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

[sferrin]

???

It would be quite a hoot if it is that submerged inlet version of the Boeing UCLASS design they showed in a graphic once.

This one?

 

[TomcatViP]

Could it be that the wings are folded the Grumman way (think Wildcat/Hellcat but with a wing having a very high aspect ratio)?
What do you think guys?

 

[dark sidius]

A little tanker don't change the futur airpower

 

[sferrin]

A little tanker don't change the futur airpower

How do you figure?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17024/could-phantom-swift-be-the-aircraft-boeing-defense-is-set-to-reveal-next-week

 

[Mat Parry]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17024/could-phantom-swift-be-the-aircraft-boeing-defense-is-set-to-reveal-next-week

"As you can see in the tweeted image above, the latest configuration of the Phantom Swift sure resembles what's poking up under Boeing's black sheet. With the top inlet doors closed the form factor of its fuselage looks pretty similar and the V-tails being as thick as they are, the aircraft's wings could be entirely blocked in the teaser video"

Erm.... except that these hypothetical wings don't cast a shadow on the floor in that teaser video. For me, the shadow (or lack thereof) indicates that if this isn't Santa's sleigh, then the wings are mounted towards the rear of the mystery thing (Boeing bird of prey style?).

There's been lots of discussion on the UCLASS thread that this type of configuration (lacking a control moment arm) is far from ideal for a tanker aircraft. Whilst I'm not qualified to judge the veracity of that claim, it would seem to me that the application of thrust vectoring might counter that argument?

That being said, I fear this will all turn out to be a disappointment

 

[NeilChapman]

Too much sci fi?

Navy would reject it if it was offered. Looks too "STOLey"

 

[NeilChapman]

...

... it would seem to me that the application of thrust vectoring might counter that argument?

Thrust vectoring sounds expensive. Is it too expensive for this tanker role?

 

[yasotay]

Well.. The NYT lead article is on UFO's today. Just saying. Coincidence?

 

[Mat Parry]

...

... it would seem to me that the application of thrust vectoring might counter that argument?

Thrust vectoring sounds expensive. Is it too expensive for this tanker role?

Yes I would think so, and with stealth removed from the requirements I really can't see why they would use such a planform.

I'm guessing Bob225 had it right downthread

 

[LowObservable]

The UFO thing is coincidental.

 

[Sundog]

It's not a Phantom Swift or anything STOVL. If it was it wouldn't need the navy landing gear, especially a nose gear designed for being catapulted.

 

[dark sidius]

FA/XX demonstrator ? thinking it for the change of futur airpower.

 

[bobbymike]

FA/XX demonstrator ? thinking it for the change of futur airpower.

Air Power encompasses all aspects of the Air Force mission

 

[dark sidius]

Encompass the Navy aviation too?

 

[Mat Parry]

I wouldn't get too carried away by marketing. If this thing really was "Robust, Ready, Changing future air power" then the military not Boeing would be unveiling it.

 

[Sundog]

Hell, the pic reveals so little, I'm still just trying to figure out if has a BOP type wing, or if it's just the cameraman taking a pic so close that a V-Tail blocks the view of the main wing. I guess we'll know next Friday.

 

[Flyaway]

FA/XX demonstrator ? thinking it for the change of futur airpower.

Bit early even from that I’d of thought.

 

[sferrin]

FA/XX demonstrator ? thinking it for the change of futur airpower.

Bit early even from that I’d of thought.

A decade or so.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Pentagon has funded advanced prototyping efforts under the Aerospace Innovation Initiative via DARPA's APO though it is unlikely that this is one of those projects as they haven't yet revealed much.

 

[Airplane]

Could this be it? Although it needs some obligatory T-800s Model 101'a to pose with it.

 

[sferrin]

Where's the fuel and payload go in that thing? ???

 

[Airplane]

Where's the fuel and payload go in that thing? ???

That's only the concept artwork floating around. Probably not much different than any other VTOL, or they are using the entire fuselage empty space for fuel. A lot easier to do with a simple small composite craft. If that's it, outfit it with 8 hellfire and a kick ass sensor suite, and go kick terrorist ass!

 

[Dynoman]

Possible Swift X

 

[DrRansom]

There isn't an apparent wing, so if Boeing was being really aggressive, a Swift-X with a lifting body and jet engine.

Here's another thought, part of Boeing's T-X proposal is Boeing promising to build a clean sheet aircraft design in record time. This may be an attempt to show that the tools created for T-X are generalizable to other programs.

 

[Sundog]

Once again, it isn't the Swift X. If so, the designers made a huge error by putting a catapult launching landing gear on it. If anything, it's a program we don't know about or it's their submission for the MQ-25.

 

[Airplane]

Once again, it isn't the Swift X. If so, the designers made a huge error by putting a catapult launching landing gear on it. If anything, it's a program we don't know about or it's their submission for the MQ-25.

Excuse my lack of knowledge on this, but do you know for a fact because it has catapult landing gear that it isn't Switft-X? It will never need to use a catapult for a short take off when heavily laden with fuel and weapons?

I'm still betting on Swift-X.

 

[AeroFranz]

Do you know examples of V/STOL vehicles that use catapults? Typically they can just do a short rolling takeoff when a runway is available.
As a designer, i wouldn't want to saddle my airplane with all the penalties of a VTOL powerplant, AND put the beefy structure required to drag the whole vehicle by the nosegear, which is substantially more than a land-based equivalent.

 

[VTOLicious]

Robust, ready ...I would rather guess a refurbished x-45c as a carrier capable technology demonstrator (landing gear!) and/or avionics test bed for the MQ-25 programme B)

 

[aero-engineer]

Robust, ready ...I would rather guess a refurbished x-45c as a carrier capable technology demonstrator (landing gear!) and/or avionics test bed for the MQ-25 programme B)

The photo was taken in St Louis (look at the hangers). X-45 Phantom Ray hitchhiked out to California for the three flights on the back of NASA's SCAs (now retired).

Simply blowing the dust off the UCLASS vehicle in storage the last few years to strengthen Boeing's MQ-25 bid.

 

[VTOLicious]

...btw, is it true that Phantom Ray flew only once, for 17 minutes?

 

[Mat Parry]

I've never seen the details of the wing fold on an X-45C, anyone else?

FWIW, When it was last seen the X-45C had a single nose wheel and some skinny main gear, does adding the F-18's undercarriage to an aircraft count as "blowing the dust off"?

 

[dark sidius]

And the rear look massive in the Boeing tweet nothing to see with the Phantom Ray exhaust.

 

[sferrin]

Robust, ready ...I would rather guess a refurbished x-45c as a carrier capable technology demonstrator (landing gear!) and/or avionics test bed for the MQ-25 programme B)

That would qualify as click-bait IMO if they did that.

 

[Mat Parry]

I actually think the exhausts of the X-45C and the mystery thing are quite a good match, a picture of the wing fold on the X-45C would be compelling.

However, as mentioned previously here and in the UCLASS thread. A flying wing may not be the optimal configuration for a carrier based tanker once stealth is removed from the requirements.

 

[sferrin]

I actually think the exhausts of the X-45C and the mystery thing are quite a good match, a picture of the wing fold on the X-45C would be compelling.

However, as mentioned previously here and in the UCLASS thread. A flying wing may not be the optimal configuration for a carrier based tanker once stealth is removed from the requirements.

I'd think the fact that NG bailed with their X-47B would suggest the last thing Boeing would be putting forward would be a Phantom Ray derivative.

 

[Sundog]

Once again, it isn't the Swift X. If so, the designers made a huge error by putting a catapult launching landing gear on it. If anything, it's a program we don't know about or it's their submission for the MQ-25.

Excuse my lack of knowledge on this, but do you know for a fact because it has catapult landing gear that it isn't Switft-X? It will never need to use a catapult for a short take off when heavily laden with fuel and weapons?

I'm still betting on Swift-X.

Then it's a losing bet, because STOVL/VTOL are more weight critical than a CTOL. As such, you don't put a landing gear designed for cats and traps on a non CTOL aircraft. This is most likely their MQ-25 demonstrator.

 

[Airplane]

Do you know examples of V/STOL vehicles that use catapults? Typically they can just do a short rolling takeoff when a runway is available.
As a designer, i wouldn't want to saddle my airplane with all the penalties of a VTOL powerplant, AND put the beefy structure required to drag the whole vehicle by the nosegear, which is substantially more than a land-based equivalent.

A wise man once said, there is a first time for everything. Over 40 years I have seen and heard enough to never say never in aviation.

 

[Jemiba]

Do you know examples of V/STOL vehicles that use catapults?

No, but wasn't the naval version of the Hawker P.1154 at least intended to be cat launched ?

 

[dark sidius]

The strande thing is, it have a very short lenght for a MQ-25 demonstrator , today may be end of the speculation.