There is a new variant of the MQ-1C Grey Eagle drone, called the Mojave. With a new wing, it's seriously short takeoff and landing, with rugged gear. It should work on an aircraft carrier without catapult or arresting gear. You would want a wing folding mechanism. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... eaks-cover

Question: Would you trade a couple of Blackhawks, or even an F-18, for a couple of drones? The drones have a much larger range than the Blackhawk, seriously way more endurance, and you can send them to scary places you would not risk a human.

Note: This is about 7,000 lbs empty weight. It's small. It's maybe 1/4th of a MQ-25 or 1/3 of a Blackhawk. It does carry a sea search radar, sonobuoys, or Hellfires if you want to attack something. It can easily round-trip to Afghanistan from the ocean.

16 hellfires!? Damn that thing packs a punch!

It seems like it's purpose though is probably rough field capability in the event the original operating airfield is destroyed.

I gotta wonder if they will ever develop a high endurance drone for the america and the tripoli that can provide the AWACS function for them? Somethong with long, high lift wings should be able to use the deck as is.

TWA772LR wrote:

16 hellfires!? Damn that thing packs a punch!

It seems like it's purpose though is probably rough field capability in the event the original operating airfield is destroyed.

Maybe not so much original airfield is destroyed but more to expand range of airfrields possible. This capability should be very interesting to the french operating in Africa, now they could have persistent CAS from airfields a lot closer to the operating area.

LightningZ71 wrote:

I gotta wonder if they will ever develop a high endurance drone for the america and the tripoli that can provide the AWACS function for them? Somethong with long, high lift wings should be able to use the deck as is.

Probably short on electrical power generation for a decent AWAC capability, plus that type of radar on top would really mess with the aerodynamics.

I know they toyed with the idea of a v-22 AWACs but don't think it went very far past concept.

I think we are approaching the state where the US navy would prefer space-based surveillance of threats, particularly where airborne platforms don’t already provide coverage.

Blackhawks belong on the beach, NOT on a carrier.

The NAVY has 'Hawks of their own, thanks....


StudeDave

studedave wrote:

Blackhawks belong on the beach, NOT on a carrier.

The NAVY has 'Hawks of their own, thanks....


StudeDave

Huh? What does this mean?

The original question was about replacing navy helicopters in navy aircraft carriers.

texl1649 wrote:

I think we are approaching the state where the US navy would prefer space-based surveillance of threats, particularly where airborne platforms don’t already provide coverage.

Sure. But I believe the current satellites don't do live streaming of video, which the drone can and seems tactically important. Nor do they deliver missiles.
Of course, one can imagine better systems that do live streaming from satellites. But I don't believe even the best satellites have the resolution of a drone. It's not obvious which would have lower cost.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

16 hellfires!? Damn that thing packs a punch!

It seems like it's purpose though is probably rough field capability in the event the original operating airfield is destroyed.

Maybe not so much original airfield is destroyed but more to expand range of airfrields possible. This capability should be very interesting to the french operating in Africa, now they could have persistent CAS from airfields a lot closer to the operating area.

LightningZ71 wrote:

I gotta wonder if they will ever develop a high endurance drone for the america and the tripoli that can provide the AWACS function for them? Somethong with long, high lift wings should be able to use the deck as is.

Probably short on electrical power generation for a decent AWAC capability, plus that type of radar on top would really mess with the aerodynamics.

I know they toyed with the idea of a v-22 AWACs but don't think it went very far past concept.

I'm just wondering how often we want to operate off a dirt field where
1) The dirt field has a supply of food and fuel
2) It's safe from snipers and such
3) There is not paved runway within a few hundred miles. Because something like 300 miles is just two hours away, and these things have more than 24 hours endurance so you're really not hurting your operation cadence too much.

I just checked because I'm curious. There is no place in Mauritania, Chad, Mali, Northern Alaska, or the Amazon that's 300 from a paved runway. So you'll need someplace more desolate than that.

If you're flying in food and fuel from any place within hundreds of miles, it might be easier to operate the drones from that place. And I assume (without actually knowing) that the French are not flying in food/fuel from Paris

This may be useful on an amphibious assault ship. On a carrier, you can theoretically perform the same function with an MQ-25 variant, albeit with less loiter time.

You wouldn't trade a Helo for this, they serve different function.

bt

OK I get your argument. If you need something with this capability, you are looking at a rather large operation anyway, thus access to runway or at least a paved road is already in the card.

If you are 300 miles in to the boonies, then something like a Scan Eagle should be sufficient.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

OK I get your argument. If you need something with this capability, you are looking at a rather large operation anyway, thus access to runway or at least a paved road is already in the card.

If you are 300 miles in to the boonies, then something like a Scan Eagle should be sufficient.

bt

What's the Scan Eagle dropping as payload?

FlapOperator wrote:

What's the Scan Eagle dropping as payload?

Ah I see. CAS as opposed to surveillance. Aircraft carrier as opposed to bush war.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

What's the Scan Eagle dropping as payload?

Ah I see. CAS as opposed to surveillance. Aircraft carrier as opposed to bush war.

bt

I can think of a multitude of reasons to have a few onboard, even if I'm little skeptical of the ability to free launch and recover with a full loadout.

Back in the olden days, CAGs of 80+ aircraft weren't uncommon, so frankly I bet there is room in the hangar (though no folding wing will make spotting a PITA.)

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

16 hellfires!? Damn that thing packs a punch!

It seems like it's purpose though is probably rough field capability in the event the original operating airfield is destroyed.

Maybe not so much original airfield is destroyed but more to expand range of airfrields possible. This capability should be very interesting to the french operating in Africa, now they could have persistent CAS from airfields a lot closer to the operating area.

LightningZ71 wrote:

I gotta wonder if they will ever develop a high endurance drone for the america and the tripoli that can provide the AWACS function for them? Somethong with long, high lift wings should be able to use the deck as is.

Probably short on electrical power generation for a decent AWAC capability, plus that type of radar on top would really mess with the aerodynamics.

I know they toyed with the idea of a v-22 AWACs but don't think it went very far past concept.

I'm just wondering how often we want to operate off a dirt field where
1) The dirt field has a supply of food and fuel
2) It's safe from snipers and such
3) There is not paved runway within a few hundred miles. Because something like 300 miles is just two hours away, and these things have more than 24 hours endurance so you're really not hurting your operation cadence too much.

I just checked because I'm curious. There is no place in Mauritania, Chad, Mali, Northern Alaska, or the Amazon that's 300 from a paved runway. So you'll need someplace more desolate than that.

If you're flying in food and fuel from any place within hundreds of miles, it might be easier to operate the drones from that place. And I assume (without actually knowing) that the French are not flying in food/fuel from Paris

Sure and there is a nice big paved strip at Goa that the french could use for their fast jets but they don't, they use a strip significantly further away. Operating a MQ-1 isn't confined to where your food is though. Would be easy to set up a temp base in a forward location, flying in enough fuel and munitions to keep the airframe operating. Or you could use a USMC dispersed ops model and never land the airframe at the same location twice but keep it hopping around the AO and just land a C-130 ahead of it with maintenance and fuel/ammo etc.

FlapOperator wrote:

Back in the olden days, CAGs of 80+ aircraft weren't uncommon, so frankly I bet there is room in the hangar (though no folding wing will make spotting a PITA.)

Elevators would be the problem more than the hanger, would need to park it and hang significant wing off the edge. Not sure doing that will even work on a gator boat given elevator entrance clearance.

kitplane01 wrote:

Huh? What does this mean?
The original question was about replacing navy helicopters in navy aircraft carriers.

'Zactly.

Why would you mention Blackhawks when talking of the NAVY.?
They have 'Hawks of their own.


The World wonders......


StudeDave

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Back in the olden days, CAGs of 80+ aircraft weren't uncommon, so frankly I bet there is room in the hangar (though no folding wing will make spotting a PITA.)

Elevators would be the problem more than the hanger, would need to park it and hang significant wing off the edge. Not sure doing that will even work on a gator boat given elevator entrance clearance.

An OV-10-sized aircraft would fit on any of the 'Gators, IIRC.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Maybe not so much original airfield is destroyed but more to expand range of airfrields possible. This capability should be very interesting to the french operating in Africa, now they could have persistent CAS from airfields a lot closer to the operating area.
Probably short on electrical power generation for a decent AWAC capability, plus that type of radar on top would really mess with the aerodynamics.

I know they toyed with the idea of a v-22 AWACs but don't think it went very far past concept.

I'm just wondering how often we want to operate off a dirt field where
1) The dirt field has a supply of food and fuel
2) It's safe from snipers and such
3) There is not paved runway within a few hundred miles. Because something like 300 miles is just two hours away, and these things have more than 24 hours endurance so you're really not hurting your operation cadence too much.

I just checked because I'm curious. There is no place in Mauritania, Chad, Mali, Northern Alaska, or the Amazon that's 300 from a paved runway. So you'll need someplace more desolate than that.

If you're flying in food and fuel from any place within hundreds of miles, it might be easier to operate the drones from that place. And I assume (without actually knowing) that the French are not flying in food/fuel from Paris

Sure and there is a nice big paved strip at Goa that the french could use for their fast jets but they don't, they use a strip significantly further away. Operating a MQ-1 isn't confined to where your food is though. Would be easy to set up a temp base in a forward location, flying in enough fuel and munitions to keep the airframe operating. Or you could use a USMC dispersed ops model and never land the airframe at the same location twice but keep it hopping around the AO and just land a C-130 ahead of it with maintenance and fuel/ammo etc.

It opens up a lot of possibilities for very dynamic ops. Random road, meets CH-47/53 or Osprey (or two) as a mobile one-time use FARP.

Spacepope wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I'm just wondering how often we want to operate off a dirt field where
1) The dirt field has a supply of food and fuel
2) It's safe from snipers and such
3) There is not paved runway within a few hundred miles. Because something like 300 miles is just two hours away, and these things have more than 24 hours endurance so you're really not hurting your operation cadence too much.

I just checked because I'm curious. There is no place in Mauritania, Chad, Mali, Northern Alaska, or the Amazon that's 300 from a paved runway. So you'll need someplace more desolate than that.

If you're flying in food and fuel from any place within hundreds of miles, it might be easier to operate the drones from that place. And I assume (without actually knowing) that the French are not flying in food/fuel from Paris

Sure and there is a nice big paved strip at Goa that the french could use for their fast jets but they don't, they use a strip significantly further away. Operating a MQ-1 isn't confined to where your food is though. Would be easy to set up a temp base in a forward location, flying in enough fuel and munitions to keep the airframe operating. Or you could use a USMC dispersed ops model and never land the airframe at the same location twice but keep it hopping around the AO and just land a C-130 ahead of it with maintenance and fuel/ammo etc.

It opens up a lot of possibilities for very dynamic ops. Random road, meets CH-47/53 or Osprey (or two) as a mobile one-time use FARP.

I wonder if that's true.

I don't know the flying_hours/maintenance_hours of an MQ-1, but are there any planes in the USAF or Navy where it's less than 1:1? I don't think even business jets gets below 1:1.

Because if a 24 hour mission requires 24 hours of work, you'll need a place to sleep, food, tools, etc. Isn't an forward detachment for an MQ-1 almost a dozen people?

FlapOperator wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Back in the olden days, CAGs of 80+ aircraft weren't uncommon, so frankly I bet there is room in the hangar (though no folding wing will make spotting a PITA.)

Elevators would be the problem more than the hanger, would need to park it and hang significant wing off the edge. Not sure doing that will even work on a gator boat given elevator entrance clearance.

An OV-10-sized aircraft would fit on any of the 'Gators, IIRC.

Sure, an OV-10's wingspan is 12 feet shorter though... The elevator may handle the MQ-1C if you hang the wing over the edge but you have to get it on the elevator in the first place. See below, not a lot of room from hanger to elevator on a LHA.


Image from here, https://news.usni.org/2016/08/17/21198_ ... ss_america

Stubby only fits cause they hang the tail off the back.

Image from here, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... own-147296

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't know the flying_hours/maintenance_hours of an MQ-1, but are there any planes in the USAF or Navy where it's less than 1:1? I don't think even business jets gets below 1:1.

Three things to consider

1) No human related system on the drone to complicate maintenance

2) Does a turbo prop have less maintenance than a turbojet?

3) The "stop over" would only involve fuel and maybe armerment. Although if you just just stay with fuel and oil, it would be easier. On low intensity conflict, you'll more likely needing to refuel more often than you need to replenish missiles.

What would stop them from having a folding wing? Will they lose fuel capcity?
bt

studedave wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Huh? What does this mean?
The original question was about replacing navy helicopters in navy aircraft carriers.

'Zactly.

Why would you mention Blackhawks when talking of the NAVY.?
They have 'Hawks of their own.


The World wonders......


StudeDave

Seahawks

LightningZ71 wrote:

I gotta wonder if they will ever develop a high endurance drone for the america and the tripoli that can provide the AWACS function for them? Somethong with long, high lift wings should be able to use the deck as is.

Probably short on electrical power generation for a decent AWAC capability, plus that type of radar on top would really mess with the aerodynamics.

I know they toyed with the idea of a v-22 AWACs but don't think it went very far past concept.[/quote]

I agree that those two things would be issues if we implemented them the way they have been in the past. I don't doubt that additional power generation would be needed, though, that's not insurmountable. Enlarging the existing engine a bit and increasing generator capacity is a straight-forward process, though, it would naturally require airframe modifications to keep weight & balance in check and reduce endurance. The giant circular radome isn't necessarily as important anymore. Conformal pods with flat panel arrays can get you a long way towards what you need without making drastic impacts on aerodynamics.

Neither of those changes, or the additional secure data links, are a trivial task to implement. They are, however, not foreign concepts to anyone, and can be done in a high endurance airframe that can operate from a gator carrier. Folding wings aren't exactly new either. It can work, the question is, do we want to make the investment?

LightningZ71 wrote:

I gotta wonder if they will ever develop a high endurance drone for the america and the tripoli that can provide the AWACS function for them? Somethong with long, high lift wings should be able to use the deck as is.

Question would be for a near peer conflict, would those amphib be in an operation without carrier or land base AWACS support anyway?

bt