Aircaft carrier with UCAV

I have yet to see a UCAV land on a carrier.

That won’t be long (J-UCAS / X-47B). See: www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/

At first the expectations from UCAVs were for them to be expendable, since they were expected to be small and cheap. Now they are expected to be just as large as any manned plane, and not any cheaper. If one looks at the X-45/47, you see that every iteration got bigger in size. The quality now expected from UCAVs is persistence. And they are not expected to be expendable at all, considering the cost they are expected to come in at.

That is something that makes me wonder, there seems to be an assumption that UCAV’s will be small and/or cheap, but to be militarily effective and replace manned offensive aircraft they will need to be quite large and heavy and anything but cheap. To me it seems the advantage is losing the pilot, removing inhibitions on mission profile due to pilot survivability concerns, and possibly expanding flight envelope since there will be no pilot, I really don’t expect much reduction in size and I’d be surprised if they’re any cheaper at all.

Advantage offer– require a smaller carrier unlike conventional CV which requires huge operating cost and manpower.

Around 8000 tons to 14000 tons capable of housing 22 UCAV,capable of offering long range,deep strike abilitites. While the carrier itself must offer strong ADS as it can’t rely on UCAV to conduct Air defence.

Possible for such idea to be endorse in future by any countries? 😀

Don’t kid yourself into dreaming that a naval UCAV will be small or STOVL capable.

The USN wants a conventional catapult launched/arrested landing UCAV that has the same 75,000lb MTOW as the old F-14.

You can forget about a purpose designed, fast jet STOVL UCAV that could operate from small carriers.

Of course, it seems possible that the F-35B could eventually be operated as a UCAV – albeit with the same endurance and platform limitation of the manned aircraft.

Nimiz and the wasps could certainly run a number near 100 if they were fitted for 100% UCAV launch. But even then they would be restricted by carrier deck space trying to launch and land that many planes not to mention control and service that many.

It would also explain some of these mini carriers we are seeing japan (16DDH), Spains carrier, the Australian Canberra class, the korean boats. As a regular carrier they are definately limited. As a UCAV carrier they make more sense.

Im not sure about the UCAV requiring steam launchers or arresting wires, as most of these are not fitted.

Despite the UCAV both UK and France have been pursing a big carrier, and the F-35 project is still going ahead.

I have yet to see a UCAV land on a carrier.

Any of these larger amphibious assault ships or helicopter carriers should be able to launch them. Many in the 8,000-40,000 ton region. The larger american ones could operate possibly hundreds each.

HUndreds looks quite impossible as u seen the size of X-45 which is quite big,with decent payload of at least 6 JADM. U can’t expect the UCAV to be too small. Plus the UCAV maybe modify into BVR interceptor with carrying AMVRAAM providing another layer of Air defence. PLus the main purpose of having UCAV for carrier is to keep CV operating cost low(NO more colossal carrier build) while offering almost equally powerful strike projection unmatch by cruise missle carrier.

I have yet to see a UCAV land on a carrier.

Any of these larger amphibious assault ships or helicopter carriers should be able to launch them. Many in the 8,000-40,000 ton region. The larger american ones could operate possibly hundreds each.