• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Canadian CCA?

Why do I get the feeling there is a divide within air forces?

A divide between those tied to the existing force and those contemplating a new force?

The Collaborative Combat Aircraft, as I have noted before, is perceived as two separate vehicles. A 3 MUSD disposable (attritable) that may or may not require conventional airfields and a 30 MUSD craft that has undefined attributes but is priced at a level that makes it difficult to justify its sacrifice.


....

The traditional force is aligned and allied with the existing industrial base. And seems to be doing what it can to preserve traditional budgets, development programs and time lines.

Currently that side of the argument is exemplified by the MQ-25 Stingray, the MQ-9 Reaper and the 30 MUSD CCA.

The other side is championed by the upstarts like Kratos and Anduril and those looking for immediate solutions, "semi"-autonomous combat platforms and those looking for lower cost versions of the Reaper, something that is more in keeping with Bayraktar costs.
 
Honeywell (automation central) leading the charge for complex solutions.


Honeywell arguing for more complex solutions tomorrow.

They are dismissive of "missile trucks" today. We can stack submunitions and decoys on top of missiles on top of aircraft on top of rockets on top of trucks and deliver them with precision without benefit of pilot today.

The people engaged in employing those systems in Ukraine, Russia, Iran, The Gulf, Venezuela, the First Island Chain and charged with defending homelands are not looking for solutions in five years, or developing new problems and tactics a decade from now.

They want bullets in magazines today. Anything that will work. Anything that can be consumed in mass quantities.
 
Back
Top