Airbus US Space & Defense UH-72 Unmanned Logistics Connector

[RavenOne]

According to Airbus US Space & Defense Linkedin page

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) awarded Airbus U.S. Space & Defense a Phase I Other Transactional Authority Agreement, through Naval Aviation Systems Consortium, in support of the United States Marine Corps Aerial Logistics Connector.

The award is part of a Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA) Rapid Prototyping Program which aims to provide the USMC with prototypes to demonstrate the aircrafts capabilities to the warfighter through a series of operationally experiments.

The Airbus U.S. UH-72 Unmanned Logistics Connector, a variant of the proven Lakota platform, is intended to provide logistical support during expeditionary operations within contested environments.

“Our unmanned UH-72 logistics connector leverages nearly two decades of U.S. military capability and offers Marines a versatile, affordable and enduring solution to address logistics missions around the globe," said Rob Geckle, Chairman and CEO of Airbus U.S. Space & Defense. "We look forward to supporting the Marine Corps with this latest modernization of the Lakota platform.”

UH-72 Unmanned Logistics Connector - Airbus U.S. Space & Defense, Inc.

Marines take the fight to the enemy. The UH-72 Unmanned Logistics Connector takes what the Marines need to the fight. Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations require proven, reliable logistics support. The Airbus UH-72 Unmanned Logistics Connector is the low risk, affordable solution for the...

airbusus.com

cheers

 

[Forest Green]

UH-72 Lakota Drone In The Running To Haul Cargo For The USMC

A pilotless version of the Army's UH-72 could become one part of the Marine Corps plans for a future uncrewed logistics ecosystem.

www.twz.com

 

[TomcatViP]

Nice loading area:

 

[Stargazer]

So, will it be a QH-72? an MQ-29? an MQ-36?

 

[BlackBat242]

QCH?

 

[TomS]

So, will it be a QH-72? an MQ-29? an MQ-36?

QCH?

The K-Max drones were apparently CQ-24, so possibly something in that vein. Q-72 has been used but is wildly out of sequence. We have no idea what the next available number in the Q series actually is. My best guess would be CQ-29 or CQ-37, depending on whether Q-29 to Q-34 have been used or blocked for some reason or just skipped but left available.

Current Designations of U.S. Unmanned Military Aerospace Vehicles

 

[BlackBat242]

The K-Max drones were apparently CQ-24, so possibly something in that vein. Q-72 has been used but is wildly out of sequence. We have no idea what the next available number in the Q series actually is. My best guess would be CQ-29 or CQ-37, depending on whether Q-29 to Q-34 have been used or blocked for some reason or just skipped but left available.

Current Designations of U.S. Unmanned Military Aerospace Vehicles

The issue being that while there was no non-drone version of the K-Max in US military service (and thus Q-for-drone was its primary type designator), there IS a UH-72 currently in service, and the drone version would be a modification of the baseline aircraft rather than a completely new type.

Thus, the designation rules require that H-72 be used with a "modified Mission - drone" prefix - thus QH-72.

Just like the manned aircraft modified as unmanned target drones (see below).*

My "QCH" was a bit of a joke about non-standard designations.


* QB-17 Flying Fortress, QT-33 Shooting Star, QB-47 Stratojet, QF-9 Cougar, QF-86 Sabre, QF-100 Super Sabre, QF-102 and PQM-102 Delta Dagger, QF-106 Delta Dart, QF-4 Phantom II, QF-16 Fighting Falcon

 

[TomS]

The issue being that while there was no non-drone version of the K-Max in US military service (and thus Q-for-drone was its primary type designator), there IS a UH-72 currently in service, and the drone version would be a modification of the baseline aircraft rather than a completely new type.

And yet, see MQ-8C Firescout, which ought to have been any one of several other options (most obviously MQH-70, since it was derived from the Model 407, as was the earlier ARH-70). But they assigned the same primary designation to two totally unrelated airframes instead.

And then there's the X-62 VISTA (formerly an NF-16). Should be something like XQF-16D, since it is optionally manned like the QF-16, QF-4, etc. But it somehow became an X-plane.

It's fairly clear that the nomenclature office has no actual authority, and no one else has a clue what they are doing when assigning designations, especially for drones (see the numerous gaps and out-of-sequence designations assigned). So it's a total guess what any given new drone might be designated.

 

[BlackBat242]

Also true.

 

[Stargazer]

The K-Max drones were apparently CQ-24, so possibly something in that vein. Q-72 has been used but is wildly out of sequence. We have no idea what the next available number in the Q series actually is. My best guess would be CQ-29 or CQ-37, depending on whether Q-29 to Q-34 have been used or blocked for some reason or just skipped but left available.

Yes, but why did you jump to "37" and not "36" like I suggested? After your post I double-checked to be sure, but unless you know something that I don't, no "Q-36" designation has been allocated.

And then there's the X-62 VISTA (formerly an NF-16). Should be something like XQF-16D, since it is optionally manned like the QF-16, QF-4, etc. But it somehow became an X-plane.

Remember also how the YFC-36A (although perfectly logical) became the YAL-1? They invented a new prefix for a plane that eventually was cancelled, when the existing system was perfectly able to account for its mission.

 

[TomS]

Yes, but why did you jump to "37" and not "36" like I suggested? After your post I double-checked to be sure, but unless you know something that I don't, no "Q-36" designation has been allocated.

Not sure. I think I had a reason but it's gone now. You are right that Q-36 should be free.

Remember also how the YFC-36A (although perfectly logical) became the YAL-1?

Though using C-36 was itself odd, given that C-25 had already been assigned to the 747. The difference between the VC-25s based on the 747-200 and the airborne laser based on the 747-400 could have been covered by a suffix change (e.g., YFC-25B). That's what they're doing now with the -800s that are becoming VC-25Bs.

 

[yasotay]

Not sure. I think I had a reason but it's gone now. You are right that Q-36 should be free.



Though using C-36 was itself odd, given that C-25 had already been assigned to the 747. The difference between the VC-25s based on the 747-200 and the airborne laser based on the 747-400 could have been covered by a suffix change (e.g., YFC-25B). That's what they're doing now with the -800s that are becoming VC-25Bs.

Gentlemen, I fear that there are several mid-grade bureaucrats in the bowls of the Pentagon trying not to urinate on themselves, giggling at having confounded you with their having played scrabble with the naming nomenclature.

 

[TomS]

Gentlemen, I fear that there are several mid-grade bureaucrats in the bowls of the Pentagon trying not to urinate on themselves, giggling at having confounded you with their having played scrabble with the naming nomenclature.

Oh, I'm sure.

 

[Forest Green]

Airbus’ UH-72 Unmanned Logistics Connector Sets Its Sights On The USMC’s Future Fleet Requirements

Branded Content: Airbus’ Carl Forsling details what the UH-72 Unmanned Logistics Connector can bring to the USMC as a readily-available, proven helicopter transformed into a cargo transporting UAS.

www.twz.com