Comments on: Second Guessing BAMS

By: John

John — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:57:31 +0000

Your recommendation may actually happen … looks like there will be a BAMS showdown over Secretary Young’s memo which requires a TD phase with a two competitor prototype “flyoff” before proceeding to the SDD phase.

By: Mark Gay

Mark Gay — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:36:53 +0000

Fact is that the Carter Aviation “SRCAV’ UAV [VTOL/SSTOL] will deliver far more effective–and cost-efficient–BAMS capability [as defined in the solicitation] than any of the three rivals competing for contract award. The Navy’s insistence on off-the-shelf capability for the air platform is short-sighted–and will tether the capability to an airfield. Some of the contractual funds should have been set aside to experiment for an “Objective” (vice Threshold) BAMS capability.

By: bob

bob — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:32:29 +0000

I can say that both have strengths and weaknesses. Global Hawk flies higher and out of the jet stream while predator flies alittle lower. Predator is cheaper but does not auto land like global hawk. So if you dont land at your origaional base you have to crash. Satallite operator controlled landings dont work. This is an advantage for global hawk who can land at diver fields. I can say that the global hawk has alos crashed allot less than predators. The main problem I forsee with both will be getting all of the electrical power required for the sensors that both companies are putting up.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:19:20 +0000

Honestly, what I think the Navy is trying to do is create a P-3/P-8 without a crew. If that were the case then the only competitor would be the Global Hawk. With the exception that you could not drop sonobouys from 50,000 feet. But you would not need sonobouys unless the aircraft was armed.
I don’t know if it is a good program or not to be honest with you. I thought the ship thethered Aerostats were pretty good at what they did back in the early 90s. Then they withdrew all of them.
DC2

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:55:41 +0000

If one contract bid produces three such varied entrants, it suggested to me that the problem is that the U.S. Navy has a pot of money that it isn’t really sure what to do with.
This is a recipe for the really expensive kinds of missteps our military is prone to get into, not plain vanilla fraud, waste and abuse, but the syndrome of resolving uncertainty by throwing lots of money around without a precise goal that is served by doing so.

By: st6ng

st6ng — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:58:58 +0000

Working for GA, I can tell you it is not a Predator, a Pred B aka Hunter Killer aka Reaper, or a Mariner. The only similarity between the Pred B platform are the Hardpoints. Its a new bird.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:05:15 +0000

DC2,
No apologies necessary, the good thing about the Mariner is that with the ability to carry stores it could easily be modified to dispense sonobuys and other deployable sensors if needed.
Short ranges correct, I believe Fire Scout is intended for that role.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:55:52 +0000

Chris,
My apologies, I should have said it is more or less a Predator B.
I think the Navy is looking for a surveillance only platform. They have aircraft carriers that can perform the rest of the missions.
And again, I think for shorter ranges of UAV they are looking at UCAV and Fire Scout.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:18:07 +0000

First off, the MAriner is not “more or less a Predator” it is a modified Predator B, big difference.
As for the split buy option, that does offer some benefits but increases the lifecycle costs tremendously. Two different set of spare parts, two different set of maintenance manuals, two different set of consumables, etc.
And I strongly agree with S. Trimble, it is already qualified and ready to carry munitions so it could perform combat mission as well.

By: Stephen Trimble

Stephen Trimble — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:59:06 +0000

Mariner has speed to station limitations, compared to a Global Hawk or G550 perhaps, but it does have advantages. It’s already armed, for one thing, if that ever becomes a USN requirement for BAMS. And it can operate nearer to sea level more efficiently if that’s what the mission requires. And sometimes lack of speed on station is a good thing for a surveillance aircraft.