US showed a new unmanned tanker MQ-25 Stingray

Division of Skunk Works Corporation Lockheed Martin, engaged in secret development, finally "declassified" the appearance of the UAV MQ-25 Stingray (eng. - sea stingray), reports "Warspot" with reference to the magazine Popular Mechanics


US showed a new unmanned tanker MQ-25 Stingray


A new UAV for the needs of the US Navy is being developed as part of the UCLASS program (unmanned carrier launched airborne surveillance and strike). Initially, the command of the Navy planned to adopt an unmanned stealth bomber, which could deliver bomb attacks, while remaining invisible to air defense weapons. The project was named RAQ-25.



In the 2016, the US Navy has formulated new requirements for the deck drone, replacing its main purpose. The project was renamed MQ-25 Stingray and redeveloped into an unmanned tanker. At the same time, the military command refused the stealth characteristics of the aircraft, and also removed from the requirements the ability to carry weapons. Externally, the MQ-25 Stingray resembles a smaller version of the stealth bomber B-2 Spirit.
Photos used:
popularmechanics.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

104 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lord of the Sith 27 March 2018 17: 53 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Apparently they understood that invisibility would not help, and so they turned it into tankers.
    1. Herculesic 27 March 2018 17: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      They will still return to the option of a shock drone a dozen times - this can be so much dough! !! sad
      1. Thrall 27 March 2018 18: 08 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Such a deck tanker-drone can fry your own aircraft carrier
      2. NEXUS 27 March 2018 18: 47 New
        • 28
        • 0
        +28
        Quote: Herkulesich
        They will still return to the option of a shock drone a dozen times - this can be so much dough! !! sad

        It's not about the dough ... this news once again shows how far we are behind in this matter. We have a heavy UAV up to 20 tons when they started to develop? And where is something intelligible? But the mattresses are already written off by the Predator, the drummer was put on the aircraft carrier, the new shock UAV is being launched into the series ...
        And we can’t finish the same Altair ...
        1. Tusv 27 March 2018 19: 13 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: NEXUS
          But the mattresses are already written off by the Predator, the drummer was put on the aircraft carrier, the new shock UAV is being launched into the series ...

          Duc this bird and planted, and for a long time. somewhere around the beginning of 2011 all vipon jornals are galdel-proryff. On Avik planted offline. It turned out that the tanker was tested.
          That's what I think, but Obama was a cool prezik. I cut so many programs. Including hypersound
          1. Grigory_45 27 March 2018 20: 58 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Tusv
            On Avik planted offline. It turned out that the tanker was tested.

            Then they tested the prototype of the X-47V UAV strike from Northrop. He sat down and took off from an aircraft carrier, and also carried out some autonomous actions (in particular, refueling from a tanker)



            Product from Boeing - its competitor
        2. Setrac 27 March 2018 20: 56 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: NEXUS
          We have a heavy UAV up to 20 tons when they started to develop?

          Strictly speaking, this is not a UAV because it has a pilot, although it is located separately from the aircraft. Such a system is VERY vulnerable and suitable only in police operations.
          Quote: NEXUS
          And we can’t finish the same Altair ...

          Therefore, they cannot finish it off - for our army needs a serious machine, and not that squalor that the Americans rivet.
          1. NEXUS 27 March 2018 20: 59 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: Setrac
            Therefore, they cannot finish it off - for our army needs a serious machine, and not that squalor that the Americans rivet.

            Remind you when SCAT appeared? Saw is not erased? I’m keeping silent about Buran. The USSR was a leader in the production and creation of UAVs ... and you "about sawing a serious machine" ...
            1. Setrac 27 March 2018 21: 08 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: NEXUS
              Remind you when SCAT appeared? Saw not worn off?

              But he is not in service ?!
              Quote: NEXUS
              I'm not talking about Buran. USSR was a leader in the production and creation of UAVs ...

              However, Buran is not a fighting vehicle, he did not have to attack anyone. UAVs then have problems not with flights, but with combat work.
              Quote: NEXUS
              The USSR was a leader in the production and creation of UAVs ... and you are "about sawing a serious machine" ...

              Russia is still in the lead now, I just don’t share the enthusiasm about the American UAVs, they mounted radio-controlled aircraft and pass it off as outstanding achievement.
              1. Grigory_45 27 March 2018 21: 39 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Setrac
                Russia is still in the lead

                alas, this is far from the case. We do not have our own UAVs (I do not consider a small pot-bellied trifle), medium UAVs are forced to buy from Israel (UAV "Outpost" - Israeli IAI Searcher Mk II) and produce them under license.
                Quote: Setrac
                stuck radio-controlled aircraft and pass it off as outstanding achievement

                a radio-controlled aircraft does not know how to land and take off from an aircraft carrier, does not know how to refuel itself from a tanker, etc. Sam - this means without the participation of the operator. Already not a simple radio-controlled aircraft, right?
                Come on with "radio-controlled aircraft." Show me the Russian analogue of at least removed (already removed!) From the weapons of the "Predator"?
                1. Setrac 27 March 2018 22: 19 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  a radio-controlled aircraft does not know how to land and take off from an aircraft carrier, does not know how to refuel itself from a tanker, etc. Sam - this means without the participation of the operator. Already not a simple radio-controlled aircraft, right?

                  Not so, absolutely not so. Radio-controlled aircraft take off and land beautifully, and whether or not an aircraft carrier is a completely different issue, the problem here is not in UAVs but in the absence of aircraft carriers. Modern aircraft fly beautifully on autopilot, but no one calls them drones, but not with flights, but with combat work.
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Our own UAVs (I do not think a few pot-bellied little thing) we do not

                  Correct - we do not have our own radio-controlled combat aircraft.
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Show me the Russian analogue of at least removed (already removed!) From the weapons of the "Predator"?

                  Maize - they are close in terms of performance characteristics, no one can convince me that a plane that flies like a maize is some kind of achievement of the military-industrial complex.
                  1. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 09: 59 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Setrac
                    Not so, absolutely not so. Radio-controlled planes take off and land beautifully, and whether or not they are on an aircraft carrier is a completely different matter

                    yourself? Do they themselves land and take off, without the participation of the operator? If you read the comment carefully, you would not have to write a long and meaningless scribble. I don’t even comment on the rest, because it’s from the series “to him about Thomas - he is about Yerema,” and I’ll scrub the general meaning, but I will argue. In fact, you wrote complete nonsense, but I will not refute it - you still do not understand
                    1. Setrac 28 March 2018 21: 20 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      Do they themselves land and take off, without the participation of the operator?

                      There are some.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      I don’t even comment on the rest, for this is from the series “to him about Thomas - he is about Yerema”

                      Well, of course, you have nothing to say against the fact that not everyone has aircraft carriers, so you need to have this aircraft carrier operational in order to land an UAV on an aircraft carrier.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      scrub

                      Easy on the bends, this is not a public toilet.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      In fact, you wrote complete nonsense, but I will not refute it - you still do not understand

                      The temperature of sea water cannot be measured because of the lack thereof.
                      1. Grigory_45 29 March 2018 06: 28 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Do they themselves land and take off, without the participation of the operator?
                        There are some.

                        but we won’t tell about them, because well, very secretly)) They wrote another nonsense.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Well, of course, you have nothing to say against the fact that not everyone has aircraft carriers

                        it’s not for aircraft carriers, but for UAVs. Let them even plant on concrete - it would be something to plant. We now have only one medium-sized UAV - this is Orion, and he is in trials. The rest does not fly or is completely absent.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Easy on the bends, this is not a public toilet.

                        the main thing is that you do not forget about it when you write your comments
            2. Tusv 27 March 2018 21: 42 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: NEXUS
              Remind you when SCAT appeared? Saw is not erased? I’m keeping silent about Buran. The USSR was a leader in the production and creation of UAVs ... and you "about sawing a serious machine" ...

              And yet, about Obama, who wrapped up many projects. And why? Uh brother. Tut must be sorry for the Yankees. All this time we have been developing electronic warfare and anti-aircraft defense, my dear, that combat shock aircraft become UAVs. UAVs. Have we succeeded in this? Yes sir. It seems like ahead of the rest.
              We also move our troops at a speed of 14 hours throughout Russia. The Americans are doing the same thing, in the same kilometer they are 10 times more expensive and 5 times slower.
              Someone does not put the right priorities in our favor. And you say UAV. Here we’ll only build Berkov’s analogues with the Aegis - we’ll remain without pants. The point of chasing the Yankees? hi
        3. Zoldat_A 27 March 2018 22: 14 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Andrew, hi !
          Quote: NEXUS
          And we can’t finish the same Altair ...
          Well, not everything is so bad here .... request And there are rockets, and guys chopped trees with their feet ...
          1. NEXUS 27 March 2018 22: 18 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Zoldat_A
            Andrew, !

            Alex. hi
            Quote: Zoldat_A
            Well, not everything is so bad here ....

            So far in the UAV issue, in our country, in comparison with the United States, it’s bad, to put it mildly ... this is reality.
            We lag behind very much.
          2. Tusv 27 March 2018 22: 25 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Zoldat_A
            And there are rockets, and guys chopped trees with their feet ...

            I don’t know how firewood is, but my neighbor famously cuts a bouquet of lilacs with the tip of his toe at a height of 2 meters
            1. Zoldat_A 27 March 2018 22: 34 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              Quote: Tusv
              Quote: Zoldat_A
              And there are rockets, and guys chopped trees with their feet ...

              I don’t know how firewood is, but my neighbor famously cuts a bouquet of lilacs with the tip of his toe at a height of 2 meters

              I'm in my 70 with more than a bouquet of lilacs not with my fingertips, but knock down gavashi-geri ... lol You won’t drink professionalism ... lol Plus a bar room, tatami, a boxing gym, a pool .... Twenty a week I run at least ... Now only in the hospital for maintenance .... But nothing - "this old bully" (this was told by the head doctor about me) soon " for good behavior "kicked out - I feel .... The head doctor has not been in the ward for a day .....
        4. Aqr009 27 March 2018 23: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          ... the mattresses are already written off by the Predator ...

          The traitor is an already passed step on the way to the robotic army. He completed his task. This is what the concept of aerial attack in 2028 looks like according to DARPA.
    2. Grigory_45 27 March 2018 18: 11 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Lord of the Sith
      Apparently they understood that invisibility would not help, and so they turned them into tankers

      UAVs can already perform the functions of a tanker today, UAVs have not yet grown up to perform autonomous shock functions of UAVs (the stealth technology has nothing to do with it - the thing is in the control system of these devices). It is better to have a good tanker than a bad drone drone. Well, a stealth tanker, of course, unnecessarily.
    3. APASUS 27 March 2018 18: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Lord of the Sith
      Apparently they understood that invisibility would not help, and so they turned it into tankers.

      Compare the prices of a tanker and a full-fledged bomber. Not a lot of money was written off under this topic.
    4. Starover_Z 27 March 2018 18: 39 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      They are working out the technologies for using various UAV modifications for different tasks and this is not funny, alas ... I must admit that they are ahead with heavy UAVs.
    5. Maksus 27 March 2018 20: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      A useful device, the pilot does not get tired, he has to barrage for a long time. Well done, Th.
    6. Clumsy 28 March 2018 06: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Lord of the Sith
      Apparently they understood that invisibility would not help, and so they turned it into tankers.

      B-2 in Yugoslavia shot down by the old 75s, the same invisible good
      1. Vadim237 28 March 2018 08: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There F 117 shot down - and not B 2.
        1. Clumsy 28 March 2018 09: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Sorry, but also invisible, and s-125.
          1. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 10: 15 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Clubfoot
            Sorry, but also invisible, and s-125

            not invisible, but a stealth plane. And they shot him 10 km from the position - count over your head. Stealth technologies worked completely as they should (I hope you have the quick sense to understand that an inconspicuous plane and a plane absolutely invisible and invulnerable are different concepts?)
            1. Korax71 28 March 2018 13: 06 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              I would also add here that if they didn’t know the flight route, they would not have been able to brag about the shot down. Well, there would be nothing more to boast about. There were no more stealth cases in Yugoslavia request
  2. Herculesic 27 March 2018 17: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In a trailer, like a tanker too small, for one refueling! They would make a spy on its base - the form of a glider and in general the appearance pushes this option.
    1. Piramidon 27 March 2018 18: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Herkulesich
      In a trailer, like a tanker too small

      Not enough for strategists, but enough for fighters.
    2. Grigory_45 27 March 2018 19: 07 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Herkulesich
      In a trailer, like a tanker too small, for one refueling!

      you will look at what tanker aircraft are used in the fleet (the same deck-based fighter-bomber with UPAZ), and dramatically change your mind.
      1. Spez 27 March 2018 22: 15 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The F-18 takes off like the Yak-40. Opinion about your awareness will not change dramatically. Continue to study tractors.
        1. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 10: 04 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Spez
          The F-18 takes off like the Yak-40

          what does the Yak-40, rude tovarisch? By the way, practice confirms that when an individual has nothing to say - they begin to be rude and write nonsense. Not smart enough to stand aside with a smart look, is it better to show your essence? Write ischo))
        2. Piramidon 28 March 2018 13: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Spez
          The F-18 takes off like the Yak-40. Opinion about your awareness will not change dramatically. Continue to study tractors.

          But being rude is not good. Gregory_45 did not mean take-off weight, but the amount of fuel that a tanker aircraft manufactured on the basis of a deck fighter can give.
          Py.Sy. I advise you to apologize for rudeness.
  3. DimanC 27 March 2018 18: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, apparently, only refueling near your aircraft, no further
    1. Thrall 27 March 2018 18: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: DimanC
      Well, apparently, only refueling near your aircraft, no further

      Russian name "Canister" smile
    2. Alexander 3 27 March 2018 18: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      They know how to cut striped money from citizens, and even companion their creation to partners.
    3. sharp-lad 27 March 2018 23: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So it is, refueling before queuing for landing.
  4. Dezinto 27 March 2018 18: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And if it is “buggy” during refueling? Well, there’s some kind of "hibina" flying by ....
    1. Thrall 27 March 2018 18: 14 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: DEZINTO
      And if it is “buggy” during refueling? Well, there’s some kind of "hibina" flying by ....

      Russian hackers on the Su-57 will learn how to merge kerosene from this robot soon smile
      1. Dezinto 27 March 2018 18: 19 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Russian hackers on the Su-57 will learn how to merge kerosene from this robot soon


        Yeah, such - "Yes, we just flew by, we didn’t see anything at all."

    2. Piramidon 27 March 2018 19: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: DEZINTO
      And if it is “buggy” during refueling? Well, there’s some kind of "hibina" flying by ....

      I also thought. The Amer refueling system in the air provides that the operator performs an important role in the tanker when docking. And then there’s no operator at all.
      1. Grigory_45 27 March 2018 21: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Piramidon
        I also thought. The Amer refueling system in the air provides that the operator performs an important role in the tanker when docking. And here at all without an operator

        an operator is needed if refueling is through the bar. In a hose-cone design, tactical aviation manages to do so.
        1. Piramidon 27 March 2018 22: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Amers have a rod, a hose - a cone with us.
          1. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 10: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Piramidon
            Amer has a rod, a hose - a cone with us

            Yes Yes..))
            1. Piramidon 28 March 2018 13: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              Yes Yes..))

              Oops. Sorry, I did not know. I always thought that the "Cone" system is ours. Moreover, it was necessary to service the Tu-95 back in the 60s, when the technical descriptions and operating instructions for this system could be taken only in the secret library.
              1. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 16: 30 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Piramidon
                I always thought that the "Cone" system is ours.

                In general, you are absolutely right, the mattresses used (and still use) the barbell, on specialized large tankers. When using UPAZ, the hose cone is apparently the only suitable option for today (it’s easier for a hungry bird to settle down, and there’s no operator on board the tanker. When refueling without a rod, it’s nowhere - the tanker plays an active role in “feeding” ) Now they use both ways.
                But we had our own exotic - from wing to wing. I had to hear a double opinion - some called it a circus, the second - they say, nothing special, with due dexterity of the rules. It would be interesting to hear your opinion)
                1. Piramidon 28 March 2018 19: 51 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  But we had our own exotic - from wing to wing. I had to hear a double opinion - some called it a circus, the second - they say, nothing special, with due dexterity of the rules. It would be interesting to hear your opinion)

                  Those who came to serve us with the Tu-16 said that the wing-to-wing system is somewhat simpler than the Cone. But this is also a purely subjective opinion. If you have mastered one thing well, then switching to another always causes difficulties. As for the “cone,” during my service there were two premises associated with this system. Once they brought home a cone on the rod, and the second time the cone was hooked with the screws of the 3rd engine. The consequences in the photo.

                  But in general, our pilots, when refueling in the air, according to them, dropped 2-3 kg of their weight. Already the parachutes were wet with sweat.
  5. loginovich 27 March 2018 18: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Drone refueling is cool. And don’t go to the grandmother.
  6. voyaka uh 27 March 2018 18: 22 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    In 2016, sailors did not dare to adopt an unmanned
    drummer. Although he successfully passed the test.
    But too sharply it would be necessary to change all the work on the aircraft carrier.
    And at the refueling station, the take-off and landing system, route will be quietly debugged
    around AUG, interaction with conventional aircraft (flight safety).
    After several years of such experience, it will be possible to return to the UAV-drummer
    1. DimanC 27 March 2018 18: 33 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      You can do the same thing with a drummer: a drummer link is assigned to one specific AVU or even UDC, who (the crew, in the sense) have been training for a couple of years and have gained this very experience. Given the love of mattresses for "democratic bombing," they would also be able to quickly gain combat experience. Apparently, somewhere not Srostaetstsa
      1. voyaka uh 27 March 2018 18: 44 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        I am still inclined to believe that the admirals were on
        crossroads. They have too many innovations
        at the same time: F-35S, which had
        problems with landing (hook), Ford aircraft carrier with a new electric catapult.
        And drones basement. The work of the aircraft carrier is debugged as
        Swiss watches, and then change it, change it.
    2. Tusv 27 March 2018 18: 49 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      In 2016, sailors did not dare to adopt an unmanned
      drummer. Although he successfully passed the test.

      And how at the beginning of the tenths they sang when they first planted this miracle on Avik. Like hundreds of such birds will smash everyone. But the end of the decade and so far no
      1. voyaka uh 27 March 2018 22: 15 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        They will come inevitably. There was a slight delay only. Like lasers will come inevitably.
        1. abc_alex 28 March 2018 00: 35 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Yes, that’s how the clouds, dust, smoke and other fine suspensions in the atmosphere, and at the same time the atmosphere itself, will be canceled, and so the lasers will come right away. Inevitably :)
    3. yehat 30 March 2018 09: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The UAV was not ready for use - therefore, it was not accepted.
      although what has been achieved is impressive.
  7. Vita vko 27 March 2018 18: 27 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    the command refused the stealth characteristics of the aircraft, and also removed the ability to carry weapons from the requirements.
    obviously this is just an intermediate solution for conducting military tests, as well as reducing the vigilance of potential opponents. Probably in the future, the drone is planned to be used as a carrier of nuclear weapons.
  8. Dormidont 27 March 2018 18: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Wonderful target
  9. sabakina 27 March 2018 18: 41 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Why are they all pulling on "tailless"? Do aliens whisper in your ear?
    1. Tusv 27 March 2018 19: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: sabakina
      Why are they all pulling on "tailless"? Do aliens whisper in your ear?

      Well, like, a flying wing can take more weight, with smaller sizes. And the tail at their current level of program is not needed. As they consider, Unmasks
      1. sabakina 27 March 2018 19: 58 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Well, figs with them, let’s fly without a tail, we’ll hit the dark.
        1. Tusv 27 March 2018 22: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: sabakina
          Well, figs with them, let’s fly without a tail, we’ll hit the dark.

          Well of course. Rocket do not care for program
      2. dauria 27 March 2018 22: 59 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        And the tail at their current level of program is not needed. As they consider, Unmasks


        Not just because of the EPR. The tail is too much resistance. But without a tail, there is no margin of track stability. Since they managed to abandon the tail, then the Dutch step problem was solved by autopilot. A course control is likely brakes deviating immediately up and down on one wing. By the way, the Americans experienced the exported fascist Gotha. There is no tail there either and the aerodynamic quality turned out to be very high.
        1. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 09: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: dauria
          Since they managed to abandon the tail, then the Dutch step problem was solved by autopilot.

          the problem of stability and controllability of the flying wing was successfully solved even when creating the B-2. With a computer control system, a flying wing is no longer a problem.
    2. Grigory_45 27 March 2018 20: 03 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: sabakina
      Why are they all pulling on "tailless"? Do aliens whisper in your ear?

      The flying wing has a large internal volume (to accommodate the payload), it is also the most profitable scheme for a stealth aircraft. Pure technique, and no fraud (for those who understand, of course, rather than looking for conspiracy theories)
    3. abc_alex 28 March 2018 00: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This is a Northrop feature. He ate the dog on this diagram.
  10. Click 27 March 2018 18: 45 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Again the patriots are fooling around .. negative I recalled yesterday's article! Look at Orion and at this "canister" feel the difference! sad
  11. Palagecha 27 March 2018 19: 00 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The Americans are already testing unmanned deck tankers, but we are still discussing whether a country washed by the seas of the three oceans needs at least one aircraft carrier ... Just in case, I know that the aircraft carrier is heated by one missile, that we do not need other people's territories, that it is visible from space that one plane will sink him too ...
    1. Vita vko 27 March 2018 19: 30 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Palagecha
      The Americans are already testing unmanned deck tankers, but for now we are reasoning

      The American parasitic economy does not suffer at all from the fact that the official US government debt has exceeded all possible limits. And they need large aircraft carriers so that they could continue to catch up on the whole world. Therefore, they want as much as they want and print money, because their "valuable" green candy wrappers provide goods to the whole world, including Russia.
    2. Setrac 27 March 2018 21: 02 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Palagecha
      Just in case, I know that an aircraft carrier is drowned with one missile, that we do not need other people's territories, that it is visible from space, that one aircraft will also sink it ...

      Just in case, know that we will have an aircraft carrier INSTEAD of one tank army, and the aircraft carrier group will gobble up a third of the entire military budget of our state. Maybe well, what for these aircraft carriers?
      1. Grigory_45 27 March 2018 21: 45 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Setrac
        Maybe well, what for these aircraft carriers?

        maybe just learn how to make money and not steal money? And they will be on the AUG, and on the tank army.
        1. Setrac 27 March 2018 22: 24 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Gregory_45
          maybe just learn how to make money and not steal money?

          Since you are illiterate, I’ll explain to you how Americans “earn”. The USA produces 15% of world production, and consumes 40%. Where does the extra 25% come from. The United States directly or indirectly taxed (indirect) the whole world. For example, trade taxation, monetary taxation, Americans do not disdain and direct robbery. This is the "work" to which you are so eager - to rob, deceive, kill.
          1. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 09: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            Since you are illiterate

            In my opinion you need to give the Primer, because you have not learned to read. It was about Russia, not about the United States. Try to read more carefully and first understand the meaning, and then thoughtlessly scribble comments. It turns out that the tongue doesn’t have time to connect with the brain
            1. Setrac 28 March 2018 21: 25 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Gregory_45
              In my opinion you need to give the Primer, because you have not learned to read.

              Quote: Setrac
              nakoy

              Freudian slip? It remains to understand which letter needs to be replaced.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              It was about Russia, not about the United States.

              And my answer was about Russia. I gave you an example of how the US "earned" on its aircraft carriers as a guide to action what Russia must do to build its aircraft carrier fleet.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              It turns out that the tongue doesn’t have time to connect with the brain

              It's not my fault that you are "not catching up."
              1. Grigory_45 29 March 2018 06: 33 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Setrac
                Freudian slip?

                so to speak, you know better, for this is your quote)
                Quote: Setrac
                Since you are illiterate

                I like it when the individual, trying to bite the interlocutor, chopped off his own tail, flogs himself) Continue in the same vein, you, unfortunately, do not know anything else. Not even able to understand the meaning of the written. So that
                Quote: Setrac
                It's not my fault that you are "not catching up."
                - it characterizes you very eloquently
                1. Setrac 29 March 2018 20: 52 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Like when an individual, trying to bite the interlocutor

                  Apparently, after you bit me on the merits of the issue, do you say anything?
                  1. Grigory_45 29 March 2018 21: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Setrac
                    in essence of a question you tell nothing?

                    the substance of the matter was said in my first comment. But you preferred to stupidly explain (continuing to do the same today). Continue in the same spirit. but already in front of the mirror. I prefer to conduct constructive disputes with rational people, and not from the series "Once in a manger .."
                    1. Setrac 29 March 2018 22: 30 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      maybe just learn how to make money and not steal money? And they will be on the AUG, and on the tank army.

                      That is, do you seriously think that Russians simply do not know how to work? Or do you think that the US does not steal? I basically told you how the Americans earn on their fleet you either didn’t see or didn’t want to see, but you did see how I “stupidly explain”
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      But you preferred to stupidly explain

                      So can you create a separate topic, not about the fleet but about "stupidly gibberish?"
                      1. Grigory_45 30 March 2018 04: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        That is, do you seriously think that Russians simply do not know how to work? Or do you think that the US does not steal?

                        especially for the slow-witted: if you steal less, will there be more active money left (which can be spent including on the aircraft) or less? The answer is not obvious to you?
                        Quote: Setrac
                        So can you create a separate topic, not about the fleet but about "stupidly gibberish?"

                        It’s good when a person asks himself questions. I would have made the right conclusions
    3. abc_alex 28 March 2018 00: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      while we are still discussing whether a country washed by the seas of the three oceans needs at least one aircraft carrier

      You estimate the price of the AUG program and compare the military budgets of the United States and Russia.
  12. Kisso4kin 27 March 2018 19: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quadrocopters refuel ...
  13. Beltasir matyagu 27 March 2018 19: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes there is fuel with a gulkin nose. Sounds like a divorce
    1. Vadim237 28 March 2018 08: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There are definitely three cubes.
  14. Proton 27 March 2018 19: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Flying canister, how much does it cost in tar? It can be priced at three ordinary laughing
  15. Mih1974 27 March 2018 20: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    belay Tell me an amateur - hell is he? No, I understood about the “refueling of other aircraft”, but when the refueling station is based on a hefty transporter, this is understandable, he himself flies long and economically and carries kerosene with him to the dope. And here’s what the hell’s crap is - the load on him is clearly not so hot, and he himself eats oranges as obvious as a pig. request
    Again, we have since the days of the USSR and now China is having an appetite for the AUG, well, why on earth do they have to “lengthen the arm” of already so far flying aircraft? To be honest, more and more often the news about armaments (development) from the United States resembles the movie "Pentagon Wars", in scenes when both the scout and the unsatisfactory and first loopholes for hand weapons wanted to make a bradley, and then they wondered why loopholes. belay
    At first, we laughed a lot and criticized the mattresses for UAVs, now we see utility and are catching up, but this crap will obviously go to the shelf with a zumvolt, Fu-117, railgun
    1. Grigory_45 27 March 2018 21: 03 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Mih1974
      Tell me an amateur - hell is he? No, I understood about the “refueling of other aircraft”, but when the refueling station is based on a hefty transporter, this is understandable. And here’s what the hell’s crap is - the load on him is clearly not so hot, and he himself eats oranges as obvious as a pig.

      This is a deck tanker. At the moment, the mattresses are forced to use Super Hornets as tankers. Of course, this distracts some of the machines from their main duties (shock functions or patrolling), reduces the number of active aircraft of the air group, and also knocks out the aircraft resource. This is not a replacement for the KS-135, for example, it is a replacement for the Hornets, for refueling tactical aircraft (primarily deck-based)
      1. Mih1974 27 March 2018 22: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Sorry, but you answered that I didn’t ask, it’s clear that they are changing one (outdated) small refueling tank to another small one.
        But I asked - TO HERE them such small tankers? After all, the Marikas have two parallel and very promising lines of development for attack aircraft - a) UAVs, including heavy b) long-range striking missiles. At the same time, the number of "friendly" Merikas airfields in fact covers the WHOLE world. am negative Again, the latest military conflicts - showed the complete senselessness of the AUG, well, that's it. In all recent wars, the main “work” was carried out by just ordinary, ground-based airfields, while the Aviks only interfered and ate loot. It doesn’t sound funny - but it is Russia and China that need to build aviks, simply because we can’t ensure the “friendliness” of airfields around the world, and just the Merikas, you can cut aviks and buy a thousand attack planes on unspent loot! laughing
        1. abc_alex 28 March 2018 00: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But I asked - TO HERE them such small tankers?


          Well, the deployed AUG requires you to keep in the air one pair of duty aircraft constantly. In principle, if these are small unmanned fighters with at least a pair of missiles capable of automatically refueling from such refuelers, then, in principle, it doesn’t matter how often refueling takes place, at least once per hour. You can work out a scheme in which two out of 4 cars in the air will always be refueling.
        2. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 09: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Mih1974
          Sorry, but you answered that I didn’t ask

          You didn’t understand that you were answered. The tanker is deck-mounted for servicing AUG aviation. There are no friendly airfields in the ocean except the aircraft carrier itself. AUG must always keep several planes in the air, which means they also need tankers.
        3. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 10: 10 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Mih1974
          FUCK them such small tankers?


    2. yehat 28 March 2018 06: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      aircraft carriers expand their patrol and air defense zone
      this improves the security of the AUG. The very meaning of AUG is the presence of a control zone, and not some remote attacks.
  16. Grazm47 27 March 2018 21: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Damn, Russian hackers will merge all kerosene.
  17. Gnefredov 27 March 2018 22: 08 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "Smart" unit in the conditions of electronic countermeasures. A pilot flies ... Waits for a tanker drone ... And around the Atlantic ... the Atlantic ... Okiyan vast.

    Then piss off!
  18. yehat 28 March 2018 06: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It seems to me that choosing a tailless scheme for a drone, and even a tanker, is not the most justified decision,
    because this circuit definitely has problems with controllability and therefore reliability.
    if it were used in the stealth configuration, perhaps this property would justify the scheme, but in the form as it is - obviously not.
    1. Vadim237 28 March 2018 08: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      To see these problems with manageability, have already decided.
    2. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 09: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: yehat
      this circuit definitely has handling issues

      they have long been resolved by the introduction of a digital control system
      Quote: yehat
      It seems to me that choosing a tailless scheme for a drone, and even a tanker, is not the most justified decision

      this tanker in the past - shock stealth UAV. Which just changed specialization. Of course, no one radically redesigned the airframe.
      1. yehat 28 March 2018 14: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        it’s a fucking fleet and based on an aircraft carrier. there are other reliability requirements.
        and the problem is not that the UAV cannot fly, but how probable problems are in routine operations and for a tailless scheme, the probability of landing problems is definitely higher than that of the standard one, and I'm sure that will affect it. There are also questions - how stable can it keep up with rough weather during refueling.
        just the circuit itself is a potential source of problems.
        1. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 16: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: yehat
          just the circuit itself is a potential source of problems

          it was until the plane was stuffed with electronics. In fact, before the advent of the EMF, the flying wing was not very flying. Automation has corrected this shortcoming. As for reliability .. and any modern fighter - the Su-27/30/35, Su-57, Raptor and Lightning - can not fly without an emf. Here the question is not in the scheme, but in the reliability and redundancy of the control system
          Well, as far as the electronics draws .. we can say that it is not comparable with a person. It’s enough to recall the flight of the first F-117, on which the stabilization system was turned off intentionally (in order to assess controllability “in case of what”) - and the plane almost crashed - the pilot had enough height to turn on the machine, which saved the car. B-2 flies in the mode of enveloping the terrain. Moreover, the latter is highly praised for the ease of piloting (although by and large you need to praise the computer)
  19. Altona 28 March 2018 08: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Tusv
    That's what I think, but Obama was a cool prezik. I cut so many programs. Including hypersound

    --------------------------------
    Yes, chocolate is simple. Do not know why so many barrels rolled on him. In the end, he just completely unbelted.
  20. Altona 28 March 2018 08: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: yehat
    It seems to me that choosing a tailless scheme for a drone, and even a tanker, is not the most justified decision,
    because this circuit definitely has problems with controllability and therefore reliability.

    ------------------------------
    Yes, here, too, it seems to me that this is another kite.
  21. Altona 28 March 2018 10: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Gregory_45
    they have long been resolved by the introduction of a digital control system

    --------------------------------
    Here! So external intervention is possible!
    1. Korax71 28 March 2018 13: 41 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      No, it’s not possible. Usually, control, if any, is via a dedicated satellite channel. Moreover, the control code is located on the satellite itself. In the best case, you can find out what commands are transmitted to the UAV. Theoretically, everything is possible, but in practice it is not feasible. Another option -mute the communication channel. but then the backup system, inertial, is turned on, and it calmly equips to the return trip simply or continues to fly according to the intended plan on the axes of the system. and the signal jamming zone is actually not infinite either. so what to intercept we can only radio-controlled, gu or with an unprotected canal zhps no
    2. Grigory_45 28 March 2018 16: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Altona
      So external intervention is possible!

      as easy as tampering with a manned fighter's emf