Boeing MQ-25 Refueling Drone

Is the MQ-25 fully autonomous or controlled directly from the carrier?...

It can be controlled from a ship or land and presumably requires a ‘real’ pilot and payload operator.

Pretty sure we did similar with the Buccaneer at times

The RN used Scimitar...
scimitarsrefuelling.jpg.cf.jpg

...Sea Vixen...
567a93246aaed1d22fa64abf56104a0d--victorious-special-ops.jpg.cf.jpg

...and the Bucc
3dc7a4a18366f9f9625caec3f7f5b96a.jpg.cf.jpg

The RAF inherited the buddy refuelling stores when the RN retired their jets but rarely used the capability...other than for amusing pics! :)
gaDFzZC.jpg.cf.jpg

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
If you mean the F35-B then it will be ramp/ski jump launched won't it?

Unless you mean the MV-22..... for that the Americans can always buld a huge rubber band catapult for use of NATO carriers :p

I can assure you that V-22 don't need catapults.

I'm not sure it would benefit from one to be honest.

The extra wing area that could be utilized isn't there.
 
I can assure you that V-22 don't need catapults.

I'm not sure it would benefit from one to be honest.

The extra wing area that could be utilized isn't there.

I'm well aware of the Osprey not needing them. I've been on and around a few. I was merely making a funny :p
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
RIP
The only time I have watched carrier ops from a carrier, a Buc came back and did a bolter (Wings, in Flyco: Bolter, BOLTER, FULL PAAH!' To get him back safely another Buc (on standby) was launched to buddy him, the bolter took suck, then both came back on. Took an appreciable time with the carrier (Eagle) manoeuvring into wind and back on PIM and back into wind etc to get it all done.

(It was after I'd sent in my PVR letter so part of various failed attempts to get my clearly defective motivator re-started).
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
RIP
... Plus, the tanker task removes an otherwise combat capable asset from the flypro...

However the carrier still has to accommodate the tanker, notionally instead of a combat a/c, plus presumably other and different specialists to make it work and whatever control centre is needed on bard to 'fly' it?
 
However the carrier still has to accommodate the tanker, notionally instead of a combat a/c, plus presumably other and different specialists to make it work and whatever control centre is needed on bard to 'fly' it?

Very true; which is one reason why I believe the USN may be more interested MQ-25’s future ISR capabilities. However, the Programme has gone through so many twists and turns I’m not entirely sure what they want now!

Regards,
MM
 
The only time I have watched carrier ops from a carrier, a Buc came back and did a bolter (Wings, in Flyco: Bolter, BOLTER, FULL PAAH!' To get him back safely another Buc (on standby) was launched to buddy him, the bolter took suck, then both came back on. Took an appreciable time with the carrier (Eagle) manoeuvring into wind and back on PIM and back into wind etc to get it all done.

(It was after I'd sent in my PVR letter so part of various failed attempts to get my clearly defective motivator re-started).

Could we have that in not fish speak?
 

Yokel

LE
However the carrier still has to accommodate the tanker, notionally instead of a combat a/c, plus presumably other and different specialists to make it work and whatever control centre is needed on bard to 'fly' it?

However, if it has greater endurance and fuel capacity....
 
Very true; which is one reason why I believe the USN may be more interested MQ-25’s future ISR capabilities. However, the Programme has gone through so many twists and turns I’m not entirely sure what they want now!

Regards,
MM

I don't think they know, can you imagine the money they have to be able to afford a refuelling drone!

Have they ever stated where IFR has prevented carrier ops success to the extent a single platform is required!

Assume as you mention, get it in service as a refueller then replace the fuel tanking with missiles/ISR etc to become a multi role platform (missiles as the much lauded bomb truck)!
 
USNs own data.

F/A-18’s can get off the deck with full fuel or full weapons but not both.

In some configuration I read either here or elsewhere the rhino has a 200km range from a carrier.

As for the 'F' designation, anyone care to guess the last genuine 'B' designated carrier aircraft? The Nighthawk was well known as the F-117 without any fighter capability. F-111 was multi role, F-16 is multi role, F-4 was multi role.

Only one of those is a true AA fighter.
 
USNs own data.

F/A-18’s can get off the deck with full fuel or full weapons but not both.

Isn't that what is known as a combat mix? IE you never have the best of both, can a Tonka take off with full weapons and full fuel?

Probably not, are Storm Shadow attached instead of fuel tanks?
 
The only time I have watched carrier ops from a carrier, a Buc came back and did a bolter (Wings, in Flyco: Bolter, BOLTER, FULL PAAH!' To get him back safely another Buc (on standby) was launched to buddy him, the bolter took suck, then both came back on. Took an appreciable time with the carrier (Eagle) manoeuvring into wind and back on PIM and back into wind etc to get it all done.

(It was after I'd sent in my PVR letter so part of various failed attempts to get my clearly defective motivator re-started).

Could we have that in not fish speak?

The only time I have watched carrier ops from a carrier, a Buccaneer (Buc) came back and did a bolter missed the Arrester wire ( Wings, in Flyco: The Officer in charge of air operations yelled Bolter, BOLTER, FULL PAAH!' " You have missed the Wire I repeat missed the wire advance your throttles to maximum power and commence a go around.
To get him back safely another Buc (on standby) was launched to refuel him , the bolter took suck, then both came back on. Took an appreciable time with the carrier (Eagle) manoeuvring into wind and back on PIM (No Idea) and back into wind etc to get it all done.

(It was after I'd said **** this for a game of soldiers I quit so wasn't really interested)

Possibly
 
In some configuration I read either here or elsewhere the rhino has a 200km range from a carrier.

As for the 'F' designation, anyone care to guess the last genuine 'B' designated carrier aircraft? The Nighthawk was well known as the F-117 without any fighter capability. F-111 was multi role, F-16 is multi role, F-4 was multi role.

Only one of those is a true AA fighter.


Without three big tanks and a refill, the Hornets have very short legs. Its a major tactical issue and using so many Hornet missions for tanking ops has caused the USN to burn through airframe life at a much higher rate than they'd like.

And its something the nay sayers miss when they rubbish the QE's for 'only' having 24 F-35's.
Of the 56 Hornets on a US carrier, at least half are used to support the Hornet bomb droppers as tankers and jammers
 
USNs own data...

Link or source?

In some configuration I read either here or elsewhere the rhino has a 200km range from a carrier...

Which is bordering on whites of the eyes stuff in Air Power!

...As for the 'F' designation, anyone care to guess the last genuine 'B' designated carrier aircraft?...

I’d say the last true carrier based bomber was the A-3 Skywarrior.
A3D-2_nose_wheel_collapse_USS_Saratoga.jpg

However, there have been no carrier aircraft designated as bombers since the US decided to adopt joint designations in 1962. Arguably the last USN asset with a ‘B’ designation of any sort was the SBC2C Helldiver of WWII vintage which served with the USN Reserve until 1950s and the French until DIen Bien Phu.
1280px-SB2C-3_VB-7_over_TF_38_off_Indochina_1945.jpeg

Isn't that what is known as a combat mix? IE you never have the best of both, can a Tonka take off with full weapons and full fuel?

Probably not, are Storm Shadow attached instead of fuel tanks?

All aircraft have to make gas/payload sacrifices routinely based on runway dimensions, temperature, altitude and numerous other calculations. However, those for carrier assets to tend to be a tad more stark due to the inherent compromises required to operate an aeroplane off (and back onto) a tiny piece of floating real estate.

As an aside, Stormshadow does not require a Tonka to ditch fuel tanks as they’re carried on the shoulder pylons normally used for other weapons.
7365775986_062d5729c8_o.jpg

Equally, the same will unfortunately not be true of the Typhoon.
Eurofighter-Typhoon-Storm-Shadow-Initial-Flight-Trials-2-foto-L.-Caliaro.jpg

...Of the 56 Hornets on a US carrier, at least half are used to support the Hornet bomb droppers as tankers and jammers

While I don’t discount the reliance of USN carrier assets on tankers, or the fact that using FA-18E/Fs as gas trucks is burning airframe life up, do you have a link to the source which states ‘at least half’ are so configured?

Regards,
MM
 
Typhoon could still carry its centre line pod though?

How impressive, 6 AA missiles plus 2 cruise missiles!

As an aside, having been lucky enough to experience jollies in both, the Tiff’s performance reminded me in many respects of the Lightning...except it could do it for a LOT longer, I could see a LOT more outside and g affected me a LOT less (due to the upper-torso g-suit, pressure breathing and seat design), and the cockpit was a LOT more user friendly!

Regards,
MM
 
As an aside, having been lucky enough to experience jollies in both, the Tiff’s performance reminded me in many respects of the Lightning...except it could do it for a LOT longer, I could see a LOT more outside and g affected me a LOT less (due to the upper-torso g-suit, pressure breathing and seat design), and the cockpit was a LOT more user friendly!

Regards,
MM

Lucky bugger, I sat in the cockpit many times in 4 hangar and 302 but no chance of going flying! Closest was a Hawk simulator unfortunately. Where did you fly in the lightening? I wanted to go to Thunder City but that shut down before I could afford it.
 

Ritch

LE
As an aside, having been lucky enough to experience jollies in both, the Tiff’s performance reminded me in many respects of the Lightning...except it could do it for a LOT longer, I could see a LOT more outside and g affected me a LOT less (due to the upper-torso g-suit, pressure breathing and seat design), and the cockpit was a LOT more user friendly!

Regards,
MM

Lucky bàstard.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top