MQ-25 US Navy Stingray Program

Sub-scale and Full-Scale Aerial Targets and RPAs - Remotely-Piloted Aircraft
  • Author
  • Message
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Mar 2018, 19:43

The last official strike range of the F-35A was listed as 669nmi in the FY2018 SAR. The F-35C's range in that same SAR was still TBD. Hopefully, the FY219 SAR (which has already been leaked to some news orgs but not published) will set an actual number (yes, I have already filed a FOIA request).

fyi, The F-354A's 760nmi range was in A2A mode which is considerably lighter than it's A2G mode.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2918
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post18 Mar 2018, 19:55

SpudmanWP wrote:The last official strike range of the F-35A was listed as 669nmi in the FY2018 SAR. The F-35C's range in that same SAR was still TBD. Hopefully, the FY219 SAR (which has already been leaked to some news orgs but not published) will set an actual number (yes, I have already filed a FOIA request).

fyi, The F-354A's 760nmi range was in A2A mode which is considerably lighter than it's A2G mode.

In any case, the C should likely be at (or above) 700nm, based upon the A's range. I suspect missions with JSM or AARGM-ER will be closer to the A2A numbers.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Mar 2018, 21:41

Yes, I believe the A2G range of the C will be damn near 700nmi.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post19 Mar 2018, 05:24

72 x MQ-25 planned, spread among 12 x CVN = 6 MQ-25 per carrier.

Realistic embarked would be 4 x MQ-25, per CVN.

8 x MQ-25 could be embarked for attack-surge capacity at the theatre level.

One MQ-25 in, one MQ-25 back (2 tankers) would support a 4 x F-35C JSM strike out to 1,400 nm track distance in radius.

So 8 (Boeing) x MQ-25 should be able to support Hour-1 deep strikes by 16 x F-35C, from each CVN in the theatre, simultaneously.

3 x CVN could mount a long-range (1,400 nm to 1,750 nm) initial attack, by 48 x F-35C, if utilising no less than 24 x MQ-25 supporting this first wave.

Equating to a strike potential of 96 x JSM internal, and 192 x JASSM-ER external, in the first wave.

Exterrnals launched while well outside of effective LOS radar coverage, keeping F-35C RCS low, but JSM has medium-standoff also, so there's little chance of effective VHF LOS early-warning detection if flying according to F-35C ESM cueing, in conjunction with MDF data on ESM contact's effective EW range.

This equates to 288 cruise weapons in the first long-range strike from 3 x CVN.

i.e. UAI will be enabled long before 72 x MQ-25 are built, so VLO cruise weapons can be almost anything.

Alternatively, 48 x F-35C could deliver 24 x SDBII out to 1,250 nm per jet, or:

48 x 24 = 1,152 SDBII ... in the first strike wave, using 3 x CVN, and 24 x MQ-25.

So the long-range strike ratio requires 1 x MQ-25, for every 2 x F-35C.

Long-Range reach thus falls within >1,250 nm and <1,750 nm track-distance radius from the carrier (depending on range of standoff weapon used, drag and launch point).
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4707
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 09:09

The USN could easily surge more MQ-25's as needed to the forward deployed Carriers. At least far easier than conventional Carrier Aircraft.
:wink:
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 13:06

Corsair1963 wrote:The USN could easily surge more MQ-25's as needed to the forward deployed Carriers. At least far easier than conventional Carrier Aircraft.
:wink:


OK, I said 8 per CVN only because I have no idea if they can store and practically move around more than that viably in rapid tempo.

If so, scale accordingly.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4707
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Mar 2018, 00:59

element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The USN could easily surge more MQ-25's as needed to the forward deployed Carriers. At least far easier than conventional Carrier Aircraft.
:wink:


OK, I said 8 per CVN only because I have no idea if they can store and practically move around more than that viably in rapid tempo.

If so, scale accordingly.



Today USN CVW's (Carrier Air Wings) operate ~ 60 aircraft. Yet, could easily accommodate 75 or more...
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2918
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 01:03

Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The USN could easily surge more MQ-25's as needed to the forward deployed Carriers. At least far easier than conventional Carrier Aircraft.
:wink:


OK, I said 8 per CVN only because I have no idea if they can store and practically move around more than that viably in rapid tempo.

If so, scale accordingly.



Today USN CVW's (Carrier Air Wings) operate ~ 60 aircraft. Yet, could easily accommodate 75 or more...


They could accommodate 90+.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3255
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 01:12

So, could a refueler fly out with a strike package, top them off, return to the carrier, refuel, launch, and make it back to give fuel to the strike package on its RTB?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 01:21

count_to_10 wrote:So, could a refueler fly out with a strike package, top them off, return to the carrier, refuel, launch, and make it back to give fuel to the strike package on its RTB?


If it was high supersonic.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1956
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 01:47

Why not cascade an extra sortie pair to refuel the MQ-25 that followed the strike package on ingress - so itself can return outside its own range - to meet with the same package on egress. In that way finding rendezvous points don't reveal the carrier location.

I'm thinking 9-12 per carrier.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 03:06

https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/statu ... 0551498752

Enter the Aquarium: On Monday, March 26, @AviationWeek will exclusively reveal @LockheedMartin Skunk Works’ MQ-25 proposal for the @USNavy’s Stingray competition. Rob Weiss: "We're going out strong, we’re going out confident, and we’re playing to win." @SeaAirSpace #SAS2018
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 03:58

The requirements may not be for LO, but the manufacturer's know it has to be a LO platform to survive in the task and appear to be betting USN will understand LO is essential.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 05:02

Hopefully they can at least meet F-117 level's of LO.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2918
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 06:10

count_to_10 wrote:So, could a refueler fly out with a strike package, top them off, return to the carrier, refuel, launch, and make it back to give fuel to the strike package on its RTB?

Not if it's refueling at 500nm from the carrier. That's why you'd use 2 tankers. 1 in, 1 out.
PreviousNext

Return to Drones

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests