Register here

Author Topic: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program  (Read 133705 times)

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1819
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: 72
  • 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: 1595
  • "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: 1819
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: 647
  • 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: 1364
  • 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