The American MQ-25 programme has successfully conducted the first ever aerial refueling operations between a crewed receiver aircraft and an uncrewed tanker.
According to the U.S. Navy, this successful flight “demonstrated that the MQ-25 Stingray can fulfill its tanker mission using the Navy’s standard probe-and-drogue aerial refueling method”.
“During the flight, the receiver Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet approached the Boeing-owned MQ-25 T1 test asset, conducted a formation evaluation, wake survey, drogue tracking and then plugged with the unmanned aircraft. T1 then successfully transferred fuel from its Aerial Refueling Store (ARS) to the F/A-18.”
“This flight lays the foundation for integration into the carrier environment, allowing for greater capability toward manned-unmanned teaming concepts,” said Rear Adm. Brian Corey who oversees the Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons.
“MQ-25 will greatly increase the range and endurance of the future carrier air wing – equipping our aircraft carriers with additional assets well into the future.”
Testing with T1 will continue over the next several months to include flight envelope expansion, engine testing, and deck handling demonstrations aboard an aircraft carrier later this year.
The MQ-25A Stingray will be the world’s first operational carrier-based uncrewed aircraft capable of refuelling other aircraft.
Exactly the ype of thing we need to operate from our carriers and elsewhere.
Hi Mark….
Would the Boeing Defiant fill the bill
No cats and traps
Thanks Ian
MOD has given industry a notice that they’ll be wanting a lightweight EMALS derived system for launching drones.
Sorry, what’s EMALS?
It’s an acronym short for ElectroMagnetic Aircraft Launch System.
Baisically a catapult using electro-magnets instead of steam to fire a aircraft off the ship.
Would MQ25 fit within the weight limits that they mentioned for their lightweight EMALS?
As far as I know, yes.
Drones are now very much a must have in all shapes and sizes and in most scenarios. This was not really he case when they first designed the carriers. I would foresee VTOL and potentially some form of cats and traps. Good money for anyone who provides a design which fits in with what they already have.
I think AEW could be done by VTOL but a refuelling drone would have to be launched from a cat
What’s the take off & landing length? Would it need cat and/or trap to operate from QE2?
It would need cat / traps. There is a request for information out from the MoD at the moment for proposals for a solution to launch and recover lighter aircraft (drones) with the likely intention to operate them alongside the F35B in the future. They are also requesting concepts for a replacement for Crowsnest (which could also potentially be a drone large enough to require cats / traps). There are also drone concepts out there which are more of a tiltrotor design so there’s quite a few potential routes to take, each with pros and cons.
The big attraction of the MQ-25 is its ability to operate in a hostile environment (existing tankers are vulnerable to beyond visual range missiles from near-peer adversaries, one of the key mission sets of the Chinese J20 is to target US tankers and early warning) and also pick up other roles such as recon. I think the main dependency with cats and traps is actually a demonstration that EMALS-type technology has matured enough to be reliable, so we were right not to try to fit it initially.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the uavs for the qe class ment to be able to take of from a em catapult?and land using arrestor wires?
Yes but clearly NOT the actual present emals cat and trap system that is presently available from the US which is as yet not actually reliable and would have been the only system available to have incorporated at build stage, which would have been a disaster as things turned out though if the carriers were 5+ years later just about a possibility which leaves us looking for a system sometime later this decade that won’t interfere with present ski jump launches and as such has time to mature. This request is for a system to do a job with less stress and learning from the difficulties encountered hopefully with US system and indeed possibly other systems that can do the job required which is NOT to launch fully laden F35s for example.
Who knows what might come back and whether it will be on or beside the ski jump. The Turks propose a winch system within the ski jump for their drones as an example of other ideas that could come from this. Hopefully something novel or lightweight electromagnetic can be proposed that will be more reliable than a fully fledged system on US carriers we will see no doubt. But thankfully room for its machinery has always been there below the deck thankfully.
This makes no sense to me. The USN programme started with strike/ISR ambitions, with a stealthy airframe capable of penetrating defended airspace from long range and removing risk of pilot loss. Now the same airframe is to operate as a tanker to extend the range of manned F18+35. So the manned fighters will have to operate in contested airspace while the tanker loiters much further back. Why then bother with an unmanned tanker?
The UK hope for UCAVS is different, focussed on AEW and strike. But we will have to install EMALS to operate them and then try to combine STOVL operations with cats and traps. Far better and less risky/ expensive to look at tilt rotor options.
It makes a lot of sense actually, going to strike UCAVs in one step proved (as many thought) to be too big a leap of technology and effort, hence an intermediate task builds the technology and experience of using them with a view to taking the step to strike UCAVs in the future.
Given the costs and issues with Osprey and lack of wider development (described to me as “theoretically the best of both worlds, practically the worst of both”), tilt-rotors seem to be a dead end, so not worth investing in from our perspective – hence the shift to conventional types.
Indeed so, the Northrop Grumman strike UAV was a fantastic vehicle but rightly or wrongly the powers that be thought it too risky to go all in on it. This partial step even for the US is probably sensible but a stage to full strike capability.
We will always need manned aircraft in contested airspace as there are too many changeable scenarios that cannot be preprammed into an autonomous drone. I’m sure AI will eventually get there and we will face judgement day but until that happens manned fighters will remain and they need refuelled.
In terms of strike, sure that can be performed by autonomous drones or drones controlled remotely if there is no electronic interference.
Agreed. I was simply querying the advantage of an unmanned tanker over a manned version. Perhaps it was to justify the amount already spent on UCAV development and testing.For UK the real need is for an improvement over Crowsnest. The Valor looks like a lower risk than trying to retrofit an EMALS system.
The two main advantages between two similarly sized aircraft, are increased duration and payload. A manned aircraft will need a cockpit plus environmental support systems to a help a pilot/crew operate over 15,000ft. These take up space and weight. Furthermore, the aircraft’s endurance is predominantly determined by pilot’s /crew’s fatigue. The unmanned version such as the Stingray can be set up on a race course pattern for a duration of over 8 hours. It can also be refueled in flight to extend the duration. The limiting factor will be how long the engine can operate continuously.
For both the RAF and FAA having an unmanned tanker aircraft to support F35s and Tempest makes a great deal of sense, as it can operate closer to a conflict zone compared to a manned one. The recent MoD catapult and recovery specifications RFI are right on the money for the MQ-25 Stingray.
This aircraft according to the US Navy will have a secondary ISTAR role. Which raises an interesting possibility. In terms of size, it about the same as a F18. The fuselage length should be able to house a full length AESA radar such as Saab’s S-band Erieye, along with Leonardo’s X-band Osprey AESA radar. Both radar’s are relatively electrically power efficient, so the single RR turbofan should be able to power both radars along with a very bandwidth data-link. The beauty of using the two radar’s is that one provides long range search whilst the other provides better resolution and can be used for small object surface searching, I.e. periscopes.
Therefore, the MQ-25 could be used to kill two birds with one stone. A carrier based aerial tanker and ISTAR including AEW and surface search.
The problem is are any of these UCAVs certified for controlled airspace?
That’s a massive effort as Protector shows.
For the UK in terms of any training around the UK, it needs that capability.
As for the perennial manned vs unmanned, not sure fatigue is the driver, given Tornados regularly did 9 hour sorties and that was engine limited. Yes it saves on a cockpit, but the human life support is really a fall out of avionics life support anyway. In terms of say pulling g, structural limits preclude this most of the time whilst something able to take more than current g suit assisted pilots can would be extremely heavy in the rest of the flight envelope.
So I’m not convinced it offers the transformational benefits to the airframe that is often suggested, whilst losing the ability of a trianed and experienced pilot to integrate mission and situation – something technology still seems far from replicating. Looking at Tempest, it still seems the optimum is technology crunching data and displaying and humans deciding.
As for MQ-25, I’m assuming this is the starting point – get it in service and exprtience of that then start adding capabilities. You could see it as a ASW platform also with sonobouys and torp dropping. It certainly “looks right” although I doubt it has much of a manoeuvre enevelope in comparison to a fighter and similarly no contest in performancw. But a leap ahead from the last 20 years of talk and experiments.
Following on from the X47 program, the MQ-25 is a pretty basic airframe. The sighting of the top ventral engine air intake has been done before. It will have issues if it does very hard banked turns. Though I’m sure Boeing have restricted the flight envelop, after all it’s only a tanker. When you compare it to the other Boeing Loyal Wingman program, it has a pair of intakes either side of the fuselage. This gives significantly less airflow disruption when doing hard maneuvers.
