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.

 

Boeing's MQ-25A Breaks Cover in AvWeek, Called T-1, Been Around since 2014 (?!)

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Obviously, how ugly it was didn't matter this time. Cuz the Stingray is still Boeing Ugly.




posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Yes it is. Should be fun watching them try to hit the offload target.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I wonder how much recent contractor relations with the Navy played into the whole thing, too:

GA getting into trouble over the arrestor system.

LM with the Navy not being terribly happy about the 35C.

Boeing the least bad in that respect? Or did they find a pooch to deflower, too, that I missed or forgot?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

I can't think of any major Navy contracts they've had recently beyond Hornets off the top of my head.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

P-8 which I haven't really followed, but is/was waaay behind schedule. They are delivering airframes, but not fully mission capable. A lot of big-ticket items are slotted for later batches, tranches, increments, whatever the navy is calling them these days. Which means the early birds all get to go back to the shop eventually for even more money, but they can claim they are wtill on schedule because they are delivering birds.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Yes, but the Navy, from what I've heard, is nowhere near as unhappy with the P-8 as they are the AAG/EMALS, or the F-35C.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Now, given what has happened, why did Northrop withdraw? They've had the pole position for sure given what we know now and we know they went as far as to fit the X-47B with a fueling pod...



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Because the Navy will order these four preproduction models, set a timeline that requires Boeing to invest their own money on building a line and making space for it, assigning assets/people to it, delay the start of production on the eve of the deadline, stretch the trials, and then cancel the build at 4 airframes saying everyone has learned so much from the project, and then announce a new QA-X program with more ambitious goals and multirole ability and signature requirements that Boeing's project does not provide.

Change my mind.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

My girlfriend is actually a mech on P-8s in Jacksonville. From what she says there are a few issues compared to the P-3s but overall, they’re really good at what they do.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

1. Because the Navy actually needs a tanker and it needs to be relatively cheap. I'd have gone with S-3s or perhaps QS-3s, but that's just me.

2. Doing your scenario would threaten their next manned fighter, both funding and otherwise. The FA-XX might be going slower than the F-X/PCA/NGAD/whatever-its-called-this-week, but once the hump of getting the Ford first-in-class issues are done, I bet we see the FA-XX accelerate.

3. The Navy isn't the US Army, after all. If it were, the program would have been cancelled and replaced and cancelled and replaced and cancelled and replaced and...never changing anything except when Congress orders it to directly.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   
One of those weird things I had a dream about this last night, I had not done any reading on release dates, the competition or whatever and to be honest didn't realise it was going on. Then I dreamed about photographing the first ever shot of the unmanned aircraft refueller and got to lunch and read this!

Bizarre and off topic but if an F-35 ditches today due to fuel problems.....I buying a lottery ticket.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Because the Navy changed requirements every other day, and with the cost of all the engineering changes they decided it wasn't worth it in the long run.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: truttseeker

I've heard that from others too. The people that work on them overall really like them.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: RadioRobert

1. Because the Navy actually needs a tanker and it needs to be relatively cheap. I'd have gone with S-3s or perhaps QS-3s, but that's just me.

2. Doing your scenario would threaten their next manned fighter, both funding and otherwise. The FA-XX might be going slower than the F-X/PCA/NGAD/whatever-its-called-this-week, but once the hump of getting the Ford first-in-class issues are done, I bet we see the FA-XX accelerate.

3. The Navy isn't the US Army, after all. If it were, the program would have been cancelled and replaced and cancelled and replaced and cancelled and replaced and...never changing anything except when Congress orders it to directly.


1) Preaching to the choir

2&3). You mean like every Navy program for the past two decades? Look at LCS, FSC, Burke tier III, FFG-X, Zumwalt, etc?



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   


The bit where it taxis is the interesting one.



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

"We're ready.... to screw this up."



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

pshaw. C'mon. Boeing's been doing tankers for decades, they can't...

oh.



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   
news.usni.org...

Flight tests to start in 2019 for the prototype.



posted on May, 21 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Very soon. For the preproduction demonsrator/prototype.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join