MQ-25 Control

The Navy’s new, not yet active, MQ-25 unmanned tanker is a fascinating control scheme case study.  You may recall that it began life as a combat UCAV concept which then morphed into a combined strike/ISR, then a pure ISR, then a combined ISR/tanker, and, ultimately, into a pure tanker … with occasional rumors of ISR or strike capabilities still being possible with minor modifications.  That convoluted development path alone makes for a fascinating story but there’s another aspect of the MQ-25 that is equally fascinating and, as best I can tell, completely ignored and that is the control scheme required to operate the tanker and how that control scheme impacts the concept of operations (CONOPS).
 
The closest I’ve seen to a CONOPS is the vague, general requirement that the tanker should be capable of delivering 14,000 lbs of fuel at a distance of 500 miles (variously reported as 15,000 lbs at 500 nm, depending on the source).  Of course, that’s not even remotely a CONOPS;  it’s a capability and an ill-defined one at that.
 
Moving on …
 
The MQ-25 consists of two main components: the MQ-25 air vehicle and the MD-5 Ground Control Station (GCS).
 
In a bit of a first for a major program, the government is acting as the lead integrator.  I applaud that, however, there won’t be any manufacturer to blame if it does not go well!
 

The Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Aviation program office (PMA-268) is moving forward with integrating its two key elements—the MQ-25 air vehicle and the MD-5 Ground Control Station (GCS) at the program’s System Test and Integration Lab (STIL) at Patuxent River.[1]
 
PMA-268 is the lead systems integrator, working closely with its two prime industry partners, Boeing  and Lockheed Martin Skunk Works … [1]
 
“This will be the first time we are integrating an air vehicle and GCS from two different prime contractors,” said T.J. Maday, MQ-25 labs and integration manager.[1]

 
Airframe development aside, the challenge is to integrate the aircraft and the GCS with the various control ship’s sensors and software.  Many levels of integration are required – no easy task.
 
 
Control Scheme
 
There is no direct ‘pilot’ control of the MQ-25.  A ground ‘pilot’ does not fly the aircraft as is done with other UAVs.  Instead, the MQ-25 will be controlled via general commands which the aircraft’s software will attempt to implement … eventually … as the immediate situation allows.  The analogy would be someone telling you to buy milk from the grocery store but they don’t give you exact, second by second instructions.  You’re given a general command and left to figure out the details and exact timing of how to go about it yourself.
 

… the AVO [air vehicle operator] is never intended to directly input singular controls to the AV, combined with the expected signal delay, this is omitted … [2]
 
AVOs will input large scale commands such as a flight path or holding pattern, an altitude or direction change while running concurrent systems like the Stingray’s fuel pod or landing gear. “The logic within the aircraft will resolve [these] requests as compatible with its current phase of flight … [2]

 
This kind of ‘execute when you can’ control is fascinating.  Consider the simple example of a command to turn to a new heading, say, 90 degrees off.  Seems simple enough, right?  But, what if an aircraft is being currently refueled?  The UAV might be wise to delay execution of the heading change until after the current aircraft finishes tanking.  On the other hand, what if the turn command is the result of an enemy threat dead ahead?  Maybe the UAV should turn very soon and very sharply?  In fact, maybe it should terminate the refueling?  Maybe there’s another friendly aircraft that needs refueling on a fairly high priority but not an emergency?  Should the UAV continue tanking or break off and disrupt the current aircraft’s plan and timing?  What’s the current aircraft going to do with the fuel it receives?  What’s the priority?  And so on … 
 
As you see, the variations to even this ‘simple’ command are infinite.  Can we write software that can correctly assess and evaluate all the possibilities?  That strikes me as no easy task considering that, for example, we’ve been working on the ‘simple’ F-35 logistics software (ALIS) for decades and have failed miserably and the F-35 Block 4 software has been largely abandoned due to failure to complete it.
 
Alternatively, what if the UAV receives no command but there is a threat dead ahead?  Does the UAV have the sensors and software to detect and interpret a threat on its own and then make an intelligent response?  While we’d like to believe that the person controlling the tanker will be omniscient and aware of all threats and command the UAV accordingly, that’s pure fantasy in actual combat.  Some threats will be detected but others will be missed or detected too late.  What if an aircraft in distress needs fuel but can’t contact whoever the UAV controller is?  With a manned tanker they might be able to contact the tanker pilot directly and request help but you can’t talk to a UAV.
 
 
Signal Delay
 
Did you note the reference in the quote to ‘expected signal delay’?  This, too, is intriguing.  We’ve come to believe that any remote, unmanned control is instantaneous and this would appear not to be the case, at least not for the MQ-25.  I don’t know what particular component of the control scheme introduces delay or what the length of the delay is. 
 
This signal delay is similar to the widespread and misguided belief that satellites provide instantaneous detection and weapons launch control against ships.
 
Consider the example of a late detected threat described above.  The pilot of a manned aircraft can react instantly when the undetected threat eventually materializes.  A UAV, especially one with a signal delay built in, cannot react instantly.  We may lose tankers while the UAV flies blithely on, uncomprehending and uncommanded.
 
It is also unclear to me whether the expected signal delay is an inherent, unavoidable characteristic of the system components or whether it’s a conscious decision that real time control is not needed.  Fascinating, either way!
 
Regardless, the approach is a wise one, in the sense that trying to control a UAV in real time in combat is not consistently possible and it is probably counter-productive to even try.  Of course, this only works if the software can be made smart enough to resolve and manage the potentially conflicting or contradicting commands the UAV will receive.
 
It is significant that there is no official mention of MQ-25 control by other airborne assets although the Navy has expressed interest in such alternate control.  At the moment, the only control is via the GCS stations which will reside on the carriers.  However, consistent with its obsession with the ‘any platform/sensor/weapon can network with any other platform/sensor/weapon’ philosophy, it now appears that the Navy is trying to make the MQ-25 controllable by other aircraft.
 

Boeing is also working with the Navy so that an airborne platform can control the MQ-25 Stingray and not just from its aircraft carrier home. When speaking about this, Rear Admiral Telford said:  “MQ-25 needs to have the ability to talk and be managed by any airborne platform, including those of our allies and partners.”[3]

 
Communications Security
 
We noted in a previous post that the desire to control the MQ-25 from other airborne assets was rooted in a fundamentally illogical assumption about communications security (see, "MQ-25 Control Concept"). 

The value in pilots being able to task MQ-25s mid-flight lies within a core assumption the Navy — and more broadly the Pentagon — has about the future battlefield: all communications will be subject to attack. The shipboard controllers may not always have contact or permission to communicate with the MQ-25 depending on the situation. If that’s the case, then a pilot of a nearby manned aircraft may need to redirect the unmanned tanker without assistance from the ship.

Of course, this raised the question, if the shipboard controller can’t communicate with the unmanned tanker due to enemy disruption of communications, why would we think that we’ll be able to communicate with the manned aircraft to tell the pilot to redirect the unmanned one?  That’s a logical inconsistency.  Military thinking just teems with this kind of logical inconsistency.
 
 
Issues
 
Communications – Regardless of the degree of communications with the MQ-25, how secure are the communication links?  Will the regular, if not constant, communications, back and forth, betray the UAV, carrier/control asset, or both locations?  Every person I’ve talked to who knows anything about signals intercept states unequivocally that our comms are nowhere near as secure as we like to believe.
 
For that matter, what type of communication signal will the MQ-25 use?  Satellite relay?  LOS?  Omni-directional?  Multiple modes?
 
Cyber Security – Anything that can receive a signal can be cyber attacked and the MQ-25 certainly qualifies.  At a minimum, the aircraft will have sensors taking in external signals and dedicated communication and data link receivers.  We don’t want a Battlestar Galactica scenario but, as we’ve seen repeatedly, even the best protected network or computer can be hacked and on a fairly regular basis.  Hardly a month goes by that I don’t receive a letter from some company saying that my customer data has been compromised and that’s from major corporations who claim to have secure networks!  China is working every day to find and develop cyber vulnerabilities in our assets.  Can an unmanned platform function reliably in the face of cyber threats? 
 
Ground Control vs. Aircraft Control – Both approaches have pros and cons, as we’ve discussed.  One further aspect of the discussion is that if you need an aircraft to control the tanker, you’ve essentially turned the ‘one-man’ tanker operation into a multi-aircraft procedure.  Requiring two aircraft to enable one to be a tanker is horribly inefficient and, essentially, doubles the cost while requiring twice the resources.
 
CONOPS – I desperately hope the Navy has thoroughly worked through the CONOPS under realistic conditions before concluding that the MQ-25 was the best solution.  My fear (near certainty) is that they hopped on board the unmanned tanker in a technology-for-the-sake-of-technology move and that an unmanned tanker is not the best solution.
 
 
 
 
 _____________________________ 
 
Note:  Fleet service timeline has been pushed back to 2026 or later.
 
 
______________________________

 
[1]Navair website, “MQ-25 team preps for first air vehicle, control station integration test event”, 18-May-2022,
https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/MQ-25-team-preps-first-air-vehicle-control-station-integration-test-event/Wed-05182022-0715
 
[2]Forbes, “Developing The MQ-25’s Ground Control Station Means Thinking Like A Mission Commander - Not A Pilot”, Eric Tegler, 12-Jan-2021,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2021/01/12/developing-the-mq-25s-ground-control-station-means-thinking-like-a-mission-commandernot-a-pilot/?sh=643ac901557a
 
[3]Simple Flying website, “Pushing Boundaries: What Is The Boeing MQ-25 Stingray?”, Mark Finlay, 13-Feb-2024,
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-mq-25-stingray-guide/

MQ-25 Control Concept

The Navy’s unmanned tanker, the MQ-25, is supposed to be able to take off, fuel aircraft, and land, all autonomously.  That’s quite an accomplishment and, if successful, adds a vital tanking capability without adding remote pilots or requiring complicated control communications schemes which would add to the burdens of a carrier rather than subtracting from them.  It is the hands-off nature of the unmanned tanker that is appealing.

 

However, the latest rumblings from the Navy hint at a somewhat different story.

 

Boeing has successfully demonstrated for the first time the ability for the P-8A maritime patrol aircraft to take control of the MQ-25 Stingray drone mid-flight …

 

The event was a follow-up to a demonstration to one the company held last year which showed how the Stingray, the Navy’s new carrier-based, unmanned aerial tanker, could be controlled by an F/A-18 Super Hornet or E-2D Advanced Hawkeye pilot mid-flight while performing its core tanking mission.[1]

 

This is moving into dangerous territory.  Is this suggesting that a supervisory aircraft will need to be present in order for the unmanned tanker to perform its task?  That would be a very disappointing development – almost an overall negative for a carrier air wing that has few enough aircraft, as it is, and can ill afford to dedicate a control aircraft to babysit an unmanned tanker.

 

However, I think this suggesting that the Navy could, via an intermediary aircraft, take control of a tanker in order to issue new mission orders.

 

The value in pilots being able to task MQ-25s mid-flight lies within a core assumption the Navy — and more broadly the Pentagon — has about the future battlefield: all communications will be subject to attack. The shipboard controllers may not always have contact or permission to communicate with the MQ-25 depending on the situation. If that’s the case, then a pilot of a nearby manned aircraft may need to redirect the unmanned tanker without assistance from the ship.[1]

 

Of course, this raised the question, if the shipboard controller can’t communicate with the unmanned tanker due to enemy disruption of communications, why would we think that we’ll be able to communicate with the manned aircraft to tell the pilot to redirect the unmanned one?  That’s a logical inconsistency.  Military thinking just teems with this kind of logical inconsistency.

 

Here’s a bit of additional delusion and logical inconsistency:

 

“If you’re doing an ISR mission, you can be doing an ISR mission with this airplane [the unmanned tanker] 1,000 miles from the carrier,” he said. “You’re not going to be talking to the carrier to do that ISR mission. More than likely you might be talking to a P-8.”[1]

 

If you believe a large, slow, non-stealthy, broadcasting surveillance aircraft like the P-8 is going to survive to operate a thousand miles from a carrier, in enemy controlled/contested air and water, you’re deluding yourself.  And, in a bit of logical inconsistency, if you can survivably operate a P-8 in the area then you don’t need an unmanned tanker/surveillance aircraft because the P-8 can do it.

 

This attempt to redirect and repurpose an unmanned tanker into other missions is typical of the Navy.  Instead of developing a single function and getting it to work at an affordable price, the Navy is already attempting to add additional tasks and control schemes onto an as yet unproven aircraft.  Common sense says to develop the main functionality first before moving on to others.

 

 

 

____________________________________

 

[1]Breaking Defense website, “Boeing successfully demos MQ-25 control through P-8, autonomy software”, Justin Katz, 8-Sep-2022,

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/09/boeing-successfully-demos-mq-25-control-through-p-8-autonomy-software/

Northrop Pulls Out Of Unmanned Tanker Competition

Northrop has announced that it is pulling out of the competition to build the Navy’s MQ-25 unmanned tanker.  As you recall, there were four competitors: Northrop Grumman, General Atomics, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.  Northrop’s explanation is cryptic, to say the least.  Here’s the statement from Northrop CEO Wes Bush.

“When we’re looking at one of these opportunities, let me be clear, our objective is not just to win.  …we really look hard at executability under the terms of [requests for proposals] that come out to make sure that we can execute.” (1)

So, something in the Request For Proposals (RFP) made Northrop believe that they couldn’t meet the requirements.  This is all the more odd given that the RFP was structured to have very few actual requirements.  In fact, the only requirement that has been revealed is the informal statement by Navy personnel that the tanker would deliver around 15,000 lbs of fuel at 500 miles.

Northrop was assumed to propose their X-47 as the basis for their tanker.  In fact, given that the X-47 was used in actual carrier landing and takeoff tests, Northrop was assumed to have a huge advantage in the competition.  That they would feel that advantage was insufficient makes their decision even harder to understand.  If Northrop’s actual carrier UAV operational experience isn’t adequate to meet the RFP, what does that say about the other competitor’s offerings and capabilities?

Another possibility is that the X-47 is simply incapable of meeting the fuel capacity and distance requirements.  The flying wing type of UAV may be simply unsuited for the task.  Perhaps the stealthy body size and shape does not allow sufficient fuel carriage?

It is also possible that Northrop felt that a stealthy flying wing would be inherently more expensive than a more conventional wing-fuselage-tail design and unable to compete on a cost basis.  If so, it’s worth noting that the General Atomics design, the only other design we’ve seen, is a conventional design and may hold a cost advantage.

Recall, also, that we’ve discussed the vulnerability of non-stealthy support aircraft so stealth may be an attractive feature in an aircraft that is expected to operate hundreds of miles from the carrier and within range of enemy aircraft and long range missiles.  The Chinese are developing a very long range air-to-air missile for the explicit purpose of attacking high value support aircraft like the E-2 Hawkeye, AWACS, P-8, tankers, etc.

The other interesting aspect of this is that this is the second occurrence of major defense firms pulling out of contract competition.  You’ll recall that the Navy’s competition for the over the horizon (OTH) anti-ship missile saw all but one of the competitors pull out after the RFP was released.  We discussed this at the time (see, “LRASM Drops Out Of OTH Competition”) and noted that it was a development with several negative consequences, not the least of which was that the lack of competition was an invitation to price gouging by the only remaining competitor.  At the time, I speculated that the Navy had pre-selected the company that they wanted to win the OTH competition and had written the RFP so as to ensure that only that company could meet the requirements.  Could this be a similar case?  Has the Navy already pre-selected a winner?  If more companies pull out of the tanker competition then this may be what’s happening.

X-47 - Out!

I would hate to think that pre-selecting competition winners, if that’s what’s happening, is the latest Navy trend given all the negatives associated with such a practice.  Had the OTH competition fiasco not just occurred, I wouldn’t give Northrop’s actions, in this case, much thought but now this looks suspiciously like a trend towards pre-selecting winners.

Of course, it’s also quite possible that this is just a business/investment/financial decision by Northrop, pure and simple, in which case there’s nothing to be seen here and we can all move on.

We’ll keep a close eye on this competition and see what develops.

__________________________________

(1)USNI News website, “Northrop Grumman Drops Out of MQ-25A Stingray Competition”, Sam LaGrone, 25-Oct-2017,

https://news.usni.org/2017/10/25/northrop-grumman-drops-mq-25a-stingray-competition

Navy Aerial Tanker Update

Details on the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray unmanned tanker have been hard to come by, especially the most relevant ones like fuel loads and range.  Now, however, we see some details in a USNI News article (1).

“Air Boss Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said the service’s goal was for the Navy’s first operational carrier-based unmanned aerial vehicle to be able to deliver about 15,000 pounds of fuel at 500 nautical miles from the carrier to the air wing’s strike fighters, which would almost double their operational range.”

So, that’s interesting … 15,000 lbs of fuel at 500 nm from the carrier.  Let’s examine that a bit closer.

An F-18 Super Hornet has an internal fuel capacity of around 14,000 lbs.  So, the unmanned tanker could completely refuel one aircraft.  Of course, that’s not exactly how refueling works.  Each aircraft would receive a lesser amount of fuel, say 5,000 lbs.  Thus, the tanker could refuel three aircraft.  I think you can see where this is going.  If there are 30 aircraft in a strike package, and each needed 5,000 lbs of fuel, it would require 10 tankers.  That’s a LOT of tankers.  Of course, more tankers would be required for the carrier overhead/recovery tanking.  We’re looking at around 16 tankers in our strike/recovery scenario.  Yikes!

Now let’s refer back to that quote and the phrase, “double their operational range”.  Here’s the relevant range figure according to the article.

“The strike range of a carrier air wing is now only about 450 nautical miles – the effective unrefueled radius of a Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.”

That range figure is exceedingly optimistic but, hey, let’s work with it for the sake of discussion.

So, if it took 15,000 lbs of fuel to achieve an operational range of 450 nm, adding 5,000 lbs of extra fuel (36% of the aircraft’s full fuel capacity) isn’t going to double the aircraft’s range, it’s going to increase the range by 36% which is an extra 160 nm.  Yes, I know the range calculations aren’t a simple linear function.  I’m just illustrating the concept.  No matter how you look at it, we aren’t going to double an aircraft’s range by adding a small fraction of additional fuel.  The only way we can double the range is to do a complete refueling which takes us back to a 1:1 tanker:aircraft ratio.  In that case, our example strike of 30 aircraft would require 30 tankers!

Does no one in the Navy run these simple calculations?  Apparently not.

Let’s refer back to the excellent post by guest author George Bustamante, “Why The Navy Needs A Really Large Tanker” (2).  In that article, he lists fuel capacities of various tankers and demonstrates why a capacity of 15,000 lbs of fuel is insufficient for a mission tanker.  For example, the old KA-3 Skywarrior tanker carried 29,000 lbs of fuel  - almost double that of the proposed unmanned tanker.  At the high (and useful) end, the KC-135 carries 150,000 lbs!

The MQ-25 Stingray, with a 15,000 lb fuel capacity barely duplicates the current F-18 Super Hornet tanker capacity of ~16,000 lbs.  The F-18 isn’t considered a mission tanker so how will the MQ-25 which barely duplicates the F-18 tanker’s load suddenly and magically become an effective mission tanker?  Unless we’re going to build lots and lots of these unmanned tankers, I just don’t see this as an effective solution for mission tanking – for overhead/recovery tanking, yes, but mission tanking, no.

So, we have fraudulent claims about doubling the air wing’s range combined with an utterly ineffective mission tanker specification.  I don’t see a good outcome, here.  Yes, it can free up the Hornet from overhead/recovery tanking, which is good, but it leaves the Navy with short ranged aircraft and still no effective mission tanker.  The Navy had an opportunity to do something that could significantly enhance the air wing’s combat effectiveness and apparently have declined to do so.  Baffling.

___________________________________

(1)USNI News website, “MQ-25 Stingray Unmanned Aerial Tanker Could Almost Double Strike Range of U.S. Carrier Air Wing”, Sam LaGrone, 31-Aug-2017,

https://news.usni.org/2017/08/31/mq-25-stingray-unmanned-aerial-tanker-almost-double-strike-range-u-s-carrier-air-wing

(2)Navy Matters blog, “Why The Navy Needs A Really Large Tanker”, George Bustamante, 22-Aug-2016,

http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/08/why-navy-needs-really-large-tanker.html

Navy Issues Tanker RFP

The Navy has issued a draft Request For Proposals (RFP) to industry for the planned carrier based unmanned aerial tanker, the MQ-25A Stingray, and the RFP has some interesting points and aspects to it.

First, the RFP has only two key performance parameters (KPP) and both are generic to the point of useless.  They are:

1. Carrier compatibility – the aircraft must be able to operate from a carrier and use existing catapult and recovery systems.  Duh.
2. Mission tanking – the aircraft must be capable of aerial tanking.  Again, duh.

The Navy believes this will provide greater flexibility to industry and, ultimately, to the Navy when it comes to the design of the aircraft.  Personally, I think this approach is wrong.  I think performance parameters need to be specified – speed, range, endurance, reliability, fuel capacity, etc.  Without those specs, there’s no guarantee that you’ll wind up with an aircraft that can do the job.  Frankly, this is just the Navy passing design responsibility off to industry in an attempt to avoid accountability if the program tanks (no pun intended).

On the plus side, the Navy is indicating that development should be minimized by using nothing but existing technology.

“…the new airframe effort is less about developing new tech and more about mixing and matching existing systems to make unmanned tanking a reality on the carrier.” (1)

If the Navy can actually hold to this intent, this is a monumental leap forward in common sense acquisition practice.  There is nothing about aerial refueling that requires the development of new technology.  If the Navy can hold to this intent, the resulting costs and timeline should be quite reasonable.  Unfortunately, the Navy has a very hard time resisting gold plating programs after they’ve started.  It will be interesting to see whether they can restrain themselves.

On a related note, if the Navy can actually hold to this intent, it will make an interesting contrast to the Air Force’s tanker program (admittedly, the two programs are vastly different in scope and mission) which has been a dismal failure and this program could actually become an example for how to do acquisition.  As I said, we’ll take a wait and see approach.

I’m extremely ambivalent about an unmanned tanker.  Most of the claims for it are suspect or false. 

• It won’t reduce manning much, if at all.  For every pilot removed from the cockpit, one has to take their place at a controller of some sort.

• It offers no greater endurance because its endurance will be limited by the size of the fuel tanks it will carry.  Once the tanks are empty, the aircraft will have to return to the carrier just like a manned tanker would.

• It offers no cost savings.  An aircraft is an aircraft.  If you want a plane that can travel x miles, at y speed it’s going to cost the same whether there’s a seat in it or not.  In fact, when the additional shipboard control stations are factored into the cost, it will probably be more expensive.

• There will be inevitable in-flight aircraft failures, as with any aircraft, and without a crew to deal with it and attempt to remedy it, many aircraft may be forced to abort their missions.

• UAVs have a solid historical record of crashing with some regularity.  The data on this is quite clear.  While losing a UAV is no big deal, losing a tanker affects many aircraft and missions.

Honestly, I don’t really see any concrete advantage to an unmanned tanker.  The only “advantage” is that the Navy gains experience in operating unmanned aircraft in preparation for the time when they try to operate unmanned combat aircraft and, to be honest, this alone may be sufficient justification for the unmanned tanker.

Overall, I like the start to this program.  I’m quite pleased that the Navy is going to at least attempt to produce an aircraft using nothing but existing technology for a routine mission.  If they can hold to the intent, it will be a major accomplishment and could set a pattern for future acquisitions.

________________________________

(1)USNI News website, “Navy Issues New MQ-25A Stingray Draft RFP to Industry Ahead of Final RFP in the Fall”, Sam LaGrone, 20-Jul-2017,

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/20/navy-issues-new-mq-25a-stingray-draft-rfp-industry-ahead-final-rfp-fall