MQ-25 US Navy Stingray Program

Sub-scale and Full-Scale Aerial Targets and RPAs - Remotely-Piloted Aircraft
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1264
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 06:27

Some new photos of the MQ-25:
Image
Image
In particular, check out the seams (or lack thereof) on the ailerons - flexible seals or a form of simplistic morphing wing?
Offline

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1042
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Kentucky

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 07:13

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'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 09:34

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

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 852
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 10:36

Dragon029 MQ-25:
Image

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
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1264
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 13:10

southernphantom wrote: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:

Image

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.
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 15:06

element1loop wrote:Dragon029 MQ-25:
Image

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


MQ-25 Cylon?
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 852
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 15:48

Dragon029 wrote:Image

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).
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1042
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Kentucky

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 16:09

Dragon029 wrote:
southernphantom wrote: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:

Image

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.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1264
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 01:22

element1loop wrote: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:

Image
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 852
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 02:58

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.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 625
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 04:47

It's one way to reduce risk (since it's already proven) and also still use existing equipment. IIRC the pod is GFE.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 04:49

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

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2621
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 01:02

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?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 02:49

KamenRiderBlade wrote: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!
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2621
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 05:16

Corsair1963 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote: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?
PreviousNext

Return to Drones

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests