Defense Tech: Naval UCAV Squadron by 2025


	Subscribe via RSS


	Archives by Date
		September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 See all Archives


	Archives by Category
		'Canes Afghan Update Ammo and Munitions Armor Around the Globe Av Week Extra Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere) Bizarro Blimps Blog Bidness Body Armor Blues Bomb Squad Brownshoes in Action Bubbleheads, etc. Cammo Green Catch the "Buzz" Chem-Bio Civilian Apps Cloak and Dagger Commandos Comms Contingency Ops Cops and Robbers Cyber-warfare Data Diving Defense Tech Poll Dissent Tech Door Kickers Drones DT Administrivia Eat DT's Dust Extra! Extra! Eye on China Fast Movers FCS Watch Fire for Effect FOS Files Friday Funnies Gadgets and Gear Going Green Grand Ole Osprey Ground Vehicles Guns Homeland Security In the Weeds with Eric Info War Iraq Diary Jarhead Jazz JSF Watch Just War Theories Lasers and Ray Guns Less-lethal Logistics Los Alamos and Labs M4 Monopoly Medic! Mercs Missiles Money Money Money Most Wanted MRAP Edge Net-Centric Nukes Old Skool Our Shrinking Planet Planes, Copters, Blimps Politricks Polmar's Perspective Popular Mechanics Rapid Fire Raptor Watch Red Team Retro-Futuro Robots Roll Your Own Sabra Tech Ships and Subs Snipertech Space Special Ops Star Wars Strategery Stray Trons Tactical Development Terror Tech The Deadlies The Defense Biz The Peoples' Site The Sunday Paper The Tanker Tango The View from Av Week Those Nutty Norks Training and Sims Trimble on the Case Video Lounge War Update Ward'z Wonderz You can run... See all Archives


	Newsletters


Edited by Christian Lowe \| Contact

Naval UCAV Squadron by 2025

The U.S. Navy is calling for competitive prototyping in preparation for fielding its first squadron of Unmanned Combat Air Systems (UCAS) by 2025.

NUCAS is expected to replace the Navy's F/A-18s on aircraft carrier decks, and the system will provide greater range and time on station than the manned fleet. This shift will project Navy air power far beyond today's reach, adding more protection to ships at sea.

This strategy puts the Navy at the forefront of the Pentagon's efforts to field combat drones; the U.S. Air Force has decided to create a manned design for its next-generation bomber for fielding in 2018.

The Navy is conducting an analysis of alternatives to narrow down its choices for the F/A-18 replacement, dubbed the F/A-XX program.

In lockstep, officials at Naval Air Systems Command are formulating an acquisition strategy to build off of work handled by Northrop Grumman, which is building two NUCAS demonstrators, according to Capt. Martin Deppe, NUCAS program manager. Northrop Grumman beat Boeing for the $635 contract to design and test the suitability of a tailless, low-observable design operating in and around aircraft carriers.

The first demonstrator flight is set for November 2009, and carrier trials will be complete in late 2012.

Deppe says the acquisition strategy for a follow-on to the demonstrator project will likely be ready in 2011. Though Deppe says he wants to have competing prototypes, the strategy does not call for new air vehicle designs.

The would-be competitors would simply need to demonstrate the technologies in an operationally relevant environment. The contractors could demonstrate their architectures using aircraft already cleared for carrier ops.

Read more on Naval UCAVs and other aeronautical insider news from our friends at Aviation Week on Military.com.

-- Christian

Comments

GJP,

You're right, my bad. A guy I worked with was on a DDG that tested that thing. He said it didn't do too well.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 14, 2008 07:15 AM

Saul,

Defense spending IS NOT what is taking us deeper into debt.

Posted by: pfcem at March 14, 2008 12:36 AM

This is,taking us deeper into debt!Be,content with
what we have idiots.

Posted by: Saul at March 13, 2008 02:16 PM

DC,

LAMPS was the Kaman SH2 configured for ASW and OTH targetting operations, and was manned. The unit you're talking about was the Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter (DASH) which didn't work because of an unreliable data/control link. The new UCAVs are an entirely new breed of cat. They're autonomous (DASH wasn't) but subject to override. I like the idea of the cable connection to program the UCAV, but you'd still need links for BDA and retargeting - also to notify the UCAV of your new location if you move (which aircraft carriers have been known to do).

Posted by: GJP at March 13, 2008 08:51 AM

Concerning the hack of the network streams:

Why not give the ucav it's orders on the ground (via old style cable connection) and let it fly all alone. If you just want it to bomb a certain position you will never need a network connection, which can be hacked. Or give it some sort of AI, so that it can identify iraqi, russian, chinese, ... tanks on it's own.

'Cause no computer system is save. None.

For the most part you won't need to update target coordinates in-flight.

Posted by: Frank at March 13, 2008 06:06 AM

Scott,

If they throw an EMP pulse over their own country it would be far worse for them than for us. Also, most military equipment is EMP hardened. That would be especially true for our ships, which are surrounded by well grounded and thick metal.

