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.

USN to pick initial cadre of Aviation Warrant Officers to fly MQ-25 ? Alert 5

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.defensenews.com/digital-...-mq-25-tanker/

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

https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/MQ-...-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....c0b4d47f8e.jpg

What About The Superhornet
 

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

https://navy-matters.********.com/20...refueling.html

I am getting a broken link

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

Here it is using a TinyURL.

https://tinyurl.com/b5y5j4rt

Can anyone see them doing this with an Osprey?

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

Osprey would be a useful buy tho'

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

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

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?

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

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.

Thanks for this much obliged

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.

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....