This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology.
Rather than waiting for the U.S. Army to flight-test the Fire Scout vertical-takeoff unmanned aerial vehicle (VTUAV), Northrop Grumman is investing heavily in a test program of its own. The company’s impatience may well pay off — when the Army finally makes a decision about air vehicles for its new Brigade Combat Team Modernization (BCTM) program, Fire Scout will be ready to go.
The dissolution of the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) and cancellation of the manned ground vehicle component has forced the Army to re-examine its requirements as it moves forward with the BCTM. In the case of the UAV piece of the modernization plan, the Army will field its Class I UAV (a small VTUAV weighing 50 lb.) in Fiscal 2011 and 2012. The next VTUAV to come online as part of the BCTM is a Class IV UAV — in this case, Fire Scout. The Army selected Fire Scout for the FCS in 2003, but brigade combat teams are not scheduled to field the aircraft until 2014, according to current requirements.
The Navy, on the other hand, is already flying its MQ-8B Fire Scout from the USS McInerney on counternarcotics missions in the Caribbean. The service contracted with Northrop Grumman in 2004 to create a Fire Scout variant to use on the Littoral Combat Ship. The aircraft has executed 600 hr. of flight testing and 110 takeoffs and landings from the McInerney.
Subsequently, Northrop Grumman is not waiting for the Army to make its move. On Oct. 6, the company announced that its corporate-owned Fire Scout, dubbed White Tail, flew under the command and control of a new company-developed Stanag 4586-compatible ground control station (GCS). Stanag 4586 is the NATO interoperability standard for unmanned aircraft. The company flew the White Tail in late September at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., promoting the flights as having demonstrated the functionality of its own GCS. Future demonstration flights will also use the company’s GCS, including ongoing flights at Yuma in preparation for the Army Expeditionary Warrior Experiment at Ft. Benning, Ga., early next year.
But the GCS is just one piece of Northrop Grumman’s multi-pronged investment strategy. Joe Emerson, the company’s Fire Scout Army program manager, says Northrop Grumman is partnering with platform manufacturer Schweitzer on investing in a new rotor. Adding payloads adds weight, and the “fastest fix is to change out rotor blades. It’s the first area we’re looking at,” says Emerson.
Read the rest of this story, check out DARPA’s bomberbellylaserplan, find out why it’s hard to get the Afghan army its bullets and see who’s to blame for bad program management from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
While I don't know if it removes our need for a new scout helicopter to replace the aging OH-58D, the Fire Scout certainly has some potential.
William, I suppose the question is if the "new" scout helicopter will be manned or not.
Hell way to go NG finaly looks like somebody gets it. Wonder if there gonna order more of these for the fleet. And if they can do ASW work.
Why do I get the feeling they will bury these costs in some black program if they get no orders?
I have so many thoughts on how to best use these birds. I wonder if you can fly a swarm of them or possibly use them for convoy escort missions? I know the firescout can be armed but lightly given the size and payload capability. But I can see these also being in areas close to FOBs to get quick CAS when the Apaches and Cobras are either not available or will take too long to get there immediately.
I do like that NG is doing their own testing of the aircraft on their own dime. Thats how these companies used to do this sort of thing. They would design, build and test the aircraft before they would compete for a contract. Why can't a company like Lockheed or Boeing do this?
Ed!: Fire Scout is cheap in comparison to big projects like F-22 and JSF.
Turning the obsolete FFG's into UAV motherships might put some more use into the old hulls. Park a bunch near Somalia and control the sea with a swarm of UAVs.
Charles:
Maybe instead we should make a ship design like the new flat top destroyers the Japanese have put to sea and turn it into a UAV/UCAV mothership. We could probably put dozens of them onto a destroyer sized ship, still give the ship a main gun, a couple RAMs, Aegis Radar ofcourse, and you got something that can control loads of territory for a small package. I bet it would do wonders in fighting the pirates off Somalia.
I no longer trust the Navy's ability to build a new ship without it costing more than it' weight in platinum or palladium (which costs more than gold)
its always nice to see aerospace corp put their money where their mouth is .. congrats to NG for being gutsy enough to bring the Fire Scout program forward on their own (believing in their product and their engineers).. and congrats to defense tech for the good defense technology related articles (recently).. I might have to retract my earlier 'defenserumor.org' comment
Still kind of nervous about how much time DefTech spends on military fashion
agreed .. I'm trying the positive reinforcement approach though.
NG has been proactive in UAVs for years. Fire Scout was BORN as a company initiative, and IMHO they won the UCAS Demonstrator based upon their sinking their own $ into the X-47A Pegasus and demostrating key competencies.
NG is not alone in the efforts either. Skunkworks and Phantomworks are among the best known of other incubators of Tech (successful and unsuccessful all). The contractor's know they have to invest to maintain the capabilities they need.
definitely true about NG .. the F-20 being a much earlier example (well pre UAVs). I think – as far as complete operational military vehicles funded by internal capital go – they are well ahead of the other two (?). Boeing, perhaps, thinks the airliner biz is risky enough..
Phantom Works is Boeing is it not?
I dunno what Northrop's equivalent is.
Yes,Charles,Phantom Works is Boeing.