UCLASS--Don't Get Your Hopes Up

UCAS, not UCLASS

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog post about the imagination capturing events pertaining to the launch of the UCAS X-47B off the deck of an aircraft carrier.  Like many others, I saw this as a watershed event, a serious moment in naval history.  I went as far in that piece to render honor unto the Secretary of the Navy for his steadfast stewardship of unmanned systems throughout his tenure in office.  Little did I know that only a few weeks later, I'd be urging him not to go "wobbly" on us when it comes to unmanned aviation.

The pictures of the UCAS showed us a "planform" clearly aiming at some level of stealth in order to eventually get us to what UCLASS is designed to do--remember, UCLASS means "Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike" System.  UCLASS is supposed to have two broad missions--and ISR mission AND strike.  But conversations I've had recently with knowledgeable people lead me to believe that 1) the strike (s) in UCLASS is being radically diminished in the emerging requirement and 2) we should expect to see UCLASS develop in a way that is nothing like the stealthy-er planform of the X-47B--rather, the requirement emerging will almost certainly drive toward a UAV that looks much more like the Predator, and act more like the Predator than a vehicle that would threaten adversary interests.  Put another way, UCLASS seems to be developing in a manner that would suggest that it would add little to the Carrier-Air Wing's ability to operate in CONTESTED airspace.  Rather, it seems optimized for scouting and ISR, something we seem to have a plethora of aircraft--manned and unmanned--to do already.

What are the possible explanations for this half-measure approach on UCLASS?  A couple suggest themselves.

1.  Money--A true unmanned surveillance and strike platform would surely be more expensive than a glorified carrier based Predator.  It would have to have some level of stealth.  It would have to be able to operate in contested environments.  In this fiscal downturn, there may be a sense that we need to take an appetite suppressant on what UCLASS can do.  I disagree--now is the time to put the hammer down on getting to a more capable system.

2.  JSF--could a more capable UCLASS threaten JSF to a degree some find troubling? 

3.  Culture--unmanned CV-based strike is a threat to the culture of Naval Aviation like nothing before it.  Could antibodies be developing in both the active duty and the retired Naval Aviator community to slow down progress?  Are capabilities that would move UCLASS away from the rear-facing prop UAV's we now see, the first to be trimmed away when money gets tight?  

I believe that unmanned strike aviation is the only thing standing between long-term aircraft carrier relevance and Jerry Hendrix's view of a world without a dominant American CVN force.  Going gently on UCLASS is a recipe for hastening that diminishment.  

A very simple question needs to be asked of Navy leaders:  Exactly how will UCLASS contribute to operations in the kinds of contested airspace that AirSea Battle assures us will exist?  If the answer is not "powerfully", then we are headed in the wrong direction.

Bryan McGrath