"The unmanned combat aircraft system" Topic

"Over at Defense News, Mark Gunzinger and Bryan Clark, senior fellows at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), make the case that it is time for America to embrace "a stealthy unmanned combat aircraft system (UCAS) that would be able to perform strike and surveillance missions over long ranges, thus greatly increasing our nation's ability to use carriers to maintain a military presence or fight aggression in multiple regions." They will get no argument from me. Yet, a number of challenges remain that could stop the project from really, well, taking off (sorry, I had to do it).

But first, the case they make is pretty straightforward. Anyone following the ebbs and flows over how to breakdown the A2/AD battle networks being developed in China and Iran with ever more sophistication would not argue against a fully-developed UCAS. As the authors point out, American carriers have been able to project power and perform vital missions for decades now. With the spread of ever more advanced A2/AD weapons in larger and larger amounts, U.S. carriers will be forced to fight from longer ranges, limiting their effectiveness more and more.

Gunzinger and Clark explain that UCAS must have several "key" capabilities. These include "sufficient stealth to allow it to operate effectively in contested airspace, long range and a sufficient payload to permit it to attack multiple targets at sea and deep inland." The authors argue against the current UCLASS project, explaining that "if the Navy instead continues to pursue a UCLASS that lacks broadband stealth, carries a small weapons payload and cannot refuel in flight, it will end up with an aircraft that is dedicated mostly to staying out of harm's way and providing surveillance information to the fleet." While we all might have loved last year's YouTube clips of the UCLASS demo making huge strides, America's military does not need another glorified surveillance platform, no matter the "cool" factor.

Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

WE cant afford it besides we already have them they are called cruise missiles and thier bigger brother IBMs and SLBMs…..

what we can't afford is the F35 over priced POS. we need to take the Helmet tech from it and put it into a small low cost remotely maned fighter.

The problem with wanting a big weaponsload on a stealthy platform is how big that makes the bird

The old A6 Intruders could carry 18,000lbs. The proposed A12 Avenger could carry ~5500lbs (2x AMRAAM, 2x HARM, 2x 2000lb bombs), and was very close to the same overall bulk as an A6.

The FA18C/D can carry 13,000lbs. The F35 can also carry ~5000lbs (2x AMRAAM, 2x 2000lb bombs), and an F35 is roughly the same size (within 2000lbs Max Takeoff Weight).

The X47B only carries 4500lbs, but the X47C is intended to carry 10,000lbs. I expect the X47C to be larger than either an F14 or FA18E/F in order to carry three times the payload of an F35 internally.

I suppose that I should add that the F35 can carry 15,000lbs externally (total of 18,000lbs), but that is at a total sacrifice of stealth.

Heck, I halfway expect the X47C to be the size of an F111 or so: 70+ feet long, 60+ feet wingspan. It will certainly be larger than the A12 (40ft long, 70ft wingspan), and might be larger than the YF23 (67ft long, 43ft wingspan)

I had an amusing idea for a "heavy strike" version of the YF23, using a much enlarged forward fuselage large enough for a rotary weapons rack holding 25,000lbs.