It will be interesting to see this technology mature. The real issue I see with UCAVs is situational awareness. But I'm sure that is an area of technology that will mature pretty quickly with the emphasis turning to these types of aircraft.

Lest we forget, the Navy was the first user of UAVs. Back in the day (late 60s) they developed the LAMPS I unmanned helo for ASW warfare from small helo decks. Unfortunately that was a collosal failure. The Navy also used UAVs launched from the BBs back in Gulf War I for fire control of the 16" guns.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 12, 2008 12:03 PM

I'm skeptical of this whole drone thing. It's one thing to harden an aircraft against EMP; it's quite another to protect the data link between that aircraft and the ground (or shipboard) controllers.

With our reliance on satellites, GPS, and now drone-based aircraft, what's to keep a smart adversary from lofting a nuke up 250 miles - even above their own territory - and disabling all of our high tech toys?

Wikipedia (keywords "EMP" and "Starfish Prime") has an interesting primer on the subject, sourced from the FAS.org site.

Posted by: Scott Drumm at March 12, 2008 09:10 AM

Man, Boeing can't catch a break. Their military business is toast. Junior partner on the F-22, no F-35, No KC-45...now falling behind in the UAV industry. C-17 line is running on fumes...I suppose they better hope the P-8 is a winner. Of course, now I'm sure Airbus will be bidding...

Posted by: Rix at March 11, 2008 10:13 PM

Oh so sorry, of course Jennings and Rall ... Ravewood would be their verticle take off version.
:)

Posted by: Tim at March 11, 2008 08:05 PM

It shall be called the "Jennings & Rall/Ravenwood/Skynet" Squadron.

Tim
You forgot to mention Jennings & Rall,& their subsidiary Ravenwood.They're coming too.

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 11, 2008 05:09 PM

"Marines never flew the Super Hornet's only the Navy." ---Chris

I don't know if you were directing this to me but just in case. I said Marine F/A-18s and USN F/A-18E/F for a reason. I did mean F/A-18Ds for the USMC.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 11, 2008 04:46 PM

Camp wrote :I'm just glad the UCAS isn't an Aerial Tanker. :)

Why not, build a great big tanker that can sit and run race tracks for hours, without a crew they can stay there until they are bingo fuel and go home. Or follow a strike mission , loiter at a safe distance and refuel them on the outbound run. A tanker just has to fly straight and level to do it's job, no maneuvering or fancy flying there, a perfect job for a uav.

Posted by: Bruce at March 11, 2008 04:15 PM

Marines never flew the Super Hornet's only the Navy.

Posted by: Chris at March 11, 2008 04:11 PM

Addendum:

http://www.msco.mil/files/DMSC/2007/Fisher_CVN%2021.ppt#485,5,M&S Implements Flight Deck Operations Air Dept/Weapons Dept/Air Wing Interactions

Look at the 5th slide.

Nothing new under the sun.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 11, 2008 04:03 PM

"I see a post argue that the F-35C was intended to replace only the "F/A-18C-D. The F/A-18E/F is a completely different plane and complimentary to the F-35C." But, that certainly isn't the line that I have heard and doesn't make a lot of sense. "---Posted by: ohwilleke

Thats not arguement thats fact. The F/A-18E/F is a completely different plane than the F/A-18A-D and far more capable and the US Navy intends to fly both it and the F-35C side by side. Only the USMC is doing away with it's F/A-18s altogether. Make sense now?

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 11, 2008 04:01 PM

>> Northrop Grumman beat Boeing for the $635 contract

See, the tanker decision's already showing its positive effects on competition and accountability.
Last year that'd have cost *millions*.

Posted by: bleh at March 11, 2008 03:37 PM

Those of us that have been around a while remember when the Navy sold Congress on the F-18E/F as a 'just-in-case' then 'stop-gap' alternative to what eventually became the JSF program. In reality, it was as probably as much to replace/fill-in for the canceled follow-on to the F-14 called (once upon a time) the NATF.

You could also say all the F-18s of every stripe replaced MANY airframes: the A-7, the stillborn A-12, and especially the A-6. You needed a program to follow all the replanning that went on during the Clintonian 90s.
Heaven knows what the Navy's story is today.

Of course, other things changed in the interim, so assumptions made 'back when' may not be the same as realites now.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at March 11, 2008 02:35 PM

"The Navy is conducting an analysis of alternatives to narrow down its choices for the F/A-18 replacement, dubbed the F/A-XX program."

Huh? The F/A-XX decision was supposed to have been made years ago. Whatever happened to the F-35C, or for that matter the F-35B which will be deploying for the Marines from both Amphibious and CV class ships?

I see a post argue that the F-35C was intended to replace only the "F/A-18C-D. The F/A-18E/F is a completely different plane and complimentary to the F-35C." But, that certainly isn't the line that I have heard and doesn't make a lot of sense. The whole notion of the F-35A/B/C program was to save money with commonality of parts and pooling of R&D efforts in lieu of having each service come up with its own similar, but different fighter jet program.

The argument for having commonality of parts to reduce maintenance between the F-35A and the F-35C was always a bit silly. Carrier captains don't normally send their second in commands over to air force bases to borrow a cup of sugar. But, the argument for not having multiple models of jet fighters with different maintenance needs on the same carrier, where space and storage and skill base limitations are more pressing, is much stronger.

In this context, an "F/A-XX program" comes across as off the reservation insubordination that makes the latest gaff over the Secretary of the Air Force undermining the Secretary of Defense and the White House regarding his desired size of the F-22 fleet look like kid stuff.

This doesn't mean that there isn't a place for UCAVs on carriers in strike and reconnaisance missions. Indeed, the argument is a strong one, and the timing argues strongly for starting to put UCAVs on ships at the same time one is starting to deploy F-35Cs. But, this is because UCAVs offer features that neither an F-18 of any kind, nor an F-35 can (like an ability to run a strike mission that might be suicidal for a piloted fighter), not because we need an F/A-XX program.

Posted by: ohwilleke at March 11, 2008 01:57 PM

UCAV's offer several advantages over the current manned fleet of aircraft.

1. They can stay on station as long as they have fuel for or don't get shot down (no life lost if they do).

2. They offer the relatively inexpensive swarm capabilities we've been looking for.

3. They can handle G's that would otherwise disable or kill a human.

4. They can be programmed autonomously own a segment of airspace (no operator or "jamming" interference).

5. More can fit in a carrier group that traditional aircraft (theoretically).

6. They cost less than a human life (not that you can put a monetary value on a human life).

7. Breaks long after flesh and bone do.

They won't however last longer than current aircraft...if anything, they won't last as long. That is of course until some revolutionary design step is made.

Hacking into the network stream of a UCAV is a bit harder (order of magnitude) than some Chinese or Russian punk breaking into a DoD website that was never designed with security in mind.

Posted by: Chris at March 11, 2008 01:20 PM

They haven't yet mentioned what roles it would perform. They say as a replacement for the F/A-18. Thats all well and good but do they mean ground and surface strike? Do they mean Air superiority? Do they mean Electronic Warfare like the planned EA-18?

They also haven't mentioned another point, will these aircraft fly autonomously or will they act like an advanced version of today's Predator and Reaper UAVs where there is a ground station with the pilots behind a joystick and a keyboard playing the world's best computer game of all time?

Now the Navy top brass are saying they want NUCAS squadrons by 2025. Have they asked The captains on the CVNs? I'm pretty sure most CVN captains would probably feel better having manned aircraft operating for fleet protection because, just as was mentioned, they are going to be electronic craft, what if they are jammed and made inoperable or worse, hacked and stolen from us, leaving a CVN completely vulnerable without its aircraft.

Posted by: Ed at March 11, 2008 12:36 PM

I think going unmanned is a great idea and long overdue. However, there is a problem that the Navy will have to solve when facing an adversary in the league of China or Russia: the datalink between the drone and the pilot on the ground is extremely vulnerable to jamming and/or just normal interference. Overcoming that will determine the real viability of this system. In other circumstances against countries without real ECM capabilities, it will not be such an issue.

Posted by: Max at March 11, 2008 12:05 PM

I'm just glad the UCAS isn't an Aerial Tanker. :)

Posted by: Camp at March 11, 2008 11:40 AM

"I thought the F35C was to replace the F/A-18?"

Only if you mean the F/A-18C-D. The F/A-18E/F is a completely different plane and complimentary to the F-35C.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 11, 2008 11:28 AM

This makes a lot of sense to me, people who think that this is bad are probobly either, A- much more informed than me about this subject and i should be afraid. B- are afraid of the future. I feel like this could save some lives, and as the controls on them are secure, its all good.

Posted by: TheBoogyMan at March 11, 2008 11:08 AM

I thought the F35C was to replace the F/A-18?

Posted by: Chris at March 11, 2008 11:03 AM

Well....not exactly.
The AF should beat the 2025 date by several years: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/03/airforce_bomber_030608w/

Personally, I think that's too bad, because 'unmanned' makes a heck of a lot more sense than off a carrier than over middle America

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at March 11, 2008 10:48 AM

When I was in the Navy, I heard (of course this is hearsay) that the F-18's automatic landing system was too good. They had to put a variability factor into it because they were wearing off the non-skid in one spot.....
One thing that is not hearsay, is when the pilots went out for extended flights (over four hours) the piss bag was full and they needed help getting out of the cockpit due to their legs being cramped/asleep.
It seems making a comfortable ejection seat is out of our technical ability at this time.
But I guess it is better than leaving parts of yourself in the cockpit when you eject......

Posted by: Dennis at March 11, 2008 09:55 AM

Here comes Skynet...

Posted by: Tim at March 11, 2008 09:53 AM

Naval UCAV Squadron by 2025

Comments

Post a comment