PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Boeing Phantom Works unveiling on 19th? (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/603172-boeing-phantom-works-unveiling-19th.html)

Less Hair 20th Dec 2017 09:41

So will it do traps using the second wire every single time?

unmanned_droid 20th Dec 2017 10:09

I posted this elsewhere, but, in the interests of discussion will repeat here.

-----

I think the idea is for the MQ-25 to disappear off downrange with the F18 so the F18 can carry more ordnance to just outside the contested environment, top up with fuel, go do war type stuff in the contested environment and then come back out to refuel and head home with the tanker. Therefore, the Tanker has to keep a very low profile to avoid becoming a target and a known point for the F18s to return to.

I wonder, if you flew formation juuuust right with regard to the radar threat, you could actually decrease the RCS of the whole formation by using the MQ25 as a blocker/absorber.

ETA, so it has a kind of spade nose with a bevelled lower body (with what looks to be a retractable camera)and a smoothed double bubble type of upper forward fuselage. The big bay (weapons or fuel or sensors?) door doesn't have low RCS edge features like we're used to seeing and there doesn't appear to be any turbulator vanes at the front of the bay to help with separation. In fact, given the panel gaps on the lower body and wing root joint it doesn't look like a very low RCS vehicle from underneath.

KenV 20th Dec 2017 12:53


Originally Posted by Dan Winterland (Post 9995801)
Why does it need a landing light?

The light is not so the UAV can see the carrier, it's so the LSOs can see the UAV when it's on the approach. While the LSOs can't "talk" the UAV down like they can a pilot, they can give it a wave off command if there's a foul deck, the arresting gear isn't rerigged, or there's some other problem necessitating a wave off. The light also provides illumination on the deck after landing, so the folks controlling the thing on the deck can see the guidance from the yellow shirt (plane director). On the deck the UAV is not autonomous and is always under direct control of an operator.

Lonewolf_50 20th Dec 2017 13:03

Thank you Ken, for saving me the trouble on that one. I am pleased to see that the long standing problem of CV tanking assets is finally being addressed. About damned time.

glad rag 20th Dec 2017 17:14

Be smart when its finished....

ORAC 31st Aug 2018 07:50

Boeing have won the MQ-25A Stingray competition.

Alert 5 » Boeing wins MQ-25A competition - Military Aviation News

https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contrac...ticle/1617374/

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is awarded a ceiling price $805,318,853 fixed-price-incentive-firm-target contract to provide the design, development, fabrication, test, verification, certification, delivery, and support of four MQ-25A unmanned air vehicles, including integration into the carrier air wing to provide an initial operational capability to the Navy. The work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (45.5 percent); Indianapolis, Indiana (6.9 percent); Cedar Rapids, Iowa (3.1 percent); Quebec, Canada (3.1 percent); Palm Bay, Florida (2.3 percent); San Diego, California (1.5 percent); and various locations inside and outside the continental U.S. (37.6 percent), and is expected to be completed in August 2024. Fiscal 2018 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $79,050,820 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals; three offers were received. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-18-C-1012).

glad rag 31st Aug 2018 11:36

So California gets to stir the hardner then...

Saintsman 31st Aug 2018 15:56

With an arial refuelling requirement, I'm surprised that Boeing have won this based on their recent history.

ORAC 31st Aug 2018 16:39


With an arial refuelling requirement, I'm surprised that Boeing have won this based on their recent history.
Off with the fairies?

KenV 5th Sep 2018 13:25


Originally Posted by Saintsman (Post 10238270)
With an arial refuelling requirement, I'm surprised that Boeing have won this based on their recent history.

Really? You see a technological connection between the KC-46 and MQ-25? And you see an engineering and industrial connection between Boeing's commercial aircraft operation in Seattle and Boeing's military aircraft operation in St Louis?

melmothtw 6th Sep 2018 12:29


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 10241953)
Really? You see a technological connection between the KC-46 and MQ-25? And you see an engineering and industrial connection between Boeing's commercial aircraft operation in Seattle and Boeing's military aircraft operation in St Louis?

So, 'One Boeing' only when it suits them then.

BEagle 6th Sep 2018 14:01

"If it's Boeing, it's not going"....to be delivered on time or budget.

tdracer 7th Sep 2018 20:47


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 10242792)
"If it's Boeing, it's not going"....to be delivered on time or budget.

Actually the 737 MAX was pretty much on time and on budget, as was the original 777 (and at least so far, the 777X is looking pretty good).
If you're going to start disqualifying manufacturers due their having a project that's late and/or overbudget, you'll have a awfully short list to choose from.

Pure Pursuit 9th Sep 2018 03:38


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 10242792)
"If it's Boeing, it's not going"....to be delivered on time or budget.

The A400 would appear to be a tad over budget, late, not operating at the required spec and a complete waste of money. As for Voyager.... 😂

Boeing everyday for me I’m afraid.

SASless 9th Sep 2018 23:36

Three Wire is the target!

KenV 10th Sep 2018 13:00


Originally Posted by melmothtw (Post 10242747)
So, 'One Boeing' only when it suits them then.

Hey, it all depends on how you define "One Boeing". And as an FYI, "One Boeing" does NOT mean one pay scale, one retirement program, or even one set of company holidays. Pay scales vary hugely by region and country. The commercial group (legacy Boeing) has a different retirement program than the defense group (legacy McDonnel Douglas). And here in San Antonio we get fewer company paid holidays than they do in Seattle (commercial) or in St Louis (defense). Further, the notion that technical problems in Seattle with a commercial derivative program (an airliner turned into an aerial tanker with a whole host of other non tanker related functions) somehow must mean problems in St Louis with a clean sheet design of a pure tanker drone is (I'm sorry, there's just no polite way of saying this) simply absurd.

Wensleydale 10th Sep 2018 21:50

Joy of joys. As well as ignoring all of the ACO procedures when a new carrier joins an operational theatre, the USN will now be able to do it with drones with no look out!

KenV 13th Sep 2018 17:03


Originally Posted by Wensleydale (Post 10246079)
Joy of joys. As well as ignoring all of the ACO procedures when a new carrier joins an operational theatre, the USN will now be able to do it with drones with no look out!

To what are you referring with "ACO"? I don't believe you mean Aircraft Certification Office, which is what I'm familiar with.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:16.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.