Kratos's Hypersonic Aussie "Drone"

[Kirkhill]

One of the ways I think CCA-type "wingmen" might have a big impact is on engagement ranges in air-to-air combat. The big push currently is for longer range AA missiles, many with lock-on-after-launch capability. In other words launching at extreme range without necessarily having a firm target lock from the launching platform and guiding your missile into the general location of the target where it can then lock on to the target.

If CCAs can be used as a screen to entice the enemy to launch their BVR missiles at them instead of their parent fighters, then the Allied fighters could move within range to get a firm lock with their long range missiles knowing that most of the enemy's own long range missiles have already been expended.

This might discourage attempting lock-on-after-launch attacks in case you're being suckered by drones. This could decrease the average engagement range as pilots will be wanting to wait until they get a firm lock on a confirmed target so they're not wasting their missiles. This might give further advantages to stealthy aircraft as well as those with the better sensors.

Then you add in lots of permutations once you start arming some of the CCAs because then you can't afford to ignore them. These technologies could really change the way that air combat works.

Even if the CCA is nothing more than an SPP (a Self Propelled Pylon for carrying the munitions that might otherwise be carried on the mothership) it will supply an enhanced capability in both the Air to Air and Air to Surface fights.

If the mothership had to carry the munitions then the extra energy required by the extra weight would come from the motherships own fuel load. The mothership's range is extended. Because it is lighter it is both more manoeuverable and thus more survivable.

If the CCA carries the munitions instead it doesn't have to carry a pilot (and all the systems necessary to keep the pilot alive at 50,000 feet). That weight can be converted to fuel load, again extending range.

The CCA can also fly more aggressively than a manned aircraft, pulling higher g's, like a missile. That makes the CCA more survivable.

The fact that they cost less than 5% of the mothership means they can be flown into the defences more aggressively. Enhancement of mothership survivability.

As well the CCA's mean more targets for the opposition to worry about. Enhancement of the package survivability.

If we consider a two ship F35 package (2x 80 MUSD plus 2x Pilots (priceless) flying in company with 4x XQ-58A Valkyries you end up with

2 aircraft potentially carrying

Armament

• Guns: 1 × 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel rotary cannon, 180 rounds[N 16]
• Hardpoints:4 × internal stations, 6 × external stations on wings with a capacity of 5,700 pounds (2,600 kg) internal, 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg) external, 18,000 pounds (8,200 kg) total weapons payload, with provisions to carry combinations of:
  • Missiles:
    • Air-to-air missiles:
      • AIM-9X Sidewinder
      • AIM-120 AMRAAM
      • AIM-132 ASRAAM
      • AIM-260 JATM (To be integrated)[460]
      • MBDA Meteor (Block 4, for F-35B)[173][461] (not before 2027)[462]
    • Air-to-surface missiles:
      • AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
      • AGM-158 JASSM[166]
      • SPEAR 3 (Block 4, in development, integration contracted)[160][461]
      • Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
    • Air-to-surface/Anti-ship missiles:
      • Joint Strike Missile (JSM, integration in progress)[463]
    • Anti-ship missiles:
      • AGM-158C LRASM[464] (being integrated)
  • Bombs:
    • Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) series
    • Paveway series laser-guided bombs
    • Precision-guided glide bomb:
      • AGM-154 JSOW
      • GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
      • GBU-53/B StormBreaker (Small Diameter Bomb II)
    • B61 mod 12 nuclear bomb[465] (being certified)

Avionics

• AN/APG-81 AESA radar
• AN/AAQ-40 E/O Targeting System (EOTS)
• AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) missile warning system
• AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda electronic warfare system
• AN/ASQ-242 CNI suite, which includes
  • Harris Corporation Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system
  • Link 16 data link
  • SINCGARS
  • An IFF interrogator and transponder
  • HAVE QUICK
  • AM, VHF, UHF AM, and UHF FM Radio
  • GUARD survival radio
  • A radar altimeter
  • An instrument landing system
  • A TACAN system
  • Instrument carrier landing system
  • A JPALS
  • TADIL-J JVMF/VMF

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

4 Aircraft with

Armament

• Hardpoints: 8: 2 weapon bays with 4 in each - with a capacity of up to 550 lb (250 kg),
• Bombs: JDAM, Small diameter bomb

Engineering:Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie - HandWiki

The Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie is an experimental stealthy unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) designed and built by Kratos Defense & Security Solutions for the United States Air Force Low Cost Attritable Strike Demonstrator (LCASD) program, under the USAF Research Laboratory’s Low Cost Attritable...

handwiki.org

That equals 2x 4 internal hardpoints for the F35s for a total of 8 and 4x 2x 4 internal hardpoints for the XQ-58s for a total of 32 meaning a grand total of 40 internal hardpoints before the aircraft have to break "stealth" and load up the 12 external F35 hard points and the 8 external Valkyrie hard points.

The XQ-58 is designed to act as a "loyal wingman" that is controlled by a parent aircraft to accomplish tasks such as scouting, defensive fire, or absorbing enemy fire if attacked.[4] It features stealth technology with a trapezoidal fuselage with a chined edge, V-tail, and an S-shaped air intake.[3] The XQ-58 is capable of being deployed as part of a swarm of drones, with or without direct pilot control. Though the XQ-58 is capable of conventional take-offs and landings, it can also be launched from "nondescript launch modules", such as support ships, shipping containers, and semi-trailer trucks.[5][6] Kratos could produce between 250-500 Valkyries per year.[7]

Kratos XQ-58A Valkyrie Continues Successful Flights and Capability Evolution

SAN DIEGO, Feb. 23, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: KTOS), a leading National Security Solutions provider...

www.globenewswire.com

It seems that swarm technology is becoming mature - USAF, USN, USMC, the RAF and the RAAF all seem to be heavily invested in making it work in the near future.

 

[Kirkhill]

Question -

If the CCA is going to be surface launched separately from the motherships .... how many motherships do you need in the air at all?

Surface to Surface mission - the CCA acts like a bomb-truck/cruise missile that dispenses smart and dumb submunitions. Is there a need for more than one pair of eyes on the target? And do those eyes need to be in a manned aircraft?

Surface to Air mission - the CCA acts like a guided booster that propels air to air submunitions into the fight. Does it matter if the booster is radar guided if it is carrying BVRAAMs and/or AARGM-ERs?

 

[Kirkhill]

Shield AI, Boeing ink agreement to push AI, autonomous development - Breaking Defense

The two companies signed a memorandum of understanding this week “to explore strategic collaboration in the areas of autonomous capabilities and artificial intelligence on current and future defense programs."

breakingdefense.com

Hivemind and swarms of V-Bats?

 

[Kirkhill]

If true then I think they are heading in the wrong direction. They were right the first time - aiming for expendable, low cost.

'Affordable Mass' Concept Driving Air Force's New Advanced Drone Initiative

The Air Force loyal wingman drone program won't be 'attritable,' but it will be based around a new concept called 'affordable mass.'

www.thedrive.com

 

[GR66]

If true then I think they are heading in the wrong direction. They were right the first time - aiming for expendable, low cost.

'Affordable Mass' Concept Driving Air Force's New Advanced Drone Initiative

The Air Force loyal wingman drone program won't be 'attritable,' but it will be based around a new concept called 'affordable mass.'

www.thedrive.com

I think it's important to differentiate between types of "drones" when we're talking expendable. Battlefield UAVs are needed in high volume and should for the most part be expendable. Loyal Wingman type UAVs in my opinion don't need to be.

The former are ISR assets/loitering munitions who's role is to enter areas where the enemy is active and detect/attack that enemy.

The latter (which I believe is more in line with the CCA concept the article is talking about) are in effect unmanned fighter surrogates that carry their own munitions. I think it's the munitions that the CCAs will be carrying that are/should be the "attritable" part of the equation.

An analogy I would suggest is HIMARS. Now imagine an UGV version. Is the UGV-HIMARS launcher attritable or are the rockets they are launching attritable? An unmanned launcher is certainly less of a loss than a manned launcher and its crew, but I'd hardly call it expendable. Same in my mind for a CCA-type UAV. It's an unmanned fighter launching the actual expendable missiles.

 

[dimsum]

I think it's important to differentiate between types of "drones" when we're talking expendable.

...and that's why I hate the use of the word "drone" - it is far too broad a term.

It's like saying all types of airplanes are "airplanes", without ever adding "transport", "fighter", "airliner", etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think it's important to differentiate between types of "drones" when we're talking expendable. Battlefield UAVs are needed in high volume and should for the most part be expendable. Loyal Wingman type UAVs in my opinion don't need to be.

The price point for the capability needs to come into the equation.

I will stipulate a pilot is priceless (just ask one - ) and therefore can not be sacrificed



An aircraft has a price on it and needs to be conserved if for no other reason than it breaks the bank to lose too many of them. For the record that price needs to include the cost of the pilot and her training, the care and feeding of the plane and the supply of the runways and control systems necessary to get them in the air. I will stipulate a total sunk cost of each aircraft in the 250 MUSD to 2500 MUSD range. You want to be careful throwing that kind of treasure at the enemy.

Of course the aircraft is only a means to an end . Just like a gun. Both are designed to launch munitions at the enemy.

The cost of the munitions are relatively low when compared to the aircraft. Even the smart ones

Mk 84 925 kg dumb bomb with zero range and indeterminate CEP - ca $3000
Mk 84 925 kg JDAM with 28 km range and ca 5m GPS CEP and a 30m INS CEP - ca $25,000
Mk 84 925 kg JDAM-ER with 80 km range and ca 5m GPS CEP and a 30m INS CEP - ca $35,000
GBU-39 129 kg SDB with >110 km range and ca 5m GPS CEP and a 30m INS CEP - ca $50,000
GBU-53/B GPS / INS with 72 to 110 km range and 1m CEP against moving targets - ca $200,000
with dual-band two-way datalink, IIR and millimeter wave active radar homing

AIM-9 Sidewinder 85 kg missile with published 35 km range - $400,000
AIM-120 AMRAAM 160 kg missile with published 160 km range - $1,100,000
ALCM (Tomahawk) 1430 kg missile with 1000 to 2500 km ranges - $1,000,000 to $2,000,000
JASSM 1021 kg missile with 370 to 1900 km ranges - $1,260,000 to $1,395,000
LRASM 1100 kg missile with >370 km ranges - $3,500,000 to $3,900,000
AGM-88E AARGM-ER 361 kg missile with estimated 300 km range $6,149,000

For comparison -

AT-4 8 kg 84mm round with published 0.5 km to 2 km range - $1500
CG-84 3 to 4 kg 84mm projectile with published 0.5 km to 2 km range - $300 to 3000
NLAW 12.5 kg 150mm round with published 1 km range and < 1m CEP - $30,000 to $40,000

M795 47 kg 155mm projectile with 25 km to 35 km range and ca 250m CEP - ca $500
M795 47 kg 155mm projectile with M1156 Course Correction Fuse with 25 km to 35 km range and ca 50m GPS CEP - ca $15,000
M982 Excalibur 48 kg 155mm projectile with 25 km to 70 km range and ca 4m GPS CEP - ca $115,000
Vulcano sub-caliber 155mm sabot projectile with 25 km to 70 km range and ca 5m GPS CEP (< 3m SAL CEP) - ca $??????

Hero-120 12 kg missile with published 40 km range and < 1m CEP - $50,000 to $150,000
Spike NLOS 70 kg 170mm missile with published 50 km range and < 1m CEP - $200,000 to $250,000

Hellfire 49 kg 180mm missile with published 11 km range and < 1m CEP - $150,000
Brimstone 49 kg 180mm missile with published 12 to 60 km range and < 1m CEP - $150,000

Javelin 16 kg 127mm missile with published 2.5 km to 5 km km range and < 1m CEP - $200,000 to $250,000
Starstreak 14 kg 130 mm missile with published >7 km range - $120,000
Stinger 10 kg 70mm missile with published 5 km range - $120,000
Martlet 13 kg 76 mm missile with published 8 km range - ?$65,000?
APKWS 15 kg 70mm missile with published 5 km range - $22,000

GMRLS 300 kg 227mm missile with published 90 km range and <15m GPS CEP - $110,000
GMRLS-ER ~300 kg 227mm missile with published > 150 km range and <15m GPS CEP - $???,???
GLSDB 129 kg SDB with >110 km range and ca 5m GPS CEP and a 30m INS CEP - ca $50,000 plus repurposed surplus M26 DPICM carrier rockets
ATACMS 1670 kg 610mm missile with 300 km range and 10m to 50m CEP- $1,500,000
PrSM - 500 km missile
JFSM 250 to 300 kg GLCM with 500 km range - $???,???
JSM/NSM 350 to 400 kg 700mm missile with 250 km range and 10m to 50m CEP- $2,200,000

It is noteworthy that two things drive the price upwards - the cost of the guidance system AND adding range.
Which brings us back to the cost of the platform delivering the munitions to the end users point of delivery.
Does the delivery truck need to be manned - at an exorbitant cost and risk?
Or can we dispense with the driver and just go direct from the Amazon distribution center to the address stipulated by the end user?
In which case -

Mako UTAP22 is a Half Ton delivery truck that weighs 300 kg empty with a 2600 km range - $2,000,000 to $3,000,000
Valkyrie XQ-58 is a Half Ton delivery truck that weighs 1134 kg empty with a 5600 km range - $2,000,000 to $3,000,000

And if an F16 can be converted into a 7 tonne truck with a 1000 km to 2000 km range for the same price as a Mako

Then how about
A RATO C130 as a 20 tonne truck with a 4400 km range?

The aircraft can be configured with the "enhanced cargo handling system". The system consists of a computerized loadmaster's station from which the user can remotely control the under-floor winch and configure the flip-floor system to palletized roller or flat-floor cargo handling. Initially developed for the USAF, this system enables rapid role changes to be carried out and so extends the C-130J's time available to complete taskings

How many "smart" submunitions can be delivered, surface to surface, without putting a pilot at risk? And at what cost if the delivery truck is both reusable and sufficiently low cost that no one cares if it doesn't make it home?

The former are ISR assets/loitering munitions who's role is to enter areas where the enemy is active and detect/attack that enemy.

ISR assets need to be lightweight and cheap and plentiful and disposable.

The latter (which I believe is more in line with the CCA concept the article is talking about) are in effect unmanned fighter surrogates that carry their own munitions. I think it's the munitions that the CCAs will be carrying that are/should be the "attritable" part of the equation.

My question is how many "fighters" are really going to be required? How much "fighting" needs to be done? How many "pilots" need to be risked and protected?

Most modern fighters are actually fighter-bombers with a primary mission of bombing and a secondary mission of fighting to permit the survival and return of that exquisite aircraft and the priceless pilot.

The early version of this question resulted in 198 dedicated air to air F22 fighters versus >3000 F35 fighter bombers.

And NORAD tasks don't seem to envisage dogfighting over North American airspace as eliminating threats as expeditiously as possible by rapid delivery of the appropriate munition to the point of incursion.

An analogy I would suggest is HIMARS. Now imagine an UGV version. Is the UGV-HIMARS launcher attritable or are the rockets they are launching attritable? An unmanned launcher is certainly less of a loss than a manned launcher and its crew, but I'd hardly call it expendable. Same in my mind for a CCA-type UAV. It's an unmanned fighter launching the actual expendable missiles.

I would absolutely be aiming to drive my UGV costs downwards through the attritable curve to the expendable range.



I can't find the quote now but I saw one on the official Boeing-Saab releases where (IIRC) the Boeing spokesman was explicitly referencing the HIMARS-GLSDB combination as "an air force for those that can't afford one".

I suggest that more people will be finding ways to provide those typical "air force" roles at costs they can afford.

 

[KevinB]

I can't find the quote now but I saw one on the official Boeing-Saab releases where (IIRC) the Boeing spokesman was explicitly referencing the HIMARS-GLSDB combination as "an air force for those that can't afford one".

I suggest that more people will be finding ways to provide those typical "air force" roles at costs they can afford.

I don’t think that quote gives credit to the value that having the ability of a set of hands and eyes in the air give.

 

[dimsum]

I can't find the quote now but I saw one on the official Boeing-Saab releases where (IIRC) the Boeing spokesman was explicitly referencing the HIMARS-GLSDB combination as "an air force for those that can't afford one".

That is one role of the Air Force, and honestly isn't that just extended range arty at that point?

You really drive home the "warheads to foreheads" part of the Air Force. That is an important aspect, but that's not all what UAS / RPAS can do.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don’t think that quote gives credit to the value that having the ability of a set of hands and eyes in the air give.

I agree that - but if the "other stuff" can be done by other cheaper means then those scarce dollars can be invested in using the hands and eyes in the air to their greatest potential.

 

[Kirkhill]

That is one role of the Air Force, and honestly isn't that just extended range arty at that point?

You really drive home the "warheads to foreheads" part of the Air Force. That is an important aspect, but that's not all what UAS / RPAS can do.

Same thing. If the "warheads to foreheads" (love that line) is only part of the Air Force, and also only part of the UAS/RPAS spectrum, are there better ways to focus the resources and exploit current, not future but current, AI capabilities? Maybe send some of the strike effort over to the Arty.

 

[Kirkhill]

Halfway to autonomy?

Single Pilot C-130J Operations Being Explored By Air Force

The flights are being simulated with just one pilot and one loadmaster, with the latter working to support the single pilot in the cockpit.

www.thedrive.com

One pilot and one loadmaster and both in the cockpit.

With a remote controlled cargo bay bed and increasing AI the trend towards fewer people seems to be continuing. Not autonomy yet, but certainly reduced workload possibilities.

 

[Kirkhill]

On autonomy and AI.

'Not the right time': US to push guidelines, not bans, at UN meeting on autonomous weapons - Breaking Defense

Last week, 33 nations called for a global treaty restricting “lethal autonomous weapons.” But US officials warn that such a ban would be both premature and overly narrow, preferring broader but non-binding “best practices” guiding any military employment of AI.

breakingdefense.com

A bullet and a shell are both autonomous after leaving a gun, despite not having any intelligence. So is a mine sitting in a field although it has simple AI.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile - Tactical Drones instead of Target Drones

Royal Navy takes delivery of its new jet-powered 400mph Banshee drones

The 10ft by 8ft Banshee simulates threatening aircraft and was first trialled on HMS Prince of Wales in 2021.

www.forces.net

And

RAF to introduce additional swarming drone squadron

216 Squadron, currently trialling swarming drones, will be joined by at least one other squadron.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Britain’s Royal Air Force chief says drone swarms ready to crack enemy defenses

The conundrum of overcoming enemy air defenses is currently on display in Ukraine, where Ukrainian and Russian air-defense capabilities are effectively canceling out the other side's air power arsenal.

www.defensenews.com

RAF to introduce additional swarming drone squadron

216 Squadron, currently trialling swarming drones, will be joined by at least one other squadron.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

UK's Nexus combat cloud ready for operational use

The combat cloud developed by the United Kingdom to network all of its future aircraft and other platforms is now ready to be used operationally, the chief of the Royal...

www.janes.com

 

[Kirkhill]

So we can't donate aircraft to the Ukrainians because it would take too long for them to be trained up to an appropriate operational level.....​

But

The Air Force figures it can build one programme that will fly any aircraft adequately well so that they can be brought into effective unmanned service.


Who's zoomin' who?

​

​

​

How Self-Flying F-16s Will Enable Future Fighter Drones​

The Air Force’s Venom project aims to use test data to train an AI engine that can be widely used.​

The Air Force is rigging F-16s to fly autonomously, but that’s not the main point of automating one of the service’s most numerous fighter jets, the commander of the Air Force Test Center said Monday. Instead, the Venom project aims to refine an AI engine to fly a wide variety of today’s and tomorrow’s aircraft.

Venom, in turn, is part of the years-long push to develop autonomous aircraft that can work alongside crewed aircraft or operate autonomously, Maj. Gen. Evan Dertian said at a Mitchell Institute event.

It’s not even the first time that the Air Force has built an F-16 drone. The Have Raider II program achieved that five years ago. It was followed by other autonomous flight efforts such as the XQ-58 Valkyrie and the X-62 Vista, which is basically an F-16 modified to test and train AI software.
“The Vista aircraft is great for the control [testing].We kind of have the safety wrapper to develop autonomy,” said Dertien. “What we don't have on that aircraft is a lot of sensors. So by getting in on the Venom aircraft, you now have…radar; you have electronic warning; you have all those things where now you can expand your autonomy algorithm to react to the inputs. It's getting to make decisions for himself. It's kind of the next evolution into scaling up what autonomy can do.”

The goal is not a perfect pilotless F-16 but rather to refine an autonomy software engine that could be useful across aircraft and to develop concepts for operating autonomous aircraft along or with other aircraft.

The Air Force has solved some aspects of autonomy in flight. They’re now focused on discovering how autonomous systems fit into future warplanes, particularly for contested environments. “What we've done for our concept of operations and consequent employment is build in the ability to both have a human in and on the loop and then also—when that doesn't happen because of the contested electromagnetic spectrum that we anticipate—we still have built the capabilities from the mission-planning perspective, from the rules of engagement, and from the autonomy perspective so that these aircraft can still be effective in the fight,” said Maj. Gen. R. Scott Jobe, Air Combat Command’s director of plans, programs, and requirements.

Part of Venom is learning to collect data from the aircraft, said Maj. Gen. Heather Pringle, who leads the Air Force Research Laboratory.
That data will help accelerate the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft program, a wide-ranging initiative to test new autonomous and human-machine air team concepts. Said Dertien: “The goal is to have one core autonomy engine so we're not investing in different acquisition programs for the autonomy portion” of that program.

Brig. Gen. Dale White, the Air Force’s program executive officer for fighters and advanced aircraft, said “the idea is that our autonomy will be platform-agnostic is really critically important because we're not going to re-create the wheel every time we go to a different platform…The autonomy will be something that will be easily integrated.”

This year, the Air Force is requesting $49.7 million for the Venom project. Much of that will be spent on getting the F-16s ready for autonomous testing and preparing test ranges at Edwards Air Force base.

How Self-Flying F-16s Will Enable Future Fighter Drones

The Air Force’s Venom project aims to use test data to train an AI engine that can be widely used.

www.defenseone.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Collaborative Combat Aircraft will be able to carry out missions without direction from crewed aircraft and may not always fly as their “wingmen,” in order to maximize employment flexibility, Air Force leaders developing and testing the new platforms said March 27.

Asked whether CCAs will be “tethered” to crewed platforms or carry out their own missions without such pairings, Maj. Gen. R. Scott Jobe, Air Combat Command’s director of plans, programs. and requirements, replied “Yes.”

Part-Time Wingmen: CCAs Won’t Always Be ‘Tethered’ to Crewed Platforms

Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCAs, may not always be paired with crewed aircraft as “wingmen”, senior Air Force leaders said March 27.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[dimsum]

So we can't donate aircraft to the Ukrainians because it would take too long for them to be trained up to an appropriate operational level.....​

But

The Air Force figures it can build one programme that will fly any aircraft adequately well so that they can be brought into effective unmanned service.


Who's zoomin' who?

When is that project supposed to be ready for real-world use?

I think it's an apples-to-hammers comparison.

 

[Kirkhill]

When is that project supposed to be ready for real-world use?

I think it's an apples-to-hammers comparison.

No. I don't think it is. I think the relevant question is "What do you want the aircraft to do?"

Do you want it to mix it up with the Orcs? Or do you want it to fight a stand off battle and deliver effects from a distance?

And the related question is "How much risk is the pilot willing to assume for their personal safety?"



I think the honest reason the Americans aren't releasing the F16s is that they don't want to put their technology at risk. If even ancient M113s can hold "surprises" for locals raised on Soviet kit what would be the effect of technology transfer in the aerial domain?

 

[Kirkhill]

Autonomous boom autonomously flying and fuelling autonomous UAVs

Airbus's Drone Aerial Refueling Demo Is A Glimpse Of Air Combat Future

Developing autonomous aerial refueling capabilities for uncrewed aircraft will soon become critical based on evolving airpower trends.

www.thedrive.com

Do you think maybe Bombardier, debating whether it should be getting into the "integration" business, is operating a bit behind the curve?

 

[Kirkhill]

Selling it to the Marines...

Valkyrie is expected to be about 2-4 MUSD a piece (>4500 km)
Mako, a smaller version more similar to its parent BQM-167A, an in-service target that has been flying since 2002, costs 1-2 MUSD (>2500 km)
Tomahawk costs 1 MUSD (>1500 km)

Stealthy Kratos XQ-58A Valkyrie taking off in slow motion video​

By Boyko Nikolov On Oct 7, 2023


Share
On October 2 at Eglin Air Force Base, the US Marine Corps conducted the first successful flight test of the Kratos XQ-58A Valkyrie unmanned aerial vehicle. The test comes just under a year after two prototypes were ordered by the US Marine Corps.

• Top 5 best combat drones [UAVs] in the world
• The XQ-58A Valkyrie Successfully Completed All Test Objectives, U.S. Air Force Said
• Polish F-35s and F-16s can get ‘loyal wing’ Valkyrie UAV

In an intriguing video shared on social media, the Kratos XQ-58A Valkyrie takes off in slow motion. The unmanned vehicle takes its first seconds in the air by taking off from a ground launch pad, leaving fire and smoke in its wake.

Valkyrie would enhance the Corps​

Video screenshot
The latest test flight carried out by the Marine Corps, in collaboration with the Air Force and Navy, is a stride further in the transition towards new strategies presented by prior Commandant Gen. David Berger in Force Design 2030. These service-wide initiatives involve executing Expeditionary Advanced Basing Operations across vast distances against formidable opponents akin to the caliber of near-peer competitors.

Through the evaluation of the XQ-58 Valkyrie, the Corps is examining prerequisites for an extremely autonomous, cost-efficient tactical Unmanned Aerial System [UAS]. Such a system would enhance the Corps’ agility, expeditionary, and lethal abilities, serving both the Marine Corps’ operations in rugged terrains and the comprehensive Joint Force, according to Lt. Col. Donald Kelly, based at the Headquarters Marine Corps Aviation Cunningham Group and Advanced Development Team, as quoted in a press release.
The Valkyrie underwent six test flights, which scrutinized the UAV’s capacity to conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance [ISR]. They explored using AI platforms to support air patrols and studied manned-unmanned teaming capabilities.

Flight test data helps set future standards and shows the experimental potential achievable through collaborations. Scott Bey, portfolio manager at the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering office, highlights the progress possible through teamwork.

LCAAT will escort F-22/F-35​

The XQ-58 Valkyrie is a key component of the USAF Research Laboratory’s Low-Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology [LCAAT] project. The laboratory’s mission is to expedite the design and construction of unmanned combat aerial vehicles [UCAVs] via the cultivation of enhanced design tools and the incorporation of advanced commercial manufacturing procedures. Such advancements aim to significantly curtail production time and costs.
The LCAAT project envisions the XQ-58 Valkyrie as playing a pivotal supportive role during combat operations involving the F-22 or F-35. Its tasks may include deploying weaponry or surveillance systems, among others.
The unique selling point of the XQ-58 stems from its potential role as a loyal wingman. The XQ-58, under the command of a parent aircraft, can perform tasks like reconnaissance, providing defensive firepower, or serving as a decoy.

In terms of design, the XQ-58 touts stealth capabilities, courtesy of a trapezoidal fuselage featuring a chined edge, as well as a V-tail, and an S-shaped air intake. It can operate within a drone swarm, with or without direct pilot control. Moreover, the XQ-58 is capable of executing conventional take-offs and landings. Alternatively, it can be launched from nondescript modules, encompassing support ships, shipping containers, or semi-trailer trucks.
According to representatives from Kratos, the company has the potential to produce between 250 and 500 Valkyries every year. With an annual production rate of 50 aircraft, each Valkyrie could be produced for approximately $4 million. This unit cost could potentially drop below the $2 million mark if the yearly production exceeds 100 airframes.

XQ-58 Valkyrie technical characteristics​

One of the key technical characteristics of the XQ-58 Valkyrie is its size. It has a length of approximately 28 feet and a wingspan of about 22 feet, making it a relatively compact aircraft.

The Valkyrie is driven by a Pratt & Whitney F100-229 turbofan engine, reaching top speeds of Mach 0.85. This engine is commonly used in fighter aircraft and gives the Valkyrie the ability to fly at high subsonic speeds.
Another important technical feature of the XQ-58 Valkyrie is its modular design. It has a payload bay that can accommodate various mission-specific payloads, such as sensors, weapons, or additional fuel tanks. This modularity allows for flexibility and adaptability, enabling the Valkyrie to be customized for different mission requirements.
The XQ-58 Valkyrie also incorporates advanced avionics and autonomous capabilities. It is equipped with a suite of sensors, including radar and electro-optical/infrared [EO/IR] systems, which provide situational awareness and target detection capabilities. Additionally, it has autonomous flight capabilities, allowing it to operate with minimal human intervention.
The Valkyrie can operate for around 2,500 nautical miles and function for over 6 hours. It can operate at altitudes of up to 45,000 feet, giving it the ability to perform a wide range of missions, including surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike missions.