E-7A Wedgetail

[uhhello]

11 minutes ago, brabus said:

Problem is none of these manned platforms are survivable if WW3 kicks off. UAS constellation and space are the only viable long term solution (speaking specifically to maintaining capes we need whilst in a shooting match with the PRC).

I'm not so sure anything in space is safe if shit really kicks off

[Lawman]

I'm not so sure anything in space is safe if shit really kicks off

Yeah but we can build and launch at a rate they can’t thanks to things like Elon.

So while it would suck, that’s an attrition fight they can’t match us in. People in skill positions are a lot harder to make.

All bets are off if they or anybody else go the “if we can’t have it nobody can” route and just set a few nukes off in low Earth orbit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

2 hours ago, uhhello said:

I'm not so sure anything in space is safe if shit really kicks off

 Not saying it is, but space/UAS/other tech are substantially more effective and survivable/easily replaceable than manned C2ISR in a war with the PRC. I’m not even talking about losing people, I’m purely talking about persistent C2ISR capability that manned assets simply cannot provide. 

[uhhello]

16 minutes ago, brabus said:

 Not saying it is, but space/UAS/other tech are substantially more effective and survivable/easily replaceable than manned C2ISR in a war with the PRC. I’m not even talking about losing people, I’m purely talking about persistent C2ISR capability that manned assets simply cannot provide. 

It'll take about 10 destroyed satellites to make space un-usable.

[brabus]

Between manned C2ISR and other tech, manned loses every time (in the context of full war with PRC). “Lose” defined as either literally lost, or mission ineffective. Much easier to succeed with other tech (not to say it’s indestructible, can’t be degraded/denied, etc.) than manned. It’s simply the world/near future we live in, at least in PACOM.

Edited June 16 by brabus

[Clark Griswold]

Reaper AWACS

https://www.twz.com/air/mq-9b-airborne-early-warning-variant-could-fill-major-aerial-surveillance-gaps
 

[fire4effect]

On 6/17/2025 at 12:06 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Reaper AWACS

https://www.twz.com/air/mq-9b-airborne-early-warning-variant-could-fill-major-aerial-surveillance-gaps
 

I could see this as well as other variants like Sea Guardian etc taking over for most manned platforms for surveillance utilized by CBP DHS and USCG. Especially as AI improves. I was watching American Made the other day and I'm sure Barry Seals would have had a much tougher time against a 24/7 integrated network of these platforms. As brabus said it's the world we live in.

[Clark Griswold]

5 minutes ago, fire4effect said:

I could see this as well as other variants like Sea Guardian etc taking over for most manned platforms for surveillance utilized by CBP DHS and USCG. Especially as AI improves. I was watching American Made the other day and I'm sure Barry Seals would have had a much tougher time against a 24/7 integrated network of these platforms. As brabus said it's the world we live in.

Yeah, persistent presence missions I agree will mostly be filled by unmanned systems but I’ll still argue for the need for some manned capabilities, particularly for dynamic/short term missions, what exactly that looks like is not my call but I see an overlapping of effects required in major future conflicts, a sensor-shooter-node in the link of systems, being optionally manned gives you the best of both worlds IMO.  
 

[Clark Griswold]

E-7 doing cool shit

https://www.twz.com/air/mq-28-ghost-bats-controlled-from-e-7-wedgetail-in-loyal-wingman-test


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Majestik Møøse]

On 6/15/2025 at 4:40 PM, brabus said:

Problem is none of these manned platforms are survivable if WW3 kicks off. UAS constellation and space are the only viable long term solution (speaking specifically to maintaining capes we need whilst in a shooting match with the PRC).

Maybe you don’t know how that can work, but I do.

[brabus]

@Majestik Møøse I’m very confident in my assessment (and it’s not “mine” per se, but rather I concur with it). Though perhaps we are both thinking of different scenarios/vignettes, which is certainly possible and could drive either position being valid. But, we’re not going to be able to sort that out on the internet. To be clear, I’m not anti-manned ISR, and it will continue to play a role, but there are several scenarios where it has zero game, at least for the foreseeable future (and probably doesn’t make sense to change that vs. putting efforts into UAS, AI, Space, Cyber, etc.)

Edited yesterday at 03:24 AM by brabus

[jice]

23 hours ago, brabus said:

@Majestik Møøse I’m very confident in my assessment (and it’s not “mine” per se, but rather I concur with it). Though perhaps we are both thinking of different scenarios/vignettes, which is certainly possible and could drive either position being valid. But, we’re not going to be able to sort that out on the internet. To be clear, I’m not anti-manned ISR, and it will continue to play a role, but there are several scenarios where it has zero game, at least for the foreseeable future (and probably doesn’t make sense to change that vs. putting efforts into UAS, AI, Space, Cyber, etc.)

I’m curious what differentiates manned ISR from UAS in the “zero game” assessment. What difference does one having a human in it vs. the other not make?

Attritable assets don’t have more game; they’re just cheaper to lose. And once you invest in making something ‘survivable’ in the way I think you’re using the term, it is likely not attritable anymore.

UAS also introduces a data logistics tail (assuming you want to task and receive the collect) that is as costly to guard as it is to create; it’s been a long time since we’ve shot down or lost a manned airplane because the pilot refused to listen to commands like ‘come home.’

Agree though, maybe we’re all thinking about different scenarios… but this is a VERY common trap people fall into, usually precipitated by somebody saying “you have a problem you don’t know you have. Don’t worry I have a solution, at cost plus.”

[brabus]

1 hour ago, jice said:

What difference does one having a human in it vs. the other not make?

The simple answer is because manned ISR assets cannot get the sensors, comms, etc. where we need them to be effective (because they’ll be at the bottom of the ocean well before hitting the effective point). But we can get sensors, comms, etc. where we need them via other means that are far more survivable/robust/expendable, thus actually effective. There’s more nuance than that, but that’s the big picture. Now of course we could sink 100s of Bs into developing a “6th gen” manned ISR platform, but it just doesn’t make sense to do so given emerging technologies and the capabilities we can realize for a lot less (or at least have shitloads more capability for the same price).

Edited 15 hours ago by brabus

[Prosuper]

Being an E-3 Crew Chief for many years, being there getting brand new jets delivered and arriving broke for radar. Seeing many air aborts for mission systems which the acft the day before had flown 12 hours of pilot pro's. Seeing the reengining program cut, if they would have done this the fleet could have been much healthier, changed many TF-33s to see it not even last one mission. Today the TF33 goes to depot and sits on a deadline with no parts to fix it. This acft has been so badly mismanaged by Wing Commanders who only cared about their next job, the knee jerk reaction for the black hawk shootdowns of building additional new crews but not having the acft to certify them. I am so glad that I ended my career on KC-135s.