The airwing that I had described before -- i.e.: the 70 combat aircraft airwing circa 2042 -- is a wartime airwing, not peacetime. Not included in that count are an additional 20 other aircraft -- fixed wing AEW&C, helicopters, maybe COD, for a total of 90.
If you are talking about adding in aircraft for attrition and/or shore based training -- that is fair, you can add a certain percentage to the total number of aircraft of each type to revise it upwards as appropriate.
However the overall breakdown of the airwing circa 2042 that I described before, remains the same.
With regards to the priorities of future UCAVs, I think you mistake my meaning.
What I wrote was that the priorities of a land based MUMT A2A UCAV design would be, in descending order: stealth, cost, range/endurance, and payload.
The costs of such an aircraft would be attained through having an overall smaller aircraft than an equivalent manned aircraft of similar size or payload (reducing the cockpit and associated life support systems significantly enhancing range and endurance), as well as building a UCAV that does not require the structural strengthening to achieve the same kind of 9G maneuvring as a manned aircraft needs to do. Smaller sized sensors as well as payload bays will also be part of this picture, nor is there a need for this aircraft to be supersonic capable.
I would also envision that these UCAVs would not have to be built with the same airframe as a manned fighter, further cutting down on their cost -- after all, these UCAVs would not be required to conduct regular flight training for pilots given they do not require humans on board, and occasional exercises to demonstrate and upgrade systems level doctrine, software, and weapons can be done with only a fraction of the number of annual sorties that a manned fighter needs to do. Key, expensive onboard subsystems -- specifically the sensors -- would be designed to be easily recycled from UCAVs that happen to reach the end of their airframe life during peacetime, to be fitted onto newly built airframes.
Primarily, the savings of these MUMT A2A UCAVs will be:
- smaller size than equivalent manned aircraft for an equivalent range or payload
- significantly less stringent structural requirements (for Gs as well as for maneuvring)
- smaller sensor and payload bays (compared to say, a J-20 or an F-35)
- significantly shorter flight hour lifespan (related to a much reduced need to regularly fly them or train pilots on them compared to manned fighters)
I am not suggesting that these UCAVs need to be actively emitting "all" the time -- only actively emitting once they reach their area of operations, and even then they would actively emit selectively, not necessarily all at the same time. The necessity for VLO is because in the battlespace of the future, if you want your aerial assets to even get to the frontline in the first place to prevent detection from enemy AEW&C at long ranges, you will require VLO.
My view with regards to BVR and 5th generation aircraft is actually based off similar principles to you -- that is to say, I do not believe that AESAs can "effectively counter" 5th generation aircraft like conventional 4th generation aircraft.
I believe that 5th generation aircraft and their inherent VLO means that BVR detection and engagement ranges will be significantly reduced compared to detecting and engaging a 4th generation aircraft.
However that is why I believe having a larger number of airborne sensors and shooters is important, and why having "attritible" sensors/shooters that can be deployed more forward of your manned fighters is the way forward for future air combat.
The UCAVs deployed in the forward lines will detect the enemy 5th generation fighters -- albeit of course at much shorter ranges than they would detect a 4th generation fighter -- and your UCAVs will either engage the enemy with their own onboard weapons, or they will pass on targeting information to the manned fighter aircraft operating many kilometers behind the UCAVs to allow the manned aircraft to engage the enemy fighters with their BVR weapons (cued by weapons quality tracks from said UCAVs).... or ideally both your forward placed UCAVs and your more rear emplaced manned fighters can engage the enemy 5th generation fighter at the same time in a coordinated fashion.
And EO/IRST would certainly be part of the sensor suite of these MUMT UCAVs. Not every single UCAV necessarily needs to be equipped with an EO/IRST or an AESA -- a standard sensor suite could be just one or the other -- but the summation of a large multiship formation will offer a distributed, networked sensor cloud.
However, the end goal is still to have a formation of attritible forward placed sensor/shooter UCAVs with manned aircraft behind them.
The basic conops is to to detect the enemy's manned 5th gens before their manned 5th gens can detect your manned 5th gens -- and to engage their manned 5th gens earlier than they can engage you (through the form of forward placed UCAVs engaging with their own weapons, and/or those forward placed UCAVs cuing BVR weapons from your manned fighters operating further back).
If the enemy's 5th gens somehow manage to get through your forward UCAVs and manage to reach where your own 5th gens are, the idea is that the enemy's 5th gens would be significantly depleted in strength by the time they arrive. Furthermore, your own 5th gens should have far superior situational awareness provided to you by your forward placed UCAVs having detected/tracked/engaged the enemy earlier which can allow your manned 5th gens to position themselves in manners to enable favourable engagements.
As for A2A UCAV loyal wingmen primarily being glorified magazine extensions for manned fighters -- that is somewhat close to my vision.
I would argue that future A2A UCAV loyal wingmen/MUMT would best be described as glorified magazine and sensor extensions for manned fighters designed to operate forward of manned fighters and designed to be lower cost, more attritible, and greater in number.
