We are talking about tanking and or ISR. Wonder if some nation with only drogue tanking requirement would op for this instead of a KC-130 or other smaller tankers.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

We are talking about tanking and or ISR. Wonder if some nation with only drogue tanking requirement would op for this instead of a KC-130 or other smaller tankers.

bt

Not many nations have the secured satellite bandwidth to operate the MQ-25 anywhere in the world, should the need arise......

Not many nation need to project their fighters like the US.

The article stated that the tanker drone was controlled by the E-2 aircraft, so maybe you do not need an extensive SAT network.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

Looking at some MQ-25 budget documents ....

Unit cost is about $150M per. Not counting development, nor support, just production. You could easily buy an actual F/A 18 for much less!

In addition, there are ~1.5B in "other support, which is not "initial spares" nor "RDT&E". Anyone have a guess what that might be.

The MQ-25 only makes sense as a development program, where we learn about large unmanned aircraft operating from a carrier. As an actual refueling platform, it costs a huge amount more than just buying F-18s. I'm not criticizing, development programs have a use.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... 9_Full.pdf
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-439.pdf

Well Lockheed and GA were both crying that Boeing had seriously underbid the program, this is the first time that drones will be flying off of carriers, a serious leap in capability. LM's bid was reported to be far higher. With the 3 contracts landed in the fall of 19 - MQ-25, the helos, and the T-7A, LM indicated their pricing was several billion higher.

Actually the MQ-25 and T-7A both appear to be on schedule and under budget, a rarity in DOD contracts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... ray-drone/

JayinKitsap wrote:

Well Lockheed and GA were both crying that Boeing had seriously underbid the program, this is the first time that drones will be flying off of carriers, a serious leap in capability. LM's bid was reported to be far higher. With the 3 contracts landed in the fall of 19 - MQ-25, the helos, and the T-7A, LM indicated their pricing was several billion higher.

Boeing "underbid" MQ-25 and T-7A because they were banking on the digital assembly process. From the press releases so far, they seem to be on the money.

The delay in the helo program seemed to be Covid related with supplier components and FAA certification.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Well Lockheed and GA were both crying that Boeing had seriously underbid the program, this is the first time that drones will be flying off of carriers, a serious leap in capability. LM's bid was reported to be far higher. With the 3 contracts landed in the fall of 19 - MQ-25, the helos, and the T-7A, LM indicated their pricing was several billion higher.

Boeing "underbid" MQ-25 and T-7A because they were banking on the digital assembly process. From the press releases so far, they seem to be on the money.

The delay in the helo program seemed to be Covid related with supplier components and FAA certification.

bt

I agree that the digital assembly process is essential here, and how Boeing won the contract because of it. So far, both of these programs look like good equipment at a 'value' price that will become quite popular. My comment to Kitplane was that Boeing's number was well below what LM or DOD expected. Still something less than 52' long with a single engine costing 100M seems incredible. In comparison, the T-7A is roughly $15M per copy. (I recall, so don't quote me on it).

The MQ-25 is full autonomous that can be instructed by the carrier, a designated plane nearby, or by 'spook' communication, to get that working in the first edition of carrier based drone ops, is probably taking thousands and thousands of man days to complete. High risk to execute, a possible future snafu that costs boatloads, probably $30M each tucked away to cover these kinds of things.

Not sure what kind of landing gear it has, but I suspect it is a variant of the Super Hornet gear, why change from it. So build it to have the same MTOW as the F-18, it is interesting how no one has mentioned how much fuel it can dispense at range, we always hear the RFP 15,000# number. Boeing had the gear and selected an engine that is already in the fleet, with the aerodynamics known design it to use the most of their capabilities. Could be 15,000# at twice the range - no one is talking.

bikerthai wrote:

OK, looking at the projected FRP frames, if I read it right, the cost is a little under 100 mil per frame fly away at 7 per year and a little over 100 mil per frame a 3 per year.

This is rather a rather low rate. Even the P-8 is running at over 12 per year at the height of its production.

If you get additional customers, and get the rate up, to one a month, you should be able to drive the price down further.

bt

Where did you find the FRP? What date? Because the Government Accounting Office ought to have accurate numbers.

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Looking at some MQ-25 budget documents ....

Unit cost is about $150M per.

Can you provide the quantity ordered? Some context would be nice.

Lot 1 pricing will always be more expensive as they have yet to come down the learning curve. First and second batch of full rate production would be more representative.

The other benefit would be the reduce operating cost of training a UAV pilot vs an F-18 pilot. An UAV pilot can monitor multiple aircraft vs an F-18 pilot.

bt

Total production is 76 aircraft. That's 10 wings at 7 each, which is all the Navy needs.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Looking at some MQ-25 budget documents ....

Unit cost is about $150M per. Not counting development, nor support, just production. You could easily buy an actual F/A 18 for much less!

The MQ-is a tanker and it can offload far more fuel than the Super Hornet.

The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi. The further away from the carrier you fly the bigger the advantage to the MQ-25 as it sips fuel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray

The Super Hornets combat radius with 4 bombs is only 390nm. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_ ... per_Hornet So the MQ-25 can top up multi Hornets back to full internal fuel capacity to allow them to fly out to 700nm from the carrier.

That's interesting! If a MQ-25 can carry 4x the fuel using half the engine power ... thats interesting.

I wish there was a public payload-range chart for the F/A-18.

kitplane01 wrote:

Where did you find the FRP? What date?

On page 21 of the document you linked. I'm interpreting FRP is at 7 a year starting around 2026.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

That's interesting! If a MQ-25 can carry 4x the fuel using half the engine power ... thats interesting.

Aircraft design is all about compromise. Being able to pull high G force adds weight and reduces fuel capacity. Being able to fly supersonic requires small swept wings that are not as efficient at subsonic speed compared to long straight wings. Low bypass afterburning engines burn lots of fuel when cruising subsonic compared to a higher bypass engine.

The MQ-25 is a flying fuel tank with long straight wings optimised for subsonic cruise and with a high bypass ratio engine. It does not need a high thrust to weight ratio to accelerate quickly nor does it need heavy strong wings to dogfight. The cost of the MQ-25 compared to the Super Hornet is a non issue as they have completely different roles.

Daetrin wrote:

Even if an MQ-25 costs more than an F/A-18 to buy, if it's cheaper to operate not only on a sortie basis, but on a fuel offload basis, then you get a positive ROI that may pay back pretty quickly.

The low production rate may also be due to...
1. They want to iterate quickly and iron out things as they go vs. after they have lot of them.
2. If there are only 70 total, they may not really get economies of scale for a higher production rate, e.g. there may be other tooling constrains that limit production rate that they don't want to invest in given the number of aircraft produced.

Just speculating...

When is comes to NAVAIR there is no ROI requiring payback.

The prod rate is low because the USN only needs 70 of them. At five per carrier air wing you don't need many and will be into the 2030s before all the carriers have been modified with the control stations. No doubt they could build 70 of them in two years but then the airframes sit around doing nothing until the carriers are ready.

Once the MQ-25's are operational it is quite likely there will be other variants for coms, sensors, radars etc. Don't need stealth if the radar is on, but that would allow the carrier's radar to be off, or other patrol aircraft not needing their's on.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Once the MQ-25's are operational it is quite likely there will be other variants for coms, sensors, radars etc. Don't need stealth if the radar is on, but that would allow the carrier's radar to be off, or other patrol aircraft not needing their's on.

You betting that the MQ-25 is the optimal platform to host those other systems? Why clutter the carrier with additional MQ-25s when you could have a separate unmanned platform half the size and twice as specialised. After the USN spends a couple of years working with this tech additional specialized platforms will be contracted, designed and built using digital blah blah.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Once the MQ-25's are operational it is quite likely there will be other variants for coms, sensors, radars etc. Don't need stealth if the radar is on, but that would allow the carrier's radar to be off, or other patrol aircraft not needing their's on.

You betting that the MQ-25 is the optimal platform to host those other systems? Why clutter the carrier with additional MQ-25s when you could have a separate unmanned platform half the size and twice as specialised. After the USN spends a couple of years working with this tech additional specialized platforms will be contracted, designed and built using digital blah blah.

Because it reduces the on carrier parts inventory.
Because it reduces development cost to reuse the airframe.
Because it reduces training costs.
And so on...

Sometimes it helps to specialize, but reuse also has value.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Daetrin wrote:

Even if an MQ-25 costs more than an F/A-18 to buy, if it's cheaper to operate not only on a sortie basis, but on a fuel offload basis, then you get a positive ROI that may pay back pretty quickly.

The low production rate may also be due to...
1. They want to iterate quickly and iron out things as they go vs. after they have lot of them.
2. If there are only 70 total, they may not really get economies of scale for a higher production rate, e.g. there may be other tooling constrains that limit production rate that they don't want to invest in given the number of aircraft produced.

Just speculating...

When is comes to NAVAIR there is no ROI requiring payback.

The prod rate is low because the USN only needs 70 of them. At five per carrier air wing you don't need many and will be into the 2030s before all the carriers have been modified with the control stations. No doubt they could build 70 of them in two years but then the airframes sit around doing nothing until the carriers are ready.

There are financial constraints. Every MQ-25 bought means you don't buy an F-35. 70 MQ-25's costs as much as several Arleigh Burke class ships.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Once the MQ-25's are operational it is quite likely there will be other variants for coms, sensors, radars etc. Don't need stealth if the radar is on, but that would allow the carrier's radar to be off, or other patrol aircraft not needing their's on.

You betting that the MQ-25 is the optimal platform to host those other systems? Why clutter the carrier with additional MQ-25s when you could have a separate unmanned platform half the size and twice as specialised. After the USN spends a couple of years working with this tech additional specialized platforms will be contracted, designed and built using digital blah blah.

Well to be the most effective, it should be 300-400 mile radius from the carrier, so it needs to be airborne 8-10 hours. Further, if in a dual role of tanker & surveillance there would be added tanker assets to assist with returning planes. Most airborne surveillance planes are either RJ's or bigger anyway.

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Daetrin wrote:

Even if an MQ-25 costs more than an F/A-18 to buy, if it's cheaper to operate not only on a sortie basis, but on a fuel offload basis, then you get a positive ROI that may pay back pretty quickly.

The low production rate may also be due to...
1. They want to iterate quickly and iron out things as they go vs. after they have lot of them.
2. If there are only 70 total, they may not really get economies of scale for a higher production rate, e.g. there may be other tooling constrains that limit production rate that they don't want to invest in given the number of aircraft produced.

Just speculating...

When is comes to NAVAIR there is no ROI requiring payback.

The prod rate is low because the USN only needs 70 of them. At five per carrier air wing you don't need many and will be into the 2030s before all the carriers have been modified with the control stations. No doubt they could build 70 of them in two years but then the airframes sit around doing nothing until the carriers are ready.

There are financial constraints. Every MQ-25 bought means you don't buy an F-35. 70 MQ-25's costs as much as several Arleigh Burke class ships.

None of that is ROI requiring payback. Militaries will pay overs for capability if it provides an operational edge. NAVAIR or big USN could buy 30 different planes/ships/tomatoes every year and never have to pay back the investment. There are financial constraints but doesn't stop Congress from making stupid financial decisions like keeping Ticos around.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

You betting that the MQ-25 is the optimal platform to host those other systems? Why clutter the carrier with additional MQ-25s when you could have a separate unmanned platform half the size and twice as specialised.

The MQ-25 frame is designed for maximum fuel capacity and to have the lowest fuel burn while staying inside the carrier weight limit. This provides the longest range or fuel offload possible from the carrier. These are the exact design goals that AWAC or recon platforms would want.

It would provide big cost savings by having all drone aircraft with 90+% commonality.

RJMAZ wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

You betting that the MQ-25 is the optimal platform to host those other systems? Why clutter the carrier with additional MQ-25s when you could have a separate unmanned platform half the size and twice as specialised.

The MQ-25 frame is designed for maximum fuel capacity and to have the lowest fuel burn while staying inside the carrier weight limit. This provides the longest range or fuel offload possible from the carrier. These are the exact design goals that AWAC or recon platforms would want.

It would provide big cost savings by having all drone aircraft with 90+% commonality.

Would you figure... not all drones look like the MQ-25. MQ-25 isn't replacing the E-2D in the next 20 years. If the USN is going UCAV ISR/strike then something similar to the UCAVs offered for UCLASS make more sense and a hell of a lot more survivable than MQ-25.

And savings smavings, any new carrier UCAV could use the same engine and most of the software in a design far more optimised for the role including internal bays.

JayinKitsap wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Once the MQ-25's are operational it is quite likely there will be other variants for coms, sensors, radars etc. Don't need stealth if the radar is on, but that would allow the carrier's radar to be off, or other patrol aircraft not needing their's on.

You betting that the MQ-25 is the optimal platform to host those other systems? Why clutter the carrier with additional MQ-25s when you could have a separate unmanned platform half the size and twice as specialised. After the USN spends a couple of years working with this tech additional specialized platforms will be contracted, designed and built using digital blah blah.

Well to be the most effective, it should be 300-400 mile radius from the carrier, so it needs to be airborne 8-10 hours. Further, if in a dual role of tanker & surveillance there would be added tanker assets to assist with returning planes. Most airborne surveillance planes are either RJ's or bigger anyway.

UCLASS was looking at 600 and 1200nm orbits, good enough for ya?

RJMAZ wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

You betting that the MQ-25 is the optimal platform to host those other systems? Why clutter the carrier with additional MQ-25s when you could have a separate unmanned platform half the size and twice as specialised.

The MQ-25 frame is designed for maximum fuel capacity and to have the lowest fuel burn while staying inside the carrier weight limit.

How do you know this? I didn't think Boeing had released any weights (gross, empty, etc) for the MQ-25.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

When is comes to NAVAIR there is no ROI requiring payback.

The prod rate is low because the USN only needs 70 of them. At five per carrier air wing you don't need many and will be into the 2030s before all the carriers have been modified with the control stations. No doubt they could build 70 of them in two years but then the airframes sit around doing nothing until the carriers are ready.

There are financial constraints. Every MQ-25 bought means you don't buy an F-35. 70 MQ-25's costs as much as several Arleigh Burke class ships.

None of that is ROI requiring payback. Militaries will pay overs for capability if it provides an operational edge. NAVAIR or big USN could buy 30 different planes/ships/tomatoes every year and never have to pay back the investment. There are financial constraints but doesn't stop Congress from making stupid financial decisions like keeping Ticos around.

We agree. We're saying the same thing.

kitplane01 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The MQ-25 frame is designed for maximum fuel capacity and to have the lowest fuel burn while staying inside the carrier weight limit.

How do you know this? I didn't think Boeing had released any weights (gross, empty, etc) for the MQ-25.

How could you even dispute what I said? The alternative would be that the Navy wants to minimise fuel capacity, use a fuel guzzling engine and to exceed the carrier weight limit so it has to operate from land bases.

I see why the rate is low. It takes time to stand up a squadron and are carrier upgrade dependent.

Also because the nose cone can be swapped out for mission specific sensors, you do not need to have multiple platforms. Nose cones are more space efficient than complete airframe.

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The MQ-25 frame is designed for maximum fuel capacity and to have the lowest fuel burn while staying inside the carrier weight limit.

How do you know this? I didn't think Boeing had released any weights (gross, empty, etc) for the MQ-25.

How could you even dispute what I said? The alternative would be that the Navy wants to minimise fuel capacity, use a fuel guzzling engine and to exceed the carrier weight limit so it has to operate from land bases.

It could be that a single f-414 cannot lift an airplane as heavy as needed to get to the maximum carrier launch/landing weights. It could be that the MQ-25 is the size it is to meet the requirements, and no more. There's lots of reasons the MQ-25 might not be the maximum possible carrier weight. We con't know until Boeing or the DOD tells us.

Story about MQ-25 on CBS.

Lots of good footage.

https://www.cbs.com/shows/cbs-mornings/ ... refueling/

bt

A new MQ-25 video from Boeing. I think there are some changes, initially the signaller's batons were to give the signals to the drone, now it is back to the standard signaller with a 2nd person having the remote control. Probably far more reliable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PO5Ly3WXAs

You would think they would want to use the same procedure as if it was for a manned aircraft to avoid having to train the signaller to a new aircraft.

The next question would be where you want to position the controller on the busy flight deck. The most obvious position would be behind the signaller as that would provide view of both the aircraft and signaller.

Maybe future drones will have 3d cameras so the controller can be in the tower looking at the signaller from the drone's point of view.

bt

New promo video of the carrier deck tests.

https://youtu.be/WFrzKILwfFg

Reminded me of a movie preview. Next stop catepute launch!

bt

USNI has an update article on the MQ-25

https://news.usni.org/2022/04/06/navy-o ... more-93376

JayinKitsap wrote:

USNI has an update article on the MQ-25

https://news.usni.org/2022/04/06/navy-o ... more-93376

“We now need to continue to further develop MQ-25A to ensure that it’s going to be able to function within the air wing. [Fly] up to 500 miles away from the ship and be able to pass gas on the way out,” Vice Adm. Scott Conn, deputy chief of naval operations for warfighting requirements and capabilities (OPNAV N9), told reporters on Tuesday.

Is the passing gas some form of booster rocket?

The Sea Air Space convention is going on, an article and interview video.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/se ... pace-2022/

It seems like they want to get the tanker mission working before going for other features. ISR seems quite likely.

It has been hush hush from the beginning how much the MQ-25 can offload at 500 miles, it was required to do 15K lbs but can it do 25K say. Not a mention anywhere.

Has Boeing or the USN released any specs on the MQ-25? Empty or gross weight, wing span, cruise speed or maximum speed, or anything besides fuel offload at 500nm?

Wiki has the wing span and height. But that is probably fot the pre-production frames.

They will not have final weights until they finish the first production frames completed and have weight on wheels.

The internal components would have been sized for full operation life time as opposed to test life only as well as the additional systems for full payload capabilities.

Those numbers will probably not be available until the first production frame is officially introduced or have gone through initial flight envelope testing.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Wiki has the wing span and height. But that is probably fot the pre-production frames.

They will not have final weights until they finish the first production frames completed and have weight on wheels.

The internal components would have been sized for full operation life time as opposed to test life only as well as the additional systems for full payload capabilities.

Those numbers will probably not be available until the first production frame is officially introduced or have gone through initial flight envelope testing.

bt

I'm trying to remember. Didn't we have a pretty good set of stats before the IOC of the F-18/F-35? Because there are flying examples of the MQ-25. Heck I'm sure they had a very good weight/speed/etc estimate during the design stage.

kitplane01 wrote:

Heck I'm sure they had a very good weight/speed/etc estimate during the design stage.

Probably. With the digital twin, they probably have a good estimate of those already.

bt

I suspect the Navy is treating the specs as classified for now. I am sure they had a ton of data back at the RFP stage. No reason for Boeing or the Navy to divulge anything beyond the RFP

JayinKitsap wrote:

I suspect the Navy is treating the specs as classified for now. I am sure they had a ton of data back at the RFP stage. No reason for Boeing or the Navy to divulge anything beyond the RFP

We know the gross weight of the F-22, F-35, and B-2. But the refueler aircraft, that's classified?

We know the gross weight of every aircraft that will operate from the carrier, except the refueler?

Seriously, part of being a democracy is to release basic data about multi-billion $$$ expenditures (with only a few exceptions, none of which apply to a refueler aircraft).

Some MQ-25 news on its Lab Integration between the GCS (Ground Control Station) and the MQ-25, which is a big deal. Not long before it will be flying from the carrier.
https://seapowermagazine.org/mq-25-team ... ion-event/

A youtube video of the MQ-25 program
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VJA2R0Xp7Q

A national Interest article
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... nge-202706

The Navy Budget is planning to buy 4 per year starting in FY23

Steady Funding For MQ-25

The service’s FY23 budget marks the first year buying fully-fledged MQ-25A Stingrays. The J-books’ projections show a steady stream of funding to purchase four aircraft a year, starting in FY23 and running through FY27.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/mq- ... takeaways/

LTEN11 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Another check mark.

https://news.usni.org/2021/08/19/boeing ... ed-hawkeye

“During the six-hour flight, Navy E-2D pilots from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Two Zero (VX) 20 approached T1, performed formation evaluations, wake surveys, drogue tracking and plugs with the MQ-25 test asset at 220 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS) and 10,000 feet,” according to a release from Naval Air Systems Command.

bt

Watching the video, I wasn't aware of just how big the MQ-25 is, it is an substantial aircraft.

It has a wingspan 10' greater than that of the Tomcat, substantial indeed!

The first of the official pre-production MQ-25's has rolled out. Previously it has been the T-1, the Boeing built unit prior to the contract that has been flying.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/o ... 5-stingray

Do we have photos of the top. If the intake is at the top with a turbine on it, won't it make the top side RCS incredibly high. If it doesn't have a turbine, wouldn't the engine strugle ingesting air when the angle of attack rises (like when landing)

JuggernautAlpha wrote:

If the intake is at the top with a turbine on it, won't it make the top side RCS incredibly high.

The intake is flushed to the top fuselage surface. RCS should not be bad as whole inlet edge is rounded, no sharp edge.

You may be right about high AOA. One way to solve this is have some lower intake that only open at landing.

bt

Actually, if we take this back to basic aerodynamics, high AOA is used to maintain lift as airspeed drops.

If your wing can provide sufficient lift (using flaps etc) or if you can drop your weight, then you don't need high AOA when landing.

You can probably see this in a passenger liner coming in for landing with a full load vs half empty

With the MQ-25, the wing is straight (not swept). The high wing aspect ratio and lifting body design can probably allow it to get to landing speed with out using high AOA.

Note bringing back more fuel forces higher AOA or higher landing speed. So it can dump fuel if needed.

bt

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

JuggernautAlpha wrote:

Do we have photos of the top. If the intake is at the top with a turbine on it, won't it make the top side RCS incredibly high. If it doesn't have a turbine, wouldn't the engine strugle ingesting air when the angle of attack rises (like when landing)

Oddly enough it isn't intended to be viewed from directly above by opponents. So yes, there's an increase of RCS from that angle. But a dramatic decrease and simplification from all the angles likely to have opponents.

As for high AoA. Yeah, it'll make things a bit more fiddly in the design. But it's hardly an impossible challenge. Remember this design isn't aimed at sudden agility movement. But rather a stealthy truck to haul stuff about. So taking a hit on sudden high AoA movement is an acceptable tradeoff to reduce design and sustainment costs elsewhere.

Some photos:


The 2nd pic is from a The War Zone article that is pretty good on the inlet discussion but 2018

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/1 ... nker-drone

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Oddly enough it isn't intended to be viewed from directly above by opponents. So yes, there's an increase of RCS from that angle.

My initial thoughts exactly, but, then I thought, does China have sufficient space based radars that may have the resolution to make these drones glow up like Christmas lights in their IADS systems. There are also reports of HALE (High Altitude Long Endurance) AEWACs drones under development

But judging by the photos, it doesn't seem like the turbine is seen directly from the top, so maybe the topside RCS isn't as bad as I suspected.