High flyer multi mission platform

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

I’m trying to figure out what problem is trying to be solved here.

An armed bizjet at 55k in a beam orbit with side radars isn’t going to last very long if someone doesn’t want it to be there.

I am not advocating for it to be armed, instead I would like to see a host of sensors, comms and edge processing parked in a HVAA cap. 

[jice]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

I’m trying to figure out what problem is trying to be solved here.

An armed bizjet at 55k in a beam orbit with side radars isn’t going to last very long if someone doesn’t want it to be there.

Yeah, exactly. That’s the problem… we put our long range kill chain eggs in baskets that are being divested or halved, architectures designed in the 80s, and a great hope that space will make the vul.

Armed is kind of a red herring.

Im supremely confident somebody somewhere will know where the targets were and why force annihilation happened trying to find them, but that’s not super helpful for the dudes now fighting the war in one man rafts. 

[jice]

9 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

I am not advocating for it to be armed, instead I would like to see a host of sensors, comms and edge processing parked in a HVAA cap. 

Lots of HVAA caps. The world is a big place, especially that part of it. 

[Clark Griswold]

I’m trying to figure out what problem is trying to be solved here.

An armed bizjet at 55k in a beam orbit with side radars isn’t going to last very long if someone doesn’t want it to be there.

What I think it can solve or bring to the fight are capes we now have on HVAAs that can not survive in the A2AD space and bring a capability (arsenal) that we will need when outnumbered

I’m somewhat skeptical of a converted large cabin biz jet but not totally discounting it but if it’s to go forward and support a package on night 1, probably having to get closer than we want to get effective sensor coverage on targets due to heavy EW, a jet that can self defend seems like the best COA.
That self defense is comprehensive: speed, altitude, maneuver, ECM, etc…
The big idea I think with this type platform would be it brings benefits and not liabilities to the strikers, doesn’t detract or need AR, can defend itself and has enough range to not require a forward basing presence that could take up space from an ACE based fighter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[12xu2a3x3]

18 hours ago, Springer said:

And some of these had Side Looking Radar (SLAR)

it's criminal what was done to the tac recce mission

[di1630]

it's criminal what was done to the tac recce mission

Please expand. Not sure if I’m going to argue for or against you yet.

[12xu2a3x3]

14 hours ago, di1630 said:

Please expand. Not sure if I’m going to argue for or against you yet.

lol

I think an argument can be made that, while there were obviously multi-role tactical aircraft before Desert Storm, the draw down following it (and the Cold War) also created the brain drain from the de-specialization that went along with multi-role's ascendance. The Wild Weasel community for example, lost their EWOs and the AN/APR-47 in the F-4G for single seat vipers with HTS. Allied Force is a pretty good example of how this was not really optimal. The Tac Recce community didn't fair any better, their mission was more or less obliterated. The only vestige of this capability was the TARS pod, also for the F-16. This was and i think technically still is a mission that was more or less dumped on the guard since they had basically sun-downed the RF-4C mission and the block 25/30s that carry it were making their way to the ANG. The TARS system as you might recall was deployed in OIF but it's inadequacy was I feel pretty confidant stating, a major driver for the rapid acquisition of the MC-12Ws.

Of note as well is the TR-1A/U-2Rs (pretty sure they weren't the S yet) and RF-4Cs turned out to be WILDLY insufficient for theater requirements was back in ODS, so much so that we begged the Australians to send their RF-111Cs which did not happen. So, we didn't really have the juice to cover major combat ops then. Does the RQ-170 make up the difference since then? Not gonna speculate on here but i guess that's a lot of what it comes down to. However, the idea of have those sensors, but like updated in the cockpit, real time and in the link with dudes in the jet...seems like an idea worth revisiting.

Edited November 13, 2022 by 12xu2a3x3

[12xu2a3x3]

also

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by 12xu2a3x3

[Clark Griswold]

18 hours ago, 12xu2a3x3 said:

it's criminal what was done to the tac recce mission

The RF-4 would be a good inspiration for a revitalized capability in that mission set, that mission is different now but still present me thinks...

Anyway, for info and to stir the pot...

https://www.mcara.us/RF-4B.html

https://flying-eyes.fandom.com/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_RF-4_Phantom_II

RF-4s with upgrades under Project SURE.

Inspiration but not necessarily a design starting point, this is just a theoretical requirement 

I would still prioritize altitude, endurance over speed so a larger, straighter (sts i guess) wing but maybe a delta for whatever fuselage form would be selected.  Sensors over weapons but the capacity to weaponize as a must have.

[12xu2a3x3]

2 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

The RF-4 would be a good inspiration for a revitalized capability in that mission set, that mission is different now but still present me thinks...

Anyway, for info and to stir the pot...

https://www.mcara.us/RF-4B.html

https://flying-eyes.fandom.com/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_RF-4_Phantom_II

RF-4s with upgrades under Project SURE.

Inspiration but not necessarily a design starting point, this is just a theoretical requirement 

I would still prioritize altitude, endurance over speed so a larger, straighter (sts i guess) wing but maybe a delta for whatever fuselage form would be selected.  Sensors over weapons but the capacity to weaponize as a must have.

have been trying to finish a paper about this for the longest time

[AC&W]

2 hours ago, 12xu2a3x3 said:

also

 

Epic, thanks! 

[SuperWSO]

In reference to side looking radar, the B-1 has the ability to turn the radar antenna 55 degrees left or right. With the ILST upgrade, we could track up to 120 degrees off the nose. 
The B-1 isn’t the platform you want for this application, but the ability to get off boresight radar tracks in a fast moving platform is not a new capability.

[ClearedHot]

On 11/12/2022 at 11:58 AM, jice said:

Lots of HVAA caps. The world is a big place, especially that part of it. 

Indeed, but a HVAA CAP 500-1000NM NM behind a threat ring is hard to get to...Folks need to look into Bi-Static and Multi-static Radar...the future is here and it is a game changer.

On 11/12/2022 at 3:10 PM, Clark Griswold said:

I’m somewhat skeptical of a converted large cabin biz jet but not totally discounting it but if it’s to go forward and support a package on night 1, probably having to get closer than we want to get effective sensor coverage on targets due to heavy EW, a jet that can self defend seems like the best COA.

You are guilty of legacy AEW thinking, High flying biz jets (or what ever solution we settle on), does NOT have to get close, in fact, large stand off distance actually helps.  the real advantage of BIZ jets is the ability to get high and see even further.  That is why I argued against Wedgetail...that platform can get to the mid-30's at best.

On 11/12/2022 at 3:10 PM, Clark Griswold said:

That self defense is comprehensive: speed, altitude, maneuver, ECM, etc…
The big idea I think with this type platform would be it brings benefits and not liabilities to the strikers, doesn’t detract or need AR, can defend itself and has enough range to not require a forward basing presence that could take up space from an ACE based fighter.

The key is going to be keeping links functional along with edge processing.  Yes the Chicoms will turn off space (to a degree), but there are ways around that which is why we see the emphasis on JADC2.  Being forward is important as an enabler, but we no longer have to press the HVAA cap as far forward as possible.

 

[Majestik Møøse]

CH about how many of these high-flying platforms would we need?

[WillJamForFood]

For once, it seems the Army has beat the Air Force to the punch...

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/09/armys-testbed-isr-business-jets-are-opening-doors-to-new-mission-possibilities/

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/11/15/experimental-artemis-aircraft-used-in-real-world-ukraine-operations

 

[ClearedHot]

7 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

CH about how many of these high-flying platforms would we need?

Great question and of course the answer is "It Depends."  There are many permutations and a lot depends on what you put on each platform.  You previously mentioned weight, which is a concern if you try to cram too many capabilities on one aircraft.  As a point of reference I can tell you in the AEW role it is possible to have the same number of missions stations as the E-3 in a Bizjet at 50K or a bit higher for 12 hours.  The same aircraft configured to meet Army ISR requirements (ARES), has a similar employment altitude and endurance.  For a lot of reasons 50K is a magic number when it comes to detection so I would want to avoid adding so many capes that you give up service ceiling or endurance. 

Have you heard of Deterrence Through Detection?  The current administration has adopted this theory for countering aggression, especially in the INDOPACOM AOR.  The study I linked answers the call with a fleet of 46 long-endurance RPA's for INDOPACOM and another 46 for Europe.  The number of bizjets is FAR less but it serves as a template for providing complete coverage.  If you were more focused on mission applications simply enabling strike, the number would be far less.

One of the data point to consider, bizjets tend to have VERY high reliability (usually above 90%), so a smaller fleet would make up for the horrendous reliability rates of the E-3, E-8, and Wedgetail (there is a reason the South Koreans are divesting Wedgetail...) 

[Majestik Møøse]

None of the ARES promotional materials mention 50k’. They all say 40k’. 

[ClearedHot]

41 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

None of the ARES promotional materials mention 50k’. They all say 40k’. 

Quoted service ceiling (before mods), is FL510.

[VMFA187]

On 11/11/2022 at 12:44 PM, ClearedHot said:

Not when they standoff.  You would be surprised just how far you can see when you are up at FL550.

Threat missiles have come a long way in the past few years... You're not putting me in that thing.