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

[DrRansom]

Talk about a waste of a program. Trading stealthy persistent ISR for tanking?

 

[NeilChapman]

Oh, looks like I'm two years behind :-[ Current designs are for 20k pounds of JP5 + 14 hours endurance.

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

 

[Sundog]

Talk about a waste of a program. Trading stealthy persistent ISR for tanking?

I've said for some time to my friends that UCLASS wouldn't happen because it steps on the toes of the F-35C and there is already too much money and politics invested on the F-35 program to pass one of the variants up for UCLASS; UCLASS was too similar in mission and ordnance/payload for both to happen. It also gives greater control of stealthy UAV's to the USAF, which keeps all of the players in the sandbox happy. As for the tanker mission, I wonder if it will actually be large enough for what is needed if it's only the size of the Hornet? I would rather see something a little larger and include a version that carries some sort of AESA AWACS RADAR that could integrate with the Hawkeyes and the fleet to increase their area of coverage.

 

[bobbymike]

So does this mean the concept of operations is to tank a stealthy F-35C to a stealthy UCLASS much closer to, let's say, the coast of China than you'd want to get with a Pegasus?

 

[DrRansom]

I am still confused about a tanker UCLASS, how will it get large enough to carry operationally relevant amounts of fuel, without being a massive engineering challenge? It would be the most dynamically ambitious UAV design yet, CTOL with meaningful fuel loads, even though it is supposed to be an interim solution...

A stealthy UCLASS may begin by taking the Northrop X-47B and advancing with that design in the interim, before something more advanced in a decade.

A tanker variant requires a brand-new plane, as using X-47B layout for tanking is wasteful (VLO tanker? Not yet...). Seems like you're still buying a brand new plane, but a more challenging design thank reconnaissance.

 

[Steve Pace]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/good-bye-uclass-hello-unmanned-tanker-more-f-35cs-in-2017-budget/

The size of a Super Hornet but not an F18 airframe. So what is it?

"Size of a Super Hornet" could be weight/foot print too I'd think. I don't imagine it would have the length/span ratio of a Super Hornet.

Just how legit is this http://breakingdefense.com web site? -SP

 

[marauder2048]

Talk about a waste of a program. Trading stealthy persistent ISR for tanking?

I've said for some time to my friends that UCLASS wouldn't happen because it steps on the toes of the F-35C and there is already too much money and politics invested on the F-35 program to pass one of the variants up for UCLASS; UCLASS was too similar in mission and ordnance/payload for both to happen. It also gives greater control of stealthy UAV's to the USAF, which keeps all of the players in the sandbox happy. As for the tanker mission, I wonder if it will actually be large enough for what is needed if it's only the size of the Hornet? I would rather see something a little larger and include a version that carries some sort of AESA AWACS RADAR that could integrate with the Hawkeyes and the fleet to increase their area of coverage.

I took it more to be an LRS-B consolation prize; Boeing would be very well positioned to win CBARS.

 

[Flyaway]

Aren't being stealthy and being a tanker kind of mutually exclusive design wise?

 

[NeilChapman]

Talk about a waste of a program. Trading stealthy persistent ISR for tanking?

I've said for some time to my friends that UCLASS wouldn't happen because it steps on the toes of the F-35C and there is already too much money and politics invested on the F-35 program to pass one of the variants up for UCLASS; UCLASS was too similar in mission and ordnance/payload for both to happen. It also gives greater control of stealthy UAV's to the USAF, which keeps all of the players in the sandbox happy. As for the tanker mission, I wonder if it will actually be large enough for what is needed if it's only the size of the Hornet? I would rather see something a little larger and include a version that carries some sort of AESA AWACS RADAR that could integrate with the Hawkeyes and the fleet to increase their area of coverage.

Perhaps it depends on how far you wish to extend the range of F35's? The F18 ARS consists of 4-440 gal tanks with the capability of pumping from internal tanks. In general I guess you'd be looking at wanting to carry at least 12k pounds of fuel. They're talking about the UCLASS CBAR as able to carry 20k lbs of additional fuel beyond it 7.5 hour flight requirement. That should be more than enough fuel for an F35C on a 2400 mi mission - no?

If they choose the correct airframe - the one that most denotes the future version - then I like the idea. If you get the aircraft in its simplest useable form, learn to use it, modify it as electronics, capability and mission evolve, maybe you field the solution more expeditiously. You certainly make use of the learning curve.

Now let's see what they look like B)

 

[DrRansom]

Here is the problem, though. A UCAS exists right now which could 'probably' be retrofitted to provide ISR capability and was sized for 2 x 2000lb JDAM. This option exists for constrained budgets and short timelines.

But, if you want to build a tanker UCAS, that requires building one which has 20k lbs of fuel at least(!) plus additional fuel to operate at range. This will have to be a huge airplane, significantly larger than what exists right now. I don't understand how building a much larger UCAS is going to be cheaper then operationalizing the X-47B.

More generally, does any UCAS have 20k lbs store capability? Or is this carrier tanker project the most ambitious UAV project to date? I just don't get how a carrier tanker is going to be cheaper and faster than operationalizing the X-47B.

 

[NeilChapman]

Here is the problem, though. A UCAS exists right now which could 'probably' be retrofitted to provide ISR capability and was sized for 2 x 2000lb JDAM. This option exists for constrained budgets and short timelines.

But, if you want to build a tanker UCAS, that requires building one which has 20k lbs of fuel at least(!) plus additional fuel to operate at range. This will have to be a huge airplane, significantly larger than what exists right now. I don't understand how building a much larger UCAS is going to be cheaper then operationalizing the X-47B.

More generally, does any UCAS have 20k lbs store capability? Or is this carrier tanker project the most ambitious UAV project to date? I just don't get how a carrier tanker is going to be cheaper and faster than operationalizing the X-47B.

Yea - that's what I was thinking. I discovered the other day that I was two years behind. Back in 2013 they disclosed going "big" with UCLASS. It's tough to know what's going on since the RFP is only disclosed to the Primes. Here is the article where I read about the 20k lbs of "tanking" fuel.

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

 

[DrRansom]

But that heavy UCAS exists only on paper. How operationalizing a X-47B is harder than a paper project is beyond me.

I am only left with the organization politics argument. The X-47B is too close to the F-35C, hence it has to be downgraded.

Though, there is another possibility: Maybe aircraft autonomy is seriously lagging expectations?

 

[NeilChapman]

But that heavy UCAS exists only on paper. How operationalizing a X-47B is harder than a paper project is beyond me.

I am only left with the organization politics argument. The X-47B is too close to the F-35C, hence it has to be downgraded.

Though, there is another possibility: Maybe aircraft autonomy is seriously lagging expectations?

Perhaps you're correct. There is at least some historical precedence to give concern that if the US doesn't use an airframe then export customers aren't going to be interested. The concern about the F35 seem to be more about the lack of F22's.

But, the F35 is being built. It's baked in. Full production rate is coming in the next two years when NG will complete one center fuselage every 1.5 days. The learning curve is settling in and one would expect it will reduce product costs by at least 10%. Final assembly is happening in the US, Italy, Turkey, Japan and god knows where else. There are a number of valid reasons to stick with the F35 and to encourage the production rate to increase more quickly. If you take that foot of the gas and suggest the US is moving away then...

Also, we seem to be critically short of airframes - today. Flight hours have been high. I guess it boils down to do you want to keep updating this platform when the whole system is committed to the F35?

Some interesting tidbits about the F18's.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f18-hornet-fleets-keeping-em-flying-02816/

I don't know the answers. But I would think that NAVAIR is going to get a grilling by Congress to make their case.

 

[quellish]

Here is the problem, though. A UCAS exists right now which could 'probably' be retrofitted to provide ISR capability and was sized for 2 x 2000lb JDAM. This option exists for constrained budgets and short timelines.

But, if you want to build a tanker UCAS, that requires building one which has 20k lbs of fuel at least(!) plus additional fuel to operate at range. This will have to be a huge airplane, significantly larger than what exists right now. I don't understand how building a much larger UCAS is going to be cheaper then operationalizing the X-47B.

The X-47B is a demonstrator designed for specific, limited objectives. It is *very far* from an operational aircraft.
The Navy needs a tanker (badly). The role is well suited to a UAS. Go here, fly around in circles, come back. The hard part is the carrier operations - which the X-47B demonstrated, but there are a still a lot of unknowns.

A strike fighter is a different story. In addition to the challenges of unmanned carrier operations you have all the unsolved UCAV problems that DARPA outlined. And you have shipboard stealth (a major, major pain point). And a whole lot of other things. And yes, you potentially threaten other programs.

 

[NeilChapman]

Here is the problem, though. A UCAS exists right now which could 'probably' be retrofitted to provide ISR capability and was sized for 2 x 2000lb JDAM. This option exists for constrained budgets and short timelines.

But, if you want to build a tanker UCAS, that requires building one which has 20k lbs of fuel at least(!) plus additional fuel to operate at range. This will have to be a huge airplane, significantly larger than what exists right now. I don't understand how building a much larger UCAS is going to be cheaper then operationalizing the X-47B.

The X-47B is a demonstrator designed for specific, limited objectives. It is *very far* from an operational aircraft.
The Navy needs a tanker (badly). The role is well suited to a UAS. Go here, fly around in circles, come back. The hard part is the carrier operations - which the X-47B demonstrated, but there are a still a lot of unknowns.

A strike fighter is a different story. In addition to the challenges of unmanned carrier operations you have all the unsolved UCAV problems that DARPA outlined. And you have shipboard stealth (a major, major pain point). And a whole lot of other things. And yes, you potentially threaten other programs.

I agree. You have to think that the primes are just happy that NAVAIR decided on "something". To be fair, they've said from the beginning that they wanted a tanker capability. They certainly didn't stress it. I think they were throwing everything (isr/strike/tanker) against the wall and waiting to see what the primes came up with. Hopefully now there will be an official RFP that allows them to build.

Really though, there must be something happening in the background. I don't think I've seen where the timeline (2022?) has changed for an operational aircraft. That's a pretty short leash. With all the UAV projects that have been going on I'm wondering if the primes have said they can meet this timeline.

Any thoughts on the timeline aspect of this? Any scuttlebutt on whether something this large has been built "in-house" as a demonstrator?

 

[DrRansom]

The X-47B is a demonstrator designed for specific, limited objectives. It is *very far* from an operational aircraft.
The Navy needs a tanker (badly). The role is well suited to a UAS. Go here, fly around in circles, come back. The hard part is the carrier operations - which the X-47B demonstrated, but there are a still a lot of unknowns.

A strike fighter is a different story. In addition to the challenges of unmanned carrier operations you have all the unsolved UCAV problems that DARPA outlined. And you have shipboard stealth (a major, major pain point). And a whole lot of other things. And yes, you potentially threaten other programs.

Thanks for clearing up the status of the X-47B. I thought it was closer to being operationalized than it apparently is.

What are the UCAV problems which are unsolved? Would these explain why UCAV development worldwide has slowed to an apparent crawl?

 

[Triton]

Is a UAS tanker a better solution than the Lockheed Martin KC-3 proposal?

 

[marauder2048]

Is a UAS tanker a better solution than the Lockheed Martin KC-3 proposal?

I think it was tantamount to building a clean sheet and you'd still have to (re)certificate its AAR with E-2D/F-35/Hornet/V-22 etc.

That being said, restoring organic carrier-based fixed-wing ASW is long overdue.

 

[Flyaway]

Opinion piece in favour of the change.

I have found some of the responses to the latest announcement about UCLASS to be sadly telling about how little some have learned from the Age of Transformationalism that begat LCS, DDG-1000, and F-35.

To me, the decision on UCLASS is a good news story about a focused and learning institution, but others seem slightly stuck between rage and disappointment when they realize that by the end of FY17 we won’t be launching sharks with lasers on their foreheads off the #3 catapult.

http://blog.usni.org/2016/02/03/uclass-a-choice-of-prudence

 

[Flyaway]

So more than just a tanker.

​UCLASS reborn as US Navy spy-tanker

The US Navy’s long-running attempt to field a carrier-based unmanned combat aircraft has taken another turn, morphing from a surveillance and strike aircraft into a reconnaissance and aerial refuelling drone with “limited strike capability”.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uclass-reborn-as-us-navy-spy-tanker-421844/

 

[sferrin]

And thus the feature creep / death spiral begins. The never learn.

 

[Michel Van]

Oh boy, a Program 180 degree turn because reorientation of application, that end always like this:

back to drawing board and modified the existing concept to new need
what need more money as original planned, result in aircraft was can't do either was panned for and what to do now,
Capitol Hill notice the Cost overrun start political hearings about the Program and Kill it...

 

[Rhinocrates]

Hmm, might favour the General Atomics Predator C or a similar configuration - just thinking that the deep payload bay possible in a fuselage-and-wing design would be more suitable than that of a small flying wing (as opposed to the large B-2).

GA's also proposing the Predator C with a laser module.

Noted on a recent Aviation Week podcast, Bill Sweetman compared the travails of UCLASS with that of 'America's Most Studied Aircraft'.

 

[sferrin]

Hmm, might favour the General Atomics Predator C or a similar configuration - just thinking that the deep payload bay possible in a fuselage-and-wing design would be more suitable than that of a small flying wing (as opposed to the large B-2).

GA's also proposing the Predator C with a laser module.

Noted on a recent Aviation Week podcast, Bill Sweetman compared the travails of UCLASS with that of 'America's Most Studied Aircraft'.

Predator C "Avenger" is WAY too small to be a useful tanker.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Oh well, "or a similar configuration" then.

Actually seems pretty hard to reconcile "tanker" with any of the original set of proposals at the scale we've seen. I suppose an airframe suited to be a tanker with loiter ability would suit surveillance and AEW, but limited strike as well??? Maybe only limited to protect the F-35 from anything resembling competition?

Cynically thinking, it's as if it were being set up to fail by the Navy due to innate hostility to all unmanned aircraft...

 

[sferrin]

"or a similar configuration"

Oh well.

Actually seems pretty hard to reconcile "tanker" with any of the original set of proposals at the scale we've seen. I suppose an airframe suited to be a tanker with loiter ability would suit surveillance and AEW, but strike as well???

Cynically thinking, it's as if it were being set up to fail by the Navy due to innate hostility to all unmanned aircraft...

Not at all. If they had a 80,000lb-ish BWB (I REALLY like that new LM configuration), the base airframe could be a tanker that could then form the basis down the road for an ASW UAV or ELINT/relay aircraft. (Maybe even a real COD aircraft down the road.) Tankers generally stay well back from the line of fire so the fact that it's not stealthy shouldn't hurt it.

 

[Flyaway]

"or a similar configuration"

Oh well.

Actually seems pretty hard to reconcile "tanker" with any of the original set of proposals at the scale we've seen. I suppose an airframe suited to be a tanker with loiter ability would suit surveillance and AEW, but strike as well???

Cynically thinking, it's as if it were being set up to fail by the Navy due to innate hostility to all unmanned aircraft...

Not at all. If they had a 80,000lb-ish BWB (I REALLY like that new LM configuration), the base airframe could be a tanker that could then form the basis down the road for an ASW UAV or ELINT/relay aircraft. (Maybe even a real COD aircraft down the road.) Tankers generally stay well back from the line of fire so the fact that it's not stealthy shouldn't hurt it.

Wouldn't a large flying wing work as a tanker plus it would naturally be stealthy to some degree just from that design?

 

[sferrin]

"or a similar configuration"

Oh well.

Actually seems pretty hard to reconcile "tanker" with any of the original set of proposals at the scale we've seen. I suppose an airframe suited to be a tanker with loiter ability would suit surveillance and AEW, but strike as well???

Cynically thinking, it's as if it were being set up to fail by the Navy due to innate hostility to all unmanned aircraft...

Not at all. If they had a 80,000lb-ish BWB (I REALLY like that new LM configuration), the base airframe could be a tanker that could then form the basis down the road for an ASW UAV or ELINT/relay aircraft. (Maybe even a real COD aircraft down the road.) Tankers generally stay well back from the line of fire so the fact that it's not stealthy shouldn't hurt it.

Wouldn't a large flying wing work as a tanker plus it would naturally be stealthy to some degree just from that design?

The good thing about the LM configuration is that you also have a fuselage (height) so you could stuff things like cargo in it. (Or a developed variant.) Don't know that you'd ever be able to fit an F135 in it's container into an 80,000lb flying wing.

 

[VTOLicious]

"or a similar configuration"

Oh well.

Actually seems pretty hard to reconcile "tanker" with any of the original set of proposals at the scale we've seen. I suppose an airframe suited to be a tanker with loiter ability would suit surveillance and AEW, but strike as well???

Cynically thinking, it's as if it were being set up to fail by the Navy due to innate hostility to all unmanned aircraft...

Not at all. If they had a 80,000lb-ish BWB (I REALLY like that new LM configuration), the base airframe could be a tanker that could then form the basis down the road for an ASW UAV or ELINT/relay aircraft. (Maybe even a real COD aircraft down the road.) Tankers generally stay well back from the line of fire so the fact that it's not stealthy shouldn't hurt it.

Wouldn't a large flying wing work as a tanker plus it would naturally be stealthy to some degree just from that design?

The good thing about the LM configuration is that you also have a fuselage (height) so you could stuff things like cargo in it. (Or a developed variant.) Don't know that you'd ever be able to fit an F135 in it's container into an 80,000lb flying wing.

Just as a reference: The Embraer E170-STD has a MTOW of ~80000lb and ~20000lb payload capacity.

http://www.embraercommercialaviation.com/Pages/Ejets-170.aspx

Would love to see a Lockheed-HWB carrier aircraft!

http://aviationweek.com/HWB#slide-0-field_images-1348431

BR Michael

 

[Rhinocrates]

For reference, here's the proposed full-size air force tanker version of the BWB.

Noting also that in the announcement of increased NASA funding for aeronautics, quiet SST and this are considered most likely to be funded as X-planes.

 

[sferrin]

That's not the BWB. The BWB is Boeing's design. This is LM's and has a relatively conventional tail for loading purposes.

 

[Rhinocrates]

D'oh.

 

[Flyaway]

CBARS Drone Under OSD Review; Can A Tanker Become A Bomber?

Martinage would prefer a concept he calls “A-X,” a carrier aircraft designed primarily for attack missions like the old A-6 Intruder. Design the drone for the most demanding mission, long-range strike, and you can easily modify it to create a tanker variant, he said. It would also cost less than building CBARS narrowly for tanking and then having to start a separate stealth bomber program. It might event take less time, Martinage told me: “Given the progress that has already been made on A-X relevant designs and enabling technology, a carrier-suitable tanker variant could be tested at sea and fielded before CBARS.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/cbars-drone-under-osd-review-can-a-tanker-become-a-bomber/?__hstc=174454333.bcfc89280be0fc0b4ba69962b2868f1b.1455910245102.1455910245102.1455910245102.1&__hssc=174454333.1.1455910245102&__hsfp=2480869472

 

[bobbymike]

Thread name change?

http://news.usni.org/2016/02/27/navy-pushing-new-name-for-unmanned-aerial-tanker-raq-25-stingray

RAQ-25 Stingray

 

[Grey Havoc]

I would say hold off for the moment, IMHO.

 

[Sundog]

That's not the BWB. The BWB is Boeing's design. This is LM's and has a relatively conventional tail for loading purposes.

Indeed, the Lockheed design is the HWB (Hybrid Wing Body), which NASA is also looking at funding as an X-Plane, along with the BWB, etc.

 

[sferrin]

That's not the BWB. The BWB is Boeing's design. This is LM's and has a relatively conventional tail for loading purposes.

Indeed, the Lockheed design is the HWB (Hybrid Wing Body), which NASA is also looking at funding as an X-Plane, along with the BWB, etc.

I thought the HWB was being funded by the AFRL?

 

[Moose]

That's not the BWB. The BWB is Boeing's design. This is LM's and has a relatively conventional tail for loading purposes.

Indeed, the Lockheed design is the HWB (Hybrid Wing Body), which NASA is also looking at funding as an X-Plane, along with the BWB, etc.

I thought the HWB was being funded by the AFRL?

AFRL gave Lockheed preliminary money to study a flying demonstrator but hasn't gone ahead and funded the actual demonstrator. This new x-plane program may provide the opportunity.

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/navy-hits-gas-on-flying-gas-truck-cbars-will-it-be-armed/

 

[VTOLicious]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/navy-hits-gas-on-flying-gas-truck-cbars-will-it-be-armed/

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

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