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.

 

US Navy Swaps UCLASS for Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System???

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   
It seems the US Navy is getting ready to piss off Congress even more over the UCLASS procurement.

Rumor has it the US Navy wants to swap the UCLASS recon and strike mission to become a...tanker. o.O

I get it. A tanker you can send up and leave up because the crew is, well, back at the carrier and the 'logic,' at least from the ethic concern POV, is far, far easier than a weaponized strike asset that 'may' require some autonomy.

OTOH, hoo boy. Congress is going to take the Navy out for the belt and chair if they attempt this. They already voted in a huge budget for testing and even competitive procurement of the UCLASS as a penetrating strike platform. And now the navy wants to turn it into a tanker?

Yikes.

sou rce.




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Im not surprised here, F-18 SH range has always been really bad, tanker makes more sense, logistically speaking.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
hey anzha,

I didn't see this in the link. but how much fuel could a uclass hold?

seems like it could fuel one or two fighters before returning to the carrier.

wonder if it's intended more so to refuel a web of drones that could be deployed for augmenting the carrier's a2/ad capability.

keep the web constantly operable and minimized compromise in security provided by said web?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

At the bottom, it says 'source.' That's the link.

There are now MORE links with info.

However, sadly, its all very ... sketchy. Almost no details.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Enough to get to the bingo base, or one or two attempts at landing. About the same get get out of buddy pods now.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

why is it called Bingo when they are nearly out of fuel? Just curious how that name arose.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

The true origins are lost in the ether somewhere. It's one of those pilot things. Bingo is a lot easier to say than low on fuel.
edit on 2/1/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

As a tanker it would free up the rest of the air wing for the strike missions.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

OK what about "Rodger?" Anybody know where that came from?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Received and understood.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Completely agree. Its a good idea and a relatively easy one.

OTOH, the lead time for a proper UCLASS is longer. So, I'd probably start that one anyways.

Or maybe Sweetman's Boeing RAQ-25 cratered?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

I suspect quite a few of his have cratered.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   
With the Xb-47 being so successful as a demonstrator its a wonder they didn,t continue it into production like the Rq-170.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

It's the X-47B, and it was one possibility for UCLASS.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Blaaaah its been too hot today.Thanks Zaph..



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

IMNSHO, Congress is going to force a UCLASS. You are right that the X-47B is rather successful and it'd be a travesty to dump the amount of work done on the control software.

I almost wonder if the Navy is doing a budget game. Look, says the Navy, we want a robo tanker so we can shift our current assets into purely strike mode. Its relatively cheap to do. It'd make the carriers even more deadly. And we can get it done fast. Congress agrees to CBARS, but is pissed over the UCLASS situation. They mandate the development of UCLASS alongside the CBARS.

Navy can say they tried to save money, but Congress, because...Congress.

Now if only congress would require a companion missile truck UCAV for the F-35Cs to tap into in as a mini arsenal plane...



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

From rumors I've heard it doesn't matter who wins as far as control software.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's correct. But if there's one one winning because its all canned...



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

No, the software control systems will come from a certain contractor, regardless of who builds the actual UAV.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

IIRC, its derived from the Boeing software stack for the J-UCAS that Boeing was ordered to hand over to Northrop, etc.

I was unsure whether they'd continue with that software or the defense contractor would substitute its own (GA, frex) for the tanker since it was not a UCAV. I've seen dumber done.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join