Register here

Author Topic: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program  (Read 143509 times)

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1851
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #630 on: September 04, 2017, 06:19:48 am »
Page 49:

http://www.boeing.com/ospreynews/2011/issue_01/final_8jun2010_179638.pdf

So a V-22 using rolling T/O can possibly squeak out a 10,000 lb load to 380 nm. But if you want to extend the range of a tactical fighter, while ensuring that the fighter always has enough fuel to get back to the carrier, you refuel once at ~unrefueled combat radius. More than that is unsafe (probe works or pilot swims), less is suboptimal. And once I get to a 500 nm unrefueled radius - typical of today's Navy types - my payload is down to 6,000 pounds.

So, no, mission tanking is not a V-22 long suit.

Offline TomcatViP

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Hellcat
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #631 on: September 04, 2017, 12:30:20 pm »
You have to put that in perspectives. It is clearly said that a SH can't give much at an useful range. And in order to achieve even that, it has to takeoff with 28000lb of fuel. Being mission specific is what drives this "new" program... and we can understand why.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 12:32:04 pm by TomcatViP »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1692
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #632 on: September 04, 2017, 02:23:59 pm »
Page 49:

http://www.boeing.com/ospreynews/2011/issue_01/final_8jun2010_179638.pdf

So a V-22 using rolling T/O can possibly squeak out a 10,000 lb load to 380 nm. But if you want to extend the range of a tactical fighter, while ensuring that the fighter always has enough fuel to get back to the carrier, you refuel once at ~unrefueled combat radius. More than that is unsafe (probe works or pilot swims), less is suboptimal. And once I get to a 500 nm unrefueled radius - typical of today's Navy types - my payload is down to 6,000 pounds.

So, no, mission tanking is not a V-22 long suit.

Are you using the "internal payload mission" chart?  Because it bears no resemblance to a tanker mission profile.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1851
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #633 on: September 05, 2017, 10:29:31 am »
What data out there points to higher estimates?

I'm not trying to outpoint anyone - I just wonder why, if the V-22 could do mission tanking, neither the Navy nor Team V-22 is promoting it in that role. I suspect the answer might involve speed as well.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 01:35:22 pm by LowObservable »

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 703
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #634 on: September 06, 2017, 04:04:49 pm »
What data out there points to higher estimates?

I'm not trying to outpoint anyone - I just wonder why, if the V-22 could do mission tanking, neither the Navy nor Team V-22 is promoting it in that role. I suspect the answer might involve speed as well.

V-22 seems like an expensive way to do tanking.  Probably great for an ARG mission but for a carrier, not so much. 

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1413
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #635 on: September 13, 2017, 11:21:36 am »
GAO: Navy's MQ-25 has valid requirements and reports $5 billion cost ceiling


Quote
Government auditors have determined the Navy has valid requirements and a solid acquisition approach for the new MQ-25 Stingray, and revealed the unmanned aerial system has a $5 billion cost ceiling.

Inside the Navy previously reported the Navy plans to spend $2.3 billion through fiscal year 2022. The service now anticipates spending $2.5 billion in that time frame, according to a Sept 6. Government Accountability Office report, but auditors added "the Navy does not expect total development cost to exceed $5 billion."

The Pentagon's cost analysis and program evaluation office is developing an independent cost estimate for the program. That office plans to complete its evaluation before the MQ-25's milestone B review in summer 2018.

The Navy plans to issue a request for proposals in October 2017 and award a contract in the following year to one of four competing contractors, according to the report.

The MQ-25 will be an UAS that operates from an aircraft carrier and provides refueling capabilities, and limited intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.

A House report accompanying the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act mandated the GAO assess the extent to which the MQ-25's acquisition strategy is "rooted in validated requirements and structured to follow a knowledge-based acquisition process."

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council validated the system requirements for the MQ-25 program in July, according to the GAO report.

"Our assessment of the content of the Navy's underlying documentation and analyses, when taken together, is that they provide a basis for the current set of MQ-25 requirements," the GAO report added.

The Navy is still finalizing the acquisition documentation but "our review of its acquisition strategy and other available documentation showed that they reflect key aspects of a knowledge-based approach and generally align with what we have found to be product-development best practices," the GAO report said.

The performance audit was conducted from October 2016 to September 2017. GAO did not make any recommendations in its report.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1413
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #636 on: October 06, 2017, 07:03:11 am »
...
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9710
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #637 on: October 06, 2017, 07:29:01 am »
...

Unless GA's Avenger concept is greatly scaled up, I don't see how it would be able to offload a useful amount of fuel.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomcatViP

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Hellcat
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #638 on: October 06, 2017, 03:49:25 pm »
You have to compare with the existing capabilities. SH in tanker mode does not offer a better net offload tonnage.

Avenger has volume, fuel economy,  speed,  and endurance. Add the probably lower RCS and the game is set b/w the two.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2017, 07:17:15 am by TomcatViP »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2333
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #639 on: October 06, 2017, 06:17:37 pm »
The goal is 15k give at 500nm.  Avenger as currently defined can't even carry 15k worth of fuel.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1983
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #640 on: October 06, 2017, 07:13:31 pm »
The concept shown in the last picture differs from the current Avenger in several ways. I can't tell how much bigger it is.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 703
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #641 on: October 07, 2017, 12:25:33 am »
Bear with me.  I'm trying to work out how this will work.

Assumptions:

Jet fuel = 6.8lbs per gal
SH - Low altitude strike mission profile combat radius - qty 4 1klb bombs & 2 ext tanks
     450nmi w/2-480gal external tanks& ~2kgal internal = 450nmi w/6528lbs ext fuel & 14550lbs int. fuel
SH - you want to land with a 2.3-3k lbs of fuel
SH fuel consumption for 900 nmi = ~18,000lbs = 21078-3000=~18,000 lbs
18,000lbs/900nmi = 20lbs per nmi
Steady fuel burn rate
CAW will have qty 5 MQ-25's - 1 or 2 in maintenance & 3-4 operational

===
Objective
The goal is to extend the SH combat radius beyond 700nmi (1400 nmi) from 450 nmi. (900 nmi)
Navy wants some qty of MQ-25's to deliver 15,000 lbs of fuel to 4-6 planes at 500nmi out.
They make it sound like one but it seems it may have to be more than one.

Scenario
Flight of 4 SH's take off w/full load above. ~84k lbs of fuel
Flies out 500nmi, burning 10k lbs of fuel per plane but picks of 15k lbs (84-40+15=59k lbs)
   * From 1st MQ-25 - MQ-25 turns back
Flight continues additional 200nmi - releases load - comes back 200nmi - gets 15k more (59-32+15=42k lbs)
   * From 2nd MQ-25
Flight doesn't have enough fuel to make it back to the carrier w/any reserve - Needs 40k+12k reserve but has only 42k lbs
   * Needs 3rd MQ-25 to get back

I know Navy eluded to the fact that w/magic carpet they need less reserve.  But this is assuming a straight flight profile with no maneuvering or avoiding enemy or even time for tanking.

Where am I messing this up?  Surely they're not expecting to use all their usable MQ-25's for one strike mission.  They're supposed to be doing dozens of sorties per day. 

And - the MQ-25 is going to be within 200nmi of the enemy?  Doesn't seem like a good idea for a non-stealthy, slow moving tanker.

==

Some options...

- My fuel numbers are way off.
- There will be more than 5 MQ-25's on the carrier so flight can top off on the way out (@ 500nmi out)
  * They'd need 3 MQ-25's to top off on way out @500nmi out
  * Tankers vulnerable - they'd need an air cap which would require more tankers
  * That's a lot of Hornet sized tankers on the carrier



 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9710
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #642 on: October 07, 2017, 07:01:43 am »
The concept shown in the last picture differs from the current Avenger in several ways. I can't tell how much bigger it is.

It looks like the fuselage is proportionally wider than the current design.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 804
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #643 on: October 07, 2017, 07:57:41 am »
blended wing bodies are always going to be better at carrying payloads as well as steath and high dynamic maneuver. Tube and wing is 'Model A' and has been for decades

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9710
Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Reply #644 on: October 07, 2017, 09:19:18 am »
blended wing bodies are always going to be better at carrying payloads as well as steath and high dynamic maneuver. Tube and wing is 'Model A' and has been for decades

Personally, I think an X-47-ish or LM HWB design, sized for a maximum takeoff of 80,000lbs would be the best. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.