US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program

[marauder2048]

The White Paper also recommends that the Navy accelerate the development and IOC of the MQ-25 carrier-based unmanned tanker to extend the tactical range of the current carrier airwing. On top of that, the SASC recommends that the Navy rapidly develop a carrier-based unmanned aircraft to perform penetrating strike missions well outside the range and endurance of manned aircraft. It would be natural and wise, in my opinion, if the MQ-25 tanker now under development could be designed to allow for natural evolution into a strike role.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-excellent-white-paper-smaller-carriers-high-low-weapons-mix-frigates-cheap-fighters/

The Navy is going to have to direct McCain to visit the musuems where the high-end UCLASS X-47B demonstators are gathering dust.

The Navy's management of UCLASS has been so baffling and inexplicable that the Air Force assigned two PhDs to try to make some sense
of it.

"Innovation Lost: The Tragedy of UCLASS" by Turner and Wickert.

 

[NeilChapman]

The White Paper also recommends that the Navy accelerate the development and IOC of the MQ-25 carrier-based unmanned tanker to extend the tactical range of the current carrier airwing. On top of that, the SASC recommends that the Navy rapidly develop a carrier-based unmanned aircraft to perform penetrating strike missions well outside the range and endurance of manned aircraft. It would be natural and wise, in my opinion, if the MQ-25 tanker now under development could be designed to allow for natural evolution into a strike role.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-excellent-white-paper-smaller-carriers-high-low-weapons-mix-frigates-cheap-fighters/

The Navy is going to have to direct McCain to visit the musuems where the high-end UCLASS X-47B demonstators are gathering dust.

The Navy's management of UCLASS has been so baffling and inexplicable that the Air Force assigned two PhDs to try to make some sense
of it.

"Innovation Lost: The Tragedy of UCLASS" by Turner and Wickert.

I just don't understand the Navy bureaucracy. Very much looking forward to the new SECDEF. On the same note, they have a view into programs that we don't.

e.g. Carter got blasted for B-1 when he understood (but couldn't discuss) the promise of stealth tech.

Is it possible that Tern could be transformational, opening up capabilities from smaller ships that would have only been possible from CVN's w/UCLASS? Perhaps some new space-based technology that we aren't discussing?

Hope so!

 

[Flyaway]

U.S. Navy Moves Ahead On Carrier-based Drone

As adversaries develop sophisticated capabilities that force U.S. aircraft carriers to operate farther from enemy shores, the U.S. Navy is taking steps to field a carrier-launched unmanned tanker that will extend the range of the carrier air wing. The service has been working on a concept of operations for its first carrier-based UAV for years, but the notional platform has gone through several vastly different iterations. What began as a surveillance and strike UAV was eventually retooled ...

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy-moves-ahead-carrier-based-drone

 

[bring_it_on]

"Ahead" may be a strong choice of words :-\

 

[NeilChapman]

"Ahead" may be a strong choice of words :-\

Oh ye of little faith

Fly-off 2017
Award 2018
IoC 2021

Of course, it is the Navy. It has to go slow.

 

[bring_it_on]

Not just the timeframe but also the capability. Who would have thunk that the journey that began with the J-UCAS would end up with a tanker.

 

[NeilChapman]

Not just the timeframe but also the capability. Who would have thunk that the journey that began with the J-UCAS would end up with a tanker.

The bureaucracy "machine" is against them.

Better to lock down the requirements and get something built. Block 20, 30, 40, etc, plenty of opportunity to add something to a Plan of Record. Tanker is a great start. Who knows, TERN may be a very capable platform for extending ISR/comms/etc.

 

[bring_it_on]

The bureaucracy "machine" is against them.

What Machine and who is "them"?

 

[totoro]

Oh ye of little faith

Fly-off 2017
Award 2018
IoC 2021

Of course, it is the Navy. It has to go slow.

Is even this timetable realistic? Sure, its an unmanned tanker so it needs less testing but still... Given where the programme is now, I wouldn't be surprised if IOC was closer to 2025 than 2021.

 

[marauder2048]

The future called and wanted its platform back; the Navy obliged.

 

[NeilChapman]

The bureaucracy "machine" is against them.

What Machine and who is "them"?

The Machine is that which enables the bureaucracy.

"Them", are those that get stuck behind the bureaucracy.

;D

 

[NeilChapman]

Oh ye of little faith

Fly-off 2017
Award 2018
IoC 2021

Of course, it is the Navy. It has to go slow.

