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

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 2016, the US Navy formulated new requirements for deck drone, changing its main purpose. The project was renamed the MQ-25 Stingray and repurposed as an unmanned tanker. At the same time, the military command abandoned the stealth characteristics of the aircraft, and also removed the ability to carry weapons from the requirements. Externally, the MQ-25 Stingray resembles a smaller version of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber.

Comments

[Lord of the Sith]

Apparently they understood that invisibility would not help, and so they turned it into tankers.

[Herculesic]

They will still return to the option of a shock drone a dozen times - this can be so much dough! !!

[Thrall]

Such a deck tanker-drone can fry your own aircraft carrier

[NEXUS]

Quote: Herkulesich

They will still return to the option of a shock drone a dozen times - this can be so much dough! !!

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 ...

[Tusv]

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

[Grigory_45]

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

[Setrac]

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.

[NEXUS]

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" ...

[Setrac]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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"?

[Setrac]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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

[Setrac]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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

[Tusv]

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?

[Zoldat_A]

Andrew, !

Quote: NEXUS

And we can’t finish the same Altair ...

Well, not everything is so bad here .... And there are rockets, and guys chopped trees with their feet ...

[NEXUS]

Quote: Zoldat_A

Andrew, !

Alex.

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.

[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

[Zoldat_A]

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 ... You won’t drink professionalism ... 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 .....

[Aqr009]

... 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.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Sith Lord

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.

[APASUS]

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.

[Starover_Z]

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.

[Maksus]

A useful device, the pilot does not get tired, he has to barrage for a long time. Well done, Th.

[Clumsy]

Quote: Sith Lord

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

[Vadim237]

There F 117 shot down - and not B 2.

[Clumsy]

Sorry, but also invisible, and s-125.

[Grigory_45]

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?)

[Korax71]

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

[Herculesic]

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.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Herkulesich

In a trailer, like a tanker too small

Not enough for strategists, but enough for fighters.

[Grigory_45]

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.

[Spec]

The F-18 takes off like the Yak-40. Opinion about your awareness will not change dramatically. Continue to study tractors.

[Grigory_45]

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))

[Piramidon]

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.

[DimanC]

Well, apparently, only refueling near your aircraft, no further

[Thrall]

Quote: DimanC

Well, apparently, only refueling near your aircraft, no further

Russian name "Canister"

[Alexander 3]

They know how to cut striped money from citizens, and even companion their creation to partners.

[sharp-lad]

So it is, refueling before queuing for landing.

[Dezinto]

And if it is “buggy” during refueling? Well, there’s some kind of "hibina" flying by ....

[Thrall]

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

[Dezinto]

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."

[Piramidon]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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.

[Piramidon]

Amers have a rod, a hose - a cone with us.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Piramidon

Amer has a rod, a hose - a cone with us

Yes Yes..))

[Piramidon]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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)

[Piramidon]

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.

[loginovich]

Drone refueling is cool. And don’t go to the grandmother.

[voyaka uh]

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

[DimanC]

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

[voyaka uh]

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.

[Tusv]

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

[voyaka uh]

They will come inevitably. There was a slight delay only. Like lasers will come inevitably.

[abc_alex]

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 :)

[yehat]

The UAV was not ready for use - therefore, it was not accepted.
although what has been achieved is impressive.

[Vita vko]

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.

[Dormidont]

Wonderful target

[sabakina]

Why are they all pulling on "tailless"? Do aliens whisper in your ear?

[Tusv]

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

[sabakina]

Well, figs with them, let’s fly without a tail, we’ll hit the dark.

[Tusv]

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

[dauria]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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)

[abc_alex]

This is a Northrop feature. He ate the dog on this diagram.

[Click]

Again the patriots are fooling around .. I recalled yesterday's article! Look at Orion and at this "canister" feel the difference!

[Palagecha]

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 ...

[Vita vko]

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.

[Setrac]

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?

[Grigory_45]

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.

[Setrac]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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

[Setrac]

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."

[Grigory_45]

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

[Setrac]

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?

[Grigory_45]

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 .."

[Setrac]

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?"

[Grigory_45]

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

[abc_alex]

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.

[Kisso4kin]

Quadrocopters refuel ...

[Beltasir matyagu]

Yes there is fuel with a gulkin nose. Sounds like a divorce

[Vadim237]

There are definitely three cubes.

[Proton]

Flying canister, how much does it cost in tar? It can be priced at three ordinary

[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, 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.
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.
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

[Grigory_45]

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)

[Mih1974]

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. 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!

[abc_alex]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Mih1974

FUCK them such small tankers?

[yehat]

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.

[Grazm47]

Damn, Russian hackers will merge all kerosene.

[Gnefredov]

"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!

[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.
if it were used in the stealth configuration, perhaps this property would justify the scheme, but in the form as it is - obviously not.

[Vadim237]

To see these problems with manageability, have already decided.

[Grigory_45]

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.

[yehat]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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)

[Altona]

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.

[Altona]

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.

[Altona]

Quote: Gregory_45

they have long been resolved by the introduction of a digital control system

--------------------------------
Here! So external intervention is possible!

[Korax71]

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

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Altona

So external intervention is possible!

as easy as tampering with a manned fighter's emf