Forum: Drones

JPALS Program Update CAPT Drew Williams, US Navy
NAVAIR PMA-213 15 APRIL 2010

http://www.afceaboston.com/documents/ev ... liams).pdf (2.5Mb)

F-16.net Sponsor

Secure, Robust CNS Technologies for Naval Aviation
via the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System
I-CNS Technologies Conference Briefing 1 May 2002

Glenn Colby (NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND)
Kenneth Wallace (ARINC)
Howard McGrath (Booz-Allen & Hamilton)

http://acast.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/up ... allace.pdf

The 2025 PNT future:

National Positioning Navigation and Timing Architecture Update
Civil GPS Service Interface Committee Meeting
Karen Van Dyke, DOT/RITA/Volpe Center LCDR Jeff Vicario,
National Security Space Office 24 September 2007

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/cgsicMee ... 5B1%5D.pdf (1.8Mb)

A Quick Look At The USAF's New Bomber Requirements by David A. Fulghum at Feb/18/2011

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

"The Pentagon’s next bomber will protect itself against enemy aircraft and air- or ground-launched missiles with an electronic attack weapon, probably based on an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) that can produce effects at the speed of light around the battlespace.

Moreover, that device or a supplemental AESA will also likely serve as a long-range, anti-electronic weapon and possibly as a network invasion weapon to disable or spook air defense surveillance, network integration and communications systems.

Or the bomber could coordinate the use of these capabilities installed on supporting aircraft, unmanned systems or missiles.

“The purpose of this aircraft is to survive in an Anti-Access Area Denial [A2AD] environment,” says Maj. Gen. David Scott, U.S. Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements. “ Part of the requirements will be self defense. Do I think AESA is a valid technology that the Air Force will look at on all offensive platforms? I do. Do I think that airborne electronic attack is a valid defensive system that we will need on all future A2AD platforms? You bet.”

The bomber segment of the Long Range Strike family of systems has yet to be defined, much less designed, but clues are accumulating about what the U.S. Air Force is asking for.

It needs less than a day’s endurance, it has to be stealthy, it must be able to carry weapons both internally and externally, it will likely have a large active electronically scanned array for radar surveillance and some sort of associated capability for defensive electronic attack of enemy aircraft and air- or ground-launched missiles.

There will eventually be 80-100 of them as part of the total of 150 bombers operated by the U.S. Air Force. Of these, 90 will be combat coded. Initial operations of the first unit are slated for 2024-26. The aircraft will be expected to operate for about 50 years. It’s missions will include electronic attack (which means a long-range weapons capability against electronic systems) strike and command and control.

Under the Long Range Strike (LRS) program, “You have a platform – the next bomber we’re going to build, a stand off missile that we’re working on right now and Conventional Prompt Global Strike that we’re still trying to figure out,” says Maj. Gen. David Scott, deputy chief of staff for operations, planning and requirements. “It includes the [Navy’s] conventional Trident missile and things that the Air Force is working very closely with such as the hypersonic test vehicle.

A major component of LRS is “some kind of penetrating airborne electronic attack, persistent surveillance and reconnaissance and command and control that works all [those pieces] in an Anti-Access Area Denied [A2AD] environment,” Scott says. “What that gives those of us in the joint world is a national asset to hold any target in the world at risk.”

A key part of the bomber's design – that also is expected to keep cost down – is an “open hardware architecture” that will let payloads be slipped in and out of the aircraft to tailor it for various missions.

Moreover, “as technology enables it, we will work the maturity level of the bomber,” he says. “F-35 has some outstanding capability that we can leverage with this system [including AESA, electronic attack and infrared or electronic surveillance]. We will have trade space available to let us mature this aircraft because its going to be around for 50 years.

The electronic attack and jamming capability being developed for the new bomber will not be the Navy’s Next Generation Jammer [NGJ], but it will be related to and compatible with it.

“We are working with the Navy on NJG,” Scott says. “That doesn’t mean we’re going to employ it on our aircraft.”

The services will work together to ensure the electro-magnetic spectrum is covered from the high to low ends. So far, the EC-130 Compass Call and some of the pods on the Predators operate in low-end conflict environments and counter-IED operations. The next generation pods will tackle the mid-level to contested regimes.

“The F-22 and F-35 have AESA capability on board [that can be used for electronic attack],” he says. “The miniature air-launched decoy (Mald) and Mald-Jammer are the kind of things that we look at for the high-end [conflict].

“We do some pretty neat [defensive electronic attack] things with the B-2, and we’ll try to improve that as we work it through [new] survivability issues,” Scott says. “We will work distributed electronic attack on this aircraft and Mald and Mald-J are prime examples of that. We’re [already] working through what increment two of Mald-J will be.”

The bomber is supposed to use existing technologies so odds are that the aircraft will be subsonic. It also is supposed to be optionally manned.

“Today we have remotely manned – Predator and Reaper – and autonomous – Global Hawk,” he says. “ We’re very good in the unmanned world. What we have to figure out is the concept of operations. This is not an aircraft that is going to be persistent for days. We would like it to persist like we currently do with other platforms. It’s going to go in, do the mission and come back out.”

The Air Force bomber will be air-refuelable and there is the possibility that the Navy’s planned carrier-capable, unmanned strike aircraft will be as well."

Quote:

This is not an aircraft that is going to be persistent for days.

Whew. Not only would it need to be air-refuelable, but also air-reoilable.

OL

Northrop Grumman details future of UCAS-D By Zach Rosenberg DATE:11/04/11 SOURCE:Flightglobal.com

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... cas-d.html

“Northrop Grumman has detailed flight test plans for the X-47B, the experimental aircraft intended to demonstrate unmanned carrier approaches.

US Navy Capt Jaime Engdahl, speaking at the Navy League’s annual Sea Air Space Exposition on 11 April, revealed that the first carrier landing is expected in 2013, and that the necessary planned modifications have already been installed on the aircraft carrier the USS Eisenhower.

The first X-47B aircraft is currently grounded for modifications to its navigation system in preparation for a second round of test flights. AV1, which first flew in February at Edwards AFB, California, is scheduled to be in the air again by the summer.

During ‘late fall’ the aircraft will be brought to the navy’s flight test centre at Patuxent River, Maryland, where it will begin carrier suitability testing in early 2012. The aircraft is scheduled to make its first carrier landing in early- to mid-2013 as part of the USN's unmanned combat air system demonstration (UCAS-D) programme.

Equipment will be installed in a Boeing F/A-18 and a Beechcraft King Air to simulate the X-47. In the aircraft itself, human intervention will be limited to “a click of the mouse [that] says go, a click of the mouse [that] says come home,” says Northrop programme director Janis Palminjans.

“We have a multi-blocked flight test programme established, developed back in 2007,” he says. “We haven’t deviated from it; we’ve added one more block, called Block 6, for the air-to-air refuelling.”

AV1 has conducted three flights to test its handling and aerodynamics. AV2 is slated to begin taxi tests in the fall of this year. Once finished demonstrating compatibility with the aircraft carrier, both aircraft will be re-modified for Block 6, including precision software already tested on manned aircraft. They will be tested using both hose-and-drogue and boom refuelling capability.

Although the aircraft are equipped with weapons bays, they are currently used to carry test instrumentation pods, with no plans in place to carry weaponry.”

FlightDreamz wrote:

Quote:

Angels255
Has the Boeing product been sidelined or is that too still in the pipeline?

My understanding is that Boeing's U.C.A.V. is out of the running for the Navy (at least for now), but might pop up in USAF colors down the road. Then again with U.S.A.F. thinking about long range bombers again perhaps not (see http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... e%20Plan). Bear in mind that's just an educated guess on my part, I don't have the links/data to back up my theory as to Boeing's future U.C.A.V. plans at the moment (quietly braces himself for a shellacking) Whistle

I'm hopeful that the Northrop-Grumman X-47B will put back some of the long range into the navy's strike plans (other than missiles anyway). How this will fit in the budget and when it will be ready for service is another story (fingers crossed).

As I understand, the X-45 was dropped because:
(1) It was threating the F-35's funding.
(2) The Predator C (flying since 2009) will do the same thing sooner at a much lower cost (props to General Atomics for showing the way).

I'm sure the X-47B will do a lot more, but doesn't loading a drone up with expensive capability defeat the purpose of having an RPA system in the first place? With cuts coming, we may actually see the USN switching to the Predator C, but the future here is still anyone's guess. And shouldn't this thread be under the "Drones" topic?

Isn't the X-47b made from recycled f-16 parts?

The X-47B is a fighter sized UCAS with an F100 engine and a max weight of around 45,000lbs. It's a different class of UCAS than the Predator (including the C). It has to be robust enough for carrier operations and it's also low observable. It's really an unmanned stealthy strike fighter. Also recall this is a demonstration program and how close a production variant might be is an open question.

Moreover, it's concept of operations, as has been mentioned, is a bit different. It's not exactly going to be remotely piloted. In a variety of ways this aircraft is a game changer. It also gets the USN back to long range strike.

The only real question if it gets into service is how long before the USAF fields a fighter sized UCAS and how many manned fighter wings it replaces in the force structure?

Good points lb, all around.

The Pred-C type and N-UCAS type UCAV/UCAS will indeed become game-changing components to USAF/USN TACAIR functions in the mid-term. Even if initially land-based, they could be operated by Navy in long-endurance support role via mid-air refueling by USN SH.

And as you correctly state, one valid question remains for sure: how many future orders for manned (incl TACAIR) assets will be replaced, perhaps starting as early as FY17/FY18(?) by operational variants of either or both of these two types mentioned above? As near-term Defense budgets are reduced, as part of the broader austere budget realities ahead across the board... emerging technologies such as these unmanned assets will most likely become a larger part of the acquisition process within the combat air procurement budgets. Something probably not yet taken into account by the general public weighing in on these discussions. imho.

geogen said: "...emerging technologies such as these unmanned assets will most likely become a larger part of the acquisition process within the combat air procurement budgets. Something probably not yet taken into account by the general public weighing in on these discussions. imho."

I disagree. Any General Public remotely interested in aviation of any kind will have been exposed to many fanciful UAV ideas over the years including 'the last manned combat aircraft' via the F-35 or whatever takes the writer's fancy at the time. Who knows the future - only early days for the robots. Robotic UAVs will be able to conduct mutual robotic air refuelling soon BTW.

I'm just saying that when either (or both) of these two mentioned operational UCAVs do in fact become a piece of the FY17 or FY18 (or FY19 if delayed) procurement cycle... the budget they will come out of (most likely a future decreasing DoD budget than currently projected), they will likely come out of different aviation portions of the overall procurement budget, INCLUDING combat (tacair). Something not yet factored into the forward-looking combat air budgets of today (yet which should). imho.

Remember that the X-47B has a big X in front. It is not meant to be operational and would go through a further developmental cycle before it would become operational (ala YF-22 to F-22, X-35 to F-35, etc)

geogen wrote:

emerging technologies such as these unmanned assets will most likely become a larger part of the acquisition process within the combat air procurement budgets. Something probably not yet taken into account by the general public weighing in on these discussions. imho.

I'm not sure if that's directed toward me, but I think I qualify as something more than the "general public" seeing as I do have practical experience operating under these systems. I understand first hand their capabilities and and limitations.

Drones/robots are well suited for the "3 D's" (dull, dirty, dangerous), but the X-47B appears to be an effort to to go far beyond this paradigm. As consequence, it will probably be almost as expensive to build and maintain as a piloted aircraft. In my mind, that negates the true value of a drone, its lack of value. That's not to say that RPAs (or their mouse-click piloted counterparts) are expendable, but the fact remains they lose much of their utility when they become too costly.

As for the "general public," the taxpayer's opinion has been of paramount importance to weapons procurement since the USN's first frigates were built over 200 years ago. Engineers, generals, and admirals up on their high horses may have the best knowledge of what systems are needed, but congress-persons still have to answer to John Q. Public for where they spend the money.

A ROBOT TANKER UAV for the USN aircraft catches my imagination - apart from any other use (ISR/Strike). I guess the drones have their place along with ROBOT Aircraft in the future. Many possibliies will emerge as the technology improves and is proven.

Forum: Drones

F-35 newest competitor on the same flight deck!