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

tico said:
I guess aircraft designs tied to the UCLASS program might also make a comeback for Navy EW missions.
Click to expand...
Not sure theres a reason to make such a pricey and large stand in jammer.

Per the SBIR release on the F-18's next gen jammer mid band:

An innovative ram air turbine, customized to produce power and provide cooling that will be located entirely within EA-18 pod, is proposed.
Click to expand...

Jammer pods support most of the power and cooling by themselves already. The internals should in theory fit well into a store sized UAS deployable from fighters and the MQ-25. Stuff like the MALD-J and SPEAR-EW are already made to do stand in jamming.

These options are cheaper, distributed, and more flexible than doing EW from even a large CCA or UAS.
 
Reddington777 said:
Not sure theres a reason to make such a pricey and large stand in jammer.

Per the SBIR release on the F-18's next gen jammer mid band:



Jammer pods support most of the power and cooling by themselves already. The internals should in theory fit well into a store sized UAS deployable from fighters and the MQ-25. Stuff like the MALD-J and SPEAR-EW are already made to do stand in jamming.

These options are cheaper, distributed, and more flexible than doing EW from even a large CCA or UAS.
Click to expand...

I don’t know what “stand in” means other than formal dances lessons because I’m old but…

*angry meow ensues*
 
JetBrain said:
.
Click to expand...
Good find. Another image confirms the airframe is the Boeing Demonstrator and not an EMD or LRIP airframe. Carries the same N234MQ as the initial Boeing test aircraft, T-1, which shouldn't surprise given this is just a PR stunt.
 

Attachments

  • l-b99751b0-3bc5-11eb-9bd6-c22f9e9a238d.jpg
    l-b99751b0-3bc5-11eb-9bd6-c22f9e9a238d.jpg
    121.9 KB · Views: 27
Last edited by a moderator:
The USN already has its own version of ADM-160, MALD-N, which uses a weapon datalink and swapable nose payload section nore flexibility. It also has a radar altimeter for very low/sea skimming flight profiles (presumably AShCM decoy capability).

I would assume there to be an EW mission associated with the USNs version of CCA as well.
 
In modern electronic warfare, stealth is both feasible and essential. To achieve both low observability and robust electronic warfare capability, this aircraft is bound to be large. Its transmitters and receivers require ample power, and sufficient physical separation between the equipment is necessary to prevent mutual interference. It should be an aircraft with a flyingwing-like configuration, larger and more stealthy than the existing CCA project.
 
There are other NGAD UAVs outside of CCA Incr1. And for some EW effects, the number of transmission sources is more important that strength or frequency agility of the transmitter.
 
The program reported a 2½-year delay to initial operational capability and a 26-month delay to the end of initial operational testing. Program officials attributed this to difficulties building its first test units—such as wire testing and vibration monitoring—as well as challenges in qualifying parts, though all had at least an intermediate solution. MQ-25 Stingray continues to plan for concurrent testing and low-rate initial production (LRIP), which could result in cost increases and further delays if changes are needed based on testing. Program officials told us that they delayed the LRIP decision until after the aircraft’s first flight, planned for the second quarter of fiscal year 2026. MQ-25 plans to acquire three LRIP units before it completes developmental testing in the second quarter of fiscal year 2028. This leaves 24 months to resolve key issues before making a full-rate production decision. Program officials told us that they resolved two of the seven component-level obsolescence issues that we reported on last year. The program continues to address the five remaining issues.
Click to expand...

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-26-108457.pdf
 
Last edited:
I guess the rather unrefined evolutions in these videos - wing dip on t/o and kinda high sink rate on landing - make sense for a Navy aircraft but you’d think for the first few flights Boeing would run more conservative CTOL profiles. Wonder if this was purposeful or the autonomous flight control stack is currently more limited than I would have thought…
 
Training_Dummy said:
you’d think for the first few flights Boeing would run more conservative CTOL profiles. Wonder if this was purposeful or the autonomous flight control stack is currently more limited than I would have thought…
Click to expand...
Or that MQ-25 flights from before (like way before the production contract) had already done the more conservative profiles.

Pretty sure something as significant as "not flaring before a landing" would not be missed as part of an automation scheme unless it was intentional.
 
Yeah I have no clue. I have a pretty strong grasp of how one would approach rotary wing test flight but I’m just another dog behind a keyboard when it comes to fixed wing test flight. Just thought a very easy CTOL plain vanilla profile would be their choice given the excruciating scrutiny of the program and how weird the t/o video must look to the average aviation nerd. It’s interesting they interrupted the the takeoff clip with snap shots right where the first video showed the left wing dip, no?
 
I dont know what went wrong with the wing dip. The weather's been all sorts of crazy in st. Louis and quite windy at random times. It could be correction for windsheer or it could be something wrong in the software, but thats okay I think since it was during flight tests anyway.
 
Wing dip after cat launch would be typical to get the (usually manned) a/c out of the path of the ship in case things go no bueno.
 
I thought I remember seeing it on landing and remember thinking it wad wierd but... perhaps Im tripping.
 
Reddington777 said:
Or that MQ-25 flights from before (like way before the production contract) had already done the more conservative profiles.

Pretty sure something as significant as "not flaring before a landing" would not be missed as part of an automation scheme unless it was intentional.
Click to expand...
Seems intentional. Landed that way both times.
 
Agreed. They wanted or felt comfortable with a higher sink rate on both recoveries.
 
Boeing says MQ-25 + JDAM-LR work queries should be referred to the customer, the Navy, for further information. As it is *NOT* internally funded demo. Says JDAM-LR is a sign of things to come for MQ-25. Navy says it is now exploring many different pathways for the MQ-25 with industry partners as the battlefield evolves.
 
CJohnston said:
Boeing says MQ-25 + JDAM-LR work queries should be referred to the customer, the Navy, for further information. As it is *NOT* internally funded demo. Says JDAM-LR is a sign of things to come for MQ-25.
Click to expand...
Can we believe anything Boeing says on MQ-25?

CJohnston said:
Navy says it is now exploring many different pathways for the MQ-25 with industry partners as the battlefield evolves.
Click to expand...
How about the USN and Boeing just focus on actually getting it onto the carrier before 2029 and then worry about the rest...
 
Did some number-crunching about the MQ-25.

With an MTOW of 45,000lbs, a fuel offload of 15k at 500nmi, and 3000lbs reserve fuel at landing, the total fuel onboard works out to about 25,000lbs and the bird maybe burning close to 5000lbs/hr at cruise. That seems way high unless the MQ-25 isn't doing 500kts, as the sea level TSFC of the engine is 0.36lb/lbt/hr, and a Citation X with two of those engines burns about 1400lbs/hr in cruise. So I'd expect more like 700lbs/hr burn rate. But even if the MQ-25 is only doing 250kts it's burning ~1400lbs out and 1400lbs back. A half hour of reserve fuel would be less than 500lbs at that burn rate.

New math:
45,000lbs MTOW, minus 14,000lbs empty, minus 3000lbs for buddy store and pylon, minus 1000lbs of reserve fuel, minus 3000lbs of fuel to refueling point and back; equals 24,000lbs transferrable fuel at ~2hrs from carrier.

I struggled a little to find the data for the 31-301 Buddy Fueling Store, so I am attaching the data sheet from the manufacturer I found.
 

Attachments

  • 31-301 buddy store data sheet.pdf
    419.3 KB · Views: 3
Scott Kenny said:
Did some number-crunching about the MQ-25.

With an MTOW of 45,000lbs, a fuel offload of 15k at 500nmi, and 3000lbs reserve fuel at landing, the total fuel onboard works out to about 25,000lbs and the bird maybe burning close to 5000lbs/hr at cruise. That seems way high unless the MQ-25 isn't doing 500kts, as the sea level TSFC of the engine is 0.36lb/lbt/hr, and a Citation X with two of those engines burns about 1400lbs/hr in cruise. So I'd expect more like 700lbs/hr burn rate. But even if the MQ-25 is only doing 250kts it's burning ~1400lbs out and 1400lbs back. A half hour of reserve fuel would be less than 500lbs at that burn rate.

New math:
45,000lbs MTOW, minus 14,000lbs empty, minus 3000lbs for buddy store and pylon, minus 1000lbs of reserve fuel, minus 3000lbs of fuel to refueling point and back; equals 24,000lbs transferrable fuel at ~2hrs from carrier.

I struggled a little to find the data for the 31-301 Buddy Fueling Store, so I am attaching the data sheet from the manufacturer I found.
Click to expand...
The most recent current estimate from the MSAR, from April, indicates it will be

KPP 2: Air Refueling KPP
Current Estimate 4/21/2026 >= 14K lbs of give at 500 nm from CVN

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/...orts/PB_2027_MSARs/MQ-25_MSAR_FY2027_PBv2.pdf

That doesn't look promising. USN could be way underselling the offload but I don't see a valid reason to and given delays to date there has been plenty of time to update informed assessments but the KPP threshold hasn't changed since 2018.

24k offload would be a much more relevant capability. At 15k it won't be particularly effective, that would be 3k of fuel across a four ship of SH with some of that being burnt just waiting for the rest of the flight to refuel. When a SH with three bags is 24k lbs of fuel how much of a difference is 3k making?
 
Ozair said:
The most recent current estimate from the MSAR, from April, indicates it will be

KPP 2: Air Refueling KPP
Current Estimate 4/21/2026 >= 14K lbs of give at 500 nm from CVN

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/PB_2027_MSARs/MQ-25_MSAR_FY2027_PBv2.pdf

That doesn't look promising. USN could be way underselling the offload but I don't see a valid reason to and given delays to date there has been plenty of time to update informed assessments but the KPP threshold hasn't changed since 2018.
Click to expand...
I admit my back-of-the-envelope math was assuming fuel burn (and therefore drag) roughly comparable to a Citation X. That may not be a valid assumption.

But the Navy sure seems to be assuming a lot more fuel burn in flight.



Ozair said:
24k offload would be a much more relevant capability. At 15k it won't be particularly effective, that would be 3k of fuel across a four ship of SH with some of that being burnt just waiting for the rest of the flight to refuel. When a SH with three bags is 24k lbs of fuel how much of a difference is 3k making?
Click to expand...
It's basically not, unless things have gone very wrong and the SH is at the "trap now or hit the tanker" level of fuel onboard.
 
Ozair said:
At 15k it won't be particularly effective, that would be 3k of fuel across a four ship of SH
Click to expand...
That's not how refueling works or is determined. The iron rule is to refuel at 50% (at latest). Because 50% is combat fuel requirement. And it's inefficient to do early unless tanker position calls for it.
So 5klb for legacy and 7klb to 8.75klb for superbug with CFT => at 15klb 2-3 ships can be refueled
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom