US Navy Drone Tanker

[Longtimer]

Note the mission of operating off an aircraft carrier.Boeing (https://www.boeing.com/)




https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/nav/defense/mq25_meganav_70x52.jpgMQ-25 (https://www.boeing.com/defense/mq25/)



Boeing's MQ-25 is readyhttps://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/defense/mq25/mq25_1_310x215.jpgBoeing is bringing the future of unmanned aircraft carrier aviation to the U.S. Navy with its MQ-25. An unmanned aircraft system designed for the U.S. Navy mission, it will provide the needed robust refueling capability thereby extending the combat range of deployed Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Boeing EA-18G Growler, and Lockheed Martin F-35C fighters.

Our aircraft is ready for the mission, the flight deck and the U.S. Navy. Boeing has been delivering carrier aircraft to the Navy for more than 90 years – we know the flight deck. Our MQ-25 brings the right combination of refueling, autonomy, and seamless carrier deck integration to deliver a solution that meets the U.S. Navy’s goals: put a low-cost unmanned aerial refueling aircraft on the flight deck as soon as possible.

Boeing’s MQ-25 is ready.

Cubic to support Boeing's MQ-25 unmanned tanker for the US Navy
by Staff Writers
San Diego CA (SPX) Apr 23, 2019http://www.spxdaily.com/images-hg/unmanned-carrier-launched-surveillance-and-strike-uclass-mq-25-stingray-hg.jpg
File image of a MQ-25 Stingray variant.Cubic Corporation reports its Cubic Mission Solutions (CMS) business division has been awarded a contract by The Boeing Company to supply its Wideband Satellite Communications (SATCOM) modem system and Line-of-Sight (LOS) Common Data Link (CDL) system for the MQ-25 unmanned aerial refueling program."Our resilient, wideband communication solution will enable the MQ-25 to conduct its missions safely and securely," said Mike Twyman, president of Cubic Mission Solutions. "We are thrilled to continue our support of Boeing's innovative design for this critical platform."The MQ-25 is the U.S. Navy's first operational carrier-based unmanned aircraft and is designed to provide a much-needed refueling capability. The contract supports Boeing's engineering and manufacturing development program to provide four MQ-25 aircraft to the U.S. Navy for initial operational capability by 2024."The MQ-25 program is vital because it will help the U.S. Navy extend the range of the carrier air wing, and Boeing and our industry team is all-in on delivering this capability," said Dave Bujold, Boeing's MQ-25 program director. "The work we're doing is also foundational for the future of Boeing - where we're building autonomous systems from seabed to space."This latest contract will help support more than 30 jobs for Cubic, which is a data link supplier to a range of U.S. Navy defense programs.

[Ian W]

These Unmanned Aircraft are operating from carriers, air to air refueling - two of the most difficult piloting tasks, and will lead the way to reduced manning and eventually autonomous passenger aircraft. That is if they are not beaten to it by Urban Air Mobility autonomous aircraft from Uber Elevate

[Longtimer]

These Unmanned Aircraft are operating from carriers, air to air refueling - two of the most difficult piloting tasks, and will lead the way to reduced manning and eventually autonomous passenger aircraft. That is if they are not beaten to it by Urban Air Mobility autonomous aircraft from Uber Elevate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuWOUEFB_IQ)

You may find the following of interest. If the accuracy is as stated along with the weather conditions, the system would def. be of benefit to passenger aircraft also.Raytheon pitches USAF on F-35A auto-landing system

20 September, 2018
SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com
BY: Garrett Reim
Washington DC

After successfully integrating its Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) on F-35B fighters and a growing number of US Navy aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships, Raytheon is pitching a modified version of the system to the US Air Force for auto-landing F-35A aircraft at expeditionary airfields.

The company is in talks with the USAF on how exactly the service would like a portable system configured to automatically land the Lockheed Martin F-35A on remote airfields without traditional instrument landing systems. Such airfields may have difficult approaches due to surrounding mountains, bad weather or potential enemy fire.

Raytheon says it is building a Humvee portable version of JPALS which could be transported to expeditionary air bases aboard a C-130J transport and set up in 60 to 90 minutes. The system would be able to manage 50 different aircraft making different approaches within a radius of 20nm.

JPALS is a GPS-guided system that is secured with an anti-spoofing, anti-jamming data link. The program is already uploaded onto all versions of the F-35. Raytheon is aiming to add it to legacy aircraft as well, though the company hasn’t yet secured any contracts to do so.

Initially designed to help a pilot land on an aircraft carrier in poor visibility or after long, tiring flights, the auto-landing system can put down an aircraft in a 20cm by 20cm box, says Raytheon.

“It was so precise that when they were testing it that they were having to move around the touchdown point on the aircraft carrier because the deck was getting worn out by the tail hook hitting the same spot,” says Brooks Cleveland, Raytheon’s senior aviation advisor for precision landing systems.

[Capn Bloggs]

Boeing has been delivering carrier aircraft to the Navy for more than 90 years – we know the flight deck.
Really????

[Sailvi767]

You don’t think it’s a bit harder to land on a moving carrier than a fixed runway? It will be doing 10 to 30 knots speeds compounded with the deck heaving up and down and even rolling. I suspect that requires data links and software a order of magnitude more complex than a autoland to a fixed point.

[ironbutt57]

You don’t think it’s a bit harder to land on a moving carrier than a fixed runway? It will be doing 10 to 30 knots speeds compounded with the deck heaving up and down and even tolling. I suspect that requires data links and software a order of magnitude more complex than a autoland to a fixed point.

the Navy has had ACLS Automatic Carrier Landing System) in ops for decades

[Icarus2001]

Boeing has been delivering carrier aircraft to the Navy for more than 90 years – we know the flight deck.
Really????

https://www.boeing.com/history/

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1137

[pattern_is_full]

Indeed.
https://photos.usni.org/content/9875827png

[Victor Golf]

That's quite a large drone

[Capn Bloggs]

Boeing has been delivering carrier aircraft to the Navy for more than 90 years – we know the flight deck.
Really????
No, not really...

[DaveReidUK]

US Navy Boeing F2Bs on board USS Saratoga circa 1928:

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/441x273/boeing_f2b_1_fighters_including_buno_a_7437_on_the_flight_de ck_uss_saratoga_circa_1928__92b6bbc586623e07e5de4279c3d48449 eba0fb52.jpg

https://photobucket.com/gallery/user/Duggy009/media/cGF0aDpCb2VpbmcgRjJCL0JvZWluZyBGMkItMSBmaWdodGVycyBpbmNsdWRp bmcgQlVOTyBBLTc0Mzcgb24gdGhlIGZsaWdodCBkZWNrIFVTUyBTYXJhdG9n YSBjaXJjYSAxOTI4Li5qcGc=/?ref=

[sandiego89]

No, not really...

if you consider Boeing, McDonnel Douglas, Boeing then it works....

current “knowing the deck” is nearly exclusively due to the McDonnel Douglass acquisition. With a long line of F-18, F-4, A-4, early jets, WWII props, etc.

[hunterboy]

Any public figures on how much fuel it can offload?

[Lima Juliet]

Sshhh! Don’t tell BEagle as AAR Pilots have just been automated. Just like Navigators and Air Engineers have been over the past 10-15 years.

[orca]

Seems strange that the stealthy looking thing is the tanker not the striker!

[Sailvi767]

the Navy has had ACLS Automatic Carrier Landing System) in ops for decades

They do have ACLS, it’s vastly more complex than a ground based autoland and I don’t think has ever demonstrated a high enough level of operational readiness for a unmanned aircraft. In addition it can’t be used if the boat is operating in a combat Mode with no emitters online.

[KenV]

Boeing has been delivering carrier aircraft to the Navy for more than 90 years – we know the flight deck. Really????Yes, really. Boeing's first carrier aircraft was the Boeing Model 15, known in USN service as the FB. The F1B was Marine Corps only (land based only) and the F2B was designed for the carrier Langley. The F2B went into service in 1925. That's 94 years ago. The F2B was followed by the F3B (Boeing Model 74 USN bomber) which flew in 1928, 91 years ago, and served aboard Langley, Saratoga, and Lexington and served well into the mid 30s. The F4B (Boeing Model 89) was developed essentially at the same time as the F3B and shared its engine, but was a much smaller and lighter pure pursuit aircraft. So 90 years ago Boeing already had 3 different aircraft operating from USN carriers. And 89 years ago Boeing produced USN's first monoplane, the F5B.

And that completely ignores the countless Douglas carrier aircraft that were built starting in the 1930s. So between heritage Boeing, Douglas, and McDonnell (all of which are now Boeing), Boeing aircraft have been predominant aboard USN carriers from the very beginning of carrier aviation till the present.

[unmanned_droid]

Seems strange that the stealthy looking thing is the tanker not the striker!

I can forsee a future where the unmanned tanker goes downrange with the strike package, further than the manned tankers do today, to be able to increase time on station or radius of action for the strike package. It could also be very useful for electronic warfare and data information sharing.

[Capn Bloggs]

Stop smoking that stuff, Ken. All those Boeing F thingees were props and stopped flying over 70 years ago.

Just because you buy out a competitor only a spiv would call them "your" aeroplanes. You didn't design them, you didn't build them and you can't claim they're yours. Boeing Fake News.

[KenV]

Stop smoking that stuff, Ken. All those Boeing F thingees were props and stopped flying over 70 years ago.

Just because you buy out a competitor only a spiv would call them "your" aeroplanes. You didn't design them, you didn't build them and you can't claim they're yours. Boeing Fake News.Spiv? Oh my. You're taking this rather personally. The fact is, 90 years ago Boeing (not Douglas, not McDonnell) had already designed and built three different USN carrier aircraft. The fact they were biplanes and prop driven is totally beside the point. There were bleeding edge at the time and operating from carrier decks. And 89 years ago Boeing (not Douglas, not McDonnell) designed and built USN's first monoplane. Now Boeing has designed and are building USN's first operational carrier drone

Now, if I were to include Douglas, then the first Boeing USN carrier aircraft was the Douglas DT, which flew 98 years ago. And USN's first twin engine carrier aircraft, the Douglas T2D, flew 92 years ago.

Perhaps taking a deep breath before reading and posting would help your mood. Good luck with that.

[Capn Bloggs]

Ken, not accusing you of being a spiv, sorry if it came across that way. I was just pointing out that apart from those prop jobs over 80 years ago, Boeing has effectively not designed or built anything that has gone onto a carrier deck until this drone thing. No company with any common decency would claim that the A4, F4, F18 (and others like the F15, C-17) are "Boeings". I walk the halls of a Boeing sim centre and it just is so corny seeing posters of all these aeroplanes over the decades built by others but now claimed to be "Boeings". It really does demean the company, in my eyes.

[KenV]

...No company with any common decency would claim that the A4, F4, F18 (and others like the F15, C-17) are "Boeings". I walk the halls of a Boeing sim centre and it just is so corny seeing posters of all these aeroplanes over the decades built by others but now claimed to be "Boeings". It really does demean the company, in my eyes.Guess it all depends on your interpretation. Is the Harrier a British Aerospace product? Or a McDonnell Douglas product? Neither? Both? Is the F-16 a Lockheed product? Is the F-18 a McDonnell Douglas product? Or a Northrop product? Both? Is Chinook a Boeing product? Is a Boeing product only a Boeing product if it was designed and built in the Seattle area? If so, then this drone is not a Boeing product either. Dreamliner primary structure is built all over the world. Is it a Boeing product? F-35B has tremendous BAE content. Is it a Lockheed product?

[KenV]

Any public figures on how much fuel it can offload?From Wiki:

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).

Don't know if the delivered product meets or exceeds the above.

[ORAC]

Alert 5 » USN?s update on MQ-25A program - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2019/08/30/usns-update-on-mq-25a-program/)

USN’s update on MQ-25A program

The U.S. Navy published an update on the MQ-25A program on its Tester newsletter a few hours ago but the page is now offline. We managed to download screenshots of the article before the link went dead.

According to the article, second round testing of the Unmanned Carrier Aircraft (UCA) Mission Control Station (UMCS) “is planned for late fiscal year 2019 where the control station will be connected to Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command labs around the country to test the UMCS interaction with the networks necessary to control the MQ-25A wherever it may operate.”

The prototype is still on schedule to make its maiden flight this year and will reach VX-23 “in late 2021 to support an aggressive three-year test program to enable a 2024 Initial Operating Capability.”

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/596x1024/image_d1a14d44a487138b26c3bc35cab6a623373cab36.jpeg

[Engines]

dctPub,

You said that: "There is no difference to the UAV whether it has to land on a carrier deck or wide runway. Also flying a racetrack pattern doesn't seem particularly difficult and all aircraft flying today can do it. Not saying you are wrong about the unmanned bit but it's just odd that you decided to qualify the refuelling and landing on carrier as a technological breakthrough in unmanned flying'.

I might be able to help a little here, as I have some experience in development of aircraft for carrier ops.

There are very substantial difference between the way that air vehicles land on a land runway and the way they land on a carrier deck for an arrested landing. They need to carry out a carrier approach and landing at lower speeds (to stay within the limits of the carrier arresting gear and the deck area available to stop). They also need to arrive at the deck in a precise manner so as to reliably and repeatably engage the arresting wires. These drive specific aircraft design characteristics, of which a few are:

Larger wings and flaps to deliver lower approach speed
Larger physical control surfaces and highly responsive engines to deliver the very precise control required or approach and landing (note that the physical separation between the landing aircraft and parked aircraft is far less than on a land base)
Advanced flying control systems to drive the control surfaces
Much tougher (and larger and heavier) landing gear systems to handle the 'no flare' landings used. (let me stress this - carrier aircraft don't 'flare' before landing - they carry on down the glide slope all the way to the deck. Normal carrier landing vertical speeds will equate to 'crash case' for a land based aircraft.
Specific design requirements to ensure stable behaviour during and after high speed engagement withe the arresting wires.
Much tougher internal structure and systems to handle the higher loads and accelerations experienced during carrier landings.
I should add that a carrier based UAV also has to meet the unique requirements of catapult launch, which affect the entire air vehicle. Not least of the issues is the need to be able to transition from a rapid nose towed acceleration to controlled and safe flight as the aircraft leaves the catapult.

So yes, I'd characterise getting a large UAV on to and off a carrier flight deck safely and reliably (which they haven't quite done yet, but seem to be moving well towards) is a bit of a breakthrough. You might differ, and that's fine - this is a discussion forum. Anyway, I hope this helps.

Best regards as ever to all those doing the hard work in the real world,

Engines

[NutLoose]

Apparently the first UAV crews are going through the MQ-25A Stingray deck proficiency training now, a Captain Troy Tempest and his Nav/Weapons Operator Lieutenant George Lee Sheridan, callsign "Phones."

[unmanned_droid]

Engines,

The X47B both launched from and landed on a carrier deck underway in 2013.

[Engines]

unmanned_droid,

Thanks for coming back. Yes, I was aware of the X-47B stuff back in 2013. I apologise if I gave the impression that the team hadn't demonstrated launch and recoveries from the deck - but there is a big difference between doing this with an 'X plane' (which is basically a flying shape) under experimental test conditions (which is what they did in 2013) and getting an operationally effective aircraft (at representative weights) to carry out launch and recovery enough times under all the various conditions to be able to say that it's a sufficiently safe and reliable evolution that the USN can incorporate into their operational plans.

The fact that it's taken this long indicates (at least in my view) how hard it has been for the team to 'cross the t's and dot the i's'. By the way, this shouldn't be taken as any form of criticism. Getting from initial demonstrations to operational clearance is a long and tough process, and the team behind the MQ-25 deserve to be congratulated.

My main point was to try to explain why landing a UAV on a carrier is not at all like landing on a land runway. Again, my apologies if I didn't make that clear.

Best Regards as ever to all those dotting the i's and crossing the t's,

Engines

[NutLoose]

I take it this thing is flown by a crew onto the ships from some control station? Where are the crews, onboard ship? I ask because in rough seas it must be interesting as you will I take it be flying a visual approach to a ship while your body is sensing the roll and pitch not of the aircraft, but that of the ship.

if it is auto land I wonder how the system copes with the sudden and variable altitude change as it passes over the end of the ship.

[unmanned_droid]

I take it this thing is flown by a crew onto the ships from some control station? Where are the crews, onboard ship? I ask because in rough seas it must be interesting as you will I take it be flying a visual approach to a ship while your body is sensing the roll and pitch not of the aircraft, but that of the ship.

if it is auto land I wonder how the system copes with the sudden and variable altitude change as it passes over the end of the ship.
I don't think it's been made clear yet, however I don't see how it's going to be much different to the X-47B. The deck crew had a control unit for deck handling, and aircraft control can be carried out from anywhere you can get the sat link and GCS, so, on ship/off ship is fine.

I think the approach and landing is automatic. I.e. no person in the loop, except maybe a LSO type has a go-around switch.

To add, there is an operational carrier auto-land system in use (Super Hornets).

[unmanned_droid]

unmanned_droid,

Thanks for coming back. Yes, I was aware of the X-47B stuff back in 2013. I apologise if I gave the impression that the team hadn't demonstrated launch and recoveries from the deck - but there is a big difference between doing this with an 'X plane' (which is basically a flying shape) under experimental test conditions (which is what they did in 2013) and getting an operationally effective aircraft (at representative weights) to carry out launch and recovery enough times under all the various conditions to be able to say that it's a sufficiently safe and reliable evolution that the USN can incorporate into their operational plans.

The fact that it's taken this long indicates (at least in my view) how hard it has been for the team to 'cross the t's and dot the i's'. By the way, this shouldn't be taken as any form of criticism. Getting from initial demonstrations to operational clearance is a long and tough process, and the team behind the MQ-25 deserve to be congratulated.

My main point was to try to explain why landing a UAV on a carrier is not at all like landing on a land runway. Again, my apologies if I didn't make that clear.

Best Regards as ever to all those dotting the i's and crossing the t's,

Engines

I think I may have a slightly more optimistic outlook on the readiness of the appropriate systems, that's all. Whilst the X-47B had an X designation, I don't really class it as an 'X-plane'. I imagine that had more to do with politics.

Since the X-47B was an NG product, I imagine the cross fertilisation in the airframe and systems is limited to mostly people job swapping besides specifications laid out in the tender. Of course, much learning will have been captured by the operator during trials which will be being applied here, as I'm sure you know.

Always enjoy your posts.

UD

[Engines]

Unmanned,

Thanks for coming back. Disagreements are excellent, as they promote discussion, and I do think that the MQ-25 team are nearly there. As a somewhat gnarly old engineer, I just know that the last 5% of any programme can be a real bear to close out. The DoD OT&E report will be the key document. Again, BZ to the MQ-25 team for what they've already achieved.

I would gently argue that the X-47B was pretty much a flying shape, and I'd expect that there has been very substantial redesign of the internal structure and systems to get to the MQ-25. But that doesn't diminish the value of an 'X' programme at all. In my experience, in the US 'X' means 'X'.

Nutloose raised a very good point about the sudden change in altitude as the air vehicle passes over the end of the ship. I'd suspect that the answer is that the landing guidance system (very probably JPALS) is using the flight deck at the point of engaging the wires as the reference 'zero altitude' for the approach, and not the sea. Anyone out there with better knowledge?

Best regards as ever to those clever Navair engineers at Pax River,

Engines

[unmanned_droid]

Well, the MQ25 is an entirely different product to the X-47B so, yes, I imagine there is quite a lot of design differences! :)

Googling JPALS gives the following slides:

PMA-213 JPALS | HTii (http://www.htii.com/customers-and-programs/pma-213-jpals/)

"While JPALS provides enhanced capability to existing aircraft, it is a critical component of the JSF’s all-weather capability and the only currently envisioned way to operate large unmanned aircraft from ships at sea."

EMALS & JPALS for the JSF - General F-35 Forum (http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&start=15)

End of page 2 has a slide with JPALS 'success' condition

That success box will probably be moving with the ship rotations so the course correction is continually recalculated.

[BEagle]

From Wiki:
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).


15000 / 4 = 3750lb each. At 8lb / imp. gallon, that makes 469 imp gallon each - about the same as 2 x 230 gallon Hunter drop tanks....

Surely no-one is going to risk AAR returning to the ship without any diversions, so I suppose this drone will be used to refuel missions outbound to the target.

[ORAC]

First flight. Lands like a carrier aircraft - no flare, just put it firmly on the deck.

https://youtu.be/YxDT-l3lZJs

[flighthappens]

15000 / 4 = 3750lb each. At 8lb / imp. gallon, that makes 469 imp gallon each - about the same as 2 x 230 gallon Hunter drop tanks....

Surely no-one is going to risk AAR returning to the ship without any diversions, so I suppose this drone will be used to refuel missions outbound to the target.

blue water carrier ops are a thing... and when conducting blue water ops there is a tanker up... might not be a “going in game plan” but they will be there..

https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=56787

[Icare9]

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't stealth technology intended to conceal your airframe/asset from detection?
So how is the refuelling aircraft going to locate the tanker, without giving away both aircraft?

[ORAC]

Appearances to the contrary, the MQ-25 is not stealthy and it was not a requirement. Check out the planform, and the refuelling pods, once fitted, will increase it substantially.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1021x580/image_4144efc583e331ecc6dea369f6643ebf90e306f8.jpeg

[BEagle]

Presumably that image shows 2 x AAR pods for system redundancy reasons? Because with such a small wingspan, there's no way that the drone can refuel 2 fighters simultaneously....

[unmanned_droid]

Starboard wing is a fuel tank - no RAT, different shape.

The position of the intake and the low angle of the stabilisers indicates radar cross section at least at one point was a design driver.

[ORAC]

http://aviationweek.com/blog/why-does-boeings-mq-25-prototype-look-so-stealthy

[unmanned_droid]

http://aviationweek.com/blog/why-does-boeings-mq-25-prototype-look-so-stealthy

Yes, we're not looking at the low RCS variant, and things like non-optimised data probes and door edges are just what happens in design when you remove the requirement. Cost/time savings are always being looked for. Those are easy ones to achieve. Changing the OML and basic config are not.

Interestingly things like doors and data probes are also easy ones to revert.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/24/boeing-preparing-for-the-next-big-step-testing-the-us-navys-new-aerial-tanker-drone/

Boeing preps for next test of US Navy’s future aerial tanker drone

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy’s aircraft carrier-borne tanker drone, the MQ-25 Stingray (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/09/19/the-us-navys-new-autonomous-refueling-drone-takes-historic-first-flight/), is preparing to head into the fall resuming test flights, this time with the crucial fuel store pod attached. The store pod — the same one integrated into the Navy’s stalwart F/A-18 Super Hornet for aerial refueling — was recently integrated into the MQ-25 (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/06/10/if-the-us-navy-isnt-careful-its-new-unmanned-tanker-drone-could-face-a-3-year-delay/)test article under the wing.

“When we resume flight testing later this year, we’ll have the opportunity to gather test points about the aerodynamics of that pod and the software commands that control it — all happening well before we deliver the Navy’s first MQ-25 jet with the same pod,” MQ-25 program director Dave Bujold said in a statement from the aircraft’s manufacturer, Boeing. “That early testing and early software development is a big part of supporting the Navy’s goal to get MQ-25 to the fleet as quickly as possible,” he added.

The engineers will primarily observe the aerodynamics of the pod mounted on the Stingray test article, then seeing how the hose and drogue behave while being dragged behind the airframe.....

[sycamore]

Has the USN/USAF ever tried using an existing aircraft ,ie A4,A3,F-4, as a drone tanker in the past for trial purposes...?

[The AvgasDinosaur]

I just hope it actually works better than their KC-46 contraption !
David

[unmanned_droid]

Has the USN/USAF ever tried using an existing aircraft ,ie A4,A3,F-4, as a drone tanker in the past for trial purposes...?

No they haven't. There have been trials using drones for formation flying and in flight refuelling in the past (X-47 did some of that work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orTsIRPT0Ts )

[chopper2004]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35004/this-is-our-first-look-at-boeings-mq-25-tanker-drone-carrying-a-refueling-pod


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1078/eaac13ff_43f1_4bc3_b9b3_907d8555ab30_28451618a0d0b501ca652b9 0ae88c2c1b6f58b30.jpeg

[ORAC]

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2540393/navy-announces-release-of-mq-25a-home-basing-final-environmental-assessment-and/no/

Navy Announces Release of MQ-25A Home Basing Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

The Navy has released a final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for home basing of the MQ-25A Stingray carrier-based Unmanned Air System (Stingray CBUAS) at Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) Point Mugu, California.

The Proposed Action is to establish facilities and functions at NBVC Point Mugu, California, to support home basing and operations of the MQ-25A Stingray CBUAS.

Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would home base 20 Stingray CBUAS; construct a hangar, training facilities, and supporting infrastructure; perform air vehicle maintenance; provide training for operators and maintainers; conduct approximately 960 Stingray CBUAS annual flight operations; and station approximately 730 personnel, plus their family members.

The Stingray will enhance aircraft carrier capability and versatility through the integration of a persistent, sea-based, multi-mission aerial refueling and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance unmanned aerial system into the carrier air wing.

The Stingray will extend the range and reach of carrier air wings on the West Coast to meet current and future threats and enhance refueling and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities in support of national defense objectives and policies.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/NAVAIRNews/status/1401872894993518602?s=20

[chopper2004]

Appearances to the contrary, the MQ-25 is not stealthy and it was not a requirement. Check out the planform, and the refuelling pods, once fitted, will increase it substantially.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1021x580/image_4144efc583e331ecc6dea369f6643ebf90e306f8.jpeg


First AAR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2uGkF2J1Y0

Cheers

[CAEBr]

Despite it coming from the 'Daily Fail' this article nontheless contains some good pictures of the first tanking by an F/A 18 from the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray drone. An interesting comparison with Boeing's AAR platform for the Air Force.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9662675/Navys-tanker-drone-makes-history-refueling-manned-aircraft-time.html

[LOMCEVAK]

Anyone know how much fuel it can carry?

[ORAC]

Existing thread.

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/620906-us-navy-very-large-drone.html

As to the question - 15K offload at 500nm and then return to carrier.

[NutLoose]

Does it have drone to drone capability to extend its range?

[ORAC]

No, not fitted a probe, nor the software and sensors to be able to use one.

[sycamore]

Not yet....

[ORAC]

Maybe, but a few years away. Last DARPA trial was back in 2015. Research contract put out to tender in 2017.

https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1208269

[Flypro]

Surely, the way ahead is for a drone tanker to fuel a drone fighter ?

[Top West 50]

Interesting. Way back, when TTSC were proposing a 767 FSTA, Boeing resisted the concept of a 2- man crew preferring to design the cockpit round an additional crew member to operate the (automatic) refuelling equipment!

[sandiego89]

Deceiving size perhaps. I thought she looked small compared to the F/A-18F when passing gas in the air to air photos and thought a 15,000 pound offload would be tough to fit in that airframe, but then on the ground next to ground crew she looks quite, ahem, thick around the mid-section.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35004/this-is-our-first-look-at-boeings-mq-25-tanker-drone-carrying-a-refueling-pod

[ORAC]

Surely, the way ahead is for a drone tanker to fuel a drone fighter ?
No, the optimum is for a large multipoint tanker, to reach an orbit point at a safe range behind the combat zone and fill up a load of drone tankers such as the MQ-25 which can then tour the CAPs filling up the fighters or join COMAOs penetrating enemy airspace.

That frees up the larger tankers to get back on the ground ASAP to refuel and get back up again maximising their TOT. As well as reducing their risk, as HVAs, of being engaged.

[ORAC]

USN to pick initial cadre of Aviation Warrant Officers to fly MQ-25 ? Alert 5 (http://alert5.com/2021/07/01/usn-to-pick-initial-cadre-of-aviation-warrant-officers-to-fly-mq-25/)

USN to pick initial cadre of Aviation Warrant Officers to fly MQ-25

The U.S. Navy will select the initial cadre of Aviation Warrant Officers to fly the MQ-25 on Aug. 2. Qualified Sailors and civilians are to submit their applications by Jul. 26.

The sailing branch expects to recruit roughly 450 aviation warrants for this mission.

Successful applicants will first complete Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island, and pass out as Warrant Officer One (W-1). They must then complete basic flight training as well as advanced training on the MQ-25.

For more information, hit the Source below

Source (https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2676584/navy-announces-initial-aviation-warrant-officer-selection-board/)

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2021/08/04/boeing-conducts-first-manned-unmanned-teaming-event-with-mq-25-tanker/

Boeing conducts first manned-unmanned teaming event with MQ-25 tanker

[ORAC]

https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/MQ-25-achieves-another-first-conducts-air-air-refueling-E-2D/Wed-08182021-1236

MQ-25 achieves another first, conducts air-to-air refueling with E-2D

The Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Aviation program completed its first aerial refueling flight with an E-2D aircraft Aug.18 at MidAmerica Airport in Mascoutah, Illinois.

The Boeing-owned MQ-25 test asset, known as T1, transferred fuel to an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, the newest variant of the E-2 platform which was upgraded with an aerial refueling capability in 2019…..

During the six-hour flight, Navy E-2D pilots from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Two Zero (VX) 20 approached T1, performed formation evaluations, wake surveys, drogue tracking and plugs with the MQ-25 test asset at 220 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS) and 10,000 feet.

This test allows the program to analyze the aerodynamic interaction of the two aircraft. The team can then determine if any adjustments to guidance and control are required and make those software updates early, with no impact to the developmental test schedule.

T1 testing will continue over the next several months to include flight envelope expansion, engine testing, and deck handling demonstrations aboard an aircraft carrier before the MQ-25 engineering, manufacturing and development aircraft are delivered next year……

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/608x340/20210818_mq_25_refueling_e_2d_1_f_05b598046fdb31f8f597c19892 922cc0b4d47f8e.jpg

https://twitter.com/boeingdefense/status/1428328049045655552?s=21

[Mark Cassidy]

Folks,

Does anyone know what the offload figures are for the current super hornet thats currently in the role?

I know the stingray is 15000lb @ 500nm , but I can't seem to get the figures for the Super Hornet. I have tried boeings website and general searches bit all that comes up is news articles that mention the passing of fuel between Stingray and Super Hornets.

Regards

Mark

[ORAC]

https://navy-matters.********.com/2020/06/navy-aerial-refueling.html

[Ninthace]

https://navy-matters.********.com/2020/06/navy-aerial-refueling.html
I am getting a broken link

[ORAC]

That because it has a bl*gspot in the middle.

Here it is using a TinyURL.

https://tinyurl.com/b5y5j4rt

[jolihokistix]

Can anyone see them doing this with an Osprey?

[Asturias56]

Pity the MQ25's won't fit on a QE................

Osprey would be a useful buy tho'

[ORAC]

Pity the MQ25's won't fit on a QE................
If you read other threads, the RN is investigating fitting Cat & Trap suitable for the weight of the MQ-25 to the carriers.

[Asturias56]

I know - can you imagine the cost? And the time it will take?

[Mil-26Man]

If you read other threads, the RN is investigating fitting Cat & Trap suitable for the weight of the MQ-25 to the carriers.

Is it specifically cats and traps? I thought the RFI referred only to aircraft launch and recovery systems.

[henra]

Is it specifically cats and traps? I thought the RFI referred only to aircraft launch and recovery systems.
Are you able to conceive any other strategy how to lauch a fuel- laden MQ-25 from a carrier without a cat? And retrieve afterwards (ideally in one piece and re- useable) without a trap?

[Asturias56]

I could see how you can launch it from a QE type carrier - more JATO bottles - but recovery is an issue.

And at $ 155 mm a pop you really DO want to recover them intact

[Mil-26Man]

Yes, as it happens, henra. The ScanEagle uses a mobile catapult and skyhook system for launch and recovery, and something upscaled could conceibly be developed for the QE (as well as not referring directly to cats and traps, the RFI did not refer to the MQ-25 by name either).

That, or JATO for launch and a crash barrier-type solution for recovery.


Such solutions would not require extensive structural mods to the ship.

[Mark Cassidy]

That because it has a bl*gspot in the middle.

Here it is using a link

Thanks for this much obliged

[ORAC]

The ScanEagle weights 20Kg, the MQ-25 weighs around 20,000Kg……

The structure of the MQ-25 is designed to use a catapult, not JATO (which are highly volatile and is one reason they stopped be used in stored in land, let alone at sea) and their use would also need extensive and expensive software changes and trials.

On a similar basis a barrier arrestor system would almost undoubtedly be more complex and heavier than a cable - and of course the MQ-25 is alread6 fitted with a hook and has the software to land using it and is internally stressed to do so.

One way or another, if they are really needed, sticking with the method it’s designed to use would undoubtedly be cheaper in the long run.

[Mil-26Man]

The ScanEagle weights 20Kg, the MQ-25 weighs around 20,000Kg……

The structure of the MQ-25 is designed to use a catapult, not JATO (which are highly volatile and is one reason they stopped be used in stored in land, let alone at sea) and their use would also need extensive and expensive software changes and trials.

On a similar basis a barrier arrestor system would almost undoubtedly be more complex and heavier than a cable - and of course the MQ-25 is alread6 fitted with a hook and has the software to land using it and is internally stressed to do so.

One way or another, if they are really needed, sticking with the method it’s designed to use would undoubtedly be cheaper in the long run.

Again, the RFI doesn't name the MQ-25 but yes, any ScanEagle type solution would need to be upscaled for a future large UAV to fly of the QE/PoW.

The RFI is for the MoD to see what potential solutions there might be, the only point I was making is that it might not be traditional cats and traps, which in turn might not require too much structural mods to the carriers.

[ORAC]

I agree it has been a fad to write contracts about the desired end effect rather than specify a means - i.e. To be able to destroy XX at range XX in condition XX, rather than specify you want a jet with bombs, and let the bidders decide if the want to offer a Zeppelin, jet, cruise missile or artillery.

But if the invitation to tender is from the navy I'd tend to lean towards what they're likely to see as a the best and least risky option....

[Video Mixdown]

Again, the RFI doesn't name the MQ-25 but yes, any ScanEagle type solution would need to be upscaled for a future large UAV to fly of the QE/PoW.

The RFI is for the MoD to see what potential solutions there might be, the only point I was making is that it might not be traditional cats and traps, which in turn might not require too much structural mods to the carriers.
I’d be surprised if at least one proposal is not a jet powered STOL UAV. It would need lift augmentation devices to perform a ski-jump take off and SRVL landing, but technologies to provide that are well known.

[ORAC]

I’d be surprised if at least one proposal is not a jet powered STOL UAV. It would need lift augmentation devices to perform a ski-jump take off and SRVL landing, but technologies to provide that are well known.
I'd be incredibly surprised if it was - because the Request for Information to industry is to assess the state of electromagnetic launch and arrestor technology available for fitting to the aircraft carriers with the RfI demanding a solution that is “sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023”.

https://www.navylookout.com/cats-traps-and-uas-the-royal-navy-considers-options-for-carrier-launched-drones/

[SLXOwft]

I'd be incredibly surprised if it was - because the Request for Information to industry is to assess the state of electromagnetic launch and arrestor technology available for fitting to the aircraft carriers with the RfI demanding a solution that is “sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023”.

https://www.navylookout.com/cats-traps-and-uas-the-royal-navy-considers-options-for-carrier-launched-drones/

Yes, no 'jet powered STOL UAV' in 2023 - but the RFI is about the launch and recovery systems; the air vehicles to be launched and recovered vehicles aren't just those available at that time, this is a long term capability. It includes potential crewed vehicles :eek:. A suitable vessel doesn't necessarily just mean a CV - just deck space (and hangarage) for the vehicle(s); power and room for the launch and recovery systems and their control/operation systems (and operators).

(Excerpts from the RFI - emphases are mine)

4. Requested Information:
The Authority wishes to assess the availability of electromagnetic catapult, and arrestor wire systems for the launch and recovery of air vehicles.

Potential suppliers and interested parties are invited to provide information in relation to potential solutions which are sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023.

Potential arrestor solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max trap 47000lbs / 21319Kg
b. Min trap 11000lbs / 5000Kg
c. Energy damping method
d. Potential for energy reclamation

Potential catapult solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max launch weight 55000lbs / 24948Kg
b. Electrical power input required against launch cycle time.

However:


The RN is driving hard to introduce a range of un-crewed air vehicles options for the use of different air vehicles types within the Fleet.

2. Background
The Ministry of Defence (The “Authority”) is currently seeking information in order to qualify requirements and develop our understanding of the potential for the market to provide assisted launch and arrested recover for a range of air vehicles, which would be
suitable to fit to a vessel within 3 - 5 years. This is to support the development of the RN’s Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) with potential for use with both crewed and uncrewed air vehicles.

The Authority intends to use the responses to this RFI to inform future decision making regarding potential air vehicle choices.

[henra]

Yes, no 'jet powered STOL UAV' in 2023 - but the RFI is about the launch and recovery systems; the air vehicles to be launched and recovered vehicles aren't just those available at that time, this is a long term capability.

And that makes quite lot of sense. It is foreseeable that In the next two decades numerous types of UAV will be developped. Of those >90% without STOVL capability. Thus, preparing for CATOBAR would open up way more options for usefull Flightdeck decoration. And each of these things will be way cheaper (and more performant) than if it has to do the Harrier.

[sycamore]

Lots of spare `Hoovers` in storage....

[ORAC]

Think more MQ- 25 and XQ-58 Valkyrie….

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/air-forces-new-drone-loyal-wingman-has-arrived-controlled-f-22s-and-f-35s-169090

[Asturias56]

"In the next two decades numerous types of UAV will be developed. Of those >90% without STOVL capability"

Indeed - and so the options for the RN are going to be limited. I just can't see serious funds being made available to make big changes to the PoW class - and putting in any CATOBAR will be expensive

[henra]

I just can't see serious funds being made available to make big changes to the PoW class - and putting in any CATOBAR will be expensive
The question will be how compact an EMALS Solution can be shrinked and how the required electric energy for this could be provided. Any kind of Steam catapult we can forget, I guess. No way you would be able to squeeze that in somewhere as an afterthought.
For Recovery I'm curious to see what ideas come up. QE/PoW don't have angled decks and you would probably not want to land straight in towards the ramp, in case you miss the wire/wire breakage.

[Asturias56]

Stopping a 20 tonne MQ25 is a tough challenge but a flat/angled deck at the back of something big might work for something smaller - bit like the old "Argos"

[ORAC]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/what-will-the-royal-navys-new-vixen-jets-look-like/

What will the Royal Navy’s new Vixen jets look like?

….According to an official Royal Navy publication, titled Future Maritime Aviation Force, which was originally published in December 2020, the Royal Navy aims to replace its helicopter-based airborne early warning (AEW) platform, the Merlin HM2 Crowsnest, with a fixed-wing UAV, currently known as Vixen, by 2030.

The Royal Navy also expects to utilise Vixen in surveillance, air-to-air refueling, electronic warfare and strike roles. A slide from the publication shows that Vixen could be used for airborne early warning, strike, aerial refuelling and more.You can read more about the aerial surveillance side of things by clicking here (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-looking-at-fixed-wing-carrier-based-drone-for-aew/) and the aerial refuelling aspect by clicking here (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-considering-carrier-based-drones-for-aerial-refuelling/).What will they look like?Project Vixen also parallels the Mosquito project, part of the Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) initiative.

Naval Technology reported here (https://www.naval-technology.com/news/royal-navy-project-vixen-exploring-potential-carrier-uas/) that the Royal Navy and RAF are working together to study potential platforms for Mosquito and Vixen, suggesting that a common drone could be fielded fby both services.

We reported recently that the uncrewed fighter aircraft demonstrator for LANCA, known as Mosquito, will begin a flight-test programme in 2023……

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/30m-injection-for-uks-first-uncrewed-fighter-aircraft

£30-million injection for UK’s first uncrewed fighter aircraft


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/300x195/image_6ae36e4d222938d7d1674a24ef2c66e19dda0336.jpeg

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-looking-at-fixed-wing-carrier-based-drone-for-aew/


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1277x891/ptzefxio_diagram1_02f2795e28c3bf52191da64b7185a0a59639be2f.j pg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vixen

[SLXOwft]

I am slightly intrigued by the difference in max trap and max launch weights = 8000 lbs /3629 kg, which suggests no immediate recovery if technical problems occur soon after launch.

The required weights suggests something much more substantial than an XQ-58A (MTOW <3 tonnes) or Reaper (MTOW <5 tonnes) sized UAV. From an AAR viewpoint both MTOWs are less than the 6.3 tonnes fuel transfer payload from the Bug or Stingray (the USN's target for CBARS was 6.8 tonnes to 4+ a/c at 500nmi); an almost dry F-35B can take in the region of 6 tonnes but one assumes the RN is looking at extending the 450 nmi combat radius (Internal fuel only).

As I have (half-jokingly) said before the RN isn't the only Navy needing to solve the problem; does affordability (and light weight) rule out a new integration for the RR liftsystem? I assume it has already ruled out enough power for STOBAR a la MiG-29K?

The RFI specifies an arrestor wire system - with a UAV how many wires are required? If they are truly looking for inovation does it have to be a wire - EMAAS:)? Why can't an EMALS follow the ramp profile? The MiG-29K suggest ramps can be used without thrust vectoring - so why not for a lighter UAV - isn't it mainly a question of having sufficient thrust to acheive enough forward velocity (and by implication lift) for sustained controlled flight before it leaves the ramp?

[henra]

Why can't an EMALS follow the ramp profile?
Maybe you might be able to use a shorter EMALS which ends before the ramp?! The ramp will help by gving more height and path angle so you could even slightly unload after leaving the ramp..

[tdracer]

Maybe you might be able to use a shorter EMALS which ends before the ramp?! The ramp will help by gving more height and path angle so you could even slightly unload after leaving the ramp..

With a properly designed drone, you don't have the limitations on accel rate that you have with piloted aircraft - no concerns with the pilot blacking out or otherwise not being able to control the aircraft immediately after launch.

[Asturias56]

I'm amazed it "will be in service by 2030". Eight years for a new system? And one that has to be tested with both aircraft and ships??

the peacetime record would suggest that's a tad optimistic?

[henra]

With a properly designed drone, you don't have the limitations on accel rate that you have with piloted aircraft - no concerns with the pilot blacking out or otherwise not being able to control the aircraft immediately after launch.
That's a good point! Perhaps it might really be possible to squeeze a rather short EMALS catapult in front of the ramp, ending where the curvature of the deck begins.For the energy required this will not make much of a difference, only peak power would have to be increased. With EMALS that might be easier than with a steam system.

[safetypee]

td, henra; a more significant problem is with the aircraft structure, nose leg compression; - total energy.

Faster off the ramp has advantages - vectored thrust not required, higher takeoff wt, but the aircraft structure has to account for ‘V squared’ in the energy equation when entering and ‘rotating’ on the ramp.

I recall a Harrier incident where the takeoff distance was miscalculated - the roll required before the ramp inadvertently added the ramp length; fast on the ramp, nose-leg ‘exploded’ due to over compression.

[henra]

td, henra; a more significant problem is with the aircraft structure, nose leg compression; - total energy.

OK, that could indeed be an issue. The ramp radius will be optimised for STOVL speeds, not for CTOL speeds. Devil's in the detail...

[tdracer]

td, henra; a more significant problem is with the aircraft structure, nose leg compression; - total energy.

Faster off the ramp has advantages - vectored thrust not required, higher takeoff wt, but the aircraft structure has to account for ‘V squared’ in the energy equation when entering and ‘rotating’ on the ramp.

Hence the "properly designed drone" comment. It may not be a stock-standard MQ-25 (or whatever drone they decide to use).

[ORAC]

With the higher acceleration a large angled deck extension might not be needed, a diagonal catapult in the space behind the ramp should be more than adequate.

[Asturias56]

I don't think getting them off a medium sized vessel is a big problem - firing things of all sizes is something Navy's do rather well - it's getting them back on that requires space and (possibly) go-round areas

[BEagle]

Back in 2000 during the pre-Christmas 'visits season' at Mount Pleasant, some MP turned up to wander about, look at the penguins, visit the odd radar site etc. At some dinner, the topic of the future carriers came up and he was interested in our opinions. We tried to make him realise that a well-designed 'conventional' carrier could operate V/STOL aircraft and conventional aircraft, but a carrier without catapults and arrestor cables could only operate V/STOL....

If the QE2 class had been built with an angled deck and a STO ski jump, the RN could have operated a mix of F-35B and F-35C as well as drones. But to retrofit some launch and recovery system only for drones will be a very expensive programme, especially as the ships still won't be able to cross-deck with F/A-18, F-35C etc......

[Asturias56]

They panicked as the cost of the QE's shot up and cancelled the Cat & Trap option. They said it could be retrofitted later but the builders hadn't been consulted IIRC

[Not_a_boffin]

They panicked as the cost of the QE's shot up and cancelled the Cat & Trap option. They said it could be retrofitted later but the builders hadn't been consulted IIRC

Nope. What actually happened was :

1. CVF Variant D (what became QEC) was designed with adequate space, weight, power provision for installation of catapults and arrester gear. Worst case of EMALS/AAR or the old BS6 steam, plus DA2 used to size this. This included provision in the arrangement (primarily 2 deck, but some spaces on 8/9 decks) for the relevant kit, the electrical distribution system sized to accommodate EMALS and the overall structural arrangement set up to accommodate this. But only at basic design level (ie you know you've got the ability to fit it, but there has to be a lot of detailed design work conducted to sort out the relevant seatings, cable routes, fire protection etc etc). The detailed design work to do so was never contracted because the CTOL option was only for use in the event that the B was horrifically short or its KPP, or got canned. The working assumption was that STOVL would be the operating mode using the B.

2. Despite many issues the B continued to progress - even when on probation - and so the button on detailed design (which is heavy on design resource) was never pressed. The ships were (finally) contracted after years of prevarication by one G Brown Esq (contrary to popular myth - and only at the last minute when he desperately needed a bit of popularity) and once detailed design and production was underway that was BVT and Babcock resource committed. Because the B was looking better, no-one thought the CTOL detailed design effort was necessary.

3. By the time Cameron came along, fabrication was well underway and it would have taken a significant amount of time and resource to stop the job and start re-doing the detailed design. Time during which, a lot of the ACA production staff would have had nothing productive to do, while they waited for the new set of design info - all of which would have been chargeable to the contract. That additional cost and time taken was significant - sufficiently significant that it would have increased the overall cost significantly, delayed in-service date with a number of other knock-ons too. There were also one or two ITAR issues in getting access to sufficiently detailed EMALS/AAR information as well AIUI.

4. As it transpired EMALS itself was undergoing some development issues at the time, increasing the overall risk calculation.

All the above resulted in the risk balance remaining in favour of STOVL and the B. It will be interesting to see what responses come back to the RFI exercise. Much of this I suspect is being driven by two factors :

a) Perception of Crowsnest programme risk vs benefit (and potential need for a follow-on Merlin order to generate enough frames for all demands)
b) Desire to get some form of UCAV able to operate from QEC to increase mass and dovetail with Tempest (including not forcing a STOVL version thereof)

One other thing to note. If you're going to use CTOL mode, do it for the whole air wing. A mix of STOVL and CTOL (which is in effect what STOBAR is) really does complicate your deck operations and is probably teh worst of both worlds. Deck length and clearance for an arrested landing, coupled with the take off run required for STO really eats into your safe parking area, which means either fewer aircraft parked and hence less sorties - or more chockheads to respot more frequently. That's in addition to the badgers and shooters that you'd need to run the cats and arrester systems..

[SLXOwft]

Although some of what I say below is covered by Not_a_Boffin's reasoned and much better informed post; I am still going to inflict you with my bank holiday musings.:E

If I recall correctly a hybrid arrangement was 'briefly considered' but dropped on cost grounds in 2000. One of the arguments for the increased size of the ships (over the original plan) is flexibility for future 'enhancements' on the 'steel is cheap and air is free' principle, but as in most projects it's way cheaper to do things up front. Add to that no serious contingency planning and not having a contractual requirement, even though the convertibility allegedly contributed most of the extra cost of the Delta option chosen. During the SDR 2010 dalliance with CATOBAR and F-35C the delivery date was said to be 2023. EMALS, however, is still not meeting the required level of reliability for the USN,so I assume that means two cats are going to have to be fitted that plus a probable angled approach is going to eat a large proportion of currently available deck parking (or can UAV bolters be assumed to avoid striking the ramp?). I do wonder if a STOVL/F-35B combo was partly required to justify continued UK F-35 participation, An all C buy would never make sense but a split A/C (or A/B) purchase would have brought diversity costs - CATOBAR from the start would have probably led to a cheaper less capable aircraft e.g. F/A-18, Rafale M or Typhoon M when the financial screws were tightened. That would have brought all the problems associated with a small RN only fleet e.g. getting enough pilots.

One thing I don't think has been mentioned is the MQ-25's (extended) wing span, at 23 metres it is more than double that of an F-35, 25% more that a Merlin's rotor diameter, and almost a third of the QA's overall beam. The more I think about it, the less likely I believe it will be the UK UAV AAR solution. My concern is whatever comes out of Project Vixen will be a Jack of all trades and ...

I assume the Osprey RoRo refueling pod rules out the US DoD having any undisclosed plans to operate UAV tankers from LHAs. It seems to me to make sense to supplement or replace AAR from Ospreys but the assumptions are probably: a CVN will always be in range to supply AAR if needed; littoral ops do not require a dedicated resource to provide the additional range/endurance. If they do have, it would be in the RN's interest as the LHAs' decks are c. 20m shorter than the QEs'. Though I believe the realistic solution is to find the money for some Ospreys for COD and podded AAR. It is clear, however that the UK MoD message is, 'if it CAN be done by a UAV it WILL be' i.e. 'FMAF, the rapid transformation of crewed aviation roles (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, Communications, Lift and Strike) to uncrewed'. RN aircrew are an endangered species.

I don't think getting them off a medium sized vessel is a big problem - firing things of all sizes is something Navy's do rather well - it's getting them back on that requires space and (possibly) go-round areas

Asturias - 'twasn't ever thus; I was musing on the Walrus at the weekend (MTOW c. 3.6 tonnes), which could be catapulted off a light cruiser, in those pre-RW piston-engined days recovery by landing on the oggin and crane was the only option; even in these days of autonomous UAVs that's almost certainly out of scope for a jet-powered fw aircraft. :}

[Asturias56]

Thanks guys - very informative - and shows just how tough its going to be to get anything of any size to do the job.

Maybe get a couple of old cross channel ferries, cut them down and turn them into Escort Carriers a la 1944...............

[tdracer]

I would add - as a designer - "provisions" during the design/build phase are only as good as the knowledge of what you're provisioning for. If what you're provisioning for is well understood and basically already designed, provisions can be done rather effectively and cost effective. OTOH, when the system you're attempting to provision for is still under development, you end up with so many unknowns that the provisions become basically worthless. You end up spending a bunch of time and money designing provisions that don't work and would need to be torn out and re-done if the 'provisioned for' system is ever actually implemented.

Been there, done that...

[Asturias56]

I know the feeling................................... :(

[ORAC]

Well if you take the Boeing/RAAF Loyal Wingman as an indicative size, that’s is 36ft long with a wingspan of 24ft.

[Mil-26Man]

Talking of drones on carriers...

https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1433055000876433416

[ORAC]

Reference possibilities for possible suppliers and launch and recovery of the Vuxen UCAV from the carriers - and other platforms - interesting to see the latest Skyborg trials using USN markings, ZELL (zero length launch) and parachute recovery…..

https://youtu.be/IUK6sEka45Y

[Asturias56]

That works but a very expensive piece of kit like an MQ25 parachuting into the ocean on a regular basis is unlikely to be a great idea TBH

[ORAC]

True - but you couldn’t hang one of those under the wing or in the bomb bay of a bomber/transport either.

[Asturias56]

Good God man!

the have to operate off ships - the RN won't buy them otherwise........

[Lonewolf_50]

Looks like they will be building them in Saint Louis.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/09/18/boeing-build-navy-aircraft-midamerica-invest-200m.html?ESRC=navy-a_210922.nl
18 Sep 2021
Associated Press | By JOHN O'CONNORSPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Chicago-based aerospace giant Boeing Co. will invest $200 million to begin manufacturing the U.S. Navy's latest unmanned aircraft at MidAmerica St. Louis Airport in a project that could add at least 150 jobs on the company's southwest Illinois campus, officials said Friday.

Boeing will build the MQ-25 Stingray, the Navy's first carrier-based unmanned aircraft in a state-of-the-art plant of about 300,000 square feet. The company has been under contract developing and testing the craft since 2018

[ORAC]

Now they have a radar to fit….

https://www.raytheonintelligenceandspace.com/news/advisories/raytheon-intelligence-space-launches-new-compact-aesa-radar-any-platform

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., (September 21, 2021) – Raytheon Intelligence & Space, a Raytheon Technologies business, introduced today an affordable, lightweight and compact Active Electronically Scanned Array, or AESA, radar. It harnesses the capability of a heavyweight AESA fire control radar in its lightest form factor ever – at a fraction of the cost.….

At just over 100 pounds, the new compact radar is a third of the weight of most modern AESA radars and costs about half as much as typical fire control radars. It combines the power of Gallium Nitride, or GaN, technology with an innovative packaging of its digital receiver/exciter and processor called CHIRP, and a unique air-cooled design to deliver Gen 4-plus performance.….

[sandiego89]

Now they have a radar to fit….

https://www.raytheonintelligenceandspace.com/news/advisories/raytheon-intelligence-space-launches-new-compact-aesa-radar-any-platform

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., (September 21, 2021) – Raytheon Intelligence & Space, a Raytheon Technologies business, introduced today an affordable, lightweight and compact Active Electronically Scanned Array, or AESA, radar. It harnesses the capability of a heavyweight AESA fire control radar in its lightest form factor ever – at a fraction of the cost.….

At just over 100 pounds, the new compact radar is a third of the weight of most modern AESA radars and costs about half as much as typical fire control radars. It combines the power of Gallium Nitride, or GaN, technology with an innovative packaging of its digital receiver/exciter and processor called CHIRP, and a unique air-cooled design to deliver Gen 4-plus performance.….

Wow an air-cooled, 100 pound, half-priced AESA radar, there are quite a few platforms that could use that.

[ORAC]

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/476054-future-air-war.html#post6995437

[Asturias56]

"For many years, about 20, I've never got around to writing a novel about how I saw the future air war. I planned to cal it "The Swarm". The idea was of a stealthy aircraft with minimal sensors of it's own, but a UWB datalink talking to a swarm of drones of the same RCS/signature around it - up to 30-50nm ahead, behind etc. Some drones would be weapons of various types, others radars, ECM platforms, refuelling pods etc. More could launched from LRLS types trucks near the FEBA to RV; those needing recovery such as the radar & ECM would recover for net capture."

Not bad for 2012 ORAC- :ok:​​​​​​​ you should have got a patent on it................

[SLXOwft]

I have been musing on the lessons of Cmnd 124, the 1957 UK Defence White Paper, which notoriously abolished the RNVR Air Branch and had some other less significant effects.:E

To quote the eighth report of the House of Commons Defence Committee

"The 1957 review was to some extent a response to the Suez debacle of the previous year which was a diplomatic disaster and had revealed the poor state of readiness of British forces and the obsolescence of much of their equipment. The resulting review (conducted over a two month period) placed the priorities on nuclear deterrence and missiles."

Its two main foci were:

1) Reacting to technical advances in nuclear weapons, and offensive and defensive 'rocket weapons'.

It has been clear for some time that these scientific advances must fundamentally alter the whole basis of military planning. But, it is only now that the future picture is becoming sufficiently clear to enable a comprehensive reshaping of policy to be undertaken with any degree of confidence.

2) Cost effective defence matched to needs.

The aim must be to provide well-equipped forces sufficient to carry out these duties, while making no greater demands than are absolutely necessary upon manpower, money and other national resources.

Plus ça change, though I think duties have been more often been matched to the minimum resources the government of the day could get away with.

I fear the UK is making the same mistakes with its obsession with adoption new technological answers and the mirage of cost saving, looking to phase out existing capability. Whereas the USN, at least, is with the MQ-25 looking to extend and enhance its capabilities.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/status/1473212441601400838?s=21

[SLXOwft]

https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/status/1473212441601400838?s=21

Interestingly, to me anyway, there appear to have been no images with the wings unfolded released. Wonder when launch/landing trials a scheduled?

Fuller story here: https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2879506/navy-completes-initial-carrier-demo-for-mq-25-program/

A public domain video can be viewed here: https://www.dvidshub.net/video/826664/unmanned-carrier-aviation-demonstration-ucad-mq-25a-unmanned-air-system-prototype-aboard-uss-george-hw-bush-cvn-77
Coutresy of Petty Officer 2nd Class Eric Brann, Petty Officer 2nd Class Steven Edgar, Seaman Ryan Hartman, Petty Officer 1st Class Brandon Shelander and Petty Officer 2nd Class Joseph Vazquez, USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)
Gives some idea of it size relative to a F/A-18. With a wingspan over 1 2/3s that of a bug the USN badgers and associated chockheads will need to be extra careful.

[SpazSinbad]

As if USN deck crew are not careful: https://twitter.com/i/status/1473013088576278533 VIDEO fold/unfold MQ-25 USS Bush

TWITTER BOING! video at this URL otherwise twitter direct link to video does not appear to work?

[SpazSinbad]

MQ-25 Completes First U.S. Navy Carrier Tests [same as twatta video above]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFrzKILwfFg

[RAFEngO74to09]

(1) U.S. Navy on Twitter: "One step closer to fueling the #AirWingoftheFuture. The MQ-25 completed its first deck handling demonstration aboard #USSGeorgeHWBush in December, marking the 1st time the unmanned carrier-based aircraft conducted ship-based testing. #FlyNavy DETAILS: https://t.co/noj3W1umwH https://t.co/ihz43Hqtea" / Twitter

[Lima Juliet]

It should be noted that humans are controlling MQ-25, aviators too (not the sort the RAF have just incorrectly labelled either). The USN have started training Warrant Officer Air Vehicle Operators (AVOs) who are akin to Weapon Systems Operators (WSOps) in the RAF. They will go through the Officer Candidate School (like OASC for the RAF) and thence onto basic flight training before going to the MQ-25 for advanced training. Like their Naval Aviator and Naval Flight Officer colleagues they will wear wings of gold.

Known as the 737X career pathway, the USN plan to hire and train around 450 personnel. They will control the MQ-25 from the ship and shore.

This is likely where we are all heading as the Pilot, WSO and WSOp type roles are starting to draw closer together as we head towards Protector, Mosquito and Tempest in the RAF. The RN have their own plans for Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) too. The British Army is still fanning around with Watchkeeper and their helo force - but more autonomy with the future VTOL aircraft and the use of things like DARPA’s ALIAS is likely to see current and near future aircraft modified too. Pure Pilot skills will no longer be required as R2D2 can do it far better than Luke Skywalker, but then the young Jedi can command and operate the aircraft’s sensors, weapons and comms far better for now. I foresee that we will have fewer and fewer Pilots and more and more ‘operators’ akin to today’s WSOs and WSOps. Even the Tempest gang are questioning the need for today’s kind of Pilot.

Obviously, the best name for this sort of combined Pilot, WSO and WSOp would have been ‘Aviator’ but sadly someone thought to use it instead :ugh:

Also, the RN, Army and RAF aren’t the only forces starting to go through this transformation as the USN are already proving. :ok:

[RAFEngO74to09]

New factory to build the MQ-25 at the rate of 15 per year

(5) Boeing Defense on Twitter: "Our new #MQ25 Stingray factory is taking shape! Hear Dave, our production operations director, describe the facility and how a recent @USNavy contract allows us to start buying components for the unmanned aircraft that will be built here. https://t.co/6OUtbPpSDQ" / Twitter

[ORAC]

Boeing Unveils Armed MQ-25 Variant Model

Boeing displayed a model of an armed variant of the MQ-25 Stingray carrier-based tanker featuring two Lockheed Martin AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Surface Missiles (LRASM) on April 8 at the Sea Air Space exposition.

The model’s public debut comes as the U.S. Navy starts considering new roles for carrier...

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x600/mq_25_aviationweektrimble_edfd38c3649c506864bd22c765f4a6b66b b22509.jpg

[Davef68]

Now there's a surprise!

[DogTailRed2]

New factory to build the MQ-25 at the rate of 15 per year

(5) Boeing Defense on Twitter: "Our new #MQ25 Stingray factory is taking shape! Hear Dave, our production operations director, describe the facility and how a recent @USNavy contract allows us to start buying components for the unmanned aircraft that will be built here. https://t.co/6OUtbPpSDQ" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/1575479193453924352)
15 a year seems such a small number.

[rattman]

15 a year seems such a small number.
USN is only buying about 50

[SpazSinbad]

USN is only buying about 50
US Navy takes delivery of first MQ-25 autonomous refueller 16 Mar 2024
https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/us-navy-takes-delivery-of-first-mq-25-autonomous-refueller/157393.article
"...The latest fiscal year 2025 budget documents indicate the navy plans to acquire 76 Stingrays, including five test articles. At least 67 aircraft are projected to be operational models...."

[rattman]

Yeah found a more complete thing

805million for 4 test planes. So that 201 million a plane

The full contract is 13 billion for 72 so 180 million

4 prototype then 72 including 5 test articals

[ORAC]

So about twice the price of an FA-18 - but it’s a very short production run to amortise the cost of R&D and setting up the line.

Order a lot more in various roles and the price will plummet.

[Less Hair]

How about some Hawkeye variant? It could move stealthy into position, loiter and be switched on if needed. Some stealthy ASW sonobuoy dropper might work as well.

[BombayDuck]

How about some Hawkeye variant? It could move stealthy into position, loiter and be switched on if needed. Some stealthy ASW sonobuoy dropper might work as well.

Something like this, but carrier-borne, then: General Atomics unveils XQ-67A Off-Board Sensing Station UAV (https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/general-atomics-unveils-xq-67a-off-board-sensing-station-uav)

[SpazSinbad]

Just for interest because cost of 'data package' unknown:
New contract award to deliver 17 new Block III Super Hornet aircraft and critical technical data for the fleet 19 Mar 2024
https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/New-contract-award-deliver-17-new-Block-III-Super-Hornet-aircraft-and-critical-technical-data
"The U.S. Navy awarded The Boeing Company a $1.3 billion contract March 19 for the purchase of 17 F/A-18 Super Hornets and delivery of a technical data package vital to the sustainment of the platform...." Including the data proportion an individual cost is US $76,470,588?

[rattman]

Something like this, but carrier-borne, then: General Atomics unveils XQ-67A Off-Board Sensing Station UAV (https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/general-atomics-unveils-xq-67a-off-board-sensing-station-uav)

and for sonar bouys they have sea guardian

https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted-aircraft/mq-9b-seaguardian

Just for interest because cost of 'data package' unknown:
Its not uknown, it the data / specs and allegedly the IP rights for all the boeing parts that make up the aircraft so that when boeing chose to longer supply parts they are not in the same situation as the B-2 and have to reverse engineer parts needed to keep the aircraft flying

[SpazSinbad]

Its not uknown, it the data / specs and allegedly the IP rights for all the boeing parts that make up the aircraft so that when boeing chose to longer supply parts they are not in the same situation as the B-2 and have to reverse engineer parts needed to keep the aircraft flying
COST. What is the cost to the USN for the BOING! 'data / specs IP rights'?

[rattman]

COST. What is the cost to the USN for the BOING! 'data / specs IP rights'?
$76,470,588

[SpazSinbad]

Boeing Validates Software for Future Manned Unmanned Refueling Missions 01 May 2024
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=131425

"...In a simulator lab, a Boeing-led team virtually demonstrated an F/A-18 pilot commanding an unmanned MQ-25 to release a refueling drogue and refuel the Super Hornet, using existing communications links on both platforms.... The Boeing-created software will significantly reduce the time it takes for an F/A-18 to communicate with an MQ-25, giving pilots greater flexibility in refueling from longer distances...."

“A Boeing F/A-18 systems pilot demonstrates the Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) capability from his simulator cockpit. The Boeing-led team virtually demonstrated an F/A-18 pilot commanding an unmanned MQ-25 to release a refueling drogue and refuel the Super Hornet, using existing communications links on both platforms.” JPG: https://boeing.mediaroom.com/file.php/101140/MUM-T+MQ-25+stillmedres.jpg

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1585x1017/boeingsimhornetpilotmq_9b_3917a5a20ccc5185fdb7bfd41e4d39b7e6 b1b5b2.jpg