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

[Sentinel36k]

UCLASS Testimony from the CSBA

Sentinel

 

[TomS]

I don't think so. I saw an article of wind tunnel testing of a large uav with joint bodies design. It looks like 2 flying wings attached together. One in the back, and the smaller one in the front.

Weird. I got something about carbon fiber layup machines

 

[quellish]

UCLASS Testimony from the CSBA

Sentinel

This explains the issues with this program far better than anything I have seen previously.

 

[marauder2048]

UCLASS Testimony from the CSBA

Sentinel

This explains the issues with this program far better than anything I have seen previously.

Yep. A tremendous NAVAIR penetrating asset with great payload allied to great range and endurance ...enabled by Air Force tankers.
Though I suppose P8 could be modified to serve the latter's role.

 

[quellish]

Yep. A tremendous NAVAIR penetrating asset with great payload allied to great range and endurance ...enabled by Air Force tankers.
Though I suppose P8 could be modified to serve the latter's role.

No. The Navy's 12 hour requirement is driving compromises that neuter the platform - a requirement that is not grounded in reality.
Why wouldn't the UCLASS be a tanker?

 

[marauder2048]

Yep. A tremendous NAVAIR penetrating asset with great payload allied to great range and endurance ...enabled by Air Force tankers.
Though I suppose P8 could be modified to serve the latter's role.

No. The Navy's 12 hour requirement is driving compromises that neuter the platform - a requirement that is not grounded in reality.
Why wouldn't the UCLASS be a tanker?

The central assumption in the CSBA testimony is that Air Force tankers are available; P8 might be able to fill that role.

 

[totoro]

The guy also very clearly specifies the need for the uclass requirement to both receive and give fuel. So basically a buddy IFR system.

 

[Ian33]

The guy also very clearly specifies the need for the uclass requirement to both receive and give fuel. So basically a buddy IFR system.

Just give the contract to the 47B and have done with it. It's got the legs, the capability, was designed from the outset to take internal fuel cells buddy buddy air to air fuelling..... This is just an absolute waste of time.

 

[sferrin]

The guy also very clearly specifies the need for the uclass requirement to both receive and give fuel. So basically a buddy IFR system.

Just give the contract to the 47B and have done with it. It's got the legs, the capability, was designed from the outset to take internal fuel cells buddy buddy air to air fuelling..... This is just an absolute waste of time.

x2.

 

[quellish]

The central assumption in the CSBA testimony is that Air Force tankers are available; P8 might be able to fill that role.

The CSBA testimony argues that in flight refueling, period, would address the range issue. Air Force tankers are mentioned once:


"When factoring in aerial refueling—an Air Force-supplied resource typically available to carrier-based aircraft in wartime—the 14-hour unrefueled endurance threshold requirement makes even less sense"
[/size]
[/size]Later using the UCLASS itself as a tanker is mentioned:
[/size]
[/size]"[/size]With onboard fuel storage of about 20,000 lbs., it would be a very efficient aerial refueler for relatively short-range manned fighters."
[/size]
[/size]The argument for in flight refueling is not specific to Air Force tankers.[size=11pt]

 

[marauder2048]

The central assumption in the CSBA testimony is that Air Force tankers are available; P8 might be able to fill that role.

The CSBA testimony argues that in flight refueling, period, would address the range issue. Air Force tankers are mentioned once:

The point is that with the current 12-hour deck day, there would be no carrier assets airborne to refuel the egressing UCLASS and the deck would be closed for recovery.

Buddy tanking doesn't really help: even if your buddy UCLASS was able to convert all of its payload (4,000 lbs) into fuel that only spots it and the egressing UCLASS (maybe) another 2 hours each which doesn't provide the required margin for recovery.

If the Navy extended the deck day by a couple of hours then a buddy refueling approach would work just fine. Or the Navy could rearrange the deck to permit some "overnight" recovery. But this is the Navy...

Hence, the role played by Air Force tankers.

 

[marauder2048]

Follow-up: HV-22 with the aerial refueling system might address the organic tanker issue (and reduce the wear & tear on the F/A-18E/F "Milk Cow"). But the Navy has said explicitly that it's not adopting that capability in the near future.

 

[kagemusha]

even if your buddy UCLASS was able to convert all of its payload (4,000 lbs) into fuel that only spots it and the egressing UCLASS (maybe) another 2 hours each which doesn't provide the required margin for recovery.

The internal volume to carry 4,500 lbs of weapons can hold more (double?) weight of fuel.
Consider an aircraft with 12,000 lbs of fuel in the internal tanks and 8,000 lbs of additional fuel in the internal bay. It's 20,000 lbs of fuel as described in the CSBA testimony.
You can trade off the fuel=range/endurance (surveillance) for weapons (strike) without external stores (stealth).
Or you can use the aircraft as a buddy tanker.

 

[marauder2048]

even if your buddy UCLASS was able to convert all of its payload (4,000 lbs) into fuel that only spots it and the egressing UCLASS (maybe) another 2 hours each which doesn't provide the required margin for recovery.

The internal volume to carry 4,500 lbs of weapons can hold more (double?) weight of fuel.
Consider an aircraft with 12,000 lbs of fuel in the internal tanks and 8,000 lbs of additional fuel in the internal bay. It's 20,000 lbs of fuel as described in the CSBA testimony.
You can trade off the fuel=range/endurance (surveillance) for weapons (strike) without external stores (stealth).
Or you can use the aircraft as a buddy tanker.

I read it as F-35C equivalence in terms of internal fuel (~ 20,000 lbs) and internal payload (~ 4,000 lbs).

 

[sferrin]

even if your buddy UCLASS was able to convert all of its payload (4,000 lbs) into fuel that only spots it and the egressing UCLASS (maybe) another 2 hours each which doesn't provide the required margin for recovery.

The internal volume to carry 4,500 lbs of weapons can hold more (double?) weight of fuel.
Consider an aircraft with 12,000 lbs of fuel in the internal tanks and 8,000 lbs of additional fuel in the internal bay. It's 20,000 lbs of fuel as described in the CSBA testimony.
You can trade off the fuel=range/endurance (surveillance) for weapons (strike) without external stores (stealth).
Or you can use the aircraft as a buddy tanker.

I read it as F-35C equivalence in terms of internal fuel (~ 20,000 lbs) and internal payload (~ 4,000 lbs).

Let's not forget external tanks as well.

 

[kagemusha]

Let's not forget external tanks as well.

Access Assured
Addressing Air Power Reach, Persistence and Fueling Limitations for Contested and Permissive Air Operations
Commander Gregory D. Knepper, United States Navy

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/30%20air%20access%20reach%20persistence%20fueling%20knepper/access%20assured_knepper_formatted%20101414.pdf

DEVELOP TACTICAL AIRBORNE REFUELING CONNECTORS LEVERAGING UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS.
Unmanned aerial systems could also serve as possible connectors. Using remotely piloted drones as mini-tankers,
these tankers could provide the same linkage as the Super Hornet with the advantage of reduced risk to aircrew.

 

[bring_it_on]

Navy Bomber?

The Senate Armed Services Committee wants the Pentagon to hurry up and develop a stealthy, unmanned long-range strike aircraft … for the Navy. In its Fiscal 2016 appropriations report, released Wednesday, SASC directed the Defense Department to conduct competitive prototyping “of at least two follow-on air systems” to the X-47B unmanned demonstrator, which has successfully launched from and landed on a carrier, and air-refueled autonomously. The committee wants the competition to run in 2017. The Unmanned Carrier-Launched Strike and Surveillance (UCLASS) aircraft is to be “capable of long-range strike in a contested environment,” according to the report; the same description for the Air Force’s Long-Range Strike Bomber. The SASC granted blanket authority for DOD to use “streamlined procedures for rapid prototyping and rapid fielding,” so long as it gets the technical data rights to develop competitive follow-on systems. Even though the Navy did not request any money for UCLASS for 2016, SASC put back in $725 million, of which $350 million is to be spent continuing to fly the two X-47B prototypes. At the same time, SASC took away $460 million from the Air Force’s LRS-B program. The Navy has said it’s already done everything it planned to do with the Northrop Grumman-built X-47B and that it would be pointless to keep flying it, putting UCLASS on hold until it better understands whether it wants more of a scout or bomber aircraft. SASC seems to have rendered its opinion.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/May%202015/May%2028%202015/Navy-Bomber.aspx

Report - https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/srpt49/CRPT-114srpt49.pdf

 

[LowObservable]

I thought the normal usage was permissive/contested/denied.

 

[bring_it_on]

Mccain writes another letter ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
SENATORS McCAIN AND REED CALL FOR STANDARDIZED TRAINING FOR UAS PILOTS
Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jack Reed (D-RI), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter today regarding standardized training for pilots of unmanned aerial systems (UAS). A recent GAO report highlighted insufficient training, inconsistent standards, and critical manning shortfalls in this critical mission area. "We urge you to focus senior leaders in the Department on these issues, and develop and implement a coherent UAS organizational, manpower, and training strategy to ensure our combatant commanders get the highly trained and proficient operators of these systems they need to protect our warfighters and defeat our adversaries," Senators McCain and Reed wrote. The text of the letter appears below.
Dear Secretary Carter,
We are all aware that unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are an essential element in America’s warfighting arsenal. However, a recent GAO report highlights insufficient training, inconsistent standards, and critical manning shortfalls in this critical mission area. Despite years of effort to expand the Air Force’s unmanned combat air patrol capacity, the service has continually fallen short of its own manpower projections. The Air Force currently estimates a shortfall of nearly 400 MQ-1/9 aircraft pilots to sustain the regular Air Force requirement of 1,200 pilots. That “shortfall” may in fact be somewhat misleading as there is a distinct possibility the Air Force requirement may be understated. These pilot shortages have constrained training and placed extreme strain on the existing community of pilots and sensor operators. The Army has attempted to mitigate similar shortages by lowering training standards to increase availability of instructors in the field. This action, coupled with pulling enlisted UAS pilots off-task to perform unrelated additional duties, has resulted in UAS pilots receiving insufficient flying training and causing negative impacts on UAS unit readiness levels.
We are disturbed that the Department of Defense has no standardized training program for UAS pilots and personnel. The continued lack of consistent and uniform training standards is simply unacceptable. In addition to collecting critical intelligence, the Department’s UAS programs carry out sensitive strike missions that should require high standards and specialized training. We urge you to focus senior leaders in the Department on these issues, and develop and implement a coherent UAS organizational, manpower, and training strategy to ensure our combatant commanders get the highly trained and proficient operators of these systems they need to protect our warfighters and defeat our adversaries. We look forward to your response.
We thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for your continued service to the Department and our Nation.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Chairman
Senate Armed Services Committee
Jack Reed
Ranking Member
Senate Armed Services Committee

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFnjkoH9oEc

 

[bring_it_on]

Manazir Warns UCLASS Delay Limits Options For Fighter Jet Replacement

The Pentagon's repeated delay in releasing a key solicitation for the future Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike system limits the Navy's options for replacing its fighter jets in the mid-2030s, a top service official warned.
The Navy has had a UCLASS request for proposals ready to go for more than a year now, but a Pentagon strategic portfolio review that includes the unmanned system has repeatedly delayed its release. If the Navy does not get the solicitation on the streets soon and move toward the goal of fielding unmanned systems from the carrier by 2025, the service risks losing ground on options to replace its fighter jets when they begin to retire in the 2030s, according to Air Warfare Director Rear Adm. Mike Manazir.
"I'd planned to have our initial instantiation of unmanned platforms on the aircraft carrier by 2025 -- this risks that," Manazir told reporters during a June 3 Navy League forum in Washington.
This delay in deploying unmanned systems from the carrier, particularly UCLASS, will eat into the Navy's plan to develop a sixth-generation strike fighter, dubbed FA-XX, Manazir warned.
"As I look through 2025 into the future, 2035 when the F/A-18E, F and G start to go out of service . . . what am I going to replace them with?" Manazir said. "So if my options are limited because we don't release that RFP, I will have fewer options to consider what to replace it with."
Although service officials have not come right out and said FA-XX will be entirely unmanned, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has said the service envisions UCLASS as a bridge to a future autonomous strike fighter. In April, Mabus signaled the Joint Strike Fighter will be the last manned strike fighter the service will buy or fly (DefenseAlert, April 15).
Manazir hopes to use lessons learned from existing unmanned technology to inform an ongoing analysis of alternatives to explore options for FA-XX, he said.
"What we have on our flight decks is going to inform FA-XX, and so that combination in the future for the strike fighter mission, the jamming mission, the weapons mission, the [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] mission -- all that's going to be rolled into this FA-XX exploration," Manazir said. "It will be better informed if I'm able to mature the unmanned technology as we go forward."
The Pentagon's ongoing strategic portfolio review, which is focused on ISR, is expected to wrap up by July. The review is meant to approve requirements for the UCLASS system, and its completion will allow the Navy to move forward with the program.
"To this point the UCLASS RFP has been ready to release now for over a year -- we should have it on the street. We have lost this time for that technology to work -- that's my frustration," Manazir said. "When something's ready to go and it makes sense to do it and it advances our warfighting capability, why wouldn't we do it?" -- Lara Seligman

 

[marauder2048]

even if your buddy UCLASS was able to convert all of its payload (4,000 lbs) into fuel that only spots it and the egressing UCLASS (maybe) another 2 hours each which doesn't provide the required margin for recovery.

The internal volume to carry 4,500 lbs of weapons can hold more (double?) weight of fuel.
Consider an aircraft with 12,000 lbs of fuel in the internal tanks and 8,000 lbs of additional fuel in the internal bay. It's 20,000 lbs of fuel as described in the CSBA testimony.
You can trade off the fuel=range/endurance (surveillance) for weapons (strike) without external stores (stealth).
Or you can use the aircraft as a buddy tanker.

I read it as F-35C equivalence in terms of internal fuel (~ 20,000 lbs) and internal payload (~ 4,000 lbs).

Let's not forget external tanks as well.

Good point. Just as long as they stay away from those draggy externally bladed RAT types!

 

[marauder2048]

I thought the normal usage was permissive/contested/denied.

The latest GAO report on UCLASS seems to use "highly contested" as a synonym for "denied".
The congressional language seems to use the terms interchangeably as well. Up with this, we will not put...

 

[Flyaway]

I thought the normal usage was permissive/contested/denied.

The latest GAO report on UCLASS seems to use "highly contested" as a synonym for "denied".
The congressional language seems to use the terms interchangeably as well. Up with this, we will not put...

I wish they would just make up their minds one way or the other.

 

[bobbymike]

I thought the normal usage was permissive/contested/denied.

The latest GAO report on UCLASS seems to use "highly contested" as a synonym for "denied".
The congressional language seems to use the terms interchangeably as well. Up with this, we will not put...

I wish they just make up their minds one way or the other.

It would be interesting to see the timelines for development of a long range, long loiter, VLO platform. The reason I ask is that for me doubling or tripling the range of a strike platform off a carrier into highly contested airspace would be a great capability (I refuse to write the overused 'game changing' oh wait I just did ) to have.

 

[bring_it_on]

Forbes Slams Navy For Lack Of Answers On UCLASS - Insidedefense.com

As the Navy awaits the results of a Pentagon review that will approve the requirements of its controversial Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike program, an influential lawmaker is criticizing the service for a dearth of answers on the intended mission and planned capabilities of the future platform.
On June 11, House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes (R-VA) slammed the Navy for pushing Congress and the Pentagon to move forward with UCLASS when the service cannot provide sufficient answers about the program's path forward.
Forbes called UCLASS, which the Navy has tagged as a bridge to the future carrier airwing, "a bridge to nowhere" during an event hosted by the Center for a New American Security.
"Where that breaks down is when you ask them, 'Well, where is the bridge leading? What is that platform going to look like?'" Forbes said. "Show me the wargaming, show me what you've done to say, 'what do you need this UCLASS to look like as far as your carrier airwing?' And all of a sudden, the mic goes quiet [and they] change the subject because they don't know."
The Navy has had a key solicitation for UCLASS ready to go out to industry for more than a year now, program officials say, but a Pentagon strategic portfolio review that includes the unmanned system has repeatedly delayed its release. The review, which is focused on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), is expected to wrap up by July, and is meant to approve requirements for UCLASS. The Navy is waiting for the go-ahead from the Pentagon to move forward with the program.
Forbes stressed that he envisions a UCLASS that has "deep-strike penetration capability" as well as endurance -- a system that can penetrate non-permissive and anti-access/area-denial defenses and then drop a payload. The balance between ISR and strike capabilities on the system is a key part of the requirements debate, Forbes said.
The lawmaker criticized the Navy for settling on an arbitrary 14-hour endurance requirement, which he said limits the capability of the system.
"I want it to drop some pretty heavy stuff on some pretty bad people . . . well that's the catch -- once I've picked 14 hours for my endurance, I've taken a lot of that off the table," Forbes said. "What really bothers me is all of the ideas, the designs, the capabilities that we will never even know about because we have just somehow reached up in the air and said, 'It's got to be 14 hours.'"
Forbes is not convinced the Navy is heading in the right direction on the program. Getting the requirements right on UCLASS is particularly important for the future of the next-generation strike fighter, Forbes said, citing Navy Secretary Ray Mabus' recent comments that the next fighter jet the service buys will be unmanned.
"The next big platform out there is going to be . . . some version of an unmanned platform -- that's why I think it's so important that we get [UCLASS] right," Forbes said. "If you don't know what that platform's going to look like, you basically have a bridge to nowhere." -- Lara Seligman

 

[Ian33]

I'm wondering if they are holding on until the LRS-B is put to bed. Then and only then will they move forwards.

Because lets be honest here, they have zero reason why this shouldn't of been a done deal, first composites laid and test flights going ahead. I'll say this until I'm blue in the face - the X47b has absolutely everything they need, from buddy refuelling, strike...the entire package.

It's as if some one has ordered a 'hurry up and wait' behind the scenes so work can be divided up to keep the LRS-B losers in aviation.

 

[Mat Parry]

A seductive idea. Time will tell

 

[Flyaway]

From Sky Warrior to UCLASS: Back To The Future Of Carrier-Based Strike?

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/from-sky-warrior-to-uclass-back-to-the-future-of-carrier-based-strike/

 

[marauder2048]

The current Navy leadership has the carrier air wing on life support: the combat jet component of the carrier air wing is shrinking by 10% and there are cuts to the helicopter and AWACS components as well.

In that context, the low-end and above all low-cost UCLASS is the route they want and the ISR portfolio review will be shaped to justify that stance. The ISR angle is a dead giveaway since axiomatically, you can never have enough ISR. So the review will say: we don't have enough ISR hence
we need the ISR focused (read: low-cost) UCLASS.

 

[Flyaway]

Boeing To Pentagon: Be Careful When You Pause IRAD Programs

PARIS: The Pentagon’s decision to pause as it reconsiders what path to pursue with the drone fighter known as UCLASS prompted Boeing to send a warning note today that the US military had better keep its commitments if it wants companies to invest their own money in new technologies.

Asked about the program today, Boeing’s Chris Raymond noted pointedly that his company “had spent a lot of time, and frankly, a lot of money on UCLASS over the years. We were — in our minds — in a great place,” he told reporters at a briefing in the company’s headquarters near the Elysee Palace, where French President Francois Hollande lives. “It was disappointing to see them pause.”

In an interesting tidbit, Raymond’s colleague, Jeff Kohler, said that some of the possible platforms being offered “do seem to be in conflict with some proprietary programs.” Pressed by a reporter just before the briefing broke up, Kohler, who heads Boeing’s international business development for military aircraft, clarified he that had meant to say classified. He did not identify any of the classified programs, nor clarify what he meant. (Perhaps he was referring to Northrop Grumman’s RQ-180 or to Lockheed Martin RQ-170, both stealthy classified aircraft.)

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/boeing-to-pentagon-be-careful-when-you-pause-irad-programs/

 

[Ian33]

This is one hell of a boondoggle.

I still state in my opinion, that when the LRS-B is inked, this will fall into place. Some where, some one has all the system on a table making the best most survivable matrix they can, and when the capstone is in place, the other projects can get the nod.

 

[sferrin]

This is one hell of a boondoggle.

I still state in my opinion, that when the LRS-B is inked, this will fall into place. Some where, some one has all the system on a table making the best most survivable matrix they can, and when the capstone is in place, the other projects can get the nod.

Boeing/LM wins the bomber program, X-47B moves forward. (I'd think the X-47B is at least as "production representative" as the X-32 or -35 were.) If NG wins the bomber program then. . .??? moves forward?

 

[bobbymike]

This is one hell of a boondoggle.

I still state in my opinion, that when the LRS-B is inked, this will fall into place. Some where, some one has all the system on a table making the best most survivable matrix they can, and when the capstone is in place, the other projects can get the nod.

Boeing/LM wins the bomber program, X-47B moves forward. (I'd think the X-47B is at least as "production representative" as the X-32 or -35 were.) If NG wins the bomber program then. . .??? moves forward?

What's the new CVNs maximum catapult launch weight using the new catapult? How big could you go with an unmanned bomber from their decks?

 

[Ian33]

Lockheed / Boeing for Bomber.

Northrop Grumman 47B follow on and 180.

Boeing / General Atomics for optionally manned penetrating airborne electronic attack.

 

[TomS]

I've seen a figure of 100,000 lbs at 130 knots for EMALS. Can't imagine anyone buying a naval bomber that big, manned or unmanned.

 

[sferrin]

I've seen a figure of 100,000 lbs at 130 knots for EMALS. Can't imagine anyone buying a naval bomber that big, manned or unmanned.

That's a pretty big jump. Wiki gives 80,000lbs for those on the Nimitz (less for those on Enterprise) but the A3D topped that and Vigilante came pretty close. I'd heard several times over the years that the limit was 84,000lbs. Don't know what they flew the F-111B at. ;D

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLDoBweS-os

 

[bring_it_on]

CARRIER AIR WING TACTICS INCORPORATING THE NAVY UNMANNED COMBAT AIR SYSTEM (NUCAS)

 

[Steve Pace]

Very interesting - We all knew something like this was coming. -SP