VTOLicious said:
LowObservable said:
Long wingspan, but less power than any non-trainer carrier jet since the A-4.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/phantom-works-selects-rolls-royce-turbofan-to-power-447360/
Don't forget this was designed as an ISR platform, not a tanker.
“Going back to Uclass, tanking was part of the design space. It was a mission we designed into this airplane,” Gaddis explains. “This airplane can meet all of the requirements, with substantial margin. We are in a really good spot.
"The UCLASS will be biased toward intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, with some light strike capability."
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usn-to-release-draft-rfp-for-next-uclass-phase-in-august-388154/
If you think about it, a strike and tanking mission are similar. Fly out,offload the payload, and fly back.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume if UCLASS had "some light strike capability" it probably only had "some light tanking capability".