drone refeuling

Matthew

Matthew

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
19,105
Location
kojc, kixd, k34
Display Name
Display name:
Matthew
Boeing has tested the first drone air-to-air refueling:

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2021-0...nother-Aircraft#assets_20295_130877-117:20926

MQ-25_refueling_2.jpg
 
Cool and all, but I'm not sure I understand the "need" for it to be autonomous. I mean, in order to hold the amount of fuel needed to top off multiple birds as well as loiter time, wouldn't the overall aircraft size and capability be roughly the same (and likely the costs to operate)?
 
When did "need" become a requirement in government contracting? But in reality, when you don't have to have a crew on board, you substantially simplify the aircraft requirements (pressurization, environmental controls, etc.), and thereby saving weight and complexity. All good in theory, whether it makes economic sense to have an airframe specifically designed for this, I have no idea.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Cool and all, but I'm not sure I understand the "need" for it to be autonomous. I mean, in order to hold the amount of fuel needed to top off multiple birds as well as loiter time, wouldn't the overall aircraft size and capability be roughly the same (and likely the costs to operate)?
Click to expand...
It can loiter a lot longer, in much more hostile areas if there are no humans on board. And without the systems and space needed for said humans, you can either make it smaller or carry more fuel. Or you could have a lot more of them and let them follow the combat flights or loiter over combat areas. Imagine a flock of fighters with their own flying fuel tanks in trail.

This should be trivial work for drones, and I am surprised it hasn't happened before now.
 
Lindberg said:
It can loiter a lot longer, in much more hostile areas if there are no humans on board. And without the systems and space needed for said humans, you can either make it smaller or carry more fuel. Or you could have a lot more of them and let them follow the combat flights or loiter over combat areas. Imagine a flock of fighters with their own flying fuel tanks in trail.

This should be trivial work for drones, and I am surprised it hasn't happened before now.
Click to expand...

I guess I just didn't think there was a lot of refueling going on inside an active combat zone, for safety of the fighters and the tankers. It just seems like a lot of expense for a bunch of small tankers loitering around instead of one big tanker. Like @Jeff Oslick mentioned, I doubt the military contract needed to have any stipulation about costing less, lol. Not a military guy, so maybe there's a major tactical advantage here but it just seems like more of an expensive parlor trick than actual game-changer.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
 
Maybe it needs an ersatz boom operator, peering through a window, to provide a familiar experience for the pilot. Could be designed to look like the real one, maybe at 1/2 scale.

150410-F-OK506-231.JPG
 
a small(-ish) drone for refueling might be easier wrt turbulence.
 
If you have a small contingent that needs to go on a long range mission, do you want to dispatch a small drone or a large tanker with a crew of five to ten (depending on flight length).
This is step one with a small drone. Why build a monster tanker when you are not sure it will work. Baby steps, it will cost less in the long run.
What can wait on the line for immediate dispatch nad no mustering of staff?

Lastly, think about the number of CAPs we now maintain around the world, per a news article a long time ago, most require refueling the two to four planes half way through a duty cycle. The AF either has to reduce coverage, send up a large tanker currently. This would likely be a cheaper choice.

Tim


Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
Maybe have a string of them pre-positioned in and out of wherever. Then add a Hellfire missile just for fun in case there's a target of opportunity on the ground. When it's empty, find something to crash it into.

If this ever does become a real platform, it will have VTOL capability, all sorts of advanced avionics, and be too heavy to carry more than a splash of fuel.
 
NoHeat said:
Maybe it needs an ersatz boom operator, peering through a window, to provide a familiar experience for the pilot. Could be designed to look like the real one, maybe at 1/2 scale.

150410-F-OK506-231.JPG
Click to expand...
Boom operators wear Bose nowadays? I didn't know A20's were used by the military.
 
Remember the movie Stealth and the refueling blimp?
 
This drone is a meant to relieve the F/A-18 from tanker duty. It can carry 16k lbs of fuel 500 NMs.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
It's a Light Sport http://aviationdb.net/aviationdb/AircraftDetailPage#SUBMIT
Click to expand...
Might be a paperwork glitch.

Light Sport airplanes have a certification code of "9A", R&D drones are also "9A", except there's a "4" in front since they're in the Experimental category ("49A").

The most recent version of the downloadable FAA registry doesn't list a certification code at all, for this aircraft.

Searching for the "Boeing Q25" on the online directory gets some interesting results:

upload_2021-6-7_15-20-28.png
Notice it's not only listed as a seaplane, but as amateur-built....

Ron Wanttaja
 
I worked on the predecessor of this design. It was significantly different and during the program, the idea to use it as a “tanker’ became the more important objective. Our studies showed that it was not a major problem to make the switch. Still remains to be seen how the night, pitching deck, heavy rain scenario will be accomplished.

Avoiding sending up an F/A18 to tank a another carrier based airplane who needs gas in the near vicinity of the boat was the primary mission for this drone. Cat shots and traps take a lot out of an airframe, not to mention the crew. Basically a gas passer to keep a plane airborne until whatever problem, foul deck, gear problem, troubleshooting controls, whatever, is resolved.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see this thing launched with the plane guard helo during recovery ops.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
SoonerAviator said:
Cool and all, but I'm not sure I understand the "need" for it to be autonomous. I mean, in order to hold the amount of fuel needed to top off multiple birds as well as loiter time, wouldn't the overall aircraft size and capability be roughly the same (and likely the costs to operate)?
Click to expand...

Straight wings, implying airframe efficiency plus no bio-creatures to take care of mean this thing can probably carry a payload (fuel in this case) more efficiently than a fighter. Also it has a reduced RCS shape (the pod may not be stealthy). If you want to push your tanker(s) closer to the bad guys so you can extend the F-35's reach, this may allow you to do that.

One of the real concerns if we get into a tangle with the Chinese or Russians is they either have or are developing the ability to reach out and touch tankers at long range, driving the tankers farther out and reducing the reach of attack aircraft. A stealthier tanker helps.
 
It’s amazing that it can keep up with the fighter with such a tiny little propeller on that little engine pod on the bottom… And which one of those probes on the nose is for the AOA indicator?
 
SoonerAviator said:
I guess I just didn't think there was a lot of refueling going on inside an active combat zone, for safety of the fighters and the tankers. It just seems like a lot of expense for a bunch of small tankers loitering around instead of one big tanker. Like @Jeff Oslick mentioned, I doubt the military contract needed to have any stipulation about costing less, lol. Not a military guy, so maybe there's a major tactical advantage here but it just seems like more of an expensive parlor trick than actual game-changer.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

During Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and Inherent Resolve, aerial refueling coverage was pretty much 24/7. Some form of CAS, AWACS or EW aircraft are up all the time so aerial refueling is / was critical there.

The MQ-25 will never replace current “heavy” manned tankers though. It’s a tactical asset for carrier ops. 500 miles and only 15,000 lbs JP-8 ain’t gonna cut it for long range & long loiter times. The AF still runs the show in that regard.
 
Velocity173 said:
The MQ-25 will never replace current “heavy” manned tankers though. It’s a tactical asset for carrier ops. 500 miles and only 15,000 lbs JP-8 ain’t gonna cut it for long range & long loiter times. The AF still runs the show in that regard.
Click to expand...

Before you try and replace the heavy tanker, starting with the baby seems like a good start. If this works, expect that it will be scaled up.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Before you try and replace the heavy tanker, starting with the baby seems like a good start. If this works, expect that it will be scaled up.

Tim
Click to expand...

No doubt but like replacing manned fighters, it’s not gonna happen anytime soon.
 
Velocity173 said:
During Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and Inherent Resolve, aerial refueling coverage was pretty much 24/7. Some form of CAS, AWACS or EW aircraft are up all the time so aerial refueling is / was critical there.

The MQ-25 will never replace current “heavy” manned tankers though. It’s a tactical asset for carrier ops. 500 miles and only 15,000 lbs JP-8 ain’t gonna cut it for long range & long loiter times. The AF still runs the show in that regard.
Click to expand...

The Navy really, really needs something with longer legs and has needed that since the A-6 was retired. Too bad the Dorito didn't come to fruition.
 
luvflyin said:
Dorito??
Click to expand...

The A-12 Avenger that was cancelled around 1990. It was close to prototype stage but was overweight and over budget. It was triangle shaped, stealthy, and the sales brochure promised good range.
 
Velocity173 said:
The Global Hawks never actually accomplished refuel though. All they did was fly in close formation. The program was cancelled by NASA in 2012.
Click to expand...

I thought they did accomplish it and then the project cancelled.

e28616f1456e2eb5ee446e38501e4390.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Dorito was a real fiasco. Way behind schedule, bleeding money and who knows what performance. With John Lehman as SECNAV and meddling with the program incessantly, it died an ignoble death.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
The Dorito was a real fiasco. Way behind schedule, bleeding money and who knows what performance. With John Lehman as SECNAV and meddling with the program incessantly, it died an ignoble death.
Click to expand...

Lehman was Sec Nav until 87 and the A-12 program lasted until 91. Dick Cheney as SecDef killed it. Likely a good thing. It had just way too many things on the bleeding edge to really have been a successful shipborne attack jet. We DID get a very nice new hangar at Whidbey though that came out of A-12 money so some winning :D
 
Good to see. Will be a critical component of skynet, which will keep us all safe!
 
Pugs said:

Lehman was Sec Nav until 87 and the A-12 program lasted until 91. Dick Cheney as SecDef killed it. Likely a good thing. It had just way too many things on the bleeding edge to really have been a successful shipborne attack jet. We DID get a very nice new hangar at Whidbey though that came out of A-12 money so some winning :D
Click to expand...

IIRC, One of Lehman’s requirements was side by side seating for the B/N after the design was started with tandem. Had some real consequences but he liked being up front in the A-6. He did a lot of good things as SECNAV for Naval Aviation but the A-12 wasnt one of them;)

Cheers
 
Pugs said:

Lehman was Sec Nav until 87 and the A-12 program lasted until 91. Dick Cheney as SecDef killed it. Likely a good thing. It had just way too many things on the bleeding edge to really have been a successful shipborne attack jet. We DID get a very nice new hangar at Whidbey though that came out of A-12 money so some winning :D
Click to expand...

Same thing happened in the Army when they cancelled the RAH-66. We got goodies from the billions they saved with that debacle.

What’s funny is, because it never entered service, now they have a new requirement for a Future Attack Recon Aircraft to fill the gap that the OH-58 left. Gonna end up spending billions more now because someone didn’t foresee the problem with the aging Kiowa 20 years ago. MIC at its best! :D
 
X3 Skier said:
IIRC, One of Lehman’s requirements was side by side seating for the B/N after the design was started with tandem. Had some real consequences but he liked being up front in the A-6. He did a lot of good things as SECNAV for Naval Aviation but the A-12 wasnt one of them;)
Click to expand...

Yep. I was commissioned in 87 and thought he was the best one I had in my career.
 
Velocity173 said:
Gonna end up spending billions more now because someone didn’t foresee the problem with the aging Kiowa 20 years ago. MIC at its best! :D
Click to expand...

I’m probably wrong, but have come to the conclusion that in most cases, we’re better off pushing the current program to completion and subsequent upgrades than cancelling the current one and starting over from scratch a few years down the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top