Boeing wins MQ-25
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2052
- Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
- Location: Annapolis, MD
Boeing seems to have won the MQ-25A contract:
"The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is awarded a ceiling price $805,318,853 fixed-price-incentive-firm-target contract to provide the design, development, fabrication, test, verification, certification, delivery, and support of four MQ-25A unmanned air vehicles, including integration into the carrier air wing to provide an initial operational capability to the Navy. The work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (45.5 percent); Indianapolis, Indiana (6.9 percent); Cedar Rapids, Iowa (3.1 percent); Quebec, Canada (3.1 percent); Palm Bay, Florida (2.3 percent); San Diego, California (1.5 percent); and various locations inside and outside the continental U.S. (37.6 percent), and is expected to be completed in August 2024. Fiscal 2018 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $79,050,820 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals; three offers were received. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-18-C-1012)."
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... /1617374//
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23 ... ompetition
"The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is awarded a ceiling price $805,318,853 fixed-price-incentive-firm-target contract to provide the design, development, fabrication, test, verification, certification, delivery, and support of four MQ-25A unmanned air vehicles, including integration into the carrier air wing to provide an initial operational capability to the Navy. The work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (45.5 percent); Indianapolis, Indiana (6.9 percent); Cedar Rapids, Iowa (3.1 percent); Quebec, Canada (3.1 percent); Palm Bay, Florida (2.3 percent); San Diego, California (1.5 percent); and various locations inside and outside the continental U.S. (37.6 percent), and is expected to be completed in August 2024. Fiscal 2018 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $79,050,820 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals; three offers were received. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-18-C-1012)."
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... /1617374//
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23 ... ompetition
Well Boeing needed something in the Military Aircraft division after the production runs on the F-15 Eagle and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet come to an end. We'll see how many MQ-25 Stingrays the U.S. Navy ends up buying.
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
sferrin wrote:dat_boi wrote:So who'd they pay off?
Nobody. Why would you think they paid anybody off?
Well..
It only took Boeing 11 years, a wholesale requirements scrub and a position on two of the three teams that
competed to reverse its UCAS-D loss to NG.
The whole UCAV-N/J-UCAS/UCAS-D/UCLASS/CBARS/MQ-25 saga has been excruciatingly awful to behold.
marauder2048 wrote:sferrin wrote:dat_boi wrote:So who'd they pay off?
Nobody. Why would you think they paid anybody off?
Well..
It only took Boeing 11 years, a wholesale requirements scrub and a position on two of the three teams that
competed to reverse its UCAS-D loss to NG.
The whole UCAV-N/J-UCAS/UCAS-D/UCLASS/CBARS/MQ-25 saga has been excruciatingly awful to behold.
By that rational Lockheed and Northrop paid somebody off to make it to the final stage of the ATF program because, you know, they hadn't built a fighter in decades. The YF-23 and YF-22 obviously didn't get there on their merits. And the MQ-25 requirements were completely different than the previous iterations. But then I suppose Boeing paid off the USN to change their requirements so they could win this time. Or something.
That said, though I had Boeing as the winner from the get-go, I hope GA can do something with their design. Maybe pitch it to the USN as a long endurance ASW aircraft.
- Attachments
-
- tfh-003.jpg (49.5 KiB) Viewed 24826 times
"There I was. . ."
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
Except both Lockheed and Northrop's initial offerings helped to convince the Air Force that all-aspect LO was possible
on a fighter. That's the requirements anti-scrub.
I'm struggling to think of another effort where the loser of a high-end demonstrator competition wins a
follow-on, capability scrubbed EMD contract with positioning on two teams.
I don't think it smacks of payoffs just preference.
on a fighter. That's the requirements anti-scrub.
I'm struggling to think of another effort where the loser of a high-end demonstrator competition wins a
follow-on, capability scrubbed EMD contract with positioning on two teams.
I don't think it smacks of payoffs just preference.
I also had Boeing's design pegged to be the winner because of it's balance of features / capabilities of the platform.
And the Boeing Defense team is literally most of the old McDonnell Douglas staff merged with some of old Boeing Defense staff inside.
So it's not like they have a bunch of scrubs on their teams.
And the Boeing Defense team is literally most of the old McDonnell Douglas staff merged with some of old Boeing Defense staff inside.
So it's not like they have a bunch of scrubs on their teams.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9792
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
I am sure Lockheed Martin will file a protest....
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3060
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
The 10 days deadline to file a bid protest based on the award has passed.
I'm glad they got it, that was my pick, more LO would have been overkill given the pod is a limit on LO. Plus Boeing said they were looking into increasing the inboard wet-wing's width and internal fuel volume further for the final design. Hard to get excited about a tanker but serious repeatable standoff VLO strike reach is not far off, finally.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9792
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
The Flying Wing of the Lockheed Martin MQ-25 would likely have been both more efficient and stealthier than the other contenders. Which, could have mature into a platform for other missions. That said, it would likely have cost more and been riskier. So, the USN took the easy route...
I just contend that maybe wasn't the best option long-term....
"IMHO"
I just contend that maybe wasn't the best option long-term....
"IMHO"
element1loop wrote:I'm glad they got it, that was my pick, more LO would have been overkill given the pod is a limit on LO. Plus Boeing said they were looking into increasing the inboard wet-wing's width and internal fuel volume further for the final design. Hard to get excited about a tanker but serious repeatable standoff VLO strike reach is not far off, finally.
I would have been okay with the GA entry as well. LM's design did nothing for me.
Last edited by sferrin on 11 Sep 2018, 13:51, edited 1 time in total.
"There I was. . ."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests