US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program

PaulMM (Overscan) said:
So bring back the S-3 delete all ASW gear and replace with more fuel. Job done.
Click to expand...

Except they're going to need an ASW aircraft down the road as well. UAVs lend themselves to the flying gas station role better than they do the ASW role IMO. Pull the Vikings out of storage, sure, but use them for what they were designed for.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
So bring back the S-3 delete all ASW gear and replace with more fuel. Job done.
Click to expand...

Sortie Generation Capacity of Embarked Air Wings
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA359178
 
Using a UAV for ASW would make lots of sense actually. There is very little in an ASW aircraft that demand eyesn in the cockpit, especially you adopt the LAMPS model, where sensor processing is largely done offboard anyway. Radar, FLIR, ESM and sonobouys would be easy to do from a UAV. MAD could be harder but the USN is largely deprecating it anyway. Add a couple of torpedoes with glide standoff kits and you've got most of an S-3's capability with no people on board and potentially much more endurance.
 
TomS said:
Using a UAV for ASW would make lots of sense actually. There is very little in an ASW aircraft that demand eyesn in the cockpit, especially you adopt the LAMPS model, where sensor processing is largely done offboard anyway. Radar, FLIR, ESM and sonobouys would be easy to do from a UAV. MAD could be harder but the USN is largely deprecating it anyway. Add a couple of torpedoes with glide standoff kits and you've got most of an S-3's capability with no people on board and potentially much more endurance.
Click to expand...

That's why in another thread I mention ASW (and COD) as potential future missions. If one's ONLY option is to drag the S-3s out of DM then it should be for ASW duties (as we'll need them and that's what it was designed for). If we're going with a clean-sheet then tanker, ASW, COD. (With LM's HWB configuration. ;) )
 
Strike capabilities, the sources all said, would be put off to a future version of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

If the US Navy really wants a possible strike derivative of the tanker UCLASS/CBARS, it's hard to see how it could be stealthy.
 
quellish said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
So bring back the S-3 delete all ASW gear and replace with more fuel. Job done.
Click to expand...

Sortie Generation Capacity of Embarked Air Wings
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA359178
Click to expand...

Looks like an unmanned tanker that can loiter 25k feet above the pacific would be welcome. I hope/think NAVAIR wants a stealthy solution but has to "open it up" to put cost pressure on those companies able to provide it. What good is a brand new un-manned tanker if your enemy leaches through and destroys your gas station. Now you've got a bunch of pilots and a couple billion dollars worth of strike package looking for a place to ditch. It's not like we can rebuild these planes in a month. Doesn't add up to me. It's just not worth the risk.

I hope NAVAIR doesn't screw this up by writing the RFP incorrectly.
 
marauder2048 said:
GAO report on UCLASS/CBARS

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-389R

Some highlights:

* RFP out early FY2017
* Award early FY2018
* CBARS to fleet by mid-2020's.
Click to expand...

Pretty aggressive. Must be ready to go like B-21 - COTS gear in new airframe that's probably already designed. Three billion budgeted for EMD which, if they are taking notes from the AF could be double what's projected by industry. It will be interesting to hear what they expect program cost to be.

I'll be surprised if they get the RFP out by early 2017 though. They just now decided they want CBARS first - unless they've just said "screw it, let's just focus on getting CBARS done and the hell with everything else."

Can you run a stealthy shaped F-14 sized unmanned tanker through EMD for less than a billion dollars? I know NAVIAR has said they're not focused on stealth - I'm just wondering if a stealth shaped design has any chance to compete.

Big push on multiple system for IoC 2025. Wonder if there is something to that.
 
"Navy Plans MQ-XX Stingray With Only ISR, Tanking Capability; Marines Testing MQ-8C Fire Scout On Amphibs"
By: Megan Eckstein
April 20, 2016 5:45 PM

CAPITOL HILL – The Navy is sticking to its plans to field an unmanned MQ-XX Stingray platform with just tanking and surveillance capabilities to start with, while the Marine Corps is experimenting with the MQ-8C Fire Scout to help inform its path forward for amphibious assault ship-based unmanned aviation, officials said Wednesday.

Despite the House Armed Services Committee making clear in its version of the Fiscal Year 2017 defense bill that lawmakers want long-range strike included as a capability – a HASC staffer said the committee is in the “encouraging phase” and will not this year force the Navy’s hand by withholding money – the Navy is not interested in starting out with strike as a primary mission.

Director of Air Warfare (OPNAV N98) Rear Adm. Mike Manazir said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the MQ-XX, formerly known as the Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System, would only include tanking and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) as primary missions.

Manazir said “the United States Navy has been anxious to get an unmanned capability onto our CVNs for quite a while. Back in 2009 actually, (then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary) Roughead pounded a table in a secure space and said ‘I want unmanned on a carrier by 2018.’ And that started a series of conversations in the Pentagon about unmanned capability on the aircraft carrier.”

With the need and the momentum to get an unmanned system fielded quickly, the Navy will only consider non-developmental ISR systems, Manazir said, and will only include ISR and tanking missions at first because “we can accommodate those two missions on an unmanned system coming off the aircraft carrier more rapidly.”

Manazir said the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator (UCAS-D) proved that an unmanned aircraft could take off from and land on a carrier and refuel in the air.

“We got everything out of that platform that we need, now what we’ve got to do is show we can use a platform to do two basic meat-and-potato missions on the aircraft carrier using the MQ-XX,” he told the senators.
“And that will also provide a platform for us to go forward and do additional more advanced capabilities in the future,” he said, which could include long-range strike eventually.

Asked if the Marine Corps was also interested in the MQ-XX program, Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis told the committee that “we have tremendous interest,” but the Marines would likely need a different design than the Navy. The Marines would operate their unmanned ISR platform from a big-deck amphibious ship, which has a shorter runway than an aircraft carrier and does not have the carrier’s sophisticated launch and recovery system....
Click to expand...

Source:
https://news.usni.org/2016/04/20/navy-plans-mq-xx-stingray-with-only-isr-tanking-capability-marines-testing-mq-8c-fire-scout-on-amphibs
 
Any thoughts to changing this thread name to MQ-XX Stingray or perhaps starting a new thread?
 
The Fiscal Year 2017 President's Budget requests $89.0 million in RDT&E,N for MQ-XX developmental activities.

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Grosklags-Davis-Manazir_04-20-16.pdf
 
Navy reveals follow-on increments for unmanned tanker program


May 03, 2016

The Navy recently revealed that the future unmanned tanker that will operate from an aircraft carrier will have follow-on increments to include precision weapons targeting, a radar and will be able to receive aerial refueling.

The unmanned tanker program is dubbed MQ-XX and evolved from the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike effort. It will enhance the carrier airwing by providing an organic tanking capability, persistent sea-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and maritime domain awareness, according to an April 28 Navy industry day presentation posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website.

"MQ-XX will evolve over time and will enable future unmanned and optionally manned programs well into the future," the presentation slides read.

In the House Armed Services Committee's mark of the fiscal year 2017 defense policy bill, lawmakers note MQ-XX will have a "positive impact" on the overall carrier airwing. The committee approved the bill on April 28.

"The committee is concerned that while the follow on program continues to leverage the UCLASS [initial capabilities document] as its requirements justification and seems to have clear justification for the need for this platform to possess a precision strike capability, the final Request for Proposals that goes to industry may not include this as a required capability" according to the report accompanying the bill. "The committee believes that, should this be the case, the Navy may be excluding a critical capability and precluding future growth in a platform that will likely be integrated into the carrier air wing for the next 30 years."

According to the report, the committee urges the Navy secretary to ensure that precision strike is a requirement for MQ-XX. House authorizers require the comptroller general to submit a report to the defense committees by March 2017 concerning the Navy's carrier-based unmanned acquisition program.

Inside the Navy reported in March the Navy intends to finalize the requirements for MQ-XX this month and will announce an acquisition strategy this summer.

Vice Adm. Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources, said March 10 during a conference hosted by McAleese and Associates in Washington, the service's Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike program is "dead" and the service intends to use the $300 million set aside for the previous effort for MQ-XX.

"In early April we're trying to get what's called a Gate 4/5 review," he said. "Since we've done so much work on this program we want to define . . . what are the requirements."

Mulloy said the service has "descoped" the stealth requirements and may expand on the fuel range requirement for MQ-XX compared to the UCLASS program.

The service set aside $89 million for MQ-XX in the fiscal year 2017 budget request and $2.2 billion across the future years defense plan, according to the Navy's FY-17 budget justification documents.
 
Hey Mulloy,

Seems pretty goofy the Navy "descoping" the stealth requirement from the MQ-XX. Gonna look pretty foolish if a bunch of F-18's and F-35's fly out, top off, run a mission, and their tankers get shot down while waiting for the fighters to come back. All those shiny new $100M jets splashing doesn't seem like a great idea. Remember how long it takes to get new ones?

How about not "descoping" the stealth requirement. Perhaps all that time on SSN's has de-sensitized you to "range anxiety" but the rest of us need fuel on a regular basis. We want our guys to be confident their gas station will be there.

But - perhaps I've got this wrong and it isn't the "no-brainer" that it seems to be to me.
 
NeilChapman said:
Hey Mulloy,

Seems pretty goofy the Navy "descoping" the stealth requirement from the MQ-XX. Gonna look pretty foolish if a bunch of F-18's and F-35's fly out, top off, run a mission, and their tankers get shot down while waiting for the fighters to come back. All those shiny new $100M jets splashing doesn't seem like a great idea. Remember how long it takes to get new ones?

How about not "descoping" the stealth requirement. Perhaps all that time on SSN's has de-sensitized you to "range anxiety" but the rest of us need fuel on a regular basis. We want our guys to be confident their gas station will be there.

But - perhaps I've got this wrong and it isn't the "no-brainer" that it seems to be to me.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge tankers stay behind the lines (out of the combat zone) so they should still be on station when the fighters return. But then again... -SP
 
Steve Pace said:
NeilChapman said:
Hey Mulloy,

Seems pretty goofy the Navy "descoping" the stealth requirement from the MQ-XX. Gonna look pretty foolish if a bunch of F-18's and F-35's fly out, top off, run a mission, and their tankers get shot down while waiting for the fighters to come back. All those shiny new $100M jets splashing doesn't seem like a great idea. Remember how long it takes to get new ones?

How about not "descoping" the stealth requirement. Perhaps all that time on SSN's has de-sensitized you to "range anxiety" but the rest of us need fuel on a regular basis. We want our guys to be confident their gas station will be there.

But - perhaps I've got this wrong and it isn't the "no-brainer" that it seems to be to me.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge tankers stay behind the lines (out of the combat zone) so they should still be on station when the fighters return. But then again... -SP
Click to expand...

KC135's and KC10's certainly do. I'm not so sure how SuperHornets are loitered as tankers. But they have defensive capabilities. The MQ-XX is certainly not going to be behind the carriers.

The MQ-XX is going to have a significant loiter time and fuel load. Perhaps the question is how close can they get to the combat zone and enable the mission, whatever the mission is. As a platform with limited defenses, stealth makes sense to me. Loading it up with defensive weapons takes away capacity for tanking, ISR and whatever else you find for it to do.

But - I don't know how much "unmanned" stealth costs. Perhaps it's prohibitively expensive.
 
Odd that gov't also requested a "precision strike capability"????

Sounds like a completely separate mission to me.

Sounds like the original concept was to replace E2 Hawkeyes loitering over the fleet and add an inflight refuelling mission with a similar orbit. .... Sort of like hanging refuelling gear under an E2 or C2 Greyhound. E2 and C2 share the same wings and engines and would be far more cost-effective for refuelling than F-18s.

Flying F-18 as tankers has got to be the most expensive way to do the job!!!!!

OTOH "precision strike" is a vastly different mission. Maybe some politician added the "ps" mission as a "bs" way to kill the project.
 
NeilChapman said:
I'm not so sure how SuperHornets are loitered as tankers. But they have defensive capabilities. The MQ-XX is certainly not going to be behind the carriers.
Click to expand...

It's unclear if the Navy is emphasizing recovery tanking or mission tanking but as a mission tanker I would tend to think that MQ-XX/RAQ-25/CBARS would
hang around in the Growler (which carries A2A missiles) stand-off orbit. It would also be a very good candidate for MSDM
 
Aircraft Carrier Gets UAS Command Centre

Carl Vinson preparing for MQ-XX

http://www.uasvision.com/2016/04/26/aircraft-carrier-gets-uas-command-centre/#more-42820
 
Navy releases unmanned tanker request for proposals to industry July 14, 2016 | Lee Hudson


The Navy recently released the long awaited request for proposals for the unmanned tanker program to four potential offerors, according to a service spokeswoman.

On July 7, the Navy released an RFP for the MQ-25A air system concept refinement, according to Naval Air Systems Command spokeswoman Jamie Cosgrove. The RFP was not released publicly and posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website. MQ-25A is the new designation for the restructured Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike program.

The RFP was sent to Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, Cosgrove wrote in a July 13 email to Inside Defense. The four vendors participated in the preliminary design review for UCLASS.

Vice Adm. Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources, announced March 10 during a conference hosted by McAleese and Associates in Washington that the service's UCLASS program is "dead" and that the Navy intends to use the $300 million set aside in the budget for the MQ-25A.

Mulloy said the Navy "descoped" the program's stealth requirements and may expand on the fuel range requirement for the MQ-25A compared to the UCLASS program.

The service allocated $89 million for the MQ-25A in the fiscal year 2017 budget request and $2.2 billion across the future years defense plan, according to the Navy's budget justification documents.

On June 30, the Pentagon proposed cutting $30 million from the MQ-25A due to "under execution," according to the FY-16 omnibus reprogramming request obtained by Inside Defense.

The surplus funding results from delaying a request for proposals release and an award of the base-year contract, according to the reprogramming request. Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord signed the document June 30 and the request will be granted only if none of the congressional defense committees denies it.

"As reflected in the FY 2017 President's Budget request, the [Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike] program was significantly restructured, which has contributed to contracting delays," the document reads. "This is a congressional special interest item. This is base budget funding."

Inside the Navy previously reported MQ-25A will have follow-on increments including precision-weapons targeting, a radar and will be able to receive aerial refueling.

MQ-25A evolved from the UCLASS effort. It will enhance the carrier airwing by providing an organic tanking capability, persistent sea-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and maritime domain awareness, according to an April 28 Navy industry day presentation posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website.

"MQ-XX will evolve over time and will enable future unmanned and optionally manned programs well into the future," the presentation slides read.
 
One wonders if they're going to follow the FireScout model, where the MQ-8C is a totally different airframe with much more capability than the older models. Going from an MQ-25A non-stealthy tanker to a possible MQ-25B non-stealthy missile truck based on the same basic airframe and then transitioning to a very different MQ-25C with a new airframe for stealth and penetrating strike might help mitigate some system risk. The A abnd B are relatively simple development tasks and by the time you get to the much harder stealthy version, you've at least sorted out most of the command and control issues and the factors of how to handle a UCAV mixed in with manned aircraft around the boat in an operational environment.
 
TomS said:
One wonders if they're going to follow the FireScout model, where the MQ-8C is a totally different airframe with much more capability than the older models. Going from an MQ-25 non-stealthy tanker to a possible MQ-25B non-stealthy missile truck based on the same basic airframe and then transitioning to a very different MQ-25C with a new airframe for stealth and penetrating strike might help mitigate some system risk. The A abnd B are relatively simple development tasks and by the time you get to the much harder stealthy version, you've at least sorted out most of the command and control issues and the factors of how to handle a UCAV mixed in with manned aircraft around the boat in an operational environment.
Click to expand...

My concern would be that the program is vulnerable to defeat in detail by a congress that says:

1. We're already funding CMV-22 which can refuel fast jets and can operate from non-CATOBAR vessels
2. We're already funding TERN which provides surveillance and light strike and can operate from non-CATOBAR vessels

IMHO, the Navy could make a much stronger case for filling the non-permissive strike gap between the F-35C and B-2/B-21.
 
TomS said:
One wonders if they're going to follow the FireScout model, where the MQ-8C is a totally different airframe with much more capability than the older models. Going from an MQ-25A non-stealthy tanker to a possible MQ-25B non-stealthy missile truck based on the same basic airframe and then transitioning to a very different MQ-25C with a new airframe for stealth and penetrating strike might help mitigate some system risk. The A abnd B are relatively simple development tasks and by the time you get to the much harder stealthy version, you've at least sorted out most of the command and control issues and the factors of how to handle a UCAV mixed in with manned aircraft around the boat in an operational environment.
Click to expand...
The one caution I have when using MQ-8a/b/c for comparison is that the Fire Scout program was able to switch airframes relatively easily because they were using COTS aircraft. The MQ-25 program likely won't have that luxury. I think that, if penetrating/non-permissive environment strike is on the plan down the road, they'll design an airframe which is suited from the outset to low-observability but isn't initially using the more costly materials and complex structures needed to get the RCS really low.
 
Moose said:
TomS said:
One wonders if they're going to follow the FireScout model, where the MQ-8C is a totally different airframe with much more capability than the older models. Going from an MQ-25A non-stealthy tanker to a possible MQ-25B non-stealthy missile truck based on the same basic airframe and then transitioning to a very different MQ-25C with a new airframe for stealth and penetrating strike might help mitigate some system risk. The A abnd B are relatively simple development tasks and by the time you get to the much harder stealthy version, you've at least sorted out most of the command and control issues and the factors of how to handle a UCAV mixed in with manned aircraft around the boat in an operational environment.
Click to expand...
The one caution I have when using MQ-8a/b/c for comparison is that the Fire Scout program was able to switch airframes relatively easily because they were using COTS aircraft. The MQ-25 program likely won't have that luxury. I think that, if penetrating/non-permissive environment strike is on the plan down the road, they'll design an airframe which is suited from the outset to low-observability but isn't initially using the more costly materials and complex structures needed to get the RCS really low.
Click to expand...

From your lips... It would be catastrophic if a strike mission is left "high and dry" and has to ditch because a long range aircraft snuck through and shot down the tankers. If it's 16 F-35C's that's ~1.6billion US plus the time it would take to replace them. They won't pumping them off the line like WWII.

Guess we'll have to wait until someone leaks expounds upon the requirements.
 
It’s Official: ‘MQ-25A Stingray’ U.S. Navy’s Name For First Carrier UAV

"After months of deliberation, the name and designation of the Navy’s first carrier unmanned aerial vehicle are now official: MQ-25A Stingray, service officials told USNI News this week.

Approved following a lengthy U.S. Air Force Material Command process for not only for the official “designation” (MQ-25A) but also the “popular name” (Stingray), the service can now have an official title for the unmanned aerial vehicle that’s had several labels since late last year. The word came to the Navy via a July 11 memo from the Air Force.

(Technically, as of Friday, the designation is ZMQ-25A until a contract is awarded for the airframe when the Stingray will shed the Z)."

https://news.usni.org/2016/07/15/official-mq-25a-stingray-title-navys-first-carrier-uav

Would be cool if it were based on this. It'd even sortof resemble a stingray.
 

Attachments

  • asdasd.jpg
    asdasd.jpg
    822.3 KB · Views: 875
Given budget constraints, they may have to just settle for what's available.
 

Attachments

  • Improved Avenger.jpg
    Improved Avenger.jpg
    35.3 KB · Views: 828
fredymac said:
Given budget constraints, they may have to just settle for what's available.
Click to expand...

Thing is the LM design up there isn't stealthy, so there's that savings, and they're already tunnel testing subscale models of it. It also looks like a prime candidate for automated fiber placement, which would bring costs down. Just my 2 cents. I'd think they'd want to get as much experience as possible with this configuration. Seems to me it would be an excellent C-5 follow on when scaled up.
 
sferrin said:
fredymac said:
Given budget constraints, they may have to just settle for what's available.
Click to expand...

Thing is the LM design up there isn't stealthy, so there's that savings, and they're already tunnel testing subscale models of it. It also looks like a prime candidate for automated fiber placement, which would bring costs down. Just my 2 cents. I'd think they'd want to get as much experience as possible with this configuration. Seems to me it would be an excellent C-5 follow on when scaled up.
Click to expand...

It would be quite a sight but I'm wondering if they can really retain those large fuel tanks outboard of the wing fold.
 

Attachments

  • hwb-tanker.png
    hwb-tanker.png
    265.4 KB · Views: 806
With it's BWB design it should have a lot more volume in the fuselage for fuel. Given that any likely UAV would need a folding wing they'd all need to deal with a wet folding wing or find a way to carry enough fuel without one.
 
I was trying to think of examples of carrier borne aircraft with outer wing fuel tanks but am coming up empty - does anyone know?
I suspect that as the airplanes get smaller in scale, it becomes more and more difficult to justify the penalty of having to pass fuel through a hinge - the available volume gets pretty small with short chords and spans.
 
AeroFranz said:
I was trying to think of examples of carrier borne aircraft with outer wing fuel tanks but am coming up empty - does anyone know?
Click to expand...

DH Sea Venom, DH Sea Vixen, Supermarine Scimitar, F-9F Panther.
Nothing too recent.

F-14 had wing fuel tanks too, but its wings were not foldable.

Seems there were talks about adding outboard wing fuel tanks on the E-2D too:
The E-2D also has a "open architecture" to permit relatively easy upgrades of hardware. There is interest in adding a midair refueling capability and fuel tank outboard of the wing fold to increase endurance
Click to expand...

From http://www.airvectors.net/ave2c.html

Regards.
 
CiTrus90 said:
Seems there were talks about adding outboard wing fuel tanks on the E-2D too:
The E-2D also has a "open architecture" to permit relatively easy upgrades of hardware. There is interest in adding a midair refueling capability and fuel tank outboard of the wing fold to increase endurance
Click to expand...

From http://www.airvectors.net/ave2c.html
2
Regards.
Click to expand...

And the outboard fuel tanks proposal may only have been for the notional land-based configurations of E-2.
 
https://news.usni.org/2016/08/18/navy-industry-design-sweet-mq-25a-stingray-missions
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom