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

US Navy steps away from stealth for MQ-25

A stealth and tanking mission will not go hand in hand for the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray, according to the commander of Naval Air Forces.

Shoemaker’s comments further cement Stingray’s role as the Navy’s future carrier-based aerial refueling (CBARS) UAV, which the service originally scoped as an unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) aircraft. Although the Navy has not prioritised stealth in its latest vision for CBARS, industry has approached the service with existing designs that could lend some elevated survivability performance, Shoemaker said.

“Even though we’ve said survivability is not a key performance parameter this time, I think there’s ways to take advantage of some of the shapes already out there,” he said.
Click to expand...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-steps-away-from-stealth-for-mq-25-428664/

Stealth unnecessary for MQ-25

http://www.janes.com/article/63086/stealth-unnecessary-for-mq-25
 
Flyaway said:
US Navy steps away from stealth for MQ-25

A stealth and tanking mission will not go hand in hand for the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray, according to the commander of Naval Air Forces.

Shoemaker’s comments further cement Stingray’s role as the Navy’s future carrier-based aerial refueling (CBARS) UAV, which the service originally scoped as an unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) aircraft. Although the Navy has not prioritised stealth in its latest vision for CBARS, industry has approached the service with existing designs that could lend some elevated survivability performance, Shoemaker said.

“Even though we’ve said survivability is not a key performance parameter this time, I think there’s ways to take advantage of some of the shapes already out there,” he said.
Click to expand...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-steps-away-from-stealth-for-mq-25-428664/

Stealth unnecessary for MQ-25

http://www.janes.com/article/63086/stealth-unnecessary-for-mq-25
Click to expand...


Shoemaker does say...

“Even though we’ve said survivability is not a key performance parameter this time, I think there’s ways to take advantage of some of the shapes already out there,” he said.
 
RFI: NAVAIR (PMA-268) MQ-25 Electro-Optical/Infrared subsystem
 

Attachments

  • RFI_-_EO-IR_(Final).pdf
    197.8 KB · Views: 52
NeilChapman said:
Flyaway said:
US Navy steps away from stealth for MQ-25

A stealth and tanking mission will not go hand in hand for the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray, according to the commander of Naval Air Forces.

Shoemaker’s comments further cement Stingray’s role as the Navy’s future carrier-based aerial refueling (CBARS) UAV, which the service originally scoped as an unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) aircraft. Although the Navy has not prioritised stealth in its latest vision for CBARS, industry has approached the service with existing designs that could lend some elevated survivability performance, Shoemaker said.

“Even though we’ve said survivability is not a key performance parameter this time, I think there’s ways to take advantage of some of the shapes already out there,” he said.
Click to expand...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-steps-away-from-stealth-for-mq-25-428664/

Stealth unnecessary for MQ-25

http://www.janes.com/article/63086/stealth-unnecessary-for-mq-25
Click to expand...


Shoemaker does say...

“Even though we’ve said survivability is not a key performance parameter this time, I think there’s ways to take advantage of some of the shapes already out there,” he said.
Click to expand...

Isn't a flying wing workable in both roles?
 
Could this platform be replacement for S-3 which did multiple missions,refuel, asw, asuw,and strike land.by design multiple slide/in, plug and play packages making a true work horse like the S-3 viking.This would adress alot of problems in the future threats.
 
bring_it_on said:
RFI: NAVAIR (PMA-268) MQ-25 Electro-Optical/Infrared subsystem
Click to expand...

L-3 Wescam is probably bidding on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtYaejwd1Y0
 
Flyaway said:
NeilChapman said:
Flyaway said:
US Navy steps away from stealth for MQ-25

A stealth and tanking mission will not go hand in hand for the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray, according to the commander of Naval Air Forces.

Shoemaker’s comments further cement Stingray’s role as the Navy’s future carrier-based aerial refueling (CBARS) UAV, which the service originally scoped as an unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) aircraft. Although the Navy has not prioritised stealth in its latest vision for CBARS, industry has approached the service with existing designs that could lend some elevated survivability performance, Shoemaker said.

