Naval Combat Drone Could Save Carrier Fleet

Naval Combat Drone Could Save Carrier Fleet

Imagine a Navy strike plane launching off the catapult as its carrier begins steaming out of its San Diego naval base. The jet refuels over Hawaii, then again over Guam; it gets updated targeting data from its mother ship 6,000 miles away and launches its strike on an enemy nuclear missile silo in East Asia — all in one sortie.

Sound impossible?

And, oh, it could turn around and land on another carrier in the Red Sea after taking some surveillance photos of a suspected terrorist training camp in Pakistan and beaming them down to commanders in Bagram.

That’s just the half of what a naval unmanned combat drone could potentially do, says a new report from a respected Washington, D.C.-based defense think tank. Why land on the carrier in the Red Sea? Why not tank over the Med, fly up to the Arctic and beam back radio transmissions from an ongoing Russian war game, then fly back to its mother carrier now a few hundred miles from its home port?

These experts say unrefueled ranges of 1,500 miles and 100 hour endurance could be the norm with so-called unmanned combat air systems now being developed.

“Because of its great range, persistence, and stealth, [a naval combat drone] would be able to perform missions beyond the capabilities of manned aircraft, and enable US aircraft carriers to perform both their traditional missions better and to undertake completely new missions,” write Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Senior Fellow Tom Ehrhard and strategic studies vice president Bob Work in their June 18 report “Range, Persistence, Stealth and Networking: The Case for a Carrier-Based Unmanned Combat Air System.”

If fully realized, the N-UCAS could “provide the Navy’s future carrier air wings with the organic, extended-range, survivable, and persistent surveillance-strike capability needed to meet a number of emerging 21st century security challenges,” including emerging nuclear powers, homeland defense threats and the emerging anti-access strategy from China, the report’s authors write.

So why then does the Navy seem to be giving the naval combat drone short shrift? Though the service has continued funding for the $636 million UCAS demonstrator program lead by Northrop Grumman and its X-47B to prove the carrier-based drone capability by 2013, Navy planning documents show the service intends to fold the drone UCAS program into its future strike fighter program to replace the F/A-18E and F-model manned jets.

According to the Navy’s “Naval Aviation Plan 2030 Guidance” document obtained by DoD Buzz, “the N-UCAS program will be refocused in POM-10 from a carrier-based penetrating, persistent ISR/Tactical Support Team capability to a 6th-generation strike fighter capability that will recapitalize the F/A-18E/F in 2025,” that would be renamed F/A-XX.

In other words, this gives the Navy an opening to kick the UCAS can down the road even further.

“This may make it easier to shift funds from the UCAS-D program in the face of sharp budget pressures over the next several years,” Ehrhard and Work write.

For their part, Northrop Grumman isn’t letting on to any funding worries — at least publicly.

“It is difficult to imagine that the program would be [cancelled or delayed] because it represents a great success story for Navy acquisition. And more than $1 billion has been invested in this program after many stops and starts during J-UCAS,” a Northrop Grumman program official told DoD Buzz. “The Navy has done an exemplary job in making ‘the technology leap’ to carrier-based persistent, unmanned reconnaissance and strike platforms.”

And they feel like the Navy might be accused of an affliction of “next-war-itis” by a guy who seems not to countenance such maladies for long.

“As evidenced in his public comments, Secretary of Defense Gates fully supports the development and deployment of UAVs, and it is our hope that his views are considered before any action is taken on UCAS-D,” the Northrop Grumman official said.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

With this kind of thing you don’t need the aircraft carrier. Wait till NG figures that one out. 

Thanks, Chris. This will be the subject of my next column. 

Jeff Huber

Time has come for the entire Navy to open their eyes, greet the future of military avaition and accept it. The future is here now and it does not include placing a pilot in the seat of fame and glory. Man is not needed to ride along any longer. The aircraft will operate better doing more longer safer without him. It is called fantastic progress that has been proven and demonstrated.

Is there not some way to combine the virtues of a carrier and the not-built “arsenal ship”? Has a carrier, existing or to be built, not room for a half-deck of missile cells? Or couldn’t
“containerized” missiles be carried in the hanger deck and elevatored to the flight deck for launch? It seems the Navy could use a triple threat carrier, armed with manned and unmanned aircraft, and a hefty strike package of “one way” aircraft = missiles>

The unmanned craft will not fly themselves but will require “experienced pilots” in seats at distance providing real-time control based on sensor information. The enormous benefit is the loss of an unmanned craft will not automatically mean the loss of the most expensive component of that system — the pilot. Additionally, an unmanned craft can conduct evasive flight maneuvers physically impossible for a human to tolerate such as 10 to 12 g’s which a composite craft can. By employing sets of pilots, each one rested and ready and physically prepared for their portion of the mission, the outcome will be far superior than attempting to fly the entire mission with a $1.2B B1 bomber. This will also allow for “swarms” of unmanned craft to conduct “shock and awe” while selected targets are picked off amid the chaos.

The purpose of deploying these things on a carrier is so that they cna be stregically positioned and for quick response. If we tried to fly them from a base somewhere, you would lose any quick strike / response capability.

Ummmm.…if the UAV can do all that, why not just dump the carrier, and launch it directly from an air field in San Diego?

General MacArthur opposed the use of the A bomb. Many military planners thought that weapon was the future of warfare. Those same planners also did not see the need for a “gun” on modern fighter jets. Yes, meet the future.

In practical and REAL warfare that followed, the Nuke force is being dismantled from it’s excesses, our allies want us to remove Nukes from their soil and the “all missile” airborne weaponry for dogfighting has been proven farcecal. Gentlemen, THAT is the FUTURE!

Over enthusiasm for and reliance upon technology is the worst seduction. Aren’t we discovery the severe limitation of Surveillance satellites? That too was thought to be the future of warfare.

Aren’t we having difficulty relying upon our present “hi tech” armed forces in accomplishing the simplest of man hunting tasks?

It comes down to a simple conclusion: well trained men on the ground and inside our war machines.

Perhaps it is the Human power of “intuition” itself that differentiates our abilities from that of a machine. Likewise, a Human’s compassion, long thought to be a liability, is what gives us the greater insight necessary in prosecution all acts and actions of war.

Paul:
Thank you for that theological treatise on the evils of technology. I suggest you and a couple of “well-trained” humans with sticks and knives take a shot at resisting a Predator with a Hellfire. You contradict yourself–well-trained “men” inside war machines are increasingly marginalized by those war machines because they are more and more automated due to the inherent limitations in those “men.” Nukes remain critical to national security, unmanned satellites are critical to national security, and I could go on.
The “worst seduction” is thinking that somehow you can minimize the contribution of technology, which is, after all, created by man, and glamorize the human’s role. Reactionary, Luddite thinking doesn’t win wars, people and their machines do–but only the latter improves.

Why not scrub the plane/drone and launch inflight refuel capable cruise missiles from space and use satellites to take the pictures and beam the info? They could drop drone cameras from space if there was cloud cover and use them to also beam the info.

Lasers from satellites are also a future option.

Hasn’t anyone ever heard of jamming? If we fight a sophisticated enemy I wouldn’t want to count on having uninterupted contact with a drone.

Has anyone watched the documentary about the latest Russian torpedo that travels in excess of 300+ mph underwater. It’s labeled as the Carrier Destroyer. They have even talked to the Chinese and other nations about the purchase. We even sent a Naval specialist to try and accurire the rights to it, to no avail. My question is, what drone can track it, let alone stop it. We already deploy the E-2C Hawkeye and the latest destroyers with their hi-tech radar. and sonar. There is even a drug interdiction aircraft that is being used to help with the fires in California. None of which can stop a high speed underwater weapon. The only short term solution would be to deploy unmaned blocker sub drones to take the incoming blast that would shadow the carriers or as is being done in Iraq, buy the SOB offs. Just my oppinion.

I have not researched it extensively but the initial thought is that it has some potential. It needs to work in conjunction with our current Naval Air Strategy. Navy Pilots have saved me with air support during operations before so I am not to incline to jump in wholeheartedly without a degree skepticism.

All I can say to Sec. Gates is — where is John Connor when you need him.

Does anyone really believe what is portrayed sci-fi will not or cannot come true some day.

Killer robots are just killer computers, all computers can be reprogrammed.

Is AI our future or our end??

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree