F-35 and X-47B

usnvo · by **usnvo** » 23 Feb 2018, 05:08

spazsinbad wrote:FRUM: http://www.ga-asi.com/MQ-25 OH this IS fun: http://www.ga-asi.com/a-torturous-path
"...Except for trucking diesel through enemy territory in Afghanistan, delivering fuel to an airborne F/A-18 with another F/A-18 is the highest “fully burdened cost of fuel” of any service, anywhere in the world.

Not to disagree with the thrust of the argument, but the fully burdened cost of fuel study is being misrepresented.

Per DESC, Commercial delivery of fuel at a base in Afghanistan cost around $4 per gallon. Now, the scenario in question that cost over $400 per gallon was also in Afghanistan but had nothing to do with fuel convoys or trucks. It was for a SPECOPS raid that used helos to fly fuel (and security forces) to establish a refueling point, which then was used to establish still another refueling point close to the target, and the fully burdened cost of fuel was for the special operations forces to fly to and from the target refueling three times (twice on the way in, once on the way back). So not exactly common.

Having said that, using a F18 to refuel another F18 is pretty inefficient, but so is refueling a F18 with a S-3, a KA-6, a A-7, or any other jet that currently fits on a carrier.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Mar 2018, 14:08

This Is Boeing’s Play For MQ-25 ‘Stingray’
08 Mar 2018 James Drew

"On the tarmac of St. Louis’ historic Lambert Field, the future of aircraft carrier aviation may be taking shape. Phantom Works, Boeing’s shadowy advanced prototyping group, has painted part of the tarmac to resemble the flight deck of a carrier. Over the past few months, the company been using this space at all hours of the day and night to test its latest military UAV: a prototype for the U.S. Navy’s MQ-25 “Stingray” program.

A video viewed by Aviation Week and labeled “competition sensitive” shows the huge drone taxiing around the runway during daylight hours on its own power. It stops, starts, moves forward and hooks into position behind the catapult, prepared for launch. But the long-wing aircraft has not yet flown; it is instead being used for carrier suitability trials, including a series of maneuvers to ensure the UAV can easily, reliably and safely move around the deck like any manned aviation platform.

Exactly how the aircraft is directed around the deck is a company secret. We have agreed not to write about it, but one can guess that it will not involve traditional hand signals or wands. As part of the carrier suitability tests, Phantom Works also has been validating the UAV’s “spot factor” and ensuring that it can park anywhere a Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet can, including the tightest spot of all, a slither of deck aft of elevator No. 4 called “the finger.”...

...In an exclusive interview with Aviation Week, Boeing Phantom Works MQ-25 program director Don “BD” Gaddis revealed that the T-1 prototype now being tested at Boeing’s military aircraft plant in St. Louis was actually rolled out in November 2014 but was kept hidden from public view until now. The strange-looking creature first broke cover in December 2017, when Boeing released an obscure, front-on image via Twitter. Having started outdoor trials, the company knew it was only a matter of time before images started leaking online.

Sure enough, in early January, The War Zone published eight fuzzy images taken by Jeremy McGough as he was flying out of St. Louis Lambert International Airport. Those are the only public images so far that show the aircraft in its entirety, including the full span of its gliderlike wings.

“Lambert actually helped us by allowing us to use part of the airport concrete, which we painted up as a flight deck. They even let us use an unmanned drone to take video with,” Gaddis says. “When doing the demonstration, we tried to be as close as possible to a carrier flight deck as we could.”...

...Boeing is so determined to win this program, it has backed two sides. Boeing Autonomous Systems, a newly created business unit responsible for most of the company’s unmanned programs, is aligned with GA-ASI for the competition and has been internally “firewalled” from the Phantom Works program. “I don’t know anything about what they’re doing because of the firewall,” Gaddis says of the dual teaming arrangement.

The clean-sheet T-1 aircraft dates to October 2012, when Boeing completed the initial design review. It was quietly rolled out two years later and is now supporting Boeing’s concept refinement and deck-handling demonstration work for the Navy, while also building up to first flight. Gaddis will not say exactly when the aircraft is due to fly, but it will likely happen sometime after the contract award in August.

The aircraft looks nothing like Boeing’s earlier Phantom Ray flying-wing design, which first flew in April 2011 and had been a candidate for the Uclass surveillance-and-strike role. What the company has come up with is a stretched-out wing-body-tail aircraft with a V-tail ruddervator and fold-up, high-aspect-ratio wings. When the first images were released, there was some misguided speculation about the purpose of the forward air intake and the nose camera. But Boeing confirms that the forward inlet simply supplies air to the environmental control system and the camera is being used to collect data during testing and does not feature in the actual MQ-25 design. The final versions will, however, carry an electro-optical sensor....

...[AHA - the secret of the USN UNIVERSE - their definition of SPEED!] This is a priority program for the chief of naval operations, coming under the purview of the newly created Maritime Accelerated Capabilities Office. Now in the acquisition “speed lane,” the Navy hopes to reach initial operational capability by 2026, or eight years from contract award....

...“We’ve put forward a low-cost, low-risk offer that adds up to this mature T-1 aircraft that will be ready for flight-testing right after an award,” Gaddis says. “We have a very good shot at winning.” [LONG ARTICLE BEST READ at URL]

Photo: "Boeing has fashioned part of St. Louis Lambert International Airport into an aircraft carrier deck, complete with a mock catapult system. Credit: Boeing" http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... Boeing.jpg

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... 5-stingray

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Mar 2018, 14:19

Whaddya Rekon the 'camera' in the nose if for RECOGNITION of the Director HAND SIGNALS? :doh:

But I DUNNO. :mrgreen:

& Da Finga: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/ind ... -handlers/
OR
http://s676.photobucket.com/user/Tracy_ ... 4.jpg.html THE SECOND graphic comes from this USN source which is no longer available sadly - I'll look for anotherie: http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/ ... _CV_03.pdf

HERE YA GO: http://www.public.navy.mil/NAVSAFECEN/D ... -5thEd.pdf (4.3Mb)

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Mar 2018, 21:27

Is Boeing working on a second MQ-25 drone prototype?
16 Mar 2018 Valerie Insinna

"ST. LOUIS — Boeing is confident it can win the Navy’s MQ-25 carrier-based tanker drone competition. In fact, it’s so bullish that it may already be on a path to building a second prototype....

...If a second Boeing MQ-25 exists, it’s evidence of how badly the company wants to win the competition, which has been narrowed down to three vendors — Boeing, General Atomics and Lockheed Martin — after Northrop Grumman dropped out last year....

...Boeing found that its UCLASS design was already a good fit for the tanking mission. Unlike Northrop, which invested heavily in a stealthy, flying-wing design aimed at a precision-strike mission, Boeing opted for a wing-body-tail air vehicle with limited low-observable features and a large payload bay.

“One of the things that people should be reminded of is that in UCLASS, tanking was one of the missions for UCLASS, and the company designed the airplane around that mission area as well as all of the other UCLASS mission areas,” Gaddis said. “So the other UCLASS missions are gone, but the tanking still remains, and we feel that this aircraft is right in the wheelhouse of that tanking requirement.”

Externally, Boeing’s MQ-25 prototype, also known as T1, is still the same as its UCLASS design. However, the company had to do significant rework on the mission systems side as the requirement shifted from surveillance to refueling.

“There will be some touches in the airplanes between T1 and [the first engineering and manufacturing development, or EMD, aircraft], but not many. The biggest change are in the mission systems,” Gaddis said. “The UCLASS requirements are quite different than the MQ-25 requirements for mission systems. And so when you go from big ISR to little ISR, that’s really the biggest change for MQ-25.”...

...As The Drive has noted, Boeing’s design features a flush dorsal jet intake that supplies air to the engine, which as of yet has not been specified by the company. According to Gaddis, the company’s MQ-25 stores its fuel in tanks surrounding the engine, and the inner section of its fold-up wings are “wet,” meaning the fuel moves freely within that part of the wing....

...Gaddis said Boeing’s design meets that requirement with margin to spare, telling Defense News that it “carries a ton of gas.” But with a competition still ongoing, he declined to detail exactly how much the air vehicle can carry....

...Boeing should be ready for the first flight of its MQ-25 shortly after the Navy makes its downselect decision in August, but it still has a lot of work to do before then, Gaddis said. Besides moving its prototype through the standard testing process that all aircraft go through before first flight, it also needs to finish its statement of work. Boeing — like the other competitors — was awarded a contract to refine its MQ-25 concept, which includes activities such as software integration and improving its open-systems architecture.

It also includes providing data about how to handle the drone aboard the deck of an aircraft carrier, which Boeing is demonstrating through a series of drills in St. Louis, Missouri. The company mapped out the deck of an aircraft carrier on the tarmac at Lambert Field, and Boeing employees have practiced how to safely and efficiently move its MQ-25 around the ship by taxiing it around, tested the arresting gear and hooking it into a catapult."

Photo: "Defense News got the first in-person look at Boeing’s offering for the Navy’s MQ-25 competition, which it unveiled in December 2017. (Boeing)" https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/Hv-jB ... uality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/PLIVBDW2K5CI7L4KOOJEG3GN2M.jpg
&
"Boeing’s MQ-25 reuses the fuselage the company originally designed for the Navy’s UCLASS program, an ISR and strike aircraft that morphed into the service's current requirement for a tanker drone. The company internally rolled out the air vehicle in 2014. (Boeing)" [STEALTHY HOOK?]https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/C5FZBQbXhzvsQWcs3iyqbj29Ah4=/600x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/TK2NSRL3CVBKTA7BSNPDJFVB7U.jpg

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/20 ... prototype/

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 27 Mar 2018, 01:59

Concept for Lockheed MQ-25A Stingray Unmanned Tanker Bid Revealed
26 Mar 2018 Sam LaGrone

"Lockheed Martin unveiled its concept for the Navy’s MQ-25A Stingray unmanned aerial tanker in a series of images provided to USNI News on Monday by the company. Skunk Works’ answer to the service’s requirement for a new carrier-based tanker is a tailless flying wing design that sets it apart from the other competitors in the program.

The series of four images shows the Lockheed Martin Stingray equipped with what appears to be a single D-704 buddy tank just to the left of the centerline of the airframe and a collection of sensors in the nose of the aircraft....

...The Navy set aside $719 million for Stingray in the Fiscal Year 2019 budget and plans on buying the first four in 2023 and for the aircraft to achieve initial operational capability on carrier decks in 2026."

Graphic: "Lockheed Martin MQ-25A Concept. Lockheed Martin Image"
https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... heed_2.png (1.4Mb)
&
https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... heed_4.png (1.9Mb)
&
https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... heed_3.png (1.3Mb)

Source: https://news.usni.org/2018/03/26/concep ... d-revealed

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 27 Mar 2018, 02:58

Lockheed Martin was wise to include the landing gear from the F-35C. Wonder if any other components from the F-35C are used in the design???

Also, wonder what engine they plan to use???

madrat · by **madrat** » 27 Mar 2018, 05:06

Giving the program a name like 'Stingray' implied a flying wing preference.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 27 Mar 2018, 05:39

madrat wrote:Giving the program a name like 'Stingray' implied a flying wing preference.

Jeepers that is taking a 'long line' - much like the refueling hose when deployed adds to the STINGRAY image. :devil:

alloycowboy · by **alloycowboy** » 27 Mar 2018, 06:11

spazsinbad wrote:
madrat wrote:Giving the program a name like 'Stingray' implied a flying wing preference.

Jeepers that is taking a 'long line' - much like the refueling hose when deployed adds to the STINGRAY image.

Boeing is going to win this one as it is a higher volume design.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 27 Mar 2018, 06:45

Who says it's a higher volume? I think you forget how much fuel a flying wing holds.

Both LM and Boeing will design it to a certain spec and that spec will stipulate a certain volume of fuel.

usnvo · by **usnvo** » 28 Mar 2018, 00:46

SpudmanWP wrote:Who says it's a higher volume? I think you forget how much fuel a flying wing holds.

Both LM and Boeing will design it to a certain spec and that spec will stipulate a certain volume of fuel.

For that matter, don't discount GA. All three designs are quoted by their companies as meeting and/or exceeding the specification which is pretty extreme (15klbs at 500-550NM). Given that all seem to use either F-18E or F-35C landing gear, they are all in the 70klbs+ all up weight range and since they have to be under 50klbs to recover, that is a lot of fuel.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 28 Mar 2018, 07:16

SpudmanWP wrote:Who says it's a higher volume? I think you forget how much fuel a flying wing holds.

Both LM and Boeing will design it to a certain spec and that spec will stipulate a certain volume of fuel.

I agree you can't tell how much internal fuel any of them can carry based on appearance!

Also, if it was up to me??? I would rather see Boeing win the T-X Contest and Lockheed Martin the MQ-25A. Just saying.... :wink:

sunstersun · by **sunstersun** » 28 Mar 2018, 09:46

Corsair1963 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Who says it's a higher volume? I think you forget how much fuel a flying wing holds.

Both LM and Boeing will design it to a certain spec and that spec will stipulate a certain volume of fuel.

I agree you can't tell how much internal fuel any of them can carry based on appearance!

Also, if it was up to me??? I would rather see Boeing win the T-X Contest and Lockheed Martin the MQ-25A. Just saying....

I'd rather Boeing with the MQ-25 and Lockheed win the T-X. Right now the USA could do with some solidifying of relations with Korea.

rheonomic · by **rheonomic** » 29 Mar 2018, 00:42

If I had to choose which program I would want to win, I'd probably pick T-X since it seems like a better business opportunity.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 03 Apr 2018, 14:10

Who Has Advantage In U.S. Navy MQ-25 Competition?
03 Apr 2018 James Drew

"...The Stingray effort has been designated a rapid acquisition Maritime Accelerated Capabilities Office program, along with the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle.... [rapid & accelerated in one sentence? woowee - USN SLOW]

...The chosen MQ-25 must have provisions to receive fuel from other aircraft. [wait -wut?!] It will come equipped with a sensor ball for “light ISR” (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) and have size, weight, power and cooling margin to carry a maritime surveillance radar.

The Navy has not specified how many MQ-25s will embark on the carrier at a time but has instead set the minimum number of refueling hoses that must be available for operations as well as a maximum “spot factor,” the amount of physical space the aircraft and any customized or peculiar support equipment can take up on the flight and hangar decks...." [then lots of hoohaa times four but I can't be bothered - you all go and read it if interested]

Photo: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... uments.jpg

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/who-has ... ompetition