MQ-25 drones & aircraft carriers

[a425couple]

The US Navy May Have Watered Down Its MQ-25 Drone Even More
Reported draft requirements focus almost entirely on tanking with no
clear mention of intelligence missions.

BY JOSEPH TREVITHICKJULY 21, 2017
THE WAR ZONEAERIAL REFUELINGCARRIERSCBARSISRMQ-25
STINGRAYSTEALTHTANKERSTHE WAR ZONEUCAVUCLASSUSNX-47B
USN
SHARE

The U.S. Navy has revealed the latest details about what it expects from
its already dumbed-down MQ-25 Stingray drone program. In a new twist,
the service has downplayed an already limited reconnaissance requirement
while expanding the scope of the proposed unmanned aircraft’s aerial
tanking duties.

On July 19, 2017, the Navy sent out a draft request for proposals to
four defense contractors – Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, and
Northrop Grumman – ahead of the service’s planned release of a formal
notice sometime in the fall, according to USNI News. Notably, this
document outlines just two so-called “key performance parameters,” or
KPPs, for any proposed design.

NAVY REVEALS WHICH CARRIERS WILL FIRST FIELD THEIR DUMBED-DOWN MQ-25 DRONE
By Joseph Trevithick
Posted in THE WAR ZONE
THE ALARMING CASE OF THE USAF’S MYSTERIOUSLY MISSING UNMANNED COMBAT AIR
VEHICLES
By Tyler Rogoway
Posted in THE WAR ZONE
THE AIR FORCE DESPERATELY NEEDS A STEALTH TANKER
By Tyler Rogoway
Posted in THE WAR ZONE

“The system needs to be able to operate off of the aircraft carrier and
integrate with all of the subsystems of the carrier,” U.S. Navy Captain
Beau Duarte, the MQ-25 program manager, told USNI. “Sea-based tanker is
the second KPP. It needs to be able to deliver a robust fuel offload at
range to support an extension of the air wing and add flexibility of
what’s available from a mission tanking perspective.”

It’s a testament to Pentagon bureaucracy that the Navy has to specify
the first of these requirements at all. That the unmanned aircraft,
previously known as the Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System (CBARS),
would need to use existing carrier subsystems, such as catapults and
arresting equipment, is a long-established given.

USN
The experimental X-47B carrier drone.
The second KPP, however, is a small, but significant change from how the
service explained the drone’s planned missions when it applied for the
MQ-25 designation in 2016. In that request, which the author previously
obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request, the primary focus
was on recovery rather than mission tanking.

Recovery tanking is a much more limited task involving an aerial
refueling aircraft flying fixed orbits in close proximity to the
carrier. The concept allows carrier fighters or strike aircraft to fly
missions that take up much of their fuel, knowing that when they return
they can take on additional gas and land safely.

US NAVY VIA FOIA
Since the Navy’s carrier air wings do not presently have a dedicated
tanker, Super Hornets have to fill this role using a detachable “buddy
pod” store. This takes the aircraft away from their primary duties as a
strike fighter. So, having the Stingray do this work would lead to “a
substantial increase in mission capacity and can also extend the reach
of existing [carrier strike group] capabilities,” according the MQ-25
designator request packet.

Only one MQ-25 in each complete “unmanned aerial system” – which would
include multiple drones, an MD-5 ground control station, and other
associated equipment – would be available for so-called mission tanking.
Unlike recovery tanking, this mission profile has aerial refueling
planes operating in orbits nearer to the target area.

To perform this job, the tanker would have to have a greater maximum
range of its own and could expect to find itself closer to enemy
defenses without the protective umbrella of the carrier and its escorts.
At present, large U.S. Air Force KC-135 and KC-10 tankers perform the
bulk of the U.S. military’s mission tanking across all the services.


LOCKHEED MARTIN
Lockheed Martin's MQ-25 concept art.
The shift in focus from primarily recovery to mainly mission tanking
could potentially lead manufacturers to develop significantly larger
designs than they might’ve originally planned to submit. In line with
the original focus on recovery tanking, both Boeing and Lockheed Martin
have already released concept artwork showing nothing but what looked
like the Navy’s existing buddy pods without any significant amount of
the aircraft itself visible. Duarte confirmed to USNI that this piece of
kit is part of the requirement, but that the rest is up to the manufacturer.

“We are saying that you do have to use the existing aerial refueling
store that F/A-18s [and] S-3s have used – and that’s externally carried
– and that’s to reduce development, cost and timeline and risk,” Duarte
explained. “But how you configure the air vehicle to deliver that fuel
is up to industry.”

Also, Duarte made no specific mention of the Navy’s earlier desire for
the aircraft to still have limited intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capabilities. This was a holdover requirement from the
original strike and reconnaissance focused Unmanned Carrier Launched
Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program.

In asking for the MQ-25 designation, the Navy specifically said that
drones would be available for intelligence gathering missions when not
providing tanking services. The requirements described an unmanned
aircraft able to gather imagery, including full motion video, during the
day or at night, as well as signals intelligence data. It would also
have the necessary data links to transmit that information back to the
carrier, to other ships or even submarines, other manned or unmanned
aircraft, and troops on the ground.

We don’t know whether or not the Navy has decided to scrap the
intelligence gathering mission entirely. “There are a number of key
system attributes or other requirements lower than that that are
subsequent to and are of lower importance and that will allow us to
focus on those two key areas on tanking and carrier suitability and let
those be the primary design drivers,” Duarte noted.

USN
An Omega Air Refueling KC-707 tanker links up with an X-47B drone during
tests.
All of this seems to suggest the Navy may have decided to focus on
tanking above all else, at least initially. This singular mission focus
could help the service keep costs low and get the aircraft into service
quickly. In April 2017, Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, and
Northrop Grumman each received more than $18 million to continue work on
their MQ-25 designs, even though the final requirements were still in
flux and it was unclear when any production aircraft might actually be
combat ready. There is no estimated final price tag for the project as
of yet.

But billing the aircraft as nothing more than a pilotless gas station
could limit the ability for the Navy to employ them for other tasks in
the future. The original UCLASS designs – Boeing’s Phantom Ray, General
Atomics’ Sea Avenger, Lockheed Martin’s Sea Ghost, and Northrop
Grumman’s X-47C – were low-observable drones clearly intended for deep
strike and intelligence gathering in so-called anti-access/area denial
environments, or A2/AD, full of networked air defenses and hostile aircraft.

The shift in requirements to a tanker with secondary intelligence
gathering capability already suggested manufacturers might rework their
proposals around less costly non-stealthy designs. "From our viewpoint,
the requirements, as they are currently unfolding, are going to require
a new design from all of the competitors," Rob Weiss, head of Lockheed's
Skunk Works advanced projects office, told USNI in March 2017.

If the Navy did decide it needed a deep strike unmanned combat air
vehicle in the future, an aircraft that may ultimately become essential
for operations in heavily defended areas, these new pilotless aircraft
could be wholly unsuitable for the task. Whether they could perform the
kind of secondary reconnaissance mission the Navy had originally
envisioned is debatable with this new primary focus on longer range
aerial refueling. A modular design that could accept additional mission
equipment would necessarily be a substitute for a purpose-built low
observable design.

Of course, there is always the possibility one or more of the four
contractors could put forward a stealthy tanker design. There is growing
evidence that aerial refuelers, manned or unmanned, are increasingly
vulnerable in high threat environments in general. In May 2017, a
Russian fighter jet intercepted and then did a barrel roll atop an Air
Force KC-10 flying over Syria, underscoring this potential danger. But
unless all of the competitors decide to go this route, anyone who does
might be stuck making an offer that is significantly more expensive and
less attractive as a result.

DARPA
A now very dated artist's concept of what was once a joint U.S. Air
Force-Navy unmanned combat air vehicle program.
Still, in his interview with USNI, Duarte sought to downplay these
concerns and the idea that there would be a need for all new aircraft
concepts. “The program has been structured so there isn’t any new
development. There’s no new science here,” he insisted.

That's not really true, of course. Northrop Grumman's X-47B demonstrator
and its associated technological advancements had made clear the
impressive potential of a carrier-based combat-capable drone as outlined
in the original UCLASS program. Since then, the Navy, as well as the
U.S. Air Force, has repeatedly declined to push ahead with UCAV concept
for reasons that remain largely unclear.

In the case of the MQ-25 specifically, it could be that naval aviators
saw the Stingray as a threat and have argued behind the scenes for
reduced requirements. Maybe multiple branches feared the drone would
eat into budgets for more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters or updated F/A-18
Super Hornets. We don't know for sure, but it seems clear that the
decision against a deep-penetrating, stealthy attacker in favor of a
tanker was not done without careful consideration of one or more factors.

Whatever the case, it will be interesting to see how Boeing, General
Atomics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman ultimately interpret the
Navy’s latest requirements.

Contact the author: jtrevi...@gmail.com

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12753/the-us-navy-may-have-watered-down-its-mq-25-drone-even-more