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

[bring_it_on]

https://twitter.com/samlagrone/status/844266632839135232

Also,

Weiss: don't want to go with a tailless design on MQ25A now that tanking is the core mission..

https://twitter.com/AaronMehta/status/844268767701970944

 

[AeroFranz]

https://twitter.com/samlagrone/status/844266632839135232

Also,

Weiss: don't want to go with a tailless design on MQ25A now that tanking is the core mission..

https://twitter.com/AaronMehta/status/844268767701970944

Because tailless aircraft don't have...cg range? Internal volume? Bring back capability (due to lower max trimmed lift coefficient)?
I'd be curious to know what caused the statement. Except for GA, this represents a lot of rework for all the other OEMs. Being able to just scale the OML with known aerodynamics would have been a big simplification.

 

[VTOLicious]

Skunk Works Head: Latest Navy MQ-25A Requirements Pushing Competitors to Redesign Offers
https://news.usni.org/2017/03/21/skunk-works-head-latest-navy-mq-25a-requirements-pushing-competitors-redesign-offers

"The Navy’s latest direction for the MQ-25A Stingray would further minimize ISR requirements for the airframe and further reduce strike as a mission, Rob Weiss, the head of the company’s internal aviation research and development arm, said at Lockheed Martin’s annual media day."

“If the requirements were about penetrating ISR in contested airspace – be it ISR or strike – you would need an airplane that looks different than the concept you’ve got up there with pylons and so forth doing tanking,”

“The requirements have been defined to be a tanker, so you really don’t want to go with a tailless design if your primary requirement is associated tanking,”

 

[AeroFranz]

Interesting article, I got my general answer if not the detailed one. Thanks!

 

[flateric]

Weiss: don't want to go with a tailless design on MQ25A now that tanking is the core mission..

So back to the old one?

 

[VTOLicious]

Weiss: don't want to go with a tailless design on MQ25A now that tanking is the core mission..

So back to old one?

No, the OLD one! ;D ;D ;D

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16346.msg277035.html#msg277035

 

[_Del_]

Maybe they could enlarge and autonomize the Tacit Blue for MQ-XX so they can keep the "Whale" nickname.

 

[VTOLicious]

Weiss: don't want to go with a tailless design on MQ25A now that tanking is the core mission..

So back to the old one?

Or a rather conventional airframe? Gulfstream had a nice concept for BAMS back in 2003 :

 

[marauder2048]

With the South Koreans apparently passing on the refurbed S-3s, you might as well do an unmanned version.

 

[TomcatViP]

https://twitter.com/samlagrone/status/844266632839135232

Also,

Weiss: don't want to go with a tailless design on MQ25A now that tanking is the core mission..

https://twitter.com/AaronMehta/status/844268767701970944

Because tailless aircraft don't have...cg range? Internal volume? Bring back capability (due to lower max trimmed lift coefficient)?
I'd be curious to know what caused the statement. Except for GA, this represents a lot of rework for all the other OEMs. Being able to just scale the OML with known aerodynamics would have been a big simplification.

I think it's all about trapping safely in weather. The flying wing rely on split flaps and flaperon for pitch and yaw, something that add drag and decrease lift at a time when precise sink rate is requested. There is a video that I have cited already where the Northrop design initiate a go around during carrier demonstration and trial. You can see how the combination of gust alleviation, pitch request already limiot teh power for the go around at a time when full applied power is requested.
With a conventional tail, you spare a lot of power that could be available for more severe in-weather landing and bring-back performances.

 

[bring_it_on]

General Atomics Says It’s Well-Positioned as Low-Risk Option for Carrier Drone Competition

 

[dreamland]

I too believe the Tacit Blue concept of stealth and boxy design would be a great tanker! Enlarge the airframe add equipment for refueling,launch and trap gear,etc.

 

[bring_it_on]

Navy, eyeing MQ-25 competition launch this summer, awards interim contracts to eligible bidders

The Navy has awarded another round of interim contracts to four eligible bidders in the MQ-25 program, a move intended to keep industry teams in place as the government this summer prepares to launch a multibillion-dollar competition to develop and field an unmanned logistics aircraft that promises to extend the combat reach of aircraft carriers.

On April 13, Naval Air Systems Command awarded Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Atomics contracts worth between $18 million and $25 million to refine their respective concepts for the MQ-25 Unmanned Carrier Aviation Air System.

The Navy expects the MQ-25 to reduce the need for F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to provide refueling, allowing the manned fighters to focus on strike missions and preserving service life for non-logistics activities.

The Navy awarded each of the defense companies contracts "to conduct additional risk reduction activities in support of the MQ-25 Unmanned Carrier Aviation Air System, including refinement of concepts and development of trade space for requirements generation in advance of the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program," according to the contract announcements.

Northrop Grumman was awarded $24.7 million; Boeing, $19 million; Lockheed Martin, $18.8 million; and General Atomics, $18.7 million.

Last fall, the Navy awarded the four companies cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts valued between $35 million and $43 million to each of these companies to conduct risk-reduction activities, including concept refinement and requirements trade analysis.

The MQ-25 program is the progeny of the former Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike program. In early 2016, following an extensive review -- overseen by the deputy defense secretary -- of the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance portfolio, the UCLASS program was restructured into the Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System, which the Navy then rebranded MQ-25.

This outcome was the result of a debate within the Defense Department over whether the new weapon system should focus on surveillance with limited strike or be optimized for strike capability with a limited surveillance role.

The MQ-25 will have an aerial refueling capability with some ISR capability.

"According to Navy officials, provisions will be incorporated for potential future strike capabilities, but requirements for initial operating capability -- expected by the end of fiscal year 2026 -- will focus on refueling and ISR capabilities," a Government Accountability Office report on selected weapons acquisition programs, published in March, states.

The MQ-25 is expected to be composed of an air segment, an aircraft carrier segment, and a control-and-connectivity segment.

The Navy's fiscal year 2017 budget request, submitted in February 2016, indicated plans to publish a request for proposals for the air vehicle segment during the first quarter of FY-17 -- between October and December of last year. The GAO last month, citing information from the Navy program office, said the request for proposals for the engineering and manufacturing development of air vehicles is now expected this summer.

 

[NeilChapman]

I'm so irritated with the Navy. It's time to question why we need a 14B ship to carry around, effectively, 24 fighters. Everything else is basically CBG protection and support. I get they're cool, but seriously.

I am moving more toward the ARG/CVL camp w/CVL in support of the Corps aviation. The Navy can't seem to get out of their own way. Too many officers.

 

[TomcatViP]

NAVY WANTS SMALL, 'LIGHTNING CARRIERS' WITH F-35 AGAINST CHINA'S 'CARRIER KILLERS' :
https://youtu.be/Yqds5JczInU

 

[Blitzo]

I'm so irritated with the Navy. It's time to question why we need a 14B ship to carry around, effectively, 24 fighters. Everything else is basically CBG protection and support. I get they're cool, but seriously.

I am moving more toward the ARG/CVL camp w/CVL in support of the Corps aviation. The Navy can't seem to get out of their own way. Too many officers.

While I understand the attraction of CVLs/USMC F-35B carriers based on LHA/LHDs, how does a USN supercarrier only carry "effectively" 24 fighters?

 

[Blitzo]

NAVY WANTS SMALL, 'LIGHTNING CARRIERS' WITH F-35 AGAINST CHINA'S 'CARRIER KILLERS' :
https://youtu.be/Yqds5JczInU

This trend of having Youtube "news"/documentary style videos which use computerized voices is jarring as hell, and they tend to often be for military "commentary" type videos.

Anyway, LHA/Ds loaded with F-35bs would add greater flexibility and more available flat tops to the USN's carrier fleet and increase the demands of Chinese ISR systems to keep track of USN carriers by increasing the number of targets they need to keep track of. However the F-35B doesn't quite have what the USN seems to really want as a hard counter against AShBMs in years past, which is a very long range strike platform that can hit mainland China targets while having the carriers be outside of the effective range of AShBMs. What F-35Bs aboard LHA/LHDs do offer however, is a substantially more capable naval aviation force than what Harriers were able to provide, which along with the revamp of US pacific military aviation with 5th generation fighters is less of a response to the Chinese AShBM exactly but more of a response to overall Chinese advances in long range LACM/IRBM capabilities together with China's own advancements in military aviation.

 

[Ainen]

Anyway, LHA/Ds loaded with F-35bs would add greater flexibility and more available flat tops to the USN's carrier fleet and increase the demands of Chinese ISR systems to keep track of USN carriers by increasing the number of targets they need to keep track of. However the F-35B doesn't quite have what the USN seems to really want as a hard counter against AShBMs in years past, which is a very long range strike platform that can hit mainland China targets while having the carriers be outside of the effective range of AShBMs

Interesting part is what american carrier strike aircraft of the past had necessary ranges, but no current or planned for immediate future (before 2025) do so.
It tells very much how high USN actually places Chinese AShBM threat in their priority list.

 

[Blitzo]

Anyway, LHA/Ds loaded with F-35bs would add greater flexibility and more available flat tops to the USN's carrier fleet and increase the demands of Chinese ISR systems to keep track of USN carriers by increasing the number of targets they need to keep track of. However the F-35B doesn't quite have what the USN seems to really want as a hard counter against AShBMs in years past, which is a very long range strike platform that can hit mainland China targets while having the carriers be outside of the effective range of AShBMs

Interesting part is what american carrier strike aircraft of the past had necessary ranges, but no current or planned for immediate future (before 2025) do so.
It tells very much how high USN actually places Chinese AShBM threat in their priority list.

Probably because there are more subtle ways of mitigating against the risk of AShBM and its kill chain than straight up building an expensive new long range strike platform that can operate in the 21st century environment. A manned or unmanned strike platform with the requisite stealth to survive in the modern threat environment, along with the range of a past long range strike platform like A-3, and the ability to carry a sufficient payload, would be optimal but developing and procuring an aircraft like that would be rather expensive.

A combination of cyber, EW, BMD is probably the most cost effective way for the US to interfere with, soft kill, and try to hard kill the AShBM kill chain at its various stages, and I imagine the USN's strategy would combine those aspects along with military aviation and naval launched cruise missiles to supplement their strike capability.

 

[Ainen]

Probably because there are more subtle ways of mitigating against the risk of AShBM and its kill chain than straight up building an expensive new long range strike platform that can operate in the 21st century environment. A manned or unmanned strike platform with the requisite stealth to survive in the modern threat environment, along with the range of a past long range strike platform like A-3, and the ability to carry a sufficient payload, would be optimal but developing and procuring an aircraft like that would be rather expensive.

A combination of cyber, EW, BMD is probably the most cost effective way for the US to interfere with, soft kill, and try to hard kill the AShBM kill chain at its various stages, and I imagine the USN's strategy would combine those aspects along with military aviation and naval launched cruise missiles to supplement their strike capability.

Well, i'll just remain at point of being sceptical of DF-21s' ability to actually hit something at sea untill shown.

There are too few notable steps taken, and ones known can't be reliably identified as answers to assymetrical challenges.
On the contrary - many of such capabilities never recovered from all-time high in mid-1990s.

"Symmetric", on the other hand, are on the rise, with significant improvements going on now and/or in near future.
"Lightning carrier" can be seen as an example of such development(if it will proceed).

 

[NeilChapman]

I'm so irritated with the Navy. It's time to question why we need a 14B ship to carry around, effectively, 24 fighters. Everything else is basically CBG protection and support. I get they're cool, but seriously.

I am moving more toward the ARG/CVL camp w/CVL in support of the Corps aviation. The Navy can't seem to get out of their own way. Too many officers.

While I understand the attraction of CVLs/USMC F-35B carriers based on LHA/LHDs, how does a USN supercarrier only carry "effectively" 24 fighters?

Let's suggest a CAW consists of 4 F/A-18 strike squadrons and an EA squadron.

Qty 22 F/A-18E's
Qty 22 F/A-18F's
Qty 5 Growlers

Let's assume an expected FMC rate (deployed) of .63
Let's assume an actual FMC rate (deployed) of ~.5

You've started w/49 F/A-18's and you're left with ~24.

If you add to this the fact that the Navy sends 1/2 their F-18's out as tankers the numbers are more alarming.

The rest of the aircraft support the CSG - Fleet Logistics, Submarine Defense, Early Warning, etc.

 

[Blitzo]

Let's suggest a CAW consists of 4 F/A-18 strike squadrons and an EA squadron.

Qty 22 F/A-18E's
Qty 22 F/A-18F's
Qty 5 Growlers

Let's assume an expected FMC rate (deployed) of .63
Let's assume an actual FMC rate (deployed) of ~.5

You've started w/49 F/A-18's and you're left with ~24.

If you add to this the fact that the Navy sends 1/2 their F-18's out as tankers the numbers are more alarming.

The rest of the aircraft support the CSG - Fleet Logistics, Submarine Defense, Early Warning, etc.

Hmm yes, but in that case shouldn't all aircraft carriers (F-35B/LHA/CVLs) be considered in terms of their FMC rate? And also, I think more important than FMC rate is the sortie rate that a carrier can generate, where I expect the larger airwing of a CVN and the larger more optimized flight deck should allow for an overall significantly higher sortie rate generation than a CVL.

I suppose what I'm getting at, is that in practice any aircraft carrier's "effective" fixed wing combat capability/availability/sortie rate is always a fraction of their overall on-paper airwing, and unless there is a reason to think that an F-35B CVL type carrier for USN LHAs is able to generate a more cost effective sortie rate and combat capability than the USN's own future F-35C equipped CVNs, I don't think the supercarrier should be judged that harshly.

 

[NeilChapman]

Let's suggest a CAW consists of 4 F/A-18 strike squadrons and an EA squadron.

Qty 22 F/A-18E's
Qty 22 F/A-18F's
Qty 5 Growlers

Let's assume an expected FMC rate (deployed) of .63
Let's assume an actual FMC rate (deployed) of ~.5

You've started w/49 F/A-18's and you're left with ~24.

If you add to this the fact that the Navy sends 1/2 their F-18's out as tankers the numbers are more alarming.

The rest of the aircraft support the CSG - Fleet Logistics, Submarine Defense, Early Warning, etc.

Hmm yes, but in that case shouldn't all aircraft carriers (F-35B/LHA/CVLs) be considered in terms of their FMC rate? And also, I think more important than FMC rate is the sortie rate that a carrier can generate, where I expect the larger airwing of a CVN and the larger more optimized flight deck should allow for an overall significantly higher sortie rate generation than a CVL.

I suppose what I'm getting at, is that in practice any aircraft carrier's "effective" fixed wing combat capability/availability/sortie rate is always a fraction of their overall on-paper airwing, and unless there is a reason to think that an F-35B CVL type carrier for USN LHAs is able to generate a more cost effective sortie rate and combat capability than the USN's own future F-35C equipped CVNs, I don't think the supercarrier should be judged that harshly.

Perhaps... It would also suck to lose a crew of 6k, a $10B ship and $7B in aircraft.

My irritation is with naval aviation decision makers as it relates to MQ-XX and develops to the CVN.

One can make a case that 30 CVL's will be more "effective" than 10 CVN's at projecting presence and, ultimately, power. They can be built at multiple yards. They can be built in larger quantities. They can shorten the life span to "engineer in" new development faster. On a war footing, replacements will be coming out of the yards faster - you have to plan on ships being taken out of action. It currently takes 15 years to build and float a CVN.

The Navy needs to build ships as they are learning to build aircraft. Aircraft are being designed with open systems as they know technological obsolescence is a given. They only way to build in obsolescence in capital ships is to plan to replace them sooner. That's much easier with smaller ships.

As it relates to this topic, the direction of MQ-XX is a symptom to the current mindset. Their going to build a tanker that will require an air-cap. It perpetuates the existing problem. A CBG that exists to protect itself with self-limited strike capability.

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-previews-mq-25-solicitations-437671/

 

[sferrin]

One can make a case that 30 CVL's will be more "effective" than 10 CVN's at projecting presence and, ultimately, power.

Not successfully. The whole notion has been looked at by professionals numerous times over the last half century and always been found lacking. We don't have the Ford class because it was found to be the least bang for the buck.

They can be built at multiple yards.

No they can't. Ingalls is already building amphibious ships as fast as it can. So who beside NN is going to build your new carriers?

They can be built in larger quantities.

They'd have to be.

They can shorten the life span to "engineer in" new development faster.

Cha-ching.

On a war footing, replacements will be coming out of the yards faster - you have to plan on ships being taken out of action.

Again, because they'd HAVE to. They'll be dropping like flies.

It currently takes 15 years to build and float a CVN.

Not sure if this is ignorance or being deliberately disingenuous.

Little carriers are a lousy idea. That's why nobody who can afford to build bigger builds little carriers. It's why the Fords aren't little carriers.

 

[bring_it_on]

...

 

[NeilChapman]

One can make a case that 30 CVL's will be more "effective" than 10 CVN's at projecting presence and, ultimately, power.

Not successfully. The whole notion has been looked at by professionals numerous times over the last half century and always been found lacking. We don't have the Ford class because it was found to be the least bang for the buck.

"Quantity has a quality all it's own"

They can be built at multiple yards.

No they can't. Ingalls is already building amphibious ships as fast as it can. So who beside NN is going to build your new carriers?

Industry has said they are not at capacity at existing yards but I would advocate for expansion as well so we're not waiting for maintenance capacity. Non-nuclear carriers would have less limitations on where they could be built and refurbished.

They can be built in larger quantities.

They'd have to be.

Here we agree.

They can shorten the life span to "engineer in" new development faster.

Cha-ching.

There is already an acknowledgement that ships must be built to enable easier upgrades.

On a war footing, replacements will be coming out of the yards faster - you have to plan on ships being taken out of action.

Again, because they'd HAVE to. They'll be dropping like flies.

There is also an acknowledgement that ships with traditionally limited defensive capabilities need additional 'punch'. I'm not sure how you're making the conclusion that "they'll be dropping like flies." I'd be interested in any literature you could provide to enlighten me.

It currently takes 15 years to build and float a CVN.

Not sure if this is ignorance or being deliberately disingenuous.

Little carriers are a lousy idea. That's why nobody who can afford to build bigger builds little carriers. It's why the Fords aren't little carriers.

Well, neither.

CVN-78 Advanced funding started in 2001. First deployment expected in 2022. 21 years

CVN-79 Advanced funding started in 2007. First deployment expected in 2025-2027. 18-20 years.

CVN-80 Advanced funding started in 2016. First deployment expected ???

 

[bring_it_on]

Well, neither.

Could this be because the new class of carriers was being designed, developed, and its systems and sub-systems tested? Wouldnt the answer be to accelerate testing and reduce build times instead of well..embarking on another developmental project?

 

[NeilChapman]

Well, neither.

Could this be because the new class of carriers was being designed, developed, and its systems and sub-systems tested? Wouldnt the answer be to accelerate testing and reduce build times instead of well..embarking on another developmental project?

I wasn't suggesting that CVN's are bad - they are inefficient when 1/2 your fighters are gas stations. On top of that the US takes too long to build them and there are far too few. In a war time scenario where several carriers may be sunk there are no "replacements" on the horizon. It's like counting on satellite communications being available during the next near-peer war, or purchasing 40 new fighters per year - it doesn't make sense. Augmenting CVN's with CVL's creates many possibilities.

1. Greater production rates from multiple yards = more political stability + yards able to "learn" over more hulls, build better ships and create cost savings through repeated production.

2. Greater production rates + bulk purchases = more stable business base. Allows yard to make capital improvements to reduce costs. Success looks like Virginia-class.

3. Using existing amphibs in the role today - ex. Libya. Wouldn't be surprised to see the Navy amphib requirement rise from 38 to 40+. F-35's to deploy on Wasp this year. Perhaps a slep for wasp-class?

4. Basing options - perhaps even additional forward deployment locations.

5. Wider refurbishment locations. More operational time.

etc...

This started out as relating to the naval aviation decision makers re:the MQ-XX. I'd like the US Navy to start thinking in terms of combined systems instead of individual platforms - and they are in some cases.

Designing an autonomous tanker that isn't stealthy (so requires an air cap) for strike groups going into A2/AD environments seems short sighted to me. Of course, it is better than using 1/2 your F-18's as tankers as long as no one sprints in and blows up your gas station.

 

[Flyaway]

From Predator To Stingray, General Atomics Leads UAV Boom

Several years ago, under the Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS-D) and Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (Uclass) programs, GA-ASI probably had no chance against industry titans Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop, which pursued large-scale, flying-wing aircraft including the Phantom Ray, RQ-170-like Sea Ghost and X-47B, respectively. These sleek-looking aircraft would make excellent deep-strike aircraft, but building “modular utility trucks,” such as mission tankers, is where GA-ASI believes it shines.

The Navy’s requirements shift from Uclass to the MQ-25 Carrier-Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS) last year set the company up to be a prime contender. Although GA-ASI has little experience in aerial refueling, it specializes in long-range utility aircraft like the CBARS concept.

CEO Linden P. Blue and his father Neal, head of the parent organization General Atomics, emphasize that MQ-25 is a “huge priority,” alongside development of their next-generation, type-certifiable MQ-9B SkyGuardian.

“We’re pretty credible now after these seven years of dancing with the Navy,” Linden Blue says. “We’re trying to focus everybody on the MQ-25. [Our aircraft’s] size and shape is not hugely different [from] an Avenger, but it’s got to carry more gas and land on a carrier, so it is quite different in that sense.”

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/predator-stingray-general-atomics-leads-uav-boom

 

[sferrin]

I wasn't suggesting that CVN's are bad - they are inefficient when 1/2 your fighters are gas stations.

That's more a failing of the Hornet/Super than the concept of CVNs. Intruders and Corsairs didn't have near the requirement for tankers.

 

[bring_it_on]

Yeah you can't really address the short range of your tactical strike fighters by building a carrier half the size of your current ones and putting the same aircraft on them. You'd be using even more (as a percentage of your total deployed aircraft) as tankers and if you try to get closer you'll be dedicating a heck of a lot to protect the thing in the first place. Growlers are even worst with iirc an unxrefueled sub-400nm mission radius with a decent TOS. If the Navy wants a long range carrier borne fighter they need to build one. One look at the amount of money they are setting aside for the NGAD/FA-XX in their FY18 request provides great perspective at what they think of this.

If the tyranny of distance is much more of a concern in 2017 vs 2000, wouldn't you want larger, longer ranged manned and unmanned aircraft in the future thereby requiring a fairly large vessel to support them? Or can you submerge the carrier and get closer like a SSN?

 

[Airplane]

I wasn't suggesting that CVN's are bad - they are inefficient when 1/2 your fighters are gas stations.

That's more a failing of the Hornet/Super than the concept of CVNs. Intruders and Corsairs didn't have near the requirement for tankers.

Yep. I would add to your list the A-5.

 

[NeilChapman]

Yeah you can't really address the short range of your tactical strike fighters by building a carrier half the size of your current ones and putting the same aircraft on them. You'd be using even more (as a percentage of your total deployed aircraft) as tankers and if you try to get closer you'll be dedicating a heck of a lot to protect the thing in the first place. Growlers are even worst with iirc an unxrefueled sub-400nm mission radius with a decent TOS. If the Navy wants a long range carrier borne fighter they need to build one. One look at the amount of money they are setting aside for the NGAD/FA-XX in their FY18 request provides great perspective at what they think of this.

If the tyranny of distance is much more of a concern in 2017 vs 2000, wouldn't you want larger, longer ranged manned and unmanned aircraft in the future thereby requiring a fairly large vessel to support them? Or can you submerge the carrier and get closer like a SSN?

Didn't suggest the same planes be put on them. Stick with the F-35's, whatever's available for tankers and MALE drones off support ships. There is an engine upgrade for the 35's in the works that may be ready about the same time as the NGJ.

 

[Flyaway]

Navy Issues New MQ-25A Stingray Draft RFP to Industry Ahead of Final RFP in the Fall

For example, the MQ-25A effort only has two key performance parameters (KPP) for industry to adhere to in their crafting of the airframe for the MQ-25A.

“In the NDAA 2017 language, the services were given the authority to designate one program as a pilot to reduce the number of key performance parameters that would be in our requirements documents,” Darrah said.
“We have requested from OSD that permission in accordance with that language, and this program was selected, and we have two KPPs.”

According to MQ-25A program manager Capt. Beau Duarte those are:

“Carrier suitability. The system needs to be able to operate off of the aircraft carrier and integrate with all of the subsystems of the carrier. That’s catapults, that’s existing launch and recovery equipment,” he told USNI News on Thursday.
“Mission tanking. Sea-based tanker is the second KPP. It needs to be able to deliver a robust fuel offload at range to support an extension of the air wing and add flexibility of what’s available from a mission tanking perspective. There are a number of key system attributes or other requirements lower than that that are subsequent to [those] and are of lower importance and that will allow us to focus on those two key areas on tanking and carrier suitability and let those be the primary design drivers. “

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/20/navy-issues-new-mq-25a-stingray-draft-rfp-industry-ahead-final-rfp-fall

 

[bring_it_on]

Guy Norris‏ @AvWeekGuy 1h1 hour ago First images of @northropgrumman X-47B flying testbed for @USNavy MQ-25A Stingray unmanned air tanker bid https://tinyurl.com/y9kgvhr7

 

[Ian33]

Northrop Grumman, hat doffed.

I hope you win, just for sheer perseverance and dogged determination in the face of overwhelming political and naval stupidity.

 

[sferrin]

Northrop Grumman, hat doffed.

I hope you win, just for sheer perseverance and dogged determination in the face of overwhelming political and naval stupidity.

x2. But it makes way too much sense. Much better to toss all that work into the dumpster and start over. I REALLY hope NG wins it though. Consider, it's likely got much more payload and fuel capacity than any GA Avenger variant. It's ALREADY shown it can take off and land on a carrier. AND it's already performed aerial refueling as I recall. This should be NG's hands down.

 

[Mark S.]

That with the right marketing should really appeal to the current administration. It's good business. What they need to do is fly it and have a dry hook-up with an F-18. Would make for a great photo op. Has the fuel off-load at a specific radius been published for CBARS?

 

[Ian33]

Northrop Grumman, hat doffed.

I hope you win, just for sheer perseverance and dogged determination in the face of overwhelming political and naval stupidity.

x2. But it makes way too much sense. Much better to toss all that work into the dumpster and start over. I REALLY hope NG wins it though. Consider, it's likely got much more payload and fuel capacity than any GA Avenger variant. It's ALREADY shown it can take off and land on a carrier. AND it's already performed aerial refueling as I recall. This should be NG's hands down.

And when the Navy go "OH NO!!! WE NEED LOW OBSERVABLE STRIKE! !! HELP!!" NG can just drop the gas tanks and laugh as they trolled the Navy hard.