While the Air Force UCAV has been designed to spend a good part
of its life in a box in storage, much like a cruise missile would
be, the Navy is considering buying an unmanned combat aircraft that
would be ready to fly at any time.
“The Navy wanted much longer range and endurance, so the
end result is that the UCAV is bigger than the [Air Force] X-45B,
and it looks more like a small B-2 in configuration,” said
George Muellner, president of Boeing’s Phantom Works. The
company is competing for a UCAV-N contract award against Northrop
Grumman Corp.
The Navy had planned to select a contractor by the end of April.
Industry insiders speculated that Northrop Grumman would win the
award, but Muellner said the Boeing remained confident it could
prevail, based on its experience with naval aircraft such as the
F/A-18 and the Harrier.
Meanwhile, some senior Navy officers have expressed concerns about
having a UCAV aboard an aircraft carrier. They said that they are
worried about the landing and the safety of the other planes and
gear.
“That did not inhibit the Navy from putting money into the
program,” said Muellner. “The Navy UCAV will operate
just like other [carrier-based] aircraft.”
Unlike manned aircraft, however, the UCAV will demand significantly
more data, in order to operate autonomously. The contractor that
wins the award will have to build several vehicles to demonstrate
catapult-assisted launches and arrested landings, although not aboard
a ship, according to Muellner.
Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems, in Dallas, Texas,
continues to work on the development of the experimental Pegasus
Unmanned Vehicle, in preparation for its first flight. The results
of the Pegasus X-47A demonstration will be applied to the UCAV-N.
The Pegasus team has focused on integrating avionics and software
necessary for the autonomy of the vehicle, said a company spokesman.
After the systems’ checkout is complete, the Pegasus will
undergo taxi and first flight tests at the Naval Weapons Center
in China Lake, Calif.
“We have similar goals as the Air Force UCAV,” said
John Kinzer, from the Office of Naval Research. “We are looking
for affordability, somewhere in the order of one third of the naval
version of the Joint Strike Fighter and dramatically lower overhead
costs,” he told a recent industry conference.
Persistent surveillance is the Navy’s top priority in the
UCAV program, he said. The vehicle would have a 12-hour endurance,
but surveillance brings the need of more capable sensors, carrier
capability and structure, said Kinzer. The vehicle would have a
1,000-mile strike radius and a 2,000-mile surveillance radius, according
to Kinzer. “If you have them deployed on a carrier in the
Arabian Sea, they could very easily cover all the targets in Afghanistan,”
he noted.
Developing the mission control system will be difficult, said Kinzer.
“By developing communications software to control, we’ve
got the challenge of integrating within the ships,” said Kinzer.
The deck control concept needs further work, he said, because operators
must be able to “positively control the vehicle as it moves
around in a tight space.” “When the vehicle gets on
the catapult, then you have a very precise and positive control
transfer that has to take place between deck control and mission
control.” For the landing, the transfer has to go the other
way.
The program is focusing on minimizing the footprint of the vehicle
by having as little support equipment as possible. “Deck spots
for these vehicles are very small,” said Kinzer. For storage,
the wings fold into a diamond shape, and “can be packed real
tight,” he said.