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

The Boeing design is clearly more than a little stealthy. Which makes me think that Boeing has back-door channels indicating that the Navy has (again) rethought it's priorities and now wants a stealthier aircraft.

For the BWB, is the BWB notably more efficient than a regular aircraft when flying with half the maximum payload? Or, is the performance improvement worthwhile when carrying something less than the maximum?

I ask because Boeing, again operating with back-channel information, may think that the MQ-25 will be quickly turned into a high-endurance ISR aircraft, so Boeing's design is inspired by the ISR mission as much as the tanking mission. (Going back to the original statement about Boeing having back-channel information of a change in Navy priorities)

Lastly, the quick prototype might again be Black Diamond (?) results.
 
This looks a little more hybrid :). A single Multi-role basis for carriers might also make sense but for fuel alone a genuine 'complete airplane BWB design' would be best.
 

Attachments

  • FA-XX-Unmanned-variant.jpg
    FA-XX-Unmanned-variant.jpg
    109.4 KB · Views: 366
jsport said:
This looks a little more hybrid :). A single Multi-role basis for carriers might also make sense but for fuel alone a genuine 'complete airplane BWB design' would be best.
Click to expand...

Multi-role for long-endurance flight, not strike fighter design.

You see, looking at the Boeing design and knowing Boeing probably has the best connection to the Navy Aviator's community, I really think that MQ-25 will shift back to being a multi-role UAV design, not the pure tanking.

I do wonder if Boeing thinks that the early reveal of the prototype will be significant for the MQ-25 program and any follow-on Navy / USAF programs. The prototype is Boeing demonstrating it can design a stealthy aircraft in a reasonably quick time.
 
DrRansom said:
The Boeing design is clearly more than a little stealthy. Which makes me think that Boeing has back-door channels indicating that the Navy has (again) rethought it's priorities and now wants a stealthier aircraft.
Click to expand...

I suspect it's the reverse. They started work on this design when UCLASS still had a strike and ISR role and some stealth. Then the Navy descoped the requirement to CBARS and Boeing was faced with an unpleasant choice -- either go back to another clean sheet design more optimized for the tanker mission without stealth, or keep their UCLASS design and just de-emphasize stealth in the construction process (hence, no sawtooth access panels, for example). They went with the latter, and hope that the potential to restore LO features later will be worth something.
 
jsport said:
This looks a little more hybrid :). A single Multi-role basis for carriers might also make sense but for fuel alone a genuine 'complete airplane BWB design' would be best.
Click to expand...

Or this one (albeit LM):
 

Attachments

  • SW.jpg
    SW.jpg
    12.6 KB · Views: 343
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Current technology and diligence would build an max endurance/payload BWB 'complete airplane'. (not a 'flying wing' which is unstable on landing w/ a full tank on a carrier.)
Click to expand...

Lockeed calls it a Hybrid Wing Body design.
Click to expand...

And NASA estimates there's a market for it in several attractive configurations.

from "Commercial Cargo Derivative Study of the Advanced Hybrid Wing Body Configuration with Over-Wing Engine Nacelles"
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170011487.pdf
 

Attachments

  • hwb-market-size.png
    hwb-market-size.png
    415.1 KB · Views: 365
Looks like Tyler Rogoway has been swiping stuff from this thread:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17336/new-details-emerge-in-boeings-first-video-of-its-carrier-based-tanker-drone
 
sferrin said:
Looks like Tyler Rogoway has been swiping stuff from this thread:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17336/new-details-emerge-in-boeings-first-video-of-its-carrier-based-tanker-drone
Click to expand...

That's what he does for a living ;) be it it is usually turning articles from other reporters and publications into click bait blog posts ...
 
sferrin said:
Looks like Tyler Rogoway has been swiping stuff from this thread:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17336/new-details-emerge-in-boeings-first-video-of-its-carrier-based-tanker-drone
Click to expand...

I read Secret Projects, so you don't have to.

TomS - I can see your scenario being very likely, especially if Boeing started building a prototype earlier. But, I still think that Boeing believes the Navy really wants some stealth.
 
sferrin said:
Looks like Tyler Rogoway has been swiping stuff from this thread:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17336/new-details-emerge-in-boeings-first-video-of-its-carrier-based-tanker-drone
Click to expand...

I noticed that the AvLeak story made the same typo I did about the air intake (JET INLET versus JET INTAKE)... Makes you wonder.
 
TomS said:
I suspect it's the reverse. They started work on this design when UCLASS still had a strike and ISR role and some stealth. Then the Navy descoped the requirement to CBARS and Boeing was faced with an unpleasant choice -- either go back to another clean sheet design more optimized for the tanker mission without stealth, or keep their UCLASS design and just de-emphasize stealth in the construction process (hence, no sawtooth access panels, for example). They went with the latter, and hope that the potential to restore LO features later will be worth something.
Click to expand...

TomS gets a gold star. B)

The original UCLASS RFP date was fall 2014.

Moose said:
UCLASS RFP Delayed Again.
The final request for proposal (RFP) for the Navy’s planned carrier-based unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has been delayed pending a review of the service’s information, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) portfolio as part of the service’s budget process this fall, Navy officials told USNI News on Friday afternoon.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Why was Boeing so upset when UCLASS was delayed in 2014, 2015 and eventually terminated in 2016?

Flyaway said:
Boeing To Pentagon: Be Careful When You Pause IRAD Programs

PARIS: The Pentagon’s decision to pause as it reconsiders what path to pursue with the drone fighter known as UCLASS prompted Boeing to send a warning note today that the US military had better keep its commitments if it wants companies to invest their own money in new technologies.

Asked about the program today, Boeing’s Chris Raymond noted pointedly that his company “had spent a lot of time, and frankly, a lot of money on UCLASS over the years. We were — in our minds — in a great place,” he told reporters at a briefing in the company’s headquarters near the Elysee Palace, where French President Francois Hollande lives. “It was disappointing to see them pause.”
Click to expand...

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/boeing-to-pentagon-be-careful-when-you-pause-irad-programs/
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what part of "blowing the dust off the UCLASS vehicle in storage the last few years " some people don't understand? This vehicle was probably fully designed and possibly mostly built before there even was a MQ-25 program.

Boeing resurrected the partially built X-45C as Phantom Ray a couple of years later, why wouldn't they do the exact smae with their UCLASS?
 
DrRansom said:
The Boeing design is clearly more than a little stealthy. Which makes me think that Boeing has back-door channels indicating that the Navy has (again) rethought it's priorities and now wants a stealthier aircraft.

For the BWB, is the BWB notably more efficient than a regular aircraft when flying with half the maximum payload? Or, is the performance improvement worthwhile when carrying something less than the maximum?

I ask because Boeing, again operating with back-channel information, may think that the MQ-25 will be quickly turned into a high-endurance ISR aircraft, so Boeing's design is inspired by the ISR mission as much as the tanking mission. (Going back to the original statement about Boeing having back-channel information of a change in Navy priorities)

Lastly, the quick prototype might again be Black Diamond (?) results.
Click to expand...

Stealthy, but no weapons bay. Makes no sense to build a lo airplane and hang crap off of it. Therefore the only thing left is a sensors craft... Perhaps target identification while flying ahead of the strike group. A tanker and a sensor craft would be more realistic than a tanker with enough spare space inside for at least 2x2000lb jdam. Time will tell.... But there does not appear to be a weapons bay.
 
Airplane said:
DrRansom said:
The Boeing design is clearly more than a little stealthy. Which makes me think that Boeing has back-door channels indicating that the Navy has (again) rethought it's priorities and now wants a stealthier aircraft.

For the BWB, is the BWB notably more efficient than a regular aircraft when flying with half the maximum payload? Or, is the performance improvement worthwhile when carrying something less than the maximum?

I ask because Boeing, again operating with back-channel information, may think that the MQ-25 will be quickly turned into a high-endurance ISR aircraft, so Boeing's design is inspired by the ISR mission as much as the tanking mission. (Going back to the original statement about Boeing having back-channel information of a change in Navy priorities)

Lastly, the quick prototype might again be Black Diamond (?) results.
Click to expand...

Stealthy, but no weapons bay. Makes no sense to build a lo airplane and hang crap off of it. Therefore the only thing left is a sensors craft... Perhaps target identification while flying ahead of the strike group. A tanker and a sensor craft would be more realistic than a tanker with enough spare space inside for at least 2x2000lb jdam. Time will tell.... But there does not appear to be a weapons bay.
Click to expand...

The X-35 didn't have weapons bays either.
 
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17086/boeing-unveils-prototype-for-the-navys-mq-25-drone-tanker-competition

Upon close examination, there does seem to be a relatively large ventral bay shown directly behind the aircraft's nose gear doors. It isn't clear if this is a large access panel that has been left open or if this is a payload bay of some kind.
Click to expand...

image


Personally, I'm doubtful this is a weapons bay.
 
sferrin said:
Airplane said:
DrRansom said:
The Boeing design is clearly more than a little stealthy. Which makes me think that Boeing has back-door channels indicating that the Navy has (again) rethought it's priorities and now wants a stealthier aircraft.

For the BWB, is the BWB notably more efficient than a regular aircraft when flying with half the maximum payload? Or, is the performance improvement worthwhile when carrying something less than the maximum?

I ask because Boeing, again operating with back-channel information, may think that the MQ-25 will be quickly turned into a high-endurance ISR aircraft, so Boeing's design is inspired by the ISR mission as much as the tanking mission. (Going back to the original statement about Boeing having back-channel information of a change in Navy priorities)

Lastly, the quick prototype might again be Black Diamond (?) results.
Click to expand...

Stealthy, but no weapons bay. Makes no sense to build a lo airplane and hang crap off of it. Therefore the only thing left is a sensors craft... Perhaps target identification while flying ahead of the strike group. A tanker and a sensor craft would be more realistic than a tanker with enough spare space inside for at least 2x2000lb jdam. Time will tell.... But there does not appear to be a weapons bay.
Click to expand...

The X-35 didn't have weapons bays either.
Click to expand...

Is this a demonstrator (YF-22/X-35) or a true prototype? The YF's had weapon bays. So did Boeing X-45. But again, a tanker with enough room for at least 2 2000lb jdams doesn't "box" unless they build a tanker variant and a strike variant. With F-35C coming along soon is there a pressing need for the USN to also have a LO strike drone? IMHO not really but it would be a thing nice to have.
 
Wouldn't something intended to open in flight likely have two symmetrical doors, not a big barn door like that.
 
TomS said:
Wouldn't something intended to open in flight likely have two symmetrical doors, not a big barn door like that.
Click to expand...

If it were one big door couldn't it be a rotating bay like the X-51, Buccaneer, or F-101?
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
This looks a little more hybrid :). A single Multi-role basis for carriers might also make sense but for fuel alone a genuine 'complete airplane BWB design' would be best.
Click to expand...

Or this one (albeit LM):
Click to expand...
sure, especially if more fuel volume as it appears. although near vertical surfaces tail a problem.
a FA-XX common standard for ISR, strike, refueler, optionally manned fighter, unmanned fighter escort would be preferable.
 
jsport said:
sferrin said:
Or this one (albeit LM):
Click to expand...
sure, especially if more fuel volume as it appears. although near vertical surfaces tail a problem.
Click to expand...

Not near vertical, vertical. But given that stealth doesn't appear to be a requirement why would that matter?
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Wouldn't something intended to open in flight likely have two symmetrical doors, not a big barn door like that.
Click to expand...

If it were one big door couldn't it be a rotating bay like the X-51, Buccaneer, or F-101?
Click to expand...

The door that The Drive is calling out as a possible future weapons bay is huge and hinged on one side. It's not a rotating bay door.
 
sferrin said:
Looks like Tyler Rogoway has been swiping stuff from this thread:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17336/new-details-emerge-in-boeings-first-video-of-its-carrier-based-tanker-drone
Click to expand...

No I posted that article much earlier in this thread. For once he’s not guilty.
 
A quick configuration pencil —with F-18 style wings and tanks. Who knows?
 

Attachments

  • BoeingMQ-25S.jpg
    BoeingMQ-25S.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 547
sferrin said:
The X-35 didn't have weapons bays either.
Click to expand...

But Boeing's X-32 did.

Lockheed played dirty pool with the X-35 as it had to grow fatter in order to hold weapons.... Boeing's did not have to grow as they were baked into the demonstrator.

Unless they are planning on building a strike variant with a weapons bay, this thing is stealthy for other reasons. Who knows, maybe it will be a stealthy node connecting F-35s and E-2s to the carrier strike group from distances greater than possible today. My guess is as I said earlier.
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
Or this one (albeit LM):
Click to expand...
sure, especially if more fuel volume as it appears. although near vertical surfaces tail a problem.
Click to expand...

Not near vertical, vertical. But given that stealth doesn't appear to be a requirement why would that matter?
Click to expand...

If it ain't liftin its draggin.. Horizontals lift, verticals drag.
 
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
Looks like Tyler Rogoway has been swiping stuff from this thread:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17336/new-details-emerge-in-boeings-first-video-of-its-carrier-based-tanker-drone
Click to expand...

No I posted that article much earlier in this thread. For once he’s not guilty.
Click to expand...

That's a different article with different pictures.
 
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17518/exclusive-new-photos-of-boeings-mq-25-tanker-drone-on-the-ramp-in-st-louis
 
Most interesting looking drone out there. Aesthetically speaking, a nice middle between boring Reapers and X47/Taranises. (Though Chinese also have some semi-interesting looking drones)
 
Well I was off a bit on the wingspan, width, wing angle—just about everything. 2nd pass.
 

Attachments

  • BoeingMQ-25S2.jpg
    BoeingMQ-25S2.jpg
    29.5 KB · Views: 300
autoeac said:
Well I was off a bit on the wingspan, width, wing angle—just about everything. 2nd pass.
Click to expand...

I think the real deal is much smaller than your drawing. Small enough that it almost makes me wonder what the point of it is.
 
sferrin said:
autoeac said:
Well I was off a bit on the wingspan, width, wing angle—just about everything. 2nd pass.
Click to expand...

I think the real deal is much smaller than your drawing. Small enough that it almost makes me wonder what the point of it is.
Click to expand...

Agree that its smaller than the drawing, but not *that* small. I am guessing from the grainy images over 12klbs and under 15klbs. I have been preoccupied with the real world lately and not following this. If its a tanker then it isn't going to be topping off a couple super hornets at that size. Maybe the point is that isn't a tanker first and foremost and is something else hiding in plain sight. But then why reveal it and tip off the world?
 
I would guesstimate a wingspan like X-47B and a length close to F-18...
 

Attachments

  • x47b.jpg
    x47b.jpg
    174.7 KB · Views: 866
Airplane said:
sferrin said:
autoeac said:
Well I was off a bit on the wingspan, width, wing angle—just about everything. 2nd pass.
Click to expand...

I think the real deal is much smaller than your drawing. Small enough that it almost makes me wonder what the point of it is.
Click to expand...

Agree that its smaller than the drawing, but not *that* small. I am guessing from the grainy images over 12klbs and under 15klbs. I have been preoccupied with the real world lately and not following this. If its a tanker then it isn't going to be topping off a couple super hornets at that size. Maybe the point is that isn't a tanker first and foremost and is something else hiding in plain sight. But then why reveal it and tip off the world?
Click to expand...

I think your numbers are off. The target that has been quoted as the requirement for CBARS/MQ-25 is 15,000 pounds of fuel "give" at 500nm. That would make the aircraft much heavier than your estimate, unless it's a subscale demonstrator, which seems unlikely.
 
I'm actually on the demonstrator train, myself. Figure how long do you think Boeing has been assembling this, the date of the requirements changing (again), LockMart saying everyone needs a new design/NG saying enough is enough, apparent size, similarity to early UCLASS artwork; all leads me to believe this isn't their final offering, but something they brought to completion to get their feet wet.
But it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, either.
 
Pretty calm here... Here is some food for speculation :D

I based my sketch on the pictures available so far. As a starting point I chose a wingspan similar to X-47B (18,92 m), what seems to be plausible.The front and side view might be not too far off reality, the planform is pure fantasy, however.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20180114_0002_b.jpg
    IMG_20180114_0002_b.jpg
    329.4 KB · Views: 648
References...
 

Attachments

  • imagesvc.timeincapp.com_3.jpg
    imagesvc.timeincapp.com_3.jpg
    36.7 KB · Views: 123
  • imagesvc.timeincapp.com_2.jpg
    imagesvc.timeincapp.com_2.jpg
    51.8 KB · Views: 150
  • imagesvc.timeincapp.com_1.jpg
    imagesvc.timeincapp.com_1.jpg
    74.2 KB · Views: 129
  • Screenshot_20180114-133733.png
    Screenshot_20180114-133733.png
    580.5 KB · Views: 84
  • Screenshot_20180113-210120.png
    Screenshot_20180113-210120.png
    360.5 KB · Views: 97
  • Screenshot_20180113-205923.png
    Screenshot_20180113-205923.png
    551 KB · Views: 97
  • Screenshot_20180113-205956.png
    Screenshot_20180113-205956.png
    265 KB · Views: 56
  • Screenshot_20180113-210008.png
    Screenshot_20180113-210008.png
    206.1 KB · Views: 489
  • Screenshot_20180113-210329.png
    Screenshot_20180113-210329.png
    168.6 KB · Views: 504
  • Screenshot_20180113-210514.png
    Screenshot_20180113-210514.png
    838.9 KB · Views: 582
TomS said:
Airplane said:
sferrin said:
autoeac said:
Well I was off a bit on the wingspan, width, wing angle—just about everything. 2nd pass.
Click to expand...

I think the real deal is much smaller than your drawing. Small enough that it almost makes me wonder what the point of it is.
Click to expand...

Agree that its smaller than the drawing, but not *that* small. I am guessing from the grainy images over 12klbs and under 15klbs. I have been preoccupied with the real world lately and not following this. If its a tanker then it isn't going to be topping off a couple super hornets at that size. Maybe the point is that isn't a tanker first and foremost and is something else hiding in plain sight. But then why reveal it and tip off the world?
Click to expand...

I think your numbers are off. The target that has been quoted as the requirement for CBARS/MQ-25 is 15,000 pounds of fuel "give" at 500nm. That would make the aircraft much heavier than your estimate, unless it's a subscale demonstrator, which seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

It just doesn't look that big in those pics, tom. I can't envision what I am seeing is going to gross out at 30,000 pounds or more. Unless those are really misleading pictures.

VTOLs drawings are great, but seem bigger.

Any word on powerplant from Boeing? My engineering mind and bad eyes guesstimates the exhaust it about 7ft by 18 inches.
 
TomS said:
I think your numbers are off. The target that has been quoted as the requirement for CBARS/MQ-25 is 15,000 pounds of fuel "give" at 500nm. That would make the aircraft much heavier than your estimate, unless it's a subscale demonstrator, which seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

That depends on what it would be demonstrating. There are a lot of problems to solve with this program: carrier operations, automated/unmanned refueling, etc. Boeing may have built this not to demonstrate they can meet the current requirements, but to validate an approach to some subset of the requirements. And it may be a design they invested in for the UCLASS requirements but are using here.

Curiously, I believe they have stated they do not intend to fly this aircraft.
 
Curiously, I believe they have stated they do not intend to fly this aircraft.
Click to expand...

...but the vehicle apparently received a FAA registration number, as reported by FlightGlobal: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faa-approves-registration-number-for-boeing-mq-25-pr-444627/

"Boeing has received a US aircraft registration for the newly-unveiled demonstrator at the heart of its bid to make up to 72 MQ-25 Stingray carrier-based unmanned tankers for the US Navy, the company confirms to FlightGlobal."
 
Update! Buddy Store inserted, for a better judgment of dimensions ;)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20180114_0002_c.jpg
    IMG_20180114_0002_c.jpg
    362.3 KB · Views: 206

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom