UCLASS IS DEAD! LONG LIVE UCLASS!

Everyone knows the debacle of UCLASS. It started out with the jointness thing with the Blue Beanies and then the squids went off and did the X-47B.

Then when it came to decision time, the USN got into a three way bun fight with itself - predator ISR equiv vs A-12 Avenger replacement - and Congress. The entire project got jammed up so bad, I swear they pulled the tanker direction out of somewhere dark just to keep from losing all hope of making progress on getting UAVs on the carrier decks.

So long as they pick a payload big enough, its not a bad decision.

However, then, I got a whiff of something I've not smelled in a long time...a clue...emanating from naval brass: they still want the all UCLASS, but first the tanker.

If they were really smart, they'd go with the TERN for the ISR and distribute that across the battle group. If they were really, really smart, they'd make a TERN R (Reaper like upgrade) and have it fly around with 2+ Mk 50 torpedoes. Then you could have a 'sub cap' up all that time.

www.janes.com...

Cost cutting?

Under the revised plan, the new unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) retains some ISR capability in addition to its new refuelling role, but it does not carry ordnance and is not stealthy.

a reply to: Blackfinger

In light of the changes how do they not rerun the competition, the requirements are vastly different...

ok, for us who are military hardware ignorant...a little more explanation might be helpful as to what the hell is being talked about in the initial OP

a reply to: Blackfinger

Maybe I will get my dream "pilotless C-2" flying fuel tank" with a couple AESA's slapped on it for SAR/battlefield management ISR.

A non-stealthy "J-STARS Jr." that can be hurled off of a carrier and support Marine landings, etc would fill a much-needed niche, especially when it can also refuel their air support.

a reply to: Bfirez

Because they retain a few of the same capabilities, they can say that it's the same platform but with an additional mission, so there's no need to start all over again.

a reply to: anzha

You're kidding about them being smart, right? They don't even want UAVs to begin with.

If they're looking at retaining a strike capability they'll want the stealthy design to remain. If they're doing that you've got to question the fuel transfer capabilities. The lack of additional fuel in drop tanks would really limit the amount it could offload.

If they're looking at retaining a strike capability they'll want the stealthy design to remain. If they're doing that you've got to question the fuel transfer capabilities. The lack of additional fuel in drop tanks would really limit the amount it could offload.