Boeing wins MQ-25

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post30 Aug 2018, 22:37

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
Offline

dat_boi

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2018, 01:52

Unread post30 Aug 2018, 23:59

So who'd they pay off?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4771
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 01:26

dat_boi wrote:So who'd they pay off?


Nobody. Why would you think they paid anybody off?
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 781
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 03:10

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. :shrug:
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 04:21

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4771
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 12:00

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.

tfh-003.jpg


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.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 19:12

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.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2629
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post01 Sep 2018, 01:04

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4701
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Sep 2018, 06:01

I am sure Lockheed Martin will file a protest.... :wink:
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1136
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post11 Sep 2018, 08:27

The 10 days deadline to file a bid protest based on the award has passed.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post11 Sep 2018, 08:59

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
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4701
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Sep 2018, 09:31

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"
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7504
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post11 Sep 2018, 10:22

So Boeing was the cheapest bid assuming all vendors meet the carrier compatibility requirement?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4771
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post11 Sep 2018, 13:45

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. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4771
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post11 Sep 2018, 13:50

popcorn wrote:So Boeing was the cheapest bid assuming all vendors meet the carrier compatibility requirement?


There's no evidence to suggest that.
"There I was. . ."
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 6 guests