Monday, December 23, 2013

F-35 Backup plan in full effect! Update and Clarification.


via USNI News.
The U.S Navy’s unmanned carrier launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) program has evolved to call for a jet that is much larger and much more capable than what was envisioned just six months ago, Navy officials told USNI News.


“We’re talking about a 70,000- to 80,000-pound airplane,” Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy’s director of air warfare said in a 20 December interview. “We’re talking [Grumman F-14] Tomcat size.”
The shift in the character of UCLASS comes as the service prepares to release a set of months-delayed draft requirements to industry, and follows a struggle inside the Pentagon over the character of the aircraft.
“The concepts have moved around. They’ve been: You want unmanned off the carrier to do some off-cycle ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance]—we’re more than that now,” Manazir said. “We have heavy-end ISR and strike capability with some growth in the ability to carry weapons and some growth in the sensor package.”
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and General Atomics are all hoping to secure what looks to one of the Defense Departments few new start development programs for the foreseeable future.
The Navy’s current thinking about the UCLASS concept calls for an aircraft much larger than even the 44,000-lb. Northrop Grumman X-47B unmanned combat air system-demonstrator (UCAS-D).
In fact, the UCLASS could be considerably larger than even the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, with some of the proposed UCLASS designs being 68 ft. long—eight feet longer than a Super Hornet, Manazir said.
Read the whole thing here.

Have no doubts though.  The USN is taking a far different road to protecting our nation than the other services.  THIS IS A BIG NAVY UAV!!!  It will be as big as the F-14, fully loaded F-35, and as big as the A-5 Vigilante.

Once the military community, Congress and others finally dial in to the gutting thats about to occur in US forces this myopic, "gotta have the F-35 at all costs" stupidity will end.

But even more importantly the Brits will want some.  So will others.  Cuts are coming and as predicted the F-35 death spiral is all but assured.

Merry Christmas to me!

UPDATE and CLARIFICATION:
Let me clear up something when I say the back up plan is in full effect.  My thinking goes like this.  Take the proposed upgrades to the Super Hornet, conformal fuel tanks to increase range, signature reduction efforts, improvements to the AIM-120...mix them with a large UAV capable of conducting both deep recon and strike missions and what do you get?  You get a Super Hornet that will be extremely capable until 2030 and probably a few years beyond.  You get a UAV that can go deep on the first day of war and provide not only strike but recon and damage assessment.  The question then becomes simple.  What do you need the F-35 to do?  How can you justify the added expense?  In my view you can't.  You're getting a cheap airplane that can do most of the work and then a cheap but capable extremely capable UAV to go where you wouldn't want to send a pilot anyway.  Its the Navy for a win...unless the Air Force and Marine Corps gets in the way.

39 comments :

  1. The Navy has not structured the UCLASS program properly, and so it got its hand caught in the $3.4 billion cookie jar in September with an unfavorable GAO Report.

    What GAO Found
    In fiscal year 2014, the Navy plans to commit to investing an estimated $3.7 billion to develop, build, and field from 6 to 24 aircraft as an initial increment of Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) capability. However, it is not planning to hold a Milestone B review--a key decision that formally initiates a system development program and triggers key oversight mechanisms--until after the initial UCLASS capability has been developed and fielded in fiscal year 2020. . . .
    http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-833

    So the FY2014 budget now includes $146 million for UCLASS R&D. Navy has a new program manager at Patuxent who, I expect, should get the program defined better and back on track.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It almost sounds like someone in the USN finally got their head out of their ass and realized that the Pacific Ocean is real freaking big, that China is going to want some say in the region and it could get ugly with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that the navy has known that the Pacific is real freaking big. In fact the Navy sees its franchise as extending beyond the Pacific to Africa, nearly half the world.

      Some past comments.
      Admiral Willard: It appropriately addressed the opportunities and challenges that PACOM faces in a region covering half the world and containing the majority of great powers, economies, populations, and militaries.
      Admiral Harris: I can assure you that the Pacific Fleet will remain a credible and capable force. Of course, we also focus on the Indian Ocean. I like to say we operate from Hollywood to Bollywood, and from polar bears to penguins.

      Delete
  3. I thought the Advanced Super hornet was their back up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. my thinking is that it all fits together. the upgrades to the SH make it effective until at least and probably past 2030, and the UAV covers deep strike missions for the carrier which is probably the future of strike missions from the carrier. fleet defense, intercept and close air support are doing the SH. add all this together and tell me why they need the F-35

      Delete
    2. That's what I was thinking, why does the US Navy needs the F-35, when they have the Super hornet and advance super hornet doing fleet defense, intercept and close air support missions. While the UAV is doing deep strike missions. It makes me wonder what value dose the F-35 have for the USN.

      Delete
    3. The trend will be toward the remotely piloted (or pilot-less) aircraft. Though they need the Super Hornet till then. My opinion is that the F-35... while it has its place, is going to be a victim of advancing technology. That is to say that when it was conceived, people had little faith that UAV's would come this far - this quickly. What the UAV's have to offer (down the road) is the lifting of the restrictions on an airframe that at necessary to keep a pilot alive (seriously hi-G turns, for instance), against which any manned fighter will one day be hopelessly outclassed, add to that, longer range and fewer altitude restrictions. But I have a feeling that we'll always build, some manned aircraft, I for one don't wish to trust my life to war machines which have no human considerations,

      Delete
    4. those "serious" high-g turns would require so much airframe reinforcement that it makes ZERO sense.

      A modern missiles can easily pull about 15gs... no jet can do that, manned or unmanned.

      Also, the harder you turn, the more velocity you lose.

      Delete
  4. Marine Corps needs to jump in with the Navy, work on getting the Ultra Hornet and spend the savings to either upgrade to a Super Harrier, or something similar (those A-10's the air force is looking at getting rid of look nice)

    We use to pride ourselves on how frugal we could be, seeing savings and using them. Spend money on something that we can get huge savings on! the Ultra Hornet saves us form buying new birds, keeps our already trained pilots flying a known platform, and saves expense on parts!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. from your lips to God's ears. i've been trying to figure out what caused the Marine Corps to go unique and boutique weapons systems and what year it happened. the AAV? yes. its a Marine mission essential vehicle. the CH-53E? yes. marinized heavy lift platform that is better than the Army offering. but with aircraft it seems we've gone off on a tangent and are aligning more with the USAF than the USN. thats a trend that needs to stop.

      Delete
    2. Who knows? Sometimes i see certain programs and im like ok...like the M-27, why not just buy that thing in bulk and make it the M-16A5? its a damn impressive weapon and is loved by those using it. Marcor Syscom needs to really get a grip.

      We could save alot, put alot back into platforms we have now, like the AH-1 and UH-1, would love to see them have a Laser Spot Tracker put into their sensors for CAS...would make life amazing for a JTAC, a new A/C pod for the Harriers and Hornets would be awesome too, Lighting 4 or Sniper pods are just amazing! how about expanding on Harvest Hawk (i can give on that, its done well in Afghanistan...but in a big war...eh??) and a new ATFLIR upgrade would really make CAS from a carrier much more effective.

      Delete
  5. You also have Growler so you don't have to hope you can avoid radar if you can just take it out. That goes back to Admiral Greenert:
    As an alternative, the CNO suggests that stealth is not a silver bullet. But it was never intended to be one in perpetuity. He argues that it may ultimately be more effective to invest in long-range munitions and electronic warfare that could blind enemy sensors, for instance, instead of simply hiding from them.

    And: “Every two weeks, we get another Growler,” Cmdr. Christopher Middleton said at the Navy’s electronic warfare hub here. The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft. And it’s those Growler aircraft that will be the cutting edge of future Naval strikes against future “anti-access area denial” defenses like those being built by China.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im not a fan of the Growler, your taking the workload of the Prowler crew of 4 and and trying to do it with 2. We would be better off upgrading the prowler.

      Delete
    2. Please john...no more nonsense...the EF-111 Raven did the same mission with 2 people on board with 1980s tech.............God,you people post on aviation without reading on it first...

      Delete
    3. ahh yes, well im glad that your in the know for this., i deal more with the Terminal end. and to be fair my comments are more off what prowler guys on their ground side have said, i'm sure they happen to be partial. Seem to make sense, but doesn't always shave to if your saying otherwise

      Delete
    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics/Grumman_EF-111A_Raven
      No,really go look it up...it did have a 2 man crew...its IOC was in 1983...what the hell?Dont let me bother you with facts...

      Delete
  6. Don't forget that the SH, Ultra H and Growlers are all 2 seaters, that extra pair of eyes and brain will come in handy when you need someone around to take control of that UAV....I always kind of wonder when you see depictions of some sort of 6th Gen fighter (or F22/F35 for that matter) which is always a single seater and a couple of wing-man UAVs in formation, yeah, sure that looks real easy to depict but wonder about the workload saturation/tasking in a real shooting war......

    Prowler is pretty much put of service in the Navy and they are pretty old, at this point, you are better off buying a few extra Growlers than putting money into upgrades of Prowler.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Waiting on AI to catch up. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing. But it seems that the military in general is relying more and more on high tech to advance to reduce manning. The biggest thing I see with this is that it's hugely expensive and isn't built quickly. If we ever have an all out war... where we have to rapidly produce a lot of aircraft in the future, we'll be in a world of hurts. By that time we might not even have any trained pilots left hanging around if we have a need for them. Cutting edge tech is all great, don't get me wrong - I want us to have the best. I'm just not sure that a bunch of playstation pilots are the real route in every case. And that's where we're headed.

      Delete
    2. not so sure Kaitland. i think UAVs are rapidly approaching the height of their usefulness in combat. one development that i need to pay closer attention to is electronic warfare and lasers. they're already talking about using AESA to fry other airplanes electronics and lasers are self explanatory. revolving turrets or however they're going to do it will finally make maneuvering irrelevant...maybe. we'll see. but one thing is sure. the Navy is betting on UAVs alot more than the USAF and Marines.

      Delete
    3. You got it Solomon.

      My ex-roommate who was a really smart Computer Science person said that it will take until the 2030s or so to get to even the most rudimentary AI's, and they will require room sized supercomputers to run.

      He also stated the Strong vs. Weak AI phenomenon, where a "Strong" AI is smarter than a person, but a "Weak" AI can NEVER be smarter than a person. He said that would take a decade or 2 after the 2030s to figure out if "Strong" AI is even possible.

      Also, those playstation pilots would be in for a rude awakening when their radio based links to their aircraft are jammed...

      Delete
  7. I'm a fan of the Growler. The Prowler never flew with a team of 4 that I knew of, they usually used the fourth seat for snacks. The front two seats were pilot and co-pilot, with only one EWO in the backseat. Going from the EA-6B to EA-18G you eliminated a copilot position, and got to push more power through the jamming pods. The Next Gen Jammer should expand on the Growler capabilities very nicely.

    ReplyDelete
  8. an F-14 sized drone with less stealth than an F-35C....

    I don't understand how a drone that big will EVER be cheaper than an F-35 or Super Hornet....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i'm not even a real aviation guy and i've read enough to know that a flying wing is inherently more stealthy than a design with a tail. geez David! you know better and i know you do. just stop it and merry christmas.

      Delete
    2. Spot on Solomon.No round nozzle,no canopy,air intakes on top...
      In particular against VHF and UHF radars...

      Delete
    3. I am almost certain the navy said this particular drone, for whatever reason, will be less stealthy than a F-35C. It makes no sense.

      It will also be HUGE, which is good if they are going to load it up with smart-bombs.

      Oh, and the British won't be getting any of these, their carries have no catapults, and catapult refits would cost billions pounds, according to BAE

      Anyway, Merry Christmas to you as well :)

      Delete
    4. David, every time you type it only conveys that you're getting desperate. It's also worth noting that Boeing has gotten even bolder and right now they are promoting a plan in congress to replace 44 F-35C orders with Super Hornets.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. well a couple of things. everything that the F-35 has except for stealth and even signature reduction is bieng done, is being given to 4th gen plus fighters as we speak. next don't think only about piloted UAVs but preprogrammed route flying birds. it would be flying the same type of mission profile as the F-117. i don't know about the advertising. i was once into the flashy brochures and vids but the costs, the lack of delivery from the contractor and the continued delays, in addition to the havoc that its playing with the Marine Corps budget has soured me.

      oh and articles by Loren Thompson saying that we'll see the plane come in as cheap as 4th gen fighters in 10 years does NOT impress me. by then production will be over so who will see these savings?

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I have said before, drones are great for recon, ultra deep strike, and fighting people with no airforces or anti-air capability.

      Anything else is really pushing it, as no computer system in the world today is even 1/4 as good as a pilot is in critical thinking, planning, and by the minute mission plan adjustments. ZERO intuition in a robot.

      Also, our drones today are commanded via radio from pilots half a world away. Jam that signal and they are useless. You might even be able to take control remotely.

      Also, these jet powered drones are generally single mission platforms that end up costing almost as much, or the same as a real manned fighter.

      Drone should only be purchased if they are significantly CHEAPER than a manned platform.

      Delete
    2. Its not even Jamming, the delay is a Mother F too. Its a pain sometimes to try and do a strike on a target (High vaulue, high payoff, Target of Opportunity)just because the delay from the Drone, to Controller, back to drone can cause a failure.

      Delete
    3. UCLASS is no Predator controlled from a trailer in Nevada. Totally different animal.

      Delete
  10. Remember the sticker shock on the Global Hawk? Big aircraft cost big buck, even if they leave out a pilot.

    Not sure why the size seems to surprise you. Not after the RQ-180 blockbuster (est 100 ft+ wingspan
    ): http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:764f0843-3aa6-4b63-a879-13326ce408a2

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you already put in the air around the fleet several of those new double size X-47B with E/O sensors and Aesa multi band Radars, carrying Amraams, why you need to spend billions in F-35C when you already have 500 Suoer Hornets and Growlers?

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxglp0msEcw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    ReplyDelete
  12. If you put very high a Triton or an X-47B seccesor with E/O optical sensors and Aesa Radar you will be able to detect any stealth fighter from above, where they are not very "stealth"

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQUdbw__g_Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Sukhoi_T-50_Beltyukov.jpg/300px-Sukhoi_T-50_Beltyukov.jpg

    http://7d.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451b91969e2019affc26f8d970d-pi

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is actually seriously bad news.

    What killed the UDS/UOS (UCAV Demo/Operational Systems) effort was divergent needs on the part of the USAF which elected to go with standforward ARM and ELS/Jam via cheap mini-UCAV constellations.

    Vs. the USN which tried to pretend they were after a robotic CSA as S-3/E-2/KA-6D replacement.

    With the DARPA demonstrator system sized to the former, there was a perfect excuse for the USAF to 'take over management' for the program, scale it up from an 8,000lb airframe to a 40,000lb airframe (within a size change of only 26 to 39 and 33 to 49ft, length and wingspan respectively) and this effectively ruined the jet's range performance which was always supposed to be on the order of 1,100nm and 2.5hrs endurance on station.

    Where you only need maybe 1,500lbs of payload fraction (four GBU-53 and a BRU-61 SMER or a pair of AGM-88 HARM cutdowns or an NGJ jammer insert) the notion that you have to have 4,000 (as 2 GBU-31s) is ridiculous.

    With the bloated design, prices due to mission size envelope increases, this gave the USAF the perfect excuse to cancel 'on cost grounds' as we were going to war and needed the money for bullets and bombs.

    Keep in mind two things:

    1. They _did not_ cancel the F-35 at this time (and even in 2001, the DOD estimate of price was 48 million whereas the CBO and Brookings estimates were in the range 65-70) which means that price was not an issue because the UCAV was then estimated at 30 million apiece.

    2. If the UDS had remained a DARPA controlled effort it would have exited the demonstration phase around 2006 which was the same timeframe that the decision for production on the F-35 was go-nogo. And the F-35 was again, selected for production despite increasing evidence that it was overweight and massively behind on technical issues.

    'And the rest is history'.

    The F-35 is a pig of an overweight airframe, something which was known at least as early as 2003 when the PDR did not look good and CDR, despite having gone through Collosal Weight Savings efforts (similar to that on the F-111) which ended up destroying the produceability of the design,is still so highly overweight that takeoff length, mission radius (should have been 720nm, now is 584nm) and even things like 'undue tire wear' are all issues pointing towards a fat design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All this in a jet which is otherwise basically just an F-16 with 40` VLO across the arc of the nose and 'Apps' driven mission systems which can not only be applied to other airframes but would end up destroying the value of RFLO if they were (EODAS in particular can be said to be a VLO killer because it denies the inner zone of BVR 'press' to WVR, globally...).

      A UCAV makes range-point and loiter by in fact not -having- the 'features' which make the F-35 pudgy, including an empennage and supersonic, 9G, capabilities. In a world where 95th percentile of a mission is flown exactly like an airliner (wings level, high altitude, steady M=.85 speed), the flying wing shape of most UCAV designs is that of an airliner airfoil without the mailtube body as wasted people space.

      In a world where the definition of naval strike warfare on Day 1 is about maximum DMPIs served as sorties generated off the pointy end and a UCAV can function as little more than a spare bomb pylon to manned assets generating targeting, cheapness + radius = no AAR freebie strike support.

      A fact made further easier by standoff PGMs which essentially remove the need for direct suppression in the target area (if your BRL is +30 or more out from the target, you have low tactical 'complexity').

      For Day 3,025 of a COIN war, cheap, small, UCAVs do the opposite, easing daily flight ops costs by lowering sorties generated (and tankers required) for absolute endurance in the air and flying small sensor/munition packages over a permissive environment from ground stations as much as half a world away.

      Where precision ordnance in this case comes down to small warheads and collaterals friendly near-field targeting, the first proximity detonation to go off atop the ambush party's or IED diggers heads usually ends the fight.

      By going for a massively oversized platform, the USN is showing that while they may finally have some respect for the overmatch by systems like the DF-21 and the DH-10 in the littoral boundary, their solution to 'fixing it' is to leverage existing platforms, not to make best use of a new one's organic traits.

      I say this because you cannot put sufficient numbers of 70,000lb UCAVs on deck, either for spotting factor or by cost, to make a difference in either FDOW or COIN conditioned fights.

      Hence, assuming it's a conventional performer and not hypersonic, the Air Navy are not challenging the F-35. They are still trying to niche` the U(not C) AV into an Sensor Craft and Tanker R&M condition where it's not a threat to manned warfighters at all.

      Such is to be expected from a service whose rivalry with the USAF and USMC is one of 'Go Team!' manned capabilities and where indeed, the pathway to rank is one of endorsing the status quo. The brown shoe flotilla is a what a Union would look like if it was run by, for and of College Degree holders.

      They will not willingly put themselves out of a job. SSLs, Hunting Weapons, APS and ASBMs will have to KT Boundary their behinds for them even to consider how wrong they are.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.