So in the space of 6months, you now agree with me that unmanned combat drones with a range of 4000km is not just a game changer, but entirely feasible?
Your post below.
I reckon a well-run Navy programme (piggybacking off the Air Force) should take 7 years.
Since you think my imagination is very healthy, what does that say about your imagination and knowledge base?
In every debate of opposing ideas, it is imperative in my view that the context and scope of the conversation is defined or else we can easily end up talking pass each other.
If I remember correctly, your reference point is a CSBA document which you used to substantiate your idea of what a future PLAN carrier group might look like. Specifically, your focus was on the adoption of unmanned platforms as a means to achieve certain operational concepts. My reply to your idea is what you have chosen to pick on as a carry on from that conversation. The main problem is that you are equating that conversation on unmanned platforms as if they are equivalent in nature. I disagree and I will explain why.
First of all is context. The nature of the unmanned capabilities that were featured in the CSBA document is best illustrated by a graphical representation taken from that document.
You will note from that CSBA document, those capabilities include tanking, ISR, and DCA. In contrast, the XQ-58A Valkyrie is basically an attritable focusing on long range strike.
Secondly, my view was at that time and remain so is that there is no program of record in the USN currently that goes beyond the scope of tanking. By extension the idea of having unmanned ISR and DCA capable platforms remain an idea into the future. It doesn’t mean that such capabilities are not achievable but that there is no current program of record that may possibly lead to such an operational state by 2040. Such a view is grounded on how the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program has evolved into the MQ-25 ‘Stingray’, or Carrier-Based Aerial Refuelling System (CBARS). The USN’s budget submission for the 2017 fiscal year decided on a much less technically and operationally ambitious CBARS requirement. In other words, an ISR and strike program was too ambitious given the state of the technology. The CSBA document even further extends the capabilities sought to include DCA. As is, the MQ-25 (tanking only) is slated to undergo at sea testing in 2022/2023 and IOC remain uncertain.
Finally, the XQ-58A is an Air Force Research Laboratory program that has yet reached the stage to formally demonstrate proof of concept. While the program itself seems promising it is very early days and no service including the USAF has committed to it. It is basically an attritable long range strike drone that does not require a landing strip.
Your argument in my view is rather carte blanche in application that the two concepts are somehow similar and comparable as a basic premise. They are not.
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/FENNEQHWGNBSBN6HHHKOIIKPPA.jpg)