Adding Firepower to Naval Unmanned Aviation

A good article from Inside the Navy from Monday called ‘We Know It’s Coming’, Admiral: Navy Requirement For Arming Drones Likely In The Future. Zachary M. Peterson with Marcus Weisgerber offer a look into the future of naval unmanned aviation warfare.

Right now, the Navy has no official plans to arm Fire Scout or any other unmanned aerial systems in the fleet.

“Armament requirements are evaluated on a platform-by-platform basis,” Navy spokesman Lt. Clay Doss told Inside the Navy. “There are currently no specific studies looking at that issue, but the Navy continuously evaluates the roles and missions of platforms, including UASs.”

Though no existing UAS programs have a requirement to carry weapons, the Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS), which is currently a demonstration effort, could in the future have a weapons requirement. The carrier-based demonstration effort aims to mature critical technologies and reduce risk for aircraft carrier integration of a low-observable platform in a relevant environment, Doss explained. Northrop Grumman is working on the UCAS demonstrator for the service.

If the Navy moves forward with a UCAS acquisition, the service could potentially field the new drone beginning in 2025, according to current plans.

“Current [UCAS demonstration] designs could support carriage of internal weapons payloads of approximately 4,500 pounds,” Doss said. “Operational UCAS payload weights have not yet been determined.” Northrop announced last month that the company is ahead of schedule in its UCAS demonstration efforts and now plans for the first flight test in November 2009. The first carrier landing and sea trials are slated for 2011.

This fiscal year, the Navy will conduct a capabilities based assessment (CBA) to evaluate a range of potentially “game-changing” capabilities that can be provided by naval aviation to address future needs, Doss noted.

It takes time to develop requirements for major weapon systems. I for one appreciate the Navy is working through the process. Process matters to programs, and getting unmanned systems right is important.

The major hurdle for unmanned systems isn't payload though, the hurdles are bandwidth, C2, and redundancy/ recovery capabilities that will be required when links are disrupted from electronic attack. While we may be using unmanned technology today against lesser capable threats of terrorists and non-state actors, the "game changing" capabilities will be those that can create tactical complications for peer opponents at the upper spectrum of warfighting.

All ahead slow is a solid approach, as long as the speed remains steady. Unmanned systems is the 21st century strategical and tactical evolution, and efforts that build the evolutionary approach (as opposed to revolutionary money pit) should be supported. I for one hope we don't hear about the F-XX Fighter Replacement like we did a few months ago unless by some necessity in the near future the Navy requires a pure interceptor. Lets get the F-35 out and take a look at UCAS before we look too far in the future. I still believe the Navy needs to keep open the possible necessity of launching Reapers from Marine ships like the LHA(R), as that is a good example of an unmanned combat system being called to meet the warfighter requirements in today's war.