Agreed. The conclusions it draws seem arbitrary.
For example: the idea that incr 1 arent "autonomous" enough or capable enough. Guy writes that shit and proceeds to leave that there with no links, no citations and no evidence to back that up.
Then:
The first increment of candidates for the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program are highly unlikely to make any difference in the Air Force’s ability to effectively project power and gain air superiority before the end of the decade.
Fair assessment
They are too technologically immature
Lol. Gives marginal evidence of what he actually thinks is too immature about incr 1 and literally zero useful discussion on why he thinks this.
will be too expensive to be bought in the numbers the Air Force needs, and will require a significant amount of effort to be integrated into the combat Air Force.
He thinks this because he also thinks:
LongShot requires only rules-based, expert-system autonomy
Despite saying:
LongShot will operate autonomously after launch, executing various behaviors selected by the crewed aircraft operator. Unlike a first-increment aircraft, LongShot will be air-launched at a particular, tactical moment and operate continuously forward of its crewed counterparts, executing a one-way mission.
Has this guy ever bothered taking a gander in academic research on autonomous systems? Has he ever bothered looking into how much work it takes to write, make useful and integrate a rules based system as complex as a drone into a broader network? What he described as the mission of longshot is likely oversimplified at best. Those "various bevahiors" arent easy or necessarily rules based - and the software that goes on a full sized CCA doesnt preclude it from being rules based either.
Has he considered exactly how many longshots will be carried by, say, an F15E vs other payload options? Nope
Has he considered the idiotic idea that given the aircraft fit to carry longshot, it likely WILL be fired into areas where there are friendly planes ahead of them, which thus requires IFF transponders, decision making that may or may not be rules based, and ultimately far more complex than he thinks it is? Nope.
Has he considered exactly what types of planes are most likely to carry longshot into action? Or the likely positions, roles and circumstances these planes will find themselves in in a typical operation? Nope.
Because all of those points could turn out against his point.
The problem isnt even stuff like this. The problem is he frames it as if longshot is going to solve more problems than incr CCAs and its the better somution. Maybe what people like him should understand is all of these pieces are complementary.
I feel like a great number of people on this forum are more credible than whatever the hell he wrote. Im sure people find things I say the same way, but man so much kf the stuff in this article is just his opinion untethered from any actual experience (or even research) in anything he's talking about.
