Super Hornet = MQ-25A?

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

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3751
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Nov 2017, 11:08

Prepare To Welcome the F-18 Stingray

by Craig Hooper on November 5, 2017

There should be little mystery behind Northrop Grumman’s recent decision to withdraw from the MQ-25 Stingray Program.

As the requirements have trickled out, the Stingray has started to look very much like an unmanned F-18 variant. And that’s great, because an F-18 variant would help the Navy focus on integrating a pedestrian unmanned platform into the carrier air wing without the distraction of integrating a radical airframe, entirely new gear, new training pathways, new operational parameters and on and on into a carrier and an air wing. An F-18 variant is the only easy route to getting an operational platform on a carrier deck by ’19, as well, and it removes the F-18 line closure threat from the next Presidential election (Now, this isn’t to dismiss the chances of a successful bid from General Atomics, but, to win against an F-18 variant, General Atomics will need to offer an incredibly low unit price–which would also be great, but for different reasons.)................

http://nextnavy.com/prepare-to-welcome- ... -stingray/
Online

hythelday

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 175
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post07 Nov 2017, 12:53

An F-18 variant is the only easy route to getting an operational platform on a carrier deck by ’19


Does unmanned SH version exist? If not, how is it easier than X-47B that has been there and done that? :roll:

As the requirements have trickled out, the Stingray has started to look very much like an unmanned F-18 variant


How is >400 nm combat radius SH gonna deliver "15,000 pounds of fuel 500 nm out"? How is it gonna solve A2AD problem? :roll:
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2528
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post07 Nov 2017, 16:29

hythelday wrote:
An F-18 variant is the only easy route to getting an operational platform on a carrier deck by ’19


Does unmanned SH version exist? If not, how is it easier than X-47B that has been there and done that? :roll:

As the requirements have trickled out, the Stingray has started to look very much like an unmanned F-18 variant


How is >400 nm combat radius SH gonna deliver "15,000 pounds of fuel 500 nm out"? How is it gonna solve A2AD problem? :roll:

^^^^^^This. The entire point, is a tanking solution that solves the A2AD problem. That means the tanker needs to be stealthy, as well as having sufficient range/fuel payload.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6895
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post07 Nov 2017, 16:33

Didn't they remove the requirement for the Stingray to be LO?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5071
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Nov 2017, 16:53

hythelday wrote:
An F-18 variant is the only easy route to getting an operational platform on a carrier deck by ’19


Does unmanned SH version exist? If not, how is it easier than X-47B that has been there and done that? :roll:

As the requirements have trickled out, the Stingray has started to look very much like an unmanned F-18 variant


How is >400 nm combat radius SH gonna deliver "15,000 pounds of fuel 500 nm out"? How is it gonna solve A2AD problem? :roll:



The navy is going to do what they've done the last 25 years, complain they don't have enough range. Then buy something shorter ranged for convenience sake. Repeat. It's this weird thing. Let maus92 come in here and whine that the F-35 is worse than the super hornet, while lamenting the navy lost all of its range by the strange coincidence of adopting exclusively super hornets.


Don't know if you all have noticed but between the 7th fleet bashing into things and the fat Leonard scandal while working hard to integrate tansgenders that the navy is not much more than a sweet government paycheck civil service job.

Unless your attached to a marine unit, an aviator, or spec ops. The navy is a bad joke walking around in blueberry uniforms.

Spoken as a bitter US Marine who hates the navy but they are utterly falling apart. And it took a dozen sailors getting killed for them to pull their god Damn heads out of their asses for even 5 minutes
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2524
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post07 Nov 2017, 17:34

Corsair1963 wrote:....variant would help the Navy focus on integrating a pedestrian unmanned platform into the carrier air wing without the distraction of integrating a radical airframe, entirely new gear, new training pathways, new operational parameters and on and on into a carrier and an air wing.

....An F-18 variant is the only easy route to getting an operational platform on a carrier deck by ’19, ....


....NO!; the pedestrian platform is the S-3 (former fleet tanker)
....NO!; the easiest route is the S-3 (former fleet tanker)


....as a least expensive solution to the fleet tanker issue, it is the S-3. The planes are stored in the boneyard and readily available to return to their former duties. Additional capacity can be added (inexpensively) by removing their existing ASW capabilities. Also, the S-3 can be upgraded to a unmanned capability to interface with the MQ-25 Stingray systems, thereby advancing the implementation of that infrastructure on the CVN. The S-3 can be implemented during 2018, prior the CNO mandated 2019 date. This would allow for a "less rushed" design of the Stingray and advance the "unmanned" experience with the F-35C/ SBug communities.

....bringing back tired, wornout Bug tankers will not solve the wearout problem of the SBugs.
IMHO
:)
Offline

Tiger05

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post07 Nov 2017, 23:43

Gosh, dont tell me yet another Hornet variant is being developed. As if today's carrier decks werent already dull enough... Seriously whats with the Navy obsession with the F/A-18?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3751
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Nov 2017, 04:33

neptune wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:....variant would help the Navy focus on integrating a pedestrian unmanned platform into the carrier air wing without the distraction of integrating a radical airframe, entirely new gear, new training pathways, new operational parameters and on and on into a carrier and an air wing.

....An F-18 variant is the only easy route to getting an operational platform on a carrier deck by ’19, ....


....NO!; the pedestrian platform is the S-3 (former fleet tanker)
....NO!; the easiest route is the S-3 (former fleet tanker)


....as a least expensive solution to the fleet tanker issue, it is the S-3. The planes are stored in the boneyard and readily available to return to their former duties. Additional capacity can be added (inexpensively) by removing their existing ASW capabilities. Also, the S-3 can be upgraded to a unmanned capability to interface with the MQ-25 Stingray systems, thereby advancing the implementation of that infrastructure on the CVN. The S-3 can be implemented during 2018, prior the CNO mandated 2019 date. This would allow for a "less rushed" design of the Stingray and advance the "unmanned" experience with the F-35C/ SBug communities.

....bringing back tired, wornout Bug tankers will not solve the wearout problem of the SBugs.
IMHO
:)


Yes, my thoughts exactly! If, the USN is in such a rush to get a tanker back on the decks of USN Carriers. Then just bring back the Viking as a short-term solution. While, taking their time to develop a New Stealthy Tanker. Which, could serve as a basis for a future ISR/Strike Aircraft further down the road.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44
  • Location: US

Unread post10 Nov 2017, 02:57

Not sure why anyone would expect anything intelligent out of NAVAIR...
u = (CB)⁻¹(cvdt_des - CAx)
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1661
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post10 Nov 2017, 04:54

Stop the USN from receiving lobbyists from Boeing if you really want to shed this obsession.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 747
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Nov 2017, 15:20

Corsair1963 wrote:Prepare To Welcome the F-18 Stingray

by Craig Hooper on November 5, 2017

There should be little mystery behind Northrop Grumman’s recent decision to withdraw from the MQ-25 Stingray Program.

As the requirements have trickled out, the Stingray has started to look very much like an unmanned F-18 variant. And that’s great, because an F-18 variant would help the Navy focus on integrating a pedestrian unmanned platform into the carrier air wing without the distraction of integrating a radical airframe, entirely new gear, new training pathways, new operational parameters and on and on into a carrier and an air wing. An F-18 variant is the only easy route to getting an operational platform on a carrier deck by ’19, as well, and it removes the F-18 line closure threat from the next Presidential election (Now, this isn’t to dismiss the chances of a successful bid from General Atomics, but, to win against an F-18 variant, General Atomics will need to offer an incredibly low unit price–which would also be great, but for different reasons.)................

http://nextnavy.com/prepare-to-welcome- ... -stingray/


Bullpucky article. There is nothing cheap or easy about making unmanned F/A 18s frankly (a relatively short ranged platform too anyway as others have pointed out). If actually true, another wishful thinking pigs might fly Boeing Defence product. Boeing Defence is a joke...no innovation.....no passion.....just milking the same old
Offline

citanon

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 183
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post13 Nov 2017, 15:46

First, there is no way they can get an unmanned f-18 ready by 2019.

Second, how heck would an unmanned f-18 end up being cheaper than a General Atomics Sea Avenger?

Third, looks up Boeing and UAV and you get... The ScanEagle. The only way they have an ice cubes chance in hell of getting something that could become operational in 19 is if they ask Northrup Grumman very very nicely for the x47b, which, actually, would be an excellent reason for Northrup to drop out.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44
  • Location: US

Unread post14 Nov 2017, 03:18

citanon wrote:First, there is no way they can get an unmanned f-18 ready by 2019.


There's no way in hell they're getting anything on a deck by 2019.

citanon wrote:Third, looks up Boeing and UAV and you get... The ScanEagle. The only way they have an ice cubes chance in hell of getting something that could become operational in 19 is if they ask Northrup Grumman very very nicely for the x47b, which, actually, would be an excellent reason for Northrup to drop out.


To be fair, that's Boeing's Insitu subsidiary. BDS has done some relatively neat stuff with J-UCAS and Phantom Ray.

Navy doesn't like N-G.
u = (CB)⁻¹(cvdt_des - CAx)
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 609
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post15 Nov 2017, 06:08

I don't get what would be hard about turning a super hornet into a unmanned vehicle? The only thing the pilot is doing in the aircraft is pushing sticks and buttons to tell a computer how he wants it to be flown. UAV would mean moving the pilot to somewhere else and adding a radio(in basics at least). I mean a better more refined version where they remove the cockpit to reduce drag and what not would be ideal for production but just taking a F/A-18F and turning it into a UAV, especially with how much of it is already automated, doesn't seem like a extreme task. if Boeing has already been working on it for a year or two they might be ready for some trials here soon. Now that doesn't address all the issues, it would still be an expensive tanker, you could drop the radar at first, but keep the ability to add it in so when the Navy retires Super bugs with the apg-79 they could choose to add those radars into the MQ-25 later on. It would have the effect of increasing the amount of super bug air frames being built, potentially dropping the price on the new build Super hornet, growlers and the drone version, if they can get it down to 50-60mill flyaway that would help. Tanking wise it needs to have the CFT's, without the bubble canopy that might make a perfect trade off on drag if those are added. Taking a F/A-18E with 14,500lbs fuel, add the 3,500lbs CFT fuel, add the 330 gallon drogue tank, and then add 4 x 480 gallon tanks on the wings gives you around 33,000lbs of fuel, that should be able to give 10,000lbs of fuel at 400-500nmi. I look at it as very doable, basically the worst option capability wise in the beginning but being the lowest risk to develop and get aboard quickly. I would favor the return of the S-3 as a tanker if the role needs to be filled that badly and develop a proper stealthy UCAV tanker/recon aircraft. Or accelerate the V-22 purchase and throw a few on deck as tankers like the marines, plus you can use them for other stuff too (faster longer range ASM aircraft comes to mind).
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3751
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Nov 2017, 06:25

geforcerfx wrote:I don't get what would be hard about turning a super hornet into a unmanned vehicle? The only thing the pilot is doing in the aircraft is pushing sticks and buttons to tell a computer how he wants it to be flown. UAV would mean moving the pilot to somewhere else and adding a radio(in basics at least). I mean a better more refined version where they remove the cockpit to reduce drag and what not would be ideal for production but just taking a F/A-18F and turning it into a UAV, especially with how much of it is already automated, doesn't seem like a extreme task. if Boeing has already been working on it for a year or two they might be ready for some trials here soon. Now that doesn't address all the issues, it would still be an expensive tanker, you could drop the radar at first, but keep the ability to add it in so when the Navy retires Super bugs with the apg-79 they could choose to add those radars into the MQ-25 later on. It would have the effect of increasing the amount of super bug air frames being built, potentially dropping the price on the new build Super hornet, growlers and the drone version, if they can get it down to 50-60mill flyaway that would help. Tanking wise it needs to have the CFT's, without the bubble canopy that might make a perfect trade off on drag if those are added. Taking a F/A-18E with 14,500lbs fuel, add the 3,500lbs CFT fuel, add the 330 gallon drogue tank, and then add 4 x 480 gallon tanks on the wings gives you around 33,000lbs of fuel, that should be able to give 10,000lbs of fuel at 400-500nmi. I look at it as very doable, basically the worst option capability wise in the beginning but being the lowest risk to develop and get aboard quickly. I would favor the return of the S-3 as a tanker if the role needs to be filled that badly and develop a proper stealthy UCAV tanker/recon aircraft. Or accelerate the V-22 purchase and throw a few on deck as tankers like the marines, plus you can use them for other stuff too (faster longer range ASM aircraft comes to mind).




Yes, I agree with the last part. Just put the S-3 back in service short-term. While investing in a New Stealthy UCAV long-term.
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests