True, but it’s the location, road closures and lack of communication that makes me think this might have been a classified or at least sensitive asset.
Typical or atypical, you still have to invest the same base amount of time to understand the problem and sanity check the solution. A subtle error may take you longer to figure out what's wrong with it, but in general the time spent is going to be roughly consistent with the typical case.
"The AI generated 1.25 COAs every second, the humans generated one COA every 5.3 minutes"
That's how you check a solution: understand the problem, then understand the solution. You're spared the decision making and typing out, but you still need to understand what you're checking.
I literally said "with the exception of the code anecdote".
....
Yes we do. The kinetic block 2C costs approximately $125K while the non-kinetic reusable system is in excess of $200K. You cannot really compare it to the APKWS based system both from a capability standpoint, and from a production volume stand point. A significant increase in production volume for Coyote (think 3x or more) should result in a sub $100K cost especially if things like the seekers and other features (propulsion and proximity sensor) are being shared with other weapon systems like the NG-CUAS weapon and even the air launched short range launched effect variant of the Coyote (which they are). I'll have to do some digging but a Coyote block 1 variant with an active seeker was less than $60K so more similar to what an enhanced APKWS costs now.
It's potentially not just counter-drone missiles, Coyote Block 3 has been renamed Coyote Launched Effect-Short Range, with a reconnaissance capability.
Coyote block 3 is a non-kinetic coyote drone built on the something more closely related to the original Coyote block 1. Both the Army and Air Force buys it / is buying it for both the non-kinetic (HPM) payload as CsUAS (Group 1 and some Group 2 defeat). It is also offered as a LE.
I fear yet another trainwreck is coming along.
I think it makes more sense for training, maintenance, and administration than having a single squadron operating two aircraft types. I would start to be worried if they are not integrated into ACC Fighter Wings or aren't at the same bases as the fighters. Normal mission packages are thrown together with multiple aircraft types from multiple squadrons, so I wouldn't expect the addition of another aircraft type (the CCA) to be that much of a complication.
I agree. It makes no sense right now to push them into a fighter wing when someone somewhere needs to hammer down the basics of utilizing them first.
That's only a fair concern if CCAs remain in a standalone unit in the future.
For the purposes of developing the knowhow needed to actually get these things flying safely and logistically supported, you don't need fighter aircraft or its associated expensive logistics trail. A business jet or two or even a handful of cessnas equipped with control software is more than enough. I expect at least a year or two before they are actively being integrated into fighter wings.
I'd like to see a more potent increment 2 that gets developed/produced by US and Europe so that it's got a rock solid production base.
One for every future release of ace combat.
