MQ-25 US Navy Stingray Program

Some new photos of the MQ-25:


In particular, check out the seams (or lack thereof) on the ailerons - flexible seals or a form of simplistic morphing wing?

That is an awfully small airframe; I'd wager much if not most of its fuel offload capacity is going to be in external tanks.

It was said that Boeings MQ-25 has been around for sometime. So, maybe the production version will be scaled up???

Dragon029 MQ-25:


OK Boeing ... avionics ram duct ... is all wrong ... needs a horizontal red LED bar ... like Kit ... on Nightrider.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... 09AZHAn82Q

That is an awfully small airframe; I'd wager much if not most of its fuel offload capacity is going to be in external tanks.

I think that's just the perspective / lens at play; it's not that small an aircraft:



Boeing also says that their design considerably exceeds the CBARS requirements due to it originally being designed for UCLASS (which would have had to accommodate an internal weapons bay, etc), before modifying it.

Dragon029 MQ-25:


OK Boeing ... avionics ram duct ... is all wrong ... needs a horizontal red LED bar ... like Kit ... on Nightrider.

MQ-25 Cylon?

Boeing also says that their design considerably exceeds the CBARS requirements due to it originally being designed for UCLASS (which would have had to accommodate an internal weapons bay, etc), before modifying it.

Long wings and elevators for efficient high-alt slow loiter.

They wont put tanks and pods on it, that would really mess up its RCS and ruin its deploy speed and efficient loiter endurance.

Looks like it will be a single hose basket out of its rear, but with auto-tanking to speed things up.

Hidden survivable endurance, handy off-load capacity. 16,000 lb of fuel will keep a flight of 4 F-35 going for at least 7O mins at high-altitude. Time enough to get to another tanker before recovery

So, three tanker loads for a long-range strike flight of 4 x F-35C. One drink on the way, and two drinks on the way back (~8 hr flight).

Potentially delivering 48 x SDB (bye-bye air base), or else 8 x JSM, or 8 x JSOW (bye-bye fleet base).

That is an awfully small airframe; I'd wager much if not most of its fuel offload capacity is going to be in external tanks.

I think that's just the perspective / lens at play; it's not that small an aircraft:



Boeing also says that their design considerably exceeds the CBARS requirements due to it originally being designed for UCLASS (which would have had to accommodate an internal weapons bay, etc), before modifying it.

Wow, you aren't kidding. The photo I commented on made it look about the same size as a Hornet.

They wont put tanks and pods on it, that would really mess up its RCS and ruin its deploy speed and efficient loiter endurance.

Looks like it will be a single hose basket out of its rear, but with auto-tanking to speed things up.

Technically speaking it will use a pod; it's a strict requirement for CBARS proposals to utilise the Cobham buddy tanking pod used on the Super Hornet; this official Boeing graphic shows the pod as being mounted under the fuselage:

Thanks for the clarification D. I suppose that makes it much quicker to swap out and replace a malfunctioning or damaged system to get it back in the air quickly. Makes sense from that angle.

It's one way to reduce risk (since it's already proven) and also still use existing equipment. IIRC the pod is GFE.

If, they use the pump and the reel from the pod. Isn't it the same thing???

I really like the overall design of the Boeing option.

It just seems REALLY small for the amount of fuel they should be carrying.

They should be scaling it up to be as big as possible to maximize carry capacity in a predefined volume that is limited for Naval Aviation.

I'm thinking like the E-2 Hawkeye size when the wings are folded up.

Shouldn't this new Flying Gas Bag be able to carry more gas?

I really like the overall design of the Boeing option.

It just seems REALLY small for the amount of fuel they should be carrying.

They should be scaling it up to be as big as possible to maximize carry capacity in a predefined volume that is limited for Naval Aviation.

I'm thinking like the E-2 Hawkeye size when the wings are folded up.

Shouldn't this new Flying Gas Bag be able to carry more gas?

Well, if it meets the mission requirements. Then it must be big enough!

I really like the overall design of the Boeing option.

It just seems REALLY small for the amount of fuel they should be carrying.

They should be scaling it up to be as big as possible to maximize carry capacity in a predefined volume that is limited for Naval Aviation.

I'm thinking like the E-2 Hawkeye size when the wings are folded up.

Shouldn't this new Flying Gas Bag be able to carry more gas?

Well, if it meets the mission requirements. Then it must be big enough!

Didn't they recently lower the mission requirements?