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

UCLASS in ‘acquisition hell’ awaiting requirements redemption

The long-running debate over the mission of the US Navy's carrier-launched unmanned surveillance and strike aircraft might have set the "UCLASS" competition back few years, but the maritime force's acquisition chief says getting the requirements right from the beginning is vital.

“This programme is in acquisition hell right now. It’s been inside the building for three years, just trying to get out and see the light of day,” Navy assistant secretary Sean Stackley said at a Navy League forum in Washington 9 September. “We’ll debate on it some more this fall (September to November) with OSD to determine whether or not we have the right programme, not just for the navy, but the nation.”
Click to expand...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uclass-in-acquisition-hell-awaiting-requirements-r-416585/
 
bring_it_on said:
CARRIER AIR WING TACTICS INCORPORATING THE NAVY UNMANNED COMBAT AIR SYSTEM (NUCAS)
Click to expand...

"MANA is very limited in its ability to model altitude; therefore, this thesis
abstracts all squad aircraft and weapons characteristic by placing them at the same
operational altitude. In short, the simulation has abstracted the three-dimensional world
of air-combat into a top-down, two-dimensional simulation model."... is just one indicator how poor to the point of bizarre this report is. What small component J-10 CAP plays in the potential full 2033 operating environment is only one of many other reasons this study seems near pointless..
 
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/10/03/leaders-debate-next-steps-uclass-carrier-drones/73082618/
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/10/03/leaders-debate-next-steps-uclass-carrier-drones/73082618/
Click to expand...

X-47B has no sensors or weapons. Difficult to see an operational role apart from as a flying target.
 
red admiral said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/10/03/leaders-debate-next-steps-uclass-carrier-drones/73082618/
Click to expand...

X-47B has no sensors or weapons. Difficult to see an operational role apart from as a flying target.
Click to expand...

Would not a shorter development cycle into an operation machine be ideal here? They know the 47B is the mutts nuts. Seems stupid to even have a competition.
 
Ian33 said:
Would not a shorter development cycle into an operation machine be ideal here? They know the 47B is the mutts nuts. Seems stupid to even have a competition.
Click to expand...

I agree. But they do that and it's lawyer time as Boeing, LM, etc. will be crying about not getting a shot at the pie.
 
sferrin said:
Ian33 said:
Would not a shorter development cycle into an operation machine be ideal here? They know the 47B is the mutts nuts. Seems stupid to even have a competition.
Click to expand...

I agree. But they do that and it's lawyer time as Boeing, LM, etc. will be crying about not getting a shot at the pie.
Click to expand...

Given that the UCASS requirement appears to be have been purposely scaled back by the US Navy a X-47B derived solution makes a lot of sense.

Given the precedent of certain specialized types that entered service with the US Airforce without apparent open and/or public competitions (the F117 if we go far back, the RQ-170 Sentinel and most recently the RQ-180, apparently) it seems strange that the US Navy is unable to do something similar with a UCASS-type aircraft that in numbers and role would probably be quite similar to the 2 later examples mentioned.

I've no skin or interest in an airforce versus navy debate, it would just seem a good idea for the US Navy to field this capability in limited numbers and learn from the experience while forgoing more time and resource on a competition while they are clearly not entirely sure of / at one voice on exactly what role they want a UCASS type to perform.
 
kaiserd said:
sferrin said:
Ian33 said:
Would not a shorter development cycle into an operation machine be ideal here? They know the 47B is the mutts nuts. Seems stupid to even have a competition.
Click to expand...

I agree. But they do that and it's lawyer time as Boeing, LM, etc. will be crying about not getting a shot at the pie.
Click to expand...

Given that the UCASS requirement appears to be have been purposely scaled back by the US Navy a X-47B derived solution makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

Except that it's been scaled back from an X-47B class not to it. We're talking something more like an ocean going Reaper; Predator-C/Avenger at best.
 
Ian33 said:
red admiral said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/10/03/leaders-debate-next-steps-uclass-carrier-drones/73082618/
Click to expand...

X-47B has no sensors or weapons. Difficult to see an operational role apart from as a flying target.
Click to expand...

Would not a shorter development cycle into an operation machine be ideal here? They know the 47B is the mutts nuts. Seems stupid to even have a competition.
Click to expand...

Then the Navy was really stupid in funding four competitors after the X-47B performed its demo.
 
Yeah, the US Navy screwed the pooch on this one. Northrop Grumman have a long legged carrier capable design right now in the stable.

It's one of those times where a design is so right, Northrop should just be told to get on with it and give us the capability ASAP.
That said, now look at UCLASS - Be lucky to have a competition before 2020. A competition which all of Northrops work would have to be given to everyone as its ..... Matured and ready.

Bone headed stupidity IMHO.
 
sferrin said:
kaiserd said:
sferrin said:
Ian33 said:
Would not a shorter development cycle into an operation machine be ideal here? They know the 47B is the mutts nuts. Seems stupid to even have a competition.
Click to expand...

I agree. But they do that and it's lawyer time as Boeing, LM, etc. will be crying about not getting a shot at the pie.
Click to expand...

Given that the UCASS requirement appears to be have been purposely scaled back by the US Navy a X-47B derived solution makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

Except that it's been scaled back from an X-47B class not to it. We're talking something more like an ocean going Reaper; Predator-C/Avenger at best.
Click to expand...

But that's not a final decision, the reason it has been shelved so to speak is so that there can be reassessment of the requirements.
 
Flyaway said:
But that's not a final decision, the reason it has been shelved so to speak is so that there can be reassessment of the requirements.
Click to expand...

That's part of the problem. They've got the solution staring them in the face and they can't figure out what the hell they want.
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
But that's not a final decision, the reason it has been shelved so to speak is so that there can be reassessment of the requirements.
Click to expand...

That's part of the problem. They've got the solution staring them in the face and they can't figure out what the hell they want.
Click to expand...

The solution staring them in the face was developed by a partnership where one party now wishes to unpartner and has in fact partnered with a different party
for an even bigger contract.
 
marauder2048 said:
The solution staring them in the face was developed by a partnership where one party now wishes to unpartner and has in fact partnered with a different party for an even bigger contract.
Click to expand...

If it had been a problem NG wouldn't of offered a fully fledged X47B type for the competition.
 
Remember the Navy isn't one person, but many minds. There were different groups with different visions of what UCLASS should be. Sorta like our congress, when you have opposing views within an agency on how things should work, sometimes the agency ended up not getting anything done. Regardless of what they think UCLASS should be, the program need to be structured well, or else you ended up with the classic "adding requirements half way through program" leading to ballooning cost for a compromised and confused weapon system.
 
Ian33 said:
marauder2048 said:
The solution staring them in the face was developed by a partnership where one party now wishes to unpartner and has in fact partnered with a different party for an even bigger contract.
Click to expand...

If it had been a problem NG wouldn't of offered a fully fledged X47B type for the competition.
Click to expand...

A fully-fledged UCLASS is a big step from X-47B which was used to generate data that has been shared with all of the competitors.
Further X-47B testing advantages Lockheed as much as NG which is why the former has been pushing for it.
 
donnage99 said:
Remember the Navy isn't one person, but many minds. There were different groups with different visions of what UCLASS should be. Sorta like our congress, when you have opposing views within an agency on how things should work, sometimes the agency ended up not getting anything done. Regardless of what they think UCLASS should be, the program need to be structured well, or else you ended up with the classic "adding requirements half way through program" leading to ballooning cost for a compromised and confused weapon system.
Click to expand...

Admiral Roughead was a strong advocate of a high-end UCLASS but that was two CNOs ago; the once and future submariner CNOs don't seem to be willing to spend or even advocate on behalf of high-end surface/aviation capabilities. The Navy's tribal politics are truly like no other.
 
That's funny because the non-pilots argue they're trying to prevent the former fighter jocks from turning everything into a fighter-bomber.
 
Carrier Navy's got big, near-term problems that an expensive penetrate-and-persist, 4klb-weapon-load UCAV will exacerbate.
 
LowObservable said:
Carrier Navy's got big, near-term problems that an expensive penetrate-and-persist, 4klb-weapon-load UCAV will exacerbate.
Click to expand...
Not just near term right, once the f-35 production going full speed, it will take up a good junk of money dedicated to naval aviation right? How much did the super hornet buy take up the budget for naval aviation when it was at its full speed production?
 
LowObservable said:
Carrier Navy's got big, near-term problems that an expensive penetrate-and-persist, 4klb-weapon-load UCAV will exacerbate.
Click to expand...

And bigger, existential problems if it doesn't go that route. But the current CNO is very much like the last CNO who got publicly pecker slapped for a "deficit of strategic vision" so I'm not hopeful on a long-term perspective prevailing.
 
Forbes: UCLASS Decision Is Moving Forward, Review Will Wrap Up Soon

Posted: October 09, 2015


An influential House lawmaker said he anticipates a Pentagon-led review that includes the Navy's Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike program will wrap up soon and it is moving forward in a "very thoughtful, analytical way."

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee chairman, told Inside the Navy Oct. 9 he does not think the Office of the Secretary Defense intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance portfolio review has the answers to everything but is happy about progress that has been made.

A requirements decision was supposed to be made this summer but it was pushed into the fall on the correct ISR and strike mix for the platform, ITN reported in September.

"We will debate on it some more this fall with OSD and determine that we've got the right program," Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley said Sept. 9 during a Navy League breakfast in Arlington, VA.

After the ISR portfolio review concludes, the Navy hopes to get the green light to release a request for proposals for the effort.

"What we are going to do is place more emphasis on prototyping, on experimenting," Stackley said. "We're going to bring the fleet and that research base together to help define the requirements -- to take technology, get it into the fleet's hands, mess with it, break it and figure what works, what doesn't work, then define requirements of a much more mature system before you go launching into a major program."

Over the last three years, the Navy has debated the correct set of requirements for UCLASS, according to Stackley.

In addition to the Navy and OSD, Congress is also debating UCLASS requirements. The service envisioned the unmanned aircraft to be more ISR-heavy while other entities would like the system to have more strike capacity.

The Navy contends that if the Joint Requirements Oversight Council validates more-demanding requirements for the UCLASS system, the program's schedule and preliminary design reviews will need to be revisited and reevaluated, according to a May 4 Government Accountability Office report.

UCLASS is already delayed by three years because of the OSD ISR portfolio review. If the final UCLASS requirements emphasize a strike role with limited surveillance, the Navy will likely need to revisit its understanding of available resources in design knowledge, funding and technologies before awarding an air system development contract, report reads.

The four UCLASS competitors -- Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman -- have spent internal research and development dollars to compete for the program. In August 2013, the Navy awarded contracts worth $15 million to each company for developing and delivering a UCLASS preliminary design.

"Knowledge gained through preliminary design reviews may no longer be applicable," the report reads. This is because the requirements presented to the four contractors focused on surveillance missions in less-contested environments while emphasizing affordability, timely fielding and endurance, the May 4 GAO report reads.

In the fiscal year 2016 defense authorization bill conference report, lawmakers agreed the Navy should develop a penetrating, air-refuelable, unmanned carrier-launched aircraft capable of performing a broad range of missions in a non-permissive environment.

"The conferees believe that such an aircraft should be designed for full integration into carrier air wing operations -- including strike operations -- and possess the range, payload, and survivability attributes as necessary to complement such integration," the conference report reads. "Although the Defense Department could develop land-based unmanned aircraft with attributes to support the air wing, the conferees believe that the United States would derive substantial strategic and operational benefits from operating such aircraft from a mobile seabase that is self-deployable and not subject to caveats of a host nation."

Congressional authorizers provided $375 million to be used for a competitive prototyping of at least two follow-on air systems that move DOD toward a UCLASS program and $350 million for continued development and risk-reduction activities of the Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstration, which is the precursor to UCLASS.

"The conferees direct the Navy to leverage both the lessons learned from the UCAS-D program and the existence of two operational UCAS-D demonstrator aircraft in support of these efforts," the conference report reads.

Further, Forbes told ITN Congress is working on a way to shield multiyear procurement contracts from continuing resolution impacts.

"The short-term CR is terrible, long-term CR is even worse," he added. "We hope we can find a way to avoid that."

The president is threatening to veto the proposed FY-16 defense policy bill that was passed by both the House and Senate. If this occurs the Navy will lose three destroyers and two attack submarines, Forbes said.

"While I'm looking at the impact of a CR I'm also looking at the impact to the veto of a defense bill and the impacts on the procurements and acquisition," Forbes added. -- Lee Hudson
 
...
 

Attachments

  • LMT-UCLASS.png
    LMT-UCLASS.png
    130.4 KB · Views: 1,065
  • Bmby_AuCQAARnY4.jpg
    Bmby_AuCQAARnY4.jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 1,050
The Sea Ghost always strikes me as being very, very similar in design to the RQ-170, almost as if it is a navalised variant.
 
Flyaway said:
The Sea Ghost always strikes me as being very, very similar in design to the RQ-170, almost as if it is a navalised variant.
Click to expand...

That's funny, as for me, the RQ170 has always looked like a prototype rushed into limited service and the Sea Ghost is the real Lockheed offering. Except it lost out to Northrop and the 180 is the full service model.
 
donnage99 said:
Remember the Navy isn't one person, but many minds. There were different groups with different visions of what UCLASS should be. Sorta like our congress, when you have opposing views within an agency on how things should work, sometimes the agency ended up not getting anything done. Regardless of what they think UCLASS should be, the program need to be structured well, or else you ended up with the classic "adding requirements half way through program" leading to ballooning cost for a compromised and confused weapon system.
Click to expand...

The real headache is that the Navy wants an unmanned S-3. The vendors, Congress, and parts of DOD want an unmanned A-6. The requirements don't mix well...and there is need in both warfare areas.
 
U.S. Navy chief sees need to move forward quickly on carrier drone

The U.S. Navy needs to "get going" on a new, unmanned armed aircraft that can operate from the deck of an aircraft carrier, U.S. Chief of Naval of Operations Admiral John Richardson said on Monday.

He said the Navy's long-delayed Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) effort was a "prime candidate" for a new approach aimed at speeding up acquisition programs and benefiting from field experience.

"That's a prime candidate for trying to get something out there ... so that we can learn how to operate an unmanned aerial vehicle from a carrier," Richardson said after an event hosted by the U.S. Naval Institute. He added that the new aircraft would also "serve a real purpose ... beyond experimentation."
Click to expand...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usa-navy-drones-idUKL1N13W18I20151207
 
bring_it_on said:
The 16 Omnibus gives $300 Million to the program.
Click to expand...

More than they asked for so they obviously want them to get on with the program.
 
kaiserd said:
sferrin said:
Ian33 said:
Would not a shorter development cycle into an operation machine be ideal here? They know the 47B is the mutts nuts. Seems stupid to even have a competition.
Click to expand...

I agree. But they do that and it's lawyer time as Boeing, LM, etc. will be crying about not getting a shot at the pie.
Click to expand...

Given that the UCASS requirement appears to be have been purposely scaled back by the US Navy a X-47B derived solution makes a lot of sense.

Given the precedent of certain specialized types that entered service with the US Airforce without apparent open and/or public competitions (the F117 if we go far back, the RQ-170 Sentinel and most recently the RQ-180, apparently) it seems strange that the US Navy is unable to do something similar with a UCASS-type aircraft that in numbers and role would probably be quite similar to the 2 later examples mentioned.

I've no skin or interest in an airforce versus navy debate, it would just seem a good idea for the US Navy to field this capability in limited numbers and learn from the experience while forgoing more time and resource on a competition while they are clearly not entirely sure of / at one voice on exactly what role they want a UCASS type to perform.
Click to expand...


--

I agree. And perhaps I would add that in an age of rapid-prototypes and 3D printers we might want to consider an radically shortened procurement process.

By example, the Navy wanted to learn what they could do with a UCAV. At this point we've determined that - yes, it's possible - aerial refueling - the whole ball of wax. Now we have to determine what to do with the UCAV's - and somehow that gets conflated with what to do with carriers in general.

It's doesn't seem prudent to develop a "full on" UCAV program and debate carrier viability at this point. Especially when you don't know what problem you're attempting to solve. The fact is that it has taken 15 years to get here. That timeline is too long.

Using a radically shortened procurement process perhaps we can more quickly learn how we want to use technology as we make incremental development decisions which encourages innovation ultimately transforming how we address strategic threats.
 
US Navy’s Unmanned Jet Could Be a Tanker


WASHINGTON — One of the biggest questions facing the future of US Navy carrier-based aviation is what will be the primary mission of its new unmanned jet. Some believe the aircraft – to be produced by the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program – should be a stealthy strike jet able to penetrate an enemy’s defenses without risking a pilot. Others want a spy plane, able to launch from a carrier and produce high-quality, real-time intelligence.

The Navy was set to announce a choice in late summer 2014, but continuing controversy inside the service, the Pentagon and Capitol Hill led leadership to suspend any decision pending a service-wide review of unmanned and intelligence assets.

Now it would seem a decision has been made between strike and recon. The winner?

Aerial refueling.

Enter the Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System, or CBARS.

Very few details are known about CBARS – some sources were familiar with the effort but not the acronym. But it seems a significant portion of the UCLASS effort will now be directed to produce a carrier-based aerial tanker, able to refuel other planes low on gas.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter could reveal the decision Tuesday morning when he’s to speak about the fiscal 2017 budget submission at the National Press Club. The budget itself is scheduled to be delivered to Congress on Feb. 9.

Several sources contacted for this article confirmed the role of CBARS will be primarily tanking, “with a little ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance].”

Strike capabilities, the sources all said, would be put off to a future version of the aircraft.

If so, the choice of a tanking role for UCLASS would be at odds with Congress, where enthusiasm for a strike aircraft has been strong.

House and Senate advocates differed with the administration’s 2016 UCLASS request and with each other and, in the end, a compromise provision in the 2016 defense authorization act provided $350 million for the program, well over the Pentagon’s $135 million request.

But Congress directed the Navy to “develop a penetrating, air-refuelable, unmanned carrier-launched aircraft capable of performing a broad range of missions in a non-permissive environment.” The aircraft, Congress said, “should be designed for full integration into carrier air wing operations – including strike operations – and possess the range, payload, and survivability attributes as necessary to complement such integration.”

Congress made no mention of a need for an unmanned aerial tanking capability.

Since fall 2014, the Pentagon has been undertaking a comprehensive, service-wide review of its unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. It is not yet clear how much of the ISR review will be made public.

UCLASS supercedes the Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstration (UCAS-D) program which produced the Northrop Grumman X-47B demonstrator aircraft. The Navy’s two X-47Bs conducted a series of sea-based trials in 2013 and 2014, proving the ability to launch and recover aboard an aircraft carrier at sea. Further trials in 2015 proved the aircraft could conduct aerial refueling – but as a receiving plane, not as a tanker.

Northrop and Boeing were the prime contenders for UCLASS. It is not clear how the competing designs can be adapted to the tanking role.

Aerial refueling is largely a byproduct of the jet age, where hungry engines ate fuel at much higher rates than propeller-driven aircraft. Refueling also gives combat planes the ability to carry out missions at far longer ranges, across oceans and continents, and it is not unusual for carrier-based strike aircraft to refuel several times in the course of a single combat mission.

A number of carrier aircraft were adapted to handle the tanking role, including the A-3 Skywarrior, A-6 Intruder and S-3 Viking. F/A-18 Strike Hornets also carry out the role, fitted with refueling pods for individual missions but able to be quickly reconfigured for strike roles.

Should the UCLASS be developed as a tanker, it could mark a first for naval aviation – the first time an aircraft was introduced as a tanker.

It would also be unusual to develop such a sophisticated aircraft for the tanking mission, where generally less-complex aircraft are sufficient.


http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/naval-aviation/2016/01/31/uclass-ucasd-navy-carrier-unmanned-jet-x47-northrop-boeing/79624226/
 
"Pentagon to Navy: Convert UCLASS Program Into Unmanned Aerial Tanker, Accelerate F-35 Development, Buy More Super Hornets"
By: Sam LaGrone
February 1, 2016 5:06 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2016/02/01/pentagon-to-navy-convert-uclass-program-into-unmanned-aerial-tanker-accelerate-f-35-development-buy-more-super-hornets

The Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) effort is being retooled as primarily a carrier-based unmanned aerial refueling platform as part of several Pentagon naval aviation mandates as part if the the service’s Fiscal Year 2017 budget submission, USNI News has learned.

The shift from UCLASS to the new Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS) will be made alongside an additional buy of Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets over the next several years and accelerated purchases and development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The trio of budget moves seeks to blunt the Navy’s looming strike fighter shortfall, move more stealth capability sooner into the carrier air wing and create a development path for future unmanned systems onboard the service’s fleet of nuclear carriers, according to the rationale the Pentagon put forth to the service several defense officials told USNI News.

The budget submission – in part informed by the Pentagon’s UAV strategic program review (SPR) led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work – will also include 15 F-35C JSFs in 2017 and plan for an additional 14 Super Hornets in FY18, USNI News undersatnds.

“That study found that you need a mix of all of these things,” a defense official told USNI News on Monday.

USNI News understands there may also be efforts to accelerate developments of the Block 3F JSF software – now slated to reach initial operational capability in August 2018 and the major barrier for the Navy to regularly deploy F-35Cs.

The revelation of the budget mandates also comes mere days after the Navy kicked off the Analysis for Alternatives for its next generation air dominance platform – also known as F/A-XX. The program or programs that will replace the capability of the Super Hornets in the early 2030s.

Last year, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said the F-35C would be “almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly,” he said in address at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea-Air-Space Exposition.

Mabus later said UCLASS was to act as the bridge to autonomous unmanned strike platforms and predicted “whatever F/A-XX looks like — it should be unmanned,” he said in May.

UCLASS

The latest Pentagon direction for the fate of UCLASS changes the character of the program from the Navy’s intended information, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platform that would patrol while the rest of the carrier air wing was at rest, to an aircraft that will actively operate with the air wing.

The ISR-centric UCLASS concept superseded the Navy’s earlier 2006 naval unmanned aerial combat system (N-UCAS) deep strike aircraft concept that sought to extend the lethal range of the carrier into contested environments.

The shift in character for from N-UCAS to UCLASS upset some in Congress to the point that last year’s National Defense Authorization Act set aside “$350.0 million for continued development and risk reduction activities of the Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS–D) aircraft that would benefit the overall UCLASS program, and $375.0 million to be used for a competitive prototyping of at least two follow-on air systems that move the Department toward a UCLASS program capable of long-range strike in a contested environment,” according to the joint statement on the legislation.

Its unclear if the new CBARS will build off the FY 2016 NDAA funds or make a new request as part of the budget. UCLASS had planned to enter the fleet by 2022 or 2023.

In developing the new effort, Naval Air Systems Command will split CBARS into three efforts, developing the UAV airframe, the control system and the communications “connectivity segment,” with the Navy acting as the lead systems integrator.

NAVIAR spokeswoman Jamie Cosgrove would not confirm any details on the CBARS program ahead of the release of the FY 2017 budget next week when reached by USNI News on Monday.

One defense official told USNI News the Navy’s priority would be to develop and perfect the control and the connectivity systems with the idea being those basic systems could be used to on different carrier based airframes.

“The Navy has already said it wants to develop the airframe iteratively and that the most expensive part of the [development] is creating a system for an aircraft to move on, off and around the carrier,” one defense official told USNI News on Monday.

The CBARS airframe – which will take the place of UCLASS as the first operational, carrier-based UAV – will likely be built in a highly efficient wing-body-tail configuration that will limit its ability to strike in contested airspaces.

However, USNI News understands the NAVAIR development scheme could allow for the development of additional airframes that would allow a shape with a lower radar cross section (RCS) – like a delta wing or a so-called “cranked kite” design like Northrop Grumman’s X-47B to use the same control system.

Still, the requirements for the tanking mission put wing-body-tail designs developed by Boeing and General Atomics more inline with the CBARS mission as opposed to offerings from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman which focused on developing aircraft that would be better suited in operating in a more contested air space.

Last month Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson held visits with all the companies that have submitted proposals for UCLASS as part of a broader effort to learn more about the potential of unmanned systems beyond the UCLASS program, a Navy official confirmed to USNI News.

Tanking

Putting the UCLASS effort toward aerial refueling is by no means a new idea. As early as 2014, industry and defense sources told the USNI News the tanking mission was high on the Navy’s list for UCLASS uses.

The Navy has long complained about the strain its Super Hornets are put under performing the tanking mission. Estimates provided to USNI News indicate 20 to 30 percent of Super Hornet sorties are tanking missions.

Despite the fatigue on the platform, the Navy has not sought to develop a new way to tank planes in a program of record before CBARS. For examples, the service has no plans to explore refueling aircraft from its planned Bell-Boeing V-22 carrier onboard delivery aircraft even though the Marines have a capability to refuel F/A-18s with their own MV-22 Ospreys.

USNI News understands the Navy commissioned a study last year with the Center for Naval Analysis that found that modifying the existing UCLASS program was more capable and cost effective than a modified V-22, Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, bringing back the retired S-3 Viking or using the JSF.
Click to expand...
 
Doesn't a F-35C carry 19k pounds of fuel for a ~1300mi range? I guess I'm not understanding how this works with UCLASS which I thought was designed around a 3k pound payload.

What are the targets for F35C's? I was assuming they're primarily ground targets.
How close does an F35C have to get before firing its weapons?

I'm thinking that the UCLASS 3k pound payload doesn't get you that much additional range for an F35C. The brass must have a good reason for this that I'm not understanding.

Any insights would be appreciated.
 
How 'bout a mini-me one of these:



sized for maybe a pair of non-afterburning F414s. (or some other suitable engine of that power range.)
 
sferrin said:
How 'bout a mini-me one of these:



sized for maybe a pair of non-afterburning F414s. (or some other suitable engine of that power range.)
Click to expand...

Cool picture. Looks like the engines on the Honda Jet.
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/good-bye-uclass-hello-unmanned-tanker-more-f-35cs-in-2017-budget/
 
bobbymike said:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/good-bye-uclass-hello-unmanned-tanker-more-f-35cs-in-2017-budget/
Click to expand...

The size of a Super Hornet but not an F18 airframe. So what is it?
 
NeilChapman said:
bobbymike said:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/good-bye-uclass-hello-unmanned-tanker-more-f-35cs-in-2017-budget/
Click to expand...

The size of a Super Hornet but not an F18 airframe. So what is it?
Click to expand...

"Size of a Super Hornet" could be weight/foot print too I'd think. I don't imagine it would have the length/span ratio of a Super Hornet.
 
None of the UCLASS designs I've read about have more than a 10k pound payload. What kind of payload would a tanker need?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom