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

[fightingirish]

Looks like the lovechild of the Avenger and the Global Hawk.

To compare...
Twitter:https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/980821941350207488

 

[flateric]

an official LM Stingray web-page https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/mq-25.html

 

[marauder2048]

(This is why it comes as a surprise that no outsider came up with a cheap remotely piloted regenerated platform like the old S-3 or something similar).

Reminding the Navy of the disastrously stupid, premature retirement of the S-3 isn't going to go over very well.

The problem for MQ-25 is that its justification no longer exists; the Super Hornet line has been given a reprieve and
the Super Hornet retirements that were going to happen are now, in effect, not going to happen.

Once a 3-wet + CFT Super Bug demonstrates "good enough" mission tanking, MQ-25 will likely be severely curtailed if not
abandoned entirely.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Well, it's out from behind the paywall:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/who-has-advantage-us-navy-mq-25-competition

My betting:

1st General Atomics. Not the sexiest, but closely based on an aircraft already flown and ordered by another service plus proven leadership in UAVs.

2nd Boeing. Interesting Black Diamond production, experience with the Navy, a prototype ready to fly.

3rd Lockheed Martin. Experience with stealth (likely a future requirement despite current dumbing-down), an efficient flying wing, with the reputation of the Skunk Works, but still a Powerpoint Plane.

Podcast:

http://aviationweek.com/future-aerospace/podcast-how-skunk-works-and-spacex-are-pushing-edge

 

[sferrin]

My thoughts as well though I'd prefer: 1 - Boeing, 2 - GA, 3 - LM. (I just think the Boeing design is very interesting looking. )

 

[NeilChapman]

My preference would be GA over Boeing. Objectively, Boeing has disappointed too many times with the KC-46 program.

Subjectively, Boeing acts as if it's run by bean counters instead of engineers resulting in a company that just doesn't seem to have the heart, or the will, or the management focus to 'make it happen.' On the commercial side they really don't have any competition, the entry cost being too high, so the contrast isn't there. And Boeing's is lucky that Airbus is at least as bad if not worse run organization. On the defense side the contrast with competitors is pretty obvious. Quite frankly, it would be better if Boeing spun off the defense business and that new business partnered with GA. Perhaps they would find their passion.

For both reasons I don't trust that they will deliver. It would be something; inability to get weight out of the air vehicle, problems with control systems integration, production vehicle won't carry the intended fuel, timelines will be missed - something.

 

[Moose]

I'm no great fan of Boeing's senior leadership these days, but I don't think KC-46's problems are indicative of potential MQ-25 problems. GA is certainly struggling in some areas, and still has yet to make an actual Avenger sale despite claiming a great deal of interest. From a technical point of view, I like what I've seen of both planes and would like to see either succeed, so I think I'm going to put them somewhat level. The LM bid, by contrast, seems like it's going through the motions.

 

[Hood]

Boeing has announced that the engine in its MQ-25 prototype is a 9,000lb Rolls-Royce AE3007N turbofan.
Also confirmation that only taxiing trials have made and that the prototype has not flown and won't until a programme contract is awarded.
I must admit that I'm surprised Boeing haven't ditched the internal intake, if only to free up some internal space for more fuel tankage.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/phantom-works-selects-rolls-royce-turbofan-to-power-447360/

 

[Moose]

I wonder how the N version of AE3007 measures up to the PW815. Small differences in economy/performance might make a really big difference in this one.

 

[flateric]

https://twitter.com/ReaderRabott/status/981964282991726592
https://twitter.com/ReaderRabott/status/981995285835665409
https://twitter.com/VivienneMachi/status/981964321273020418

 

[AeroFranz]

GHawk has tweaked 3007H engine, where H i think stands for high altitude. Does anyone know if N stands for "Navy"? it might have anti-corrosion materials.

I must admit that I'm surprised Boeing haven't ditched the internal intake, if only to free up some internal space for more fuel tankage.

My guess the design pre-dates the revision in design priority assigned to LO. The buried inlet has poor pressure recovery, which translates to higher fuel consumption. The last thing you want for a loitering platform.

 

[TomS]

GHawk has tweaked 3007H engine, where H i think stands for high altitude. Does anyone know if N stands for "Navy"? it might have anti-corrosion materials.

I must admit that I'm surprised Boeing haven't ditched the internal intake, if only to free up some internal space for more fuel tankage.

My guess the design pre-dates the revision in design priority assigned to LO. The buried inlet has poor pressure recovery, which translates to higher fuel consumption. The last thing you want for a loitering platform.

Might be part of why they don't plan to fly this version. All of the tests they've discussed (ground handling, etc.) can be done without worrying too much about engine performance. If they win, they might revert to a more conventional inlet.

Shades of JSF, where Boeing was promising to fix the inlet in the production version.

 

[marauder2048]

GHawk has tweaked 3007H engine, where H i think stands for high altitude. Does anyone know if N stands for "Navy"? it might have anti-corrosion materials.

I must admit that I'm surprised Boeing haven't ditched the internal intake, if only to free up some internal space for more fuel tankage.

My guess the design pre-dates the revision in design priority assigned to LO. The buried inlet has poor pressure recovery, which translates to higher fuel consumption. The last thing you want for a loitering platform.

Presumably UCLASS was going to be spending most of its 12-14 hour loiter requirement at higher altitudes?

 

[TomcatViP]

A Torturous Path
The story of MQ-25/Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) is a long and labored one. Before arriving at the most urgent design needs for MQ-25, many voices were involved. Large defense companies and their surrogates argued that the Navy needed an all-aspect stealth penetration aircraft. Others stated that it should be, or could be, as easy as taking the pilot out of a manned aircraft, put in a few boxes, and “un-man” a Super Hornet. Unfortunately, the voice of Navy leadership was apparently crushed under the stampede of contractors and bureaucrats who sensed an opportunity to sell their own ideas of what was needed. The competing, sub-optimized, and gold-plated offerings from multiple sources effectively killed the design before it began. Research and development, along with procurement, ground to a halt in early 2015.

Don't know if this has been posted before, I just happen to read this excerpt From GA own website

 

[raptor82]

https://twitter.com/samlagrone/status/981971973499752451

 

[litzj]

WoW, Thx for sharing.

And the planform view of the Boeing's looks uglier than I thought.... :'(

 

[LowObservable]

So they aren't flying it, but they trucked it down to DC for the Navy League Show.

 

[Moose]

I find it fascinating that they're all three using a single refueling pod.

 

[GTX]

And the planform view of the Boeing's looks uglier than I thought.... :'(

I think it actually is quite attractive. ;D

 

[bring_it_on]

How The U.S. Navy’s MQ-25 Drone Program Was Born

FORMER U.S. DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT O. WORK EXPLAINS HIS 2015 DECISION TO GO WITH A TANKER AIRCRAFT RATHER THAN A STEALTHY, STRIKE PLANE

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

A Torturous Path

Don't know if this has been posted before, I just happen to read this excerpt From GA own website

I think they meant "tortuous" (full of twists and turns) not "torturous" (characterized by, involving, or causing pain or suffering) but I guess it can work both ways...

 

[marauder2048]

How The U.S. Navy’s MQ-25 Drone Program Was Born

FORMER U.S. DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT O. WORK EXPLAINS HIS 2015 DECISION TO GO WITH A TANKER AIRCRAFT RATHER THAN A STEALTHY, STRIKE PLANE

We're going to need an N-dimensional hypercube to capture all of the positions that Bob Work has held on the F-35 and UCLASS.

 

[VTOLicious]

https://twitter.com/ReaderRabott/status/981964282991726592
https://twitter.com/ReaderRabott/status/981995285835665409
https://twitter.com/VivienneMachi/status/981964321273020418

Thx for sharing the links!...

 

[starviking]

I find it fascinating that they're all three using a single refueling pod.

There may not be enough clearance for 2-ship refueling, or having more pods might affect the wings too much.

 

[TomS]

I find it fascinating that they're all three using a single refueling pod.

That's in the CBARS requirement, I believe.

 

[fightingirish]

The MQ-25 only needs one pod to refuel a Navy aircraft during landing and recovering operations on an aircraft carrier. The main mission of this UAV ist to replace the last refuelling aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier after landing and recovering operations, especially during bad weather and at night.
Here a video to get the gist of landing on a "Pitching Deck". B)
Link:

https://youtu.be/uTVj_ZSwxGE

 

[TomS]

I find it fascinating that they're all three using a single refueling pod.

There may not be enough clearance for 2-ship refueling, or having more pods might affect the wings too much.

Definitely not enough width for two simultaneous connections unless you're tanking for the Blue Angels. Also, every pound of refuelling hose and reel in the second pod is a pound of lost give and bring-back weight. I can't think of a buddy tanker configuration with two reels (the KA-6D sometimes carried a buddy pod as well as the internal hose, but that's not quite the same thing.)

 

[TomcatViP]

I think they meant "tortuous" (full of twists and turns) not "torturous" (characterized by, involving, or causing pain or suffering) but I guess it can work both ways...

I would agree with that but there is still all that rather surprising paragraph against administrations and politicians in the excerpt. At last its a corporate website whose customer are mainly... Administrations.

Regarding the refueling pod, what surprises me most is that there is one. It's a tanker, so what it is supposed to be when it doesn't carry any? And why then bother to build stealthy contours if you plug that pod with an open air RAT in front? I mean, the pod might hide the entire airframe behind its own massive RCS...
UNless they worked the pod too.

 

[marauder2048]

I find it fascinating that they're all three using a single refueling pod.

There may not be enough clearance for 2-ship refueling, or having more pods might affect the wings too much.

Definitely not enough width for two simultaneous connections unless you're tanking for the Blue Angels. Also, every pound of refuelling hose and reel in the second pod is a pound of lost give and bring-back weight. I can't think of a buddy tanker configuration with two reels (the KA-6D sometimes carried a buddy pod as well as the internal hose, but that's not quite the same thing.)

But do these planforms really like store-asymmetries? Apologies if I missed the discussion on where the buddy pod goes on Boeing's design (centerline?)

 

[litzj]

I find it fascinating that they're all three using a single refueling pod.

There may not be enough clearance for 2-ship refueling, or having more pods might affect the wings too much.

Definitely not enough width for two simultaneous connections unless you're tanking for the Blue Angels. Also, every pound of refuelling hose and reel in the second pod is a pound of lost give and bring-back weight. I can't think of a buddy tanker configuration with two reels (the KA-6D sometimes carried a buddy pod as well as the internal hose, but that's not quite the same thing.)

But do these planforms really like store-asymmetries? Apologies if I missed the discussion on where the buddy pod goes on Boeing's design (centerline?)

asymmetric load could be handled by trim control althouh it requires additional drag.

best way is attach conventonal fuel tank on opposite side of wing

 

[marauder2048]

I think they meant "tortuous" (full of twists and turns) not "torturous" (characterized by, involving, or causing pain or suffering) but I guess it can work both ways...

I would agree with that but there is still all that rather surprising paragraph against administrations and politicians in the excerpt. At last its a corporate website whose customer are mainly... Administrations.

IIRC, GA was pitching a carrier-compatible Predator C to the Navy nearly 15 years ago.
So, IMHO, there's a bit of "we were, on our own dime, already ready already."

 

[fightingirish]

Breaking #SAS2018: Skunk Works announces team for MQ-25A Stingray: Triumph Aerostructures (design and manufacturer internal structures), UTC Aerospace Systems (F-35 landing gear), GE Aviation (F404 turbofan engine) @AviationWeek

Breaking #SAS2018: @LockheedMartin has selected the General Electric F404 turbofan engine from the F/A-18 to power its Skunk Works MQ-25A. 10,000 lb. thrust, no afterburner. Boeing chose Rolls-Royce AE3007 and General Atomics picked Pratt & Whitney Canada's PW815

Video:
https://youtu.be/AnEBiQngbDU

https://youtu.be/AnEBiQngbDU

Twitter:
https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/983323947797270528
https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/983327042560196608
https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/983329152433639425
https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/983329666172940288

 

[fightingirish]

https://twitter.com/samlagrone/status/981971973499752451

Here the video:
https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/983328803945672705
http://www.boeing.com/defense/mq25/?sf186529703=1#/videos/mq-25-highlights&playlistVideoId=5765619777001
The video shows a fuel tank pod on the starboard wing as a balance to the refueling pod.
The screenshot shows the inlet. I can't discern, if the engine has been installed.

 

[TomS]

The LM video is clearly emphasizing growth beyond tanker missions (ISR, strike with JSOW?, and the last image implies LO coating, I think ?). OTOH, it's odd that it mentions only recovery tanking, not mission tanking, which is supposed to be the CBARS key mission.

 

[litzj]

it clearly shows usage of speed break, radius increase via MQ-25, vision sensor of the nose, mission flexibility (ISR w/ EO/IR turret, Strike!). No internal weapon bay is considered even for further variation. Tank is replaced by JSOW; it means it launched its weapon at safe range from enemy AD. Thus, stealth performance of the MQ-25 probably stay at semi-stealth or stealthy level for cheap price.

is EO/IR sensor detachable???

few captures of the video are on my blog

https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.kr/2018/04/additional-video-is-released-for-lms-mq.html

 

[TomcatViP]

LM Video: Mission tanking is specified*. Have a 2nd look at 1:08

*From my mem 14 000lb offload at 500N.M

Airbrake are positioned where they can generate the least amount of trim drag when deployed with the maximum effect per deflection range (minimize the power loss that have to be offset if necessary - Boat tail).



Boeing:
Boeing is to position itself as the lowest bidder:

“If the Navy is going to pick the least expensive aircraft then I’m confident that Boeing will be the winner,” he said. “I just think that Boeing is determined to win in this competition.”

and the competition tempo is throttled-up by the Navy:

Donald Gaddis, who is heading Boeing Phantom Works’ MQ-25 program, said Boeing submitted its bid to the Navy in January. It generally takes the Navy 18 months to pick a supplier, he said, but it is “putting the pedal to the floor” and wants to decide in six months.

Source:
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/refueling-drone-could-be-big-contract-for-boeing-st-louis/article_ea7171f1-94cb-5695-8128-fa70cfc9c9c0.html

 

[flateric]

https://twitter.com/KellyKGeorge/status/983309916646633472

 

[fightingirish]

More models.
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/983445793343500288
https://twitter.com/MarcusReports/status/983440400525479936

 

[Flyaway]

Here's Our First Good Look At The Crazy Air Inlet Design On Boeing's MQ-25 Tanker Drone

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19985/heres-our-first-good-look-at-the-crazy-air-inlet-design-on-boeings-mq-25-tanker-drone

 

[TomcatViP]

IMOHO we should not put aside so easily the little inlet in front to understand how the event on top acts as a valid inlet.