u/Maleficent_Voice4570

The AIM-54 Phoenix was built to intercept Soviet bombers and cruise missiles at long range, but seemed outdated as smaller missiles became standard. However, the R-37M is reported effective and estimated around 200 to 300 kilometers, while China's PL-17 is widely estimated around 300 to 400 kilometers (I find that hard to believe but that’s what IISS says). The U.S. has introduced the AIM-174B with open-source estimates suggesting 300 plus kilometers, while the AIM-260 is expected to exceed AIM-120D ranges. With the Meteor also proving you can have efficient kinematics without extreme size or speed, the question is whether dedicated very long range missiles still fill a niche or if AIM-260 makes them unnecessary.

Hope everyone is having a good day and the info is based on what I know and have read about. I could always be wrong and I some times make mistakes so take what I say with grain of salt, I am not a military expert. 🙂

The PL15E's reported combat use in 2025 has contributed to its reputation as one of the most capable beyond visual range missiles. However, how much of that reputation is based on the missile itself, versus pilot training, tactics, sensor support, electronic warfare, rules of engagement, and the wider kill chain?

With all the attention on programmes such as the MQ-28 Ghost Bat and other Collaborative Combat Aircraft, I was thinking that they'd make fantastic additions to a 1/72 collection.

I'd love to see manufacturers produce a Loyal Wingman with options for different configurations, such as internal weapons bays open or closed, different sensor fits, and perhaps even a display set with an F-35, F-15EX, showing how these aircraft might operate together, they could come with or be separately sold. Would love them to be on display with other aircraft.

I've been reading about the Loyal Wingman/Collaborative Combat Aircraft concept recently, and I'm curious about what the long term operational vision actually is.

At first, I assumed these aircraft were simply intended to carry additional weapons so fighters such as the F-35 or F-15EX could remain in the fight after expending their own missiles. Instead of returning to base, could the pilot simply direct nearby wingmen carrying additional AIM-120s or other weapons to continue the engagement?

However, the more I think about it, the more I wonder whether the real advantage lies somewhere else entirely.

Is the primary benefit actually the ability to position sensors and weapons much closer to the enemy? If a loyal wingman is operating well ahead of the fighter, does that provide a much better firing solution for BVR engagements, with missiles retaining more energy because they are launched from much closer to the target?

I also wonder how these aircraft are expected to operate as a system. Could multiple loyal wingmen form a distributed network of sensors, electronic warfare assets, and weapons, or is each aircraft primarily intended to support the crewed fighter independently?

Another question concerns stealth. Are these aircraft expected to be survivable enough to accompany aircraft such as the F-35 deep into contested airspace, or are they more likely to operate at stand off distances? If they possess a high degree of stealth, could they loiter inside contested airspace with passive sensors, receive targeting information from another platform, and launch an AIM-120 without the crewed fighter ever approaching the target?

I'm also curious whether future variants might become increasingly specialised. Rather than every loyal wingman performing the same role, could some be optimised for electronic warfare, others for passive detection of low observable aircraft using IRST and other passive sensors, others for ISR, and others for strike missions? In that case, the crewed fighter would increasingly become the command and battle management platform rather than the primary weapons platform.

Looking beyond high-end conflicts between major powers, could this concept also fundamentally change the capabilities of smaller air forces? Recent conflicts have demonstrated the growing threat posed by large numbers of relatively inexpensive one way attack drones. Could an F-16, f-18 ,f-15, or similar aircraft directing several autonomous wingmen carrying low cost interceptors such as APKWS provide a more affordable way of defending airspace against mass drone attacks, while preserving more expensive air to air missiles for higher value threats?

Finally, I wonder whether the real significance of Loyal Wingman is less about replacing pilots and more about changing how combat air power is structured. Instead of relying on a relatively small number of highly capable multi role fighters, could future air forces consist of crewed aircraft commanding teams of specialised autonomous platforms, each optimised for sensing, electronic warfare, strike, air defence, or reconnaissance?

I'd be interested to hear from those who have been following programmes such as CCA, MQ-28, or similar efforts. I really am just curious about this and what others think on the topic.

Hope everyone is having a good day :)

The image above shows a U.S. F-16V, but isn't it basically only used to train Taiwanese F-16V pilots? So the U.S. only has, like, fewer than 10 F-16Vs for that purpose, right? I was under the impression the US didn’t operate the f-16v only f-16 block 52 + PoBIT upgrade until I saw the image.

The F-15’s air-to-air record of around 106 to 0 refers specifically to combat against enemy aircraft. Losses from SAMs, accidents, or friendly fire are not included in that statistic.

As for why the F-15QA was used instead of aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Rafale, is the reason availability? better IFF? Just curious what people think