Is even this timetable realistic? Sure, its an unmanned tanker so it needs less testing but still... Given where the programme is now, I wouldn't be surprised if IOC was closer to 2025 than 2021.

From a prior post... Emphasis mine

The White Paper also recommends that the Navy accelerate the development and IOC of the MQ-25 carrier-based unmanned tanker to extend the tactical range of the current carrier airwing. On top of that, the SASC recommends that the Navy rapidly develop a carrier-based unmanned aircraft to perform penetrating strike missions well outside the range and endurance of manned aircraft. It would be natural and wise, in my opinion, if the MQ-25 tanker now under development could be designed to allow for natural evolution into a strike role.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-excellent-white-paper-smaller-carriers-high-low-weapons-mix-frigates-cheap-fighters/

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/december/Pages/NavyPutsProcurementofCarrierDroneonFastTrack.aspx

"
There is a sense of urgency. The service has created a maritime accelerated capabilities office, or MACO, to provide “a speed lane” in the acquisition process. Richardson and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition Sean Stackley function as “the board of directors” and will provide direct oversight of the office’s activities.

The MQ-25 is one of two initial programs under the office’s purview, along with the large displacement unmanned underwater vehicle program.

The projects “will be conducted on accelerated timelines, require unique industrial interactions and leverage related activities of other government agencies and organizations,” said Vice Adm. David Johnson, Stackley’s principal military deputy.
"

From Aviation Week article Flyaway linked a few posts back...

"
To that end, the Navy last year awarded four companies—Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Atomics—concept refinement contracts that will inform an upcoming request for proposals (RFP) for engineering and manufacturing development. The RFP is expected this summer, with a contract award following in 2018.
"

That would mean that they're expecting to be at Milestone "B". Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction are finished. Don't see this taking 6+ years for EMD through LRIP and IOC. Think it will be 2021.

 

[bring_it_on]

The bureaucracy "machine" is against them.

What Machine and who is "them"?

The Machine is that which enables the bureaucracy.

"Them", are those that get stuck behind the bureaucracy.

;D

The higher end UCLASS had the support of the DepSecDef and it was the Navy that wanted to dumb the program down int a tanker with light ISR thrown in.

 

[Airplane]

Weird considering how far NG got with the X-47B, seems like all that progress counted for nothing.

How do you know the x47 isn't alive in black budget operational program. Speculation, of course. But surely something replaced the f117, and it wasn't the f22.

 

[NeilChapman]

The bureaucracy "machine" is against them.

What Machine and who is "them"?

The Machine is that which enables the bureaucracy.

"Them", are those that get stuck behind the bureaucracy.

;D

The higher end UCLASS had the support of the DepSecDef and it was the Navy that wanted to dumb the program down int a tanker with light ISR thrown in.

Yes - I remember. I have been a strong supporter of a stealthy platform. Like the idea of choosing a stealthy shape and limiting the scope to get something built. Firmly believe they will get some level of ISR integrated into initial RFP.

That being said. Freeing up dozens of F-18's from tanker roles takes precedence over ISR and strike for the initial IoC. Navy can't be sure of future funding.

 

[bring_it_on]

If they can't be sure of future funding why are they producing a laundry list of future items to fund?

 

[NeilChapman]

If they can't be sure of future funding why are they producing a laundry list of future items to fund?

If you haven't, watch the HASC and SASC (Readiness) hearings from this last week.

1. Navy has a Strategic Mission. They know what it takes to complete that mission. They provide budget to Exec Branch.
2. Executive branch provides budgets to Congress that don't meet those mission requirements.
3. Congress funds less assets than is required for the Strategic Mission - per Exec branch request.
4. President tasks the Navy with operational requirements greater than provided by budget.
5. Navy knows they have to modernize - so they fund modernization programs at absolute base levels.
6. Navy withholds maintenance and strips surge forces to provide $ & material to meet operational requirements.

Infuriates me just writing this out.

 

[bring_it_on]

If you haven't, watch the HASC and SASC (Readiness) hearings from this last week.

1. Navy has a Strategic Mission. They know what it takes to complete that mission. They provide budget to Exec Branch.
2. Executive branch provides budgets to Congress that don't meet those mission requirements.
3. Congress funds less assets than is required for the Strategic Mission - per Exec branch request.
4. President tasks the Navy with operational requirements greater than provided by budget.
5. Navy knows they have to modernize - so they fund modernization programs at absolute base levels.
6. Navy withholds maintenance and strips surge forces to provide $ & material to meet operational requirements.

