Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike program

The United States Navy Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program is to develop an aircraft carrier-based unmanned aerial vehicle to provide an unmanned intelligence and strike asset to the fleet.

Competitors
The UCLASS program currently has several competing designs and design bases:
 * Northrop Grumman is offering a design based off their X-47B demonstrator
 * Lockheed Martin is offering the Lockheed Sea Ghost
 * Boeing is offering a design that may be based off the Phantom Ray
 * General Atomics is offering the Sea Avenger, a naval version of their original land-based Avenger.

Development
In June 2013, the USN released RFPs to the four competitors. The RFPs were individualized for each company, so the exact specifications were publically unknown. The RFPs were originally supposed to be issued in late 2012, but were delayed several times. Submissions were due in early July.

The Navy expected to release a draft RFP for the technology development phase in August 2013, with a final version expected in 2014. The first RFP, released in June, is to mature the four designs up to a preliminary design review (PDR) over nine months and assess technical readiness. The following technology demonstration phase will be much more rigorous. NAVAIR hoped to have an industry day for UCLASS competitors in September 2013. The Navy was to downselect one company and design in 2014 and begin development in 2015.

The draft RFP for technology development has been delayed from August to September 2013. There is continuing debate over requirements and stealth. General Atomics and Boeing are expected to de-emphasize stealth in favor of endurance and payload. Northrop Grumman and Lockheed are pitching tailless high-survivability designs. Although stealth is more expensive, Lockheed says the UCLASS "needs to be a fifth-generation capability," and that their experience with the F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning II, and RQ-170 Sentinel provided lessons on affordability. The Navy is expected to select a cost-plus contract to minimize risk put on the contractor in development, but it is unclear how the bids will be graded.

On 14 August 2013, the Navy awarded four development contracts to Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. Each contract was worth $15 million develop airframe designs. The preliminary design review assessment is to support the UCLASS “to enhance aircraft carrier/air wing operations by providing a responsive, world-wide presence via an organic, sea-based unmanned aerial system, with persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting, and strike capabilities.” NAVAIR expects to have a competition for a final airframe design after January 2014. The industry day will now be held in October 2013, with the final RFP released in the second quarter of 2014, and a vehicle selected in the first quarter of 2015.

On 26 September 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report calling for greater oversight over the UCLASS program. It said that the Navy was pursuing the program in a way that will limit the ability of Congress to hold it accountable for meeting goals on cost, schedule, and performance. In FY 2014, the Navy plans to spend $3.7 billion to develop, build, and field six to 24 aircraft as an initial complement in UCLASS. However, it does not plan to initiate a key review of the program until 2020, when the proposed aircraft would already be fielded. The Navy sees UCLASS as a technology development program. Instead of starting a formal review early on, it plans to take advantage of Defense Department flexibility to gather data so the program is ultimately successful. They say their approach conforms to requirements set forth in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. The GAO says work on the program goes well beyond technology development, and thus warrants oversight in relation to a major weapon system development program. The report advises Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to direct the Navy to hold the review in FY 2015 to trigger key oversight measures. It also raises problematic risks, as the $3.7 billion cost estimate exceeds the funding the Navy expects to budget for the program through 2020. The Navy has scheduled eight months between the time it issues a request for design proposals to the time it awards a contract, a process which normally takes 12 months. The UCLASS relies on the successful development and delivery of systems and software, which creates additional schedule risk. Integrating all the systems associated with the program will require the service to manage 22 separate government systems, acting in an increased capacity that it does not routinely do. The Navy will do regular reviews and consult industry experts, but will still need to double the staff in the program office from 150 to 300.

Requirements controversy
Navy officials have expressed concern that the original requirements of the UCLASS program have been so degraded that it could be cancelled as part of budget cuts. The original concept called for a stealthy, carrier-based, long-range unmanned combat aerial system (UCAS) with a large payload that could be refueled in-flight. The current version calls for an UCAS that is modestly stealthy and emphasises intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions over lightly contested airspace, with a light secondary strike mission. It promotes affordability, which calls for a design that is less survivable and has less endurance. Some think it is better to create an aircraft that although more expensive, adds greater capabilities to the fleet, rather than a cheaper platform that adds little. The lessened stealth capabilities and lower numbers proposed have made the program decline in worth. The office of the Chief of Naval Operations says the UCLASS will support missions in permissive and low-end contested environments, while providing enabling capabilities for high-end denied operations. Current requirements were written to fill a gap in persistent, sea-based ISR. The original concept was to evolve the X-47B demonstrator into an operational aircraft with aerial refueling. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council dropped the air refueling requirement, reducing its flexibility. NAVAIR says although aerial refueling is not an initial requirement, it may be re-added in the future pending early operational capability performance and fleet feedback. The UCLASS was to have low-observable features, running from "marginal stealth" to F-35 Lightning II levels. Stealth requirements have been sharply reduced to lower costs, reducing its ability to penetrate anti-access/area-denial environments. Original payload requirements called for weapons bays to carry as many as 24 GBU-39 SDB 250 lb bombs, totaling a 6,000 lb weapons payload. Current requirements call for a total payload of 1,360 kg, with only 454 kg of weapons.

Senior officials have denied that changes to the UCLASS requirements were made by the JROC on behalf of the White House. The JROC also does not consider the requirements to be "relaxed." The Pentagon says that the requirements were modified by the JROC during an 18 December 2012 meeting. The UCLASS requirements were changed to consider "within the broader unmanned aircraft portfolio and included an assessment of the platform's performance, capability, survivability, and basing." They claim its capabilities were not reduced, but were shifted to increase some performance areas and decrease others to get a mix. Trade-offs were made to consider the needs of fighting forces across a range of national security interests. JROC is reported to have changed the requirements in order to produce a replacement for the current drones used for Disposition Matrix missions that would not require host nation basing or permission. While the Navy's initial aim of creating a UAV capable of striking defended targets, the focus was changed to keep costs down and maintain unmanned counterterrorism missions as a U.S. military option. Flying missions from sea-based carriers would have fewer restrictions than operating inside foreign countries, and irregular warfare missions would continue in the future to warrant further attention. The Navy disagrees with this focus, as there are many assets that can operate in non-contested airspace with few stealthy-type penetrators, and expensive carrier forces and air wings would be used to find individual high value targets. DoD director of unmanned warfare Dyke Weatherington confirmed that the change was made because of fiscal pressures.

In September 2013, several lawmakers wrote a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to ask the service to consider a broader scope of requirements and capabilities and a wider range of mission possibilities for the UCLASS to make it an “integral part of the Carrier Air Wing.” The letter stated that Congress believes the narrow ISR role limits the capability growth of the system, and that it should be designed to be an integral part of the air wing and be employed in the full-spectrum of the Navy’s power-projection mission. The letter asks Mabus to work with the program on the technology development RFP to not focus on just one particular key performance parameter, but to enable competition and capability tradeoffs on a spectrum of attributes such as range, payload, survivability, and affordability. A more broadly scoped set of missions will allow industry the flexibility to develop a range of solutions able to meet requirements for the UCLASS in both the near-term and longer term. The main argument of the letter is for establishing broad requirements so that the platform can grow, change, and evolve over time as technologies mature. Advocates for a wider set of mission roles say it will not lessen the core ISR function, but rather add to it with additional capability.

The letter from Congress also shows that they are concerned about the UCLASS acquisition strategy. The Navy's established plan to field four carrier air wings worth of aircraft before the completion of operational testing, or even a formal “Milestone B” decision to enter engineering and manufacturing development, has been described as "atypical." Congress and industry both agree that the Navy has deviated significantly from the normal process for developing a new aircraft. Normally, industry would develop solutions over two years based on initial issued requirements. The specifications would be refined and updated as needed, based on various industry-informed trade studies. This procedure is likely to yield more relevant industry investment, more affordable requirements, and a better overall competition. For nearly three years, companies developed their candidates with company funds based on assumptions about the Navy’s requirements without any guidance from the service. The Navy did not issue any aircraft performance specifications or draft requirements until the spring of 2013, so competitors are trying to refit their aircraft for the preliminary design review phase. This is requiring more company investment, which may lead contenders to drop out of bidding. The lack of feedback is compounded by the shift of mission statements, from a long-range penetrating strike platform to long-duration orbits over permissive airspace. Endurance requirements of over 12 hours is especially hard to meet, as there are limitations of an aircraft's wingspan for holding fuel on the confined space of an aircraft carrier. The aircraft must have a higher aspect ratio wing (longer wingspan), but the maximum wingspan for the UCLASS is around 70 ft to meet size and weight requirements. With aerial refueling no longer a capability, designers must make aircraft as light as possible, holding as much fuel as possible. The UCLASS must maintain two 600 nmi orbits around the ship, or one orbit at a range of 1,200 nmi, with the ability to attack lightly-defended targets out to 2,000 nmi. The endurance requirement is so strenuous that a turbofan engine may not be a "viable option." Boeing and General Atomics appear to have selected a wing-body tail design, while Lockheed and Northrop Grumman have flying-wing concepts.

After pressure from Congress, industry, and the GAO, the Navy is reportedly taking another look at the draft requirements for the UCLASS. They were scheduled to be released in October 2013 and now could be delayed. Industry sources say the struggles with the program are because of the budget environment. The Navy wants to run its own budget priorities, while JROC is recommending otherwise. The main reason behind the internal strife is indecision over the future of the aircraft carrier fleet and the air wings that operate from those ships. JROC and some naval officers believe the U.S. Military needs better UAV-based ISR coverage around the globe, and that the capability must be integrated on board carriers in the near-future. Examples are drawn from the French experience during Operation Serval over Mali, where they needed permission from a host nation to use their airfields to deploy unmanned assets. They feel the first priority should be to get UAV operations normalized on board carriers and get more value out of the vessels, and more capability out of the aircraft could be added later. Most others inside the Navy believe that their multi-billion dollar carriers, air wings, and accompanying strike groups have better uses. Even though a UAV's benefits are not essential for the service to operate, they feel any new unmanned aircraft integrated into the carrier air wing should be focused on making the carrier a more effective strike platform.