F-35 and X-47B

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 04 Jan 2014, 11:24

Pentagon ‘roadmap’ unveils deadlier US drones with chemical, nuke warfare! 03 Jan 2014
"The Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap, released last week, marks out several milestones which will see the US armed forces increasingly reliant on unmanned aircraft as well as water and ground-based robots in the coming decades.

The Department of Defense is looking to enhance the precision navigation, swarming munitions and increased autonomy of future drones, according to the document.

The satellite signals behind the Global Positioning System (GPS) which unmanned aircraft currently depend on for navigation are often weak and easily jammed. The Pentagon therefore has tasked the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to address the problem and work on the so-called pinpoint inertial guidance systems that are jam-proof.

The Pentagon also wants to see drone-carried munitions deliver much more powerful explosions through the use of energetic nano-particles" as drone ammunition.

Even though drone-based missions have proven significantly cheaper in a monetary sense compared to more traditional manpower intensive missions, the Pentagon says they are still expensive and seeks to slash costs even further by developing more autonomous robots and offloading as many human tasks as possible onto machines.

The “roadmap” also references “nano” drones, insect-sized robots designed for land and air, as well as robotic wingmen" to provide unmanned help to ground-based troops.

While drones in the air are more widely used and familiar, the document says ground-based robots too have proven their worth in Iraq and Afghanistan across a spectrum of mission areas."

The roadmap" also includes a plan to develop water-based drones for mine-hunting and maritime security."

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2014/1/ ... drones.htm

Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap http://www.defense.gov/pubs/DOD-USRM-2013.pdf (4.5Mb)


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7720
Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

by popcorn » 04 Jan 2014, 14:10

Interestingly, the operational vignette described in the roadmap features the F-35 as airborne command ship overseeing various aerial robots configured for strike and jamming roles. The times are definitely a-changin' and the future vision is compelling.



Launched from the off-shore aircraft carrier, the strike package comprises of manned tactical aircraft with numerous combat support UAS providing tactical intelligence communication relay, jamming support, and strike support. The joint strike fighter operates as a command ship and works in concert with its supporting unmanned systems as a seamless network of strike and jamming aircraft. The strike package penetrates Norachi airspace and intercepts, strikes, and stops the convoy. An extraction team follows shortly behind, secures the area, and locates the WMD. The extraction team loads the cargo on unmanned vertical-lift transports and departs the area. The operation stands down while maintaining a continuing presence of air, sea, and land systems to maintain situational awareness as the Norachi situation evolves. As illustrated by this vignette, many new capabilities might be possible utilizing today’s emerging technologies and applying those technologies on unmanned systems.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 23 Jan 2014, 01:19

Your UCLASSy just not so CLASSy just yet.... Long Post Best Read at Source.

Navy Delays UCLASS Request for Proposal Amidst Requirement Evaluation 22 Jan 2014 Dave Majumdar and Sam LaGrone
"...Still, the service seems committed to a high-end capability for UCLASS.

“It will be a warfighting machine,” wrote Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus in an editorial posted on the War on the Rocks blog on Tuesday.

http://warontherocks.com/2014/01/future ... perations/ [see next post]

“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.”..."

http://news.usni.org/2014/01/22/navy-de ... evaluation


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 23 Jan 2014, 01:22

Future Platforms: Unmanned Naval Operations Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus 21 Jan 2014
"This past summer, Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert and I stood on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier GEORGE H.W. BUSH, at sea off the coast of Virginia. We watched as the X-47B unmanned aircraft, a sixty-two foot wingspan demonstrator, made its first arrested landing onboard an aircraft carrier. It was a historic moment for naval aviation.

Every Naval Aviator knows landing on an aircraft carrier is about the most difficult thing you can do as a pilot. Recovering the X-47B safely aboard the ship, with the autonomous system landing independent of its human operators, was a vital step toward our future vision of a Carrier Air Wing. In less than a decade, this future air wing will be made up of today’s F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighters, MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, and advanced future platforms like the F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter and our next generation unmanned carrier aircraft.

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are America’s “Away Team.” We provide presence. We are where it counts when it counts, not just at the right time but all the time. We give the President and Combatant Commanders the flexibility they need to respond to any challenge. The platforms we buy to make up our fleet are an important part of our future. Unmanned systems are vital to our ability to be present; they lessen the risk to our Sailors and Marines and allow us to conduct missions that are longer, go farther, and take us beyond the physical limits of pilots and crews. Launching and recovering unmanned aircraft as large and capable as our manned fighters from the rolling decks of aircraft carriers is just one element of the future of maritime presence and naval warfare....

...The Future Airwing
The X-47B is the culmination of an experimental program to prove that unmanned systems can launch and recover from the aircraft carrier. The program that follows this demonstrator will radically change the way presence and combat power is delivered as an integral part of the future carrier air wing. Known by the acronym UCLASS, for Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike system, it will conduct its missions over very long periods of time and at extreme distances while contributing to a wide variety of missions. It will make the carrier strike group more lethal, effective, and survivable. 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. It will be a warfighting machine that complements and enhances the capabilities already resident in our carrier strike groups.

Operating these platforms independently of a pilot, and with growing autonomy, greatly increases the possibilities for what we can do with them in the future. Unmanned carrier aircraft don’t require flights to maintain pilot proficiency; the operators can maintain their skills in the simulator. The planes will be employed only for operational missions, saving fuel costs and extending the service life of the aircraft. They also create the opportunity to advance new ways to use our aircraft, like developing new concepts for swarm tactics.

We are finalizing the requirements that will lead to a design for the UCLASS. We aren’t building them yet. We want to ensure we get the requirements and design set right before we start production in order to avoid the mistakes and cost overruns which have plagued some past programs. Meanwhile our other unmanned systems like the Fire Scout and Triton continue their success.

The Future of Naval Operations
Across the entire spectrum of military operations, an integrated force of manned and unmanned platforms is the future. The X-47B’s arrested landing aboard USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH showed that the Navy and Marine Corps are riding the bow wave of technological advances to create this 21st century force. But it is our Sailors and Marines that will provide the innovative thinking and develop the new ideas that are crucial to our success. The unmanned systems and platforms we are developing today, and our integrated manned and unmanned employment methods, will become a central part of the Navy and Marine Corps of tomorrow. They will help ensure we continue to be the most powerful expeditionary fighting force the world has ever known."

http://warontherocks.com/2014/01/future ... perations/


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7720
Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

by popcorn » 23 Jan 2014, 01:36

Can't they resolve the UCLASS quandary via block upgrades? Build the basic airframe, making sure it's design is sufficiently stealthy an can accommodate projected growth Start off with basic ISR package then add on the other capabilities e.g. ta aerial tanking, strike, etc. down the road when funding allows? Or is Navy in such a hurry and it wants all the goodies immediately? That will cost money which they are hard-pressed to find.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

by lookieloo » 23 Jan 2014, 08:37

popcorn wrote:Can't they resolve the UCLASS quandary via block upgrades? Build the basic airframe, making sure it's design is sufficiently stealthy an can accommodate projected growth Start off with basic ISR package then add on the other capabilities e.g. ta aerial tanking, strike, etc. down the road when funding allows? Or is Navy in such a hurry and it wants all the goodies immediately? That will cost money which they are hard-pressed to find.
That would be the logical roadmap for getting operational UCAV technology onto the decks and building a requisite institutional/cultural structure around said capability. Unfortunately, someone pandered to the idiots braying for an F-35C alternative. Surprise-surprise... their plan for a full-on TACAIR UCLASS by 2019 is proving unworkable, delaying an already laughable schedule further.


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2895
Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
Location: Houston

by neptune » 24 Jan 2014, 13:06

lookieloo wrote:[.... Unfortunately, someone pandered to the idiots braying for an F-35C alternative. Surprise-surprise... their plan for a full-on TACAIR UCLASS by 2019 is proving unworkable, delaying an already laughable schedule further.


Unman the F-35C; revise the cockpit area for additional fuel capacity (ER-ISR), maintenance shops compatibility, production line compatibility, upgrade mission systems for UCAV (drive "HAPPY" Gilmore & Company even nuttier :) ), Stealth pods for NGJ, etc.....might be a little irritant to the SBug crowd.... :devil:

This is an optional F-35C UCAV design in addition to the "manned" design, not a replacement. :lol:
Last edited by neptune on 24 Jan 2014, 21:17, edited 1 time in total.


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 782
Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

by cantaz » 24 Jan 2014, 20:51

Unman the F-35C


Interesting, though in all seriousness the UCLASS program needs to sort out whether it needs Big Strike or little strike on what was suppose to primarily be a persistent ISR platform.

The last tail hook suggested the USN was all for little strike, but someone somewhere seems damned determined to gold plate the UCLASS into a LRS-B-lite.


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 658
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
Location: Brisbane, Australia

by gtx » 24 Jan 2014, 20:57

neptune wrote:Unman the F-35C


Yes! :D

Image


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 716
Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
Location: CA

by archeman » 25 Jan 2014, 00:52

gtx wrote:
neptune wrote:Unman the F-35C


Yes! :D

Image


At last.

A final solution to the Helmet Issues.
Kind of solves the issues related to looking over the shoulder too!
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 25 Jan 2014, 02:23

WOT? NO HOOK?! :devil: No Hook Worries Then. :doh:


Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2346
Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

by neurotech » 26 Jan 2014, 12:50

spazsinbad wrote:WOT? NO HOOK?! :devil: No Hook Worries Then. :doh:

A barricade landing tends to result in damage to the aircraft.

The test pilots used to tell us that these jets have tailhooks, and when in doubt, put the hook down and grab the wire. Or go-around, and grab the wire on the next approach.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 01 Feb 2014, 02:33

My joke about NO HOOK above referred to the distinct possibility we were not looking at a carrier variant of whatever was on display in the CGI shown. But who knows what was on display except some CGI? Anyway here is the crawl - walk - run scenario. I'll look forward to the fantasy autonomous robots replacing F-35Cs forward in the far future. Talk to the hand - roll on SkyNet and 'all your base are mine'. :devil:

X-47B Will Pair With Manned Aircraft in Testing Later This Year 31 Jan 2014 Dave Majumdar
"The U.S. Navy plans to take the Northrop Grumman X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstrator (UCAS-D) aircraft out to sea onboard an aircraft carrier this summer to test how well it operates together with manned aircraft around the ship and on the flight deck.

“We also plan later this summer — later this year — to do dedicated blending and what we call cooperative operations of manned carrier aircraft and the X-47B,” Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Naval Air Systems Command’s program executive officer for unmanned aviation, told USNI News during a Jan. 30 interview in Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md....

...The testing would cover how the X-47B would integrate with manned aircraft both in the marshal stack in the airspace around the carrier and on the flight deck.

However, the 2014 summer at-sea period will not involve a full carrier air wing, because the Navy plans to use a crawl, walk, run approach to integrating unmanned aircraft onto the flight deck. Initially, the service will test the X-47B with the F/A-18, Winter said.

The plan is for fleet operators to understand exactly how an unmanned aircraft would work around the carrier flight deck and develops standard operating procedures, Winter said....

...Meanwhile, the X-47B will continue to fly at Patuxent River to refine the aircraft’s precision navigation technology, landing algorithms, ground handling and the bandwidth of its data-links, Winter said.

The Navy will keep the X-47B flying over the next two to three years to mature and verify technologies for the UCLASS program. Among the most important of those technologies are the line-of-sight and beyond line-of-sight data-links for the UCLASS program. “We need to make sure we perfect beyond line-of sight control,” Winter said...."

http://news.usni.org/2014/01/31/x-47b-w ... later-year

Always more at the jump - but youse knew that - right?


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1071
Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

by aaam » 01 Feb 2014, 04:30

cantaz wrote:
Unman the F-35C


Interesting, though in all seriousness the UCLASS program needs to sort out whether it needs Big Strike or little strike on what was suppose to primarily be a persistent ISR platform.

The last tail hook suggested the USN was all for little strike, but someone somewhere seems damned determined to gold plate the UCLASS into a LRS-B-lite.



There is actually a big controversy going on in the middle to upper levels of NAVAIR over this. Everyone was expecting the specifications for the operational model to be such that the Navy would regain the long range all-weather strike capability lost when the A-6 was prematurely retired and the A/FX was canceled. When the number came out in 2013 for the 600 mile radius with loiter, a lot of people were disappointed and a lot of people were upset at this surprising turn of events, saying, "Why bother"?

There have been a number of theories going around why this happened, here are the three most common I've come across, in no particular order. I've got no vested interest in any of them, BTW.

1. USAF, in a "roles and missions" funk, did not want Navy to be able to get back into the tactical long range strike game and lobbied at the DoD level to get the range reduced.

2. F-35 champions perceived the system as a threat to F-35 numbers so lobied so that the range was only a bit more than the F-35C.

3. The current Administration is happy to use UAVs on short to range missions to blow away terrorists. However, the kind of ranges they were talking about for UCLASS were clearly power projection ranges and it's not comfortable with the concept of power projection.

As I said, I've got no dog in this hunt.


BTW, these two aircraft do illustrate some of the problems with joint development programs. It hasn't gotten that much publicity, but the X-47B in 2012 had the exact same problem: the tailhook couldn't catch the wire. The flight profile was fine, it was strictly the hook. The X-47B only had to deal with the Navy bureaucracy and there was no concern about how any redesign might affect other versions or reduce commonality or need to clear it with anyone else. The problem was identified and the redesign accomplished in a few weeks, the formal work order for the redesigned hooks was signed July 10, and the first two needed for the X-47B shipped August 2 and 8, and carrier traps were accomplished on schedule in 2013.

Also in 2012, the F-35's tailhook design also proved unable to catch a wire. Again, no problem with the flight profile or the aircraft itself, it was the hook. In this case, though, the redesign and approval took much longer. Roll-in tests (not arrested landings) of a new hook did not take place until January of 2014, landbased arrested landings have not yet been attempted and shipboard trials, provided the new design is certified, won't begin until October 2104.

Just sayin...


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 01 Feb 2014, 04:44

No need to get 'hookie/hinky' on us in this thread. :twisted: The F-35C hook gyrations & perturbations are well documented in the 'Lakehurst' thread. You have left out a lot of INTERIM testing of the interim hook designs from your description of the F-35 hook issues 'aaam'. Notwithstanding the issues about the difference between redesigning & testing for a robot and a manned fighter are quite different - notwithstanding the different test schedules not only ashore but afloat with warm bodies involved and not just robots in the aircraft. I will wager the X-47B has not been through the exhaustive testing for carrier landings as described for the Super Hornet over three years on the Lakehurst thread for example. And why should it. We see the accuracy of the robot so no need to account for the inaccuracies of the wetware robos. But we still luv 'em dearly (those comparatively inaccurate pilots that is). :devil:


PreviousNext

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests