Slow and Steady On UCAS-N

The associated press is discussing the Navy and UAVs. The article sets a tone of Navy vs the Air Force when it comes to UAVs, with the first sentence stating the Navy "lags behind the Air Force" in fielding armed UAVs. The article highlights the Navy's slow approach to combat UAVs with this summery.

The Navy currently uses Global Hawk reconnaissance drones and is developing a helicopter-like unmanned aircraft called the Fire Scout that can take off and land vertically on ships. But neither operate off aircraft carriers or possess strike capability.

Last year, the Navy awarded its first-ever contract for a drone that will be able to operate from a carrier. It isn't scheduled for deployment until 2025 and is also limited to reconnaissance missions.

That puts the Navy many years behind the Air Force, which first used an armed version of the Predator drone in combat in Afghanistan in 2001. The Air Force's latest version, the Reaper, can carry up to 14 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles or alternately, four Hellfires and two 500-pound bombs over Iraq, Afghanistan or other war zones.

Tom Ehrhard, an expert on unmanned aircraft at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, predicted it would take pressure from Congress and the defense secretary to "continue to move the Navy down this path" toward an eventual armed drone. Ehrhard is a former Air Force officer.

Thomas P. Ehrhard, PhD, and Robert O. Work have a report out on the issue from last year, a very good read. They also have a good slide show for those who want the short narrative. CSBA believes the Navy needs to move quicker on unmanned combat systems. If the Navy was facing a peer competitor today, we would agree, however absent a compelling reason we do not see a reason for urgency.

One of the promises of unmanned aviation technology is artificial intelligence for automated mission tasking. The AI technology is not even close to where it needs to be for this. We tend to believe the Navy is essentially waiting for technology maturity while also avoiding a duplication of effort with the Air Force, a wise move in a time of consolidated budgets. By sticking to specific mission profiles that are not duplicated anywhere else, a dedicated refueling vehicles for carriers for example, the Navy allows for AI technology evolution (with Air Force money btw) and still gets what it needs with this mid term strategy.

We love the capabilities unmanned vehicles bring the Navy, both now and looking into the future, but fail to see the value of spending more to speed up the development process in a time of tight budgets and there are legitimate needs today. The costs are sunk into the Joint Strike Fighter, it would be a shame to get to the point where the Navy will finally get its return on investment, only to not take advantage of the capability advantages developed. Given the option to get more Super Hornets today, or start a huge aviation development project for tomorrow, we think taking the best available today is the right move.