This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no>
| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no>
| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no>
| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
International scope
This article has been totally biased towards US work. I have begun to broaden it out, but sections on more nations, such as China, Japan and Russia, are still needed. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
13:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Proposed name change
Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) is an official USAF designation for aircraft more widely known as loyal wingmen.
Web searches seem to bear this out. The capitalised "Loyal Wingman" is used a fair bit as a proper name, especially in the UK, but appears to break Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Loyal wingman (sentence case) redirects here already.
There appear to be two alternatives to sorting this out:
Move this article to
Loyal wingman over the current redirect.
Copy this article to
Loyal wingman over the current redirect, and revert the present page back to its focus on the US.
My view is that there is not enough US-specific content (at least, as yet) to sustain a separate article. Therefore I would prefer option 1. Does anybody have any concerns with that?
The name change would be a shift in tactics. I think it's pretty clear CCAs will be able to perform strikes, at a far distance from the mission commander, and forward of the commander. A wingman wouldn't be the 'tip of the spear'. That would be an argument for option 2, which would allow you to internationalize 'loyal wingman'.
Can you cite a reliable source for that? You appear to have different definitions of the "CCA" vs. "loyal wingman" roles in mind, and I can find none. Indeed, many of the cited sources in the article use the terms as synonyms. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
15:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
And this:
"The U.S. Air Force has laid out an initial operating plan for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), the uncrewed loyal wingman systems it plans to fly alongside fighters"
Which document contains Penney's initial definition? Could you provide a link to it? The article on
Next Generation Air Dominance currently refers to "uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), or "Loyal Wingman" platforms". What sources contradict NGAD's use of these terms as synonyms? Your other ideas are just unsupported editorial opinion, and hence not admissible here. This decision needs to be evidence-based, and you are just not offering any. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
17:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for identifying these links. So, Penney's "early" definition is an advisory paper pumped out by a think tank in 2022. She sees the loyal wingman as a tethered CCA, while CCAs may also operate in untethered modes. But those sources in the Note (that I moved, I did not delete) do not bear you out. Two do not mention the wingman by name, and the third, reporting an interview with Air Force Secretary Frank Kendal, remarks on "creation of a “Collaborative Combat Aircraft” program, under which the Air Force would develop a drone wingman for the NGAD fighter." In other words, Kendal supports Venckunas and contradicts Penney.
I can see where you are coming from, but the available source material is contradictory and the article too short to be worth splitting at this time. Outside of the USA, "loyal wingman" is the umbrella term (try googling untethered loyal wingman), so that is what this article should reflect. Or, to put it another way, if I did create a parallel article for the loyal wingman, I would simply clone what is currently here and then revert my generalzations in this article. If someone were then to put up a formal merge request to revert that fork, I reckon it would succeed - but that's just my opinion. So I'm kind of trying to virualize that process in this discussion, to see if there is any consensus one way or the other. I think we need more voices here. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
08:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for acknowledging her role: Kendall and CQ Brown are going with her CCA nomenclature, which, for the USAF is going to get institutionalized in the US DOD as "
Program Executive Officer for
Collaborative combat aircraft". What matters is the duration of the money being offered to the developing institutions (vendor, airframe manufacturer, thinktank, startup, etc.), to move the USAF to
overmatch before any other competitor.
None of which demonstrates any established mainstream distinction between the "CCA" and the "loyal wingman". Not that I accept your assertion that "Kendall ... [is] going with her CCA nomenclature" when I have just cited an example of Kendal's contradictory usage. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
17:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
[Update] With all the detailed stuff you are adding, it is becoming clear that separate articles are already appropriate. I'll get on with that. Thank you for your patience. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
12:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The FARP image was removed on the ground it was not a CCA. However, the image was of a FARP for a UAV, which is an allowed concept in Heather Penney's formulation. That particular FARP had never been accomplished before, and required the use of a refuelling team which had flown to a distant combatant command just to accomplish the FARP, and to demonstrate the principle. Since CCAs do not currently operate at large distances from their ground crews, the principle of a FARP was readily illustrated by the groundbreaking image of the MQ-9 being refuelled. I believe that FARPs will be just as important for CCAs in use in combat in a distant combatant command in wartime. They will need ground crews as well. --
Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)22:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Forward refuelling points have been routine for the last century and are not a concept-related capability by any stretch of the imagination. If somebody sets up special facilities for loyal wingmen that piloted jets won't use, then fine, but otherwise they are off-topic. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply