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

The programs cancelled during the immediate post Cold War "Peace dividend" would run circles around some of the stuff still on drawing boards today. I love it when the term "cold war weapon.." is used as a pejorative as in "old".

AIM-152 or is it -155 anyone?

Until we acknowledge a new peer competitor and /or a new national sentiment these programs will still be at best terrorist killers. Hardly the might of the Cold War.

Everyone goes gaga at the weight of the now cancelled GCV. Look up the FIFV of the USArmy's ASM program of the late 80s. Just as heavy with more firepower and IIRC a 9 man squad. They knew back then that they had to heavy up and 4 or 5 mph was no substitute for armor.

IMO, the requirements should always be build the best. If that puts ahead of any potential threat, so be it. But it looks bad at academic PC events.

I'm sure there are Russians who feel the same about what they were planning ~1991.
 
Option 4: Navy leaders are tired of having acquisition programs explode in their faces, so they're looking to remove all the program execution risk they can. Removing performance removes risk (in theory, anyway).
 
TomS said:
Option 4: Navy leaders are tired of having acquisition programs explode in their faces, so they're looking to remove all the program execution risk they can. Removing performance removes risk (in theory, anyway).
So instead of having acquisition programs explode in their faces they get to have wars and dead soldiers exploding in their faces (so to speak). "But hey, that's the next guy's problem, not mine."
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Option 4: Navy leaders are tired of having acquisition programs explode in their faces, so they're looking to remove all the program execution risk they can. Removing performance removes risk (in theory, anyway).
So instead of having acquisition programs explode in their faces they get to have wars and dead soldiers exploding in their faces (so to speak). "But hey, that's the next guy's problem, not mine."

Indeed.
 
Grey Havoc said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Option 4: Navy leaders are tired of having acquisition programs explode in their faces, so they're looking to remove all the program execution risk they can. Removing performance removes risk (in theory, anyway).
So instead of having acquisition programs explode in their faces they get to have wars and dead soldiers exploding in their faces (so to speak). "But hey, that's the next guy's problem, not mine."

Indeed.

I am not a professional military strategist or historian or military technology expert. I am a well informed layman I guess.

With budget issues and fewer soldiers and increased, more so then now, platform importance, technologies are giving us so many new possible concepts of operations just as it relates to unmanned systems.

But those exciting possibilities seemed stuck far behind political and Pentagon bureaucratic inertia. This is where I fear for the US falling behind countries that can just say 'What the hell, let's do it'

Throughout history the US has found itself stuck with obsolete doctrines that have cost lives and were costly to correct. I fear the next 'big power' war won't give us the time needed to correct a future strategic shortfall.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
The programs cancelled during the immediate post Cold War "Peace dividend" would run circles around some of the stuff still on drawing boards today. I love it when the term "cold war weapon.." is used as a pejorative as in "old".

AIM-152 or is it -155 anyone?

Until we acknowledge a new peer competitor and /or a new national sentiment these programs will still be at best terrorist killers. Hardly the might of the Cold War.

Everyone goes gaga at the weight of the now cancelled GCV. Look up the FIFV of the USArmy's ASM program of the late 80s. Just as heavy with more firepower and IIRC a 9 man squad. They knew back then that they had to heavy up and 4 or 5 mph was no substitute for armor.

IMO, the requirements should always be build the best. If that puts ahead of any potential threat, so be it. But it looks bad at academic PC events.

I'm sure there are Russians who feel the same about what they were planning ~1991.

It was AIM-152, and it's discussed elsewhere on the Forum. "Peace Dividend" may have been one of the reasons. Another was lobbying by USAF. Their position was that with the F-22 coming, the US had no need for a missile with capabilities such as would be provided by AIM-152. There was also some speculation that it wouldn't fit in the internal bay of F-22A (not sure about an F-23A). Although the Navy required that the missile be capable of being mounted and used by any aircraft that carry AIM-7 (which would include the F-15), USAF adamantly said they would never use the missile.

Also contributing was with the killing of the F-14D program, the F/A-18E/F's radar was not able to "see" as far as the missile could fly (the F-14D's could). This was somewhat ironic because one of the answers given to concerns about the Super Hornet's A2A capability was that AIM-152 would compensate for that. Between AF's lobbying, the "Dividend" and Navy's inability to explain why they were building a missile that their new fighter could not use to full effectiveness, Congress pulled the plug.

They may do the same thing to UCLASS when the realization of how much it's been "dumbed" down sinks in. In its present form, that may not be a bad thing.
 
TomS said:
Option 4: Navy leaders are tired of having acquisition programs explode in their faces, so they're looking to remove all the program execution risk they can. Removing performance removes risk (in theory, anyway).

There is a lot of talk going around that the degredation of requirements was not a Navy initiative. This is not unprecedented. You'll note that it was not USMC that announced it was giving up F-35Bs to buy Cs.
 
F-14D said:
It was AIM-152, and it's discussed elsewhere on the Forum. "Peace Dividend" may have been one of the reasons. Another was lobbying by USAF.
They may do the same thing to UCLASS when the realization of how much it's been "dumbed" down sinks in. In its present form, that may not be a bad thing.

Thanks F-14D for the history of the AIM-155. But I was only trying to use it as an example of "old" Cold War programs that blow away most if not all current programs. :-[
My fault, I did not give enough context in my post.
 
sferrin said:
So instead of having acquisition programs explode in their faces they get to have wars and dead soldiers exploding in their faces (so to speak). "But hey, that's the next guy's problem, not mine."


Well, yes, basically. OTOH, it is an unmanned platform, so it's not obvious that less performance really translates into dead people, just less capability. And if the alternative is a failed program and no procurement at all, is that better or worse than cutting the specs to ensure that you get something usable? It's not always an easy question.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
So instead of having acquisition programs explode in their faces they get to have wars and dead soldiers exploding in their faces (so to speak). "But hey, that's the next guy's problem, not mine."


Well, yes, basically. OTOH, it is an unmanned platform, so it's not obvious that less performance really translates into dead people, just less capability.
I meant in general, not UCLASS specifically. Just pisses me off to no end to watch politicians gut the military so they can buy votes with more freebies.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
So instead of having acquisition programs explode in their faces they get to have wars and dead soldiers exploding in their faces (so to speak). "But hey, that's the next guy's problem, not mine."


Well, yes, basically. OTOH, it is an unmanned platform, so it's not obvious that less performance really translates into dead people, just less capability.
I meant in general, not UCLASS specifically. Just pisses me off to no end to watch politicians gut the military so they can buy votes with more freebies.

The age we live in, unfortunately; though perhaps the times are a-changing.
 
Artist's impression of General Atomics Sea Avenger UCLASS concept

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/04/10/general-atomics-shows-companys-uclass-option
 

Attachments

  • sea_avenger.jpg
    sea_avenger.jpg
    81.9 KB · Views: 809
  • seaavenger3.jpg
    seaavenger3.jpg
    63.7 KB · Views: 792
  • photo-4.jpg
    photo-4.jpg
    78.8 KB · Views: 763
Model of Lockheed Martin Sea Ghost UCLASS on display at Sea-Air-Space 2014 Exposition.

Source:
http://worlddefencenews.blogspot.com/2014_04_01_archive.html
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1739
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed_Martin_UCLASS_sea-air-space_2014_1.jpg
    Lockheed_Martin_UCLASS_sea-air-space_2014_1.jpg
    57.1 KB · Views: 755
  • Lockheed_Martin_UCLASS_sea-air-space_2014_2.JPG
    Lockheed_Martin_UCLASS_sea-air-space_2014_2.JPG
    97.2 KB · Views: 748
Graham Warwick said:
@Boeing UCLASS grows a tail, loses an intake - adapted from BDS CEO Chris Chadwick's May 21 investor-day presentation
Link: www.twitter.com/TheWoracle/status/469479264321277952/photo/1


The intake is still there, just not visible in this picture. ::) ;) :)
I presume, it is on top of the fuselage. A NACA duct like on stealthy cruise missile???
 

