mxaxai wrote:

889091 wrote:

Do these things have a proximity self destruct trigger in case the data up/downlink is lost during short final, preventing the operators from landing it on the flight deck?

Predator or Reaper drones slamming onto an asphalt runway - asphalt runway will always win.

MQ-25 with empty tanks full of vapour (I do not believe it has OBIGGS?) slamming onto a Nimitz/Ford class flight deck may cause some substantial damage however...

Don't they have some form of autoland / autopilot? I expect the MQ-25 to require relatively little manual guidance throughout the flight.

Pitching deck and rough seas? I doubt they've even come up with an autoland system to cater for those conditions. Otherwise the USN would have deployed it onto all its carrier based fighters already.

889091 wrote:

Pitching deck and rough seas? I doubt they've even come up with an autoland system to cater for those conditions. Otherwise the USN would have deployed it onto all its carrier based fighters already.

Actually, crewed aircraft have had carrier autoland systems for almost 60 years. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... ing-system

For the F-35 and the Ford Class, a new GPS-based system was developed that will be retrofitted to the older carriers as well. https://www.gpsworld.com/us-navy-awards ... n-landing/
It was planned for the MQ-25, according to the article, but I don't know whether it's currently included.

889091 wrote:

Do these things have a proximity self destruct trigger in case the data up/downlink is lost during short final, preventing the operators from landing it on the flight deck?

Predator or Reaper drones slamming onto an asphalt runway - asphalt runway will always win.

MQ-25 with empty tanks full of vapour (I do not believe it has OBIGGS?) slamming onto a Nimitz/Ford class flight deck may cause some substantial damage however...

A much more reasonable choice would be to go into an orbit to 20 miles away, and await reconnection.

kitplane01 wrote:

A much more reasonable choice would be to go into an orbit to 20 miles away, and await reconnection.

And if they cant reconnect, an empty tank is good ballast to keep the plane afloat until it can be recovered?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

A much more reasonable choice would be to go into an orbit to 20 miles away, and await reconnection.

And if they cant reconnect, an empty tank is good ballast to keep the plane afloat until it can be recovered?

bt

I don't see any aircraft going in the water, seawater especially, ever being reused. Even for parts.
If it's empty, full of vapor, I say self destruct once flight tanks are on empty (after orbiting at a safe distance or whatever awaiting reconnection).

Tugg

Don't they still have nets to catch planes that do not have enough fuel for a go around?

As for fuel vapors. Wouldn't you prefer the chance of a fuel vapor explosion with an empty tank than an explosion with a half full tank and fuel spill all over the deck as it is a possibility with each regular landing?

bt

889091 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

889091 wrote:

Do these things have a proximity self destruct trigger in case the data up/downlink is lost during short final, preventing the operators from landing it on the flight deck?

Predator or Reaper drones slamming onto an asphalt runway - asphalt runway will always win.

MQ-25 with empty tanks full of vapour (I do not believe it has OBIGGS?) slamming onto a Nimitz/Ford class flight deck may cause some substantial damage however...

Don't they have some form of autoland / autopilot? I expect the MQ-25 to require relatively little manual guidance throughout the flight.

Pitching deck and rough seas? I doubt they've even come up with an autoland system to cater for those conditions. Otherwise the USN would have deployed it onto all its carrier based fighters already.

The Northrop X-47B was doing unmanned carrier launches and landings in 2013/2014. Not just simulations, but actual test landings at sea on actual carriers. I'm not sure how rough the seas were, but certainly normal landings were successful.

Re: the Navy putting it on all fighters, call me a cynic, but Navy brass will cling to human fighter pilots until the last one dies out. IMHO, the main barriers to unmanned carrier operations at this point aren't technological (certainly no bigger a technical challenge than any other program they're working on *cough* F35 *cough*) but inertia and political: until a drone operator can become a 4 star admiral, or we get our asses handed to us by an adversary employing carrier drones, the current crop of leaders will resist drones and prefer "real men" over "video game nerds". Same with the Air Force...

Former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus caused a huge uproar in the Navy when he said the F35 would be the last manned fighter jet the Navy and Marines would buy. You could almost hear the fighter jocks whispering "over my dead body"... These types of transformations don't occur without massive fights from supporters of the status quo (witness the love affair with aircraft carriers themselves, which, although they still have some purpose as political statements and instruments of foreign policy, are largely obsolete as warfighting tools given the massive improvement in missile technology and land-based aircraft.)

muralir wrote:

Re: the Navy putting it on all fighters, call me a cynic, but Navy brass will cling to human fighter pilots until the last one dies out. IMHO, the main barriers to unmanned carrier operations at this point aren't technological (certainly no bigger a technical challenge than any other program they're working on *cough* F35 *cough*) but inertia and political: until a drone operator can become a 4 star admiral, or we get our asses handed to us by an adversary employing carrier drones, the current crop of leaders will resist drones and prefer "real men" over "video game nerds". Same with the Air Force...

With respect to your viewpoints, I think those Admirals and Generals see drones as what they are: tools. But they're not infallible, nor are they the right solution to all problems. They have their strengths, as well as their weaknesses. And quite frankly their weaknesses in a no-kidding war, at this point, outweigh their strengths except in certain circumstances. Bandwidth limitations, especially from a CVN. Satellite bandwidth. Operating in an EM jamming environment. Etc. Just like manned aircraft also have their strengths and weaknesses, at this point, their strengths far outweighs their weaknesses. Crew fatigue. G limitations. Space that could be utilized for more gas. But they're known quantities and their crews are trained to operate when shit hits the fan. You mention the carrier suitability trials and the fact that a drone can take off and land from the boat? That's great! That's also where manned aircraft were 100 years ago. They've got a ways to go before they can safely operate from an aircraft carrier in the Taiwan Strait, rather than in the warning areas off of Chesapeake Bay.

muralir wrote:

Former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus caused a huge uproar in the Navy when he said the F35 would be the last manned fighter jet the Navy and Marines would buy. You could almost hear the fighter jocks whispering "over my dead body"... These types of transformations don't occur without massive fights from supporters of the status quo (witness the love affair with aircraft carriers themselves, which, although they still have some purpose as political statements and instruments of foreign policy, are largely obsolete as warfighting tools given the massive improvement in missile technology and land-based aircraft.)

Those 'fighter jocks' probably remember the last time politicians put their political nails into the coffin of a concept that wasn't actually dead. Exhibits A through D: Aircraft carriers after WW2 and the advent of the atomic bomb. The US Marine Corps. Nuclear power vs. gas turbines. Guns on a tactical aircraft. Real change happens with technological innovation and proper application of those innovations plus strategic foresight and pragmatic decision-making. Not speeches by political appointees.

As for the landing it'll be fully autonomous. The only time humans will exert direct control over the aircraft is moving around on deck where a crew member will use a remote control. A lot of this was prototyped with the X-47 to show that it was feasible and mature enough.

As for ditching of crewed planes with uncrewed? I expect we'll see a move from pilots being in the middle of a fight into being more a shot caller that oversees multiple aircraft and provides direction or orders to drones. Which will then go complete tasks set for them, making the needed decisions faster than the human.

In a sense it'll be similar to the move from guns to self guided weapons. With guns the pilot had to be focused and involved in tracking the target the whole time. Missiles meant that the pilot launched a missile to destroy a target and then could start focusing on other stuff. And guided bombs meant that the pilot could be in a standoff position when releasing and leaves the final navigation up to the munition. Moving the pilot to now managing drones is just the next step on that trip. Eventually pilots will remain on the ground or otherwise in remote locations. But until the comms and algorithms are good enough I would expect pilots to be nearish the action. Possibly they might stop being pilots and beomce more like managers. With the aircraft self flying and being able to make more extreme manuveres than a human could control but a human could still survive.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

With the aircraft self flying and being able to make more extreme manuveres than a human could control but a human could still survive.

Now that's a concept! You don't need advance pilot training any more!

It would cost less to train a pilot by eliminating dog fighting requirements.

bt

LyleLanley wrote:

muralir wrote:

Re: the Navy putting it on all fighters, call me a cynic, but Navy brass will cling to human fighter pilots until the last one dies out. IMHO, the main barriers to unmanned carrier operations at this point aren't technological (certainly no bigger a technical challenge than any other program they're working on *cough* F35 *cough*) but inertia and political: until a drone operator can become a 4 star admiral, or we get our asses handed to us by an adversary employing carrier drones, the current crop of leaders will resist drones and prefer "real men" over "video game nerds". Same with the Air Force...

With respect to your viewpoints, I think those Admirals and Generals see drones as what they are: tools. But they're not infallible, nor are they the right solution to all problems. They have their strengths, as well as their weaknesses. And quite frankly their weaknesses in a no-kidding war, at this point, outweigh their strengths except in certain circumstances. Bandwidth limitations, especially from a CVN. Satellite bandwidth. Operating in an EM jamming environment. Etc. Just like manned aircraft also have their strengths and weaknesses, at this point, their strengths far outweighs their weaknesses. Crew fatigue. G limitations. Space that could be utilized for more gas. But they're known quantities and their crews are trained to operate when shit hits the fan. You mention the carrier suitability trials and the fact that a drone can take off and land from the boat? That's great! That's also where manned aircraft were 100 years ago. They've got a ways to go before they can safely operate from an aircraft carrier in the Taiwan Strait, rather than in the warning areas off of Chesapeake Bay.

muralir wrote:

Former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus caused a huge uproar in the Navy when he said the F35 would be the last manned fighter jet the Navy and Marines would buy. You could almost hear the fighter jocks whispering "over my dead body"... These types of transformations don't occur without massive fights from supporters of the status quo (witness the love affair with aircraft carriers themselves, which, although they still have some purpose as political statements and instruments of foreign policy, are largely obsolete as warfighting tools given the massive improvement in missile technology and land-based aircraft.)

Those 'fighter jocks' probably remember the last time politicians put their political nails into the coffin of a concept that wasn't actually dead. Exhibits A through D: Aircraft carriers after WW2 and the advent of the atomic bomb. The US Marine Corps. Nuclear power vs. gas turbines. Guns on a tactical aircraft. Real change happens with technological innovation and proper application of those innovations plus strategic foresight and pragmatic decision-making. Not speeches by political appointees.

I appreciate your points and especially that you made them respectfully. I realize my original response could have easily been grounds to start a flame war

WRT drones, I'm a civilian so take my uninformed POV for what it is. But every platform has its strengths and weaknesses. But there's a difference between being conservative with uncertain changes that could cost us victory, and looking for reasons to discount genuine breakthroughs. IMHO, most of the arguments against drones fall in the latter category.

For example, you list communication difficulties in a theater eg bandwidth, EM jamming, etc. But modern fighter pilot strategy depends on the same things. Beyond visual range (BVR) fighting requires things like AWACS, satellites, etc to communicate with and send realtime info to the fighter actually launching the missile. The days of a lone fighter pilot looking out his window to see who and where his enemies are, are long gone. How are all those network issues, etc considered solveable for pilots in the heat of battle but not for drones?

And your point about drones only now able to do landings that humans were doing 100 years ago is true. But that's the type of short term thinking I'm taking about. It took 10 years to get a drone to land on a peaceful sea. In 10 years they'll be capable of landing in the roughest seas. Just ask Chess grandmasters how quickly a lead against the machines can evaporate

But that's not even the biggest point. Say it takes 20 years to develop the AI to land in the roughest seas. It's still better because you only have to develop it once. The minute the software is complete, you can download it into all the drones and they *instantly* get the same capacity.

If you train one pilot to land on a carrier, you have one pilot who can land on a carrier. Training another one will still take the same time and effort. Write the software for 1 drone to land on a carrier, and *every* drone can now land on a carrier. And the engineers can then focus on improving the software to be even better, rather than taking a new class of kids every year and training them just to be almost as good as the retiring pilots they're replacing.

The main reason why I believe drones will replace jets is because ultimately, the limitations of drones like bandwidth, network reliability, software, etc are solveable. While the limits of jets, mainly the limits of the pilots who fly them, are not. We've hit the limits of what human beings can stand. Already, the main limit to designing jets with faster maneuverability is the limit on the Gs that a human body can sustain. And we've already optimized biology by picking only the best people for the job and using things like MAST trousers and stuff to compensate for biological limits.

We're long past the point where the machine is the limit. Advances in metallurgy, modeling, engine design, etc. Means the main limit now is the 80kg of flesh in the pilot seat and what it can withstand before becoming incapacitated. We can't really improve biology, but we can always improve the tech.

Sure, in the initial training period, drones won't so as well as pilots. Which is why we need both for now. But the sooner we start to develop and really invest in drones, the sooner we'll exceed what the best fighter pilots can do.

muralir wrote:

We're long past the point where the machine is the limit. Advances in metallurgy, modeling, engine design, etc. Means the main limit now is the 80kg of flesh in the pilot seat and what it can withstand before becoming incapacitated.

The USAF ultimate goal is effectively a 9G capable SR-71. Technology still has decades to go to reach that speed and range while being able to G loc the pilot. The 6th gen fighter is rumoured to only have F-22 speed and altitude performance but with triple the range.

RJMAZ wrote:

muralir wrote:

We're long past the point where the machine is the limit. Advances in metallurgy, modeling, engine design, etc. Means the main limit now is the 80kg of flesh in the pilot seat and what it can withstand before becoming incapacitated.

The USAF ultimate goal is effectively a 9G capable SR-71. Technology still has decades to go to reach that speed and range while being able to G loc the pilot. The 6th gen fighter is rumoured to only have F-22 speed and altitude performance but with triple the range.

Nope. An SR-71 is not the dream. An SR-71 is gonna get shot down.

The USAF dream is something stealthy. And to be *really* stealthy you need to be subsonic, because high and supersonic will produce a huge IR signature from just skin friction. If it can also go supersonic ... awesome, and sometimes useful. But that negates stealth in the IR band.

kitplane01 wrote:

Nope. An SR-71 is not the dream. An SR-71 is gonna get shot down.

The USAF dream is something stealthy. And to be *really* stealthy you need to be subsonic, because high and supersonic will produce a huge IR signature from just skin friction. If it can also go supersonic ... awesome, and sometimes useful. But that negates stealth in the IR band.

All of the 6th gen designs have extremely high wing sweep and fuel fraction. This is to fly faster, higher and for longer. All of the designs are moving towards SR-71 kinematics. Each generation the service ceiling goes up, cruising speed goes up and max speeds are now limited to simply reduce stealth coating maintenance.

IR tracking is not an issue as the engagement threat remains rather constant. I will throw out some numbers. Let's say Mach 3 allows IR detection at 100nm, at Mach 2 it allows 50nm detection and an Mach 1 it allows 25nm detection. Assuming a side on engagement an AIM-120D or Meteor missile needs to be launched 25nm from a Mach 3 aircraft, 50nm from a Mach 2 aircraft or 100nm from a Mach 1 aircraft. 100x25 is the same as 25x100.

The USAF knows the huge advantage the F-22 has. It can engage and disengage 4th gen aircraft at will thanks to its high acceleration and supercruise speed. But it can not take full advantage of this speed as it severely fuel limited and it has heat issues.

The 6th gen USAF design will have more fuel and fewer heat issues. Subsonic will always be more efficient for a ferry flight but the range hit to fly supersonic is becoming less with each generation. As soon as the aircraft leaves the tanker it will penetrate and remain at max supercruise speed for the mission.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Nope. An SR-71 is not the dream. An SR-71 is gonna get shot down.

The USAF dream is something stealthy. And to be *really* stealthy you need to be subsonic, because high and supersonic will produce a huge IR signature from just skin friction. If it can also go supersonic ... awesome, and sometimes useful. But that negates stealth in the IR band.

All of the 6th gen designs have extremely high wing sweep and fuel fraction. This is to fly faster, higher and for longer. All of the designs are moving towards SR-71 kinematics. Each generation the service ceiling goes up, cruising speed goes up and max speeds are now limited to simply reduce stealth coating maintenance.

IR tracking is not an issue as the engagement threat remains rather constant. I will throw out some numbers. Let's say Mach 3 allows IR detection at 100nm, at Mach 2 it allows 50nm detection and an Mach 1 it allows 25nm detection. Assuming a side on engagement an AIM-120D or Meteor missile needs to be launched 25nm from a Mach 3 aircraft, 50nm from a Mach 2 aircraft or 100nm from a Mach 1 aircraft. 100x25 is the same as 25x100.

The USAF knows the huge advantage the F-22 has. It can engage and disengage 4th gen aircraft at will thanks to its high acceleration and supercruise speed. But it can not take full advantage of this speed as it severely fuel limited and it has heat issues.

The 6th gen USAF design will have more fuel and fewer heat issues. Subsonic will always be more efficient for a ferry flight but the range hit to fly supersonic is becoming less with each generation. As soon as the aircraft leaves the tanker it will penetrate and remain at max supercruise speed for the mission.

I'm 99.99% sure the IR detection range is not linear with speed. Also, IR detection range is getting better with newer technology.

Aircraft are not always getting faster. Compare the F-4 or F-14 with the F-18, or the F-35 with the F-15.

Speed is useful, but flying around high and hot is crazy. Also, A-A missiles are getting better every year.

kitplane01 wrote:

Also, A-A missiles are getting better every year.

Sounds like a good argument for UAV to me.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

I'm 99.99% sure the IR detection range is not linear with speed. Also, IR detection range is getting better with newer technology.

I didn't say IR detection is linear. Going from Mach 2 to Mach 3 is a 50% increase in speed. I doubled the detection range from 50nm to 100nm which is a 100% increase. A doubling in detection range would be the result of a 5-10 fold increase in heat energy output.

For instance with Radar if an aircraft is detectable at 100nm if you double the radar cross section of the aircraft that doesn't mean it can now be detected at 200nm. It will be 115nm or so.

Ground based IR systems have to deal with moisture in the air. Detecting an aircraft 100nm away at 60,000ft would mean a shallow 5-6 degree angle above the horizon. You are trying to detect a heat signal through so much atmospheric noise that it will be ineffective. Fighter based IR systems have little atmospheric noise but they are limited in sensor size and the sensor needs cooling.

kitplane01 wrote:

Aircraft are not always getting faster. Compare the F-4 or F-14 with the F-18, or the F-35 with the F-15.

The supersonic Hornet replaced the subsonic A-4, A-6 and A-7 aircraft. The average speed of the carrier aircraft has never been this fast.

The F-35 with weapon load is much faster than all of the aircraft it is replacing Harrier, F-16, F/A-18, A-10, and F-117.

The F-22 replaced the F-15.

Nearly every replacement got much faster. The F-14 high speed interception of nuclear bombers was simply discontinued.

kitplane01 wrote:

Speed is useful, but flying around high and hot is crazy. Also, A-A missiles are getting better every year.

Hitting a Mach 3 aircraft with a Mach 4 missile is difficult. If the aircraft turns away into a tail chase then the missile runs out of energy. The SR-71 was quite untouchable and it couldn't even turn at speed. Combine this speed with 9G and you are safer than at subsonic.

A 6th gen aircraft supercruising at Mach 1.8 and 60,000ft will give a 50% range boost to any weapon it launches compared to a Mach 1 aircraft flying at 40,000ft. The missiles firing upwards have a big energy disadvantage. If 6th gen aircraft can operate as high as 80,000ft and they can rapidly change direction and accelerate above Mach 2 they will be very safe.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Aircraft are not always getting faster. Compare the F-4 or F-14 with the F-18, or the F-35 with the F-15.

The supersonic Hornet replaced the subsonic A-4, A-6 and A-7 aircraft. The average speed of the carrier aircraft has never been this fast.

The F-35 with weapon load is much faster than all of the aircraft it is replacing Harrier, F-16, F/A-18, A-10, and F-117.

The F-22 replaced the F-15.

Nearly every replacement got much faster. The F-14 high speed interception of nuclear bombers was simply discontinued.

Interesting. The F-18 replaced both the A-6 and the F-14. It's faster than one, slower than the other. Kind of a wash.

The F-35 is replacing the F-16, F-15 (and maybe in the distant future) the F-22. It's slower than every one of those.

The Typhoon (1350 mph) is replacing the Tornado (1500 mph).

The Rafale (1381 mph) is replacing the Mirage 2000 (1452 mph).

The Grippen (1530 mph) is replacing the Viggen (1386 mph).

I don't see a trend to increasing speed.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Speed is useful, but flying around high and hot is crazy. Also, A-A missiles are getting better every year.

Hitting a Mach 3 aircraft with a Mach 4 missile is difficult. If the aircraft turns away into a tail chase then the missile runs out of energy. The SR-71 was quite untouchable and it couldn't even turn at speed. Combine this speed with 9G and you are safer than at subsonic.

It took the SR-71 4 minutes and 145 miles to make a 180 degree turn. I don't think a Mach 3 fighter (even if it pulls more G's than a SR-71) is going to make a combat turn. G forces for a constant radius turn go with speed^2.

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't see a trend to increasing speed.

Max speed at dry thrust and acceleration through transonic has improved by 20-50% on those examples. The time spent supersonic has increased 2-3 fold compared to the previous generation. Being able to accelerate through transonic quickly makes supersonic speeds more usable. While some of these aircraft don't fit the definition of a supercruiser they can still maintain higher average speeds with lower fuel consumption.

For instance at the lowest afterburner setting the F-35 can maintain Mach 1.4. The single F135 at this setting is burning less fuel than the two F119 combined at full dry thrust.

kitplane01 wrote:

It took the SR-71 4 minutes and 145 miles to make a 180 degree turn. I don't think a Mach 3 fighter (even if it pulls more G's than a SR-71) is going to make a combat turn. G forces for a constant radius turn go with speed^2.

A 90 degree turn is all that is required. If a missile is fired from the left side then a 90 degree turn to the right creates a tail chase. At Mach 1.8 supercruise a 9G 90 degree turn takes under 10 seconds and around 6 miles. At Mach 3 it takes 16 seconds and under 10 miles.

A Mach 4 missile can take 2 full minutes to fly 100nm. This is plenty of time for the high speed fighter to turn away and accelerate.

By Mach 3 fighter I do not mean that it will sit at Mach 3 at full afterburner for the entire flight. I am talking about an aircraft that has better sustain heat handling over any fighter modern fighter. This heat handling means supercruising for a longer duration and dash speeds that are higher. I am talking about an aircraft that has unprecedented acceleration above Mach 2. An aircraft that can burst to Mach 3 briefly without it consuming all of the available fuel while doing so. The F-22 being able to sustain Mach 1.82 supercruise for 100nm before the frame starts to overheat in excellent. Being able to sustain that speed and heat for 1000+mm is 6th gen.

Back to if a modern fighter can exceed the limits of the human pilot. Maybe it can if it is a lightweight dogfighting style aircraft able to pull 15+G. But a long range, high speed and fuel fraction fighter aircraft will not be able to exceed the limits of a human pilot. It will be a 60t MTOW aircraft.

mxaxai wrote:

889091 wrote:

Do these things have a proximity self destruct trigger in case the data up/downlink is lost during short final, preventing the operators from landing it on the flight deck?

Predator or Reaper drones slamming onto an asphalt runway - asphalt runway will always win.

MQ-25 with empty tanks full of vapour (I do not believe it has OBIGGS?) slamming onto a Nimitz/Ford class flight deck may cause some substantial damage however...

Don't they have some form of autoland / autopilot? I expect the MQ-25 to require relatively little manual guidance throughout the flight.

I would assume that the (presumably) modern FMS (maybe using laser-ring gyros?) would have a "trajectory" function to which the autopilot(s) revert on signal-loss,.
Modern civilian Autoland systems have had them for years.

The MQ will just keep it's attitude, thrust and trajectory towards the very same aiming-point towards-which the entire approach has been conducted.

In other words, if you happened to be standing on the flight-deck in such a position which made it possible to assess the approach -
you wouldn't notice anything untoward happen.

cheers

cheers

OK - while I have some bandwidth - I am interested in the T/O & Landing performance of the MQ.
Relevance - I watched history Doc on the WW2 battle of Leyte Gulf.

The main USN carrier-fleet - say 6 big big babies was supported by say 14 light carriers.
These were quite small - but the US production behemoth could roll 'em down the slipways like launching dinghies.
They only say 8,000 tons - but the 14 flight-decks allowed the operation of a vast fleet of fighters.
(And I would assume, greatly simplified flight-deck ops on their big big relatives).

The MQs would have to be a natural for operating from just such a host of much smaller "support" carriers.
F35s also, I wonder?

(FWIW - apparently the USN has been pondering same - basically forever.
But the designs around seem to be say 46,000 tons - not really the same!).

cheers

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't see a trend to increasing speed.

Max speed at dry thrust and acceleration through transonic has improved by 20-50% on those examples. The time spent supersonic has increased 2-3 fold compared to the previous generation. Being able to accelerate through transonic quickly makes supersonic speeds more usable. While some of these aircraft don't fit the definition of a supercruiser they can still maintain higher average speeds with lower fuel consumption.

For instance at the lowest afterburner setting the F-35 can maintain Mach 1.4. The single F135 at this setting is burning less fuel than the two F119 combined at full dry thrust.

kitplane01 wrote:

It took the SR-71 4 minutes and 145 miles to make a 180 degree turn. I don't think a Mach 3 fighter (even if it pulls more G's than a SR-71) is going to make a combat turn. G forces for a constant radius turn go with speed^2.

A 90 degree turn is all that is required. If a missile is fired from the left side then a 90 degree turn to the right creates a tail chase. At Mach 1.8 supercruise a 9G 90 degree turn takes under 10 seconds and around 6 miles. At Mach 3 it takes 16 seconds and under 10 miles.

A Mach 4 missile can take 2 full minutes to fly 100nm. This is plenty of time for the high speed fighter to turn away and accelerate.

By Mach 3 fighter I do not mean that it will sit at Mach 3 at full afterburner for the entire flight. I am talking about an aircraft that has better sustain heat handling over any fighter modern fighter. This heat handling means supercruising for a longer duration and dash speeds that are higher. I am talking about an aircraft that has unprecedented acceleration above Mach 2. An aircraft that can burst to Mach 3 briefly without it consuming all of the available fuel while doing so. The F-22 being able to sustain Mach 1.82 supercruise for 100nm before the frame starts to overheat in excellent. Being able to sustain that speed and heat for 1000+mm is 6th gen.

Back to if a modern fighter can exceed the limits of the human pilot. Maybe it can if it is a lightweight dogfighting style aircraft able to pull 15+G. But a long range, high speed and fuel fraction fighter aircraft will not be able to exceed the limits of a human pilot. It will be a 60t MTOW aircraft.

Very instructive.



Now let's see what the "contra" camp has to say!

cheers

muralir wrote:

LyleLanley wrote:

muralir wrote:

Re: the Navy putting it on all fighters, call me a cynic, but Navy brass will cling to human fighter pilots until the last one dies out. IMHO, the main barriers to unmanned carrier operations at this point aren't technological (certainly no bigger a technical challenge than any other program they're working on *cough* F35 *cough*) but inertia and political: until a drone operator can become a 4 star admiral, or we get our asses handed to us by an adversary employing carrier drones, the current crop of leaders will resist drones and prefer "real men" over "video game nerds". Same with the Air Force...

With respect to your viewpoints, I think those Admirals and Generals see drones as what they are: tools. But they're not infallible, nor are they the right solution to all problems. They have their strengths, as well as their weaknesses. And quite frankly their weaknesses in a no-kidding war, at this point, outweigh their strengths except in certain circumstances. Bandwidth limitations, especially from a CVN. Satellite bandwidth. Operating in an EM jamming environment. Etc. Just like manned aircraft also have their strengths and weaknesses, at this point, their strengths far outweighs their weaknesses. Crew fatigue. G limitations. Space that could be utilized for more gas. But they're known quantities and their crews are trained to operate when shit hits the fan. You mention the carrier suitability trials and the fact that a drone can take off and land from the boat? That's great! That's also where manned aircraft were 100 years ago. They've got a ways to go before they can safely operate from an aircraft carrier in the Taiwan Strait, rather than in the warning areas off of Chesapeake Bay.

muralir wrote:

Former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus caused a huge uproar in the Navy when he said the F35 would be the last manned fighter jet the Navy and Marines would buy. You could almost hear the fighter jocks whispering "over my dead body"... These types of transformations don't occur without massive fights from supporters of the status quo (witness the love affair with aircraft carriers themselves, which, although they still have some purpose as political statements and instruments of foreign policy, are largely obsolete as warfighting tools given the massive improvement in missile technology and land-based aircraft.)

Those 'fighter jocks' probably remember the last time politicians put their political nails into the coffin of a concept that wasn't actually dead. Exhibits A through D: Aircraft carriers after WW2 and the advent of the atomic bomb. The US Marine Corps. Nuclear power vs. gas turbines. Guns on a tactical aircraft. Real change happens with technological innovation and proper application of those innovations plus strategic foresight and pragmatic decision-making. Not speeches by political appointees.

I appreciate your points and especially that you made them respectfully. I realize my original response could have easily been grounds to start a flame war

WRT drones, I'm a civilian so take my uninformed POV for what it is. But every platform has its strengths and weaknesses. But there's a difference between being conservative with uncertain changes that could cost us victory, and looking for reasons to discount genuine breakthroughs. IMHO, most of the arguments against drones fall in the latter category.

For example, you list communication difficulties in a theater eg bandwidth, EM jamming, etc. But modern fighter pilot strategy depends on the same things. Beyond visual range (BVR) fighting requires things like AWACS, satellites, etc to communicate with and send realtime info to the fighter actually launching the missile. The days of a lone fighter pilot looking out his window to see who and where his enemies are, are long gone. How are all those network issues, etc considered solveable for pilots in the heat of battle but not for drones?

And your point about drones only now able to do landings that humans were doing 100 years ago is true. But that's the type of short term thinking I'm taking about. It took 10 years to get a drone to land on a peaceful sea. In 10 years they'll be capable of landing in the roughest seas. Just ask Chess grandmasters how quickly a lead against the machines can evaporate

But that's not even the biggest point. Say it takes 20 years to develop the AI to land in the roughest seas. It's still better because you only have to develop it once. The minute the software is complete, you can download it into all the drones and they *instantly* get the same capacity.

If you train one pilot to land on a carrier, you have one pilot who can land on a carrier. Training another one will still take the same time and effort. Write the software for 1 drone to land on a carrier, and *every* drone can now land on a carrier. And the engineers can then focus on improving the software to be even better, rather than taking a new class of kids every year and training them just to be almost as good as the retiring pilots they're replacing.

The main reason why I believe drones will replace jets is because ultimately, the limitations of drones like bandwidth, network reliability, software, etc are solveable. While the limits of jets, mainly the limits of the pilots who fly them, are not. We've hit the limits of what human beings can stand. Already, the main limit to designing jets with faster maneuverability is the limit on the Gs that a human body can sustain. And we've already optimized biology by picking only the best people for the job and using things like MAST trousers and stuff to compensate for biological limits.

We're long past the point where the machine is the limit. Advances in metallurgy, modeling, engine design, etc. Means the main limit now is the 80kg of flesh in the pilot seat and what it can withstand before becoming incapacitated. We can't really improve biology, but we can always improve the tech.

