I'm sure you remember the raid on Bin Laden. I had the sudden revalation that the "Secret Stealth Blackhawk" resembled the Comanche in many ways. That also led to the idea that on the raid into Pakistan everything was there except for gunships. No Little Birds. No Apaches. No Super Cobras. As a matter of fact the only aircraft that accompanied the raid according to sources was were a pair of CH-47's that stayed on the other side of the border. I mean seriously if there was ever a need for the Direct Action Penetrator version of the Blackhawk then this would have been that mission.
Unless.
Unless there was another airplane along that provided that type of support. Just mud balling but would the 160th have a transport helicopter without some type of armed gunship? Keep in mind that gunship would have to share the same stealth characteristics as the stealth transport or it wouldn't make sense.
A quick Google search didn't reveal much but there is no answer on what happened to the RAH-66 prototypes. Wikipedia is unclear as to whether or not 5 or 16 examples were built before the program was cancelled but is it possible that the RAH-66 or a modified Apache is the missing aircraft in this scenario?
We got news that Panetta fully supports 11 aircraft carriers. Good news for the Navy but which part? More speculation on my part but watching videos this weekend, I was amazed at one that showed an F/A-18 being waved off because crewmen were on the landing area of the airplane as it was on approach.
I don't know if they're building that kind of flexibility into UAVs operating off aircraft carriers but if they aren't then you're looking at one of the most dangerous work places in the world becoming even more dangerous. Add to it the fact that I have yet to read how they plan on integrating UAVs onto the decks of aircraft carriers (plenty of info on how they'll be utilized...plenty on how they could even be controlled by strike fighters and such but nothing on how they'll fit in the mix on the deck of a carrier0, and it has me once again wondering if the possibility of an all UAV carrier might be in the cards. It would make ultimate sense in my mind because you would be able to establish unique handling drills for those airplanes. Unique operating procedures for mishaps etc.
Naval air might be in for a shock. In the end a carrier or two might end up under the control of the Surface Navy. Consider it a re-imagined arsenal ship.
i think we should have one or two carriers as just a bomber platform, imagine a flattop just having X47B's, and the power projection that would allow, if there was ever a major conflict you could have them sail in pairs, one with fighters and support craft, other with bombers, and one or two amphibs with 35Bs for additional fighter cover.
ReplyDeleteThe landing signal officers will have the ability to wave the UAV off, likely by just pressing a button to cause it to initiate an abort.
ReplyDeleteWe normally operate a carrier task group up for a period of months and then deploy it with the other carriers in the dance on station, heading home, maintenance, etc. The utility of having a squadron on every CV is greater than having a couple with all strike aircraft. Consider that the immediate plan is to get around 6 UCAS-D on every carrier. If it turns out to be really successful that number could easily be increased significantly. The air wings have been operating light for years now.
ReplyDeleteAt one point we did have the all Grumman wing with just F-14's and A-6's and that was a lot of long range punch. But you really do need a mix of aircraft for various tasks, although not having the light fighter squadrons and instead just F-14's and A-6's (instead of A-7's or F/A-18's) was the way to go capability wise even if it was too expensive to think about it fleet wide.
The USN knows that eventually manned fighters are out and it's fine with that. However, we're talking many decades from now. The next USN fighter is to be optimized for air superiority hence NGAD (next generation air dominance). UCAS will be doing more strike, ISR, etc., from the carriers and probably the F-35C will be replaced by an unmanned fighter but we're a long way from unmanned aircraft doing air superiority as a primary mission.
While you make an interesting argument about the potential dangers of using UAVs on the flight deck, converting a CVN into a UAV carrier strikes me as a waste of resources. Everything I have read about the development of the modern super carrier says that a significant reason why they are so large is to allow them to simultaneously launch strikes and defend themselves. Since there are as yet no UAVs for air defense, sacrificing this ability seems to outweigh any additional flexibility granted by the UAVs.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think the surface navy would get control of any drone carriers? Am I wrong in assuming that Navy UAV development is done by the aviation community?