CDR Salamander - Let’s Make ESB a CVQ

Way back even before the X-47B took off and landed on a carrier—and then was killed by the Fighter-Attack-Guy Mafia™—people would ask me what I wanted in a tactical drone.

My feelings have not changed that much since—I want something designed to be stacked up like so many Pringles—or for you science fiction fans, how the Cylons in the Battlestar Galactica reboot kept their Raiders on their Basestars—ready for use in number. Sailor-proof and combat-ready.

You hear the subject of “Drone Carriers” come up on a regular basis. You have to have the right drones to make it worthwhile, and if I were in charge of ship designations, they would be classified as CVQ. I’m willing to consider such, as I mentioned when I got a bit excited last April with the Portuguese Navy’s latest toy.

We’ve “appreciated the problem” and delayed action for too long, so what do we do if we want to do something now as opposed to do nothing but produce PPT and bad military fiction novels for the next decade?

My Cylon Raider CONOPS was based on integration with the existing carrier air wing and stealing hangar bay space, but what if we had a tactical drone that didn’t need that level of support and could operate independently of the CVN/CVW construct?

As now is better than later, what would we use to carry them? Our existing carrier air wings may be maxed out, and we don’t have enough shipyard time to modify the hangar bays. We already have too few large-deck amphibs and LPDs to do the missions they already have assigned. I have no desire to wait a decade and a half for an over-budget, over-engineered dedicated drone carrier. (In its present construct, we would not be able to get what Portugal is getting through NAVSEA intact.) We’d need something we already have that could, with a few modifications, fit the bill…not unlike how we made Jeep Carriers in WWII. Perfect? No. Good enough? Absolutely.

We should be moving faster more than slower. Experiment. Be prepared to fail, iterate, succeed, or, at worst, realize a lot more is needed before the concept is ready for the big show.

I have an idea. Actually, other people have already found my solution, and I’m going to adopt it.

First, let’s look at what drone might fit the bill.

Shield AI, a specialist vying to provide the autonomy software for the Air Force’s autonomous Collaborative Combat Aircraft, has won government backing for its X-BAT drone—but not from USAF.

The $50 million cash infusion comes from the Navy and the Defense Innovation Unit, which see intriguing possibilities for a jet designed to take off and land vertically from a trailer. The aircraft is powered by the same F-110 General Electric engine that powers an F-16. With an airframe smaller and lighter than the Viper, the engine can generate enough thrust for vertical takeoff and to land in a manner similar to SpaceX’s reusable rockets.

First things first. Take CCA and put it at the end of the line for some option down the road. It will just slow things down. THAT software is not ready, but other software is. Let’s use what we have, and then work on what we want.

For the Navy, the potential benefit of X-BAT is clear, Holmes and Penney agreed: X-BAT could launch and return to surface combatants of all kinds, not just aircraft carriers. It would give the Navy more ways to deploy airpower. Navy destroyers and amphibious ships already carry munitions and fuel, so they don’t have the logistical problems the Air Force would have in its ACE concept of operations.

…

Shield boasts that its Hivemind autonomy software is “the world’s best AI pilot” and has delivered “real battlefield outcomes.” But Penney noted that mission autonomy—the ability for software to execute complex air missions—is “a lot harder” than most people realize and something the Air Force is still ironing out through the CCA program.

On top of that, X-BAT’s signature ability to take off and land vertically is a technically complex, though not unheard of, undertaking. Shield AI has shown it can do VTOL with its smaller V-BAT aircraft that has a propeller, but the X-BAT is as large as a fighter jet. It will need to generate large amounts of thrust to take off and be extremely responsive and stable to land.

Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let’s not start off with a “complex air mission” with MOD-0. Sure, we’ll get there…but lets start off with something simple…a TLAM that comes back. A cruise missile delivery-to-launch-point and return. Heck, I’ll take simple ISR/ELINT etc for MOD-0.

Yeah, and the concerns about the operating envelopes for landing (sea state, wind across deck, etc) will need to be worked out…I’d like to see those curves…but let’s assume it is acceptable…limited but acceptable.

Where could we launch them from…where? I know you recognize the hull shape below. We have them in production. They’re the multi-tool of naval power.

The Puller Class ESB.

How many X-BAT can you carry? Can you store more below?

They are actually a bit larger than a WWII Casablanca CVE.

Together with the announcement, Shield AI has released a new rendering showing X-BAT aircraft deployed on an Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) vessel. In August, the Navy’s PAE Aviation office said that, “to maintain maritime superiority, agility in acquisition is just as critical as the technology itself.”

Preparations towards first test flight

Shield AI also announced on Sept. 30 the selection of Newton, Kansas, and Des Moines, Washington, as sites for the X-BAT’s production, flight testing and sustainment.

…

Shield AI’s signature Hivemind autonomous flight software is planned to fly the drone in environments without Satellite Navigation (SATNAV) and communication links.

The F110-GE-129 has so far been tested with an Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle (AVEN), while scale models of the X-BAT have undergone wind tunnel tests, wing structural stress trials and radar-cross section testing. Other videos released by the company have also shown its unique Launch and Recovery Vehicle for Tethered Flight (LRVTF) docking mechanism, developed for runway independent operation.

It would be great if we could adopt a SpaceX approach to this capability instead of the NASA approach. We don’t need perfect now. Better will show up, but only after you get good with the basics. Be prepared to lose a few and celebrate the opportunity to learn when you do.

Don’t overpromise and underdeliver. Assume you will need changes. Be happy with the MOD-0 or ‘A’ model, then quickly upgrade to the ‘B’ model, and so on.

The future is here. All we need to do is accept it as it is.

Leave a comment

Share

View the full article