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

yasotay said:
sferrin said:
Mike OTDP said:
My big worry is the manning. They handed MQ-25 to the E-2 squadrons...which have no desire for it and therefore plan to recruit dedicated warrant officer operators for them. Meaning that no E-2 pilot or NFO will get "drone cooties" from touching the thing.

Not a way to build a community that will have any staying power. It stands in stark contrast to the MQ-4, which the VP community has embraced (or at least accepted).
Click to expand...
Why didn't they just make their own unit? Drones aren't going anywhere. You'd think they'd have figured that out by now.
Click to expand...
Because the USN does not want to move the necessary personnel slots for a new unit, which means they would have to take manpower of those ranks, recode and train them. Recall that you are looking for progressive process in one of the most tradition bound conservative organizations (the U.S. Armed Services) on the planet.
Click to expand...
Except they are forming squadrons for them, VUQ-10 will be the first and is the FRS for it and will be based at Pax River for now as the facilities at the original target base Point Mugu wont be ready in time. There will also be two fleet squadrons at a later date. The detachments onboard the carriers are just attached to the E-2 squadrons for the duration of the deployment.
 
Notice that despite the noticeable apparent AoA from the E-2D, none of them have their flaps down, meaning that their speed is relatively close to cruise speed. I wonder how the MQ-25 does this (stay that level).
 
sferrin said:
Difficult not to say, "well it is Boeing after all". ;)
Click to expand...
I'm just hoping they will get something right this time, Now, if after the 10 month delay, the IOC keeps sliding to the right, then, at that point, paradoxically it will be less detrimental if they remain tight lipped about their failures to save face. Same for NGAD.
 
it's crazy how they managed the superhornet program so well and just fumbled everything else. Did those personnel both technical and management levels left for other companies?
 
donnage99 said:
it's crazy how they managed the superhornet program so well and just fumbled everything else. Did those personnel both technical and management levels left for other companies?
Click to expand...
Super Hornet was McDonnell Douglas. (The program was already well established before Boeing got their hands on it.)
 
People (and their skills) are perishable. The people who you didn't hire in the 1990's (when peace broke out) and season for the next 20 years aren't there now to avoid old mistakes (FFP development contracts) and new, creative ones (extended supply chains during a pandemic).
 
aim9xray said:
People (and their skills) are perishable. The people who you didn't hire in the 1990's (when peace broke out) and season for the next 20 years aren't there now to avoid old mistakes (FFP development contracts) and new, creative ones (extended supply chains during a pandemic).
Click to expand...
Also, Boeing's program management track record is not doing to well, Boeing is their own worst enemy in recent times.
 
sferrin said:
They need a Tanker/ASW workhorse more than a stealthy attack aircraft. A tanker/recon combo makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Tanker and recon flight profiles are much closer to each other. "Go there, orbit, come back eventually"

The question is what they want to recon. I'm assuming potentially packing some flavor of air search radar and definitely packing a sea-search radar, plus the EO ball.


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...
Agreed, I'm expecting a couple of AESAs to get attached to the sides of the nose. Definitely a sea-search radar, and probably an air search radar if they can solve the interference problem between them.


yasotay said:
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...
I'd offer beverages, but I somehow suspect there's not enough alcohol on this planet to deal with that issue...


NeilChapman said:
Is it possible that Tern could be transformational, opening up capabilities from smaller ships that would have only been possible from CVN's w/UCLASS? Perhaps some new space-based technology that we aren't discussing?
Click to expand...
Maybe, if it manages to ever be deployed.


jsport said:
We will find out if non carrier surface ships ever are equipped w/ decent UAS. Please excuse the doubt.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that MQ-8s don't count?


NeilChapman said:
Let's suggest a CAW consists of 4 F/A-18 strike squadrons and an EA squadron.

Qty 22 F/A-18E's
Qty 22 F/A-18F's
Qty 5 Growlers

Let's assume an expected FMC rate (deployed) of .63
Let's assume an actual FMC rate (deployed) of ~.5

You've started w/49 F/A-18's and you're left with ~24.

If you add to this the fact that the Navy sends 1/2 their F-18's out as tankers the numbers are more alarming.

The rest of the aircraft support the CSG - Fleet Logistics, Submarine Defense, Early Warning, etc.
Click to expand...
So you take the non-FMC birds and assign them to Tanker duty.


shin_getter said:
With development of magic carpet and no actual war going on, can the navy just cut air frame killing carrier sorties and train air crew on land bases?

Or more correctly, just how much/what kind of autonomy capacities would finally cut into the so called need to train aircrew by actually flying them?
Click to expand...
No, landing on a carrier is a very perishable skill.
 
Does someone have a separate development cost for the MQ-25?

I'm looking at the wiki page and it says:
On 30 August 2018, the U.S. Navy announced Boeing as the winner of the competition and awarded an $805 million development contract for four MQ-25A aircraft to be completed by August 2024.[1] An additional three test MQ-25As were ordered on 2 April 2020 for a current total order of seven.[17] The program may expand to $13 billion overall and consist of 72 aircraft.
Click to expand...
A $13bn program across 72 aircraft, even excluding the $805mil development costs, makes the MQ-25s cost ~$166mil each. And that seems way too much for an unmanned tanker.
 
TomcatViP said:
Excuse my ignorance but what's so mysterious?
Click to expand...
This one (#620, with Navy markings) is definitely not the T-1（N234MQ, red nose/red tail ), which is the only flight demonstrator/prototype we know.

It could be a ground test airframe or even just a full scale model, of course.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
For an unmanned, non-stealthy, TANKER?!?!?

Interrogative Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of stuff rolled into the price -- development and procurement of the ground control stations, initial spare parts, etc. It's not just the airframe.
 
TomS said:
There's a lot of stuff rolled into the price -- development and procurement of the ground control stations, initial spare parts, etc. It's not just the airframe.
Click to expand...

I didn’t include those in the costs I quoted. Spares, ground equipment and control stations are over and above the $13+ billion I quoted which is just for the airframes ($3B airframe R&D + $10.3B flyaway for 69 MQ-25).
 
There is only a few dozen of them. C´mon guys, they don´t feed those engineers with catnip (at least not exclusively).
 
H_K said:
I didn’t include those in the costs I quoted. Spares, ground equipment and control stations are over and above the $13+ billion I quoted which is just for the airframes ($3B airframe R&D + $10.3B flyaway for 69 MQ-25).
Click to expand...

I looked back through the SARs. It sure looks like the procurement of spares, GCS, etc. are included in the AUPC. Not development of the GCS, which was my mistake.

 
Navy caught bending the rules by the Inspector General and has been forced to back track, had planned to clear the MQ‑25 Stingray for Milestone C low-rate initial production and deployment prior to testing to confirm that it meets its operational capability requirements.

breakingdefense.com

Navy delays unmanned MQ-25A Stingray timeline after IG warnings - Breaking Defense

The Navy views MQ-25A Stingray as urgently needed by the fleet, but the DoD Inspector General warned the service was moving too fast.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 

BAE Systems to enhance U.S. Navy's MQ-25A UAS with next-generation vehicle management system computer​

BAE Systems Logo (PRNewsfoto/BAE Systems, Inc.)

NEWS PROVIDED BY
BAE Systems, Inc.
12 Feb, 2024, 10:00 ET

Increased computing power delivers advanced performance for unmanned aerial refueler
ENDICOTT, N.Y., Feb. 12, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- BAE Systems (LON: BA) has been selected by Boeing to upgrade and modernize the vehicle management system computer (VMSC) for the U.S. Navy's MQ-25 unmanned aerial refueling system. The technology refresh will increase computing power and address obsolescence issues, providing the unmanned aerial tanker with an integrated solution that improves aircraft performance and allows for future capability growth.
"Our upgraded VMSC for the MQ-25 will deliver advanced functionality"
BAE Systems has been selected by Boeing to upgrade and modernize the vehicle management system computer (VMSC) for the U.S. Navy’s MQ-25 unmanned aerial refueling system. (Credit: BAE Systems)

BAE Systems has been selected by Boeing to upgrade and modernize the vehicle management system computer (VMSC) for the U.S. Navy’s MQ-25 unmanned aerial refueling system. (Credit: BAE Systems)

BAE Systems' next-generation VMSC controls all flight surfaces and performs overall vehicle management duties for the autonomous MQ-25. The MQ-25 is the Navy's first operational carrier-based unmanned aircraft and is designed to provide a much-needed aerial refueling capability. It also aims to relieve the refueling mission workload for F/A-18 aircraft, allowing them to take on other key mission roles, increasing the fleet's capacity.

"BAE Systems is a leader in flight-critical systems and solutions," said Corin Beck, senior director of Military Aircraft Systems for Controls and Avionics Solutions at BAE Systems. "Our upgraded VMSC for the MQ-25 will deliver advanced functionality—enabling this platform to execute today and tomorrow's critical missions, while also reducing the amount of hardware required on the aircraft through consolidation into this computer."
The cost-effective VMSC upgrade will use quad-core processors to increase computing power while optimizing size, weight, and power footprint on the aircraft. The multi-core processor selected for the MQ-25 VMSC has recently completed qualification on another U.S. military platform thereby reducing cost, schedule, and integration risk for this program.
This highly efficient and integrated system will deliver more capability by replacing multiple other onboard computers, improving aircraft reliability and reducing total lifecycle cost of ownership for the Navy. The new VMSC also provides growth capability to support future missions of the MQ-25, such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) technologies, and lays the foundation for all future carrier-based unmanned systems by pioneering the cutting-edge manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) operational concept.
BAE Systems also provides the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) System for the aircraft.
The company has more than 40 years of experience developing and integrating flight control technology for military and commercial platforms. Work on the VMSC occurs at BAE Systems' state-of-the-art engineering and manufacturing facility in Endicott, New York.
Click to expand...
 
"...The multi-core processor selected for the MQ-25 VMSC has recently completed qualification on another U.S. military platform..."

"recently"... I wonder what that could be.
 
www.twz.com

MQ-25 Stingray Tanker Drone Armed With Stealthy Anti-Ship Missiles Makes Perfect Sense

Arming MQ-25s with standoff weapons fits with the Navy's future air wing vision and would provide unique capabilities suited to a Pacific fight.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
breakingdefense.com

Boeing pitches new surveillance, strike missions for MQ-25 tanker drone - Breaking Defense

The aerospace giant showed off an armed MQ-25 model outfitted with two Lockheed Martin-made Long Range Anti-Surface Missiles during the Sea Air Space conference earlier this week.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom