Boeing MQ-25 Refueling Drone

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.

Binbrook where I held after IOT.

Regards,
MM
 
Nice, Tiffy from Conningsby?

Both my Lightning and Tiff jollies pale into insignificance however compared to the genuinely enormous privilege of flying in PA474 twice...

...I’ll get my coat! :)

Regards,
MM
 

tiv

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


So you don't count the Vigilante as a bomber then?
 
So you don't count the Vigilante as a bomber then?

Not in the traditional sense although I accept that a definition is ambiguous. To my mind the Vigilante is a strike, attack and recce aircraft in the same mound as the F-111.

Regards,
MM
 

Yokel

LE
Once upon a time I read something suguesting that post 1982 there had been a plan to use Sea Kings for AAR for Sea Harrier. Lunacy surely - could the Sea King maintain the Sea Harrier's minimum wingborne speed?

What ever next? HIFR from frigates?
 
It does strike me as wasteful to be using a combat airframe for tanking. Flexible, maybe.

Is anything particularly gained from the using of Hornets as buddy tankers? ie if they are lurking around the carrier group are they doubled up as defence? or do they fly with limited/no weapons?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
It does strike me as wasteful to be using a combat airframe for tanking. Flexible, maybe.

Is anything particularly gained from the using of Hornets as buddy tankers? ie if they are lurking around the carrier group are they doubled up as defence? or do they fly with limited/no weapons?

It saves you from having to acquire a wholly different and potentially single-role airframe. Seen like that, it’s actually not wasteful. The Hornets are only topping off, so you don’t need a large tanker. The F-18 solution is just fine.
 
It saves you from having to acquire a wholly different and potentially single-role airframe. Seen like that, it’s actually not wasteful. The Hornets are only topping off, so you don’t need a large tanker. The F-18 solution is just fine.

Didn't the Viking airframe offer a single airframe for lots of tasks capability though?

I think they were bombers at one point too. (might be a bit too much Tom Clancy though).
 
To maintain formation - though I imagine that buddy-buddying with the afterburner on defines the Law of Diminishing Returns.

Brian Schul describes in’The Untouchables’ how the SR-71 sometimes also had to use AB during tanking.

It does strike me as wasteful to be using a combat airframe for tanking. Flexible, maybe.

Is anything particularly gained from the using of Hornets as buddy tankers? ie if they are lurking around the carrier group are they doubled up as defence? or do they fly with limited/no weapons?

Most pictures seem to show them unarmed which would probably make sense.
fa-18e-f_010.jpg

Didn't the Viking airframe offer a single airframe for lots of tasks capability though?

I think they were bombers at one point too. (might be a bit too much Tom Clancy though).

The S-3B and ES-3A were both superbly versatile aircraft. Both were used as tankers...
S-3_Viking_in-flight_refueling.jpg

...and the former was certainly used in a conventional bombing and stand-off strike role.

Unfortunately, they were maintenance heavy.

Regards,
MM
 
Didn't the Viking airframe offer a single airframe for lots of tasks capability though?

I think they were bombers at one point too. (might be a bit too much Tom Clancy though).

They were, although obviously the level of threat wasn't that high - stand off with AGM-65 and AGM-84 was more likely, but they could tote the good old Mk 82 bomb. One sank an Iraqi patrol boat in 1991 - the CAG was most impressed with their aim, which led to a direct hit, but his admiration was slightly reduced by the fact that this had been achieved with a D704 buddy pod which had left the airframe thanks to a mixture of crew excitement at actually getting the chance to kill something in a Hoover(!) and the lack of care in switch selection which resulted...
 
MQ-25 has evolved into a multi-purpose drone. Ostensibly it will begin service life a refuelling drone for the Navy’s carriers, however the MQ-25 carries the distinct possibilities/intent of fulfilling other roles.

Originally intended to be the first of the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike aircraft, the MQ-25 has now been equipped with the Cobham buddy refuelling pod, which refuels the service’s F-18 Hornets.

The Stingrays variants are intended in the future for other missions, such as strike, surveillance, and reconnaissance as well as refuelling, with carrier air wings containing a mix of manned and unmanned platforms in its Next Gen Air Dominance strategy. Its immediate effect however will be freeing up the F18s presently tasked with refuelling duties.

The US Navy's first Unmanned Carrier Launched Multi-Role Squadron 10, or VUQ-10’s official establishment date was Oct. 1, 2020, and will be basedat Naval Air Station Point Mugu part of Naval Base Ventura Country in California, where the Navy also bases its MQ-4C Triton maritime surveillance drone unit.



 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top