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

[sferrin]

To see this turn into nothing more than a naval Reaper is heart breaking.

Appears to me that some where, some how, a concerted effort was made ti gut this project to protect some thing else. F35 by any chance?

The only thing it would be able to do better (in theory) than the F-35 is long range strike, and tanking. They couldn't control battle space with it (though I don't doubt the USN realizes it would be child's play to convince politicians you could if it were cheaper).

 

[donnage99]

Anyone think the navy should field a limited number of UCAV with moderate stealth to gain more experience and know what it wants before committing to building a larger force and more capable drone fleet? Seems to me like the requirements change so drastically that it looks like another case of navy not knowing what it wants and then politicians step in and the cost begin to rise steadily.

 

[jsport]

Anyone who knows even a fraction about the emerging threat knows Low density (ie few and expensive) systems such as NGB and UCLASS (as proposed expense) would be greatly missed in an overall strategy when even one is shot down. A family of other unmanned.. would "handle" that protection. NGB, being manned, is particularly threatened.

Having trouble 'translating' your post what exactly are you proposing/suggesting/implying/inferring?

If a few expensive UCLASS are downed then one's SEAD strategy may be stifled.. If a family of lesser systems absorb some of the threats (will not elaborate here) to the UCLASS it might survive to accomplish the desired SEAD goal. If not SEAD may not be accomplished. Air superiority also may not then be accomplished etc etc etc..

 

[sferrin]

Anyone think the navy should field a limited number of UCAV with moderate stealth to gain more experience and know what it wants before committing to building a larger force and more capable drone fleet? Seems to me like the requirements change so drastically that it looks like another case of navy not knowing what it wants and then politicians step in and the cost begin to rise steadily.

Thing is, judging by the continued effort with the X-47B, you'd think they REALLY wanted something like that. After all, they could have tested all of those things with a craft much, much less elaborate than an X-47B. And they have 2 of them they are continuing to test. It's like somebody wants them, somebody else doesn't, and a 3rd "faction" doesn't know what the hell it wants.

 

[Triton]

"U.S. Navy's UCLASS System Comes Under Fire"
July 18, 2014
By Sandra Jontz

Source:
http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/13188

The U.S. Navy's pet project for a carrier-launched unmanned aerial vehicle came under fire by experts this week, who told a congressional subcommittee that the sea service’s proposal is redundant, already obsolete and will leave naval forces with a vulnerable platform.

The Navy has dedicated years toward the creation of what it calls a "persistent, aircraft carrier-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, targeting and strike capability to support carrier air wing operations" platform, which has become known as the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system.

While the Navy recently delayed release of a formal request for proposal (RFP) amid ongoing reviews and debate, leaders still want to deliver the carrier-based drone by 2020. The Navy has worked closely with industry partners on the project for the past four years, and “this close engagement has provided the Navy with significant insight into industry capabilities, which results in our confidence that affordable, technically compliant UCLASS design solutions are achievable within the targeted timeline,” Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags, USN, testified Wednesday before the House Armed Service Committee’s Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

“The UCLASS key performance parameters and key system attributes, as defined and documented in the service-approved capabilities document, remain consistent and stable,” says Adm. Grosklags, principal military deputy and assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition. “That document was signed over a year ago by the chief of naval operations and has not changed.”

The drone is “on path to achieve growth capability without sacrificing the affordable, near-term persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) capability,” Adm. Grosklags told lawmakers.

But a panel of civilian experts stated the designs as presented do not allow for “growth capability,” and can neither be altered easily nor cheaply to adapt to changing threats or naval needs.

The Navy’s RFP, as much as is available on open source, “fails to add any real striking power to the carrier air wing, duplicates many of the ISR systems already available to the Navy [and] does nothing to address the major threat facing the aircraft carrier” of improved missiles that can strike from even greater distances, testified Shawn Brimley, executive vice president and director of studies at the Center for a New American Security. Most troubling, Brimley adds, is that the proposal is leading the Navy down a “path that will waste precious time and money, in my view, risking our ability to integrate long-endurance, strike-capable unmanned systems into this country’s most important power projection asset: the aircraft carrier.”

Four defense industry giants are contenders for the UCLASS program: Lockheed Martin’s Sea Ghost, The Boeing Company’s Phantom Ray, General Atomics’ Sea Avenger and Northrop Grumman’s X-47B, which landed on the USS George H. W. Bush last summer and was heralded by defense leaders as overcoming a technical feat.

The UCLASS should be the next step in the evolution of the carrier air wing, but current proposals are off the mark, says Robert Martinage, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “If you believe … it must be able to provide sea-based surveillances, strike capacity and anticipated anti-access/area-denial environments, then the Navy is well off the mark” with its current RFP, Martinage told lawmakers.

For example, capabilities such as the listed 14 hours of unrefueled endurance and 1,000 pounds of internal payload greatly reduce effectiveness.

“The opportunity cost of 14 hours of unrefueled endurance, however, comes in the form of permanent design trades that significantly reduce the aircraft’s survivability and payload carriage/flexibility—attributes needed to perform ISR and precision strike roles in [anti-access/area denial] environments. These foregone capabilities cannot be ‘bought back’ later or added to future UCLASS variants. Claims that ‘threshold growth’ and ‘objective’ requirements in the draft RFP will place competitive pressure on industry to enhance survivability and payload attributes are largely a chimera,” according to Martinage.