Infuriates me just writing this out.

I watched it live and I'm very intimately familiar with how this works. On the other hand, there was Congressional support for the UCLASS, and there was Pentagon support directly from the DepSecDef (who's still around). Yet we saw them take a low observable compatible design, which itself was a follow on from another low observable strike design and then turn it around into a tanker all the while the SecNav was positive that the next USN fighter will be unmanned. Seriously there are a few folks outside of the Navy that can be genuinely blamed for this. They did not want a long range penetrating strike aircraft and weren't willing to go to bat for it (despite support) like they go to bat for other programs and projects even within the NAVAIR portfolio.

 

[NeilChapman]

I watched it live and I'm very intimately familiar with how this works. On the other hand, there was Congressional support for the UCLASS, and there was Pentagon support directly from the DepSecDef (who's still around). Yet we saw them take a low observable compatible design, which itself was a follow on from another low observable strike design and then turn it around into a tanker all the while the SecNav was positive that the next USN fighter will be unmanned. Seriously there are a few folks outside of the Navy that can be genuinely blamed for this. They did not want a long range penetrating strike aircraft and weren't willing to go to bat for it (despite support) like they go to bat for other programs and projects even within the NAVAIR portfolio.

Still think a tanker w/o RAM reduces risk and gets the airframe to the fleet faster. If the shape isn't stealthy, shame on them. An unmanned strike aircraft in a near-peer engagement would require autonomous flight. I'd speculate that tech isn't there yet. Risk to program timeline - high enough to dump the requirement.

 

[bring_it_on]

A non-stealthy unmanned tanker could have been operational by now had the original program not chased something totally different. It's not like the X-47B was born out of random requirements. It was a continuation of previous efforts looking to put a survivable strike UCAV on land and at sea.

The point isn't about an unmanned tanker but how the Navy has taken a long, protracted program through its various stages, and just at it successfully concluded basically abandoned it.

 

[NeilChapman]

A non-stealthy unmanned tanker could have been operational by now had the original program not chased something totally different. It's not like the X-47B was born out of random requirements. It was a continuation of previous efforts looking to put a survivable strike UCAV on land and at sea.

The point isn't about an unmanned tanker but how the Navy has taken a long, protracted program through its various stages, and just at it successfully concluded basically abandoned it.

Yet X-47B is relegated to Carrier operations. TERN is not. TERN has only been developed since 2013 and prototype will fly this year. Looks so good DARPA's asked for a second airframe. Second airframe will accelerate risk reduction through ground testing and at-sea demonstrations. They also have to prove compact stowage, recovery devices, ship motion prediction, nav, maintenance, automated preflight etc, before an RFP.

TERN will provide the MALE platform for ISR and strike. That doesn't mean that MQ-25 won't pick up strike in future. It's a weighted decision making process. If USN can put a ISR/Strike platform w/a 900nmi combat radius on frigates (or basically any ship in the fleet) it's much more advantages than a carrier-based system. You can hit 98% of inland points with a 900nmi combat radius. Even if the initial combat radius is 600nmi the advantage is clear.

MQ-25 RFP will go out this year. Award next year. Expect LRIP will follow fairly quickly - within 3 years. Note also that limiting the scope in MQ-25 also limits OT&E time enabling a faster full rate production decision.

 

[sferrin]

A non-stealthy unmanned tanker could have been operational by now had the original program not chased something totally different. It's not like the X-47B was born out of random requirements. It was a continuation of previous efforts looking to put a survivable strike UCAV on land and at sea.

The point isn't about an unmanned tanker but how the Navy has taken a long, protracted program through its various stages, and just at it successfully concluded basically abandoned it.

Classic behavior in the US military over the last couple decades.

 

[AeroFranz]

TERN has only been developed since 2013 and prototype will fly this year. Looks so good DARPA's asked for a second airframe.

Not sure DARPA asked for it or more likely NG proposed it. I'll give you that DARPA certainly had to agree to fund a second one.
But my view is that this is a VTOL experimental aircraft, regardless of how well it's designed it has an even chance of crashing. Getting a second airframe is more likely a nice insurance in case Murphy rears up its ugly head. If you don't have a second airframe ready and you crash, the program's as good as dead, it takes too long to build it.
Anyway, it's definitely a good sign but not a resounding endorsement, IMHO.

 

[NeilChapman]

TERN has only been developed since 2013 and prototype will fly this year. Looks so good DARPA's asked for a second airframe.

Not sure DARPA asked for it or more likely NG proposed it. I'll give you that DARPA certainly had to agree to fund a second one.
But my view is that this is a VTOL experimental aircraft, regardless of how well it's designed it has an even chance of crashing. Getting a second airframe is more likely a nice insurance in case Murphy rears up its ugly head. If you don't have a second airframe ready and you crash, the program's as good as dead, it takes too long to build it.
Anyway, it's definitely a good sign but not a resounding endorsement, IMHO.

Program stated in 2013 they planned for 40 month program. To fly in 2017.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9ce806a2ec0087915129a5c45ac737d2&tab=core&_cview=0

Oct/13 - Phase 1 - 5 firms - Conceptual Design - Preliminary Design & Risk Reduction

https://defensetech.org/2013/12/19/darpa-taps-firms-for-new-uas-effort/#ixzz2piktm2Zp

Jun/14 - DARPA signs MOA w/Office of Naval Research (ONR) to develop "Tern" jointly.

http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2014-06-11

Mar/15 - Phase 2 - 2 firms - Technical Maturation - Preliminary Design Review

Sep/15 - Phase 2 - AeroVironment notified they will not participate in Phase 3.

Dec/15 - Phase 3 - 1 firm - EMD for Full Scale demonstrator - Delivery Nov/17

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2016/06/uavs-small-surface-ships.html

Jun/16 - Phase 3 - DARPA requests 2nd Full Scale demonstrator for ~USD18M

“DARPA has been thinking about building a second Tern test vehicle for well over a year,” said Dan Patt, DARPA program manager. “Adding the second technology demonstrator enhances the robustness of the flight demonstration program and enables military partners to work with us on maturation, including testing different payloads and experimenting with different approaches to operational usage.”

http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2016-11-17

Oct/16 - Phase 3 Milestone - Critical Design Review of Engine (horiz & vert flight) & approval of the hardware and software architecture that will allow the air vehicle to launch and recover vertically from small-deck ships and transition to horizontal flight.

http://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-passes-key-development-milestones-on-darpaus-navy-tern-program

---

IMHO this program has gone pretty well. If you look at the timeline, they are within the margins considering they lost a few months around the new fiscal year and many programs have been on a slow track. Second hand built airframe is ~USD18Million. Passed CDR for flight control software and engine integration. With the state of flight control software and modeling they are likely to be very close with initial build. Would be helpful to know if the weight is on target.

All of this is to say that "Tern" is likely to be 2/3 of UCLASS with many more places to land.

How do you calculate "an even chance of crashing?" I don't see it.

Att: 1
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

Att: 2
Tern concept artwork

 

[AeroFranz]

Rule of thumb: DARPA does not instigate programs that require less than three consecutive miracles, that's why I'm saying there's a high chance of crashing. I may have overstated the actual magnitude, but there's still a high enough chance that you would want the second airframe for insurance. Maybe it's not integrated with all the systems to save cost, but the long-lead stuff is taken care of and you can complete it without blowing through the schedule to such extent that the program is cancelled.

Just from having worked on a few of these programs, i have always felt that it was hard to get a transition customer (the services) to get interested into DARPA programs, they tend to be very conservative. For example, boat captains may not like having to get rid of a Seahawk or both in order to house a full complement of TERNs. There are missions that an unmanned vehicle can't take on. Then there's the issue of embarking the (ground?) crew of the vehicle and all the associated comms, PED clap-trap and finding room for them on a packed boat.
That is not to say this may not work operationally, just that besides the technical challenges sometimes there's other "institutional"(?) challenges.

But as far as technical challenges go, i don't like the fact that the configuration chosen has a barn door wing that has to fight turbulence coming off the superstructure in order to land. The "base" of the landing gear looks narrow for something that might have to operate in sea state 5.
The artist's impressions show ordnance (what looks like Hellfires) way out on the wingtips. I could imagine if for whatever reason you expend both missiles on one side and not on the other, you have to land while having to counter two hundred pounds worth of weight times distance to pylon using the rotor's cyclic, and still have enough control authority to counter gusts and maneuver. I'm no expert on the subject but i would expect that cyclic control authority goes up with rotor radius, and two small rotors have less than a conventional helicopter's large one. Oh, and i almost forgot yaw. I don't know how well differential torque works at that scale - can they get Level 1 flying quality? do they need to supplement with ailerons in the slipstream? those won't have much of a moment arm.

Ok, enough with the bashing. No matter what VTOL solution you pick, you're going to be challenged in some way or other. I'm going to give NG and the gov't team credit and assume that they thought of all this and they will successfully demonstrate the program's goals. I do think that it will be hard to achieve the same level of shipboard compatibility as a helo, though.

 

[Ian33]

When I heard the chatter about X47B getting cancelled, I was dubious. I argued that it was absolutely vital even to my less than informed eyes. "To protect the F35 at all costs" was the near instantaneous response.

Now it has descended into the bastard love child of two of the world's most unsuccessful programmes. How utterly ingenious of the USN manned airframe mafia. Credit where credit is due, they have managed to swing it so volt face that it's beyond the absupdate into the sublime.

 

[NeilChapman]

Rule of thumb: DARPA does not instigate programs that require less than three consecutive miracles, that's why I'm saying there's a high chance of crashing. I may have overstated the actual magnitude, but there's still a high enough chance that you would want the second airframe for insurance. Maybe it's not integrated with all the systems to save cost, but the long-lead stuff is taken care of and you can complete it without blowing through the schedule to such extent that the program is cancelled.

Just from having worked on a few of these programs, i have always felt that it was hard to get a transition customer (the services) to get interested into DARPA programs, they tend to be very conservative. For example, boat captains may not like having to get rid of a Seahawk or both in order to house a full complement of TERNs. There are missions that an unmanned vehicle can't take on. Then there's the issue of embarking the (ground?) crew of the vehicle and all the associated comms, PED clap-trap and finding room for them on a packed boat.
That is not to say this may not work operationally, just that besides the technical challenges sometimes there's other "institutional"(?) challenges.

I wasn't suggesting this was a "silver bullet." It is notable that DARPA sought early collaboration with ONR. Likely for the very reason you state.

But as far as technical challenges go, i don't like the fact that the configuration chosen has a barn door wing that has to fight turbulence coming off the superstructure in order to land. The "base" of the landing gear looks narrow for something that might have to operate in sea state 5.
The artist's impressions show ordnance (what looks like Hellfires) way out on the wingtips. I could imagine if for whatever reason you expend both missiles on one side and not on the other, you have to land while having to counter two hundred pounds worth of weight times distance to pylon using the rotor's cyclic, and still have enough control authority to counter gusts and maneuver. I'm no expert on the subject but i would expect that cyclic control authority goes up with rotor radius, and two small rotors have less than a conventional helicopter's large one. Oh, and i almost forgot yaw. I don't know how well differential torque works at that scale - can they get Level 1 flying quality? do they need to supplement with ailerons in the slipstream? those won't have much of a moment arm.

Ok, enough with the bashing. No matter what VTOL solution you pick, you're going to be challenged in some way or other. I'm going to give NG and the gov't team credit and assume that they thought of all this and they will successfully demonstrate the program's goals. I do think that it will be hard to achieve the same level of shipboard compatibility as a helo, though.

I'm not reading that it's supposed to. Isn't this a MALE airframe? Helo's would never be considered long endurance.
--
Perhaps the airframe won't meet 100% of the program's goals. Maybe it's why they continued with the recovery arm testing when that part of the program may have been initially designed for the "other" vehicle. It might be that landing in sea state 5 will be challenging and they want another recovery method "in their back pocket." It's a new world with flight control systems. SpaceX is landing boosters on floating barges. F-35B drops on a dime with a push of a button.

Navy is looking for a way to meet the MALE UCLASS requirement. For ~USD150M they can determine if Tern will work. Perhaps it's an 80% solution. Still inexpensive. A great deal is being learned.

I was suggesting that this program has been methodical. The second airframe will help to reduce the testing time as well as being a hedge. If the political/crisis situation is such that Tern is required as an interim solution then the program has followed the acquisition process and will be ready for LRIP. If not, they can take what they've learned and move it forward with a follow-on project.

There are considerable advantages to having this capability that have been written on extensively. If they can get it up and back down in a moderately safe fashion it seems likely that the program will go forward expeditiously. We'll know in a year.

Would really like to know how the weight is coming in on these first two airframes.

 

[jsport]

When I heard the chatter about X47B getting cancelled, I was dubious. I argued that it was absolutely vital even to my less than informed eyes. "To protect the F35 at all costs" was the near instantaneous response.

Now it has descended into the bastard love child of two of the world's most unsuccessful programmes. How utterly ingenious of the USN manned airframe mafia. Credit where credit is due, they have managed to swing it so volt face that it's beyond the absupdate into the sublime.

What e said. :-X

 

[Airplane]

When I heard the chatter about X47B getting cancelled, I was dubious. I argued that it was absolutely vital even to my less than informed eyes. "To protect the F35 at all costs" was the near instantaneous response.

There is precedent...

A-7F cancelled to protect F-16. F-16F cancelled never pursued to protect the ATF. ATF terminated at 180 copies. The mighty Bone limited to 100 copies to protect ATB. ATB killed after 20 copies. Maybe we should still be flying F-86s, U-2s, and B-52s. Oh, wait. . .

What was released for public consumption on the war fighting abilities of the drones was very positive. So you better believe it was cancelled to protect the F-35. In this case that may be a good decision because if Congress felt they could buy some drones and keep flying fighters bought during the Regan and Bush 1 eras, that would be a catastrophe for US airpower.

But still, it's no wonder the USA is still fighting wars with Ronald Regan's military after 30 years.

 

[marauder2048]

When I heard the chatter about X47B getting cancelled, I was dubious. I argued that it was absolutely vital even to my less than informed eyes. "To protect the F35 at all costs" was the near instantaneous response.

There's practically no evidence to support this theory.

 

[jsport]

When I heard the chatter about X47B getting cancelled, I was dubious. I argued that it was absolutely vital even to my less than informed eyes. "To protect the F35 at all costs" was the near instantaneous response.

There's practically no evidence to support this theory.

nor is there any evidence that it isn't true.

 

[marauder2048]

When I heard the chatter about X47B getting cancelled, I was dubious. I argued that it was absolutely vital even to my less than informed eyes. "To protect the F35 at all costs" was the near instantaneous response.

There's practically no evidence to support this theory.

nor is there any evidence that it isn't true.

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary: the descoping of UCLASS to the tanker role rather
than outright termination is a logical consequence of the Navy's ill-advised decision to retire
the S-3 and give the tanking mission to the Super Bug which is bleeding those airframes dry.

There's talk of the precedent of one program being cancelled to protect another which
completely ignores the A-12; a high-risk, highly survivable aircraft with broad-based support
in OSD and with another service.

The A-12 wasn't cancelled to protect another program but the uniformed and civilian officers
who backed it had their careers wrecked nonetheless. The A-12 has cast a *long* shadow
on the Navy; UCLASS is a high-risk departure from conventional carrier operations and it
could fail with a lot of collateral damage.

My view is that the Navy should take the risk but it's not my career at stake.
CBARS is a surer bet that does satisfy a real (if largely self-inflicted) need.

 

[jsport]

We will find out if non carrier surface ships ever are equipped w/ decent UAS. Please excuse the doubt.

 

[kaiserd]

When I heard the chatter about X47B getting cancelled, I was dubious. I argued that it was absolutely vital even to my less than informed eyes. "To protect the F35 at all costs" was the near instantaneous response.

There's practically no evidence to support this theory.

nor is there any evidence that it isn't true.

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary: the descoping of UCLASS to the tanker role rather
than outright termination is a logical consequence of the Navy's ill-advised decision to retire
the S-3 and give the tanking mission to the Super Bug which is bleeding those airframes dry.

There's talk of the precedent of one program being cancelled to protect another which
completely ignores the A-12; a high-risk, highly survivable aircraft with broad-based support
in OSD and with another service.

The A-12 wasn't cancelled to protect another program but the uniformed and civilian officers
who backed it had their careers wrecked nonetheless. The A-12 has cast a *long* shadow
on the Navy; UCLASS is a high-risk departure from conventional carrier operations and it
could fail with a lot of collateral damage.

My view is that the Navy should take the risk but it's not my career at stake.
CBARS is a surer bet that does satisfy a real (if largely self-inflicted) need.

I think a lot of contributors (and politicans) underestimate the risks that were involved with the UCLASS; it is notable that we hearing a lot less of the roughly contemporary B-21 being "optionally-manned" with the US Airforce not having a public programme for an autonomous survivable deep strike UCAV.
The US Navy would have to spend to push the state of the art while also paying for the F-35C to replace the legacy Hornets, or sacrificing the F-35C.
Ironically there appears to be a lobby within the US Navy aviation branch that is so conservative, risk adverse, myopic and in thrall to Boeing that would sacrifice everything for some warmed up Super Hornets.
In that context not surprising UCLASS found itself without a major pro-lobby as no one willing inside the IS Navy to "bet the farm" on an expensive risky and even if successful potentially limited flexibility system.

