It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNO: Navy needs to get going on UCLASS

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
The Chief of Naval Operations has said that the Navy needs to get moving on the UCLASS program, and that it would be a key program to benefit from a process designed to speed acquisitions. He went on to say they need to get it out there to learn to operate UAVs from carriers.

The Navy plans to review the program in their FY17 budget proposal. They plan to focus on ISR to begin with. The program has been in limbo while the Pentagon reviews ISR programs and needs.

mobile.reuters.com...




posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Betcha this turns into another chest thumping between the Navy and Congress if the Navy sticks with ISR.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

It should. UCLASS is supposed to enable strike missions off the deck. Not be a Predator for the Navy.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

i would think that some of the contractors ould have a good start on this project as well as the navy, what is taking so long? surely there are a few black projects out there that could do ISR and strike missions off the deck of a carrier



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

The contractors have spent millions building platforms. The Navy keeps changing the requirements.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
That's the Navy way. You have to leave your mark so that at promotion time you can point at it as say "See how good I am! I did this!" I watched them take a "Battle E" caliber squadron with a 96% full mission capable rating on twenty year old aircraft and turn it into a 82% full mission capable squadron and claim it was a better squadron. All of the "T's" were crossed and the "I's" were dotted. I'm going to bastardize one of Murphy's Rules of Combat here and say "No combat ready squadron ever passed it's Inspections just as no Inspection ready squadron ever passed Combat.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Why would the Navy need carrier capable UAV for ISR? Couldn't you just use the numerous assets doing that already like satellites, RQ-180, SR-72 U2 etc. I can't imagine a carrier group sitting near a peer nation gathering ISR, far too risky no? Wouldn't that be for the strategic assets?

As far as gathering ISR off a less armed enemy a cutting edge UCLASS drop the C seems like cracking an egg with a hammer to me, more that enough options to upgrade the F-35 for the next 30 years.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Thought it was all speed ahead with the X47b...If politics didn,t screw it over it should be by now doing strike missions into Syria...



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

The X-47b was designed as a tech demonstrator from the get go. They used it as a proof of concept for the UCAS-D program.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick
Why would the Navy need carrier capable UAV for ISR? Couldn't you just use the numerous assets doing that already like satellites, RQ-180, SR-72 U2 etc.


Because the Navy doesn't want to rely on or wait around for the Air Force.



I can't imagine a carrier group sitting near a peer nation gathering ISR, far too risky no? Wouldn't that be for the strategic assets?


The Navy wants an asset to be able to go in ahead of the strike package, undetected, look for targets of opportunity, and be able to hang around after the strike to do battle damage assessment. Who doesn't want that?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman

originally posted by: Forensick
Why would the Navy need carrier capable UAV for ISR? Couldn't you just use the numerous assets doing that already like satellites, RQ-180, SR-72 U2 etc.


Because the Navy doesn't want to rely on or wait around for the Air Force.



I can't imagine a carrier group sitting near a peer nation gathering ISR, far too risky no? Wouldn't that be for the strategic assets?


The Navy wants an asset to be able to go in ahead of the strike package, undetected, look for targets of opportunity, and be able to hang around after the strike to do battle damage assessment. Who doesn't want that?


Here's my guess. On this matter, Navy is concerned about US/China conflict. In that scenario, it's safe to assume that satellites will be jammed/destroyed, and fixed Pacific island airfields (up to Hawaii) disabled by missiles. A green lady might make a high altitude pass once every 3 days at full tempo. Not good enough for searching for mobile targets.

It's also possible that ISR means stealth sub-hunting, which is the biggest danger to precious and overly vulnerable surface fleets.

Depending how hot it gets, a modern naval conflict turns into a submarine & air only conflict quickly.
edit on 9-12-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-12-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-12-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I've also heard in passing that they wanted to wait until the strike bomber was confirmed so that they could work along with the winning contractor for interoperability.

I've always thought the uclass was apart of the spoke. Air Sea and all.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join