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

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2017/08/17/general-atomics-mq-25a-stingray-design-will-optimized-navys-needs

 

[NeilChapman]

The Super Hornet's F100 or the F135. With the F135 at least it would be "ready" for the future AETP engine.

Probably a brain-fart but the Super Hornet uses the F414, which in a non-afterburning configuration would be too small. However, the USN does have experience with the F110 in the F-14D, and the F118 (used in the B-2) is a non-afterburning version of that engine.

Yep - thx.

Thought about the F-14 but it's been over 10 years. That expertise is gone.

Not sure it has to lose the afterburner. The point is to make it as simple, logistically, as possible.

 

[TomcatViP]

The developing MQ-25A Stingray program offers another option for a possible BPI platform, although on a longer time horizon. The MQ-25A is the latest evolution of the Navy’s pursuit of a carrier-based, unmanned aircraft. While its primary stated role at this time is as an airborne tanker, additional capability is planned f or integration in the future. The Navy’s request-for-information at the inception of the program calls for a small, lightweight sensor similar to the MTS-B used on the Triton and Reaper. The MTS-B would provide the Stingray with the same sensor capability as the Reaper for supporting boost-phase engagements without modifying the program sensor requirements. Further, the aircraft should have sufficient payload to carry interceptors, given the platform's desired ability to carry sufficient fuel to refuel other platforms. Carrying interceptors, however, would require a specific design effort. Incorporating the boost-phase kill capability on the Stingray also would allow basing of these capabilities on board aircraft carriers, giving greater operational freedom and utility.

Source:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/navy-boost-phase-could-counter-north-korea-part-three

 

[Ian33]

The developing MQ-25A Stingray program offers another option for a possible BPI platform, although on a longer time horizon. The MQ-25A is the latest evolution of the Navy’s pursuit of a carrier-based, unmanned aircraft. While its primary stated role at this time is as an airborne tanker, additional capability is planned f or integration in the future. The Navy’s request-for-information at the inception of the program calls for a small, lightweight sensor similar to the MTS-B used on the Triton and Reaper. The MTS-B would provide the Stingray with the same sensor capability as the Reaper for supporting boost-phase engagements without modifying the program sensor requirements. Further, the aircraft should have sufficient payload to carry interceptors, given the platform's desired ability to carry sufficient fuel to refuel other platforms. Carrying interceptors, however, would require a specific design effort. Incorporating the boost-phase kill capability on the Stingray also would allow basing of these capabilities on board aircraft carriers, giving greater operational freedom and utility.

Source:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/navy-boost-phase-could-counter-north-korea-part-three

Apologise for my language, but the USN are now taking the absolute piss. Boost phase intercept? Anti ballistic missile shoot downs... and they want a dirt cheap barn door sized 'tanker' for that role.... this has to take the B2 and F22 debacle and add cherries to the 'you must be having a laugh' cake. They are seriously deranged.

 

[marauder2048]

Apologise for my language, but the USN are now taking the absolute piss. Boost phase intercept? Anti ballistic missile shoot downs... and they want a dirt cheap barn door sized 'tanker' for that role.... this has to take the B2 and F22 debacle and add cherries to the 'you must be having a laugh' cake. They are seriously deranged.

I'm not sure you can be so categorical in your dismissal.

Because it depends on so many things: the air defense environment, what other detection/tracking/discrimination assets are present,
how large of a boost-phase interceptor MQ-25 can carry, what propellants the Navy is willing to permit...

 

[Flyaway]

Apologise for my language, but the USN are now taking the absolute piss. Boost phase intercept? Anti ballistic missile shoot downs... and they want a dirt cheap barn door sized 'tanker' for that role.... this has to take the B2 and F22 debacle and add cherries to the 'you must be having a laugh' cake. They are seriously deranged.

I'm not sure you can be so categorical in your dismissal.

Because it depends on so many things: the air defense environment, what other detection/tracking/discrimination assets are present,
how large of a boost-phase interceptor MQ-25 can carry, what propellants the Navy is willing to permit...

But aren't these two requirements mutually exclusive as far as the design is concerned?

 

[marauder2048]

That really depends on the ABI interceptor range and whether the MQ-25 could operate under the NIFC-CA
umbrella against the NK fighter threat; towed decoys would be effective against the SA-5 threat.

And actually THAAD-ER is reasonably close to the ABI interceptor envisioned by the Wilkening study cited
in the article. But the Navy has been averse to using the liquid propellants that are pretty much required
to enable the interceptor to have the necessary divert capability.

 

[sferrin]

But the Navy has been averse to using the liquid propellants that are pretty much required to enable the interceptor to have the necessary divert capability.

I get their concern but there's got to be a way to make them sufficiently safe. Given they're in a VLS equipped with a deluge system. . .just seems like the solution is there if they want it.

 

[marauder2048]

But the Navy has been averse to using the liquid propellants that are pretty much required to enable the interceptor to have the necessary divert capability.

I get their concern but there's got to be a way to make them sufficiently safe. Given they're in a VLS equipped with a deluge system. . .just seems like the solution is there if they want it.

For SM-3 IIB, the Navy at least showed some openness to relaxing the 1988 ban on liquid propellants aboard ship.
But that was for an encanistered missile in the VLS. For use aboard a carrier, you'd probably have to shift to
a HAN monopropellant and/or encanister the interceptor in something like an enclosed weapons pod.

 

[sferrin]

But the Navy has been averse to using the liquid propellants that are pretty much required to enable the interceptor to have the necessary divert capability.

I get their concern but there's got to be a way to make them sufficiently safe. Given they're in a VLS equipped with a deluge system. . .just seems like the solution is there if they want it.

For SM-3 IIB, the Navy at least showed some openness to relaxing the 1988 ban on liquid propellants aboard ship.
But that was for an encanistered missile in the VLS. For use aboard a carrier, you'd probably have to shift to
a HAN monopropellant and/or encanister the interceptor in something like an enclosed weapons pod.

Or, finially, switch over to a VLS CIWS. The Mk41 self-defense length would fit the bill.

 

[TomS]

But the Navy has been averse to using the liquid propellants that are pretty much required to enable the interceptor to have the necessary divert capability.

I get their concern but there's got to be a way to make them sufficiently safe. Given they're in a VLS equipped with a deluge system. . .just seems like the solution is there if they want it.

For SM-3 IIB, the Navy at least showed some openness to relaxing the 1988 ban on liquid propellants aboard ship.
But that was for an encanistered missile in the VLS. For use aboard a carrier, you'd probably have to shift to
a HAN monopropellant and/or encanister the interceptor in something like an enclosed weapons pod.

Or, finially, switch over to a VLS CIWS. The Mk41 self-defense length would fit the bill.

I think the discussion is going a bit astray. The topic was boost-phase missile defense interceptors, not CIWS. Those would have to be stowed in an aviation ordnance magazine, not in a VLS, and would need to be encanistered for flight deck safety.

 

[sferrin]

But the Navy has been averse to using the liquid propellants that are pretty much required to enable the interceptor to have the necessary divert capability.

I get their concern but there's got to be a way to make them sufficiently safe. Given they're in a VLS equipped with a deluge system. . .just seems like the solution is there if they want it.

For SM-3 IIB, the Navy at least showed some openness to relaxing the 1988 ban on liquid propellants aboard ship.
But that was for an encanistered missile in the VLS. For use aboard a carrier, you'd probably have to shift to
a HAN monopropellant and/or encanister the interceptor in something like an enclosed weapons pod.

Or, finially, switch over to a VLS CIWS. The Mk41 self-defense length would fit the bill.

I think the discussion is going a bit astray. The topic was boost-phase missile defense interceptors, not CIWS. Those would have to be stowed in an aviation ordnance magazine, not in a VLS, and would need to be encanistered for flight deck safety.

Why would you want to put a boost phase interceptor on a carrier?

 

[TomS]

You want boost phase interceptors to be relatively near the launch site, so you put them on an aircraft that can loiter nearby. In this article, the MQ-25 was nominated to carry said interceptor. Since the MQ-25 would be carrier-based, you would need to stow the weapons on the carrier before loading them on the UAV. And that's where the liquid fuel becomes an issue -- it has to be stowed in weapon magazines, handled and loaded onto the UAV, launched and presumably recovered, etc.

 

[sferrin]

You want boost phase interceptors to be relatively near the launch site, so you put them on an aircraft that can loiter nearby. In this article, the MQ-25 was nominated to carry said interceptor. Since the MQ-25 would be carrier-based, you would need to stow the weapons on the carrier before loading them on the UAV. And that's where the liquid fuel becomes an issue -- it has to be stowed in weapon magazines, handled and loaded onto the UAV, launched and presumably recovered, etc.

Ah, got ya. I'd agree, putting it in a canister makes more sense. Protects the missile, contains leaks, etc.

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2017/08/31/mq-25-stingray-unmanned-aerial-tanker-almost-double-strike-range-u-s-carrier-air-wing

 

[kcran567]

Asking an honest question: It looks too small to carry much fuel how will it double the range of the air fleet? Are they disposable? is there enough fuel to return to carrier?

 

[sferrin]

Asking an honest question: It looks too small to carry much fuel how will it double the range of the air fleet? Are they disposable? is there enough fuel to return to carrier?

Maybe if they go with an X-47B based design it would have enough. Certainly not General Atomics design.

 

[_Del_]

Asking an honest question: It looks too small to carry much fuel how will it double the range of the air fleet? Are they disposable? is there enough fuel to return to carrier?

The new requirements are going to need new designs. There is no way to get anything more than recovery tankage use from the designs that were made for the largely different earlier UCLASS requirements. The new weighted requirements focus on mission tankage.

 

[Sundog]

From Alert 5

Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker revealed to U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings that the MQ-25 is to deliver about 15,000 pounds of fuel at 500 nautical miles from the aircraft carrier for its mission tanker role.

Shoemaker added that this will extend the range of carrier-borne fighters by 300 to 400 nautical miles.

The unmanned aerial tanker will also take the pressure off the F/A-18s supporting the tanker role.
“The MQ-25 will be much more efficient than the Rhino (Super Hornets), and it will give us the ability to get out there and refuel four to six airplanes at range.”

 

[marauder2048]

That's not a particularly impressive fuel off-load capability relative to a VARS equipped CMV-22B.

 

[TomS]

That's not a particularly impressive fuel off-load capability relative to a VARS equipped CMV-22B.

It's 50% more than the published "give" for a fully gassed CMV-22 with VARS (range unstated). That's nothing to sneeze at.

 

[marauder2048]

12,000 lbs was the maximum figure that was quoted for VARS on the MV-22.
Unclear what mission/auxiliary tank profile that was in though.

 

[TomS]

12,000 lbs was the maximum figure that was quoted for VARS on the MV-22.
Unclear what mission/auxiliary tank profile that was in though.

I saw 10,000 pounds quoted at the link below. Maybe they lost some capacity in development.

http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20170329-v22.html

 

[bring_it_on]

Proceedings: Will the Triton be under the tactical control (TACON) of the carrier strike group or the numbered fleet commander?

Shoemaker: As a former carrier strike group commander, I would love to have TACON of the Triton, but it will be a numbered fleet asset, an operational-level asset. That is why we pushed hard for the MQ-25 to be an air wing asset that can be used inside the strike group.

Proceedings: The MQ-25 is primarily seen as an aerial refueling asset. What about expanding its capabilities as a stealthy bomber or for suppression of enemy air defenses?

Shoemaker: Right now the focus is to make it a tanker to extend the reach of the air wing and reduce some of the fatigue life expenditure on our Super Hornets. The only tankers we have in the air wing are the Rhinos. The MQ-25 will give us the ability to extend the air wing out probably 300 or 400 miles beyond where we typically go. We will be able to do that and sustain a nominal number of airplanes at that distance. That will extend the reach of the air wing, and when we combine that with additional weapons we are buying, we will get an impressive reach. So, the MQ-25 will start primarily as a tanker, but we will keep our options open in terms of additional capacity or capabilities.

Proceedings: How much fuel can the MQ-25 give at a 200-mile range?

Shoemaker: The specific parameter is to try to maximize fuel give at 500 nautical miles, not at the 200-mile range, and I think we’ll see something on the order of 15,000 pounds or so.

Proceedings: Is that greater than a Rhino’s give at that range?

Shoemaker: Absolutely. And it will be more efficient. A Rhino would have to carry five fuel tanks, “a five-wet tanker,” as we call it. That burns a lot of gas to get that much gas to range. The MQ-25 will be much more efficient than the Rhino, and it will give us the ability to get out there and refuel four to six airplanes at range. It will also work as a recovery tanker for cyclic ops with the ability to cover at least three cycles. Launch one airplane, and it goes overhead, drops back down for the recovery, and goes back up to altitude to wait for the next recovery.

We will not be putting any wear and tear on Super Hornets for the tanking mission, which is good. We also have precision-landing modes we are delivering in Super Hornets and Growlers that will make landing on the carrier much easier.

I think the combination of having extra gas airborne and the precision landing modes will reduce the number of tankers needed because of the air wing’s ability to recover much more efficiently.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-09/interview-air-boss

 

[marauder2048]

12,000 lbs was the maximum figure that was quoted for VARS on the MV-22.
Unclear what mission/auxiliary tank profile that was in though.

I saw 10,000 pounds quoted at the link below. Maybe they lost some capacity in development.

http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20170329-v22.html

I think the discrepancy comes from the fact that not all of the MV-22Bs have the aft sponson tank which can
accommodate 2,000 lbs. There was some recent budget/FBO activity that indicated that the Navy
is looking at reincorporating the aft sponson fuel tank permanently on Block B and C MV-22 models.

 

[Flyaway]

Proceedings: Will the Triton be under the tactical control (TACON) of the carrier strike group or the numbered fleet commander?

Shoemaker: As a former carrier strike group commander, I would love to have TACON of the Triton, but it will be a numbered fleet asset, an operational-level asset. That is why we pushed hard for the MQ-25 to be an air wing asset that can be used inside the strike group.

Proceedings: The MQ-25 is primarily seen as an aerial refueling asset. What about expanding its capabilities as a stealthy bomber or for suppression of enemy air defenses?

Shoemaker: Right now the focus is to make it a tanker to extend the reach of the air wing and reduce some of the fatigue life expenditure on our Super Hornets. The only tankers we have in the air wing are the Rhinos. The MQ-25 will give us the ability to extend the air wing out probably 300 or 400 miles beyond where we typically go. We will be able to do that and sustain a nominal number of airplanes at that distance. That will extend the reach of the air wing, and when we combine that with additional weapons we are buying, we will get an impressive reach. So, the MQ-25 will start primarily as a tanker, but we will keep our options open in terms of additional capacity or capabilities.

Proceedings: How much fuel can the MQ-25 give at a 200-mile range?

Shoemaker: The specific parameter is to try to maximize fuel give at 500 nautical miles, not at the 200-mile range, and I think we’ll see something on the order of 15,000 pounds or so.

Proceedings: Is that greater than a Rhino’s give at that range?

Shoemaker: Absolutely. And it will be more efficient. A Rhino would have to carry five fuel tanks, “a five-wet tanker,” as we call it. That burns a lot of gas to get that much gas to range. The MQ-25 will be much more efficient than the Rhino, and it will give us the ability to get out there and refuel four to six airplanes at range. It will also work as a recovery tanker for cyclic ops with the ability to cover at least three cycles. Launch one airplane, and it goes overhead, drops back down for the recovery, and goes back up to altitude to wait for the next recovery.

We will not be putting any wear and tear on Super Hornets for the tanking mission, which is good. We also have precision-landing modes we are delivering in Super Hornets and Growlers that will make landing on the carrier much easier.

I think the combination of having extra gas airborne and the precision landing modes will reduce the number of tankers needed because of the air wing’s ability to recover much more efficiently.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-09/interview-air-boss

Does that mean from the outset that the overall design will have to include the ability to be used for other missions down the line, as that might be contradictory to the best design for a tanker role.

 

[LowObservable]

Even 10 klb at 500 nm sounds like a lot for a V-22.

 

[marauder2048]

Even 10 klb at 500 nm sounds like a lot for a V-22.

From the published figures, it looks doable but I definitely agree that 12 klb @ 500 nm is a reach.

 

[_Del_]

Even 10 klb at 500 nm sounds like a lot for a V-22.

Every quote from the USMC regarding VARS mentions the V-22 used as a recovery tanker and to top off F-35s immediately after a low gross weight V/STO launch. That puts it at 10,000 lbs hoped for at near zero range.

Also found this at range number for the Rhinos

In a standard tanking configuration, the Super Hornet carries one centerline refueling tank and four auxiliary tanks, totaling about 28,000 pounds or 4,118 gallons of fuel. Excessive weight and drag cause the tanker to consume more fuel than usual, leaving only about 5,000 pounds or 735 gallons of fuel to refuel other aircraft.

Once launched, the Hornet tanker remains airborne for the complete mission, or sortie, cycle of about 1.5 hours—burning fuel the entire time, Quinn explained. In addition, fuel that is not transferred in flight must be consumed or jettisoned for the tanker to achieve a safe landing weight.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5268

 

[marauder2048]

Even 10 klb at 500 nm sounds like a lot for a V-22.

Every quote from the USMC regarding VARS mentions the V-22 used as a recovery tanker and to top off F-35s immediately after a low gross weight V/STO launch. That puts it at 10,000 lbs hoped for at near zero range.

Unsurprising given that at the gross weights we are talking about (for offload @ range) you need winds-over-deck and a takeoff roll that
exceeds what is typically available on an LHA/LHD but readily available on a CVN.

 

[LowObservable]

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.

 

[TomcatViP]

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.

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[LowObservable]

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.

 

[NeilChapman]

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.

 

[bring_it_on]

GAO: Navy's MQ-25 has valid requirements and reports $5 billion cost ceiling

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.

 

[bring_it_on]

...

 

[sferrin]

...

Unless GA's Avenger concept is greatly scaled up, I don't see how it would be able to offload a useful amount of fuel.

 

[TomcatViP]

You have to compare with the existing capabilities. SH in tanker mode does not offer a better net offload tonnage.

Avenger has volume, fuel economy, speed, and endurance. Add the probably lower RCS and the game is set b/w the two.

 

[TomS]

The goal is 15k give at 500nm. Avenger as currently defined can't even carry 15k worth of fuel.