It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Navy Drops new MQ-25A Stingray Draft RFP (and its rather disappointing)

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Don't you think it will be better to fund the FA/XX with a long range capacity , stealth and speed instead of the Stingray masquerade ?
edit on 2-9-2017 by darksidius because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
From the looks of things all the designs for the MQ-25 are going to have to start from scratch. To use the X-47 example, not one of them will carry enough fuel, even with external fuel tanks.

The X-47B can carry 4500 pounds of fuel, or 660 gallons. Add the Cobham refueling pod, and you add 300 gallons, which brings it up to just over 6500 gallons. Add a single external and you're up to about another 1800 pounds. That's still far below what they expect them to offload at 500 miles.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58 uhm, wouldnt they go with an X-45C type thing anyway and upscale it?



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

There's no real clue as to which way the airframe will go at this point. A flying wing makes the most sense because all of the contractors are hoping they will one day be able to latch on more tech and get a bigger dollar mission attached to the aircraft. Tanking is the role that will get it on the deck. The x-47 isn't the aircraft that it will end up being but it is already built and suitable to test the refilling tech on a carrier based UCAV.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Because they don't get to do no bid contracts for programs this size. That means opening to others, who might have a better design. Although all of them are going to be hard pressed to carry upwards of 18,000 pounds.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I meant NG would just use a navalized X-47C version to bid on this contract if the Navy is serious about the fuel requirements. I dont think it will be a big issue for them, they've been toying with an upscaled X-47 for years.

And the bidding on this contract just got to be a big sham.
Nobody got anything remotely close to what NG has as far as drones on carriers go and the Navy wants to pick someone next year if i'm not mistaken.
Granted, we heard nothing much about their plans after the Navy restructured the program into CBARS, but there is just no way for them to switch to entirely new airframes and still meet deadlines. Unless someone pulls something (like an 'Super Sentinel' UCAV?) from the black they're stuck with what they had during UCLASS.
And this means NG wins by default if those reports on refueling capabilites are correct.
To me this just looks like the Navy wants to move forward as fast as possible. They screwed around with requirements long enough to be able to pick who they wanted all along. But its the most logical choice too, so why not.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

They don't have a built and tested upscaled X-47, so they're in the same position as everyone else. They might have the X-47, but that doesn't mean an upscaled aircraft is going to be perfect from engine start the first time.

Boeing also has pretty advanced software from the J-UCAS program. They've flown it on F-18s, to just before touchdown on a deck. Northrop has the advantage of having been on a deck, but they're not a lock.
edit on 9/6/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   


They don't have a built and tested upscaled X-47, so they're in the same position as everyone else. They might have the X-47, but that doesn't mean an upscaled aircraft is going to be perfect from engine start the first time.

Is same reason RC planes dont fly the same as their full scale counterparts.Aerodynamics change in regard to shape and size..Id go with a clean sheet airframe but with off the shelf systems.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
And it just keeps getting better. The Navy tightened down on requirements for the MQ-25, down to operating off a carrier, and refueling. Any technology that isn't fully mature or in operation will be delayed before being installed.

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Bwahahahahahahahaha idiots....of course a lot of the tech is fully matured..The Navy just chose not to use it.
edit on 12-9-2017 by Blackfinger because: wording

edit on 12-9-2017 by Blackfinger because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join