US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program

no, no... no.

New airframe are lighter and even more light when maneuvering cap are discarded. New structural shaping that comes with large CFRP panels allow for less structural "meshing" (less ribs and frames) opening large volume for systems and fuel. In other words, the MQ25 will be smaller, cheaper, lighter and simpler than its predecessor for an equivalent offload.
 
TomcatViP said:
...will be smaller, cheaper, lighter and simpler than its predecessor...
Click to expand...

Like the other next generation aircaft, introduced to the NAVY recently? ::)
 
the "next" refers to the Whale, the KA3B and also KA6D ;) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-3_Skywarrior


1024px-EKA-3B_refueling_VF-211_F-8J_1972.jpeg
 
http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/us-navy-seeks-72-tanker-uavs?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20171122_AW-19_479&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=12749&utm_medium=email&elq2=92c3ffdb49384144ab56238999814cfa
 
So they're looking at something like 5-6 tankers per carrier? Which would come, one would expect, on top of 48 or so combat planes (not counting the Growlers) ?
 
totoro said:
So they're looking at something like 5-6 tankers per carrier? Which would come, one would expect, on top of 48 or so combat planes (not counting the Growlers) ?
Click to expand...

No problem at all as the 10 S-3 Vikings and 10 Intruders are long gone with no replacement.
 
Something else the rotary wing flyers will have to take on no doubt.
 
totoro said:
So they're looking at something like 5-6 tankers per carrier? Which would come, one would expect, on top of 48 or so combat planes (not counting the Growlers) ?
Click to expand...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16197/the-navy-says-fly-before-buy-when-it-comes-to-its-new-mq-25-drone-tanker

"
A full fleet of 72 aircraft would cover 18 total systems, which would allow the service to assign one to each of its nine carrier air wings, while holding additional packages in reserve in case of a maintenance issue, the need to deploy additional groups during a crisis, and for training and testing purposes.
"

Looks like groups of 4. 72/18=

Perhaps thats two groups of four per CVW deployed? That would account for one system each at Oceana, Lemoore and Atsugi with 10-14 systems at sea and at least one reserve.

My count was USN would want at least 5 per deck. Two "squadrons" of four seems like it would fit well in the USN model.

Any thoughts on additional crew counts?
 
Basically, with MQ25 seemingly destined to carry similar amount of fuel as Superhornet, USN could have had roughly similar tanking capability 15 years ago if they decided to have additional four Superhornets per carrier, mostly dedicated for tanking. Granted, it would have been more expensive both to man, operate and purchase than MQ25 - but they would have no development cost, no 15+ year wait and they'd have additional 4 airframes for other missions as well, if they're desperately needed.

What sort of development cost are we looking at for MQ25 anyway?
 
totoro said:
Basically, with MQ25 seemingly destined to carry similar amount of fuel as Superhornet, USN could have had roughly similar tanking capability 15 years ago if they decided to have additional four Superhornets per carrier, mostly dedicated for tanking. Granted, it would have been more expensive both to man, operate and purchase than MQ25 - but they would have no development cost, no 15+ year wait and they'd have additional 4 airframes for other missions as well, if they're desperately needed.

What sort of development cost are we looking at for MQ25 anyway?
Click to expand...

And what cost to maintain those extra Super Hornets, train pilots, BUY those extra SHs etc.? Buying more Super Hornets is not the answer.
 
There isn't a single problem in the Navy that buying more super hornets can't solve. ;)
 
Until you have a BWB 'complete airplane' not a 'flying wing' you won't have a stable drone to land w/ a full tank on a carrier.
 
Not many details, just a pic of something interesting under a blanket.

Robust? Check
Ready? Check
Changing future air power? Check it out!

See the reveal 12/19! #PhantomWorks
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • boeing thing.png
    boeing thing.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 651
Lots of dihedral on the wings (or maybe partially folded?), and a hint of a 2-D vectoring engine nozzle. I think it's going to be a bit novel. At least it's not another stealth Dorito or flying arrowhead.
 
Looks very much like Bird of Prey to me given the dihedral - you can just barely see the cover drooping at the far left and right just like BoP as well.
 
Dual nose wheels. Might it have a nose tow catapult attachment between them? It appears the outer wing panels (the small amount in the photo) have anhedral.
 
It's definitely a navy program based on the landing gear. It will be interesting to me if the wing configuration is BOP based, as the way the canvas/sheet drapes over it, it looks like wings that are half folded to me. I wonder if this is the classified program the head of Boeing defense systems wouldn't talk about a couple of weeks ago, when reviewing their programs?
 
Too much sci fi?
 

Attachments

  • bop.jpg
    bop.jpg
    207.2 KB · Views: 503
  • phantommenace12.jpg
    phantommenace12.jpg
    51.4 KB · Views: 488
Have Blue said:
Looks very much like Bird of Prey to me given the dihedral - you can just barely see the cover drooping at the far left and right just like BoP as well.
Click to expand...

Very first thing I thought of. Aft end of a bop planform with maybe a short yf-23 like exhaust.
 

Attachments

  • 90816088907074d2bc8bf5e8b9832358--birds-of-prey-the-birds.jpg
    90816088907074d2bc8bf5e8b9832358--birds-of-prey-the-birds.jpg
    49.1 KB · Views: 473
From LowObservable's post, the image is probably foreshortening the aircraft length by some amount...
 
My first thought was a Klingon bird of prey, but the i realized that name is already taken by another Boeing.
 
It looks like the exhaust nozzle is similar to a lot of the nozzles shown on many of their design reports for stealth aircraft that have been shown here (Secret Projects). I think it will be one of their yaw thrust vectoring nozzles. Look at (NASA-CR-4627) IMPACT OF AGILITY REQUIREMENTS ON CONFIGURATION SYNTHESIS (McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace).
 
I played around with this in photoshop.
 

Attachments

  • boeing thinglevelsadjust.jpg
    boeing thinglevelsadjust.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 609
So odd that the only online search results for this picture are The Drive and a bunch of Chinese and Indonesian forums. It's like the professional sources know what this is already and are just waiting for the embargo to lift...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom