MQ-25 US Navy Stingray Program

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

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2210
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 10:13

Yeah, it’s more advanced cuz BA said so. And, there will be no ‘discovery’ in development or fight test.

:salute:
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post20 Aug 2018, 05:31

I'm honestly rooting for Boeing for the T-X competition, it's design makes the most sense in TCO & customizability and looks the best in terms of capability and aesthetics.

The Boeing T-X can be a future budget aircraft to sell to 2nd & 3rd world nations like the F-5 back in the day.

As far as the MQ-25, the Boeing or General Atomics design are the only two I'd consider.

The Lockheed Martin Flying wing seems to shift too hard to LO over fuel capacity and operational endurance in comparison to the other two.

The Boeing design seems to have enough LO built in while having really good fuel capacity / endurance.

The General Atomics design seems to favor raw endurance and fuel capacity with minimal if any LO.

That's why I'm thinking Boeing has a slightly higher chance then General Atomics in this category.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4801
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Aug 2018, 08:58

KamenRiderBlade wrote:I'm honestly rooting for Boeing for the T-X competition, it's design makes the most sense in TCO & customizability and looks the best in terms of capability and aesthetics.

The Boeing T-X can be a future budget aircraft to sell to 2nd & 3rd world nations like the F-5 back in the day.

As far as the MQ-25, the Boeing or General Atomics design are the only two I'd consider.

The Lockheed Martin Flying wing seems to shift too hard to LO over fuel capacity and operational endurance in comparison to the other two.

The Boeing design seems to have enough LO built in while having really good fuel capacity / endurance.

The General Atomics design seems to favor raw endurance and fuel capacity with minimal if any LO.

That's why I'm thinking Boeing has a slightly higher chance then General Atomics in this category.


I am with you with the Boeing T-X. As for the MQ-25A contest. I would be surprised if the Boeing and/or General Atomics Contenders offer better performance than Lockheed Martins offering. As flying wings are very efficient. Plus, that doesn't take into account their lower RCS. Which, is a must regardless what the Government would like us to believe.......
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post23 Aug 2018, 10:01

Corsair1963 wrote:I am with you with the Boeing T-X. As for the MQ-25A contest. I would be surprised if the Boeing and/or General Atomics Contenders offer better performance than Lockheed Martins offering. As flying wings are very efficient. Plus, that doesn't take into account their lower RCS. Which, is a must regardless what the Government would like us to believe.......
But the problem with the tanker is what mix of Tanker to Stealth ratio is suitable?

I know all 3 competitors won't release how much past the min spec requirements for unloadable fuel they can handle, but you have to have some Stealth factor.

Each one of the competitor is unique in that "Maximum Refueling past Min Spec required vs How much Stealth (Despite the Government saying it's not important, we all know it is)"
Offline

blain

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 02:11

Does anyone have any thoughts on a mission profile for a flight of 4 F-35s?

Top off with 2 MQ-25s close to the carrier after launch? Depending how much fuel the F-35 burns to get to altitude.

Then a top off at 500 nm or can they wait until they egress?

I am thinking you will need at least four tankers to support a 1,000 nm strike by a flight of F-35s.
Online
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7536
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 03:10

A strategic win for Boeing. Positions it for follow-on Navy UAS programs.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Online

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1236
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 05:41

I see it as a hedge for Boeing. If USAF awards KC-Y / KC-Z to Boeing, I doubt Boeing will push this very much to the air force in order not to dilute KC-46 sales. If KC-Y goes to someone else i.e. Airbus, then I'd bet Boeing will pitch MQ-25 as a potential game-changer for air tanking. Hopefully navy will learn from the air force regarding cost overruns.

It would be interesting to see what kind of changes to the prototype would be made, if any. Will they keep the pair of 31-301s?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2974
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 07:17

blain wrote:Does anyone have any thoughts on a mission profile for a flight of 4 F-35s?

Top off with 2 MQ-25s close to the carrier after launch? Depending how much fuel the F-35 burns to get to altitude.

Then a top off at 500 nm or can they wait until they egress?

I am thinking you will need at least four tankers to support a 1,000 nm strike by a flight of F-35s.

That depends on how much fuel the MQ-25 can offload. The requirement was 14,000lbs/500nm, but it's been said that it carries more than that even in its current form. With thicker wings, the fuel load will increase further. 2 tankers at 500nm could give each F-35 at least 7,000lbs of fuel (and possibly 8,000 to 10,000lbs.) On the return trip, they'll be a lot lighter without ordnance. That might just be enough for the entire trip, with a third tanker on standby, in case anyone needs some extra fuel.
Online

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1236
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 09:56

Each 31-301 carries 300 gal. Could that add 5000 lbs of fuel with 2?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2577
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 13:18

I could really see some other roles for MQ-25 besides being a tanker and light ISR platform. ASW and dedicated ISR versions definitely come to mind. It could also replace or complement Growlers as future EW/ESM platform due to ability to carry a lot of equipment and loiter for a long time. It might be possible to make a fully automatic AEW/C2 version. Of course it could act as a BACN node, but that might not need dedicated version. It would also be interesting to develop a cargo variant to replace C-2 Greyhound.
Offline

hythelday

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 407
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post31 Aug 2018, 15:24

hornetfinn wrote: It would also be interesting to develop a cargo variant to replace C-2 Greyhound.


How will that thing deliver a F135? :shock:
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post01 Sep 2018, 00:59

Offline

forbin

Banned

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 13:25

Unread post01 Sep 2018, 21:23

wrightwing wrote:
blain wrote:Does anyone have any thoughts on a mission profile for a flight of 4 F-35s?

Top off with 2 MQ-25s close to the carrier after launch? Depending how much fuel the F-35 burns to get to altitude.

Then a top off at 500 nm or can they wait until they egress?

I am thinking you will need at least four tankers to support a 1,000 nm strike by a flight of F-35s.

That depends on how much fuel the MQ-25 can offload. The requirement was 14,000lbs/500nm, but it's been said that it carries more than that even in its current form. With thicker wings, the fuel load will increase further. 2 tankers at 500nm could give each F-35 at least 7,000lbs of fuel (and possibly 8,000 to 10,000lbs.) On the return trip, they'll be a lot lighter without ordnance. That might just be enough for the entire trip, with a third tanker on standby, in case anyone needs some extra fuel.


14000 lbs i am French so do 6,350 fuel tons :)
F-18E host 6,8 t/F 6,3 t int + 5,8 ext
F-35C : 8.9 tons + after 5.1 t ext

So MQ-25 dépends the number by Sqn and CAW i think surely possible 6 only complete in fuel about a VFA to maximum no comparison with a true big tanker ofc
Offline

forbin

Banned

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 13:25

Unread post01 Sep 2018, 21:29

U.S. Navy Awards Boeing Contract to Design & Build MQ-25A Tanker Drone

The U.S. Navy awarded a contract to The Boeing Co. Aug. 30 for the MQ-25A Stingray, the first operational carrier-based unmanned refueling aircraft. This fixed-price-incentive-firm-target contract with a ceiling price of $805.3 million provides for the design, development, fabrication, test, delivery, and support of four MQ-25A unmanned air vehicles, including integration into the carrier air wing for an initial operational capability by 2024.

...

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... drone.html

MQ-25A Stingray.jpg
Offline

noth

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2005, 14:16

Unread post03 Sep 2018, 08:45

So with 72 to be ordered, how many per CAW would you think they'd assigned?
PreviousNext

Return to Drones

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest