DailyTech - Northrop Grumman Reveals Navy NQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft

Submit News

Science Northrop Grumman Reveals Navy NQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft
Brandon Hill (Blog) - June 18, 2012 10:35 AM

15 comment(s) - last by kattanna.. on Jun 19 at 12:44 PM

The U.S. Navy gets its own drone

Northrop Grumman has unveiled the first photo of the U.S. Navy NQ-4C Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS). The Northrop Grumman BAMS UAS is hailed as a versatile Maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platform able to support a variety of missions.

"Northrop Grumman is proud to provide our U.S. Navy customer with the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft, a key element of the BAMS UAS program, representing the future of naval aviation and a strategic element of the U.S. Navy," said Duke Dufresne, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems sector vice president and general manager for unmanned systems.

"The BAMS UAS program will revolutionize persistent maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. We are honored to serve the U.S. Navy and our nation's allies in the quest to build and maintain a strong and cooperative global maritime domain."

The aircraft is designed to operate independently or collaboratively with fleet assets. The goal of the aircraft is to provide commanders with persistent and reliable photo and video information on surface threats and to be able to cover vast areas of open ocean and littoral regions.

The current BAMS demonstrator aircraft is block 10 RQ-4 and is equipped with Maritime sensors and is being used by the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet. The demonstrator aircraft has the Triton's 360° multi-function active sensor radar on board.

Northrop Grumman says that the aircraft will be called Triton to keep with tradition of naming Navy surveillance aircraft after Greek sea gods. Triton is the Greek messenger of the sea.

Source: Northrop Grumman

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

so, uh...

By chromal on 6/18/2012 11:58:14 AM , Rating: 2

Can it launch from and land on a US Navy aircraft carrier? What does one of these cost? What manned aircraft is it envisioned replacing?

RE: so, uh...

By Apone on 6/18/2012 12:29:04 PM , Rating: 2

- It doesn't say whether or not it can launch/land from a US aircraft carrier but I'm sure NG has considered that possibility in the Triton's design. From what I interpreted in the article, the Triton is not supposed to replace existing manned aircraft (even though it apparently says so); merely just serving as the constant "eye in the sky" messenger (like the Greek god messenger of the sea Triton) to monitor, alert, and provide reconnaissance surveillance to targets of interest and basically give US Navy ships/battlegroups a more precise and timely view of where the action is happening

Parent

RE: so, uh...

By danjw1 on 6/18/2012 12:35:41 PM , Rating: 2

I believe these are intended to be used on the Gerald R. Ford class carriers which a currently being developed. They will use an electromagnetic catapult system that allow the amount of force to be adjusted. So they will be able to launch both RPVs as well as aircraft.

Parent

RE: so, uh...

By danjw1 on 6/18/2012 12:37:35 PM , Rating: 2

Err, I meant to say '... RPVs as well as piloted aircraft.'

Parent

RE: so, uh...

By F4iHorn on 6/18/2012 1:33:28 PM , Rating: 2

They can adjust the pressure on traditional steam catapults as well.

I think the greatest benefit to using electromagnetic catapults is reduced maintenance and therefore cost.

Parent

RE: so, uh...

By danjw1 on 6/18/2012 2:22:41 PM , Rating: 2

No, not really, at least not enough to be reasonable for a much smaller/lighter aircraft like an RPV.

Parent

RE: so, uh...

By F4iHorn on 6/18/2012 2:49:08 PM , Rating: 2

Are you sure about that?
From Wikipedia:

A-4F Skyhawk
• Empty weight: 10,450 lb (4,750 kg)
• Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,318 kg)
• Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,136 kg)
RQ-4A
• Empty weight: 8,490 lb (3,851 kg)
• Gross weight: 22,900 lb (10,387 kg)

It's a moot point anyway, that airframe it not designed for carrier ops.

Parent

RE: so, uh...

By Jaybus on 6/18/2012 4:00:46 PM , Rating: 2

This thing is very light and designed to fly at slow speeds. It should launch from about any carrier without need of a catapult.

Parent

RE: so, uh...

By F4iHorn on 6/18/2012 1:26:52 PM , Rating: 2

I believe these will be strictly land based.

For one thing the nose gear doesn't have a launcher bar and it would need to have two wheels as opposed to one so it doesn't get wedged in the track.

Also, it looks like this is the same airframe the Air Force uses for Global Hawks. Their wingspan is over a hundred feet. E-2's have about the max wingspan you can have aboard a carrier and their wingspan is about eighty.

Plus it just looks to fragile for carrier ops.

It would be cool to have that capability though.

Parent

RE: so, uh...

By kattanna on 6/19/2012 12:44:08 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Can it launch from and land on a US Navy aircraft carrier?

doesnt look like it. I see no tail hook to catch the wire for landing on this detailed diagram

http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/bams/as...

Parent

Terminator

By tayb on 6/18/2012 3:20:21 PM , Rating: 2

The only thing missing is vertical takeoff then this thing will be Terminator-esque. Revives the age old debate of whether science influences science fiction or whether science fiction influences science.

Interesting stuff. I wonder what the R&D and per-unit costs are.

RE: Terminator

By Master Kenobi

(blog) on 6/18/2012 6:32:20 PM , Rating: 3

Quite low actually, considering the recent costs of many DoD programs. R&D only cost 1.16 Billion since this is just a naval variation of the NSAF RQ-4 Global Hawk.

The RQ-4 replaced the U-2 for many uses due to the Global Hawk's ability to handle a larger multi mission payload. The US Navy wants this capability as well since they have to go to the AF right now to get a U-2 or Global Hawk to perform some task. This way the Navy can do it all in house and move assets around as they see fit.

This aircraft will not be carrier launched or recovered, but it really doesn't need to be either. The RQ-4 from the AF can fly at up to 65,000 ft and have a range of just over 15,000 miles with 36 hours of flight time between refueling.

The 5th fleet which covers the southern portion of the Middle East and down the eastern side of Africa will be the ones getting these and you can bet they will be flying them around the coast of Iran and other major shipping lanes in their area. The multi mission payloads these things can house will provide quite a bit of snooping that previously the Navy needed to send in a EP-3 for. Details here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_EP-3
The EP-3 is pretty much at the end of its life but a Drone that can be "remotely self destructed" when incidents like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_inciden... happen is infintely more useful.

Parent

RE: Terminator

By Master Kenobi

(blog) on 6/18/2012 6:33:39 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
NSAF RQ-4 Global Hawk

Should be USAF. My life for an edit button.

Parent

RE: Terminator

By cyclosarin on 6/18/2012 11:33:34 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
The RQ-4 replaced the U-2 for many uses due to the Global Hawk's ability to handle a larger multi mission payload.

The RQ-4 hasn't replaced the U-2 at all really. It is used in addition to the U-2. Truth be told the U-2 is probably going to still be flying after the RQ-4 is finished. We just built the RQ-4 and the architecture incorrectly.

This NQ-4C is probably billed as the replacement for the EP-3. I don't know the particulars of the systems on it but I'd imagine it's closer to a straight replacement of the EP-3's main sensor than the RQ-4 is of the U-2. It also gives them a high altitude imagery capability as well. Whether or not the Navy retires the EP-3s is another matter all together.

Parent