 

[Flyaway]

US think-tank calls for stealthy, carrier-based UCAV

An influential think-tank has unveiled a vision of a future US Navy strike group composed of two aircraft carriers and supporting ships with 110 aircraft, including new requirements for a stealthy attack unmanned air system (UAS) and a manned fighter optimised for the air-to-air mission.

The report released on 28 February by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments received the endorsement of Senator John McCain, the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as the Trump administration and Republican leaders in Congress plot the shape of a new military build-up.

The new manoeuvre force would need still more capabilities beyond those offered by today’s carrier-based aircraft. The authors envision a scenario of a surprise attack on deterrent force, composed of a single aircraft carrier armed with Lockheed Martin F-35Cs, that must withdraw after one or two days of combat, while the maneuver force is still en route to provide relief.

To keep pressure on the opponent while the deterrent force withdraws, the CSBA report envisions a stealthy UAV shaped like a Northrop Grumman B-2-style flying wing to penetrate into defended airspace up to 2,000nm from the manoeuvre force’s position. The stealth unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) would be optimised for strike, leaving no room for other mission, such as refueling and surveillance. There would still be a need for a multi-mission, utility UAV to perform aerial refueling for F-35Cs on defensive patrols up to 1,000nm away from the manoeuvre or deterrent carrier forces.

Finally, the manoeuvre force will need a new aircraft optimised for offensive counter-air missions. Recalling the USN’s evolving requirements for a Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet replacement, CSBA’S report calls for an aircraft capable of fending off bombers and fighters armed with long-range anti-ship cruise missiles.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-think-tank-calls-for-stealthy-carrier-based-ucav-434654/

 

[bring_it_on]

Unmanned Carrier Aviation

Presented By:
B. Duarte, CAPT, USN Program Manager, PMA-268

 

[LowObservable]

Nice presentation, albeit 2016 rather than 2017 as the filename implies. (Unless the title slide has a typo.)

 

[Ian33]

Unmanned Carrier Aviation

Presented By:
B. Duarte, CAPT, USN Program Manager, PMA-268

Very interesting read. Can see how desperate the manned aviation element are to have absolutely nothing that even sneezes a threat towards the F35s.

 

[bring_it_on]

Nice presentation, albeit 2016 rather than 2017 as the filename implies. (Unless the title slide has a typo.)

Yup a typo. The slides were from a presentation earlier this week.

 

[bring_it_on]

Navy begins modifying aircraft carriers to host MQ-25 Stingray equipment

The Navy has begun modifying aircraft carriers to host control stations, multiple displays and an area for the air vehicle operator to sit when flying the MQ-25 Stingray, according to a service official.

Capt. Beau Duarte, unmanned carrier aviation program manager, said March 15 at an industry luncheon at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, the Navy began hull mechanical and electrical installation on the Carl Vinson (CVN-70).

"We got a bunch of lessons learned from that," he said. "We've got an initial space with some desks in them right now that will eventually be converted to the final configuration closer to our testing need date."

Duarte told Inside the Navy after his presentation the Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) and the George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) will begin modifications to accommodate the Stingray during scheduled maintenance availabilities at the end of the fiscal year.

"Each ship is a little bit different, but it's going to be the same teams doing the work," he added.

The MQ-25 will operate from both Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and Ford-class aircraft carriers, according to Duarte.

"We're pretty confident that when the air system test vehicles are ready to go, we know what we need to do for the aircraft carrier to host the system," he said.

The Navy is on track to issue a final request for proposals for the MQ-25 air vehicle segment this summer and intends within a couple of months to release a draft RFP, he said. Four vendors are competing for the MQ-25: Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

"One of the success stories from our transition from [Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike] to MQ-25 is that we kept the same architecture that we had been really developing and optimizing over the past four years," Duarte said.

The service plans for the MQ-25 to reach initial operational capability in the mid-2020s, he said.

The Navy's FY-17 budget request estimates the program will cost the taxpayer $2.1 billion through FY-21. The MQ-25 was previously known as the Carrier-Based Air Refueling System and the UCLASS program.