by "Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
Published 12/21/2017 at 09:47
by "Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
Published 12/21/2017 at 09:47
No Tags
STARS: 3
Boeing MQ-25. Carrier borne fighter refueling drone. Absolutely brilliant IMO.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
12/21/2017 at 10:04, STARS: 2
Until it crashes into a Syrian orphanage by “mistake,” that is.
"R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet" (r-saldana)
12/21/2017 at 10:08, STARS: 1
Sure would be dope if they would use these to fight wildfires.......just saying.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
12/21/2017 at 10:14, STARS: 0
I wonder how it would do in a situation like this.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"Thomas Donohue" (tomonomics)
12/21/2017 at 10:15, STARS: 1
I like the idea, but I have this scenario of a fully loaded drone crashing...either into the Hornet or the carrier.
I wonder if anyone is designing ‘drone’ auxiliary/booster fuel tanks. Similar to the SpaceX model, the booster drone would launch with the plane, get it to distance/altitude, then release the fighter and return to the carrier.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
12/21/2017 at 10:19, STARS: 1
That booster idea has been done in the past, but it wouldn’t work for a carrier fighter. Carrier based fighters are big and heavy, carrying a big and heavy plane would require a bigger and heavier plane.
"Thomas Donohue" (tomonomics)
12/21/2017 at 10:58, STARS: 0
Are they that much heavier that two auxiliary rockets couldn’t get it to altitude and a reasonable distance to the target? I don’t want to put them in orbit.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
12/21/2017 at 11:23, STARS: 1
Cost, complexity, safety...I’m not saying it can’t be done, it just wouldn’t be practical.
"Thomas Donohue" (tomonomics)
12/21/2017 at 11:32, STARS: 0
Agreed. I was just thinking of something that might have less cost/complexity than the refueling drone, which I imagine is pretty complex.
"user314" (user314)
12/21/2017 at 12:25, STARS: 1
Eh, various services and manufacturers have played around with parasite aircraft from the ‘40s through the ‘60s, none of them ever worked out. Flyback boosters may work for space launches, but don’t make practical sense for aircraft.
"user314" (user314)
12/21/2017 at 12:26, STARS: 1
I’d think converting a few more 747 s to tankers would be a better answer.
"R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet" (r-saldana)
12/21/2017 at 12:53, STARS: 0
But more flights > fewer pilots > easier to get closer to treetop levels
"user314" (user314)
12/21/2017 at 13:15, STARS: 0
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
12/21/2017 at 14:06, STARS: 0
Sure, but a carrier/parasite system is going to be at least as complex as a refueling drone. If it’s unmanned, it’s basically the same thing. If it’s manned, now you need to have space and support for a pilot which, while not necessarily as complex as a drone system, requires far more structure around it adding to the size and weight. Plus now you have to figure out how to attach it safely and reliably. I actually put together a long form article on Oppo about parasite fighters, there’s a long history of mostly failures that ended with the modern style of aerial refueling.
If it’s a rocket-pod type system, I just don’t think you’ll get as far as you need to. Droppable fuel tanks have been used in the past and are still used today, but they take up space used for other provisions and require safe systems to deliver that fuel to the aircraft. It also requires the ship to carry stores of tanks, so wartime readiness is more limited than it is by having an aircraft dedicated to refueling.
"gmporschenut also a fan of hondas" (gmporschenut)
12/21/2017 at 23:15, STARS: 0
Though useful in certain critical situations the effectiveness of aerial spraying isn’t as great as other gound based countermeasures.