Register here

Author Topic: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program  (Read 127920 times)

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1272
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #555 on: August 12, 2017, 05:47:33 pm »
Guy Norris‏ @AvWeekGuy  1h1 hour ago First images of @northropgrumman X-47B flying testbed for @USNavy MQ-25A Stingray unmanned air tanker bid https://tinyurl.com/y9kgvhr7
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 05:35:01 am by flateric »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Ian33

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #556 on: August 13, 2017, 03:56:37 am »
Northrop Grumman, hat doffed.

I hope you win, just for sheer perseverance and dogged determination in the face of overwhelming political and naval stupidity.
Resident know nothing and Dale Brown reader... Feel free to help me graduate from crayons!

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9159
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #557 on: August 13, 2017, 08:44:07 am »
Northrop Grumman, hat doffed.

I hope you win, just for sheer perseverance and dogged determination in the face of overwhelming political and naval stupidity.

x2.  But it makes way too much sense.  Much better to toss all that work into the dumpster and start over.  :P  I REALLY hope NG wins it though.  Consider, it's likely got much more payload and fuel capacity than any GA Avenger variant.  It's ALREADY shown it can take off and land on a carrier.  AND it's already performed aerial refueling as I recall.  This should be NG's hands down.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 08:46:22 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #558 on: August 13, 2017, 08:57:23 am »
That with the right marketing should really appeal to the current administration.  It's good business.  What they need to do is fly it and have a dry hook-up with an F-18.  Would make for a great photo op.  Has the fuel off-load at a specific radius been published for CBARS? 

Offline Ian33

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #559 on: August 13, 2017, 10:32:05 am »
Northrop Grumman, hat doffed.

I hope you win, just for sheer perseverance and dogged determination in the face of overwhelming political and naval stupidity.

x2.  But it makes way too much sense.  Much better to toss all that work into the dumpster and start over.  :P  I REALLY hope NG wins it though.  Consider, it's likely got much more payload and fuel capacity than any GA Avenger variant.  It's ALREADY shown it can take off and land on a carrier.  AND it's already performed aerial refueling as I recall.  This should be NG's hands down.

And when  the Navy go "OH NO!!! WE NEED LOW OBSERVABLE STRIKE! !! HELP!!"  NG can just drop the gas tanks and laugh as they trolled the Navy hard.
Resident know nothing and Dale Brown reader... Feel free to help me graduate from crayons!

Offline Mat Parry

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 335
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #560 on: August 13, 2017, 11:31:52 am »
And when  the Navy go "OH NO!!! WE NEED LOW OBSERVABLE STRIKE! !! HELP!!"  NG can just drop the gas tanks and laugh as they trolled the Navy hard.

The X-47b is not stealthy even after dropping hose refuelling pods. It is simply a demonstrator that is representative of a stealthy shape. If NG won the contract and applied the low observable treatments, antennae etc. when the requirements did not dictate it, then their profit margins would be reduced considerably.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9159
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #561 on: August 13, 2017, 12:06:32 pm »
And when  the Navy go "OH NO!!! WE NEED LOW OBSERVABLE STRIKE! !! HELP!!"  NG can just drop the gas tanks and laugh as they trolled the Navy hard.

The X-47b is not stealthy even after dropping hose refuelling pods. It is simply a demonstrator that is representative of a stealthy shape. If NG won the contract and applied the low observable treatments, antennae etc. when the requirements did not dictate it, then their profit margins would be reduced considerably.

And it would still be cheaper than starting over with a completely new design, and get to the fleet sooner.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Mat Parry

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 335
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #562 on: August 13, 2017, 12:18:53 pm »
And it would still be cheaper than starting over with a completely new design, and get to the fleet sooner.

Agree, I'm a huge fan of what Northrop achieved with the X-47b but let's not pretend a tanker version will also be low observable platform under the Navy's current requirements

Offline Ian33

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #563 on: August 13, 2017, 12:45:46 pm »
And it would still be cheaper than starting over with a completely new design, and get to the fleet sooner.

Agree, I'm a huge fan of what Northrop achieved with the X-47b but let's not pretend a tanker version will also be low observable platform under the Navy's current requirements

So the shape,  engine, all the same? Just systems and skins updated for the later strike models.  Sounds like a perfectly reasonable development path. Like a F35 of the drone world. 
Resident know nothing and Dale Brown reader... Feel free to help me graduate from crayons!

Offline Mat Parry

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 335
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #564 on: August 13, 2017, 01:03:15 pm »
So the shape,  engine, all the same? Just systems and skins updated for the later strike models.  Sounds like a perfectly reasonable development path. Like a F35 of the drone world. 

Adopting a platform that is designed with a development path towards increased levels of low observable characteristics is an eminently sensible idea if it can be done cost effectively (if that happens remains to be seen). So in the short term "just drop the gas tanks"... Erm no.

I actually think we're generally in agreement here and we've wasted enough electrons on this debate.

Offline TomcatViP

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Hellcat
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #565 on: August 13, 2017, 01:29:10 pm »
Still, I am a little bit surprised that Northrop didn't include any added ctrl surface to mitigate the frustrated expectation expressed by the Navy when they stated that the wing body design was more suited for a carrier aircraft. Unless they have a trump card, obviously.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1272
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #566 on: August 13, 2017, 01:39:18 pm »
There is no guarantee that Northrop's final submission looks exactly like the X-47B prototypes. They may be using the prototypes they have to de-risk certain areas of their proposal.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9159
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #567 on: August 13, 2017, 01:42:54 pm »
Still, I am a little bit surprised that Northrop didn't include any added ctrl surface to mitigate the frustrated expectation expressed by the Navy when they stated that the wing body design was more suited for a carrier aircraft. Unless they have a trump card, obviously.

The Skyray didn't seem to have any problems, and was one of the better naval aircraft of its time.  Sounds more like the USN getting twitchy over the unfamiliar.  (And yes, yes, safety comes first when it comes to carrier aircraft, but if the USN never got out of its comfort zone they'd still be flying tail-draggers.)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 01:44:38 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomcatViP

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Hellcat
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #568 on: August 13, 2017, 01:49:23 pm »
The Skyray had a vertical tail... with a rudder. Much less draggy than two massive split flaps during a carrier landing.


« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 01:54:04 pm by TomcatViP »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9159
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #569 on: August 13, 2017, 02:18:25 pm »
And the X-47 has much more power, lower wing-loading, and computer control.  I'd also argue that the X-47 has lower drag (for its size) to start with anyway.  Looks like it's flying at a lower AOA too.  I don't think having "too much drag" is a factor.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 02:23:21 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.