Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) UK-Japan-Italy

[red admiral]

You can have useful unmanned capabilities for a fraction of the cost of a manned platform. US $15 million seems to be the ‘benchmark’ price for attritable (not expendable) UAVs.

At that cost point then it's much less capable and much less survivable than GCAP. Those Ukrainian unmanned A22s are also "useful" and much cheaper than $15m, but there's no profit for the defence primes in doing that

We can’t afford not to have ACPs to augment the things that a manned platform can’t do, or that we won’t allow them to do because we can’t afford to lose them or their expensively trained pilots.

We can't afford not to have laser sharks either

If we're not going to risk manned platforms by actually using them then why are we wasting tens of billions on developing and buying them? I suppose they'll make good sunshades for the cocktail parties.

What makes them battle winning is the ability to use them well forward, penetrating airspace where you can’t risk a manned platform (you’ve heard of A2AD, right?). What makes them battle winning is their ability to provide mass that we can’t afford to provide conventionally. What makes them battle winning is their ability to cope in an increasingly contested battlespace.

So I guess these are highly survivable and highly expensive platforms then. How do we afford these in quantity to get combat mass? Sounds much more like simply having an unmanned GCAP would be better.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The advantage is I think our opponents culture is the very pposite of that needed to do likewise since success at this is founded on openness, transparency, free sharing (of data for instance) and quick readiness to accept something is wrong/change it and reacting without having to wait for approval. Although we knock ourselves for fails at all those bits, fundamentally we are very good at that vs what are very rigidly controlled/controlling societies. That’s my hope anyway!

That may be your ‘hope’ - and good on you for being such a sunny and optimistic Pollyanna, we need more optimism and hope!

But reality it isn’t. Our ‘open’, ‘transparent’, ‘sharing’ societies are unable to trust one another to iterate sovereign mission data on platforms we’ve bought and paid for, or to integrate our own weapons, or to have meaningful sovereign support arrangements. The ‘Land of the Free’ thinks that a three hour Mission Data cycle is a ‘moonshot’, and will never enable that for its allies anyway.

Which means we know in theory how to do it and it's just going to take a buttload of money to reduce it to practice.

 

[WatcherZero]

I have done. And spent yesterday afternoon chattting with BAE's 'main man' on ACPs. And then with Leonardo's GCAP campaign manager. CCAs and ACPs will require high level direction, not direct control.

Who mentioned direct control? I said AI would assign them tasks and elevate issues it couldnt handle or which the pilot had to know about for the pilots attention.

e.g. If a craft became engaged or was lost.

This has just happened on a test flight with one Banshee and several virtual ones being put under the command of an aircraft after launch and rendezvous, and then assigned tasks by it.

 

[Purpletrouble]

....if they’re any good kinematically and avioncis wise, they’re a duplicate level of cost and effort to the manned program, for vastly less flexibility.

You can have useful unmanned capabilities for a fraction of the cost of a manned platform. US $15 million seems to be the ‘benchmark’ price for attritable (not expendable) UAVs.

Noone has come close to fielding a UAS with avionic or kinematic capabilites even close to manned. Every attempt dies because the cost becomes the same.

Its a permament catch22. capable = expensive = not attritable.

Attritable = cheap = not capable.

We cant afford that. Well, maybe the US can a bit.

We can’t afford not to have ACPs to augment the things that a manned platform can’t do, or that we won’t allow them to do because we can’t afford to lose them or their expensively trained pilots.

Yes we can. We already do. I dont think the “lose pilots” thing is what it used to be tbh.

What makes that battle winning vs a manned fleet of more capable platforms with more flexibility?

What makes them battle winning is the ability to use them well forward, penetrating airspace where you can’t risk a manned platform (you’ve heard of A2AD, right?). What makes them battle winning is their ability to provide mass that we can’t afford to provide conventionally. What makes them battle winning is their ability to cope in an increasingly contested battlespace.

Why the patronising tone btw? Might work with children but not on a professional who is actually doing all this.

Except they dont provide mass because we dont have the mass of people to maintain/fuel/arm them and support the logistic tail, and again, if they are capable they are no less able to be “risk exposed” than manned.

The battlespace isnt increasingly contested. Density of systems and platforms is far less than the cold war europe. What it is is spread out more due to greater ranges.

When you ask pilots what they want from “CCAs” the consistent answer is just “a tanker that comes to me so I dont waste time in transit getting away from/to the fight”. Not extra weapons platforms, not EW, not bombers not any of that. Theyve got all that covered in their platform and can do that.i fond the MQ-25 Stingray interesting in this respect.

Nonsense! What pilots want is more weapons, more sensor range, and indeed anything that helps ensure mission success and their own safe return.

Ive asked a lot of them. I believe them as they do it for a living now and in the future.

There are a huge amount of solutions here and I’m not sure there is actually a problem for them to solve. I think we are only just starting to find our way out of a very confusing haystack that technology and our penchant for MS powerpoint have created for us.

More nonsense, I’m afraid. The problems are: A2AD. A more difficult and contested operating environment. A rapidly and dynamically evolving threat.

All of what youve written is basically just bad sounding words right off a powerpoint slide. It isnt reality. We’ve tied ourselves up unable to see what path we should take owing to the opportunities technology presents. Its hamstringing us, albeit its a victim of own success thing.

GCAP races ahead. Mosquito buzzed off. QED, again.

I personally think the future is going to look like the present but with a larger platform with huge EW capability and leveraging that plus connectivity to the rest of the military world to give it a far better understanding of the tactical situation and thus find a way to win it whilst the enemy is still blind to what is going on.

You’re dreaming. And ignoring the fact that you can’t do that in a heavily contested environment against an enemy who outnumbers you and economically overpowers you. You have to “box clever” and CCAs/ACPs help you do that.

Who overpowers the US? And the west in total?

“Boxing clever” is literally whet I described in gathring and using information. To do that requires a large platform for the antenna, power and processing.

Information Advantage. The actual definition of 6th gen…

Your solution is legacy, try and overwhelm with mass, and drop the quality line to acheive that. That aporoach can work, but usually it leads to failure.

CCAs just soak up precious design, build and maintenance/logistic resources to give very 2nd/3rd rate capabilities.

Blitzkreig of the air - overwhelm their forces by blanking out decision making by knowing far more than they do and being able to move to exploit that before they even know anythung about it. The actual exploitation being similar weapons to what we have now just employed far more effectively thanks to information dominance. Very difficult to do and wont show up in a single Janes spec point but will make or break any conflict.

True to a degree today, and against non peer opponents, but becoming less and less true with every passing day.

Today? Israel acheived it in 67, the coalition in 91. If nato went against russia in ukraine we’d see it there too.

The advantage is I think our opponents culture is the very pposite of that needed to do likewise since success at this is founded on openness, transparency, free sharing (of data for instance) and quick readiness to accept something is wrong/change it and reacting without having to wait for approval. Although we knock ourselves for fails at all those bits, fundamentally we are very good at that vs what are very rigidly controlled/controlling societies. That’s my hope anyway!

That may be your ‘hope’ - and good on you for being such a sunny and optimistic Pollyanna, we need more optimism and hope!

But reality it isn’t. Our ‘open’, ‘transparent’, ‘sharing’ societies are unable to trust one another to iterate sovereign mission data on platforms we’ve bought and paid for, or to integrate our own weapons, or to have meaningful sovereign support arrangements. The ‘Land of the Free’ thinks that a three hour Mission Data cycle is a ‘moonshot’, and will never enable that for its allies anyway.

Maybe, but i think you miss the point about a free society being able to innovate and share. My view is based on exposure to both sides, as I said, we have flaws but not critical ones.

And while we were sleeping, China (and to a lesser extent Russia) built up their air defence and A2AD capabilities to the point that we’re now on the back foot. China will soon have more 5th Gen fighters than the US. Russia has shown an ability to adapt and to adopt novel technologies at pace in Ukraine.

No they didnt. Russia already had a formidable air defence system and all china has done is catch up.

Russia has shown very little ability in Ukraine. Certainly not “adopt new tech at pace”.

 

[Jackonicko]

Which means we know in theory how to do it and it's just going to take a buttload of money to reduce it to practice.

And of course the UK already has a mission data cycle that's FAR quicker than that, and is looking at inflight Mission Data uploads...

 

[Jackonicko]

Who mentioned direct control? I said AI would assign them tasks and elevate issues it couldnt handle or which the pilot had to know about for the pilots attention.

e.g. If a craft became engaged or was lost.

This has just happened on a test flight with one Banshee and several virtual ones being put under the command of an aircraft after launch and rendezvous, and then assigned tasks by it.

The assignment of tasks will be by the CAOC, not by the pilot (human or AI) on scene.

 

[Jackonicko]

If we're not going to risk manned platforms by actually using them then why are we wasting tens of billions on developing and buying them? I suppose they'll make good sunshades for the cocktail parties.


So I guess these are highly survivable and highly expensive platforms then. How do we afford these in quantity to get combat mass? Sounds much more like simply having an unmanned GCAP would be better.

1) We're going to use GCAP, we're just not going to employ it too far up-threat, and we're not going to squander the aircraft when expendables and attritables are available.

2) No. But they will be attritable. An unmanned GCAP would be ten times the cost.

 

[Jackonicko]

Noone has come close to fielding a UAS with avionic or kinematic capabilites even close to manned. Every attempt dies because the cost becomes the same.

Its a permament catch22. capable = expensive = not attritable.

Attritable = cheap = not capable.

A CCA or ACP does not have to have the avionic or kinematic capabilities of a manned platform to be useful. There's a level of performance that is both affordable and attritable.

 

[red admiral]

And of course the UK already has a mission data cycle that's FAR quicker than that, and is looking at inflight Mission Data uploads...

Worth noting that some countries are way ahead of this e.g. demonstrated in flight software uploads and not just data. The big issue with any of this is the size of the "tail" (i.e. people) on the ground to do it, rather than tech.

The assignment of tasks will be by the CAOC, not by the pilot (human or AI) on scene.

I think this comes in at different levels; e.g. the CAOC doesn't (usually) assign individuals tasks within a flight. Different levels of tasks e.g. sanitise area Vs engage specific target.

If CCAs / ACPs are "attritable" then you might as well just build target drones at much lower cost (or use unmanned microlights...) It's probably notable that the US is no longer using the attritable language for CCA.

 

[Jackonicko]

Why the patronising tone btw? Might work with children but not on a professional who is actually doing all this.

You mistake patronising for exasperated. Your opinions do not seem to be those of a 'professional', I'm afraid. You make a series of claims that make little sense, and that run counter to everything that I hear from senior programme insiders, aircrew, requirements managers, etc.

For example:

The battlespace isnt increasingly contested.

If you think that: A2AD. A more difficult and contested operating environment. A rapidly and dynamically evolving threat. are not real problems, and are just

bad sounding words right off a powerpoint slide

Then a) I can't help you.
and b) there's little point in doing anything more than pointing out some of the errors in your thinking.

~Who overpowers the US?

Economically? China. (And in terms of fighter numbers available in any realistic Taiwan scenario)

Information Advantage. The actual definition of 6th gen…

You won't get information advantage without offboard sensors in a networked family of sensors. And guess what can carry sensors further up-threat? Yep. CCAs and ACPs...

Israel acheived it in 67, the coalition in 91. If nato went against russia in ukraine we’d see it there too.

Egypt in '67 was not a peer opponent. Iraq in 91 was not a peer opponent. Russia would not be a peer opponent in Ukraine, though it would be near peer. Nor should you be too confident that NATO would have a walk over against Russia.

No they didnt. Russia already had a formidable air defence system and all china has done is catch up.

China has built up its Air Defence systems - new SAMs, new fighters, including 5th Gen, in large numbers. Russia has hardly increased its AD capabilities at all, and its overall A2AD capability is less worrying.

Russia has shown very little ability in Ukraine. Certainly not “adopt new tech at pace”.

No? No widespread adoption of FPV drones? No unparalleled use of loitering munitions? No Shaheds? No combat debut of winged bombs? No combat debut of hypersonics? They have adopted a lot of new-to-them technology at pace.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Going to be a lot of crossed fingers on the team. FCAS and the NGAD siblings seem pretty set on two seats, and that's with AI-enabled capabilities baked into their programs. I know the beancounters are probably loving the idea of leaving the second body at home, but there's going to be a whole lot going on in that cockpit.

I suppose it fully depends on how automated those escort drones are. From what I can gather, the US seems to prefer having some human input on the drones, at least for NGAD. Perhaps the GCAP partners will allow their drones to be more or less independent, simply following the fighters in and then performing tasks which are either preprogrammed with minimal human input, or controlled from further behind the lines, a la Predator/Reaper via satcom.