Air Force's Secretive XQ-58A Valkyrie Experimental Combat Drone Emerges After First Flight

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,560
Reaction score
1,749
Air Force's Secretive XQ-58A Valkyrie Experimental Combat Drone Emerges After First Flight
The QX-58 may lead to a whole new class of highly-flexible and affordable unmanned combat air vehicles that could revolutionize how the USAF fights.
6 Mar 2019

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ental-combat-drone-emerges-after-first-flight

Excerpts:

Just a week after Boeing unveiled their export-centric 'loyal wingman' combat drone concept, the Air Force Research Lab has announced that their own similar endeavor, dubbed the XQ-58A Valkyrie, has made its first flight. It also posted the very first image of the aircraft that has been developed under a veil of secrecy over the last two and half years.

A press release from the USAF about the aircraft's first flight reads:

The XQ-58A Valkyrie demonstrator, a long-range, high subsonic unmanned air vehicle completed its inaugural flight March 5, 2019 at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona. The Air Force Research Laboratory partnered with Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems to develop the XQ-58A.

This joint effort falls within the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Low Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology (LCAAT) portfolio, which has the objective to break the escalating cost trajectory of tactically relevant aircraft. The objectives of the LCAAT initiative include designing and building UAS faster by developing better design tools, and maturing and leveraging commercial manufacturing processes to reduce build time and cost.

Developed for runway independence, the aircraft behaved as expected and completed 76 minutes of flight time. The time to first flight took a little over 2.5 years from contract award. The XQ-58A has a total of five planned test flights in two phases with objectives that include evaluating system functionality, aerodynamic performance, and launch and recovery systems.

“XQ-58A is the first example of a class of UAV that is defined by low procurement and operating costs while providing game changing combat capability,” said Doug Szczublewski, AFRL’s XQ-58A Program Manager.
It is hoped that the XQ-58A will provide a low cost surveillance, strike, and electronic warfare support capability that can be operated independently, as a cooperative swarm, or as part of a so called 'loyal wingman' concept of operations a group of Q-58s would work under the command of a nearby manned combat aircraft. The stealthy drone, which supposedly has a range of well over 2,000 miles and is capable of carrying a pair of Small Diameter Bombs or electronic warfare and surveillance gear, is also capable of being launched using rocket boosters instead of relying on runways alone.

LCASD aims to be able to eventually field a optionally reusable, highly adaptable, low-end unmanned combat air vehicle for $3 million apiece for batches of up to 99 aircraft per year, or $2 million each for yearly orders of 100 or more. In essence, the LCASD concept is “high-volume” both in the strategy behind it and in terms of procuring it affordably.

So yes, the XQ-58A is truly an exciting X-plane that could change the way the Air Force fights in the very near future. And considering that foreign powers, both friendly and unfriendly, are rapidly working to field their own stealthy long-range combat air vehicle systems, the appearance of the XQ-58 couldn't have come soon enough.

But once again, this aircraft likely represents the low-end of the USAF's UCAV initiatives—the tip of a largely invisible iceberg.


Kratos XQ-58A Valkyrie UAS First Flight • Yuma Proving Ground



image


image


image
 
A pilot is not a one trick pony. They can do things a drone cannot. .
 
Love the "low cost"...

LOL, you have to mentally insert "compared to" a stealth fighter or swarm of same.

Considering a Tomahawk runs ~$1.4M, $3M for something where most of it comes back isn't so bad. Of course, that doesn't include the cost of the bombs the drone drops, the fuel, or remote pilot time. Still, it would pay off if you could use this thing 4-5 times in places where you'd otherwise use a cruise missile.

Also, when one considers that it costs about a million dollars to train a combat pilot...

Not to mention time. Flight training takes 12-18 months.
 
Considering a Tomahawk runs ~$1.4M, $3M for something where most of it comes back isn't so bad. Of course, that doesn't include the cost of the bombs the drone drops, the fuel, or remote pilot time. Still, it would pay off if you could use this thing 4-5 times in places where you'd otherwise use a cruise missile.



Not to mention time. Flight training takes 12-18 months.
Don't forget the Human factor, easier to lose a machine....It's never easy to truly amortize a complex system. Can only laugh at electric powered zero emissions vehicles ..And..e 85, really?
 
And if they can be remotely piloted it gets better. With proper feedback, this at least allows human reflex and intuition to enter the loop a bit if needed
 
One of the big payoffs when removing the pilot from onboard is the mass saving. You reduce the mass of the aircraft by not having a pilot, ejection seat and chute, helmet, windshield, flight control hardware (stick, yoke, pedals etc), lift support systems and I am sure a few other things. You probably gain a little mass along the way with some added systems taking a small mass penalty, but overall a great saving.
 
True, pilots can do things drones can't. Then again, it is hard to torture a drone in captivity. Both have advantages and if we use them right, it will strengthen our capabilities.
 
Drones would gain more cred if they put the image of "Maverick and Goose from Top Gun doing the invert over Mig" on the fuselage.
 
The main advantage to unmanned aircraft is that there is no equipment required to keep the pilot alive. So much of a modern military aircraft is built around the survivability of the pilot. If that is removed, prices can go way down and performance can go up. That being said, there is no question that you are usually going to get better results with a pilot in the cockpit instead of looking at simulations nowhere near where the action is actually taking place. It looks to me like both systems have a place on the modern battlefield. The interesting part is when they talk about the aircraft being attritable. That opens up suicide mission as a viable alternative. When there is no next of kin getting that dreaded visit, the strategies for a moral society begin to change. That could be good or bad.

Jim
 
It actually is a bargain comparatively. Just jealous that I don't get to spend other peoples money for them is all..
 
I can see a time when an aircraft carrier consists of a whole bunch of drones, with a big room full of pilots doing FPV. Honestly, I'm surprised that it hasn't already happened...
 
And when does "war" become machines fighting other machines? Then it takes emotion mostly out of the equation and makes it a battle of resources. Hmm..
 
That is a rather simplistic response...

I mentioned earlier amortization....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can see a time when an aircraft carrier consists of a whole bunch of drones, with a big room full of pilots doing FPV. Honestly, I'm surprised that it hasn't already happened...
Except the pilots wont be on board the carrier, they will be somewhere much safer.

That is a rather simplistic response...
True though, whether its guns, ammo, ships, tanks, land, manufacturing, human lives....they are all resources in war and the country with the most usually wins.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even more simplistic. Were we not attempting discussion?

Why not then target the controllers and or coders/hardware manufacturers. Not like it hasn't been done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well there you have it boys, Wallace is better than everyone else. Remember that, if you are capable.
 
It's common knowledge that everyone target's "infrastructure". Common enough that , even when I was a kid it always seemed like Hogan's Hero's were constantly attempting to destroy a ball bearing factory or eliminate a key senior officer. Why would this be any different?
 
Back
Top