BAE Systems has been selected by Boeing to upgrade and modernise the vehicle management system computer (VMSC) for the U.S. Navy’s MQ-25 unmanned aerial refuelling system.
The technology refresh, say the firm, will increase computing power and address obsolescence issues, providing the unmanned aerial tanker with an integrated solution that improves aircraft performance and allows for future capability growth.
“BAE Systems’ next-generation VMSC controls all flight surfaces and performs overall vehicle management duties for the autonomous MQ-25. The MQ-25 is the Navy’s first operational carrier-based unmanned aircraft and is designed to provide a much-needed aerial refueling capability. It also aims to relieve the refueling mission workload for F/A-18 aircraft, allowing them to take on other key mission roles, increasing the fleet’s capacity.”
“BAE Systems is a leader in flight-critical systems and solutions,” said Corin Beck, senior director of Military Aircraft Systems for Controls and Avionics Solutions at BAE Systems.
“Our upgraded VMSC for the MQ-25 will deliver advanced functionality—enabling this platform to execute today and tomorrow’s critical missions, while also reducing the amount of hardware required on the aircraft through consolidation into this computer.”
The upgrade will use quad-core processors to increase computing power while optimizing size, weight, and power footprint on the aircraft.
“The multi-core processor selected for the MQ-25 VMSC has recently completed qualification on another U.S. military platform thereby reducing cost, schedule, and integration risk for this program. This highly efficient and integrated system will deliver more capability by replacing multiple other onboard computers, improving aircraft reliability and reducing total lifecycle cost of ownership for the Navy. The new VMSC also provides growth capability to support future missions of the MQ-25, such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) technologies, and lays the foundation for all future carrier-based unmanned systems by pioneering the cutting-edge manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) operational concept.”
BAE Systems also provides the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) System for the aircraft.
A very useful tool to have in your box.
MQ–25 T1 refueled three carrier-based aircraft – an F/A-18 Super Hornet, E-2D Hawkeye and F–35C Lightning II
“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 aeroplanes at a range of 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km).”
Global military spending jumps 9% to £1.7trn
“A new report has warned that military spending is set to rise again this year as the world enters “a more dangerous period”.
https://
news.sky.com/story/global-military-spending-jumps-9-to-1-7trn-13070513
Especially when you consider that they are looking to buy 76 of them.
Excellent progress. What could be used to provide a similar capability for our F35s aboard our own Vstol carriers? A tilt rotor? A Vstol drone? A Buddy pod for our precious few F35s? Or maybe fit a catapault for a similar fixed wing drone?
Or is it rarely necessary due to the very long range reach of our existing aerial reafueling tankers?
I think the “Buddy Pod” has been mentioned…. and there is the ongoing medium weight emals research and development requirement for the carriers…. it would make sense in many ways if Vixen became a two system capability…. I can see the sense in filling the carriers with Loyal Wingmen, tankers and F35’s………. but will it ever get off the ground ?
I think ultimately we clearly need a capable large UAV for AEW, AAR, alongside a Carrier capable loyal wingman.
Considering the half billion pound balls up called Crows nest is rapidly heading for bin, I would suggest sooner rather than later.
Organic AEW and AAR (with good fuel off load) will ‘massively’ close the capability gap regarding conventional / VSTOL Carrier operations.
Probably arrestor gear would be more important than a cat. It wouldn’t be able to take off with as much fuel but at least it could land.
Hmmm… apparent difference of opinion among posters whether a STOBAR or. CATOBAR requirement exists to operate MQ-25A or a similar UARS aboard QE class. Suggest extending an invitation to USN to perform trials aboard first available vessel. If successful, as a minimum, suggest Marines bring MQ-25 along whenever embarked. Part time capability would be sufficient for an interim period. 🤔
Pretty certain MQ-25 hasn’t the power to weight ratio, especially when loaded with fuel to take-off using the ramp. The engine it uses is the RR AE3007N turbofan, which is a derivative of the ones used on a lot of private and regional jets. It delivers round 10,000lbs (44kN) of static thrust. If the airframe was carrying the expected 15,000lbs of fuel and the airframe weighed 10,000lbs (est). Then at 25,000lbs, the power to weight ratio would be only 0.4. This means it will definitely require a catapult launch to get it to flight speed.
Thanks for the informative response. 👍😊
A CATOBAR carrier conversion.
There is no viable alternative for AWACS and AAR at range from a VSTOL carrier. It’s why the US jump jet carriers have such a limited role – and they have the V-22.
Take your point on a macro scale, but one Harrier pilot from USS Bataan has already intercepted 7 Houthi drones so not that limited as it compares to Diamond’s total. That said no confirmation as to whether he actually shot them down but had the means to do so.
With full tanks, they would make excellent loitering suicide Drones too……. I know, It’s another bit of genius thinking on my behalf……..😂
I’ll get your coat Frank🤣🤣😂😂
Ha….. I like to be different…. it’s good to view the world from another angle !😆
refuelling would be a great capacity for the QE class, in-fact it’s probably the big weakness of the class to be honest.
Don’t worry, we can fly Tankers out of Cyprus.
indeed but not much good if your pottering around the Indian ocean or pacific…as the navy has a habit of doing these days..
The MQ25 project has been driven by concerns about the comparatively short range of the F18 and the consequent need to devote too many combat F18s to a buddy refuelling role. The UK doesn’t have the same problem with the distances the USN faces in
the Pacific. The most important role for our carriers is air defence of a task group. In a strike role, they can in many instances be refuelled by a land based Voyager.
So though it might be nice to have a ship based refueller, a greater priority must be getting more F35s and sorting out the replacement for Crowsnest.
So what is the task of the actual task group? If the Destroyers are protecting the task Group from aerial threats and the carrier is there to do likewise, and the RFA are keeping the task group supplied while any sub is to protect t it from sub surface threats for the most part, I assume it’s the Frigates that have the actual role of the task group under that Philosophy but aren’t they generally primed for sub surface threats to the task force too and have very limited land attack capability, so unless the RM support ships they had planned to get rid of come into the mix what other role for the task force is there, but on this basis other than to exist or go on World pr tours? No I think the carriers are meant to have a wider role than simply area self defence at a calculated guess.
Clues in the name for the task force we use, Carrier Strike Group.
Its a big old bird, isnt it, all it needs now is a flashing red light in that aperture
By your command!