Attachments

  • Boeing_UCLASS_new_design21May2014_GrahamWarwick_TheWoracle.jpg
    Boeing_UCLASS_new_design21May2014_GrahamWarwick_TheWoracle.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 189
fightingirish said:
Graham Warwick said:
@Boeing UCLASS grows a tail, loses an intake - adapted from BDS CEO Chris Chadwick's May 21 investor-day presentation
Link: www.twitter.com/TheWoracle/status/469479264321277952/photo/1


The intake is still there, just not visible in this picture. ::) ;) :)
I presume, it is on top of the fuselage. A NACA duct like on stealthy cruise missile???

It may be just the picture angle but does the fuselage look bigger? I think UCLASS should accomodate a bigger payload and deeper magazine to take advantage of expected loiter TOT.
 
Bobbymike, I assume you know how big is the payload with current requirements? And how big do you think it should be in tangible terms?
 
donnage99 said:
Bobbymike, I assume you know how big is the payload with current requirements? And how big do you think it should be in tangible terms?

I am not familiar with the specific payload number. I would hope you would come close to F-35C 'first day of war' high threat environment internally carried.

Any help to enlighten me is always appreciated.
 
Most recent weapon payload numbers for UCLASS Have been very modest, with the focus on ISR payloads instead. But the numbers are very very much still in flux, and new Deputy SecDef Bob Work is known to favor a very robust strike capability for UCLASS.
 
Legendary Collier Trophy Awarded to X-47B Team

Published on Jul 8, 2014

According to the National Aeronautic Association, the prestigious Robert J. Collier Trophy is awarded annually "for the greatest achievement in aeronautics or astronautics in America, with respect to improving the performance, efficiency, and safety of air or space vehicles, the value of which has been thoroughly demonstrated by actual use during the preceding year."

http://youtu.be/_orW9UWuhbk
 
Farnborough: X-47B will return to carrier for F-18 integration tests



The US Navy’s X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstrator (UCAS-D) will deploy to sea on board the USS Theodore Roosevelt in August, it has been revealed.

Speaking to Shephard ahead of the Farnborough International Airshow, Northrop Grumman’s X-47B UCAS-D programme manager, Pablo Gonzalez was unable to confirm exactly deployment dates, adding that ‘ship schedules are classified’. However, he could confirm that the deployment would be conducted in the August timeframe.

In November 2013, X-47B deployed on board the same aircraft carrier and conducted touch and go manoeuvres, flight deck handling drills, arrested landings and catapult launches. Mission operators also monitored autonomous flight from a C2 unit from the carrier’s flight deck during each of its 45-minute sorties, the US Navy explained.

The forthcoming deployment, according Gonzalez, will demonstrate the collaboration of manned and unmanned aircraft on deck: ‘This will provide an opportunity to collect more data and demonstrate a wider range of environmental conditions. We will collect that data as the opportunity presents itself and will be doing some operations in an expanded envelope to transition from shore to ship.

‘Capabilities that were tested and demonstrated earlier this year will be used to better integrate [X-47B and the aircraft carrier] with NAS [Patuxent River],’ he continued......


Previously, X-47B has operated in collaboration with MH-60R Seahawk helicopters and various command and control aircraft, although Gonzalez stressed that forthcoming tests would ‘be more structured’ and would ‘feel much more like operations on a carrier, launching in sequence’.

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/uv-online/farnborough-x-47b-will-return-carrier-f-18-integra/#.U71KhdaeQHU.twitter
 
Off topic but did anyone else click on the link and get a pop-up box with a picture in the upper right corner that displayed rockets/missiles that I, at least, could not identify (can't get the pop-up to reappear if I re-click the link)
 
bobbymike, try deleteing your browser cache+cookies. Then browse again to that link.
 
Thanks. I got there with a little detective work, but it's nice to have the confirmation.
 
Thanks TomS!

Didn't mean to highjack the thread back to UCLASS.
 
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/07/10/pentagon-reviews-uclass-strike-capabilities/
 
"Farnborough: UCLASS final RfP imminent"

14th July 2014 - 12:15 by Andrew White in Farnborough

Source:
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/uv-online/farnborough-uclass-final-rfp-imminent/

The US DoD is expected to release the final Request for Proposal (RfP) for its Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) programme within the next fortnight, US Navy officials have revealed.

Speaking to the media at the Farnborough International Airshow on 14 July, USN PEO U&W, RAdm Mat Winter said the final RfP would be released shortly to the four vendors which include Lockheed Martin, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

However, he stressed the RfP would not be released until the ‘correct design requirements’ had been agreed across the board.

‘Discussions continue to evolve within the DoD to get the design requirements right, including continuous dialogue with congressional teammates to understand their concerns,’ Winter explained.

An RfP had initially been promised in September 2013 with the four vendors winning PDR contracts for the air vehicle design in August of the same year.

Following publication of the final RfP, vendors will have 60 days to provide their responding proposals ahead of a final source selection. A decision is expected to take approximately 10 months, Winter added.

‘We will identify a single vendor to bring to the senior leadership for the downselect contract for the air segment [of the UCLASS programme. We envision a contract award for the air vehicle segment in the second to third quarter of FY15.’

However, Winter said the programme office would not release the final RfP until the correct design requirements had been achieved, with all four vendors understanding the design space to ensure the most technologically feasible solution.

‘We are looking at requirements to make sure the CDD remains relevant and no changes are anticipate. The CCD envisaged provision of a 24/7 orbit of an aircraft carrier strike group at a tactical distance,’ he continued.
 
"Pentagon Taking a New Look UCLASS Requirements, July Request for Proposal Delayed"
By: Sam LaGrone
Published: July 14, 2014 12:23 PM
Updated: July 14, 2014 12:24 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/07/14/pentagon-taking-new-look-uclass-requirements-july-request-proposal-delayed

The Navy is pushing back a planned request for proposal (RfP) for its carrier-based unmanned aerial strike and surveillance aircraft pending a review of a controversial set of requirements by the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD), defense officials told USNI News on Monday.

The delay of a planned July RfP for the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) comes ahead of a meeting this week between Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work and Navy officials to talk about the requirements for the aircraft, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) spokesperson Jamie Cosgrove told USNI News on Monday.

“They’re [still] putting the final touches on the RfP,” Cosgrove said.
“From our perspective, we’re still moving forward.”

NAVAIR anticipates the full RfP will be issued sometime this summer.
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and General Atomics are all expected to submit proposals.

The Work meeting comes ahead of a planned session of the Pentagon’s Defense Acquisitions Board (DAB) — led by vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Adm. James “Sandy” Winnefeld — later this month. The DAB will give the final stamp of approval for the UCLASS RfP.

“OSD wants to have discussions about UCLASS but no formal decision has been made,” a defense official familiar with the review told USNI News on Friday.

NAVAIR and Pentagon officials pushed back against an earlier report on Friday that claimed a decision for a more permanent stop in the UCLASS acquisition came from an earlier DAB meeting.

Work’s new look comes a few months after a congressional effort to reevaluate the UCLASS requirements.

A provision in the House’s version of the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act restricts a planned $403 million in UCLASS funding.

If the bill is signed, the development money will be held up until the conclusion of a new study of requirements for an unmanned carrier aircraft is delivered to Congress.

The new look highlights an ongoing debate over what role an unmanned aerial vehicle should play in a carrier strike group (CSG).

Some want the aircraft to be a well-armed, high-end and stealthy penetrator that will operate in tandem with the carrier air-wing.

Others want an efficient aircraft that will operate while the air wing is asleep, providing continuous information, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) orbits around the CSG with a light strike capability.

Work — before becoming the Pentagon’s second highest civilian — co-authored a 2008 report arguing for a high-end, carrier-based unmanned aerial vehicle able to penetrate sophisticated air defense networks.

The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces plans to hold a UCLASS requirements hearing on Wednesday.
 
"Latest UCLASS Concept Emphasizes Maritime Roles"
By: Dave Majumdar and Sam LaGrone
Published: July 17, 2014 2:30 PM
Updated: July 17, 2014 4:19 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/07/17/latest-uclass-concept-emphasizes-maritime-roles
 
This project is doomed. More and more it's sounding like it's being run by the Keystone Cops. For God's sake, just transition the X-47B to a development program already and call it good.
 
UCLASS and The Future of Naval Power Projection

J. Randy Forbes

July 15, 2014

Source:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/uclass-the-future-naval-power-projection-10889

While the carrier provides the Nation with a sovereign, mobile airfield that can be positioned at the time and place of the Commander-in-Chief’s choosing, the true combat power of this naval asset resides in the composition of its Air Wing. A carrier like the USS Enterprise can have a service life that stretches from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the War on Terror, but it’s enduring utility is enabled not just by its hull-life, but by the continued modernization of aviation assets found on its flight deck. Given the scope of China’s counter-intervention modernization effort and Iran’s own anti-access/area-denial investments, I believe the future air wing must comprise a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft that provide extended-range operations, persistence, stealth, payload, and electronic warfare. Central to this mix is the Navy’s unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) system.

The fundamental question we face going forward is not about the utility of unmanned aviation to the future Air Wing, but the type of unmanned platform that the UCLASS program will deliver and the specific capabilities this vital asset will provide the Combatant Commander. Given the likely operational environment of the 2020s and beyond - including in both the Western Pacific Ocean and Persian Gulf - I believe strongly that the Nation needs to procure a Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV) platform that can operate as a long-range surveillance and strike asset in the contested and denied A2/AD environments of the future. To achieve this, such a system should have broadband, all-aspect stealth, be capable of automated aerial refueling, and have integrated surveillance and strike functionality. Unfortunately, the current direction this program is taking will leave our Naval forces with a platform that I fear will not address the emerging anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) challenges to U.S. power projection that originally motivated creation of the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System (N-UCAS) program during the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and which were reaffirmed in both the 2010 QDR and 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance.

Getting this program correct today and not returning later to address the critical operational challenges facing the carrier in the coming decade is one of the most fundamental decisions the United States can do to secure its enduring advantage in power-projection. Given this important oversight question, on Wednesday afternoon the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, which I Chair, will conduct a hearing with both Navy and independent witnesses to explore this topic in-depth.

Specifically, the disproportionate emphasis in the requirements on unrefueled endurance to enable continuous intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support to the Carrier Strike Group (CSG) would result in an aircraft design that would have serious deficiencies in both survivability and internal weapons payload capacity and flexibility. Furthermore, the cost limits for the aircraft are more consistent with a much less capable aircraft and will not enable the Navy to build a relevant vehicle that leverages readily available and mature technology. In short, developing a new carrier-based unmanned aircraft that is primarily another unmanned ISR sensor that cannot operate in medium to high-level threat environments would be a missed opportunity and inconsistent with the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance which called for the United States to “maintain its ability to project power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged.”

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC), in its recent markup of the FY15 National Defense Authorization Act, agreed with this assessment and concluded that it believes the Navy and indeed the Nation require a long-range, survivable unmanned ISR-strike aircraft as an integral part of the carrier air wings. In contrast, the HASC also determined that developing a new carrier-based unmanned aircraft that is primarily another flying sensor would be a missed opportunity with profound consequences for the practical utility of the carrier and thus for the nation.

The question of UCLASS is not just one of design and capability; it is also about the role and responsibility the Congress has in cultivating, supporting, and protecting military innovation. Like with the shift from cavalry to mechanized forces, sailing ships to steam-powered vessels, the prioritization of the carrier over battleships, or adopting unmanned aerial vehicles in the late 1990s, ideas that initiate difficult changes and disrupt current practices are often first opposed by organizations and bureaucracies that are inclined to preserve the status quo. I believe the Congress has a unique role to help push the Department and the Services in directions that, while challenging, will ultimately benefit our national security and defense policy. I therefore intend to use the subcommittee hearing to explore not just the UCLASS program, but the broader utility a UCAV can have on the Navy’s ability to continue to project power from the aircraft carrier and the implications for the power projection mission in the future if we proceed down the current course.

Rep. Forbes is Chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee.
 
sferrin said:
This project is doomed. More and more it's sounding like it's being run by the Keystone Cops. For God's sake, just transition the X-47B to a development program already and call it good.

Well of course you have a super stealthy long range carrier launched strike platform that could revolutionize naval aviation.
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
This project is doomed. More and more it's sounding like it's being run by the Keystone Cops. For God's sake, just transition the X-47B to a development program already and call it good.

Well of course you have a super stealthy long range carrier launched strike platform that could revolutionize naval aviation.

"The missions now in mind for UCLASS now include permissive airspace ISR and strike initially to start with, Grosklags said. As the program evolves, those missions would expand to more challenging contested littoral and coastal ISR and strike, to attacking an enemy surface action groups (SAG)."

That doesn't sound super stealthy to me.
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
This project is doomed. More and more it's sounding like it's being run by the Keystone Cops. For God's sake, just transition the X-47B to a development program already and call it good.

Well of course you have a super stealthy long range carrier launched strike platform that could revolutionize naval aviation.

UCLASS is expensive and will not survive evolving threats alone. just like NGB it needs to be family of systems or it is just another expensive flaming wreck.
 
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
This project is doomed. More and more it's sounding like it's being run by the Keystone Cops. For God's sake, just transition the X-47B to a development program already and call it good.

Well of course you have a super stealthy long range carrier launched strike platform that could revolutionize naval aviation.

UCLASS is expensive and will not survive evolving threats alone. just like NGB it needs to be family of systems or it is just another expensive flaming wreck.

You think a family of systems, that includes a bomber, is going to be cheaper than the bomber by itself? Okay. . .
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
This project is doomed. More and more it's sounding like it's being run by the Keystone Cops. For God's sake, just transition the X-47B to a development program already and call it good.

Well of course you have a super stealthy long range carrier launched strike platform that could revolutionize naval aviation.

UCLASS is expensive and will not survive evolving threats alone. just like NGB it needs to be family of systems or it is just another expensive flaming wreck.

You think a family of systems, that includes a bomber, is going to be cheaper than the bomber by itself? Okay. . .

There will already be a family of systems when UCLASS is deployed no one is suggesting it will go it alone (F-35C's, Growlers, Hawkeyes, etc.) but what sferrin is analysing from his readings is that we may no longer be looking at a super stealthy platform anymore? Something like a Predator C, maybe, as oppsed to the X-47 and other more stealthy configurations we are seeing in defense contrator marketing pictures.
 
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.
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
This project is doomed. More and more it's sounding like it's being run by the Keystone Cops. For God's sake, just transition the X-47B to a development program already and call it good.

Well of course you have a super stealthy long range carrier launched strike platform that could revolutionize naval aviation.

UCLASS is expensive and will not survive evolving threats alone. just like NGB it needs to be family of systems or it is just another expensive flaming wreck.

You think a family of systems, that includes a bomber, is going to be cheaper than the bomber by itself? Okay. . .

okay...
 
jsport said:
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?
 
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?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom