Apparently the Navy is going to get a new Carrier-Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS), now known as the MQ-25 Stingray. Oh, and it might do some ISR on the side when done tanking. So, any thoughts on its viability?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
MQ-25 Stingray
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
It sounds like it'll take over the missions the S-3 had in its twilight years - tanker with some ISR and strike capability on the side. UCAS figured out the hard parts of flying a UAS around the Boat. Once you've got that done, you can put the drone boxes in pretty much any airframe, modify the program accordingly, et voila. Hell, they could put them in the Hoovs out of the Boneyard and make it a QS-3. The mission makes sense for the capability and is probably the easiest way to incorporate it into the air wing.
Is CBARS what we've slapped the table on? I had heard that was still not a popular/appropriate term (probably depends on who you ask).
Seems like a decent home for the first CVW UAV and a way to integrate it into the CVW in a methodical manner. Figure out the easy mission sets and then grow as required.
Routine use of UAVs on board the CVW does beg the question of how long will LSOs and CQs be required. If the landing system the MQ-25 uses has to work all the time so the UAV can get on board whenever it's up (you can't easily bingo a UAV to the beach) then why not fit all the CVW aircraft with this capability so that auto landings are the standard? The savings in training time, fatigue life, gas, etc would probably be huge.
Seems like a decent home for the first CVW UAV and a way to integrate it into the CVW in a methodical manner. Figure out the easy mission sets and then grow as required.
Routine use of UAVs on board the CVW does beg the question of how long will LSOs and CQs be required. If the landing system the MQ-25 uses has to work all the time so the UAV can get on board whenever it's up (you can't easily bingo a UAV to the beach) then why not fit all the CVW aircraft with this capability so that auto landings are the standard? The savings in training time, fatigue life, gas, etc would probably be huge.
The Navy never liked 'RAQ-25' or 'CBARS'. The desig and name are the Navy's preferred nomenclature.
As for your second point - we're a long way from it being reliable enough to be the standard, especially for planes with meatbags in them, and the limitations mean that when you'd need it most (night, high sea-state, dutch-rolling deck, etc) is when it's least likely to work. We may eventually get there. I think the tech problems are solvable, and I think the Navy's pursuing this in a smart way by de-scoping the requirements and limiting the mission. Hopefully that trend will continue and we'll resist the usual temptation to slap on additional requirements and missions.
Thus far they have done a really good job with it too. We're not there yet with the MQ-21A, but we're headed in the right direction.
As far as the other pieces go, it's no secret that UAV's are knocking on the door of some of the mission sets that the F-35 is supposed to take on. There are those who make decisions whom choose the F-35 over everything else - including people. Interesting that the powers that be say, "Tanking and some ISR." By nature all airplanes are a recce asset. The big piece here is what the thing will be able to carry aside from gas. Kinetic weapons are great, but there is a lot more to the benefit of a UAV than what has been done since 1997 with the Predator.
The solutions will come in time as long as we invest in them. Having an all-weather unmanned/remotely-piloted/whatever-flavor-this-month tanker around the boat is huge. I don't think DGPS is the answer- but some type of datalink approach is.
You guys seem to taking to your new robot overlords well.
Talking to a 101 guy last fall...........that's the plan with the 35.
Not surprised. Much better to invest in autoland and save all those airframe hours for real work.
I thought the "real work" of boat flying was behind the boat...........how are all of those pointy nose types going to measure dicks without the greenie board
I hope this datalink you are speaking of is more reliable than our current ACLS that drops lock anytime there is serious precipitation and I really need it.
I don't think this is something you can overcome with newer technology though.
FTFY. Also, if George is going to land the -35 every time, why is NAVAIR spending $$$ on Magic Carpet?
Are you sure magic carpet isn't what's in the 35?
Or if it's only in the 18 fleet it could still be a way to save life on 18 airframes for when f-35 gets delayed again.
I'm sure it would be in the -35. But it's an improvement to the optical landing aid system which is, for lack of a better term, legalized deck-spotting designed to work with a HUD. Bottom line, you're still going to have a backup in a manned platform in the case the ACLS or datalink shits the bed. A backup which can also fly MOVLAS. Or ignore MOVLAS and listen to Paddles, because Air Ops fucked up, didn't listen to Black Cloud, didn't cancel the cycle, shit has gone sideways, the deck is pitching and heaving nine ways from Sunday, and the Boss would be thrilled with a 50 percent boarding rate and codes popping on every Hornet in the air wing . . . just get everyone on board safely.
I'm not even a double centurion, but even in my limited experience, I had more than one Mode III or ICLS approach, as @pilot_man alluded to. I wonder in what WX conditions the MQ-25 is going to be able to fill a stone, and in what conditions the air wing SOP will be to load up a 5-wet, and send some poor bastard off the pointy end in the TTLR.
I would hope it is. I'll caveat that with the fact that I don't have any experience with the ACLS other than flying the needles at the boat in the RAG (and not very well, and only in good weather). However, it's all about datalink for UAVs. You can't lose link in bad weather, that's just bad for business.
The problem with DGPS is getting a good RTK solution between two moving GPS pucks that don't have any type of INS or INS prediction software.
I don't really know what the difference is between all those acronyms you used.
Right now UCAS has some way to get onboard mom. No idea whether it's a derivative of magic carpet or not. And the hornet has magic carpet. If you make the autoland capability a priority and the normal way of doing business (which is where we're headed with MQ-25) then you'd have backups for the landing system because you don't want to have an MQ-25 go in to the drink because of a lost link. Which means that there would be a more reliable system for the rest of the air wing. If the system has high enough reliability (which it would need to), can support ops in most weather conditions, and is interoperable with other platforms then why wouldn't it become the norm and a manual approach would be an emergency.
Right now UCAS has some way to get onboard mom. No idea whether it's a derivative of magic carpet or not. And the hornet has magic carpet. If you make the autoland capability a priority and the normal way of doing business (which is where we're headed with MQ-25) then you'd have backups for the landing system because you don't want to have an MQ-25 go in to the drink because of a lost link. Which means that there would be a more reliable system for the rest of the air wing. If the system has high enough reliability (which it would need to), can support ops in most weather conditions, and is interoperable with other platforms then why wouldn't it become the norm and a manual approach would be an emergency.
DesertRooster
The King of Nothing
Is the Stingray the only plane that actually looks like its nickname,(Kind of).
