Navy sees future with drones for spying but not fighting

No, not fair to beat up on the Navy, because the MQ-1 and MQ-9 are the current state of the art. Neither is carrier capable, and even if they were, if the Navy operated them in the Gulf, the Air Force would argue that they should control them. Why should the Navy duplicate the effort?

I agree with Brad: we have enough duplicate capabilities between the AF and the Navy. However, I am sure there could be a place for armed drones, but then you have to be able to control them from the ship, which means you have to add personnel to do that. Not to mention, then you have to be able to launch them from the carrier.

The current NAVAIR strategy is to get to an all-Hornet based airframe for carrier air (for maintenance purposes). Currently, all the aircraft onboard are Hornets, with the exception of the E-2C and the EA-6B. The EF-18 Growler will replace the Prowler in the next couple of years, so the only non-Hornet aircraft will be the Hawkeye. In order for the Navy to pursue an armed drone capability, this strategy would have to change and I think we would have to sacrifice Hornets to do this. That does not fit well with the way we are currently structured.

As far as the ASCM threat, that has existed for decades. Our buds the Russkies always had huge supersonic ASCMs (like the SS-N-19 Shipwreck) that we have had to defend against. That being said, I think there are efforts underway to increase the surveillance capabilities of strike groups using drones in order to be able to better defend against the ASCM threat).

When I read that the Navy lagged behind the USAF in the development of armed drones, I thought the article was referring to junior sailors and airmen, in which case I would have disputed that assertion. However, I read more, and now I see that we're talking about UAVs.

The Navy better be prepared to fly the F-18 for a long time because Congress is unlikely to fund another manned fighter. And it seems reasonable that UAVs would make good platforms for ASW, recon, and anti-mine warfare.

Congress is also going to start to wonder why we have to keep building such large targets carriers for manned aircraft when comparable UAVs could be flown from smaller platforms.

This is just another symptom of the Navy's very serious strategy and procurement problems.

If the Navy fools around too long, it may find that the Air Force can take care of all maritime needs other than CBG protection from fixed, secure bases.

We use to fly Harpoon missiles from B-52's in the 80's, I believe we loaded 16 of them. We also carried 24 sea mines on our old "D" model B-52's. Why not let the Air Force control the air?

Would it really be necessary to put pilots on board if you are going to launch UAVs from a fighter deck? Seems to me like you could leave them onshore and reduce the carrier crew considerably.

Its good that the Navy isn't trying to do a direct shootout with the AF by duplicating AF capabilities, there are plenty of missions that the navy already owns that a UAV would be perfect for. Primarily ASW and oceanic SAR work. A recon UAV would be perfect, providing it has a decent payload (for sonobouys, small weapons, targeting gear, etc) and an impressive loiter capability.

In the meanwhile, the naval firescout idea sounds pretty nifty, providing that the firescout does not replace the onboard Helo. Firescout strikes me as a platform that can improve ships that are too small to adequately carry a conventional helo. That being said, if a ship is big enough to manage a Seasprite or seahawk, and a choice must be made between one of those, or a firescout, go with the manned bird. The difference in capabilities are immense.