“Even though we’ve said survivability is not a key performance parameter this time, I think there’s ways to take advantage of some of the shapes already out there,” he said.
Click to expand...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-steps-away-from-stealth-for-mq-25-428664/

Stealth unnecessary for MQ-25

http://www.janes.com/article/63086/stealth-unnecessary-for-mq-25
Click to expand...


Shoemaker does say...

“Even though we’ve said survivability is not a key performance parameter this time, I think there’s ways to take advantage of some of the shapes already out there,” he said.
Click to expand...

Isn't a flying wing workable in both roles?
Click to expand...


Perhaps - lots of volume. Don't know what it would take to launch a fat wing from a flight deck but B-2 seems to have lots of lift. Since the tanker won't always be flying 'toward the radar' I don't know if the correct shape is a flying wing, especially when you include Naval space limitations.

The Navy really seems a pain in the a** to work with. Love to see some analysis as to why this is. Maybe they've actually learned something from the AF Rapid Capabilities Office. I like the plan for Flight III DDG's. Taking out the stealth "requirement" probably shortens the development time considerably. We'll have to see what the vendors put forth.
 
NeilChapman said:
Perhaps - lots of volume. Don't know what it would take to launch a fat wing from a flight deck but B-2 seems to have lots of lift.
Click to expand...

The X-47B seemed to work just fine.

NeilChapman said:
I like the plan for Flight III DDG's.
Click to expand...

That design bugs me. If they'd had it from the start (in other words if the Flight IIAs had been like the Flight IIIs) that would be one thing. Using a Flight III to replace the Zumwalt and Ticonderoga replacements seems like shooting yourself in the head though. There are already rumblings that the Flight III will be inadequate to replace the Ticos as-is, let alone when you factor in all the additional requirements down the road (railguns, DEWs, more powerful radars, bigger ABMs, etc.). They already have the perfect hull (Zumwalt) and spending just as much money on an inferior design.


NeilChapman said:
Taking out the stealth "requirement" probably shortens the development time considerably. We'll have to see what the vendors put forth.
Click to expand...

They need a Tanker/ASW workhorse more than a stealthy attack aircraft. A tanker/recon combo makes no sense.
 

Attachments

  • 1404201164001303727.jpg
    1404201164001303727.jpg
    80.1 KB · Views: 454
sferrin said:
They need a Tanker/ASW workhorse more than a stealthy attack aircraft. A tanker/recon combo makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, they already have a stealthy attack aircraft in the F-35C.
 
sferrin said:
NeilChapman said:
Perhaps - lots of volume. Don't know what it would take to launch a fat wing from a flight deck but B-2 seems to have lots of lift.
Click to expand...

The X-47B seemed to work just fine.
Click to expand...

Yep - I expect the MQ-25 will be a bit bigger - but I'm sure you're right.

NeilChapman said:
sferrin said:
I like the plan for Flight III DDG's.
Click to expand...

That design bugs me. If they'd had it from the start (in other words if the Flight IIAs had been like the Flight IIIs) that would be one thing. Using a Flight III to replace the Zumwalt and Ticonderoga replacements seems like shooting yourself in the head though. There are already rumblings that the Flight III will be inadequate to replace the Ticos as-is, let alone when you factor in all the additional requirements down the road (railguns, DEWs, more powerful radars, bigger ABMs, etc.). They already have the perfect hull (Zumwalt) and spending just as much money on an inferior design.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that "spending just as much" is exactly the case. Zumwalt is ~US$4Billion (2015 excluding R&D) and Flight III DDG's are ~US$2Billion (2015 estimated).

My point was that the Navy seems has learned some things from the AFRCO. The Flight III program needed more cooling - they're able to grab an AC unit w/the same footprint but with 300T of cooling from the San Antonio-class amphibs. They were able to get the 4MW generator from the Zumwalt - again w/the same footprint as the existing 3MW generator on the IIA ships. They're pulling the 4160v switch gear from the America-class LHA. This is pulling existing tech to float a more capable ship as quickly as possible. This is what I like about the Flight III DDG's. What I don't like about the Flight III's is that the SPY6 implementation seems too aggressive. I don't think the AFRCO would have signed off on this low a level of technical maturity. It's just too risky.


NeilChapman said:
sferrin said:
Taking out the stealth "requirement" probably shortens the development time considerably. We'll have to see what the vendors put forth.
Click to expand...

They need a Tanker/ASW workhorse more than a stealthy attack aircraft. A tanker/recon combo makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting a stealthy attack aircraft. In the world of 'sensor fusion' why would you not make everything a network node? Whether it's an extension for the E-2 APY-9 or something else it makes sense to have a long-loiter tanker participating in both defensive and offensive CSG operations simultaneously.
 
I think we need to stop being terrified of risk. Also, how much cheaper would the Zumwalts been if bought in quantity? The cost would have come down and the path we've chose will certainly be more expensive before it's all over.
 
sferrin said:
I think we need to stop being terrified of risk. Also, how much cheaper would the Zumwalts been if bought in quantity? The cost would have come down and the path we've chose will certainly be more expensive before it's all over.
Click to expand...

While I absolutely agree with your position, I have to say I think it unobtainium. The mass that is the bureaucratic leviathan of the DoD and its processes will tolerate no risk. Risk is antithetical to a bureaucrat who craves status quo. Even with the full weight of effort of all fighter flying services with the full weight of their senior staff, we have a fighter that took decades. I could see a counter argument that because this is a UAS (the panacea of all problems) the same bureaucrats would not risk their tenured position by opposing it.

Sorry for the rant. I have lived in the belly of the beast.
 
NeilChapman said:
I wasn't suggesting a stealthy attack aircraft. In the world of 'sensor fusion' why would you not make everything a network node? Whether it's an extension for the E-2 APY-9 or something else it makes sense to have a long-loiter tanker participating in both defensive and offensive CSG operations simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Which then opens up the question: why a CATOBAR asset at all?
Assuming you aren't bumping into manning constraints, a CMV-22B with VARS might actually give you more flexibility than a CATOBAR CBARS.
You might also consider other CMV-22B variants as well: AEW&C, ASW, AuSW etc.
 
An MV-22 isn't going to have a lot of "give" as a tanker (4,000 lbs initially, maybe 10,000 later), and it's going to be too slow to fly along with jet fighters. It's suitable for recovery tanking F-35Bs and maybe helicopters but not the full range of carrier tanker missions.

The Navy seems to be talking about a much larger aircraft. At one point in 2013, the "give" for UCLASS (now CBARS) was pegged at 20,000 lbs in addition to a 7.5 hour mission endurance. And it sounds like performance is going to be much closer to strike package speeds than Osprey speeds. So that gives you the ability to fly along with a strike package, offload gas to the strikers before they ingress, and possibly orbit to provide ELINT/ISR support to the strike.
 
TomS said:
An MV-22 isn't going to have a lot of "give" as a tanker (4,000 lbs initially, maybe 10,000 later), and it's going to be too slow to fly along with jet fighters. It's suitable for recovery tanking F-35Bs and maybe helicopters but not the full range of carrier tanker missions.

The Navy seems to be talking about a much larger aircraft. At one point in 2013, the "give" for UCLASS (now CBARS) was pegged at 20,000 lbs in addition to a 7.5 hour mission endurance. And it sounds like performance is going to be much closer to strike package speeds than Osprey speeds. So that gives you the ability to fly along with a strike package, offload gas to the strikers before they ingress, and possibly orbit to provide ELINT/ISR support to the strike.
Click to expand...

All true but part of the justification for the downscoping from UCLASS was the urgent need for recovery tanking to reduce the burden on the Super Hornet fleet.
If the Navy hadn't gone with CMV-22B it would be a different story (although the KS-3 revival if the Navy had gone with S-3 for COD was intriguing).
 
yasotay said:
sferrin said:
I think we need to stop being terrified of risk. Also, how much cheaper would the Zumwalts been if bought in quantity? The cost would have come down and the path we've chose will certainly be more expensive before it's all over.
Click to expand...

While I absolutely agree with your position, I have to say I think it unobtainium. The mass that is the bureaucratic leviathan of the DoD and its processes will tolerate no risk. Risk is antithetical to a bureaucrat who craves status quo. Even with the full weight of effort of all fighter flying services with the full weight of their senior staff, we have a fighter that took decades. I could see a counter argument that because this is a UAS (the panacea of all problems) the same bureaucrats would not risk their tenured position by opposing it.

Sorry for the rant. I have lived in the belly of the beast.
Click to expand...

'Reducing risk' is expected to give us B-21 IoC within 10 years of contract award. There can be upside.
 
marauder2048 said:
All true but part of the justification for the downscoping from UCLASS was the urgent need for recovery tanking to reduce the burden on the Super Hornet fleet.
If the Navy hadn't gone with CMV-22B it would be a different story (although the KS-3 revival if the Navy had gone with S-3 for COD was intriguing).
Click to expand...


You're right, of course. They need to repurpose the airframes as quickly as possible.

I do expect a stealthy 'shape' though. Even if you have to go back and add/modify capabilities (sensors etc) in Block II etc. You've got to have something to work with.
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/navy-releases-mq-25-stingray-sensor-rfi-429225/
 
NeilChapman said:
'Reducing risk' is expected to give us B-21 IoC within 10 years of contract award. There can be upside.
Click to expand...

How sad is it that were calling 10 years an upside for a relatively simple design? The Blackbird went from A-1 to flying missions in less time (and had to develop its engine too).
 
So this is mainly about surface situational awareness -- AIS to track and identify commercial vessels, SIGINT to track and identify emitting non-commercial vessels (and to make sure the AIS emitters aren't fakes), and FLIR to discriminate non-emitters. No radar, though, so no tracking of non-emitting vessels. That might be the next phase, adding MTI radar to a dedicated surveillance version.
 
TomS said:
So this is mainly about surface situational awareness -- AIS to track and identify commercial vessels, SIGINT to track and identify emitting non-commercial vessels (and to make sure the AIS emitters aren't fakes), and FLIR to discriminate non-emitters. No radar, though, so no tracking of non-emitting vessels. That might be the next phase, adding MTI radar to a dedicated surveillance version.
Click to expand...
Utilizing a stealth jet to track commercial AIS signals seems to be waste of resources. Very permissive environments. Maybe the cost of the receiver is nominal but surely doesn't lead to a perception competence in the requirements developers.
 
CBARS isn't meant to be particularly stealthy.
 
Downselect? (from: DOD Contracts for Sept. 23, 2016)


Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Palmdale, California, is being awarded a $43,606,518 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to conduct risk reduction activities in support of the MQ-25 unmanned carrier aviation air system, including refinement of concepts and development of trade space for requirements generation in advance of the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program. Work will be performed in Palmdale, California (98 percent); and Fort Worth, Texas (2 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2017. Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $43,606,518 are being obligated at time of award; none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-16-C-0086).



The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded a $43,354,421 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to conduct risk reduction activities in support of the MQ-25 unmanned carrier aviation air system, including refinement of concepts and development of trade space for requirements generation in advance of the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (99 percent); and Puget Sound, Washington (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2017. Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $43,354,421 are being obligated at time of award; none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-16-C-0084).
 
marauder2048 said:
Downselect? (from: DOD Contracts for Sept. 23, 2016)


Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Palmdale, California, is being awarded a $43,606,518 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to conduct risk reduction activities in support of the MQ-25 unmanned carrier aviation air system, including refinement of concepts and development of trade space for requirements generation in advance of the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program. Work will be performed in Palmdale, California (98 percent); and Fort Worth, Texas (2 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2017. Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $43,606,518 are being obligated at time of award; none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-16-C-0086).



The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded a $43,354,421 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to conduct risk reduction activities in support of the MQ-25 unmanned carrier aviation air system, including refinement of concepts and development of trade space for requirements generation in advance of the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (99 percent); and Puget Sound, Washington (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2017. Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $43,354,421 are being obligated at time of award; none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-16-C-0084).
Click to expand...


Sounds like a "share the love" offering. NG got all the X-47B juju.
 
Weird considering how far NG got with the X-47B, seems like all that progress counted for nothing.
 
I'm willing to bet NG isn't that concerned about it now that they have the B-21 contract. Although, I'm a little surprised they didn't partner with someone as a result of their X-47B experience.
 
Someone was helping General Atomics with their RCS reduction techniques for Predator C (Avenger).

Was it NG?
 
Flyaway said:
Weird considering how far NG got with the X-47B, seems like all that progress counted for nothing.
Click to expand...

Par for the course anymore. Don't worry though. In 20 years we'll hear about a new "revolutionary" "drone" that can land on a carrier in some new program that has to figure it out all over again.
 
Flyaway said:
Weird considering how far NG got with the X-47B, seems like all that progress counted for nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm not reading it as NG has been excluded.

Phase 1 risk reduction from what we could see was drone on deck w/refueling (autonomous?) - Award given to NG to do this - Results are owned by DoD and can be shared w/other vendors

Phase 2 risk reduction - "including refinement of concepts and development of trade space for requirements generation in advance of the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program - Award given to LM and Boeing - Results will be owned by DoD and shared w/other vendors

These two phases are being performed so DoD can get a better handle on what they can get, how quickly and for what cost.
Phase 1 let them know that some tech was mature and probably left some questions or developed some new ones.
Phase 2 sounds like a follow-on to phase one (development of trade space). There may even be a phase 3 follow-on prior to contract award.

We know if the US throws enough money and time at a problem they can get a result. Hopefully that methodology is gone forever at DoD.
 
NeilChapman said:
We know if the US throws enough money and time at a problem they can get a result. Hopefully that methodology is gone forever at DoD.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is they throw too much time at things which ends up costing too much money. Time is money after all. I'm all for, "measure twice, cut once" but not "measure forty-seven times, cut once, then throw the board in the garbage".
 
sferrin said:
I think the problem is they throw too much time at things which ends up costing too much money. Time is money after all. I'm all for, "measure twice, cut once" but not "measure forty-seven times, cut once, then throw the board in the garbage".
Click to expand...

The other possibility is that UCAS-D demonstrated that the cost of meeting the UCAS/UAS ship suitability requirements (consider all of the CV segment supporting infrastructure and training costs) dominates air vehicle cost.

You can't skimp on the former so in order to meet your budget you have to reduce cost on the latter hence the descoping.

Another question is: just how much UCAS-D data was shared with the Lockheed and Boeing?
I don't recall hearing any complaints. On the contrary, Lockheed was arguing for more X-47B testing.
 

Attachments

  • ucas-ship-suitability.png
    ucas-ship-suitability.png
    442.1 KB · Views: 300
  • cv-segment-installation.png
    cv-segment-installation.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 292
Flight suggests that more risk reduction contracts are on the way:

"A four-way competition to build the US Navy's next carrier-based unmanned air system (UAS) expect to begin revising year-old,
preliminary designs that were submitted before the mission changed.

Lockheed Martin and Boeing each received $43 million risk reduction contracts on 23 September from the US Navy.

Two more bidders, Northrop Grumman and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, are waiting for their awards.

The new round of contracts pays the contractors to convert their preliminary designs, which were tuned to support the navy's
original requirement for a stealthy, carrier-launched surveillance and strike aircraft (UCLASS)."

continues..


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-and-boeing-score-contracts-for-unman-429762/
 
Could be as simple as funding two of the awards with FY16 money and two with FY17. If so, expect the other notices in a week or two.
 
So they (NG and GA) do get a chance at it. Of course, removing the LO spec's I think also gives General Atomics a better shot at the contract as well, in terms of experience. Hopefully, since LO isn't involved anymore, we'll get to see all four designs that end up being submitted.
 
General Atomics joins Boeing and LM in de-risking MQ-25 unmanned tanker

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc (GA-ASI) has been awarded a USD43.74 million contract to help the US Navy de-risk its MQ-25 Stingray Unmanned Carrier Aviation Air System (UCAAS).
Click to expand...

http://www.janes.com/article/64300/general-atomics-joins-boeing-and-lm-in-de-risking-mq-25-unmanned-tanker
 
And now NG (DOD Contracts Oct. 19, 2016)

Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., El Segundo, California, is being awarded a $35,752,362 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to conduct risk reduction activities in support of the MQ-25 Unmanned Carrier Aviation Air System, including refining concepts and developing trade space for requirements generation in advance of the engineering and manufacturing development phase. Work will be performed in Rancho Bernardo, California (50 percent); Space Park, California (30 percent); and Palmdale, California (20 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2017. Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation funds (Navy) in the amount of $35,752,362 are being obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland is the contracting activity (N00019-17-C-0017).
 
TomS said:
Could be as simple as funding two of the awards with FY16 money and two with FY17. If so, expect the other notices in a week or two.
Click to expand...


Good call TomS :) Was there supposed to be new program $ at the beginning of this FY for the downselect? If there were then the CR would have resulted in the new program funding not being passed. That would have resulted in last years funding levels for this program and perhaps forced the risk reduction awards.

---------

Any insights as to why the awards were different? 43M for LM, B & GA - 35.7M for NG.

I suspect that each company did not tell DoD how much they needed to perform the work. There's no way LM, B & GA would have come up with the same figure.

In the grand scheme of things this is not a great deal of money. 40M on a development project can disappear pretty quickly.

1. Is there an expected advantage for NG since they operated X-47B? So less $?
2. Do the awardees have to put up some % of matching dev dollars? I'm guessing not since DoD wants to own the tech.
3. Are they each given the same objective or specific tasks?
4. Is there a formula for arriving at these award figures?
5. Is there a particular group or groups that estimate the expected cost of the task or objective?

Any help in understanding these questions would be appreciated. Perhaps some previous awards of this type where these details were subsequently revealed would be helpful.
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/december/Pages/NavyPutsProcurementofCarrierDroneonFastTrack.aspx
 
NeilChapman said:
TomS said:
Could be as simple as funding two of the awards with FY16 money and two with FY17. If so, expect the other notices in a week or two.
Click to expand...


Good call TomS :) Was there supposed to be new program $ at the beginning of this FY for the downselect? If there were then the CR would have resulted in the new program funding not being passed. That would have resulted in last years funding levels for this program and perhaps forced the risk reduction awards.
Click to expand...

Just noticed this. In reading the NG award, it's FY16 money, not FY17. It's probably just a matter of when they were able to finalize the award paperwork.
 
The White Paper also recommends that the Navy accelerate the development and IOC of the MQ-25 carrier-based unmanned tanker to extend the tactical range of the current carrier airwing. On top of that, the SASC recommends that the Navy rapidly develop a carrier-based unmanned aircraft to perform penetrating strike missions well outside the range and endurance of manned aircraft. It would be natural and wise, in my opinion, if the MQ-25 tanker now under development could be designed to allow for natural evolution into a strike role.
Click to expand...

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-excellent-white-paper-smaller-carriers-high-low-weapons-mix-frigates-cheap-fighters/
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom