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

[VTOLicious]

The low aft perspective view shows that in fact the control surface edge goes through the bump...
...I still don't think the leading edge has any aft sweep.

Imho the black line is a cable leading to strain gauges, not uncommon on prototypes. However, without further Information/pics it's hard to tell what's the planform of the wings and what the mysterious bulges are for.

I also doubt that this has folding wings.

A dedicated carrier aircraft without folding wings?

 

[TomS]

A dedicated carrier aircraft without folding wings?

OK, that one's cheating.

I suppose a really basic prototype might skip the fold for simplicity.

I notice they talk about deck-handling tests, which makes sense. They need to see how an unmanned machine can interact with normal flight deck routine. I wonder if they might try a synthetic vision system to get the MQ-25 to respond to normal hand signals from the handlers rather than needing a dedicated control box or something.

 

[VTOLicious]

The 15000 lb might be doable if the capacity of the Buddy Store + another fuel tank is considered:

Internal capacity "give": 1440 gal (5451 l) (corresponds to 3x 480 gal tanks )
External capacity "give": 1x Buddy Store 300 gal (1136 l) + 1x FuelTank 480 gal (1817 l) = 780 gal (2953 l)

Total fuel "give": 2220gal (8404 l), JP5 @ 0.81 kg/l = 6807kg (15007 lb)

EDIT: In case of the X-47B, 15000lb is exactly half of its useful load:

Empty weight: 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 44,567 lb (20,215 kg)

Useful Load: 30567 lb (13865 kg)

 

[Arjen]

A dedicated carrier aircraft without folding wings?

Rafale M does without folding wings.

 

[VTOLicious]

A dedicated carrier aircraft without folding wings?

Rafale M does without folding wings.

The exception proofs the rule

 

[SpudmanWP]

I'd say that it has to fold given that a 60+ foot wingspan will make moving it around below decks a massive pain.

How big are the hanger doors?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'd say that it has to fold given that a 60+ foot wingspan will make moving it around below decks a massive pain.

How big are the hanger doors?

I think the point was this *prototype* might not have folding wings, even if the real thing does.

 

[Airplane]

I think the entire wing will fold like an old F9F Panther that folded where the wing met the intakes.

 

[sferrin]

I think the entire wing will fold like an old F9F Panther that folded where the wing met the intakes.

That would make for a pretty tall aircraft I'd think.

 

[Flyaway]

Here's Why General Atomics Teamed Up With Boeing For The MQ-25 Tanker Drone Tender

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18437/heres-why-general-atomics-teamed-up-with-boeing-for-the-mq-25-tanker-drone-tender

 

[VTOLicious]

Here's Why General Atomics Teamed Up With Boeing For The MQ-25 Tanker Drone Tender
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18437/heres-why-general-atomics-teamed-up-with-boeing-for-the-mq-25-tanker-drone-tender

"...This follows the service dropping something of a bombshell in its latest budget request, stating that, at best, it will only buy four of the Stingrays over the next six years and that a possible larger buy of 68 will only come some time after that, if it happens at all..."

 

[VTOLicious]

The 15000 lb might be doable if the capacity of the Buddy Store + another fuel tank is considered:

Internal capacity "give": 1440 gal (5451 l) (corresponds to 3x 480 gal tanks )
External capacity "give": 1x Buddy Store 300 gal (1136 l) + 1x FuelTank 480 gal (1817 l) = 780 gal (2953 l)

Total fuel "give": 2220gal (8404 l), JP5 @ 0.81 kg/l = 6807kg (15007 lb)

EDIT: In case of the X-47B, 15000lb is exactly half of its useful load:

Empty weight: 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 44,567 lb (20,215 kg)

Useful Load: 30567 lb (13865 kg)

"...On Feb. 12, 2018, General Atomics revealed the partnership with Boeing in a press release that also named a half dozen other companies that it would be working with on its MQ-25 bid. Pratt & Whitney will supply its PW815 high bypass turbofan engine,..."

Now that we know what kind of engine is being used for the MQ-25, it becomes evident that it will have an MTOM that's very similar to the X-47B.

X-47B, 1x Pratt & Whitney F100-220U: 16000 lbf (71,17 kN)
MQ-25, 1x Pratt & Whitney PW815GA: 15680 lbf (69,75 kN)

 

[sferrin]

Here's Why General Atomics Teamed Up With Boeing For The MQ-25 Tanker Drone Tender
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18437/heres-why-general-atomics-teamed-up-with-boeing-for-the-mq-25-tanker-drone-tender

"...This follows the service dropping something of a bombshell in its latest budget request, stating that, at best, it will only buy four of the Stingrays over the next six years and that a possible larger buy of 68 will only come some time after that, if it happens at all..."

Meanwhile the X-47Bs collect dust, if they haven't been scrapped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWZD_bkNK-c

 

[flateric]

What makes you think that they could be scrapped?
Navy was going to donate them to museums but then changed mind and kept for future testing.
One of them was last seen in August, 17 with external fuel tanks in CBARS related tests.

 

[sferrin]

What makes you think that they could be scrapped?
Navy was going to donate them to museums but then changed mind and kept for future testing.
One of them was last seen in August, 17 with external fuel tanks in CBARS related tests.

It would be par for the course.

 

[DrRansom]

"...This follows the service dropping something of a bombshell in its latest budget request, stating that, at best, it will only buy four of the Stingrays over the next six years and that a possible larger buy of 68 will only come some time after that, if it happens at all..."

Why even have the program if you're not going to buy anything?

 

[bring_it_on]

Why even have the program if you're not going to buy anything?

Plans are to buy 4 aircraft in the FYDP to support development and operational testing (most probably). Additional buy would be outside of the FYDP and therefore not included in a chart.

 

[jsport]

"...This follows the service dropping something of a bombshell in its latest budget request, stating that, at best, it will only buy four of the Stingrays over the next six years and that a possible larger buy of 68 will only come some time after that, if it happens at all..."

Why even have the program if you're not going to buy anything?

Glade research continues as even though basic avionics and sensors are common and largely mature. Such an important capability as long range, high performance potentially UCRAS craft takes time. It is too bad a tactical vtol Close Air Support UCRAS program doesn't have the same support. Of course the candidate VTOLs out there are not worth investing in.

 

[jsport]

"...This follows the service dropping something of a bombshell in its latest budget request, stating that, at best, it will only buy four of the Stingrays over the next six years and that a possible larger buy of 68 will only come some time after that, if it happens at all..."

Why even have the program if you're not going to buy anything?

Glade research continues as even though basic avionics and sensors are common and largely mature. Such an important capability as long range, high performance potentially UCRAS craft takes time. It is too bad a tactical vtol Close Air Support UCRAS program doesn't have the same support. Of course the candidate VTOLs out there are not worth investing in.

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/boeing-backs-two-sides-us-navy-mq-25-competition?utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=13703&utm_medium=email&elq2=88d40d4b6faa44c49178877f4039453f

 

[marauder2048]

Traditionally, the US government has not favored arrangements where one of the losing entrants can
still win in this fashion.

 

[sferrin]

Traditionally, the US government has not favored arrangements where one of the losing entrants can
still win in this fashion.

That doesn't seem all that different than the ATF losers (McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics) teaming up with Northrop and Lockheed respectively. Granted, they were in different phases of the program.

 

[marauder2048]

That doesn't seem all that different than the ATF losers (McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics) teaming up with Northrop and Lockheed respectively. Granted, they were in different phases of the program.

I think the final source selection phase is the important distinction.

 

[sferrin]

That doesn't seem all that different than the ATF losers (McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics) teaming up with Northrop and Lockheed respectively. Granted, they were in different phases of the program.

I think the final source selection phase is the important distinction.

I could swear I've seen others where companies had their hands in multiple pies.

 

[Moose]

That doesn't seem all that different than the ATF losers (McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics) teaming up with Northrop and Lockheed respectively. Granted, they were in different phases of the program.

I think the final source selection phase is the important distinction.

I could swear I've seen others where companies had their hands in multiple pies.

There have been others, usually they swing it by citing critical capabilities which the program needs. Occasionally it ends up with a situation like FVL where one of the competitors gets bought out during the years-long process. Here they might simply point out that Phantom Works is the lead on their bid but isn't involved in the GA bid.

 

[marauder2048]

There have been others, usually they swing it by citing critical capabilities which the program needs. Occasionally it ends up with a situation like FVL where one of the competitors gets bought out during the years-long process. Here they might simply point out that Phantom Works is the lead on their bid but isn't involved in the GA bid.

I'm trying to think of some on the (POR) scale of MQ-25...

The typical argument that I've seen against such arrangements is that it might discourage a prime
from submitting a high quality bid since the margins are more often than not better as a partner
and for a fixed-price EMD you are (potentially) more insulated from overruns.

 

[LowObservable]

ATF was at the customer's initiative. At that point, USAF had pretty much decided that Lockheed and Northrop were in the lead because of LO, and had also decided to expand Dem-Val to include two teams and flying prototypes. They also wanted their existing fighter manufacturers on both teams (Macs and GD) and to involve Boeing, who had surprised everyone by outpointing Macs in the first round of analysis.

There were a few crossover teams on AX (A-12 follow-on) too. I can't recall the details offhand, but I think it was a matter of making sure that teams had both LO and CV experience, plus the fact that two of the bids involved the A-12 and F-22 teams. But the assumption may have been that the customer would pre-eliminate some teams before the final EMD source selection.

But Boeing's move on MQ-25 is different from either of those cases.

 

[fightingirish]

Too late to post a summary.
Sources (free registration):
http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-space-technology/boeing-s-play-mq-25-stingray
https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews

 

[VTOLicious]

Too late to post a summary:
Source and Link (Paywall): http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-space-technology/boeing-s-play-mq-25-stingray

Thx for sharing those pics!

Interesting revelations:

"In an exclusive interview with Aviation Week, Boeing Phantom Works MQ-25 program director Don “BD” Gaddis revealed that the T-1 prototype now being tested at Boeing’s military aircraft plant in St. Louis was actually rolled out in November 2014 but was kept hidden from public view until now"

“Going back to Uclass, tanking was part of the design space. It was a mission we designed into this airplane,” Gaddis explains. “This airplane can meet all of the requirements, with substantial margin. We are in a really good spot.”

 

[Flyaway]

I don’t think this is behind a paywall just needs a free registration.

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-s-play-mq-25-stingray

 

[sferrin]

Interesting revelations:

"In an exclusive interview with Aviation Week, Boeing Phantom Works MQ-25 program director Don “BD” Gaddis revealed that the T-1 prototype now being tested at Boeing’s military aircraft plant in St. Louis was actually rolled out in November 2014 but was kept hidden from public view until now"

All that work that Northrop Grumman did with the X-47B, both taking on fuel and carrier operations, who owns that, the DoD or NG? If the DoD I wonder how much of that they could port over to this to save time in the event it wins.

 

[litzj]

NG's X-47B looks better for various missions such as AG, long-endurance, stealth penetration.

Boeing's design is optimized for 'Tanker' mission rather than other missions (maybe plus 'submarine tracking mission?')

 

[Mark Nankivil]

But NG has walked away from this competition so that's a moot point. It would appear, based on this and walking away from the T-X as well, that B-21 is getting their full and undivided attention. If they can get that done without the missteps Lock-Mart and Boeing have had on their bigger ticket projects, all the better for them.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[sferrin]

Looks like you both kinda missed my point. I'm talking about the aerial refueling, catapult launching, arrested landing, and deck handling work that NG did with the X-47B, not the X-47B itself. Was that paid for by the DoD? If so, it would seem to me it would be applicable to, and be able to ported over to, whomever wins the MQ-25.

 

[marauder2048]

All that work that Northrop Grumman did with the X-47B, both taking on fuel and carrier operations, who owns that, the DoD or NG? If the DoD I wonder how much of that they could port over to this to save time in the event it wins.

NG owns the TDPs* for most of what was done with X-47B. The Navy owns the data that resulted from the demonstrations.

* IIRC, software data rights were to have been purchased under UCLASS. Who knows how far they got before it was canned.

 

[flanker]

The others were posted in high res, but here is the missing one in high res too.

 

[aero-engineer]

Too late to post a summary:
Source and Link (Paywall): http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-space-technology/boeing-s-play-mq-25-stingray

Thx for sharing those pics!

Interesting revelations:

"In an exclusive interview with Aviation Week, Boeing Phantom Works MQ-25 program director Don “BD” Gaddis revealed that the T-1 prototype now being tested at Boeing’s military aircraft plant in St. Louis was actually rolled out in November 2014 but was kept hidden from public view until now"

“Going back to Uclass, tanking was part of the design space. It was a mission we designed into this airplane,” Gaddis explains. “This airplane can meet all of the requirements, with substantial margin. We are in a really good spot.”

Actually, multiple members already suspected all of this (see below). The only "revelation" is that Boeing is publicly admitting to reusing a design built vehicle from a different (terminated) program.

What will be interesting to see in the end if Boeing wins, will they spit out warmed over UCLASS vehicles or go back to the drawing board with with a purpose built MQ-25 tanker.

Lockheed has publicly stated they dropped their UCLASS Sea Ghost for a clean sheet MQ-25.

This will be interesting to watch unfold.

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.

TomS gets a gold star. B)

The original UCLASS RFP date was fall 2014.

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.

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

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.”

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

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?

 

[NeilChapman]

But NG has walked away from this competition so that's a moot point. It would appear, based on this and walking away from the T-X as well, that B-21 is getting their full and undivided attention. If they can get that done without the missteps Lock-Mart and Boeing have had on their bigger ticket projects, all the better for them.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

B-21 and perhaps NGAD?

 

[Flyaway]

But NG has walked away from this competition so that's a moot point. It would appear, based on this and walking away from the T-X as well, that B-21 is getting their full and undivided attention. If they can get that done without the missteps Lock-Mart and Boeing have had on their bigger ticket projects, all the better for them.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

B-21 and perhaps NGAD?

I wonder if NG are still cranking out RQ-180s or if not many were built.

 

[NeilChapman]

But NG has walked away from this competition so that's a moot point. It would appear, based on this and walking away from the T-X as well, that B-21 is getting their full and undivided attention. If they can get that done without the missteps Lock-Mart and Boeing have had on their bigger ticket projects, all the better for them.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

B-21 and perhaps NGAD?

I wonder if NG are still cranking out RQ-180s or if not many were built.

I'd forgotten about that. That would be a Palmdale build as well I expect?