via USNI News.
The U.S. Navy has pushed back the release date again for a draft request for proposals (RfP) for its Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft program, service officials told USNI News.Read the entire article here.
“The UCLASS draft RfP is scheduled for release by the end of this quarter,” wrote Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) spokeswoman Jamie Cosgrove in a Tuesday statement to USNI News.
“The program team is exercising due diligence and great discipline in the formulation of the draft RFP and planned evaluation criteria to ensure the government’s objectives are best met. They are still on track to release a final air segment RFP for the technology development phase in third quarter FY [fiscal year] 14 and contract award in early FY15.”
According to sources familiar with the program, the Navy is revisiting the issue of performance requirements versus cost, which is likely to lead to yet another revision to the UCLASS’ specifications and draft RfP evaluation criteria.
There is one other passage in this article that bears highlighting here though...
“The end state is an autonomous aircraft capable of precision strike in a contested environment, and it is expected to grow and expand its missions so that it is capable of extended range intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, electronic warfare, tanking, and maritime domain awareness.”This airplane will be far more capable when fully developed than the F-35 could ever dream of being. Quite honestly this whole delay and the author's point about some wanting the Navy to take a time out on the program smacks of the F-35 mafia playing games with the budget once again.
Everything must die so that the F-35 can live. But in the end they won't win.
A cheaper, longer ranged, multi-multi-mission unmanned airplane will enter advanced development at the same time the F-35 is entering extremely limited service. By that time a full picture of the real cost of the F-35 will be known and an alternative like the Navy is proposing will be too good to ignore.
Ironically the Navy UAV could end up being the "F-35 that the F-35 was suppose to be". If it has exportable stealth, if it is affordable, and if it delivers on all the missions that the Navy foresees then the USAF will be forced to adopt it by Congress and allies will be clamoring for it.
The Navy UAV.
What the F-35 was suppose to be.
What I read is the pushback was due to services disputing what missions the UCAV/UCLASS or whatever should be tooled for.
ReplyDeleteI read the navy wants a super hornet sized one that can act as a tanker for the tactical bombers and fly for 7 or 8 hours.
Another thing that article mentiond was using it as a missile truck and loading it with AMRAAMS.
Here is what I thought was most interesting though, apparently despite its shaping the UCLASS is NOT as stealthy as the JSF. Counter intuitive much?
For sure "UCLASS is NOT as stealthy as the JSF" and pigs can fly.
DeleteJust compare the air intakes of F-35 and X-47 and engine exhaust (IR). I can't see a rudder on X-47. No radar can see a see non existing rudder.
The X-47 is not as stealthy as the JSF? So what! It is cheaper and has no pilot.
How is "no pilot" an advantage when it comes time to make a decision or operating in an environment with heavy electronic warfare efforts disrupting communication?
DeleteI don't think so.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy UAV will fly in straight, GPS guided lines and drop 2 bombs. All for the low price of $80 million.
Oh, and it will be subsonic.....
Imagine a remote controlled F-117.
Also, i doubt this will ever be exported, as it is a big, jet propelled UAV, and the only one of those we export is the Global Hawk. Only 2 allies have carriers, the French (1) and the UK (2, but 1 with be mothballed ASAP), and the French will never buy an American Naval UAV at the expense of the Rafale, and the British carries have no catapult to launch it with.
Probably it wont even be necessary to spend that much in the X-47B
ReplyDeleteA package of hundred of Reapers with extended range, stand off bombs and Malds will destroy any enemy air defence in minutes.
http://defense-update.com/20130218_raytheon-to-integrate-miniature-air-launched-decoy-mald-on-remotely-piloted-aircraft-platform.html
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mq-9-reaper-the-first-operational-ucav-05021/
http://amanwithaphd.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/now-a-drone-can-be-in-the-air-for-2-days/
Easy as pie...
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=vZyL-zEoMfM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
"and it is expected to grow and expand its missions so that it is capable of extended range intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, electronic warfare, tanking, and maritime domain awareness.”
ReplyDeleteOK, here we go again !!!
So we're already seeing mission additions/creep/sales pitch - and some of these requirements impact on the best way to achieve other missions (long endurance = big fuel tanks = big aircraft = bigger target = not such a good strike airframe, efficient airframe = long thin wings = not so maneuverable). Again we see the military and it's supporters putting up a 'one thing does/will do everything' proposal.
No doubt there'll be the 'one frame is cheaper' argument that multiple airframe/vehicles/hulls (FCS, LCS, FRES - anyone) - but not if it costs a zillion $$$ to develop like the F-35 is.
Just one question - given the desire to have all the above features in one airframe - how is the cost and timescales going to be kept in-line and we're not going to see another run-away military contract? The F-35's increased costs, etc. is because of the additional requirements that kept getting added in the early days to justify the 'joint' label. (also anyone remember the F22 becoming the FA22 because someone justified the relevance with a comment 'it can also drop bombs')
Maybe Solomon, or one of the commentators, said it best when it was said there needs to be a move towards multiple platforms with common sensors and equipment and not keep with this 'one frame' to do all.
The F18 may or may not be a great strike-fighter - but one thing it isn't is a great patrol reconnaissance aircraft. Stick it's sensors on something slower and more fuel efficient - then you have better capability in the fleet.