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.

 

Tweet From Boeing Defense

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh, but it is shiny!!

And pretty, er, uhm... well hung?! lol




posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
www.uasvision.com...

Still my guess.

We'll see next week.


Oh, I win a cookie!



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Its Boeings enrty into the unmanned tanker competitionwww.thedrive.com... for the Navy



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   
What is the requirement for Fuel and durability? Do we know if this thing has to have legs as well as a quantity of fuel from the RFQ?



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

Fifteen thousand pound offload at 500 miles is all they've given.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: penroc3

Wow. It's more hideous than I thought.


It looks weird. Massive tail-something-wings stand out. I can almost picture them functioning as actual wings given how flat and wide their are in relation to those upfront. Maybe their wings in front are shorter than those at the tail? Would explain the weird angle the photo was taken and might be an actual advantage for a carrier aircraft.
Something is definitely going on.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

It probably has some crazy vortexes and needs the odd configuration to made drogue refueling feasible as well as masking the IR signature output of the engine



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: mightmight

It probably has some crazy vortexes and needs the odd configuration to made drogue refueling feasible as well as masking the IR signature output of the engine

In that case its overengineered and unsuited for its role. Boeing probably just went with its original UCLASS contender and ignored the Navys requirements.

Too bad, they should have done this:
bispro.deviantart.com...

edit on 20-12-2017 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

And what do you think GA did, and Lockheed is almost certainly doing? These companies spent years developing UCLASS designs, only to have the Navy decide at the 11th hour they want a tanker, and on an impossible timeline. They're lucky anyone is bidding at all, let alone using repurposed designs.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

And what do you think GA did, and Lockheed is almost certainly doing?

Well according to GA they are very happy with the revised requirements and delighted to optimize their entry accordingly.
I wouldnt rule out some foul play here.
We'll see what Lockheed will come up with.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: mightmight

It probably has some crazy vortexes and needs the odd configuration to made drogue refueling feasible as well as masking the IR signature output of the engine


Tail configuration is probably signature driven. Also less interference drag which makes sense because of the endurance/efficiency requirements. Doubt vortices enter into it.



Massive tail-something-wings stand out.


They are big because to be effective a rule of thumb is that a butterfly tail needs to have roughly the same area as a the tail and tailplanes in a standard tail arrangement. Look how massive the F-23 tails look, for example. They are also probably even larger than most because the CG in this platform is well to the aft.
CBARS is looking to be around 60,000 lb GW. When the shift happened to refueling focus and away from signature, it meant it was going to need a tail.
Look at the X-47B. Assuming a similar planform for the NG proposal scaled up to 60,000 lbs or so and operating heavy frequently primarily as a tanker. Where is the CG for the flying wing? Way aft. Now the moment arm is MUCH shorter. Means you need more force to control pitch. Which means more area than is easily arranged on a flying wing. Starts cutting into your internal volume for wet wings and/or sensor deployment. So you need a tail. So that and the signature requirements being relaxed is probably why NG said, "You can't make up your minds. We're done".
Judging by the apparent location of the landing gear, I'd say the Boeing design has a CG toward the rear also. Not as far aft as the flying wing, but aftward. So it needs larger surfaces due to the shorter moment arm.
Compare that to the Avenger design from GA. Where's that CG? And the tail surfaces are a greater distance aft, so needs less area (but they're still pretty big. Just higher aspect ratio and smaller in comparison to the butterfly tail on Boeing's bird).




Well according to GA they are very happy with the revised requirements and delighted to optimize their entry accordingly. 

The shift to tanking and away from penetrating strike is a huge plus for the more conventional designs as GA is rumoured to have and Boeing seems to be putting forward. So small wonder they are thrilled.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

And they just tweaked their UCLASS. They said they were offering an Avenger variant for UCLASS, and that's what their tanker is based on. And of course they're going to say things like that. They aren't going to bitch about having the requirements changed 5 times in three years and the program totally changed on them.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 11:30 AM
link   
More Tweety tweetering
Boeing vid



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Still doesn't look like it can offload what they want. And still ugly as hell.
edit on 1/3/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join