Sure, in the initial training period, drones won't so as well as pilots. Which is why we need both for now. But the sooner we start to develop and really invest in drones, the sooner we'll exceed what the best fighter pilots can do.

Adding to my post about FMS/gyros, I would suspect that a productive move forward would be to emulate what a human does when crossing to a pitching deck - and what I would imagine experienced carrier training-pilots teach their students:
1) the flight-deck has pitched-up violently towards you.
2) that means it is about to violently pitch down again.
3) you may well be able to catch it in the middle for a nice "arrival".
4) I would anticipate GPWS/"inertial" giving "audio"/HUD assistance.

All that being said, I would assume that this sort of extreme stuff will not be all that common.

cheers

brindabella wrote:

to emulate what a human does when crossing to a pitching deck - and what I would imagine experienced carrier training-pilots teach their students:

It would be no different than what the self driving cars are capable of today. You either have cameras or some other sensor that can recognize the flight deck. Combine that with on board telemetry, the UAV should be able to react much faster than a pilot and consistently land better than the average pilot.

What a pilot has is the instinct aquired over years of experience. But as you say, that info can be programmed or aquired via self learning though hours upon hours of simulations.

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't see a trend to increasing speed.

Max speed at dry thrust and acceleration through transonic has improved by 20-50% on those examples. The time spent supersonic has increased 2-3 fold compared to the previous generation. Being able to accelerate through transonic quickly makes supersonic speeds more usable. While some of these aircraft don't fit the definition of a supercruiser they can still maintain higher average speeds with lower fuel consumption.

For instance at the lowest afterburner setting the F-35 can maintain Mach 1.4. The single F135 at this setting is burning less fuel than the two F119 combined at full dry thrust.

I agree about speed being more attainable and usable. But I wonder who has more endurance at Mach 1.4 or so, an F-25 going about all out, or an F-15 just flying a long. Probably depends on the external stores of the F-15.

I thought by "getting faster" you meant "had a higher top speed", which seems pretty reasonable.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

It took the SR-71 4 minutes and 145 miles to make a 180 degree turn. I don't think a Mach 3 fighter (even if it pulls more G's than a SR-71) is going to make a combat turn. G forces for a constant radius turn go with speed^2.

A 90 degree turn is all that is required. If a missile is fired from the left side then a 90 degree turn to the right creates a tail chase. At Mach 1.8 supercruise a 9G 90 degree turn takes under 10 seconds and around 6 miles. At Mach 3 it takes 16 seconds and under 10 miles.

A Mach 4 missile can take 2 full minutes to fly 100nm. This is plenty of time for the high speed fighter to turn away and accelerate.

I don't see why you think the missile is coming from a side. One might imagine the missile coming from straight ahead, from the target you are flying towards and about to attack. And it's not obvious how the fighter detects the incoming missile at 100nm (assuming the enemy knows about stealthy missiles, which are a thing).

I totally agree that firing at a Mach 3 target at 100nm is ... a way to make them turn away. Which means the mission didn't succeed. Or depending on circumstances you could wait until they get closer and actually hit them. Tactical decision.

RJMAZ wrote:

By Mach 3 fighter I do not mean that it will sit at Mach 3 at full afterburner for the entire flight. I am talking about an aircraft that has better sustain heat handling over any fighter modern fighter. This heat handling means supercruising for a longer duration and dash speeds that are higher. I am talking about an aircraft that has unprecedented acceleration above Mach 2. An aircraft that can burst to Mach 3 briefly without it consuming all of the available fuel while doing so. The F-22 being able to sustain Mach 1.82 supercruise for 100nm before the frame starts to overheat in excellent. Being able to sustain that speed and heat for 1000+mm is 6th gen.

Back to if a modern fighter can exceed the limits of the human pilot. Maybe it can if it is a lightweight dogfighting style aircraft able to pull 15+G. But a long range, high speed and fuel fraction fighter aircraft will not be able to exceed the limits of a human pilot. It will be a 60t MTOW aircraft.

I have this vision of the human pilot pushing the turn-around button, the fighter does a 15G turn, and the pilot wakes back up as the fighter retreats.

Then I think the SR-71 is a bad example. An SR-71 does in fact cruise all day at Mach 3.

I think we agree on a lot.

But I think we disagree on this: Your high-and-fast fighter is going to have a hard time penetrating a modern air defense system. It might avoid incoming missiles, but cannot get to close to the launchers. And if the threat rings are close enough together, you just cannot penetrate.

Another problem is that the high-and-fast fighter is going to be easier to detect using IR. Which means it's vulnerable to a short range, ground based, IR guided missile. And such launchers need emit nothing, and can sit quiet as a mouse waiting for something to fly by. And such things are much cheaper than an S-400 system, so you can buy a lot more of them.

The F-35 could be a lot faster than it is if it weren't for the stealth coating. Even without a variable intake it should be capable of mach 2.0 like the F-16. Then again, the F-22's stealth coating doesn't seem to hinder its estimated mach 2-2.2 top speed...

Of course the F-14A could pull 7g at mach 2 with the glove vanes extended.

kitplane01 wrote:

I agree about speed being more attainable and usable. But I wonder who has more endurance at Mach 1.4 or so

The F-22 probably wouldn't have the longest endurance. While the F-22 would be the only aircraft that can do this easily with dry thrust it has the lowest fuel fraction.

F-35, SU-30, SU-34, SU-57 and J-20 all have much higher fuel fraction allowing them to use light afterburner and still have excellent endurance. It would not surprise me if one of these could maintain Mach 1.4 for longer than the F-22.

The F-15EX might even come close with conformal tanks. The Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen and F-16 would be in a clear class below.

6th gen will easily have 50+% longer supersonic endurance compared to any of the fighters listed above.

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't see why you think the missile is coming from a side. One might imagine the missile coming from straight ahead, from the target you are flying towards and about to attack.

Aircraft try and fly around known SAM sites so any mission launch will normally come from the side. Nearly every air to air missile kill has been from the side. Top gun style head on engagements are rare.

kitplane01 wrote:

I totally agree that firing at a Mach 3 target at 100nm is ... a way to make them turn away. Which means the mission didn't succeed. Or depending on circumstances you could wait until they get closer and actually hit them. Tactical decision

The high speed 6th genfighter would already have launched missiles first. So when the 6th gen fighter turns away it is actually performing an S turn to evade the incoming missiles and then continues to the target.

I assume the faster 6th gen has a lower radar cross section and a more advanced radar. Your suggesting of waiting until the faster 6th gen fighter gets closer assumes the 6th gen has a higher. If the enemy does field an advanced airborne IRST system then the 6th gen can always fly towards it at subsonic speed. That is what a throttle is for.

kitplane01 wrote:

I have this vision of the human pilot pushing the turn-around button, the fighter does a 15G turn, and the pilot wakes back up as the fighter retreats. .

This will definitely happen if it doesn't already exist. At supersonic speeds it is already possible for fighters to sustain 9+G for 10+ seconds.

kitplane01 wrote:

But I think we disagree on this: Your high-and-fast fighter is going to have a hard time penetrating a modern air defense system. It might avoid incoming missiles, but cannot get to close to the launchers. And if the threat rings are close enough together, you just cannot penetrate.

The faster and higher you fly the closer you can go to the SAM sites. The no escape zones of the missiles become smaller. The SAM systems have to become so large that they get taken out by cruise missiles in the first hour.

kitplane01 wrote:

Another problem is that the high-and-fast fighter is going to be easier to detect using IR. Which means it's vulnerable to a short range, ground based, IR guided missile. And such launchers need emit nothing, and can sit quiet as a mouse waiting for something to fly by. And such things are much cheaper than an S-400 system, so you can buy a lot more of them.

Mobile medium sized passive IR SAM systems will not be able to reach a high and fast aircraft. They will simply disrupt the flight path of the penetrating fighters. 6th gen is still 20+km up high that is still 30+ seconds to reach that altitude if fired from directly underneith. The 6th gen fighters will be scanning the ground with passive and LPI sensors and will easily detect these mobile launchers.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't see why you think the missile is coming from a side. One might imagine the missile coming from straight ahead, from the target you are flying towards and about to attack.

Aircraft try and fly around known SAM sites so any mission launch will normally come from the side. Nearly every air to air missile kill has been from the side. Top gun style head on engagements are rare.

I'm currently reading _Viper Pilot_. He flew wild weasel missions, and to read about it everything was from the front or below. Seems Iraq was filled with missile batteries; no one was going around. I do understand he was a wild weasel pilot.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I totally agree that firing at a Mach 3 target at 100nm is ... a way to make them turn away. Which means the mission didn't succeed. Or depending on circumstances you could wait until they get closer and actually hit them. Tactical decision

The high speed 6th genfighter would already have launched missiles first. So when the 6th gen fighter turns away it is actually performing an S turn to evade the incoming missiles and then continues to the target.

I assume the faster 6th gen has a lower radar cross section and a more advanced radar. Your suggesting of waiting until the faster 6th gen fighter gets closer assumes the 6th gen has a higher. If the enemy does field an advanced airborne IRST system then the 6th gen can always fly towards it at subsonic speed. That is what a throttle is for.

I guess it depends on the scenario, which neither of us specified. If you're attacking another fighter .. I assume they also have stealth. If you're attacking a mobile ground target, you might need to get close for targeting. If it's a known fixed ground target ... sure.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

But I think we disagree on this: Your high-and-fast fighter is going to have a hard time penetrating a modern air defense system. It might avoid incoming missiles, but cannot get to close to the launchers. And if the threat rings are close enough together, you just cannot penetrate.

The faster and higher you fly the closer you can go to the SAM sites. The no escape zones of the missiles become smaller. The SAM systems have to become so large that they get taken out by cruise missiles in the first hour.

Why do the sam systems have to become large? I understand VLF radars are large, but they hide behind the missile launchers which can be reasonably small, and well hidden. Also, VLF radars are few, and most radars are easily mobile just because people understand fixed, broadcasting installations get clobbered.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Another problem is that the high-and-fast fighter is going to be easier to detect using IR. Which means it's vulnerable to a short range, ground based, IR guided missile. And such launchers need emit nothing, and can sit quiet as a mouse waiting for something to fly by. And such things are much cheaper than an S-400 system, so you can buy a lot more of them.

Mobile medium sized passive IR SAM systems will not be able to reach a high and fast aircraft. They will simply disrupt the flight path of the penetrating fighters. 6th gen is still 20+km up high that is still 30+ seconds to reach that altitude if fired from directly underneith. The 6th gen fighters will be scanning the ground with passive and LPI sensors and will easily detect these mobile launchers.

Lets suppose the close range launch of a Mach 4 missile is detected. Now what? And remember, if 80% of the missiles miss, that's a win for the ground forces because they hit 20% of the time. Also, missile technology is also improving, and probably at a better rate because (1) they are quicker to develop so can use more modern technology and (2) no pesky fragile human bodies to coddle.

bikerthai wrote:

brindabella wrote:

to emulate what a human does when crossing to a pitching deck - and what I would imagine experienced carrier training-pilots teach their students:

It would be no different than what the self driving cars are capable of today. You either have cameras or some other sensor that can recognize the flight deck. Combine that with on board telemetry, the UAV should be able to react much faster than a pilot and consistently land better than the average pilot.

What a pilot has is the instinct acquired over years of experience. But as you say, that info can be programmed or acquired via self learning though hours upon hours of simulations.

bt

Quite.
Specifically, the AI needs to see past the rapidly-rising deck; which is about to be replaced by a rapidly-falling deck,

The AI, like the well-trained pilot, must not "flinch"; yet must be ready to react quickly if that becomes necessary..

cheers

brindabella wrote:

Specifically, the AI needs to see past the rapidly-rising deck; which is about to be replaced by a rapidly-falling deck,

This is easier than it may seem as the pitching of the deck is not random but follows a somewhat predictable pattern depending on the sea condition.

If the drone or the carrier can map out this pattern in real time with on board sensors, you may be able to reduce the deviations by a factor or two.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

brindabella wrote:

Specifically, the AI needs to see past the rapidly-rising deck; which is about to be replaced by a rapidly-falling deck,

This is easier than it may seem as the pitching of the deck is not random but follows a somewhat predictable pattern depending on the sea condition.

If the drone or the carrier can map out this pattern in real time with on board sensors, you may be able to reduce the deviations by a factor or two.

bt

And if the AI is really good - and it should be!

Then the landing A/C will do what we all do (when sufficiently self-assured that is!):

1) we stand and wait as the deck of the boat rises up towards us, then
2) with complete self-assurance we pick the second or so when it has come to a nice halt directly at one's feet;
3) then we just step on board.

So I will anticipate AIs showing-off by landing the A/C similarly exactly on top of the swell!



cheers

It is a really interesting thought experiment.

Even if the carrier hits a rogue wave, the ship's reaction would be rather slow considering the mass of the ship.

So, would it be more advantageous to touch down on the deck at the top of the sine wave? I would propose that it would be more predictable if you land in just past the top or bottom of the side wave when the flow of the deck is more likely to continue in one direction as oppose to the top or bottom of the wave when a change in direction is more likely and harder to predict.

bt

First arial refueling.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mq-25&s ... 2J1Y0,st:0

bt

bikerthai wrote:

First arial refueling.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mq-25&s ... 2J1Y0,st:0

bt

https://news.usni.org/2021/06/07/mq-25a ... first-test

Huh, not only just a dry hookup but a fuel transfer too.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

First arial refueling.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mq-25&s ... 2J1Y0,st:0

bt

https://news.usni.org/2021/06/07/mq-25a ... first-test

Huh, not only just a dry hookup but a fuel transfer too.

4 hour flight with a number of hookups, 325# is not much but probably not much more to learn pumping 3,000# vs 325#. No mention on how smooth the airflow is around it.

Is it just me or is this program actually ahead of schedule.

How does the MQ-25 compare to previous manned options in terms of the amount of fuel they can carry and it's range. It has to be better than the F-18 as a tanker, which put tons of hours on the Super Hornets which had to affect the overall mission readiness of the Fighter/Attack squadrons. How about compared to the S-3 and KA-6D?

STT757 wrote:

How does the MQ-25 compare to previous manned options in terms of the amount of fuel they can carry and it's range. It has to be better than the F-18 as a tanker, which put tons of hours on the Super Hornets which had to affect the overall mission readiness of the Fighter/Attack squadrons. How about compared to the S-3 and KA-6D?

There is very little info that I have see on its specification,only mimicking the RFP specs of 15K lb fuel delivered 500 miles. It is unknown whether Boeing just made this requirement or exceeded it by some margin. There was 'extra credit' in the RFP for added payload & or range.

https://news.usni.org/2020/07/30/navy-f ... his-summer

What about adding the magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) to the MQ-25, then it really would be the replacement for the S-3 Viking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking#/media/File:S-3A_VS-32_1982.JPEG

It's pretty much accepted that if the project is successful that extra capabilities will be added as future projects. The focus for the USN now is just getting something built and deployed. Even if it's not a magical do everything system.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

It's pretty much accepted that if the project is successful that extra capabilities will be added as future projects. The focus for the USN now is just getting something built and deployed. Even if it's not a magical do everything system.

I really like when our DOD wants to get the basic function right before adding a lot of bells and whistles. We didn't do that with the USS Ford, the catapults really needed to go from steam to EMALS, but why did we change all the elevators and arrestors, the earlier designs were very much in the Kiss principal.

Lets get the basic fuel truck operating right, then we can add other mission modules.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

It's pretty much accepted that if the project is successful that extra capabilities will be added as future projects. The focus for the USN now is just getting something built and deployed. Even if it's not a magical do everything system.

Agreed I’m getting ahead of myself, but it’s exciting when projects like this come along and the capabilities that can be realized are actually achievable.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Lets get the basic fuel truck operating right, then we can add other mission modules.

Yep, the next easy step for MQ-25 would be sensors for surveillance or communication.

bt

Another check mark.

https://news.usni.org/2021/08/19/boeing ... ed-hawkeye

“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,” according to a release from Naval Air Systems Command.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Another check mark.

https://news.usni.org/2021/08/19/boeing ... ed-hawkeye

“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,” according to a release from Naval Air Systems Command.

bt

Watching the video, I wasn't aware of just how big the MQ-25 is, it is an substantial aircraft.

LTEN11 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Another check mark.

https://news.usni.org/2021/08/19/boeing ... ed-hawkeye

“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,” according to a release from Naval Air Systems Command.

bt

Watching the video, I wasn't aware of just how big the MQ-25 is, it is an substantial aircraft.

If you want the good stuff on the MQ-25 the PMA-268 team did this great presentation including some info slides, https://youtu.be/a-Gu2NIL2s8

Still taking too long to get this to the carrier, IOC now 2025, and probably can add a year on again after that.

Looking at some MQ-25 budget documents ....

Unit cost is about $150M per. Not counting development, nor support, just production. You could easily buy an actual F/A 18 for much less!

In addition, there are ~1.5B in "other support, which is not "initial spares" nor "RDT&E". Anyone have a guess what that might be.

The MQ-25 only makes sense as a development program, where we learn about large unmanned aircraft operating from a carrier. As an actual refueling platform, it costs a huge amount more than just buying F-18s. I'm not criticizing, development programs have a use.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... 9_Full.pdf
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-439.pdf

kitplane01 wrote:

Looking at some MQ-25 budget documents ....

Unit cost is about $150M per.

Can you provide the quantity ordered? Some context would be nice.

Lot 1 pricing will always be more expensive as they have yet to come down the learning curve. First and second batch of full rate production would be more representative.

The other benefit would be the reduce operating cost of training a UAV pilot vs an F-18 pilot. An UAV pilot can monitor multiple aircraft vs an F-18 pilot.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

Looking at some MQ-25 budget documents ....

Unit cost is about $150M per. Not counting development, nor support, just production. You could easily buy an actual F/A 18 for much less!

The MQ-is a tanker and it can offload far more fuel than the Super Hornet.

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 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi. The further away from the carrier you fly the bigger the advantage to the MQ-25 as it sips fuel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray

The Super Hornets combat radius with 4 bombs is only 390nm. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_ ... per_Hornet So the MQ-25 can top up multi Hornets back to full internal fuel capacity to allow them to fly out to 700nm from the carrier.

OK, looking at the projected FRP frames, if I read it right, the cost is a little under 100 mil per frame fly away at 7 per year and a little over 100 mil per frame a 3 per year.

This is rather a rather low rate. Even the P-8 is running at over 12 per year at the height of its production.

If you get additional customers, and get the rate up, to one a month, you should be able to drive the price down further.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

If you get additional customers, and get the rate up, to one a month, you should be able to drive the price down further.

Unfortunately the only other country in the CATOBAR game is France. Pity India didn't leapfrog directly to CATOBAR, and doesn't look likely to for decades yet.