830: AI-ENABLED COLLABORATIVE COMBAT AIRCRAFT RESHAPING THE AIR POWER

 

On July 10 this year, over restricted airspace at Edwards Air Force Base in California, an uncrewed aircraft crossed an important threshold in military aviation. An Anduril Industries YFQ-44A fired a live AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile at a simulated target after receiving only the command to strike from a human operator. The aircraft itself handled the engagement geometry, target tracking and weapon release, becoming the first American autonomous combat wingman to complete a live air-to-air weapons engagement. The test, supported by the Air Dominance Combined Test Force from Edwards’ 412th Test Wing, marked far more than a successful missile launch.

The event’s demonstration was significant. The autonomy software managed the entire sensor-to-shooter chain. The aircraft managed the mechanics of the engagement while the human retained the firing authority. It was a clear demonstration of how future air combat is likely to be fought. Allowing pilots to command formations of autonomous teammates rather than fly every engagement themselves.

 

Collaborative Combat Aircraft

An AI-enabled collaborative combat aircraft, also known as an ‘Uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft’ (UCCA) or ‘loyal wingman’, is an autonomous, armed aerial platform designed to operate alongside fighter jets. It can fly in formation, engage threats, and respond to changing battlefield conditions without requiring a ground operator to manage its every move. The main idea behind the CCA is to increase ‘combat mass’ during operations and extend the reach of crewed aircraft.
 

This is where the concept of Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) comes in. In essence, crewed combat aircraft act as the command centre, while the CCA is the operator’s ‘extended arm’. The pilot provides high-level mission objectives, which the CCA then executes at the desired level of autonomy. They can take on specialised roles: for instance, one CCA might engage an enemy target while others jam enemy radar or scan the battlefield and relay real-time data back to the pilot.

The CCAs can even coordinate among themselves, dynamically dividing responsibilities for reconnaissance, electronic warfare, decoy operations, and strike operations. Authority over the use of lethal force remains with the human operator, who is assisted by AI-based decision-support software.

The concept also changes how missions are executed. AI fuses all the sensor inputs (radar returns, infrared imagery, electronic support measures and off-board sensor feeds) into a single tactical picture.  Machine-learning algorithms continuously improve target recognition.

All of this is made possible by a sophisticated mission system. These systems allow humans and machines to work together seamlessly as a team. The CCA takes on the cognitive burden of processing data and carrying out routine manoeuvres, allowing the human pilot to focus on high-level tactical decisions.

 

CCA Necessity

In modern warfare, the side that can process information and act fastest has the advantage. In addition, it’s not just about the first 24 hours of a conflict; it’s also about endurance. The attraction of Collaborative Combat Aircraft is as much economic as technological.

Modern fifth-generation fighters are extraordinarily capable but also extraordinarily expensive to procure, sustain and replace. Every aircraft lost represents not only a financial cost but also years of pilot training. CCAs are designed to generate what air forces increasingly describe as affordable combat mass: multiplying combat power by pairing each crewed fighter with several autonomous aircraft that can undertake high-risk tasks without putting pilots in harm’s way.

This development changes the way air superiority is achieved, especially against a peer competitor. Commanders can distribute tasks, sensors, payloads, and weapons across a larger network of autonomous platforms.

They do not have to rely solely on a relatively small number of exquisite aircraft.

 

Global Programs

The United States Move from Experiment to Capability Development. The United States has progressed further than any other country in translating this concept into operational capability. The Air Force’s Increment 1 programme selected two aircraft for production: Anduril’s YFQ-44A and General Atomics’ YFQ-42A Dark Merlin. Together, they will form the service’s first operational fleet of Collaborative Combat Aircraft. The pace of their development has been remarkable. Within less than a year, the YFQ-44A progressed from its maiden flight (in October 2025) to a successful live air-to-air missile engagement. The industrial ecosystem is also expanding rapidly. Northrop Grumman, Kratos and General Atomics’ modular Gambit family are all developing related concepts. At the same time, the Air Force has indicated that future increments could follow a collaborative approach with allied participation. The objective would no longer be to build a better aircraft but to field interoperable autonomous combat fleets capable of operating alongside allied air forces.

British Program. Britain’s Royal Air Force has launched the £300 million Storm Fighter programme to develop autonomous aircraft capable of operating alongside the Typhoon, F-35, and, eventually, the Tempest sixth-generation fighter.

Australian Program. Australia’s Boeing MQ-28A Ghost Bat, developed under the Airpower Teaming System, predates the American CCA designation and has accumulated significantly more flight experience than either of the US Increment 1 designs.

Although these programmes differ in design philosophy and industrial approach, they reflect a striking convergence. Independent air forces have reached the same operational conclusion: future air superiority will depend less on ever more expensive crewed fighters operating alone and more on tightly integrated formations of humans and autonomous systems.

Chinese Program. China has pursued a more opaque but equally ambitious path towards AI-enabled collaborative combat aircraft. Rather than treating loyal wingmen as standalone projects, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) appears to be developing them as integral components of a networked combat ecosystem centred on the J-20 stealth fighter and future sixth-generation aircraft. State-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) has unveiled several candidate platforms, including the FH-97A, widely regarded as China’s analogue to the US Collaborative Combat Aircraft, as well as concepts such as the Dark Sword and other high-speed unmanned combat air vehicles. Chinese military publications suggest these systems are intended to undertake high-risk missions including forward reconnaissance, electronic attack, suppression of enemy air defences, decoy operations and air-to-air combat, while remaining under human command for the employment of lethal force.

 

The Indian Approach

On the indigenous side, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s Combat Air Teaming System (CATS) envisions a Tejas or future AMCA acting as a “mothership”, controlling multiple Warrior and Hunter drones capable of conducting reconnaissance, suppressing enemy air defences, defending the crewed fighter and striking high-value targets. HAL’s Unmanned Kiran programme offers a complementary, lower-cost route by converting existing Kiran Mk-II trainers into optionally manned aircraft capable of both piloted and autonomous operation.

The longer-term vision extends into the AMCA programme itself. Rather than retrofitting autonomy onto an existing platform, the AMCA is expected to incorporate manned-unmanned teaming from the outset, potentially supported by a future Combat Cloud architecture that links fighters, satellites, AWACS, and autonomous aircraft into a single combat network.

 

The Bottom Line

Collaborative Combat Aircraft represent the most significant conceptual shift in the application of airpower since the advent of stealth. CCAs would not replace the pilots but redefine their role. Future aviators will increasingly command formations of autonomous formations.

The air force that masters networked integration will enjoy advantages in decision speed, survivability, and operational endurance. The future of air power will belong not to the aircraft with the best individual performance, but to the force that can most effectively combine humans, machines and networks into a single fighting system.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

1989
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to the respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

References: –

  1. U.S. Air Force News, “Air Dominance Combined Test Force conducts first autonomous CCA live missile firing at Edwards AFB”, 2025. https://www.af.mil/, https://www.edwards.af.mil/
  1. Anduril Industries. “YFQ-44A Autonomous Collaborative Combat Aircraft”, 2025. https://www.anduril.com/
  1. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. YFQ-42A Collaborative Combat Aircraft. (2025). https://www.ga-asi.com/
  1. Future Combat Air System (FCAS), Tempest Programme,  https://www.raf.mod.uk/

 

  1. Boeing Defence Australia. MQ-28 Ghost Bat (Airpower Teaming System). https://www.boeing.com/defense/
  1. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). Combat Air Teaming System (CATS) https://hal-india.co.in/
  1. Scharre, P. Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. W. W. Norton. (2018).
  1. RAND Corporation. Studies on Autonomous Air Combat, Human-Machine Teaming, https://www.rand.org/
  1. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Airpower and AI Future Combat Aircraft,  https://www.csis.org/
  1. Endsley, M. R. (2017). From Here to Autonomy: Lessons Learned From Human–Automation Research. Human Factors.

829: Podcast with Abhinay

Had an interesting chat with Abhinay of Prabhasakshi News Channel.

We talked about: –

  1. New balance of air power in the world today.
  2. Drones and Fighter aircraft.
  3. Different philosophies of Russia’s Su-57 and the U.S.’s F-35.
  4. Future of air warfare
  5. Timelines of indigenous fifth-generation aircraft. (AMCA).
  6. Role of AI in air warfare.
  7. Loyal Wingman drones.
  8. F-35 / Su-57 / AMCA.
  9. Aircraft engine technology development and production.
  10. Export of fighter jets as a geopolitical tool and a source of dependency.
  11. India’s greatest achievements and biggest challenges in terms of defence self-reliance.
  12. Indian Air Force of 2040.
  13. One trend in air warfare over the next 20 years.
  14. Balakot Operations.

 

Value additions are most welcome.

 

1989
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to the respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

 

805: REIGNITED DEBATE: FIGHTER JETS VS. LONG-RANGE VECTORS AND DRONES

 

The Russian-Ukrainian war and the US-Israel-Iran War have reignited the debate about the cost-benefit analysis of fighter jets vis-à-vis long-range vectors and drones. Some analysts feel that the fighter aircraft have become obsolete.

 

The Cost-Benefit Reality

The approximate cost of various air platforms and weapon systems is as follows: –

    • A modern aircraft would cost anywhere between 100 and 120 million dollars.
    • A loitering munition would cost approximately 20,000–50,000 dollars.
    • A cruise missile would cost around 2 million dollars.

On a per-unit cost basis, the cost asymmetry among fighter aircraft, loitering munitions, and cruise missiles is stark. However, the cost-benefit analysis in warfare is not purely a function of unit cost. It depends on the effect achieved (Bang for Buck). It is measured across the full mission profile, including survivability, reusability, flexibility, and escalation management.

Fighter jets are reusable. A modern fighter that completes a strike mission and returns to base amortises its $100 million price tag across every sortie it flies over a 30-year service life. A cruise missile or kamikaze drone is single-use. When you factor in sortie economics across a full operational life, the per-strike cost of a modern multi-role fighter often competes favourably with standoff missiles for missions that don’t require deep penetration of layered air defences.

The greater cost-benefit advantage of long-range vectors and drones lies in scenarios with high attrition risk. This is the genuine strategic logic behind standoff weapons. It is not that they are cheaper in absolute terms, but that they preserve the most expensive and irreplaceable asset in the equation, i.e. the trained pilot. It takes a decade and an enormous investment to produce a combat-ready fighter pilot. A cruise missile battery can be replenished within months if the industrial base is functioning.

Drones depend on datalinks, GPS navigation, and communications.  In a sophisticated EW environment, these dependencies become vulnerabilities. Fighter jets, on the other hand, with onboard avionics, EW self-protection suites, and pilot judgment, prove to be more robust.

 

Obsolescence / Relevance Deliberation

The short answer is that the recent wars have not signalled the obsolescence of fighter aircraft. However, they have issued a clear warning about the utilisation pattern.

The Ukraine conflict has demonstrated that surface-launched systems can achieve kill rates against aircraft. It makes conventional air operations near the front line prohibitively expensive. The aircraft do not become irrelevant, but they are forced to operate at the outer edge of the threat envelope. They serve as a standoff launch platform.

The drone utilisation in the war in Ukraine is revolutionary. Cheap FPV drones could destroy air and ground platforms worth millions. They could disrupt logistics and even impose psychological costs.

The US-Israel-Iran exchanges offer a different set of lessons.  This is the cost-benefit problem in reverse: defending against mass drone and missile attacks with expensive interceptors is fiscally unsustainable in repeated exchanges.

The broader conclusion these conflicts bring out is that fighter jets have not become obsolete. However, their employment methodology has evolved. They are not the sole instrument of the kill chain of air combat.

 

Noteworthy Changes to be Adapted

Three things have genuinely changed, and air forces need to absorb them.

    • First, forward basing of high-value aircraft is more dangerous than ever. The logic of static forward basing is being superseded by the demands of survivability, dispersal, and mobility.
    • Second, electronic warfare and EW resilience are now as important as kinetic capability. Investment in the electromagnetic dimension of air combat is no longer optional.
    • Third, the cost-comparison (between incoming projectiles and defence weapons) problem is real and demands a structural response. The answer is to develop a layered response that places cheap effectors against cheap threats and reserves expensive ones for high-value targets.

 

Fighter jets remain the most flexible, survivable, and capable instruments of air power available for high-end contested environments.

Fighter jets are the most capable instruments of air power. However, no single platform or vector can win the modern air war. The answer lies in integrating manned fighters, Long-range standoff weapons, drones, and layered air defences into a coherent operational architecture.

The air forces that will prevail in future conflicts are not those with the most aircraft, nor those that have replaced aircraft with drones. The ones that will prevail are the ones that have integrated the full spectrum of air power tools under a doctrine sophisticated enough to deploy them appropriately.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

1989
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to the respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

English हिंदी