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.

 

Lockheed MQ-25A Stringray Revealed (sorta)

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: detachment3

The Stingray is designed for tanking 4-6 aircraft on a regular mission as well as recovery tanking.




posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 07:31 PM
link   
They would need a lot bigger airframe to do that...



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Not really. A package of F-18s aren't going to use THAT much fuel at 500 miles, depending on load. The Stingray is to top them off after launch, which will extend the range. They're not meant to be a large tanker, just top off aircraft in the package. It won't be able to do much more than that.
edit on 3/30/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   

edit on 9-4-2018 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

www.flightglobal.com...

Lockmart details some of the bits they are going to reuse in their Sea Ghost.

Most notably, the F404.



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I'm firmly of the belief that GA is going to clean up with their offering as more info comes out about the competitors.



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

If they have something they can transition into flight quickly, they might. The Navy's not too happy with GA right now though.

They really, really need something that will fly right now or really soon. Boeing's closest to that. Lockheed appears to not to have even bothered with building anything.



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Why would they? The program's as like to be canceled tomorrow as lead to a large order. The current money budgeted is for something like four aircraft. Why spend 100% unit production cost for an offering that leads to three other airframes --if you win, if it survives. Poor return on investment.

Boeing and LM are both going to have field consumption/loiter problems, though for different reasons. LM more so. Boeing isn't planning on flying their demonstrator/UCLASS submission, so my guess is it is only reflective of the CBARS offering, not a locked in design. Which means they are all vapour ware. GA's configuration is near zero risk, has the size needed, and the excess thrust to lug other draggy stuff around if needed. And I'm guessing the fact that they'll team with Boeing to share engineering workload and production does little to hurt them if the Pentagon looks at industrial considerations.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

www.janes.com...

Lockheed's not building a prototype with its own dime. If not for Boeing being Boeing and fscking up, I'd say they had the command lead with the existence of their prototype.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

An existing prototype that was designed to UCLASS requirements, that they don't plan on flying, and I imagine doesn't reflect the final offering probably doesn't give them a huge step up.

If they fly it and it is similar enough to the final submission, then it helps, but ...

My guess is the inlet goes away for their final submission. Easier to maintain laminar flow with a conventional inlet, and the signature requirements were essentially dropped. Also frees up more internal room for tankage, for only slightly more drag to wetted area.


I wouldn't weigh the existing prototype too much. It just means they were ahead of the curve on the old requirements when they rolled it out almost four years ago. Let's them roll out something publicly now and get pictures in all the industry mags.

ETA: I would not be surprised to learn that LM also had/has a UCLASS demonstrator already completed or close to completion that got the boot when the requirements changed. Again.
edit on 24-4-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join