The subcommittee is requiring the defense secretary certify the requirements of the program before the Navy can proceed and commit further funding.

That action too, comes at a cost, if it delays the process.

“Significant reduction in [fiscal 2015] UCLASS funding or a program pause for further review of UCLASS requirements will significantly delay source-selection activities, award of a development contract to industry and will negatively impact delivery of an early operational capability,” according to Adm. Grosklags’ written testimony. “Any significant delay at this point in the program will also jeopardize continued investment and/or participation by one or more industry partners.”

 

[Triton]

From February:

"Navy’s UCLASS Could Be Air to Air Fighter"
By: Dave Majumdar
February 13, 2014 7:35 AM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/02/13/navys-uclass-air-air-fighter

Could the U.S. Navy’s future Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft have an air-to-air role? The service’s director of air warfare Rear Adm. Mike Manazir posed that it could during a Dec. 20 interview with USNI News.

Manazir contemplated the possibility that that the UCLASS, which is primarily being designed for the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike roles, could be used as a flying missile magazine which could supplement the firepower of the F/A-18E/F and F-35C Joint Strike Fighter in air-to-air combat as a robotic wingman of sorts.

“Maybe we put a whole bunch of AMRAAMs (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) on it and that thing is the truck,” Manazir said. “So this unmanned truck goes downtown with—as far as it can go—with a decision-maker.”

In Manazir’s vision the UCLASS could be commanded remotely from a Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye or a Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter flight leader.

The concept has a lot of merit, said Air Force Reserve Col. Michael Pietrucha, a former F-15E weapons systems officer and autonomous unmanned air vehicle expert in a Wednesday interview with USNI News.

“This is not beyond the state-of-the-art,” Pietrucha said.
“The difficulty is always that the aircraft it self has no judgment and no prioritization scheme and isn’t going to have the systems onboard to do all things that a fighter does.”

The solution, Pietrucha said, is to leverage the sensors, situational awareness and inherent human judgment of a fighter pilot in a manned command aircraft. The manned aircraft would detect, track and identify the target, then hand-off the target for the unmanned aircraft to engage the “bandit”—as hostile targets are known.

“The Navy is ahead of the Air Force on this,” Pietrucha said, specifically citing the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) concept where a common air picture would be shared across multiple air platforms via a network of data-links.

Under the NIFC-CA concept, any “shooter” can fire on a target that is being tracked by a “sensor”, so long as the target is within range.

“If you solve that problem, then your missile caddy UCAV [unmanned combat air vehicle] wingman is a going concern,” Pietrucha said. “You can now target his missiles for him.”

But using an unmanned aircraft such as the UCLASS in an air-to-air role will have some disadvantages too. Air superiority fighters, particularly the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and Boeing F-15C Eagle, use a combination of high altitudes and high supersonic speeds to impart the maximum possible launch energy to the AMRAAM to engage targets at extended ranges.

The UCLASS, however, is expected to be subsonic aircraft. As such, it will not be able to impart as much launch energy to the AMRAAM as a Boeing F/A-18 Hornet would—which itself flies at lower speeds and altitudes compared to a genuine air superiority platform like the Eagle.

“The disadvantage of your UCAV wingman is that he’s probably not going to go supersonic and shoot a missile at high altitude to get a longer range,” Pietrucha said.

But the disadvantage is not “insurmountable” however. The majority of real world AMRAAM shots have been taken at subsonic speeds at medium altitudes, Pietrucha said. Further, under certain circumstances, a subsonic unmanned aircraft could have a kinematic advantage.

For example, the manned fighter was in a defensive position at a 90 degrees angle to the target aircraft; the manned aircraft does not have many missile launch opportunities.

“Under situations where I could theoretically get a missile off, it’s going to waste a lot of it energy making 90 degrees of turn, but my UCAV can point directly at the target,” Pietrucha said.

“In that case, his kinematics are better because his missile does not have to solve the turn problem.” Effectively, an unmanned wingman would abrogate the need for a fighter to keep its nose pointed at the enemy so long as a sensor is tracking the enemy target.

But a very complex stealthy unmanned aircraft is also expensive, Pietrucha said, which necessarily means that they are not expendable to policymakers.

Using an unmanned aircraft for air-to-air combat would necessarily mean that the platform is vulnerable to return fire. But moreover, a human pilot might also intentionally sacrifice those robotic aircraft to prevent his own fighter from being shot down. “My life cannot be replaced,” Pietrucha said. “It’s not an abstract consideration in the cockpit and I’ll expend unmanned airplanes left, right and center in a way I wouldn’t even consider using my own wingman because the threat is too high.”

Pietrucha said that in the longer term he does not believe that the Pentagon would develop a supersonic unmanned fighter that could flight alongside a manned counterpart.

The reason, he said, is that cost—particularly for the-propulsion system–would rise dramatically while delivering capability inferior to a manned aircraft. A supersonic UCAV would need an expensive high-thrust engine and an area-ruled aircraft and a sizeable amount of fuel capacity—and as such the cost would be comparable to a manned platform.

“The question is are you actually saving any money or are you building a very expensive platform that is so less capable than a manned platform that it’s not worth it?” Pietrucha said.

 

[Triton]

"Forbes Writes in Support of a High End UCLASS"
By: Dave Majumdar
Published: February 19, 2014 3:40 PM
Updated: February 19, 2014 3:41 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/02/19/forbes-writes-support-high-end-uclass

A senior member of the House Armed Services Committee is imploring the U.S. Navy to ensure that the service’s forthcoming Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance the Strike (UCLASS) aircraft will be designed with enough range, payload and stealth to be relevant in a contest air environment.

“UCLASS must include a requirement for aerial refueling, survivability, lethality and payload to have enduring utility in tomorrow’s threat environment,” said Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, in statement accompanying a Tuesday letter addressed to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus.

Forbes’ letter comes ahead of the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) releasing a set of draft request for proposals (RfP) for the UCLASS air vehicle segment. Those draft UCLASS requirements are expected to be released before the end of March, but the exact specifications for the aircraft have been the subject of a hotly contested debate.

Nonetheless, the Navy appears to be proceeding with a design optimized for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) rather than long-range strike.

“UCLASS is a program and we will go forward and we will integrate UCLASS with its ISR, potential tanking, and its limited strike capability as the complementary force multiplier persisting capability that will ensure the carrier strike group mission is even more effective than it is today,” Rear Adm. Mat Winter, NAVAIR’s program executive officer for unmanned aviation and strike weapons told USNI News on Jan. 29.

Forbes noted in his letter that government and industry analysis has shown that broad-band stealth is required for surviving against advanced integrated air defense systems.

Forbes also reiterated that the UCLASS should have the payload capacity to carry out a wide variety of missions. “I place a premium on optimizing internal payload carriage capacity and versatility to support the simultaneous needs of both the carrier-strike group commander and the geographical combatant commander,” he wrote.

Forbes reiterated that the new aircraft should have an aerial refueling capability. “Only through in-flight refueling can a UAS [unmanned air system] sized for carrier basing achieve sortie endurances required for both responding globally to short-warning aggression irrespective of carrier positioning and, once in-theater, staging ISR and strike operations from outside the lethal envelope of an adversary’s longest-range threats,” he wrote.

Those long-range threats include a host of Chinese anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles could pose a serious challenge to the aircraft carrier. Of particular concern to the Pentagon is the Chinese DF-21D intermediate range ballistic missile, which is designed specifically to attack aircraft carriers.

“I strongly believe that the UCLASS program represents the future of our Navy’s carrier air wing and American power projection capabilities,” Forbes said in a statement. “Getting this program right today is essential to cementing our Navy’s advantages in the decades to come.”

 

[quellish]

Thing is, judging by the continued effort with the X-47B, you'd think they REALLY wanted something like that. After all, they could have tested all of those things with a craft much, much less elaborate than an X-47B. And they have 2 of them they are continuing to test. It's like somebody wants them, somebody else doesn't, and a 3rd "faction" doesn't know what the hell it wants.

What the Navy really needs is two (or three) different unmanned platforms:
A RoboHoover to perform the boring, repetitive support tasks that are vital to the battle group.
A RoboAvenger to perform deep strike
And possibly a third platform to perform penetrating ISR


Moving AEW, ELINT and IFR to a non-stealthy unmanned platform makes a lot of sense, and (hopefully) would reduce costs and staffing requirements considerably.
The Navy still wants a stealthy (VLO) deep strike platform for SEAD and precision strike. This would be the "first day" capability to penetrate and negate hostile airspace.
And then there is the penetrating ISR role. It often makes a lot of sense to separate this from the deep strike mission for a lot of reasons. The survivability requirements are very different from a deep strike platform, and they are expensive. It's hard for a penetrating, persisting aircraft to be cheaper/easier to operate on the second day of a war than a deep striker.


But right now at least the Navy is mixing together some of these needs for UCLASS, which isn't a great idea.

 

[Triton]

Good overview of the UCLASS and the controversy over requirements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_Carrier-Launched_Airborne_Surveillance_and_Strike

 

[Triton]

"Senate Panel Wants Pentagon to Craft ‘Stable Requirements’ for UCLASS"
By: Dave Majumdar
Published: July 17, 2014 4:51 PM
Updated: July 17, 2014 4:51 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/07/17/senate-panel-wants-pentagon-craft-stable-requirements-uclass

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Defense (SAC-D) supports the U.S. Navy request for $403 million to continue the development of the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft — with conditions.
The committee is mandating that the service get the approval of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council approval before releasing a final request for proposal, according to a copy of the committee’s mark obtained by USNI News.

“The Committee is concerned that the Navy is proceeding with UCLASS development prior to the formal establishment of stable requirements,” reads the SAC-D mark.
“For example, earlier this year, the Navy issued a second draft request for proposals for the air segment, which included changes to the key performance parameters from the original draft.”

The SAC-D language states that industry teams were forced to “significantly change their air vehicle designs” to meet the new requirements.

“This could have been avoided if the UCLASS requirements had been formally established through a Joint Requirements Oversight Council approved capability development document (CDD] prior to issuing a draft request for proposal,” the bill reads. “The Committee is concerned that the Navy is avoiding basic acquisition practices at the outset of a very large development program.”

As such, the SAC-D is mandating that the Navy get a formal approval for the UCLASS requirements from JROC before moving forward with the program.

The SAC-D move follows a House Armed Services Committee restriction of the requested funds as part of the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act restricts a planned $403 million in UCLASS funding.

Until now, the Senate has been largely silent on the controversial UCLASS program.

 

[VH]

As always the old adage applies here: Prior planning prevents piss poor performance. The navy needs to prioritize the requirements for UCLASS and agree for this first stage of the program to build those top two requirements and then implement a program of gradual improvement over a well defined time frame.


We have seen it before where the military bites off more than it can chew and ends up wasting time and money on an overly ambitious and complex program that has to be scraped before completion. Avoid another A-12

 

[sferrin]

Avoid another A-12

It could have been avoided the first time if they'd simply awarded the contract to a company who knew what they were doing re. stealth.

 

[Triton]

"Getting Unmanned Naval Aviation Right"
Shawn Brimley and Bryan McGrath
July 16, 2014 · in Commentary

Source:
http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/getting-unmanned-naval-aviation-right/

The issue of when and how the U.S. Armed Forces fully integrate unmanned and increasingly autonomous surveillance and strike platforms into their inventory is one of the most important issues facing the Department of Defense. The Navy’s unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) program offers a test case to judge how serious the services are about ensuring carrier-based long-range strike missions in a contested environment. We are concerned that the Navy’s path to UCLASS aims too low, missing an opportunity to secure the future relevance of the carrier force, America’s primary forward-deployed, power-projection capability.

There are essentially two competing options for the unmanned system: a semi-stealthy aircraft with sufficient endurance to provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and light strike in largely permissive environments; or a more capable aircraft with air-to-air refueling capability designed to operate in contested airspace for surveillance and strike missions.

Open source reporting indicates that the request for proposals is biased toward the first option: an unmanned ISR aircraft capability. This is a questionable decision given the ability of other Navy platforms to perform this mission, including the P-8 Poseidon, the MQ-4C Triton, the MQ-8C Fire Scout, and the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. This flies in the face of authoritative guidance, including the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, which directed the DoD to “invest as required to ensure its ability to operate in anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) environments.” Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus also weighed in, writing at War on the Rocks in January of 2014 that “the end state (for UCLASS) is an autonomous aircraft capable of precision strike in a contested environment … It will be a warfighting machine.”

Why does the United States need such a platform? The answer to that question lies in the developing threat environment. The U.S. military enjoys a critical competitive advantage: the ability to project power thousands of miles from American shores. For much of the post-Cold War era, this capability has gone relatively unchallenged. Those days are ending as many nations have realized that the best way to counter the United States is to deny it the time and space to marshal forces and project power. China has effectively woven this approach into its military strategies, fielding a number of capabilities designed to keep U.S. naval and aerospace forces from projecting power by denying them operational sanctuary. All elements of China’s A2/AD network are cause for concern, but it is its long-range anti-ship ballistic missiles that most complicate naval airborne power projection.

A good example is China’s DF-21D missile, one that some analysts term a game-changing “carrier-killer” due to its ability to fly beyond the unrefueled range of a U.S. carrier’s strike aircraft. Enabling U.S. aircraft carriers to strike effectively over ranges much larger than the radius of an adversary’s anti-ship missiles is a sine qua non for U.S. maritime power projection. If the United States cannot do this, the nation’s aircraft carriers, and the hundreds of billions they have cost to procure and operate, will likely become irrelevant, perhaps sooner rather than later. Even worse, U.S. maritime dominance — the fundamental guarantor of freedom of the sea commons for the past 70 years — will effectively come to an end. That is a completely unacceptable outcome given the centrality of maritime power projection to U.S. national security.

Given the pace of technological diffusion and the rapidity of China’s military modernization, passing on the opportunity to field a system that can enhance the striking power of U.S. aircraft carriers seems particularly unwise — especially when all of the Navy’s carrier-based unmanned aircraft developmental efforts to date have been aimed at reducing technical risk on just this class of system.

The House Armed Services Committee recently acted to withhold funding for UCLASS until Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel certifies the final requirements. We urge the Senate to join the House in this provision and we urge Sec. Hagel to set a high bar for UCLASS. The stakes are high. If the United States fields a carrier-based unmanned combat air system within the next decade, it will go a long way toward ensuring that tomorrow’s adversaries fear the U.S. aircraft carrier and the long-range combat-strike power it can unleash. It will set the Department of Defense on the right path toward securing America’s military-technical dominance for the next generation.

Shawn Brimley is Executive Vice President and Director of Studies at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). Mr. Brimley served in the Pentagon and White House during the Obama Administration’s first term.

 

[jsport]

terms like "largely permissive" and "semi-stealth" means some snake oil has entered argument. Areas are either permissive or increasingly "very unpermissive".

 

[VH]

It could have been avoided the first time if they'd simply awarded the contract to a company who knew what they were doing re. stealth.

Therefore it is agreed: No half stepping this time around. When drafting the requirements for UCLASS we need to go for broke. Even if it takes a little longer to become operational.

 

[Triton]

It could have been avoided the first time if they'd simply awarded the contract to a company who knew what they were doing re. stealth.

Therefore it is agreed: No half stepping this time around. When drafting the requirements for UCLASS we need to go for broke. Even if it takes a little longer to become operational.

Refer to quoted article from March:

"Requirements Debate Continues to Delay UCLASS RFP"
By: Dave Majumdar
Published: March 24, 2014 10:23 AM
Updated: March 24, 2014 10:41 AM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/03/24/requirements-debate-continues-delay-uclass-rfp

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has pushed back the release of the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for the U.S. Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft because the service’s top leadership has not yet signed-off on those specifications.

“The draft RFP will be released in next few weeks,” wrote NAVAIR spokeswoman Jamie Cosgrove in a Monday email to USNI News.

NAVAIR had originally hoped to release the draft RFP before the end of March for the Navy’s first fixed-wing, production unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to operate from a carrier deck, but sources inside the Navy say that the top leadership at the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) is still arguing about if the service needs a highly capable UCLASS immediately or a more basic airframe that could be upgraded over time.

However, NAVAIR has been pushing to release the draft RFP to industry sooner rather than later.

“NAVAIR is pressing to release the UCLASS draft RFP, but CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] and SECNAV [Secretary of the Navy] sign-offs are needed before that can happen,” an industry source told USNI News.
“We expect to receive an update to the aircraft specifications along with the draft RFP.”

While NAVAIR’s PMA-268 UCLASS program office is confident that the service’s leaders will sign-off on the draft RFP, when that might happen is still unclear.

Industry teams have pushed back against developing a very capable UCLASS because such an aircraft would have significantly different specifications from the machines the four contractor teams have been developing under the program’s Preliminary Design Review (PDR) phase. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Atomics Aeronautical System Inc. are all working on UCLASS designs under PDR contracts.

Further, service sources say that a more capable UCLASS air vehicle would cost upwards of $100 million per aircraft versus a unit cost of $35 million to $50 million per jet as set forth under the PDR requirements.

Given the sheer expense of a high-end UCLASS, the service simply cannot afford such an aircraft in the current fiscal environment, a number of sources argue.

Some within NAVAIR advocate building a basic airframe to gain operational experience with flying a combat-capable unmanned aircraft from a carrier before embarking on a more ambitious project like a deep penetrating strike aircraft.

Theoretically, the air vehicle would be a modular component of the overall UCLASS system and therefore it should be comparatively simple to build a more capable follow-on aircraft later.

Rear Adm. Mat Winter, NAVAIR program executive officer for unmanned aviation and strike weapons, told USNI News in a January interview that the top-level UCLASS requirements have remained fixed since the spring of last year but the detailed specifications have been refined.

The requirements, Winter said at the time, call for the UCLASS to be capable of providing the carrier with 24-hour persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) coverage at “tactically significant” ranges and limited strike capabilities at mid- to long- ranges.

That vision for the program falls in line with a series of key performance parameters obtained by USNI News last year that called for an ISR platform that would operate off cycle — when the rest of the carrier air wing is off duty.

The UCLASS could also potentially act an aerial refueling tanker to take some of the burden off the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet.

 

[Magoodotcom]

If a few expensive UCLASS are downed then one's SEAD strategy may be stifled.. If a family of lesser systems absorb some of the threats (will not elaborate here) to the UCLASS it might survive to accomplish the desired SEAD goal. If not SEAD may not be accomplished. Air superiority also may not then be accomplished etc etc etc..

That's what MALD & MALD-J are for

 

[VH]

@Triton


So it sounds like from the tone of your post that you agree with this statement that you posted:


"..Some within NAVAIR advocate building a basic airframe to gain operational experience with flying a combat-capable unmanned aircraft from a carrier before embarking on a more ambitious project like a deep penetrating strike aircraft...."

 

[Triton]

No, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. I have no personal opinion concerning UCLASS. I quoted the article to add to the discussion. I believe NAVAIR currently believes that a Tomcat-sized deep-penetrating stealthy strike UCLASS is unlikely to happen given sequestration, a $100 million plus per plane price tag, technical risk, contractor push back, and internal debate over the complexity of UCLASS.

 

[marauder2048]

No, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. I have no personal opinion concerning UCLASS. I quoted the article to add to the discussion. I believe NAVAIR currently believes that a Tomcat-sized deep-penetrating stealthy strike UCLASS is unlikely to happen given sequestration, a $100 million plus per plane price tag, technical risk, contractor push back, and internal debate over the complexity of UCLASS.

As much as it pains me to say, after the F-14D, A-6F, A-12, N-ATF, A/F-X and the Super Bug, NAVAIR is getting the adult supervision (in congressional and other forms) that it might very well need.

The stakes for UCLASS are extremely high; if UCLASS miscarries, NAVAIR will likely be relegated to a consultant-only role on a joint (RAND report be damned)
F-X/NGAD/F/A-XX faster than you can say "JSF."

 

[bring_it_on]

I do not see that happening for many reasons (time lines mainly). What would most likely happen if the UCLASS Final RFP takes a decade or more ;D (or if it gets completely screwed up as a program) is that the USN would need to shift its strategy towards a more upgraded Fifth generation fighter. I would like to see the F-22 brought back but its most likely going to be a super Lightning II.

 

[Triton]

"Pentagon’s No. 2 to Meet with Navy to Discuss UCLASS"
By Kris Osborn Monday, July 14th, 2014 6:10 pm
Posted in Air, Naval

Source:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/07/14/pentagons-no-2-to-meet-with-navy-to-discuss-uclass-requirements/

The Pentagon’s No. 2 official will meet with Navy officials to discuss requirements for the service’s carrier drone development program as the release date for the formal request for proposal slides to the right, Navy officials said.

Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work and other top Pentagon officials will meet with the Navy as part of a larger meeting with all the services to discuss the Defense Department’s aviation portfolio. Following this portfolio review, the Pentagon’s Defense Acquisition Board will meet later this month to provide final approval on the requirements for the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike system, or UCLASS.

The Navy had planned to issue the formal RFP by the end of July and that still could happen, it appears that August seems more likely. The U.S. Naval Institute first reported the upcoming meeting between Work and Pentagon officials and the Navy regarding the UCLASS requirements.

The UCLASS program has faced a series of ongoing Pentagon reviews of the requirements for the drone following criticism from lawmakers that said the Navy is not designing enough stealth and pay load capabilities into the first version of the aircraft.

Rear Adm. Mathias Winter, Program Executive Officer, unmanned aviation and strike weapons, addressed some of these concerns and the overall health of the program Monday at the Farnborough International Airshow outside London.

“An analysis of alternatives already identified that this warrants a Navy unique capability. Our job now is to ensure we have the right set of design requirements to give to industry to deliver that capability,” Winter said.

The ongoing reviews regarding the UCLASS drone’s mission scope, design and requirements for the program do not appear to be derailing or delaying the Navy’s plans for the program, said Winter.

Last summer, the Navy awarded four contracts valued at $15 million for preliminary design review for the UCLASS to Boeing, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman

Winter said a formal Request for Proposal detailing program requirements will be released within the next several weeks, an initiative which will formally start the process moving toward formal source selection. A 10-month long selection process will follow the release of the RFP.

“The final RFP will be given to the four vendors. They will have 60-days to refine their proposals. At that time we will begin formal source selection and we will evaluate the proposals,” he added.

Since the Navy had said they planned to release the RFP this month, it remains to be seen whether the RFP can be released before August after the DAB was forced to be pushed back.

Navy officials maintain that a slight delay, if it even happens, would be a minor developmental in light of the overall positive progress of the program and the drone’s technology.

Correction: On Friday, DoDBuzz had reported the Navy was considering the creation of a new joint capabilities development document. Navy officials said Monday this is not the case. DoDBuzz also incorrectly stated that the DAB had recently met to discuss the final UCLASS requirements.

 

[TomS]

Considering that Work is known to advocate a high-capability UCLASS, my suspicion here is that the Navy came in with a less-capable aircraft that they think is a safer solution and Work is pushing them to restore the higher specs.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

So it looks like UCLASS is getting downgraded into a Predator-C type aircraft as opposed to something stealthier like the X-47B. Is the Navy looking to first prove carrier-based UAVs are worth the investment before funding anything more advanced?

While it's out of the question for now, was there any interest in supersonic UCAVs previously?

 

[Moose]

Considering that Work is known to advocate a high-capability UCLASS, my suspicion here is that the Navy came in with a less-capable aircraft that they think is a safer solution and Work is pushing them to restore the higher specs.

This is the feeling I've gotten as well. Work's no Puzzle Palace tyrant, he's not going to demand program changes without giving the Navy the chance to makes its case face-to-face. But it would not surprise me in the least to see UCLASS specs bump up noticeably in the wake of this meeting.

 

[Sundog]

How much of this is due to lobbying behind the scenes by NG, LM, and Boeing, saying they have been designing these advanced capabilities to meet this role for at least a decade now, and now the program is going to the new kid on the block that isn't building parts in all of the politicians home states? I would like to know which politicians think the platform isn't capable enough, just to learn which states they're from.

 

[quellish]

So it looks like UCLASS is getting downgraded into a Predator-C type aircraft as opposed to something stealthier like the X-47B. Is the Navy looking to first prove carrier-based UAVs are worth the investment before funding anything more advanced?

While it's out of the question for now, was there any interest in supersonic UCAVs previously?

X-47B is "low observable representative" - meaning it's not LO, but, uh, could be. Someday. It's (generic) configuration could be made low observable, but it wasn't built for it, and it has some serious weaknesses that would need to be addressed. X-47B spent a lot of time on LM's Helendale pole. X-47A as originally flown was also "low observable representative".


Predator-C/Avenger *is* low observable, today.


So in the scenario you're describing, it wouldn't be a downgrade

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Ah, thanks for the info. So the X-47 and presumably Boeing's X-45 were just the general shape without all the refinements and RAM?

 

[AeroFranz]

So it looks like UCLASS is getting downgraded into a Predator-C type aircraft as opposed to something stealthier like the X-47B. Is the Navy looking to first prove carrier-based UAVs are worth the investment before funding anything more advanced?

While it's out of the question for now, was there any interest in supersonic UCAVs previously?

X-47B is "low observable representative" - meaning it's not LO, but, uh, could be. Someday. It's (generic) configuration could be made low observable, but it wasn't built for it, and it has some serious weaknesses that would need to be addressed. X-47B spent a lot of time on LM's Helendale pole. X-47A as originally flown was also "low observable representative".


Predator-C/Avenger *is* low observable, today.


So in the scenario you're describing, it wouldn't be a downgrade

I see what you mean, and that could well be...that being said, we're talking a tailless cranked kite configuration made by a company whose LO heritage goes back to XST, versus a wing and tail configuration of a company with no previous experience. All things equal, the latter should have an RCS advantage.

Props to GA for building a prototype with their own funds and going the extra mile and making it fully LO (Is that what you mean by "Predator-C is low observable today"? I did not know that ) . However, do we have any reason to doubt that given an actual reason to do so, NG would have any problems putting RAM and other treatments on the X-47B and make it LO? I mean, considering LO was not and objective of the X-47B test program, it's not surprising they eschewed the cost, right? Can you elaborate on the "serious weaknesses"?

 

[quellish]

I see what you mean, and that could well be...that being said, we're talking a tailless cranked kite configuration made by a company whose LO heritage goes back to XST, versus a wing and tail configuration of a company with no previous experience. All things equal, the latter should have an RCS advantage.

GA has done their homework, and had a lot of help.

Props to GA for building a prototype with their own funds and going the extra mile and making it fully LO (Is that what you mean by "Predator-C is low observable today"? I did not know that ) . However, do we have any reason to doubt that given an actual reason to do so, NG would have any problems putting RAM and other treatments on the X-47B and make it LO? I mean, considering LO was not and objective of the X-47B test program, it's not surprising they eschewed the cost, right? Can you elaborate on the "serious weaknesses"?

The X-47B made a lot of LO compromises to meet the needs of the demonstration, which is why it's considered "LO representative". The configuration isn't inherently flawed, but the USN requirements drove OML changes that are not so good for the stealthy. Slapping magical RAM on it won't fix these issues. I'll see if I can find a more specific public reference.
You can make some educated guesses from the full sized pole model:
http://www.thehowlandcompany.com/gallery/Northrop-LM_Helendale_RCS_X-47B_testing.htm




On the other end, the A model was super nifty but not well suited to carrier approaches.


Fun fact: Avenger's home happens to be where Northrop's XST entry was (initially) tested.

 

[AeroFranz]

ok, Thanks for interesting tidbits. By all means do share what public domain document you feel appropriate. Thanks!

 

[quellish]

ok, Thanks for interesting tidbits. By all means do share what public domain document you feel appropriate. Thanks!

I was reading one a few days ago that had at least one specific LO trade off for X-47b. Went looking for it, didn't find it, but found an interesting RAND study that is relevant to the discussion:
ADA523431.pdf

 

[jsport]

If a few expensive UCLASS are downed then one's SEAD strategy may be stifled.. If a family of lesser systems absorb some of the threats (will not elaborate here) to the UCLASS it might survive to accomplish the desired SEAD goal. If not SEAD may not be accomplished. Air superiority also may not then be accomplished etc etc etc..

That's what MALD & MALD-J are for

long know MALD, if MALD-J is in service getting there..If MALD-V better..If low cost slower stealth carrying MALD-V supporting UCLASS much better. Confidence in leadership to properly analyze....

 

[bring_it_on]

One also has to keep in mind that the USN's approach with the NGJ program is to make it modular with elements incorporated into various other tactical platforms including stealth fighters of the future. Perhaps the Navy intends to put some of this on the UCLASS in the future- for self protection. The major point of contention would be payload and size as these are virtually impossible to change without some serious money.

 

[jsport]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Raytheons-MALD-Decoys-Gaining-Versatility-04844/

some MALD not so news.

 

[Triton]

"UCLASS Requirements Shifted To Preserve Navy’s Next Generation Fighter"
By: Dave Majumdar and Sam LaGrone
Published: July 31, 2014 3:49 PM
Updated: July 31, 2014 4:53 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/07/31/uclass-requirements-shifted-preserve-navys-next-generation-fighter

The striking power and stealth of the U.S. Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) concept was reduced to protect the role of the service’s next-generation of manned fighters, USNI News has learned.

In particular, the change in UCLASS from a deep strike stealthy penetrator into the current lightly armed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) focused aircraft was — in large part — to preserve a manned version of the F/A-XX replacement for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, several Navy, Pentagon and industry sources confirmed to USNI News.

Industry, Pentagon and Navy sources outlined a, “bureaucratic and cultural resistance to the introduction of unmanned aircraft onto the carrier.”

Those sources outline a conflict inside the service between naval aviation traditionalists locked onto preserving manned strike aircraft against separate elements that want to shift more of the burden of strike to unmanned systems.

“Broadly speaking, the naval aviation community is kind of one mind on UCLASS and unmanned systems on carriers,” a former senior naval official familiar with the ongoing UCLASS requirements discussion told USNI News on Monday.
“If you didn’t want that unmanned air vehicle to compete with what’s likely to be a manned replacement for the F/A-18, what would you do? You’d make it ISR only or ISR/limited strike and make it for a low threat environment so that it really can’t complete against a manned fighter.”

Affordability

Specifically, preservation of F/A-XX — a key modernization program of the Navy aviation requirements in early studies — as a manned strike fighter was a instrumental in shifting the tenor of the program, several sources told USNI News.

However, the Navy says there is no direct connection.

“The Navy is conducting analyses to develop a follow-on system to replace the F/A-18E/F fleet,” Rob Koon, a spokesman for Program Executive Officer for Tactical Aircraft Programs [PEO(T)] at the Naval Air Systems Command, said in a Thursday statement provided to USNI News.

“This is a separate and distinct process from the UCLASS program and acquisition strategy.”

Though the relationships are technically separate, according to one source, the Navy has neither the financial nor the political clout to simultaneously develop three expensive and high-end aviation programs — UCLASS, F/A-XX and the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lighting II.

The challenges of developing a trio of high dollar warplanes at once and the latent cultural resistance to unmanned strike aircraft in naval aviation circles made an ISR centric UCLASS and easier win for the service, several sources confirmed.

Affordability of UCLASS has come up often in the development of the program and has been a key tenant of the program since its requirements shift in late 2012 and subsequent April 2013 approval by chief of naval operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert.

“As this is the first-ever carrier based unmanned system, we have exercised due diligence and great discipline in the formulation of the design requirements and business strategy to ensure we balance affordability with required capability to meet our warfighter’s requirements, on time, on cost,” wrote Rear Adm. Mat Winter, NAVAIR’s PEO Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (U&W).

“With that, our approved acquisition strategy will ensure we deliver an affordable, relevant, and enduring unmanned carrier capability that will meet fleet requirements and revolutionize carrier air wing operations for decades to come.”

Supporters of the current UCLASS acquisition strategy include Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who also chairs the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition (RDA) and the N98 (aviation requirements) and N2/N6 (information dominance) branches of the in the office of chief of naval operations (OPNAV), several sources told USNI News

For Unmanned Strike

While the program requirements are set, as far as the Navy’s concerned, there is push back on the ISR UCLASS from Congress, academics and other elements inside the Pentagon.

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Defense (SAC-D) asked for a clearer definition of requirements in its Fiscal Year 2015 budget act mark and Rep Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, has been a supporter of a high-end UCLASS concept.

The National Defense Panel — the independent oversight body for the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review — issued its full throated support for a high-end and unmanned carrier aircraft on Thursday.

“We believe it is also critical to ensure that U.S. maritime power projection capabilities are buttressed by acquiring longer-range strike capability – again, manned or unmanned (but preferably stealthy) – that can operate from U.S. aircraft carriers or other appropriate mobile maritime platforms to ensure precise, controllable, and lethal strike with greater survivability against increasingly long-range and precise anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles,” read the findings.

Other major proponents inside the Pentagon of a multirole UCLASS capable of operating against an anti-access/area denial threat environment include deputy defense secretary Bob Work, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, Michael Vickers, under secretary of defense for intelligence, Christine Wormuth, under secretary of defense for policy and the director of cost assessment and program evaluation Jamie Morin, several sources told USNI News.

The Pentagon is taking a second look at the requirements.

The final Request for Proposal (RfP) for UCLASS to industry has been delayed pending a planned August review of the requirements by Work’s office, USNI News has learned.

Work has been among other leaders who favor a long-range strike optimized UCLASS that can perform raids inside highly contested airspace or against a powerful enemy surface action group composed of air warfare destroyers with advanced air defenses.

Some of these latest enemy warships are equipped not only with high-frequency targeting radars but are also equipped with low-frequency radars that can see tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft.

Further, as signal processing improves, it is becoming possible to discern a weapons quality track from low-frequency radar—which means broadband all-aspect stealth is a must, sources said.

Such a broadband stealth aircraft might be the only means of destroying such enemy warships other than by using submarines or long-range anti-ship cruise missiles.

Further, a UCLASS-type aircraft needs to be have the range to allow the aircraft carrier to stand-off from the enemy—which could threaten the giant warships with anti-ship cruise or ballistic missiles, the former official said.

The typical off-shore zone a where a carrier used to be able to operate with impunity a decade ago is not longer safe—which means tactical fighters may be of limited use in those scenarios.

 

[bring_it_on]

Pretty lame excuse but one could see it coming. There is no way the UCLASS could fully replace the SH mission set and if anything offloading some of the strike mission would mean that they could streamline the design requirements on the FA-XX more on air defense.

 

[sublight_]

Industry, Pentagon and Navy sources outlined a, “bureaucratic and cultural resistance to the introduction of unmanned aircraft onto the carrier.”

This is incredibly disturbing. How did these people even transition from sails to propellers and from horses to the automobile?

 

[sferrin]

Industry, Pentagon and Navy sources outlined a, “bureaucratic and cultural resistance to the introduction of unmanned aircraft onto the carrier.”

This is incredibly disturbing. How did these people even transition from sails to propellers and from horses to the automobile?

I think they looked at things like the X-47B, thought to themselves, "I'll bet it would be a piece of cake to convince your average politician that it could do air combat in place of F/X-XX" and that was that. Never mind that anybody with more than two functioning brain cells knows there's no way it could, we're talking about politicians here so. . .

 

[Moose]

Industry, Pentagon and Navy sources outlined a, “bureaucratic and cultural resistance to the introduction of unmanned aircraft onto the carrier.”

This is incredibly disturbing. How did these people even transition from sails to propellers and from horses to the automobile?

This happens with every new technology all the time in every service, pushing through it is always a pain but eventually it happens.