Droner - Konkurransen om MQ-25A - AW&ST Videoer

MQ-25A Contestants Bare All To Woo U.S. Navy James Drew  Later this year, the U.S. Navy will choose one of three proposals put forward by Boeing Phantom Works, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. (GA-ASI) and Lockheed Martin Skunk Works and for the MQ-25 Stingray unmanned tanker program. The service has been exploring concepts for a large unmanned air vehicle (UAV) since 1999 and has finally settled on a carrier-based aerial tanker with inherent surveillance capability. This almost 20-year journey has led to three starkly different air vehicle concepts: two wing-body-tail UAV configurations by Boeing and GA-ASI, versus Lockheed’s flying-wing design. As the Navy draws closer to its decision, we are getting a fuller picture of each proposal under consideration. MQ-25A was the talk of the Sea-Air-Space Exposition held April 9-11, with each team revealing new details to win publicity and woo Navy leadership. Boeing, Lockheed and GA-ASI reveal engine selections Lockheed’s MQ-25 demos dropping of JSOW glide bombs Over the past month, Aviation Week has interviewed company executives from each of the teams and talked one-on-one with industry sources at the show. Of course, scuttlebutt and intrigue abounded as each of the rivals assessed each other’s designs. Here are some of the latest insights. Lockheed Martin On the opening day of the conference, April 9, Skunk Works launched a video of its MQ-25 UAV concept with unprecedented detail, showing it nose-to-tail, 360-deg., inside and out.

As the animated video shows, the air vehicle operator for Lockheed’s MQ-25 would play a central role in maneuvering the aircraft around the carrier deck, rather than the process being totally automated, which the company says, “allows the pilot to be a pilot.” While the General Atomics aircraft would autonomously respond to the commands of flight directors through wand-gesture recognition, Lockheed’s concept provides multiple video feeds to the control station: one very wide-aperture feed for situational awareness and another that zooms in so the operator can clearly see the flight director and aircraft handlers on the deck.

Although Skunk Works does not seem to have built any major hardware to validate the performance of its MQ-25A concept, the company says its design is low-risk and optimized for the mission, incorporating the F/A-18C/D’s F404-402 engine and F-35C landing gear. Credit: Lockheed Martin

The government-supplied buddy refueling pod is located on the left undercarriage of the Skunk Works aircraft, with the right side being reserved for an external fuel tank, sensor or weapon. The flying-wing concept provides plenty of internal volume from which to draw gas, with the internal fuel bladders extending two-thirds of the way out to the fold in the wings and rearward to the flaps. At the early morning press conference, the current and future directors of Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs (Skunk Works), Rob Weiss and Jeff Babione, respectively, also announced their engine selection and a partnership with Triumph Group’s aerostructures division, which will design and manufacture the internal structures, if victorious.

Two MQ-25A aircraft must fit side by side on the elevator of the Navy’s supercarriers, as depicted in this Skunk Works concept art. Credit: Lockheed Martin

Lockheed was the last of the three teams to reveal its chosen engine. The aircraft will be powered by a single GE Aviation F404-402, which powers the Navy’s legacy Boeing F/A-18C/D Hornet. The F404-series engine has been in service for more than 40 years and remains in active production in the U.S. for the Korean KAI T-50. It also powers Boeing’s twin-engine BTX and Lockheed’s single-engine T-50A proposals for the Air Force’s T-X military trainer competition. GE Aviation confirms that the engine produces about 10,000 lb. of thrust with no afterburner. Lockheed’s choice of an older engine had some opponents puzzled, but a program executive from Skunk Works explained that the newer GE Aviation F414 from the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would have been too powerful. However, the combination of the flying-wing fuselage and centerline F404 engine hits the right spot on the efficiency curve. As Weiss also points out, the Navy already has the infrastructure and know-how to maintain and repair the F404 series, reducing infrastructure and logistical costs. The aircraft will cruise at about Mach 0.7 (400 kt.). The flying wing has the added benefit of generating less trailing turbulence than a wing-body-tail configuration, allowing the hose and drogue to fly smoothly during refueling. According to Lockheed’s video, its MQ-25 concept has the potential to increase the striking distance of the F-35C Lightning II by 152% and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet by 145%. For “light” surveillance, the aircraft has a retractable sensor ball on the left side, and seemingly an automatic identification system for ship recognition. The Skunk Works animation also shows the MQ-25 dropping bombs, two Raytheon Joint Stand-Off Weapons (JSOW). The Navy has shown no desire for weapons compatibility in this initial increment, but Lockheed says if the hard points can already carry a refueling pod, external tank or sensor, they can also carry bomb racks, with targeting provided by the sensor ball or an offboard source. General Atomics

A fold-up subscale model of General Atomics’ MQ-25A concept was on display at Sea-Air-Space, along with a full-scale model of its PW815 engine. Credit: James Drew/AW&ST

General Atomics went into the show with enthusiasm, featuring a folding subscale model of its aircraft concept and a full-scale model of its high-bypass Pratt & Whitney Canada PW815 turbofan. A video showed its deck-handling demonstration used the Predator C “Avenger” as a surrogate aircraft at its Gray Butte facility in Palmdale, California, in November 2017.

At Gray Butte, GA-ASI has been conducting a series of tests and demonstrations to validate its concept: an engorged, high-power Avenger derivative. A company executive showed Aviation Week a picture of the completed full-scale test stand with the PW815 and customized MQ-25 engine inlet and exhaust duct. If raw power were the determining factor, GA-ASI would win by a long shot. Its chosen PW815 generates 16,000 lb. of thrust, four times that of the original Avenger (PW545B) and one-third higher than Boeing’s 9,000-lb.-thrust AE3007N and Skunk Works’ 10,000-lb.-thrust nonafterburning F404-402. However, the company’s rivals point out that GA-ASI’s concept would be introducing an engine that has not yet been fully certified for military use, making it a peculiar choice. The engine has only recently entered service on Gulfstream’s G600 commercial business jet. Those rivals also believe GA-ASI’s proposal may be oversized for the role, and that putting that much fuel into a wing-body-tail aircraft has driven the company’s design engineers up the power curve to the Pratt PW815. At a minimum, to compete, the MQ-25 proposals must be able to transfer 14,000 lb. of gas to receiver aircraft 500 nm and beyond the carrier at sea. GA-ASI President David Alexander is confident his aircraft not only smashes the minimum requirements, but also the higher objective targets. The company has designed, built and flown more than 23 unique aircraft configurations in its 25-year history, and its extended-range derivative of the Avenger recently flew for 23.4 continuous hours. For each of the competitors, “spot factor” is one of the most important metrics, which is the amount of flight or hangar deck space required to base their MQ-25 aboard America’s Nimitz and future Ford-class supercarriers. As a rule of thumb, the proposed aircraft should not take up more space than the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and two aircraft must fit together on the hangar elevator. To achieve this, all the aircraft have folding wings, but the V-tail on General Atomics’ MQ-25 also folds.

Some industry observers see the folding tail as a drawback because it adds weight and complexity. There are very few examples of carrier-based aircraft with folding tails for this very reason, but this design does allow General Atomics to retain the Avenger’s signature V-tail configuration while reducing spot factor. On command, GA-ASI’s aircraft would fold up wing and tail at the same time. The wings fold over right behind left, and the right ruddervator tucks underneath the left. Video of the deck-handling demonstration at Gray Butte shows an experimental company-owned Avenger (tail No. N901PC, registered since 2008) moving around the tarmac at the direction of a “yellow jacket” flight director. As mentioned, the aircraft responds autonomously to wand signals, but can be manually overridden if anything goes awry. The demonstrations were conducted during the day and night, through various maneuvers, such as “park to catapult, launch and flight state transition, and landing area to park.” To simulate the MQ-25’s carrier-specific features, such as the tailhook and launch bar, the Avenger opens and closes its left and right weapons bay doors. It stops on a dime, every time, inside a yellow triangle painted on the tarmac. Although the company has never developed a carrier aircraft before, it has assembled a formidable team, including a partnership with Boeing Autonomous Systems, the division responsible for most of Boeing Defense, Space and Security’s unmanned platforms, from the undersea Echo Voyager to the X-37B spaceplane. Executives from both Boeing and GA-ASI were together at the show, making no secret of their alliance against Lockheed Skunk Works and Boeing Phantom Works. Boeing wants to be on the program even if the Navy does not choose its prime offering. Although Boeing is essentially betting against itself, this type of dual alliance is not unusual given ongoing consolidation across the industry. Boeing Boeing’s aircraft was initially planned for the now-canceled Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (Uclass) program. It completed an initial design review in October 2012 and rolled out in November 2014 (AW&ST March 12-25, page 21).

Despite carrying its design forward from the defunct Uclass program, Boeing is confident its MQ-25 proposal will meet the Navy’s MQ-25 tanking requirements “with margin.” Credit: Boeing

Uclass never had stable requirements, so Lockheed and General Atomics purposefully chose not to invest in flying prototypes. Northrop Grumman was the only other Uclass competitor to develop a flying prototype, the crank-kite X-47B carrier-based UAV demonstrator, but company leadership opted out of the MQ-25A competition, probably because the X-47B could not meet new fuel-offload requirements at range without a complete redesign. Boeing Phantom Works MQ-25 program chief Donald “BD” Gaddis, however, has confidence his design can meet the Navy’s requirements “with margin.” The company first revealed the aircraft in December 2017 and has given several news outlets, including Aviation Week, a firsthand look at the aircraft in St. Louis. Having a prototype aircraft does give Boeing a running start in the competition, but whether an airframe designed for Uclass can truly carry forward to MQ-25A remains to be seen. Boeing says having an aircraft on hand will accelerate testing by adding a fifth airframe to the four-aircraft development program. The aircraft still has not flown, and Boeing’s rivals wonder why. If the company has confidence in its configuration, surely the Navy would be interested in seeing it fly before making a source-selection decision. However, flying is risky. Boeing probably does not want to take that gamble until it has a contract in hand. The company confirms that the aircraft may fly this year or next, but not until after the Navy’s summer award. Ahead of the conference, Boeing revealed its choice of engine, the Rolls-Royce AE3007N. On the military side, the 9,000-lb.-thrust turbofan powers the Northrop Grumman Air Force RQ-4B Global Hawk and Navy MQ-4C Triton high-altitude surveillance UAVs. Commercially, it powers the Cessna Citation X/X+ and Embraer Legacy 600/650 business jets. Phantom Works has by far the most intriguing air vehicle of all the competitors and it is popular among aviation enthusiasts. The aircraft is unlike anything we have seen before, and video of the aircraft performing deck-handling demonstrations in St. Louis and some computer animation gives the fullest picture yet of the design. Most noticeable is the chine around the fuselage, perhaps an early attempt at signature reduction against surface radars. Another feature that would reduce its radar cross-section marginally is the top-mounted dorsal inlet, which can only be fully appreciated from above. This type of inlet was employed on Northrop Grumman’s Tacit Blue, a first-generation stealth demonstrator, but this configuration typically has trouble ingesting air on startup and during high angles of attack. However, the company notes that this aircraft was not designed to be stealthy in the traditional sense, since its shape does not conform to any of the principles of radar deflection. Its long, fold-up wings would shine like a beacon on radar. As the video displays, the aircraft has a sensor ball mounted centerline on its chin for “light” intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. It has two stores positions, one on each inboard wing, with the refueling pod mounted on the left. It is also apparent that the landing gear has been taken from the Super Hornet, just as the Lockheed entry repurposes landing gear from the F-35C. Boeing is actively concealing its method for directing the aircraft around the flight deck. In the past, the teams have tried leading the aircraft with rope or using line-of-sight remote controls, but Lockheed and General Atomics opted for onboard cameras and gesture-recognition technology, respectively. Boeing has gone with a different approach but carefully trimmed it from all videos shown at Sea-Air-Space. Boeing took the opportunity at the exposition to squash rumors that it had a second prototype in the works. Boeing and Saab built two flying prototypes for the Air Force T-X competition, but there is no second prototype for MQ-25A, a spokeswoman for the company confirms.  The ultimate decision now rests with the Navy, which anticipates a contract award this summer. As with most highly contested contracts, the losers may delay the program by protesting the source-selection decision through the Government Accountability Office. Industry sources confirm that the teams have already started receiving evaluation notices from Naval Air Systems Command, an indication that the process is moving forward. The fixed-price development contract will deliver four aircraft initially, with first flight required by fiscal 2021 and initial operational capability scheduled for fiscal 2026. Follow-on production contracts would procure as many as 72 aircraft for the carrier air wings. For invested parties and drone enthusiasts alike, MQ-25A will be this summer’s blockbuster as the Navy hands down its verdict.