aircrafts it can use such data to classify targets and its own decision making based on the data it received.

4.https://new.skoltech.ru/news/startap-skolteha-fisteh-vpervye-v-rossii-proizvyol-i-protestiroval-fotonnye-chipy?ysclid=m8z6mhs1rh621244314 https://russianelectronics.ru/programmiruemyj-fotonnyj-chip-na-osnove-niobata-litiya/
Russia and Hong Kong have proven that photonic radars operating at frequencies higher than X-band and using 6G network requirements work using photonic integrated chips, along with high protection from interference. Photonic radars can process radar data through graphic images than the traditional dot on screen and the processing of those graphical images through live feed data would allow the photonic computer to make a decision or communicate to make a decision on how it will handle a task.

I am looking at 2030-2040 for the testing and production phase for the unmanned Su-75s but no idea what progress other countries have made to ensure they would operate a supersonic stealth UAV or what measures they have taken to offer better control for their UAV projects/

 

[shin_getter]

I'm doubting the microjet size would happen at all. I think it would be cheaper to build more of the Minijet (call it Q-58 sized)

Microjet is sized to match around Iranian 358 missile which can be organic to ground formations. A Q-58 scaled asset is too big to hide in formations of tactical vehicles and also have ranges that makes it a theater asset that would logically be centrally controlled.

Large numbers of APKWS is also over kill against infiltration attempts by single aircraft. Larger number of aircraft can cover the front better. Larger assets with large ammo load would be held in reserve to counter swarm/mass attacks.

It would be there to counter the likes of orlan-10 (costs like $80k base)/scaneagle/V-bat/etc fitted with standoff sensors or speed/range upgrade to avoid "FPV" interceptors. Sure with long range sensors the field of view would be awful in return on a platform that cheap, but without low cost drones it would be difficult to stop as even SAMs are too expensive.

I'm not sure about a VLO sensorcraft for air superiority, but I am absolutely expecting them for ground attack.

Without Aerial sensors, cruise missiles as primitive as cessnas can do the job. AEW with active radar is a hard target to protect, as seen in Russio-Ukraine war even against a inferior opponent, while passive sensors should be fairly safe.

That VLO passive sensorcraft is also useful for ground attack is a bonus. I do expect a flying wing form factor for endurance though.

We might eventually see DEW-armed aircraft, but I think it's going to take a while. We need another generational leap in laser/HPMW power density. Also, a DEW-armed aircraft would still need to get relatively close to the target to get enough energy on target. It'd just not need to get into a dogfight. I expect that you'd have the DEW set up to roll the airframe out of the way while it's shooting.

DEW would mostly be either defensive covering force multipliers like AEW/tankers or in operations like "close air support."

People talk about close air support as ability to kill someone with a machinegun, but everything with a micro-PGM can do it and machineguns generally suppresses and doesn't actually kill that much. What is really needed in the modern is something to kill all the drones and missiles that opponents would throw at a land force to kill them.

Sure it might be throwing hundreds of millions at at opponents spending merely thousands, but I mean, the afghan war happened right.

Army CAS has a drone quarterback in whatever replaces the Apache (probably a skinny-fuselage V280). The quarterback has a gun for those times troops are within danger close.

There'd be swarms of air superiority drones with a gun for just about any op above the squad level and they can just strafe.

And why baddies would be within danger close when even drug gangs are adapting drone warfare. Or more correctly, attack heli autocannon can not stop a robot missile crashing into friendlies at 300kph+, maybe DEW can disable it fast enough.

The CAS drones may be as big as an Apache/replacement, packing ~8x ATGMs or ALEs, ~38x APKWS, and a pair of small fast ARMs like Sidearms.

It is unclear why one would want an aircraft with large warload instead of lots of cheap aircraft with small warload. With lighter aircraft, even light and compact launch and recovery gear enables a conventional (non-VTOL) configuration with good range and speed, and you can have swarms that each carry a single "ATGM", but no one really should care about anti-tank anymore, what is really needed is air defense suppression missile (including anti-EOIR/anti-weapon), after which air defense suppression is inflicted you can land copters on top of tanks to demand surrender.

Air Force tactical CCAs

Personally I think loyal wingmans currently shown is all quite conservative and would end up as bomb/missile trucks and pickets in a peer fight. They just don't have the speed/energy/sensors to do particularly much on their own.

In the spirit of this forum, I do wonder about a new generation of high, fast and superhumanly agile aircraft that kinematically challenges missiles. The existence of reusable rocketry suggests even more radical ideas....

 

[Scott Kenny]

Microjet is sized to match around Iranian 358 missile which can be organic to ground formations. A Q-58 scaled asset is too big to hide in formations of tactical vehicles and also have ranges that makes it a theater asset that would logically be centrally controlled.

Correct. A Q-58 is big enough to be a battalion or brigade asset, not a platoon/company asset. And Brigade is currently where all Army Aviation assets are organized, both attack helicopters and transports plus Gray Eagles.

Large numbers of APKWS is also over kill against infiltration attempts by single aircraft. Larger number of aircraft can cover the front better. Larger assets with large ammo load would be held in reserve to counter swarm/mass attacks.

I'm only expecting it to expend a single APKWS per drone intercept, the deep magazine is because I expect it to operate in a cab rank overhead.

It would be there to counter the likes of orlan-10 (costs like $80k base)/scaneagle/V-bat/etc fitted with standoff sensors or speed/range upgrade to avoid "FPV" interceptors. Sure with long range sensors the field of view would be awful in return on a platform that cheap, but without low cost drones it would be difficult to stop as even SAMs are too expensive.

If the EVTOLs armed with guns can't take those down, there's a problem.

Without Aerial sensors, cruise missiles as primitive as cessnas can do the job. AEW with active radar is a hard target to protect, as seen in Russio-Ukraine war even against a inferior opponent, while passive sensors should be fairly safe.

I'm not sure how effective passive RF sensors would be versus modern aircraft (5th and 6th generation stuff).

An LPI air-search radar would probably be better for that job.

That VLO passive sensorcraft is also useful for ground attack is a bonus. I do expect a flying wing form factor for endurance though.

The attempts to install both AWACS and JSTARS on the same airframe had significant issues with EM interference between the two antennas.

And yes, VLO+long range = flying wing in terms of Form Factor. The BSAX was only talking about a 600nmi range, though, so what amounts to a glorified JASSM airframe would do the job.

DEW would mostly be either defensive covering force multipliers like AEW/tankers or in operations like "close air support."

Still needs another order of magnitude better power density right now.

People talk about close air support as ability to kill someone with a machinegun, but everything with a micro-PGM can do it and machineguns generally suppresses and doesn't actually kill that much. What is really needed in the modern is something to kill all the drones and missiles that opponents would throw at a land force to kill them.

Sure it might be throwing hundreds of millions at at opponents spending merely thousands, but I mean, the afghan war happened right.

CAS is attacking via air when the enemy is within firefight range. 300m or less. You can't drop a 2000lb bomb on someone when they're that close. I'm not sure you should be dropping 250lb bombs that close.

Crud, even a 40mm grenade has a 150m danger close range to it.

20x102mm was chosen because it outranged every AA gun up to and including 23mm. I believe that 30x113 has a similar range (less shell velocity, bigger shell). 30x173mm has a 65m danger close range.

There'd be swarms of air superiority drones with a gun for just about any op above the squad level and they can just strafe.

Like I said, I'm expecting 1-3 air superiority drones per squad as is. Problem is, any drone strafing is one that needs to be reloaded and is one that is unavailable for air superiority.

The catch is that a modern machine gun is a heavy load to carry. ~8kg (or more, M240B is 12.5kg), plus ammo. 800 rounds of linked 7.62x51 is 50lbs/22.5kg. Total load with a single gun is 30-35kg.

And why baddies would be within danger close when even drug gangs are adapting drone warfare. Or more correctly, attack heli autocannon can not stop a robot missile crashing into friendlies at 300kph+, maybe DEW can disable it fast enough.

If we have working anti-drone defenses, we have a requirement to get humans up close and personal.

It is unclear why one would want an aircraft with large warload instead of lots of cheap aircraft with small warload. With lighter aircraft, even light and compact launch and recovery gear enables a conventional (non-VTOL) configuration with good range and speed, and you can have swarms that each carry a single "ATGM", but no one really should care about anti-tank anymore, what is really needed is air defense suppression missile (including anti-EOIR/anti-weapon), after which air defense suppression is inflicted you can land copters on top of tanks to demand surrender.

Range/loiter time.

Personally I think loyal wingmans currently shown is all quite conservative and would end up as bomb/missile trucks and pickets in a peer fight. They just don't have the speed/energy/sensors to do particularly much on their own.

Exactly the problem, but making something better raises the costs and makes it hard to afford many of them.

In the spirit of this forum, I do wonder about a new generation of high, fast and superhumanly agile aircraft that kinematically challenges missiles. The existence of reusable rocketry suggests even more radical ideas....

I'm looking forward to the equivalents of the X-9 Ghost from Macross Plus, too. The kind of monster that does 25+gee turns in a dogfight.

I don't think we'll see rocket-powered drones, though. Rocket fuels are too ugly to try to work with when people are shooting at you.