The thoughts on the unmanned cockpit weight saving, includes maximizing the aircraft’s internal volume for fuel.
I’m not sure the Stingray includes automatic congested airspace separation. If it’s operating from a carrier out in the ocean, this shouldn’t be a worry for the US Navy. For us, operating around and near to the UK will be, so at some point I’d like to think this is included.
Using the Stingray initially as a tanker aircraft makes a lot of sense. It takes off, gets to station and flies circuits for x hours, then returns to the ship. It is a baby steps approach for operating. UAS from a carrier.
Certification wont be in it at present as the US has no need for it, but see Protector for the level of effort that takes to add to something.
Top intakes are primarily good for LO which betrays this UAV’s origins, together with the canted fins and airframe shaping.
Ref banked turns, does anyone fly unbanked turns? even rudder alone still banks it whilst coordinating to stay level would be a sideslip turn, very uncomfortable and rather unpredictable!
Intake blanking here is about alpha (angle of attack) which is pitch axis, only relevant to a turn if you are doing a level one, but unless that becomes high g then looking at the slender (getting on for a high aspect ratio, certainly compared to a fast/manouevreble aicraft) wing I suspect structural limits apply first anyway.
It’s design is more penetrating slow-medium speed ISTAR (a step up from MQ9 capability) than tanker, which reinforces this is part of a bigger intent, and/or a bodge job of what program they had.
Very hard to see this ever in UK service, things will have evolved and moved on by the time we are ever in a position to consider carrier based UAVs.
Ok, I’ll expand on that. What I mean by a banked turn is if it does anything past +3g or does a negative g turn. Either of these will cause airflow disruption over the top of the fuselage, probably leading to separation. If separation happens disrupting the laminar flow near the intake, the engine will be starved of air.
The original purpose of the MQ-25 design was as a strike aircraft. This was a stealthy design, hence the flattened fuselage, top intake, V tail and rectangular exhaust. The design precludes hard maneuvers, as a highly banked turn will increase its RCS.The US Navy cancelled the strike project. But raised a new one for the unmanned tanker aircraft with a secondary ISTAR role. Boeing repurposed the strike UAV to this role. According to Boeing the current aircraft doesn’t include stealth materials. However, it’s overall shape will have quite a low RCS anyway.
As I said, it doesnt appear to have much of a manoeuvre enevelope, although I’m still of the view that is probably primarily set by structural limits.
Given its designed to land on a carrier it’ll have to pull alpha, and its that which will affect the flow on the top. The large wing flaps will help as will the (almost) straight wing and lifting body but all in all, with the canted all moving tailerons the only aerodynamic control surface, this clearly is of fairly limited agility hence the sense it is a medium level ISTAR type – strike I guess if its just releasing guided weapons from straight and level.
Your mention laminar flow and separation. I’m not sure how laminar flow comes into this – are you talking boundary layer or simply “attached” flow which almost certainly has a turbulent boundary layer?
The worst case here is a seperation bubble on the front side of the intake which affects pressure recovery and distortion at the engine face – but I can’t fathom how the engine would jump to being “starved” because there is still a mass flow of air over the top and a suction streamtube pulling it in. Indeed the engine is going to significantly help the flow stay attached on the top at a higher AoA than vs a normal aircraft. Looking at the intake shaping I’d estimate they are more concerned about a low drag one than trying to deal with flow separation issues.
The intake to me looks more of an issue for speed in terms of acheiving high mass flow for high thrust and the fact its ingesting a thick boundary layer from the fore fuselage. The loyal wingman types have a more conventional “pitot” intake presumably because they are expecting to fly much faster, potentially even transonic, which the swept wings emphasise.
Having tested top intakes vertically installed systems, the MQ25s looks positively nice!
I’m sure the USN will make good use of it in tanker role and as a carrier based MQ9 kind of equivalent (so potentially light attack) but its main role I feel is as a step advance from nothing and towards a UCAV.
Because why develop a manned tanker if you can do an unamanned and get the same persistent albeit benign environment advantage that UAVs generally offer?
Other than envy of E2? What exactly is the requirment for replacing Crowsnest?
Valor looks like a cost and maintenance nightmare. It also takes up a lot of space.
Since it is barely at concept definition stage let alone in full develoment it is high risk, unless you just like American things and want them.
DASA have announced an out of service date for Crowsnest of 2029. The RN RFI is looking for proposals for a successor, probably autonomous.
They’ll barely have had it in service by then! That sounds like someone has had too much of the optimism pipe…
“ Valor looks like a cost and maintenance nightmare. It also takes up a lot of space” Based on what evidence? This is a second generation vehicle based on a first gen vehicle which is now in stable service. Don’t let historical prejudice obscure technology’s progress.
Seriously? Look at it! Rotating drive shafts, two sets of propellors. Imagine the interconnects for the failure modes alone.
Helicopters are mechanically complex, but this is an order above that. There is no magic technology that absolves this of the above fundamental complexity, which inherantly drives cost and reliability upwards.
I know its all very exciting “sci-fi arrives in reality”, but in truth, I think these are just as much a dead end as the rotodyne was.
Perhaps I’ll be wrong, but I think the US Army is in for a hell of a crunch when these projects come in cost wise and they realise it’ll be a 1:5 replacement of Blackhawks.
The UK approach of AW149 or whatever, and a new (conventional) medium helo seems far more sensible.
Yup you will be wrong it’s the future babe get used to it. That’s technology we all love the old warm and cuddly stuff. But we evolve.
We also go down many dead ends, all the signs are this is one.
You can want it all you like if you dont look too hard at ir, but perhaps find out a bit more about reliability and maintainability, not to mention certification. If you’ve very deep pockets then perhaps waste some money on it as the US has, but even they have limits.
In some respects the Osprey and Valor are less complicated than a Chinook, ie 2 gearboxes vs 5. The synchronizing shaft that runs between the pylons will be about the same length as the Osprey cross wing drive shaft. The Osprey/Valor don’t need to worry about synchronization as the blades don’t intermesh.
Maintenance wise the Valor will be easier than the Osprey, as lessons learned will included in its design. For instance only rotating the rotor hub instead of the engine and gearbox assembly.
It will be interesting to see how the two competitors (Sikorsky and Bell) manage the costs. As they have both promised that their aircraft won’t cost much more than a new Blackhawk?
The UK purchase of AW149, Airbus offering is a retrograde and interim step. Neither of these helicopters offer any significant advancements over the Puma. They are still limited by rotor blade tip speed. So their top speed will be about the same, but range might be slightly better. Both will include a highly inefficient tail rotor that is also very noisy.
Both the Defiant and Valor prototypes have smashed the normal helicopter cruise speeds of 150kts to 200 and 250kts respectively. With the Valor expecting to increase its cruise speed closer to 300kts.
Speed of delivery is a factor that a normal helicopter really struggles with, especially over distances of 200 miles. This is one of the key requirements that the US Army wanted to tackle. Hence why both designs are not normal helicopters. The helicopter’s rotor tip speed effectively limits their maximum cruise speed to around 175kts. Any faster and drag exponentially rises rapidly increasing fuel burn.
A traditional helicopter will always have serious issues if it loses drive to the tail rotor. The torque reaction between the airframe and rotors are nigh on impossible to control without the tail rotor, which usually ends with a fatal crash. The Defiant, with its coaxial rotors will not suffer this problem, as both opposing rotors will cancel out most of the torque reaction, allowing it to autorotate for a landing if both of the engines fail. The Valor is a different kettle of fish. If in the hover and an engine fails, the through wing drive shaft will keep the rotor spinning. If it then losses the drive shaft as well. The long lever arm distance from the aircraft’s c.o.g to the one working rotor will not cause a drastic torque reaction, it probably won’t sustain the aircraft in the hover, so the pilot will probably need to rotate the rotor to 45 degrees and conventional (crash) land the aircraft.
The problem with helos is cost of maintenance due to mechanical complexity. That above all is why we cant have more. Driving up the complexity worsens that noting tilt rotor types have even more complexity to fold them to fit in anything
Puma replacmeent although dull, will at least deliver cabs where and when needed. There is zero chance these designs will be cheaper than Blackhawk, I’d love to see anyome try to claim that and keep a straight face 🙂
As before, there will be a reckoning when those costs start to come in but just as with FCS, they’re on a juggernaut at the moment and still have money to burn.
Failure modes, prop/gearbox/drive related, a tiltrotor in any phase of flight is loss of aircraft and crew. For an engine, the cross wing drive shaft is far harder to do (ie cost and maintenance) than Chinook’s one as it is in a plane (the wing) that should be bending and is trying to, vs longitudinal shafts, and its got to shift much, much more power. Putting the engines at the tips also creates lots of stability problems and all of this is also represented in high training costs.
Chinook isnt trying to move any of its drive system which massively reduces compelxity and risk, and whilst it’s going strong, it has proved a dead end in terms of further types adopting the layout.
So whilst tilt types offer some advantages in speed/range, they seem more apparant than true. Cf Osprey, horrible accident record, vastly expensive to buy and run and unimpressive lifting capacity as well as constraints such as being unable to have its own proper defensive guns. With literally zero sales outside the absurdly deep pocketed US, it seems judgment has been made.
A Chinook’s sync shaft is not solid. It is a number of short shafts joined together using flexible couplings. Like an aircraft wing, a Chinook bends from the middle, especially when lugging under-slung loads. If the shaft was solid it would fracture. It’s the same issue with the rear pylon. It can’t be much higher as there’s a single vertical shaft from the gearbox to the rotor head. When the aircraft is lifting a weight in the hover, this shaft will bend slightly as the aircraft takes up the weight. The height of the rear rotor head limits the aircraft’s maximum speed. As the disc’s pitch angle is limited, otherwise the blade tips would strike the top of the cabin. Thus the rear head mostly contributes lift, not rearwards thrusts like the forward rotor head. I suppose if this shaft was replaced with a number of shafts including flexible couplings. Then the rear head could be raised higher, to increase the pitch angle.
In regards to an engine failure on an Osprey. The cross shaft will continue turning the other prop-rotor so long as its gearbox has not seized. There were a number of Ospreys that suffered surface fire damage in Afghan to an engine and gearbox assembly, which killed the engine and froze the assembly in the one position. Thankfully in the two occasions I now about, they could still feather the prop. From memory two Ospreys suffered this when coming to land at a LZ. The engine assemblies were in the vertical mode. Both aircraft managed to land as they were hit about 30ft off the deck, both suffered significant undercarriage damage. The US Marine maintainers did a full engine and gearbox swop, enabling the aircraft to fly back to Bastion. These were then air transported back to the States for a full repair. If this had happened higher up, I’m not sure they would have survived, as the aircraft’s high disc loading isn’t great for autorotation.
It is true that in the early days the Osprey had a horrendous safety record. There were a number of causes. Vortex ring generation was the main one, but also lack of helicopter piloting experience compounded it. All helicopters will suffer this issue, especially when flying parallel to rising ground. The fixed wing pilots, although having done a helicopter conversion course simply did have enough flight hours to recognize and mitigate vortex ring generation.
I must agree, I did chuckle when reading about the planned unit cost being about the same as a Blackhawk. We will have to wait and see if they fulfill their promises.
A lot of these issues with Osprey, Bell say have resolved with the Valor. For starters the engine and gearbox assembly is now fixed at the end of the wing. This solves the jet effluent problem of heating up the ground that the Osprey has. It also stops the high velocity jet from kicking up debris that then gets sucked into the engine. The Osprey has had 2 iterations of active intake air filtering, but they get swamped when landing in the desert or dry ground. This one of the main maintenance issues with the Osprey, the very high turnaround of engines per airframe. The Valor by fixing the engine to the wing, which is now 8ft above the ground instead of 3ft, means the aircraft can use cabin guns for supportive and suppressive fire.
I personally think the Valor will be a great aircraft, but suspect the Defiant version will actually win the US Army contest. My reasoning for this is that the Army will be more interested in battlefield support rather than insertion. The aircraft must be able to sustain damage and still fly. The coaxial design helps here. The main gearbox fits in a smaller volume, so can be better protected. It is much safer to land if the engines fail, as it has a better chance of landing using autorotation due to the rotational mass being above the CoG. The aircraft is also more responsive and maneuverable when flying at very low level.
I think it will be the USMC who get the Valor to replace their Hueys. They have in the main switched over to a Pacific centric role, so long distances and small island insertions. The speed and range will help here, as it will keep the LHA/Ds further away from danger.
For the UK it gets complicated, we haven’t the funds to buy both types as the numbers will be pretty small. The Defiant would be my choice for Army support, whilst the Valor is better suited to the Navy.
The point about the shaft is not that its a one piece solid (who suggested that?), but that its going laterally through a wing which given the objective here is to obtain the benefits of one, is trying and indeed, needs to bend independently and additionally to any mechanical or reaction forces/moments ala Chinook. The wing is also the goto place to store fuel and if we learnt anything from swept wings, its dont have moving mechanical components in them because its a maint nightmare – hence the shift to self contained actuators to avoid even having mechanical services in a wing.
The Ospreys were very lucky to be close to the ground whilst the points about piloting back up the training burden.
Ospreys problem for gunners is the flow environment and physical blockage which is unchanged on the valour – it seems unlikely that’ll be mitigated much purely because the engines point back – which of course comes with its own mechanical complexity.
Uktimately, these are much larger, heavier and much more complex than a helicopter of equivalent carrying capacity. That means only one thing in terms of cost of development and ownership – a dramatic downwards direction in numbers.
I see these very much as the Rotodyne, an overcomplicated and flawed solution to a requirement that actually we lived without.
The USMC have ship space to worry about especially as they move to smaller ships, and this is a hell of a size growth over the UH1. I suspect they’ll stick with V22 for the range/moving stuff around and bin this off for a simpler smaller conventional utility type for local support.
The height of the defiant pushes against any shipborne adoption, noting the USN will need a SH60 replacement.
Overall the “transformational” approach is simply locking us into exceptionally expensive ideas that come with massive real world constraints and flaws – I think we need to be more conventional and focus on delivering reliable and sustainable effect rather than running around headless chicken like with a constant child like facination with ever more exotic numbers and ideas.
Hence the AW149 although dull and I dont like that its not robust (as its a civvy helo), seems a much more sensible purchase – and we put our risk appetite into areas where we must push boundaries and innovate such as UAVs.
“Other than envy of E2? What exactly is the requirement for replacing Crowsnest?”
How about the Crowsnets’ much lower service ceiling, range and endurance?
Or that it takes up already-scarce Merlin platforms?
Merlin Crowsnest was only ever a “this will do for now” solution anyway. I don’t think it was ever a permanent solution.
And its deficiency vs Sea King Whisky that served siperbly for 35 years with those same attributes?
What do we give up to get this extra capability? Or is it just “more more more more”, noting moving from Harrier to F35 has been a very expensive growth.
It did serve superbly, but there was literally no other option back then. EMALS didn’t exist and there was nothing else. I bet any carrier captain would have preferred something else had there been another choice, but there wasn’t. We made do, which our armed forces always do admirably.
But with a larger carrier why limit ourselves to the same old options? Will Merlin Crowsnest do? Yes. However given better options such as MQ25 or the like, we should go for better.
Higher service ceiling, longer range/endurance enables an AEW platform to see incoming threats from further away and to remain on station for longer.
And as I said, we already had too few Merlins before Crowsnest, that takes out even more from other roles.
And again, at what cost do we add these capabilities and supporting infra? What else gives to fund them because we just got an unprecedented shot of extra dosh and it instantly vanished for current plans let alone more exotic dreams.
If Corwsnest is good enough as you accept it is “it will do” and has been, lets put the funds elsewhere.
Instead of spending billions on catapults and new airframes, why not just some more Merlins and spend the money on people (for once, goven they are actually the capbility not bits of metal) and/or more ships or weapons for them?
Very true. Crowsnest is the best the Brit’s can do at the moment given the restrictions of their CV without catapults. Against near peer enemies that have large AEW aircraft it will be totally overpowered.
PS agree. Any logical analysis would suggest that tilt rotors are the natural compliment to QE and her autonomous needs, however, the operative words are “logical analysis”. If we had the technology that we have now it is clear that helicopters would not have been invented! Tilt rotors beat them on all metrics.
Including cost, complexibility and unreliability not to mention lack of safety in failure cases.
Hence why they havent been more widely adopted and are unlikely to be.
I can’t believe that little propeller on the drone’s engine is enough to get it off the ground, let alone be able to tow that F18 😮
That’s Artificial Intelligence for you – it can make great coffee too.
What propeller?
The turbine that powers the refueling pod – it’s a joke.
Yes it is a joke, they should have fitted a bigger prop that way they wouldn’t have to develop a “get” which must be a sort of hybrid
MQ-25A has a single get engine, Rolls-Royce AE 3007. The propeller on the pod is to be used for power to handle the drogue lines, not to drive the airplane.
That is amazing
Are these affordable or silly money like Global Hawk? And if so how many might the UK need for the AEW/AT role?
12? 3 for each QEC plus reserves.
Just throwing a figure out there.
The same US source gives 2 figures. $15b for development and procurement of a fleet of 72. $804m for first 4 and an exercised $87m option for 3 more. The option seems cheap. Without it, the unit price seems about $200m.
200! That’s like Osprey. We won’t be getting many at that price.
A bit spendy isn’t it? And that’s on 72 of them, so I think we can rule out any discounts. It makes you wonder why its that costly … well apart from it being Boeing anyway.
I’d read so much about future drones being more affordable I’d started believing in it too much. I appreciate the refuelling role is remarkable in itself.
Hopefully MQ-25 is an outlier. Granted Taranis was a while ago but that whole program inc R&D was reportedly £185 million for a custom one off evaluation platform, so one would like to think a production run of aircraft including manufacturer’s profit would bring in aircraft at much lower cost.
Mind you, looking at what the RN seem to want from their Vixen and Proteus fixed and rotary wing UAS respectively, we will probably be looking at relatively expensive platforms for those roles.
Yeah I read that too, couple in the EMALS cost for the QE etc the money looks to be on the Osprey despite its flight cost. However if the EMALS fit opened up autonomous AEW and the like surely the way to go?….dont think we know anymore than we did but will be interesting to see how this develops….regarding Crowsnest is that out of service date correct!?
Good work Boeing. In truth this technology has been needed for a long time. The strike radius of carrier based aircraft is not what it was in the days of the Buccaneer and anti ship defences have been steadily increasing in speed and reach. MQ-25 plus F-35B and hopefully AEW UAVs, makes QE, POW relevant strategic assets well into the future. Also a big reach extension for the US F-18s.
Slightly off topic, just read on @Flight Global, that the MOD have extended Merlin (all varients) OSD to 2040!!!
Makes sense and perhaps didn’t have much choice anyway. It allows for any slippage in the Crowsnest replacement, and also allows MOD to look at the FLRAA program and/or the new European medium lift program as replacement options for Merlin HM2 and HC4/4A. Probably also lets them assess what they want from the next platform in the context of working alongside whatever the Proteus RWUAS ends up being capable of.
Yes, I think many on here were probably expecting this at some point, just surprised at the low key short notice announcement!
Agree with you, opens up a whole raft of possibilities/options for the future which is sensible, just wonder where the extra flt hours have suddenly come from?
Is it known what hours the RAF Merlins had on them before transfer?
Not sure exactly how many flt hrs they have pa, it’s not really my area, but don’t think we would be far wrong in assuming 200 hrs pa. Adding an extra 10 yrs life would equate to approx 2000 hrs per airframe, so I imagine they will receive some form of LEP to get them to 2040.
Sounds about right
It seems in hindsight that the March 2021 Maritime Enterprise Planning Group slides suggested a LEP with their FUTURE MARITIME AVIATION FORCE 2030 vision, where they stated that by 2030 –
“We will have rejuvenated the Merlin fleet, to synchronise with replacement capabilities, transferring PWAS/AEW/Data Node to VIXEN and ASW FIND to medium RWUAS (PROTEUS).”
Sorry mate totally missed this post!
Obviously missed this too, but then again this particular publication isn’t on my normal reading list!!!😂😂 Cheers for the update.👍
I wonder if they will extend the life of the Puma and wait until Defiant and Velour come into service
I don’t think that they can mate, the last upgrade stretched things to its absolute limits I believe! Any further upgrades would be v costly, I believe the decision to buy new(including replacing some other legacy airframes) has been made and we are just waiting to see who the bidders are, before selecting it’s replacement.
Off topicish, I’ve not seen the trooping of the colour in recent years, but enjoyed it today.
Three cheers for the Queen.
2nd that!
Yes for a scale down trooping of the colour it was very good.
And just how much did it all cost ? and how many poor people would it help and just how much money does she have and why all the Cheers ?
Because that’s what the vast majority of the British people want. Simple.
Yep
Sad. so sad really.
So Sad. 😿
If the Royal Navy go for drones of this size , They probably will only be able to operate from carriers or airfields because of the infrastructure that will be needed.