Is it possible.
Could the US Navy have a carrier that is designated for unmanned aircraft operations only? It would go to sea for crew qualifications (reservist getting in summer training?) but its unmanned aircraft would be kept in storage with only a few used for unmanned pilot proficiency (even that would be limited as most training would be done by simulator).
During times of war it would reactors would be turned to full power, unmanned aircraft onloaded, reservist called to duty, unmanned pilot billets filled/recalled and it would sail to the scene.
200 unmanned strike aircraft would suddenly arrive with our "regular" aircraft carriers and conduct wartime missions.
If we reach a point of where we can superpack these aircraft then that number might be 3 or even 400 airplanes.
If it isn't being considered they should.
Like this idea
ReplyDeleteUnmanned aircraft aren't a panacea. The pilots, system operators, mechanics, and deck crew all need to gain practice through training. It would be very challenging with the ship operating with reserves 4 weeks a year. While it's an interesting idea, and the nation needs some real sustained combat capability in the reserves, assuming it's a viable idea the real question is whether Congress is going to spend money on very expensive assets for the reserve?
ReplyDeleteMoreover, we could purchase a couple dozen UCLASS for every active carrier right now but I doubt the Navy would want to pay to operate them even if the aircraft were free. They're talking 4-6 per carrier now. In order to expand that some day we need a different threat and budget climate. China isn't scary enough yet.
i don't think a program that is less than 100 aircraft is very practical. if that's the case then this UCAV program is simply a scientific experiment. additionally if reservist don't float your boat then we can work out a different type manning arrangement. the Navy is about to downsize its carrier force so if it can keep one on standby along with the personnel to bring it up to speed in an emergency then i think they would go for it. if they could do it with the idea of uav pilots maintaining currency by flying simulators, not actually having to put to sea for qualifications and still claim that you have x number of combat squadrons (even though a couple will be unmanned) then i think both naval aviation and surface navy will be more than happy to bite. as far as China not being scary enough? i think those that are paying attention are properly alarmed already. everyone else is suffering from normalcy bias. oh and normalcy bias gets people killed.
DeleteJust to be clear my point is that China isn't scary enough for Congress to increase defense spending and especially in terms of buying assets for a long war. We're not remotely ready as a nation to spend scarce defense dollars on expensive aircraft that get put in storage. If we buy them then they need to be used operationally or we should buy and operate something else.
ReplyDeleteTo put it another way if we came up with the money for this do you want to A) buy a few hundred UCAV's to put in storage for emergencies or B) fully fund every last item ground item for the Corps?
As far as UCLASS not being practical it's worth pointing out it's basically software development put into a simple aircraft utilizing a proven engine and existing systems. Not a single new ISR or combat system is being developed. Moreover, I'd suggest if a 4 to 6 aircraft detachment is seen as useful then we'll see a squadron operating shortly thereafter with double the number of aircraft. Additionally since it's going to be the first (non black) fighter sized UCAV in operation one shouldn't assume the only potential customer is the USN.