Navy Isn't Scrambling To Field Loyal Wingman Drones Like The Air Force
We just got a clearer picture of where the Navy's air arm stands when it comes to its progress — or lack thereof — in developing and fielding carrier-based Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) that will fly primarily alongside the service's fighter aircraft in a force-multiplying role.
Rear Adm. Michael 'Buzz' Donnelly, Director of the Air Warfare Division (N98) within Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, was asked about when CCAs will be integrated into the carrier air wing and what their primary focus will be during a panel at the annual Sea Air Space symposium in Washington, D.C. today, at which TWZ was in attendance.
His response paints a picture of how the Navy is not heavily focusing on this capability right now. Instead, it is putting more effort into its MQ-25 Stingray tanker drone, and its supporting infrastructure, while allowing the other services, especially the USAF, to prove out the CCA concept. In other words, don't expect CCAs on supercarrier decks anything soon.
Donnelly stated:
'The United States Navy is in a tri-service memorandum of agreement and understanding with our sister services, the U.S. Air Force, as well as the Marine Corps, and we are developing that capability together. Each of us are focused on a different aspect of that. The Air Force is leading and very forward leaning in the development of the actual air vehicle and the autonomy that goes in those for execution of mission. Marine Corps is working closely to develop manned-unmanned teaming between platforms such as the F-35, the F-35B being the baseline for their aviation capability right now. And the United States Navy is working based on our pathway of unmanned into the fleet with MQ-25. The baseline architecture that will be required to enable those capabilities, as well as the ground control station that we are currently utilizing for MQ-25 we expect to become the standard for all of these systems.
As we work together for the United States Navy, I will tell you that we are definitely in the follow of those three services as we look to see how Air Force is developing and fielding things, quite frankly, in a more simple operational environment than what is required for a ship-based system. We know that we're going to leverage what we learned in MQ-25 as a pathway of unmanned into the Carrier Air Wing and operating in the fleet over the next coming years, and then between what we see as mission capability, understanding of autonomy and the function of that in the mission capabilities, and what we've learned with MQ-25, I think it's foreseeable that we're going to see initial designs and capabilities fielding to the fleet in the 2030s.'
So, while we have indications that the Navy may not be moving as quickly on CCAs as the USAF, this is our most comprehensive update on the service's thinking. Basically, the Navy is looking to leverage the other services' trials and errors and will make informed decisions based on that data down the line. Just integrating the MQ-25 into the air wing is a huge hurdle to overcome, and some of those lessons and technologies could also feed in the opposite direction, back into the USAF and Marines' CCA programs.
Rear Adm. Donnelly is certainly right about how integrating CCAs onto a carrier is a tougher proposition than doing so at a large static airfield. At the same time, one could easily argue that there is no better application for CCAs and advanced unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) in general than the carrier. Mixing manned and unmanned capabilities on the same vessel is arguably harder than just deploying unmanned capabilities alone.
It's worth noting that China is racing ahead with its advanced carrier-based unmanned capabilities, jumping right into stealthy UCAVs capable of independent and cooperative operations, and not just for its fixed-wing carriers but also its largest amphibious assault ships. The United States has no analog for this capability. Carrier-based UCAVs that were supposed to have been procured over a decade ago were axed entirely in one of the strangest moves in modern military history that you can read all about here. For the Navy, its multi-role stealth UCAV was replaced with what is now the MQ-25 tanker.
Promotional video for the shipborne version of the GJ-11 drone shown by the AVIC at the China Air Show. pic.twitter.com/RDw8COgPAA
— 彩云香江 (@louischeung_hk) October 7, 2021
The Navy is currently looking to have its air wings made up of more drones than manned aircraft by sometime in the later end of the 2030s, so CCAs and similar systems are still likely to come. But for now, the service is concentrating on getting the drone it has already ordered — which is late and over budget — integrated into the carrier environment while taking more of a wait-and-see approach for others.
Of course, this is taking Donnelly's statement at face value. It's unclear what the Navy is doing in the classified domain. Still, his remarks today were very clear and blunt on the issue.
This also calls into question the F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter aircraft the service is supposedly about to award a contract for anytime now. That aircraft has been slated to work alongside CCAs as a key feature. The timing of its development and the Navy's eventual movement on that capability remains murky at best. Since Navy and Air Force fighter aircraft will be able to use each other's CCAs, it's possible that leveraging Air Force types could be a gateway early on in the naval fighter's service if the Navy's own CCA drones have not arrived in force on carrier decks by that time. Still, the carrier not having its own CCAs would severely limit the utility and applicability of the F/A-XX's manned-unmanned teaming capabilities.
Finally, from much of what we have seen, the Navy seems to be interested in cheaper and more disposable CCAs than the Air Force, which is pursuing a much higher-end capability with unit costs in the tens of millions. This came up again today at the conference, with the possibility of buying CCAs with very short airframe life at lower costs being an attractive option for the service. So, while much of the command and control architecture and some of the tactics, logistics and procedures may port over, the USAF may end up with a very different CCA vision than the Navy and possibly the USMC.
We'll have to see how this all plays out, but it seems clear that the Navy thinks it has enough drone challenges on its hands at this time with the MQ-25 and that it can wait to take on more.
Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
4 hours ago
- Business Insider
Famed analysts and investors have been putting their names on ETFs. Here's what it takes for a fund to succeed.
A string of widely followed strategists, economists, and investors have launched exchange-traded funds in recent years. There's famed NYU professor Nouriel Roubini — known colloquially as " Dr. Doom" — and his Atlas America Fund (USAF). Then there's Dan Ives — the tech and AI permabull who can often be found on CNBC wearing fluorescent blazers — who has parlayed his bold analyst calls into the Wedbush AI Revolution ETF (IVES). And let's not forget Fundstrat's Tom Lee — former chief equity strategist at JPMorgan — and his Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF (GRNY). They've stepped into a crowded market with thousands of funds competing for investors' money. A record 723 ETFs came to market in 2024 alone. And they're using their own high-profile personal brands to stand out in a crowded marketplace. But starting a fund is an entirely different beast than keeping one afloat for any sustained amount of time. Yes, strong performance is crucial. But running a fund is expensive, and it takes much more than good returns to ensure success. To start, the cost to launch a fund is hefty. Firms are looking at a $50,000-to-$100,000 filing fee with the SEC, according to Zachary Evans, analyst for passive strategies at Morningstar. puts that number between $100,000 and $500,000. Depending on the type of fund, there also may be an initial listing fee with NYSE or Nasdaq. But the bills don't stop there. Listing fees with the exchange come due every year. With Nasdaq, for example, it's a $4,000 annual fee. Then there's a long list of costs associated with running the fund itself, Evans said. Paying the staff who execute the trades. Paying compliance and a risk-management team. Paying sales and advertising teams to market the fund. Paying rent for your office space. And so on. It all adds up, and it means funds need to amass significant assets under management. ETF providers make money through the annual fees, or expense ratios, they charge investors. So the more money they manage, the more money they're bringing in. Performance also plays a role here — if a fund's value rises by 20% in a year, the fees it extracts will be 20% higher. "This can vary quite a bit, but a baseline number we've heard is that it should cost around $200,000 a year to run an ETF," Evans told BI. "More complicated strategies will cost more, simpler strategies will cost less, or if it's from a large firm that has economies of scale, it might cost less as well." He added: "Say an ETF charges 50 basis points with annual expenses of $200,000 a year. You need $40 million AUM in order to break even on that product." For some funds, there's also pressure associated with seed money. When an ETF launches, Evans said it might have some investors who promise to keep their capital locked up in the fund for a set period of time — say two or three years. Once that period ends, if the investors pull their money, it can be an existential threat to a fund if they haven't pulled in enough money from elsewhere. "Once that seed money dries up, in order for them to endure, they need to make sure they have enough investor interest, enough assets to sustain them," Evans said. Fund closures are increasingly common. Evans said a little more than 200 closed in 2023 — a record — and just under 200 closed in 2024. "As more companies are launching their products, more companies are closing down their products — the vast majority of which have really failed to catch on with investors," Evans said. "They've failed to generate either the performance or, in effect, the asset level to support these products."
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Raytheon lands $646M Navy radar contract
ANDOVER — Defense contractor Raytheon has been awarded a $646 million contract to continue producing advanced maritime radars for the U.S. Navy. The radar, called the SPY-6, is one of several radar programs designed and manufactured at Raytheon's Radar Development Facility, 350 Lowell St. The 30,000, square-foot site is vertically integrated and highly automated and supports the production of different radars for U.S. and allied forces. The SPY-6 family of radars performs air and missile defense for seven classes of ships, according to Raytheon's website. The integrated radars have the ability to defend against ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles and hostile aircraft and surface ships simultaneously. This is the fourth option exercised from a hardware, production and sustainment contract in March 2022 that is valued up to $3 billion over five years. Three years ago, Raytheon won a $651 million radar contract with the Navy to outfit new surface ships with radar that can find and track enemy missiles and planes at the same time. Under this contract, Raytheon will provide the U.S Navy with four additional radars. This increases the total amount of radars under contract for procurement to 42. A majority of the work under the contract will take place in Andover through 2028. 'SPY-6 enables the U.S. Navy to see further than they've ever seen before, providing sailors with more time to respond to detected threats,' President of Naval Power at Raytheon Barbara Borgonovi said. 'This latest contract builds on our decades of experience and technical expertise in developing modular, scalable, and highly maintainable radars.'
Business Wire
a day ago
- Business Wire
AV's JUMP 20 Medium UAS Supports U.S. Navy's 4th Fleet During Operation Southern Spear
ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--AeroVironment, Inc. ('AV') (NASDAQ: AVAV) delivered company-owned, company-operated (COCO) maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) services in support of the U.S. Navy's 4 th Fleet as part of Operation Southern Spear. AV's JUMP® 20 medium uncrewed aircraft system (MUAS) was deployed across the Caribbean and southern Atlantic region, providing persistent ISR where it actively tracked potential illicit activities within the 4 th Fleet's jurisdiction. What sets the JUMP 20 apart from other Group 3 UAS in its class is its superior payload capacity, unmatched modularity and exceptional endurance – all delivered without the need for launch or recovery equipment. Share JUMP 20 is a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) MUAS designed for rapid deployment, with fully hands-free autonomous launch and recovery capabilities on moving vessels—even in challenging maritime conditions, including sea state level 5 and winds exceeding 20 knots. 'Advancing and refining the JUMP 20 maritime offering has been a major focus and investment for AV during the past 18 months,' said Shane Hastings, AV's vice president and general manager of medium UAS. 'This contract represented the culmination of that work and marked the first of what we hope are many operational maritime deployments of the JUMP 20. What sets the JUMP 20 apart from other Group 3 UAS in its class is its superior payload capacity, unmatched modularity and exceptional endurance – all delivered without the need for launch or recovery equipment enabling fully hands-free operations and maximizing operational safety.' According to the Navy, 'Operation Southern Spear was a successful operation designed to advance the Navy's Hybrid Fleet Campaign, operationalizing Robotic and Autonomous Systems (RAS) through manned-unmanned teaming. In addition to meeting operational objectives, this operation transitioned from short-duration experimentation into long-duration operations aiding in the development of critical techniques and procedures designed to advance the global integration of RAS into the maritime environment. AV's JUMP 20 served as a key ISR asset, operating alongside joint and interagency assets in the area.' JUMP 20 has proven its reliability with over 130,000 land-based flight hours supporting U.S. Special Operations Command combat deployments. JUMP 20's expanded operations into these shipboard environments further extends its reach, enabling multi-mission multi-domain capabilities on a global scale, wherever and whenever needed. AV's JUMP 20 was ship-based and deployed for approximately six months during Operation Southern Spear under the Monitoring, Analysis, Reconnaissance, Logistics, Intelligence, and Network Services (MARLINS) Task Order as a subcontractor under the prime contractor, SMX. ABOUT AEROVIRONMENT, INC. AeroVironment ('AV') (NASDAQ: AVAV) is a defense technology leader delivering integrated capabilities across air, land, sea, space, and cyber. The company develops and deploys autonomous systems, precision strike systems, counter-UAS technologies, space-based platforms, directed energy systems, and cyber and electronic warfare capabilities—built to meet the mission needs of today's warfighter and tomorrow's conflicts. With a national manufacturing footprint and a deep innovation pipeline, AV delivers proven systems and future-defining capabilities with speed, scale, and operational relevance. For more information visit: SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT Certain statements in this press release may constitute "forward-looking statements" as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are made on the basis of current expectations, forecasts and assumptions that involve risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, economic, competitive, governmental and technological factors outside of our control, that may cause our business, strategy or actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, our ability to perform under existing contracts and obtain additional contracts; changes in the regulatory environment; the activities of competitors; failure of the markets in which we operate to grow; failure to expand into new markets; failure to develop new products or integrate new technology with current products; and general economic and business conditions in the United States and elsewhere in the world. For a further list and description of such risks and uncertainties, see the reports we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We do not intend, and undertake no obligation, to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
