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
Here comes Skynet…
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
I thought the F35C was to replace the F/A-18?
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.
I’m just glad the UCAS isn’t an Aerial Tanker.
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.
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.
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.
» 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*.
Marines never flew the Super Hornet’s only the Navy.
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.
It shall be called the “Jennings & Rall/Ravenwood/Skynet” Squadron.
Tim
You forgot to mention Jennings & Rall,& their subsidiary Ravenwood.They’re coming too.
Oh so sorry, of course Jennings and Rall … Ravewood would be their verticle take off version.
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…
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.
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
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.
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).
This is,taking us deeper into debt!Be,content with
what we have idiots.
Saul,
Defense spending IS NOT what is taking us deeper into debt.
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