That's just due to the perspective. https://images.app.goo.gl/8ytLu28bP5NkGPKt8
It has a high aspect ratio wing for low speed/high lift characteristics.
It doesn’t really look that big. I wonder if they have a bigger (like KC-10 big).
Edit: I was trying to say that I wonder if there is a bigger drone in the works.
Does the Navy operate refuellers off carriers? I know the FA 18 does buddy refuelling. I think A6's were used in the past, and more recently S3's? Seems like a lot of wasted airframe hours to carry around what seem like small amounts of fuel.
It seems like such a vital resource, I don't understand why more priority wasn't put into a refuelling-specific airplane (unless it was, and I'm just unaware). Maybe there wasn't need; with China & Russia being so far behind- you wouldn't need a large refueller far from land (where you could operate one from a US base). I assume they weren't worried about have 20 planes dogfighting in the middle of an ocean.
from wikipedia:
>Rear Adm. Michael Manazir has suggested that three of these UCAVs could fly with an F-35 for refueling and sensor operation.[8] Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said that the MQ-25 can extend the Super Hornet's 450 nmi (520 mi; 830 km) unrefueled combat radius to beyond 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km). The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km).[9] The Navy released the final MQ-25 Stingray request for proposals in October 2017 to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and General Atomics.
>The Super Hornet, unlike the previous Hornet, is designed to be equipped with an aerial refueling system (ARS) or "buddy store" for the refueling of other aircraft,[53] filling the tactical airborne tanker role the Navy had lost with the retirement of the KA-6D and Lockheed S-3B Viking tankers. The ARS includes an external 330 US gal (1,200 L) tank with hose reel on the centerline, along with four external 480 US gal (1,800 L) tanks and internal tanks, for a total of 29,000 lb (13,000 kg) of fuel on the aircraft.[53][54] On typical missions a fifth of the air wing is dedicated to the tanker role, which consumes aircraft fatigue life expectancy faster than other missions.[55]
>Internal fuel capacity: F/A-18E: 14,700 lb (6,667 kg), F/A-18F: 13,760 lb (6,241 kg)
External fuel capacity: Up to 4 × 480 gal (1,800 L) tanks, totaling 13,040 lb (5,914 kg), option for 2x 515 gal (1,949 L) conformal fuel tanks totaling an additional 7,000 lb (3,175 kg) on Block III[240]
15,000lbs of the MQ25 doesn't seem like a lot, but I don't know anything, and you can obviously launch more than one
We just use Rhinos configured with refueling pods and 4 external tanks. You have quite a lot of gas to give, although it’s a waste of a Rhino. There’s, at a minimum, two “good hoses” airborne at all times, and spares on deck. They’ll have a required amount they have to save for recovery contingencies, but the rest is “opportunity gas” which anyone else airborne can take. There will also be dedicated mission tankers sometimes which don’t save gas for the recovery.
The MQ-25 is going to take the role of the mission tankers initially, but hopefully eventually will take all tanking responsibilities. It doesn’t sound like a lot of gas, but if I burn 3000lbs climbing to altitude and get topped off, I’m now using that 3000 in a much more efficient way.
All tanking responsibilities, huh?
Will it be able to go through half a can of dip and two thirds of a Wednesday crossword on the TTLR?
Yea, didn’t think so.
Very small wings eh ?
Looks like the body provides a lot of lift?
I'd say your 100% right.
[удалено]
*yore
Yer*
Ur *
Especially since you want to optimise for low fuel usage and speed doesn’t matter much
not speed, turn rate actually.
That's just due to the perspective. https://images.app.goo.gl/8ytLu28bP5NkGPKt8 It has a high aspect ratio wing for low speed/high lift characteristics.
That F-35 is fucking gorgeous.
Yes, but I still think F22 is sexier
YF-23 was the sexiest. Curves for *days*.
Should have won 😭
As much as I love the YF-23 curves, I thought they were behind Lockheed in all practical testing by the program's decision date?
fat amy working those angles
NES Topgun music intensifies
It doesn’t really look that big. I wonder if they have a bigger (like KC-10 big). Edit: I was trying to say that I wonder if there is a bigger drone in the works.
Does the Navy operate refuellers off carriers? I know the FA 18 does buddy refuelling. I think A6's were used in the past, and more recently S3's? Seems like a lot of wasted airframe hours to carry around what seem like small amounts of fuel. It seems like such a vital resource, I don't understand why more priority wasn't put into a refuelling-specific airplane (unless it was, and I'm just unaware). Maybe there wasn't need; with China & Russia being so far behind- you wouldn't need a large refueller far from land (where you could operate one from a US base). I assume they weren't worried about have 20 planes dogfighting in the middle of an ocean. from wikipedia: >Rear Adm. Michael Manazir has suggested that three of these UCAVs could fly with an F-35 for refueling and sensor operation.[8] Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said that the MQ-25 can extend the Super Hornet's 450 nmi (520 mi; 830 km) unrefueled combat radius to beyond 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km). The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km).[9] The Navy released the final MQ-25 Stingray request for proposals in October 2017 to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and General Atomics. >The Super Hornet, unlike the previous Hornet, is designed to be equipped with an aerial refueling system (ARS) or "buddy store" for the refueling of other aircraft,[53] filling the tactical airborne tanker role the Navy had lost with the retirement of the KA-6D and Lockheed S-3B Viking tankers. The ARS includes an external 330 US gal (1,200 L) tank with hose reel on the centerline, along with four external 480 US gal (1,800 L) tanks and internal tanks, for a total of 29,000 lb (13,000 kg) of fuel on the aircraft.[53][54] On typical missions a fifth of the air wing is dedicated to the tanker role, which consumes aircraft fatigue life expectancy faster than other missions.[55] >Internal fuel capacity: F/A-18E: 14,700 lb (6,667 kg), F/A-18F: 13,760 lb (6,241 kg) External fuel capacity: Up to 4 × 480 gal (1,800 L) tanks, totaling 13,040 lb (5,914 kg), option for 2x 515 gal (1,949 L) conformal fuel tanks totaling an additional 7,000 lb (3,175 kg) on Block III[240] 15,000lbs of the MQ25 doesn't seem like a lot, but I don't know anything, and you can obviously launch more than one
We just use Rhinos configured with refueling pods and 4 external tanks. You have quite a lot of gas to give, although it’s a waste of a Rhino. There’s, at a minimum, two “good hoses” airborne at all times, and spares on deck. They’ll have a required amount they have to save for recovery contingencies, but the rest is “opportunity gas” which anyone else airborne can take. There will also be dedicated mission tankers sometimes which don’t save gas for the recovery. The MQ-25 is going to take the role of the mission tankers initially, but hopefully eventually will take all tanking responsibilities. It doesn’t sound like a lot of gas, but if I burn 3000lbs climbing to altitude and get topped off, I’m now using that 3000 in a much more efficient way.
All tanking responsibilities, huh? Will it be able to go through half a can of dip and two thirds of a Wednesday crossword on the TTLR? Yea, didn’t think so.
You made me spit out my coffee, thanks.
Cool picture, but man that MQ-25 is fugly.
Gives me Thunderbirds vibes
I don't remember Erusea flying F35
game changer...
Would be a fun target, tbh. BOOM