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

HWB looks like a stingray looking down from the front. ;D
 
VTOLicious said:
bobbymike said:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/navy-hits-gas-on-flying-gas-truck-cbars-will-it-be-armed/
Click to expand...

Time to rename the thread, or make a new one? ::)

That successor is the flying fuel truck now being called the MQ-25 Stingray, a sexier designation for an unsexy aircraft than the bland Pentagon descriptor CBARS
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I vote to rename Navy's UCLASS/CBARS
 
Navy to descale stealth requirement for stingray. Wants all four primes to compete.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-descoping-stealth-requirement-for-stingray-t-423039/
 
NeilChapman said:
Navy to descale stealth requirement for stingray. Wants all four primes to compete.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-descoping-stealth-requirement-for-stingray-t-423039/
Click to expand...

"H-W-B! H-W-B! H-W-B!"
 
http://news.usni.org/2016/03/15/skunk-works-head-navy-should-consider-a-flying-wing-design-for-mq-xx-stingray
 
sferrin said:
NeilChapman said:
Navy to descale stealth requirement for stingray. Wants all four primes to compete.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-descoping-stealth-requirement-for-stingray-t-423039/
Click to expand...

"H-W-B! H-W-B! H-W-B!"
Click to expand...

I knew you'd be all over that! ;D
 
This will be a brilliant move if they make the stingray airframe to be a tanker, but with growth potential for surveillance and strike packages. This means they will have something that will not threaten the rate of buys for the f-35, and down the line when f-35 production rate hit max capacity, they upgrade the stingray into a deep reconnaissance/strike platform.
 
donnage99 said:
This will be a brilliant move if they make the stingray airframe to be a tanker, but with growth potential for surveillance and strike packages. This means they will have something that will not threaten the rate of buys for the f-35, and down the line when f-35 production rate hit max capacity, they upgrade the stingray into a deep reconnaissance/strike platform.
Click to expand...

Except that to be a decent deep recon/strike platform you need stealth. Pretty much the opposite of what you'd want for an (relatively) cheap tanker. Tanker/COD/ASW go together (little to no requirement for low RCS) but I don't see tanker/strike/recon mixing.
 
That's what Skunk Works is advocating, though. Basic flying wing shape for the baseline model with the option to field later iterations with coatings and other features for stealth.
 
TomS said:
That's what Skunk Works is advocating, though. Basic flying wing shape for the baseline model with the option to field later iterations with coatings and other features for stealth.
Click to expand...

They way you guys talk about stealth integration, it's not something you can turn on with a "feature code". The production technology is complicated and time-consuming thus expensive. Doesn't sound like you "add coating and other features for stealth" later on.

Not sure why the Navy would not want stealth in the resulting program via design rather then adding the "special herbs" later on. Isn't that part of the mistake made in the ATF program?

If it is then I hope Navair isn't mucking it up.

---
Perhaps this is a negotiating tactic by navair?
They know what they want.
They know where their likely to get it from.
This will encourage the company to "sharpen their pencils".

If LM is pushing this then it could be they feel disadvantaged to NG because of RQ-170 loss, the NG X-47B success, and the LRS-B program loss. Maybe they feel there is a perception that NG owns stealth at the moment and this might give them a chance to "catch up"?

Regardless, it's a win for Navair.
 
Jesus above.... Northrop Grumman couldn't of done any more to take this and make the 47 the ideal airframe.

This is a farce, an absolute bloody farce.

They have the airframe, they have the company, they have the proven ability....Just save a few red faces and drop it for NG. Talk about a cluster feck of the grandest proportions.

NG even have a version where the fuel is all internal so it can penetrate defended airspace to refuel LO assets. This is farcical.
 

Attachments

  • brlzor1wxtfqebwgydww.jpg
    brlzor1wxtfqebwgydww.jpg
    16.7 KB · Views: 169
NeilChapman said:
Not sure why the Navy would not want stealth in the resulting program via design rather than adding the "special herbs" later on. Isn't that part of the mistake made in the ATF program?
Click to expand...

Wut?



NeilChapman said:
---
Perhaps this is a negotiating tactic by navair?
They know what they want.
They know where their likely to get it from.
This will encourage the company to "sharpen their pencils".

If LM is pushing this then it could be they feel disadvantaged to NG because of RQ-170 loss, the NG X-47B success, and the LRS-B program loss. Maybe they feel there is a perception that NG owns stealth at the moment and this might give them a chance to "catch up"?

Regardless, it's a win for Navair.
Click to expand...

How's it a win for NAVAIR? They want a tanker not a stealth aircraft. They want cheap not expensive.
 
Ian33 said:
Jesus above.... Northrop Grumman couldn't of done any more to take this and make the 47 the ideal airframe.

This is a farce, an absolute bloody farce.

They have the airframe, they have the company, they have the proven ability....Just save a few red faces and drop it for NG. Talk about a cluster feck of the grandest proportions.

NG even have a version where the fuel is all internal so it can penetrate defended airspace to refuel LO assets. This is farcical.
Click to expand...

Aside from "we want a tanker" has NAVAIR released any details? How much of a payload, footprint, cost, specific characteristics, etc.?
 
Ian33 said:
Jesus above.... Northrop Grumman couldn't of done any more to take this and make the 47 the ideal airframe.

This is a farce, an absolute bloody farce.

They have the airframe, they have the company, they have the proven ability....Just save a few red faces and drop it for NG. Talk about a cluster feck of the grandest proportions.

NG even have a version where the fuel is all internal so it can penetrate defended airspace to refuel LO assets. This is farcical.
Click to expand...

Huh? The X-47B can carry a little more than the equivalent of 1 F-18 external tank.

The Navy has historically had 2 different tanker roles: mission tanking and recovery tanking. Mission tanking is when the tanker can fly with a strike package and refuel them on the way. This takes range and capacity - in the past the KA-6 performed this role. A recovery tanker stays close to the carrier to top off aircraft after takeoff or before they land. Today a significant portion of the air wing's Super Bugs are used as recovery tankers and this stresses the airframes.

The Navy wants (and needs) a mission tanker, and would probably even like the capacity to perform tanker orbits similar to what the air force does. They also need to take the stress off the Super Bugs and have recovery tankers. A high capacity, long legged tanker would be a significant force multiplier for the Navy.

The X-47A would not fit that role and could not easily be scaled to it.
A tanker to fit these needs would have to have a payload of 10,000 pounds or more.
 
The Navy was talking about a UCLASS with almost twice the MTOW of the X-47B. I'm not sure why it wouldn't scale exactly? That was certainly NG's plan with the X-47C.

They Navy hasn't had a real fuel offload capability since they retired the KA-3B. It'd be ideal to offload at least 12,000 lbs. But they definitely need something to take the hours off of the Super Hornets.
 
sferrin said:
NeilChapman said:
Not sure why the Navy would not want stealth in the resulting program via design rather than adding the "special herbs" later on. Isn't that part of the mistake made in the ATF program?
Click to expand...

Wut?



NeilChapman said:
---
Perhaps this is a negotiating tactic by navair?
They know what they want.
They know where their likely to get it from.
This will encourage the company to "sharpen their pencils".

If LM is pushing this then it could be they feel disadvantaged to NG because of RQ-170 loss, the NG X-47B success, and the LRS-B program loss. Maybe they feel there is a perception that NG owns stealth at the moment and this might give them a chance to "catch up"?

Regardless, it's a win for Navair.
Click to expand...

How's it a win for NAVAIR? They want a tanker not a stealth aircraft. They want cheap not expensive.
Click to expand...

I'm not good at the moving the "quotes". Format challenged.

re: Wut?
"Special Herbs"... There are pentecostal preachers on TV that give away "special herbs" and "holy water" for gifts to their ministries. ;)
I was equating the RAM to the special herbs. It's a bit of levity.

re: How is it a win for Navair...

If Navair is widening the pool to get better leverage on pricing then it's a win for Navair.
If LM is pushing this because they felt disadvantaged then it's a win for Navair.

I'm not convinced Navair only wants a tanker. Navair wants a tanker today. They want other features later. Features that require stealth.
Why would the Navy want add another single purpose airframe to the carriers - one that's the size of an F-14? I don't think they do.
 
sferrin said:
Ian33 said:
Jesus above.... Northrop Grumman couldn't of done any more to take this and make the 47 the ideal airframe.

This is a farce, an absolute bloody farce.

They have the airframe, they have the company, they have the proven ability....Just save a few red faces and drop it for NG. Talk about a cluster feck of the grandest proportions.

NG even have a version where the fuel is all internal so it can penetrate defended airspace to refuel LO assets. This is farcical.
Click to expand...

Aside from "we want a tanker" has NAVAIR released any details? How much of a payload, footprint, cost, specific characteristics, etc.?
Click to expand...

It's a few pages back in the thread.

20k lbs of fuel beyond a 7.5 hour flight requirement.

http://news.usni.org/2013/12/23/navy-uclass-will-stealthy-tomcat-size

Quellish - They're talking about a 70-80k lb airplane.
 
Beat quote from the USNI story:

“Maybe we put a whole bunch of AMRAAMs (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) on it and that thing is the truck,” Manazir said. “So this unmanned truck goes downtown with—as far as it can go—with a decision-maker.”
 
X-47C

There is your strike, refueller, missile truck, scaled back or sideways, the USN IMHO have screwed this so far sideways I bet NG are pumping the air that they won the LRS-B component and can walk away with a nonchalant shrug knowing full well they ga e the Navy what it wanted at every turn.
 

Attachments

  • ucav.jpg
    ucav.jpg
    22.9 KB · Views: 618
Ian33 said:
X-47C

There is your strike, refueller, missile truck, scaled back or sideways, the USN IMHO have screwed this so far sideways I bet NG are pumping the air that they won the LRS-B component and can walk away with a nonchalant shrug knowing full well they ga e the Navy what it wanted at every turn.
Click to expand...

Is this the "C"? I've been looking for awhile for a rendering. I must have looked right past it.

The Navy didn't want the F-111, too heavy and they wanted something 53' long. So they bought the F-14, MTOW 75k lbs & 63' long.
The Navy didn't like the ATF program either. But they did get the F-18 instead. Another NG beauty.

My point is, it's tough to make them happy. It's almost like they're "too" carrier centric - more than mission centric. But perhaps I just don't understand the Navy mind.
 
From 'Skunk Works - A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed' by Ben Rich and Leo Janos, what Kelly Johnson had to say:
Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy.
Click to expand...
 
Arjen said:
From 'Skunk Works - A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed' by Ben Rich and Leo Janos, what Kelly Johnson had to say:
Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, there's something to it then.
 
Ian33 said:
the USN IMHO have screwed this so far sideways.....
Click to expand...

I think the "14 hours of unrefueled endurance" requirement was specifically created to ensure that the Navy didn't have to share a platform that the Air Force might already have in development.
 
sublight is back said:
Ian33 said:
the USN IMHO have screwed this so far sideways.....
Click to expand...

I think the "14 hours of unrefueled endurance" requirement was specifically created to ensure that the Navy didn't have to share a platform that the Air Force might already have in development.
Click to expand...

Cunning. Very, very cunning.
 
If navy wants a refueler cheap and fast, just strap X-47B brain on a S-3 Viking...
Hell, the mothballed S-3 fleet has tons of life left on it!
 
sublight is back said:
Ian33 said:
the USN IMHO have screwed this so far sideways.....
Click to expand...

I think the "14 hours of unrefueled endurance" requirement was specifically created to ensure that the Navy didn't have to share a platform that the Air Force might already have in development.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh. Is there somewhere I can read about this or is this private information... or - speculation I guess, if that's the case?
 
_Del_ said:
The Navy was talking about a UCLASS with almost twice the MTOW of the X-47B. I'm not sure why it wouldn't scale exactly? That was certainly NG's plan with the X-47C.

They Navy hasn't had a real fuel offload capability since they retired the KA-3B. It'd be ideal to offload at least 12,000 lbs. But they definitely need something to take the hours off of the Super Hornets.
Click to expand...

The metion of the Douglas A-3 is interesting.

Intended as a bomber in its primary function, for much of its later service life it was as an electronic warfare platform, tactical air reconnaissance platform, and high capacity aerial refueling tanker. Max. take off weight: 82,000 lb (37,195 kg)

The Stingray might be indeed a modern day version of it ::)
 

Attachments

  • EKA-3B_refueling_VF-211_F-8J_1972.jpeg
    EKA-3B_refueling_VF-211_F-8J_1972.jpeg
    631.5 KB · Views: 338
NeilChapman said:
sublight is back said:
Ian33 said:
the USN IMHO have screwed this so far sideways.....
Click to expand...

I think the "14 hours of unrefueled endurance" requirement was specifically created to ensure that the Navy didn't have to share a platform that the Air Force might already have in development.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh. Is there somewhere I can read about this or is this private information... or - speculation I guess, if that's the case?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the 14 hours of endurance was dictated by a typical 12 hour "deck day" + reserves to account for delays in clearing the deck sufficiently to permit a recovery.
 
zhuravlik said:
If navy wants a refueler cheap and fast, just strap X-47B brain on a S-3 Viking...
Hell, the mothballed S-3 fleet has tons of life left on it!
Click to expand...

Not that much. Better just to build a new design than to blow the dust off that band-aid.
 
marauder2048 said:
NeilChapman said:
sublight is back said:
Ian33 said:
the USN IMHO have screwed this so far sideways.....
Click to expand...

I think the "14 hours of unrefueled endurance" requirement was specifically created to ensure that the Navy didn't have to share a platform that the Air Force might already have in development.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh. Is there somewhere I can read about this or is this private information... or - speculation I guess, if that's the case?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the 14 hours of endurance was dictated by a typical 12 hour "deck day" + reserves to account for delays in clearing the deck sufficiently to permit a recovery.
Click to expand...

Thanks m
 
Not that much. Better just to build a new design than to blow the dust off that band-aid.
Click to expand...
It's a fleet of 87 usable aircrafts, already paid and with with a remaining 9000 flight hours of life each, while a brand new SH has 6000 flight hours of life.
 
zhuravlik said:
Not that much. Better just to build a new design than to blow the dust off that band-aid.
Click to expand...
It's a fleet of 87 usable aircrafts, already paid and with with a remaining 9000 flight hours of life each, while a brand new SH has 6000 flight hours of life.
Click to expand...

And it's an ASW aircraft, not a tanker. Yes, yes, we all know it was used AS a tanker but still better to build a new, tanker specific aircraft, than to bring back the Vikings. If you're going to bring back the Vikings, bring them back in their original role. God knows we'll be needing them.
 
excuse me, i might be wrong here, but wasn't the KC-135 a passenger/cargo aircraft? The -80 to be precise
 
francesco said:
excuse me, i might be wrong here, but wasn't the KC-135 a passenger/cargo aircraft? The -80 to be precise
Click to expand...

From the -80? Yes. You'll note there are no windows on the -80. The -80 was a proof of concept from which two branches, the KC-135, and the 707 spouted. The KC-135 was not a coversion of an existing aircraft. Furthermore, there was never a "tanker" version of the S-3.

"KS-3A
Proposed dedicated air tanker with fuel capacity of 4,382 US gal (16,600 l), one converted from YS-3A, later converted to US-3A.
KS-3B
Proposed air tanker based on S-3B and utilizing the buddy refueling system, not built."

Like the Super Hornet, the Viking used a hose/drogue pod and it's own internal fuel for tanking. It was never a dedicated tanker. When I say a "tanker specific" aircraft I mean, at the very least, a total conversion along the lines of a KC-10 or KC-46. More fuel on the same airframe in other words.
 
The Viking already exists, it has done the job already, it has a proven reliability record. Makes no sense to go through the whole process from zero to build another one, unless we want to make the shareholders of our favorite companies happy. We can spend the money more wisely, especially since the Navy claims it can do without stealth for this tanker, which would be the only reason to build something from the drawing board up. The absence of windows or the different engines is not relevant to the argument of being a specifically built aircraft. The wings/frame/lg are the things that count in these cases, like all major cargo conversions prove ( 767, DC-10/MD-11 etc. )
 
francesco said:
The Viking already exists, it has done the job already, it has a proven reliability record. M
Click to expand...

And it's not a tanker. How many times does this need to be said?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom