Combat drone project exposes pitfalls of joint-service programs.

WHEN THE PENTAGON quashed a multibillion-dollar Air Force-Navy combat drone program earlier this year, experts contended this was proof that joint service projects are doomed from the get-go.

"Any time you try to design a joint aircraft, there are challenges," says David L. Vesely, a retired Air Force lieutenant general with extensive experience in procurement programs.

The complexity of making multi-service aircraft is most evident in systems that are intended for both Air Force and Navy operations.

The F-35 joint strike fighter--currently in development by Lockheed Martin Corp.--has three variants, but 80 percent of the components are common to all three. Nevertheless, there are stringent specifications that are unique to the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, Vesely says.

Navy warplanes are particularly demanding because they operate from aircraft carrier decks. They employ different fuels, for example, and must comply with a host of safety regulations that would not apply to aircraft launched from land bases. Navy aircraft have heavier landing gear and the added weight diminishes their range.

They are built with special materials and components that can survive in a highly corrosive environment. Even the aerial refueling equipment and the electronic defensive gear are different in Navy and Air Force jets, Vesely notes. The shipboard-unique features generally make Navy jets more expensive, he says. "The Air Force is not necessarily willing to pay for those additional requirements."

These issues inevitably would have sparked clashes between the services if both had continued to develop the so-called joint unmanned combat air system, or J-UCAS, which was cancelled in February.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency had managed the program since 1999, but it became clear that the services did not like that arrangement, Vesely says. "The services didn't want DARPA running the program." One major problem for the services was that DARPA focused on building J-UCAS prototypes without addressing long-term issues such as logistics support, maintenance, spare parts and training.

J-UCAS ended in February, shortly before Boeing was scheduled to unveil the latest J-UCAS test aircraft, known as the X-45C. The Defense Department directed the Navy to continue its own efforts to develop a carrier-based combat drone. The Air Force no longer is funding the J-UCAS program, and has yet to decide on the fate of the three X-45 prototypes that Boeing built. Service officials said they expect to apply some of the X-45 technology to an ongoing analysis of alternatives for the future development of a long-range bomber.

The design of the Navy UCAS will begin in fiscal year 2007, when the Navy is expected to budget funds for the project, says David M. Koopersmith, project manager at Boeing. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Mullen says he would like to see a Navy UCAS in operation before 2018.

Boeing is one of several companies that potentially will compete in this project. Northrop Grumman already has designed a naval combat drone, called the X-47.

Koopersmith says that company had developed the X-45C under the assumption that it would be part of a joint Air Force-Navy program.

As to whether a joint-service aircraft was a good idea in the first place, Koopersmith declines to offer an opinion. "I'm not sure anybody's hindsight is that great. I think what we found is that customers continue to evolve their requirements. We had to be responsive to their requirements."

The Navy has asked potential contractors to begin designing an aircraft that could be tested aboard a carrier by 2011.

Koopersmith says he cannot disclose the expected price tag of the Navy UCAS, but says the cost ultimately will depend on the features and performance requirements. "It's like buying a car," he adds. "There is a huge range of costs depending on the capability you are looking for."

--SANDRA I. ERWIN