A Canadian CCA?

[Kirkhill]

A somewhat unique RAF situation because the RAF Regiment is familiar with air ops as part of integrating into a CAOC in their air defence role. In Canada, the RCAF will enable the CA to do GBAD. But air defence responsibility still resides with the senior air officer as the JFACC. Ergo, a long range weapon like that would probably be employed by an artillery unit in Canada, in coordination with the RCAF.

Re-reading my post in light of your thoughts I am brought back to the CCA.

One issue discussed in conjunction with the CCA is the need for runway independence. It particularly becomes an issue for carriers.

Attritable.

I am not sure that I like that concept. It strikes me much the same way as Optionally Manned.

It imposes unnecessary costs.

It costs money to put a person into flight, deliver her, conduct a mission, recover her safely and refurbish and replenish her craft.

An uninhabited craft eliminates a lot of those costs, not least the need to return safely.

In the debate over Attritable, Disposable, Reusable and subsequent debates over RATO, Tailsitters, parachute recovery, runways, traps and decks etc is Attritable just a distraction?

Why not just focus on making disposable munitions smarter and more capable, and runway independent, and cheaper while working to make crewed platforms, that are required to be reusable and definitely not attritable, as safe as possible for the crews?

Why did this occur to me in this context? Because if the RAF has a stake in "runway independent" long range operations via the RAF Regiment might that make the RAF, institutionally more welcoming to runway independent CCAs and, in turn, more comfortable in narrowing the technology gap between one way drones and CCAs?

We already have long range loitering munitions, one way effectors, that can be safely recovered if the mission must be aborted. But that is a long way from imposing the costs associated with requiring a round trip, recovery and reuse.

Rocket launch, ramjet flight, battery prop loiter, all are possible in one vehicle at comparatively low cost.

 

[KevinB]

Re-reading my post in light of your thoughts I am brought back to the CCA.

One issue discussed in conjunction with the CCA is the need for runway independence. It particularly becomes an issue for carriers.

Attritable.

I am not sure that I like that concept. It strikes me much the same way as Optionally Manned.

It imposes unnecessary costs.

It costs money to put a person into flight, deliver her, conduct a mission, recover her safely and refurbish and replenish her craft.

An uninhabited craft eliminates a lot of those costs, not least the need to return safely.

In the debate over Attritable, Disposable, Reusable and subsequent debates over RATO, Tailsitters, parachute recovery, runways, traps and decks etc is Attritable just a distraction?

Why not just focus on making disposable munitions smarter and more capable, and runway independent, and cheaper while working to make crewed platforms, that are required to be reusable and definitely not attritable, as safe as possible for the crews?

Why did this occur to me in this context? Because if the RAF has a stake in "runway independent" long range operations via the RAF Regiment might that make the RAF, institutionally more welcoming to runway independent CCAs and, in turn, more comfortable in narrowing the technology gap between one way drones and CCAs?

Remember the early NGADF / F-47 role was a carrier and coordinator for CCA and OWLRUAS.

The Quarterback is well behind the line of scrimmage.

We already have long range loitering munitions, one way effectors, that can be safely recovered if the mission must be aborted. But that is a long way from imposing the costs associated with requiring a round trip, recovery and reuse.

How long a trip
What type of recovery
How soon to reuse.

Those can make a dramatic difference in costings.

Rocket launch, ramjet flight, battery prop loiter, all are possible in one vehicle at comparatively low cost.

2/3 are much easier than 3/3 there. You will drive costs significantly trying to do all three.
I was just trying to drag some things into a model - and it requires a lot of expensive changes to try to do all of the above.


I’d argue it’s better to specialize a little more and have a few types of systems in large volumes.