US Navy Picks Northrop Grumman for UCAS-N

[Galrahn]

From Navy Times:

Northrop Grumman has beaten a Boeing team as the Navy’s choice to develop the Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration — intended to prove the technology to provide the fleet’s aircraft carriers with a long-range pilotless jet strike aircraft.

The award of a $636 million cost-plus-incentive-fee development contract was announced by the Navy late Aug. 1.

The competition to develop the aircraft — also known as UCAS-N, for UCAS-Navy — was between Boeing’s X-45N and Northrop Grumman’s X-47B test aircraft. Northrop now will be the prime contractor to build and fly the new aircraft.

This is the next big step in developing the future combat capability of the US Navy Carrier force. A low-observable and air-refuelable carrier-capable unmanned combat air system (UCAS) is critical to taking that step through greater range, greater persistence, and improved stealth. While I don't believe the UCAS system will replace manned fighter interceptor roles or close combat support roles for decades, these systems are excellent options for long range carrier strike on fixed targets in the mid term, and the UCAS-N is an excellent augmentation to existing and future strike aircraft.

However, Boeing isn't going quiet into the night, there are rumors that they will protest the decision, as the decision likely means loss of major human capital at Boeing in St. Louis. If you have Boeing stock, watch your shares freefall today.

I cover more details on my blog, including more analysis.

[10ringr]

Originally Posted by Galrahn

From Navy Times:



This is the next big step in developing the future combat capability of the US Navy Carrier force. A low-observable and air-refuelable carrier-capable unmanned combat air system (UCAS) is critical to taking that step through greater range, greater persistence, and improved stealth. While I don't believe the UCAS system will replace manned fighter interceptor roles or close combat support roles for decades, these systems are excellent options for long range carrier strike on fixed targets in the mid term, and the UCAS-N is an excellent augmentation to existing and future strike aircraft.

However, Boeing isn't going quiet into the night, there are rumors that they will protest the decision, as the decision likely means loss of major human capital at Boeing in St. Louis. If you have Boeing stock, watch your shares freefall today.

I cover more details on my blog, including more analysis.

Gentlemen,
I have a question and would like some feed back. I'm all for the UCAS-N development. Unmanned strike aircraft and fighters for that matter must be the wave of the future. How far into the future remains to be seen however don't you believe that any development of an unmanned strike aircraft/fighter should take advantage of the lack of pilot and the inherent G limits associated with manned aircraft. Look, Stealth tech. has been around for a long time now so why are we still developing B-2 type aircraft that are "high subsonic". Quit playing around and build the world beaters we need. Good enough isn't good enough anymore with the threats out there and we certainly aren't going to out weigh those deficiencies with sheer numbers, i.e. F-22's stopped at 187. I get that due to the design and it's instability make them somewhat difficult to fly at speed but we've done it with the F-22 and to a lesser extent the F-35 which I'm becoming less impressed with everyday. Opinion? 10ringr

[DarthAmerica]

Originally Posted by 10ringr

Gentlemen,
I have a question and would like some feed back. I'm all for the UCAS-N development. Unmanned strike aircraft and fighters for that matter must be the wave of the future. How far into the future remains to be seen however don't you believe that any development of an unmanned strike aircraft/fighter should take advantage of the lack of pilot and the inherent G limits associated with manned aircraft. Look, Stealth tech. has been around for a long time now so why are we still developing B-2 type aircraft that are "high subsonic". Quit playing around and build the world beaters we need. Good enough isn't good enough anymore with the threats out there and we certainly aren't going to out weigh those deficiencies with sheer numbers, i.e. F-22's stopped at 187. I get that due to the design and it's instability make them somewhat difficult to fly at speed but we've done it with the F-22 and to a lesser extent the F-35 which I'm becoming less impressed with everyday. Opinion? 10ringr

Why would we do that? For what mission or threat? Air to Air combat is RARE. SAMs have almost never been effective historically speaking. Besides, G Limits aren't the most limiting factor in manned platforms. It's endurance. The ordinance does all the maneuvering a fighter needs. Modern missiles can come off the rails and almost instantly turn and engage targets BEHIND the firing platform. SAMs can launch and climb to altitudes building energy that would challenge any target. Moreover, with the directed energy weapons of next decade coming soon, maneuver and G limits are not going to be the deciding factor they were when it was crucial to be in proper position to use guns or rear aspect IR weapons.

It's interesting to see that you aren't impressed by the F-35 when it is probably the most capable fighter in the world with respect to maneuverability because it's avionics can "see" and allow pilots to shoot targets from almost any aspect angle including angles that in traditional fighter(including F-22) would be blocked by the airframe.

Not trying to beat a dead horse but the state of the art has moved on beyond G limits.


-DA