MQ-25 US Navy Stingray Program

[KamenRiderBlade]

How about some Napkin math for spit-balling some figures?:

So 15,000 lb of fuel delivered to 4-6 planes @ a range of 500 nmi, then the drone must return on it's own without refueling itself.

EMAL limit is 100,000 lb for Cat Launch so let's assume that's our Max Weight budget on takeoff.

85,000 lb for Aircraft structure + internal fuel for itself.

What ratio do you think they can get away with Structural Weight, to Internal Fuel Weight with room to grow?

Assuming Stealth is still a requirement, so no Propeller power plants of any sort!.

The Air Frame must fit in a E-2 Hawk-Eye space when folded up.

[element1loop]

Also, with two engines the size and available payload must be scaled with enough margin needed to keep it in the air in rough conditions on one engine.

[sferrin]

I really like the overall design of the Boeing option.

It just seems REALLY small for the amount of fuel they should be carrying.

They should be scaling it up to be as big as possible to maximize carry capacity in a predefined volume that is limited for Naval Aviation.

I'm thinking like the E-2 Hawkeye size when the wings are folded up.

Shouldn't this new Flying Gas Bag be able to carry more gas?

Well, if it meets the mission requirements. Then it must be big enough!

Given it's probably running off a non-afterburning F414 it must have a pretty low thrust-to-weight. Even the X-47B used an F100 engine.

[element1loop]

"What if" they went with a non-afterburning version of F-135? Good thrust, much cheaper to design, build, maintain, far more internal volume available, efficient cruise burn.

Would they be so bold, and carry more fuel that way, in a small tanker?

Or maybe ... more bypass? ... Advent? ... strong thrust, outstanding efficiency at all altitudes and speeds ... if you could, and it was proven, you would, it's conceptually ideal.

[KamenRiderBlade]

I thought the spec required only 1 engine?

[element1loop]

I googlated it:



"... "Boeing Autonomous Systems is pleased to have the opportunity to collaborate with General Atomics on its MQ-25 proposal,” said Vice President and General Manager Chris Raymond. “We look forward to supporting GA with our aviation and autonomous experience.”

Pratt & Whitney’s high-bypass PW815 commercial engine, featuring the latest technology, will enhance GA-ASI’s offering. “Ensuring readiness for militaries around the world is core to our mission, and Pratt & Whitney is proud to offer the PW815 engine as part of General Atomics’ MQ-25 program,” said Military Engines President Matthew Bromberg. “The engine represents the state-of-the-art eco-design technology, developed and refined with more than 20 years of investment and effort.” The PW815 was intentionally designed with availability in mind. It is designed to be the easiest engine in its thrust class to access and maintain. Pratt & Whitney has extensive, recent experience meeting Navy propulsion requirements on the EA-6B (J52 engine) and the F-35 (F135 engine), as well as unmanned aircraft experience from the X-47B program (F100 engine). ... "

http://www.navaldrones.com/MQ-25-Stingray.html

Pratt & Whitney PurePower® PW815GA (15,680 lbf or 69.75 kN) Engine powers new Gulfstream G600

http://www.utc.com/News/PW/Pages/Pratt- ... -Cert.aspx

Wikipedia PW815
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_% ... nada_PW800

----

Thrust = 15,680 lb

I'm guessing it has two.

[sferrin]

"What if" they went with a non-afterburning version of F-135? Good thrust, much cheaper to design, build, maintain, far more internal volume available, efficient cruise burn.

Would they be so bold, and carry more fuel that way, in a small tanker?

Or maybe ... more bypass? ... Advent? ... strong thrust, outstanding efficiency at all altitudes and speeds ... if you could, and it was proven, you would, it's conceptually ideal.

That thing is wayyy too small to stuff an F135 in. It barely fits in an F35.

[sferrin]

I googlated it:



"... "Boeing Autonomous Systems is pleased to have the opportunity to collaborate with General Atomics on its MQ-25 proposal,” said Vice President and General Manager Chris Raymond. “We look forward to supporting GA with our aviation and autonomous experience.”

Pratt & Whitney’s high-bypass PW815 commercial engine, featuring the latest technology, will enhance GA-ASI’s offering. “Ensuring readiness for militaries around the world is core to our mission, and Pratt & Whitney is proud to offer the PW815 engine as part of General Atomics’ MQ-25 program,” said Military Engines President Matthew Bromberg. “The engine represents the state-of-the-art eco-design technology, developed and refined with more than 20 years of investment and effort.” The PW815 was intentionally designed with availability in mind. It is designed to be the easiest engine in its thrust class to access and maintain. Pratt & Whitney has extensive, recent experience meeting Navy propulsion requirements on the EA-6B (J52 engine) and the F-35 (F135 engine), as well as unmanned aircraft experience from the X-47B program (F100 engine). ... "

http://www.navaldrones.com/MQ-25-Stingray.html

Pratt & Whitney PurePower® PW815GA (15,680 lbf or 69.75 kN) Engine powers new Gulfstream G600

http://www.utc.com/News/PW/Pages/Pratt- ... -Cert.aspx

Wikipedia PW815
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_% ... nada_PW800

----

Thrust = 15,680 lb

I'm guessing it has two.

Read it carefully. That's for the GA entry that Boeing is helping on, not for Boeing's entry.

[element1loop]

They're just such a helpful bunch at Boeing.

[rheonomic]

Assuming Stealth is still a requirement, so no Propeller power plants of any sort!.

LO is not a requirement of MQ-25. There are only two KPPs -- the tanking requirement and a carrier suitability requirement.

This is pretty much a price shootout, so whoever can meet the threshold requirements at the lowest cost is almost certainly going to be the winner.

[blain]

"What if" they went with a non-afterburning version of F-135? Good thrust, much cheaper to design, build, maintain, far more internal volume available, efficient cruise burn.

Would they be so bold, and carry more fuel that way, in a small tanker?

Or maybe ... more bypass? ... Advent? ... strong thrust, outstanding efficiency at all altitudes and speeds ... if you could, and it was proven, you would, it's conceptually ideal.

I would think cost would be an issue. They will also want an engine that is optimized for endurance. I believe one of the proposals - GA? - was supposed using an engine from Gulfstream business jet. One engine would be cheaper and more efficient. But I don't see how one engine from a business jet would be able to provide enough thrust.

[blain]

So what's the mission profile for a 1,000 nm strike? The F-35C has a combat radius of almost 700 nm. Do you need to refuel on ingress or can you wait until the F-35C has delivered its weapons. Waiting would likely mean moving the MQ-25A pretty close to enemy territory.

[Dragon029]

You'd probably want to tank them going in, just in case they run into trouble and need to burn more fuel than expected, plus also to reduce the amount of fuel burned by the MQ-25 waiting for the F-35Cs to come back.

[element1loop]

" ... carries a ton of gas ... advanced sensor systems and ordnance. ..."

---

Is Boeing working on a second MQ-25 drone prototype?

By: Valerie Insinna

" ... Boeing’s prototype shows its UCLASS origins, with a large, robust fuselage “boat” that could carry fuel or — as originally developed — advanced sensor systems and ordnance.

One area of concern, however, is the thin wing design, which is clearly influenced by the previous high-altitude ISR mission,” he said.

“I would expect, as the MQ-25 mission tanker program goes forward, that this prototype would evolve the wings to make them wider from their front leading edge to back and also thicker. This would make the platform more robust for sustained tanking missions as well as add additional fuel capacity to the design.”

Boeing’s MQ-25 reuses the fuselage the company originally designed for the Navy’s UCLASS program, an ISR and strike aircraft that morphed into the service's current requirement for a tanker drone. The company internally rolled out the air vehicle in 2014. (Boeing)

... Boeing’s design features a flush dorsal jet intake that supplies air to the engine, which as of yet has not been specified by the company. According to Gaddis, the company’s MQ-25 stores its fuel in tanks surrounding the engine, and the inner section of its fold-up wings are “wet,” meaning the fuel moves freely within that part of the wing.

According to the Navy’s requirements, the MQ-25 must be able to deliver 14,000 pounds of fuel at distances of 500 nautical miles from an aircraft carrier.

Gaddis said Boeing’s design meets that requirement with margin to spare, telling Defense News that it “carries a ton of gas.” But with a competition still ongoing, he declined to detail exactly how much the air vehicle can carry. ... //

... In its fiscal 2019 budget request, the Navy announced that it would begin production in FY23 with a procurement of four drones, ahead of an initial operational capability in FY26. It plans to buy 72 aircraft over the course of the program. ..."

https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/20 ... prototype/

[wrightwing]

So what's the mission profile for a 1,000 nm strike? The F-35C has a combat radius of almost 700 nm. Do you need to refuel on ingress or can you wait until the F-35C has delivered its weapons. Waiting would likely mean moving the MQ-25A pretty close to enemy territory.

The F-35C has a longer combat radius than almost 700nm (the A model has a ~760nm combat radius). It's closer to >800nm, with current engines. That range will increase by ~35% in the next decade. Tanking at 500nm, will extend that reach further still. Lastly, depending on the warhead size, the LRASM can hit targets as far as 1000 miles distant. That gives a CBG a pretty good reach (especially 2025 forward.)