Lockheed MQ-25A Stringray Revealed (sorta)

aviationweek.com...

Unfortunately, most of the article is behind a stupid paywall and I have not been able to convince myself that a subscription is worth the $ as yet.

I am also not so sure the aircraft really exists and isn't just more concept art, rather unlike Boeing's entrant.

Wish we had more, folks. Perhaps someone here has a paid subscription?

a reply to: anzha

Has a few renders. Short on info.


Not sure AW&ST is worth subscription price anymore. If you're in the industry, you usually get the mag at work anyway.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Just renders. So it's the equivalent of vaporware. Phantom-bird or should we just call it an Aurora?

Yeah, there are enough sources other than the former AvLeak that I've not been able to justify.

Hopped out of the industry (rocket side) about 2 years ago and been without since.

originally posted by: anzha

aviationweek.com...

Unfortunately, most of the article is behind a stupid paywall and I have not been able to convince myself that a subscription is worth the $ as yet.

I am also not so sure the aircraft really exists and isn't just more concept art, rather unlike Boeing's entrant.

Wish we had more, folks. Perhaps someone here has a paid subscription?

First time I've seen a jet getting towed...

a reply to: Iscool

lol. getting refueled.

Multiple stories told about KC-135's towing damaged receiving aircraft over Vietnam, actually.

a reply to: RadioRobert

True. And then the gliders for D Day for that matter. And glider craft for civilian use today.

So, I will hang my head in shame.

a reply to: anzha

news.usni.org...

More info, better pix.

And more info:

www.thedrive.com...

Supposedly, the X-44A was used as a surrogate for moving around a simulated carrier deck.

Give them 12 months and they will have something in the air..

a reply to: anzha

I seriously don't see any of the aircraft being able to offload that much at that range.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I can see Boeing's being plumped up.

I don't see that from Lockheed's though.

Who knows about GA's.

Doesn't look like a very big, (multiple use,) gas station.

i was seriously expecting some monstrous C-5 galaxy sized super tanker. C-5 sized UAV...i want one lmfao

a reply to: detachment3

The requirement is 15,000 pounds to 4-6 aircraft at 500 nm. That's only about 2200 gallons offload. To put it in comparison, a real tanker, like the KC-135 has been known to launch with 210,000 pounds (31,000 gallons), taking 6 fighters over 2500 miles and offloading 105,000 pounds (15,000 gallons).

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: detachment3

The requirement is 15,000 pounds to 4-6 aircraft at 500 nm. That's only about 2200 gallons offload. To put it in comparison, a real tanker, like the KC-135 has been known to launch with 210,000 pounds (31,000 gallons), taking 6 fighters over 2500 miles and offloading 105,000 pounds (15,000 gallons).

Thanks for the info Zaph. But, I have to ask. What am I missing here? I kinda thought the same as detatchment3, big, honkin, BWB or similar tanker.

a reply to: SonofaSkunk

You have to convert pounds to gallons. The F-16 carries somewhere between 11,700 pounds and 13,000 pounds (two seat vs single seat) with full internal plus three externals. But that only works out to 1750 gallons for the two seat, and 1940 gallons for the single seat. When you're talking about engines that consume over 13,000 pounds an hour, at full military power, that's not a lot of fuel.

(All numbers are off the top of my head and quick research, so may be off, but still show the point I'm making)

If you look at the renders, it's got a bigger span than the F-35C trailing it. F-35 has 20,000lbs capacity, roughly. It's got a lot more volume, and smaller engine. So assuming the tanks are wet out to the fold, I'd guess it can carry a good bit of fuel. But I also expected something a bit larger. More in 60,000lb class.
We shall see.

Im thinking its just an emergency refuel at predetermined circuits.Not a large scale mission refuel point..Will drive the numbers guys crazy I think.

a reply to: Blackfinger

A reasonable fear is that they look at what solutions industry provided and the costs, and decide they really don't need mission tanking that badly, and they'll be better served buying more Rhinos to share the recovery tanking load. Either before or After fielding the whopping four MQ-25A's they've initially budgeted for.

With NG deciding their manhours were better spent elsewhere, I think Boeing has a head up on this. Assuming the Navy goes forward. Partly because they've inherited the MD in-house naval knowledge, and in part because they need something to keep the defense side open and working (and fewer thing in the hopper means more people to throw at it).

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: detachment3

The requirement is 15,000 pounds to 4-6 aircraft at 500 nm. That's only about 2200 gallons offload. To put it in comparison, a real tanker, like the KC-135 has been known to launch with 210,000 pounds (31,000 gallons), taking 6 fighters over 2500 miles and offloading 105,000 pounds (15,000 gallons).

I'm slightly familiar with fuel burn and capacities. That's why I was so set back by it.

Maybe it's like blackfinger said, emergencies. It could also be a means of a companion to a larger tanker. Allowing maybe stealth/remote location deployment.