USN Seeks Strike Drones
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,695
Likes: 7,377
From: Peripatetic
USN Seeks Strike Drones
Surprised they didn't ask for it to be solar powered while they were at it........ 
Still, if they can find the room to safely store the drones, 1000lb bombs and AVGAS on an FF(X), along with their usual weapons, and get assembled on deck for launch, the rest should be easy....
https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned...m-any-warship/
Still, if they can find the room to safely store the drones, 1000lb bombs and AVGAS on an FF(X), along with their usual weapons, and get assembled on deck for launch, the rest should be easy....
https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned...m-any-warship/
US Navy on the hunt for strike drones that can launch from any warship
The U.S. Navy wants long-range strike drones that can be launched from destroyers and other warships that lack large flight decks, according to a Defense Innovation Unit solicitation.
The concern is that the Navy lacks enough aircraft carriers, aircraft and missiles to sustain an extended conflict against an adversary armed with long-range antiship missiles. Thus, the service is looking for armed drones that can be launched from austere locations or from surface warships other than aircraft carriers.
“Naval surface combatants are constrained in their ability to support long-range strikes over extended combat operations due to reliance on single-use missile systems, with limited magazine depth and limited at-sea munition replenishment capability,” according to the solicitation by DIU, a Pentagon agency charged with developing new technologies.
“The long-range strike methods able to persistently support naval surface combatants require infrastructure and assets which are vulnerable, limited or in high demand; including runways, and ships with large flight decks.”
Runway Independent Maritime and Expeditionary Strike, or RIMES, would solve this problem by fielding reusable drones capable of “long-range strikes with standard munition payloads while providing tactical flexibility by operating from expeditionary locations with minimal infrastructure, or from ships without large flight decks,” according to the solicitation.
The solicitation cites surface combatants such as the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, littoral combat ship and the FF(X) frigate based on the Coast Guard’s Legend-class cutter as potential platforms. While these vessels can launch helicopters, they don’t have large flight decks.
The drone itself would pack a considerable punch when armed with existing 1,000-pound bombs that already equip F/A-18 and F-35C fighter jets, or with palletized munitions.
Range would also be comparable to manned aircraft. The unmanned aerial vehicle should have a “one-way, no-reserve range of at least 1,400 nautical miles in order to allow an approximate 600 nautical mile radius,” DIU specified. As for the UAV’s speed, DIU would only state it should “cruise at a speed comparable to existing long-range strike methods.”
The Navy also appears concerned that the drone be autonomous enough to operate amid jamming and GPS denial. A RIMES drone should “incorporate mission autonomy to execute all mission phases in a highly contested environment,” according to the solicitation.
One question is how sophisticated — or expendable — a system the Navy wants. The solicitation cites cost-effectiveness as a consideration, yet it also mandates that drones should “demonstrate viability to operate in airspace with adversary threats, such as through survivability or attritability.”
Other criteria include a system that can be launched from a ship amid strong winds and waves, minimal need for servicing equipment and personnel, and quick turnaround from storage to launch, and recovery back to storage. The design should use open-system architecture to facilitate easy upgrades.
In line with the Pentagon’s push for speedy development of drones, DIU seeks a UAV that can be quickly mass-produced. “Solutions should demonstrate readiness for significant physical prototyping within 12 months of agreement award,” the solicitation said. The deadline is Feb. 27.
The U.S. Navy wants long-range strike drones that can be launched from destroyers and other warships that lack large flight decks, according to a Defense Innovation Unit solicitation.
The concern is that the Navy lacks enough aircraft carriers, aircraft and missiles to sustain an extended conflict against an adversary armed with long-range antiship missiles. Thus, the service is looking for armed drones that can be launched from austere locations or from surface warships other than aircraft carriers.
“Naval surface combatants are constrained in their ability to support long-range strikes over extended combat operations due to reliance on single-use missile systems, with limited magazine depth and limited at-sea munition replenishment capability,” according to the solicitation by DIU, a Pentagon agency charged with developing new technologies.
“The long-range strike methods able to persistently support naval surface combatants require infrastructure and assets which are vulnerable, limited or in high demand; including runways, and ships with large flight decks.”
Runway Independent Maritime and Expeditionary Strike, or RIMES, would solve this problem by fielding reusable drones capable of “long-range strikes with standard munition payloads while providing tactical flexibility by operating from expeditionary locations with minimal infrastructure, or from ships without large flight decks,” according to the solicitation.
The solicitation cites surface combatants such as the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, littoral combat ship and the FF(X) frigate based on the Coast Guard’s Legend-class cutter as potential platforms. While these vessels can launch helicopters, they don’t have large flight decks.
The drone itself would pack a considerable punch when armed with existing 1,000-pound bombs that already equip F/A-18 and F-35C fighter jets, or with palletized munitions.
Range would also be comparable to manned aircraft. The unmanned aerial vehicle should have a “one-way, no-reserve range of at least 1,400 nautical miles in order to allow an approximate 600 nautical mile radius,” DIU specified. As for the UAV’s speed, DIU would only state it should “cruise at a speed comparable to existing long-range strike methods.”
The Navy also appears concerned that the drone be autonomous enough to operate amid jamming and GPS denial. A RIMES drone should “incorporate mission autonomy to execute all mission phases in a highly contested environment,” according to the solicitation.
One question is how sophisticated — or expendable — a system the Navy wants. The solicitation cites cost-effectiveness as a consideration, yet it also mandates that drones should “demonstrate viability to operate in airspace with adversary threats, such as through survivability or attritability.”
Other criteria include a system that can be launched from a ship amid strong winds and waves, minimal need for servicing equipment and personnel, and quick turnaround from storage to launch, and recovery back to storage. The design should use open-system architecture to facilitate easy upgrades.
In line with the Pentagon’s push for speedy development of drones, DIU seeks a UAV that can be quickly mass-produced. “Solutions should demonstrate readiness for significant physical prototyping within 12 months of agreement award,” the solicitation said. The deadline is Feb. 27.
Joined: Dec 1998
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 105
Likes: 43
From: UK
Surprised they didn't ask for it to be solar powered while they were at it........
Still, if they can find the room to safely store the drones, 1000lb bombs and AVGAS on an FF(X), along with their usual weapons, and get assembled on deck for launch, the rest should be easy....
https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned...m-any-warship/
Still, if they can find the room to safely store the drones, 1000lb bombs and AVGAS on an FF(X), along with their usual weapons, and get assembled on deck for launch, the rest should be easy....
https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned...m-any-warship/
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 216
Likes: 54
From: Somerset
Joined: Oct 2019
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,706
Likes: 1,085
From: USA
That spec will soon be large enough to have objects in deep space see their orbits changed.
It sounds like they want something the size of an F-18, with the speed of an F-18, and the range of an F-18, but without the hassle of including a pilot or catapult or landing deck that an F-18 requires.
I'm sure the Systems Engineering PowerPoint Pilots are readying the little lightning bolt clip art to show how everything is connected. With AI I'm sure they can punch up those presentations with animations showing how the not-F-18s are launched and recovered, but from far enough away to obscure the lack of details about the implementation.
It sounds like they want something the size of an F-18, with the speed of an F-18, and the range of an F-18, but without the hassle of including a pilot or catapult or landing deck that an F-18 requires.
I'm sure the Systems Engineering PowerPoint Pilots are readying the little lightning bolt clip art to show how everything is connected. With AI I'm sure they can punch up those presentations with animations showing how the not-F-18s are launched and recovered, but from far enough away to obscure the lack of details about the implementation.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 817
Likes: 431
From: Portsmouth
MQ4
MQ8B/C
MQ47
All having been in service or moving towards it. Notable that MQ8 is being retired, although that may be more to do with the Little Crappy Ship.....
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 817
Likes: 431
From: Portsmouth
2. It's Boeing. Not sure the USN is the issue here.
Joined: Oct 2019
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,706
Likes: 1,085
From: USA
The problem for Boeing, aside from what one may think of the commercial side, is the same as for most contractors - they are paid a large amount of money and get hauled before Congress if something goes very wrong, so they end up nearly crippled by the fear of failure, so everything goes at a glacial pace. I'm sure if Congress said - "This contract includes funds to destroy 20 of the prototypes at full cost" that progress would be faster.
Look over at the SpaceX development model which went through a number of spectacular failures of, arguably, functionally far simpler launch vehicles, with a far smaller list of required functions.
Worse, there is the need to design for a large number of "ilities" and the expectation of multiple decades of operations of the airframes.
Having worked a contract with the USN, the USN starts by creating a problematic foundation. For example, the specification required a mitigation for a design specific failure of a previous, flawed, implementation. I asked USN reps what it was expected to do for them and they didn't know. There went about $5-10K for a "solution" to a problem that could not exist and in a manner that would not detect any other problem.
To be fair, the USN reps meant well, but since all they manage is the specification and not the deliberations behind it, getting meaningful understanding can be problematic.
Look over at the SpaceX development model which went through a number of spectacular failures of, arguably, functionally far simpler launch vehicles, with a far smaller list of required functions.
Worse, there is the need to design for a large number of "ilities" and the expectation of multiple decades of operations of the airframes.
Having worked a contract with the USN, the USN starts by creating a problematic foundation. For example, the specification required a mitigation for a design specific failure of a previous, flawed, implementation. I asked USN reps what it was expected to do for them and they didn't know. There went about $5-10K for a "solution" to a problem that could not exist and in a manner that would not detect any other problem.
To be fair, the USN reps meant well, but since all they manage is the specification and not the deliberations behind it, getting meaningful understanding can be problematic.
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 138
Likes: 72
From: UK
but the Chinese are going the other way. Solutions based on containers lurking on civilian ships. Probably a lot cheaper and easier to scale up than what the USN is looking for. Sometimes these new weapons programs feel like they're more to keep skin in the game, or feel relevant, or keep the big iron in service. I'm thinking of the fights between USAF and USN over who was primary on the nuclear deterrent, or loyal wingman which seems designed to keep a manned aircraft in the loop etc.
Last edited by arf23; 13th February 2026 at 19:04.
