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

Josh_TN said:
Would it even need to be a variant? The current platform is carrying heavier weights with tanks.
Click to expand...

So far, we've only ever seen MQ-25 flying with a single refueling pod under the port wing. There does not even appear to be a second hardpoint on the starboard side, so an armed version needs that modification at least. Plus whatever wiring and datalinks it needs for the weapon itself, and potentially some onboard ESM sensor for targeting. (It looks like the antennas on this model might be a bit different from the stock MQ-25A, but it's hard to tell.)
 
A Boeing team says it is on track to upgrade the MQ-25 Stingray with the ability to autonomously refuel other MQ-25s by 2030, meeting a “high priority” goal for the U.S. Navy. “We’re on a path to potentially being able to certify that in the future,” said Ryan McClintock
Click to expand...

Boeing On Track To Deliver MQ-25 Refueling Upgrade By 2030 | Aviation Week Network

A Boeing team says it is on track to upgrade the MQ-25 Stingray with the ability to autonomously refuel other MQ-25s by 2030.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
Josh_TN said:
It is rather silly to use your dedicated tanking asset as a weapons platform. And the entire MQ-25 effort seems like a ridiculous debacle, how is a UAV 150 million dollars?
Click to expand...

There are surely more cost effective ways to provide tanker support.

I'm usually critical of efforts to solve a problem in the most complicated way possible, but...

In the case of the MQ-25 though, it is a necessary evolutionary step in the operation of jet powered UAVs from aircraft carriers.

If the MQ-25 proves itself to be capable of safely operating from aircraft carriers, it is inevitable that other roles will be explored (as was originally intended at the start of the UCLAS program).
 
Josh_TN said:
It is rather silly to use your dedicated tanking asset as a weapons platform. And the entire MQ-25 effort seems like a ridiculous debacle, how is a UAV 150 million dollars?
Click to expand...
Because it's a rather big UAV, it's not something the size of a Cessna like a Predator is.
 
Josh_TN said:
Perhaps, but it isn't clear that the MQ-25 does more than an F-18 could do with a five wet configuration.
Click to expand...
Other than preventing the service life of the fighter/attack F-18 from being used up and utterly wasted in the five wet tanker configuration.
 
aim9xray said:
Other than preventing the service life of the fighter/attack F-18 from being used up and utterly wasted in the five wet tanker configuration.
Click to expand...
Instead, you're eating hours off of a more expensive airframe?

Hopefully there is much better offload at range than a Shornet as was planned. Otherwise, this sounds like a terrible waste of money compared to buying more Super Hornets.

Super Hornet in mission-tanking configuration only gives you 5,000 lbs offload at distance. The goal for this program is supposed to triple that. If it can't outperform the SHornets in that role, it isn't worth pursuing. I haven't followed this closely, so I haven't heard anything indicating the goal has changed.
 
Last edited:
_Del_ said:
Instead, you're eating hours off of a more expensive airframe?

Hopefully there is much better offload at range than a Shornet as was planned. Otherwise, this sounds like a terrible waste of money compared to buying more Super Hornets.

Super Hornet in mission-tanking configuration only gives you 5,000 lbs offload at distance. The goal for this program is supposed to triple that. If it can't outperform the SHornets in that role, it isn't worth pursuing. I haven't followed this closely, so I haven't heard anything indicating the goal has changed.
Click to expand...
Any hour that a Super Bug is not carrying ordnance is an hour of that plane's life wasted.

Do you want to burn half a Hornet's life in the 5 wet tanker config?

Or do you want a plane built for twice as many hours (or maybe more, have to check the design life) to do that, even if the pure tanker is more expensive? After all, I doubt the MQ25 is doing 7 gees anywhere but landing.
 
_Del_ said:
Instead, you're eating hours off of a more expensive airframe?
Click to expand...

Super Hornet is so expensive that it took the Navy two years to negotiate a buy of 20 airframes. They ended up with 17 as of this March.

_Del_ said:
Hopefully there is much better offload at range than a Shornet as was planned. Otherwise, this sounds like a terrible waste of money compared to buying more Super Hornets.
Click to expand...

A bizarre take, considering eventually Stingray may evolve into a strike system similar to UCLASS, which has better knock-on effects. The obvious benefit of using the new software and TTPs developed operating a robotic aircraft from the carrier is that you can start making robotic aircraft that do things besides act as a tanker, and do it much faster, for the CVW.

Eventually, when the Navy finds the money to pay for new aircraft, and isn't trying to do more important things, it might get a CCA.

"Buying more Super Hornets" is not a realistic option. No one wants more Super Hornets. The Navy wants more F-35C, it just can't afford them, but it can afford to fund a robotic aircraft that might lead to new robotic systems in the future, thus killing two birds with one stone: robotic aircraft don't need real pilots (just use a petty officer) and robotic aircraft can be made smaller and more cheaply than manned ones like JSF.
 
Has anyone come across an expected/designed airframe life for the MQ25?

For example, the F16 was designed for 8000 hours (and required some mods once in service to actually reach that). The B52 was designed for 80,000 hours(!) originally and is currently rated for 37k hours before the upper wing skins need to be replaced, flying low in the 1960s and 1970s really took a lot of life out of them.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Any hour that a Super Bug is not carrying ordnance is an hour of that plane's life wasted.

Do you want to burn half a Hornet's life in the 5 wet tanker config?
Click to expand...
No, I am a proponent of this program because as planned it significantly improves offload at range. They really should have used the S-3 fleet which had a lot of life left for that role. Instead the carriers are essentially useless for their actual role the last decade. Too valuable to put in harm's way, and embarked aircraft too short legged to effectively project power.

But if the offload of the MQ-25 is the same as the Shornets as one user alleged, there is no advantage to buying a more expensive airframe rather than simply buying more Shornets to burn hours off of.

_Del_ said:
Super Hornet in mission-tanking configuration only gives you 5,000 lbs offload at distance. The goal for this program is supposed to triple that. If it can't outperform the SHornets in that role, it isn't worth pursuing. I haven't followed this closely, so I haven't heard anything indicating the goal has changed.
Click to expand...

Again, if the offload goal has changed and approaches parity with the Shornet 5-wet, then this program is simply a more expensive way to burn hours off airframes.

As advertised it is a needed capability they should have never lost to begin with.
 
_Del_ said:
Instead, you're eating hours off of a more expensive airframe?
Click to expand...
Now you are more concerned about cost than mission?

Think of it as eating up hours from an airframe that has no objective combat capability at present and will not for a decade.
 
Is the issue with MQ25 as a tanker that in no way is it actually designed as a tanker?

It’s a LO shaped aircraft with swept wings for high subsonic flight.

A tanker would look more, well, S3 sized with large fuselage/wing volume for tanks and only a speed for tanking needed.

Currently it seems to be making the best of a bad job in having the MQ25 airframe available and also developing the techniques for unmanned carrier ops. Surprisingly pragmatic and sensible.

Presumably the USN is hoping its next gen aircraft is longer legged and doesnt need tanking.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom