McCain To Carter: Make UCLASS A Long-Range Strike Drone

By on March 24, 2015 at 5:49 PM

140817-N-CE233ATLANTIC OCEAN (August 17, 2014) – The Navy’s unmanned X-47B conducts flight operations aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). The aircraft completed a series of tests demonstrating its ability to operate safely an

WASHINGTON: Former Navy pilot Sen. John McCain wants the Navy to build its first carrier-based drone with the ability to carry two tons of weapons in a stealthy platform able to fly into harm’s way and not primarily as a reconnaissance aircraft. And McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Serves Committee, went straight to Defense Secretary Ash Carter to make his case in a letter today.

The Navy is in the midst of developing a final Request for Proposal for UCLASS — a process which has been delayed several times in the face of serious question about the balance between range, weapons payload size the reconnaissance mission — and McCain clearly wants the Navy to change direction.

As a former Navy congressional liaison, the chairman certainly knows how to work the system. He isn’t alone in pushing for the navy to change direction. Rep. Randy Forbes, chairman of the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee, has also weighed in on UCLASS. However, Forbes pushed for a smaller payload of at least 1,000 pounds.

The senator was pretty specific in his letter. He said the Navy should build a system: “unrefueled endurance several times that of manned fighters; a refueled mission endurance measured in days; broadband, all-aspect radar cross-section reduction sufficient to find and engage defended targets; and the ability to carry internally a flexible mix of at least 4,000 pounds payload.”

On top of all that, MCCain urges the Pentagon to actually use the UCAS-D — better known as Northrop Grumman’s X-47B — to learn more about how to use carrier-based drones. He notes that, “under current plans”  there won’t be any drones operating from a carrier deck for several years.  “I think this would be a lost learning opportunity in what promises to be a a critical area for sustaining the long-term operational operational and strategic relevance of the aircraft carrier.

03 24 2015 Mccain Letter to Carter UCLASS UCAS D

Comments

  • dmc

    In the project management world, this is called trading schedule for performance. McCain is basically saying that UAV’s flying ‘normal’ carrier ops is still too far off to dive into building a carrier-based UAV that does not have any performance advantage over current systems, so just slow down and build a better UAV that will be there when carrier ops catch up. That being said, there may also be a political maneuver hidden here, but I’m not seeing it.

  • CharleyA

    This is the way to go. One squadron or det of UCLASS, one squadron of F-35C and two/three Super Hornet squadrons by 2025-30 per boat. Transition to one or two squadrons of F/A-XX, one or two squadrons of F-35C (depending on whether the F-35C proves to be a workhorse or just an interim aircraft,) and one or two squadrons of UCLASS by 2040.

  • http://forumsforjustice.com/forums/showthread.php?p=211#post211 Forums4Justice

    Top 15 Defense Budgets in 2014 http://bit.ly/1AVlM74

    An argument against increasing Defense Spending http://bit.ly/1snkzoq

    Defense Spending .vs Federal Revenues (REV) http://bit.ly/pHEiWu
    ……in trillions…..
    YEAR.DEFENSE/.REV = % of Revenues
    FY2016 0.619 / 3.xxx = xx.x% GOP proposal including $96B in war funding
    FY2015 0.554 / 3.24x = 17.1% are we ever going to audit the Pentagon?
    FY2014 0.578 / 3.021 = 19.1%
    FY2013 0.608 / 2.774 = 21.9%
    FY2012 0.651 / 2.449 = 26.6%
    FY2011 0.678 / 2.302 = 29.5%
    FY2010 0.677 / 2.162 = 31.3%
    FY2009 0.637 / 2.105 = 30.3%
    FY2008 0.595 / 2.524 = 23.6%
    FY2007 0.529 / 2.568 = 20.6%
    FY2006 0.499 / 2.407 = 20.7%
    FY2005 0.474 / 2.154 = 22.0%
    FY2004 0.437 / 1.880 = 23.2%
    FY2003 0.389 / 1.783 = 21.8%
    FY2002 0.332 / 1.853 = 17.9%
    FY2001 0.291 / 1.990 = 14.6%
    FY2000 0.281 / 2.025 = 13.9% audit the Pentagon
    FY1999 0.261 / 1.827 = 14.3%
    FY1998 0.256 / 1.721 = 14.9%

    • bobbymike34

      WOW so the primary function of the federal government only costs 17% of revenues in FY2015 how incredibly cheap to defend this nations 330 million inhabitants, its’ $18 Trillion economy, our allies and strategic commitments, commerce and trading lanes FOR THE WHOLE world.
      We could easily (and should) spend twice as much.

      • TPCAT

        You could if Congress got the taxation question sorted out. You can have anything you want if you want to pay for it. All they’d have to do is slap a “Defence Tax Surcharge” on like we had back under Johnson and Nixon (funding for Vietnam), or take taxation levels back to where they were under Eisenhower, and the problem would be solved.

    • Horn

      Where’s all the crap on our welfare system? I’d complain about that more than our defense budget right now.

      • BestOfAll

        Are you referring to welfare that aids people in need? Or the welfare that aids Corporate greed?

        • TPCAT

          I’d think he’s talking about the kind of welfare that helps real people who need it. I mean, why give money to people when you can shovel cash by the bucket load to the corporations that pay for elections?

          • David Driscoll

            You mean, the corporations that employ millions of Americans? The ones that have 401Ks, healthcare, flexible work schedules, childcare, and transportation? Are those the ones you are talking about?

          • TPCAT

            And who also make huge profits from the taxpayer …. I do believe they could do better …as far as helping to pay their share of the cost of defence …But it’s a point of view.

          • David Driscoll

            Over 3 million people work in the defense industry. And they are all taxpayers. Granted, high level CEO’s make millions, but so do CEO’s in every field based off of profiting from consumers. Are we to expect that the defense industry is not to make a profit because they are funded by tax dollars? That’s not very American! :). I would much rather see my tax dollars go to the defense industry where people reinvest back into the system, make steps to defend our nation, and develop technologies to make our lives better,

          • TPCAT

            Fair enough, but how do you propose to solve the taxation problem? If defence budgets are going to go on increasing, eventually you’ll reach the point where the whole thing becomes unaffordable at the Government’s present rate of income. If you put taxation levels back to where they were under Truman and Eisenhower and Reagan, that might just solve the problem. Defence has to be paid for, and cuts to the welfare budget, and across the board cuts in just about everything else won’t be enough. I take your point, and it’s a valid one, but if the tax burden isn’t going to fall on the MIC, then it has to fall on everybody else. My concern isn’t with the size of the military, or with military spending, but with paying for it. Eventually continued Government borrowing just won’t be enough. Nor will Government cuts.

        • Michael Rich

          We should be focusing on trying to create jobs, not giving people free welfare.

    • VK HAM

      Many thanks. US Military Corporations are milking all citizens.

  • daniel

    The good news is the navy has some good options here. I personally would like to see the f35 used as controllers for attack drones.

  • bobbymike34

    No often a McCain fan but I lean in his direction on this. UCLASS could give carriers a strike platform that greatly expands carrier operations further away from possible Chinese IRBMs that are targeting our carriers. Combined with VLO and a decent payload would give the Navy almost strategic bomber range strike platform off a carrier deck.

  • AKO

    I agree.

  • originalone

    The Senator was pretty specific, etc. That’s a big order to fill, one that may be possible, but in reality, considering how the F-35 is going, with any actual combat interaction, (at least to anyone’s knowledge), that’s a tall order to fill. And what about the wish list the Air Force has for a new Bomber? All these politicians wanting to upgrade the Military hardware, putting their name[s] on the items produced. Since Reagan, it’s been a repeat, though sometimes, something good slips through the crack, which brings up the question: McCain smoking that stuff?

  • ycplum

    While I do see the merit of what they propose, I think there is too much micromanaging going on. And with regard to Forbes, no price tag limit?

  • VK HAM

    The senator is an idiot.

    Malfunction in the UAV’s command station self-destruct routine ……… venturing into civilian areas.

  • Clayton Adams

    McCain’s father and grandfather were admirals. He, on the other hand, began as a sub-par flier who was at times careless and reckless, which nearly got him brought up on charges. During the early to mid-1960s, the planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines, but he received no major injuries. He even lied about the cause of one of the crashes. His only claim to fame is because he was a POW. Like George Bush, without his family connections, he would be a nobody. If the Navy (or anyone) listens to this clown, then they deserve what they get.

    • squidgod

      Right, because nothing he did after leaving the Navy in any way prepared him to comment on Navy issues.

    • ziggy1988

      This clown?

      Mr Adams, referring to the planes piloted by Sen. McCain that crashed, did you investigate any of these crashes? Were you a member of any of the investigating boards? Or a JAG at the time? If not, who are you to act as judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner here?

  • jk641

    I agree with the senator.

  • ziggy1988

    Sen. McCain is right in this case. The Navy should make UCLASS a long-ranged, VLO drone with a significant payload. Anything else will be completely useless in any environments except the most benign ones, where the only opponents are terrorists without air defense systems.

    Let’s make clear the facts in this case:
    1) A number of countries, including but not limited to Russia, China, and Venezuela, soon to be joined by Iran, Syria, and North Korea, have fielded very capable IADS (S-300/400 and HQ-9) which, to be blunt, make their airspace closed to nonstealthy aircraft.

    2) These countries also have anti-ship and land attack ballistic and cruise missiles of ranges measured in the high hundreds (anti-ship) and thousands (land attack) of kms, and within these envelopes, they can destroy any American base or surface warship.
    3) These countries, not stateless terrorists or primitive countries, are the likeliest threats the US will face in the future.
    4) High-tech weapon systems designed against “high-end” threats (i.e. very capable adversaries like those described above) can also be safely used against terrorists and weak states, but the reverse is not the case.

    Developing a drone that could only serve as an ISR platform – and only in benign or moderately dangerous environments at that – would be an utter waste of taxpayers’ money.

    • vegass04 .

      I couldn’t agree more.. If USA envisions or expects a future war to be similar to COIN engagements of Afghanistan and Iraq then they should cut the budget by 2/3 and continue pound insurgents with 70-ties era jets and ships, even that would be an overkill. But if US military wants to have a detarrent against near peer adversaries, then it’s time to up the ante and invest in technologies and capabilities that are poised to counter those nations. A permissive ISR platform is the last thing CBG needs.

  • Gary Church

    It is the beginning of the end for piloted combat aircraft when letters like this start getting read. In the age of robots and missiles the pilot is no longer the solution- the pilot is the problem.