@@borissljukic1470 too small? well you must be more intelligent than the Navy and Boeing engineers since this is the Navy's exact design for carrier-based tanker drone, and they surely know what they wanted and how they achieve it. This "small aircraft" -that actually almost as big as the F/A-18- can deliver 16.000 pounds of fuel, and with the nature of carrier based tankers being more of a recovery tanker than mission tanker, that amount of fuel would be enough. Also the MQ-25 has more expensive cost per unit than the F-35 since amount of unit procured are smaller. That's basic economy. Anyway congratulations Boris, you have surpassed yourself.
@@rickykurniawann during the nineties, based on the B 2, VVA 14, F 14, YF 23 and Su 17, I defined a new hexagonal design of aircraft with variable-sweep wing. Such a plane with two engines and an afterburner would achieve a maximum speed of 1.2÷1.4 M and have a large payload. Such an aircraft could comfortably carry 32,000 pounds without any problem.
@@rickykurniawann try hexagonal design. Length 30'03" Wingspan 26'02" Wing area 593 sq ft Powerplant 2 x F414-GE-400 without afterburner This is the simplest air tanker that would carry 32,000 pounds.
@@GUNTHER1 it's primarily ment to support the f/a 18 with the ability to launch from a carrier giving it a large advantage over a kc-48 that need a large land based runway.
It means it can fly with fighters and bombers until they are low on gas and refuel them and they can fly further and can return while the fighters can go farther. We need that
Great Idea as a pilot less Refueling Transport, but still taking jobs away from pilots... But for "Stealth Refueling" would be greatly an advantage if we (the US/UN) where to have another Nightime "Skirmish" like Desert Storm. What is the External (Storage) Fuel Capacity for "remote refueling", and how many F-22/23's could one "unit" fully refuel? The "form" is decent, but is the "function" up to the task to be able to "top-off" multiple Arial Units... Lastly, this looks to be a very good looking "Drone" once it is to be put to work when necessity calls for it. "Arial Waterboy" is what I would call it!
No, it won't be "taking jobs away from pilots" since this UAV will likely flown by NFOs integrated within Hawkeye squadrons. Also this UAV won't be refuel F-22s since this is the Navy's carrier based tanker. Carrier based tankers are more of recovery tanker than mission tanker, flew closer to the battle group to help topping up fuel for outbound strike packages or to top up the fuel of aircraft returning to the carrier.
The Idea that we're Implementing pilotless drone in combat, free's up the pilots to fly in the commercial world. Right now there aren't enough pilots to fly us around.
Commercial planes don't need pilots. I heard a joke from a pilot. "Boeing and American Airlines are working on a cockpit for a pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to feed the dog and the dog's purpose is to bite the pilot if he touches the controls."
this is not the only project in it's own kind, the turkish drone company baykar is making a bayraktar TB3 fleet for Turkey's new helicopter carrier(aircraft carrie for some) and that same company is also developing an unmanned jet poowered stealth capability drone named KIZILELMA, I also heard that the uk and india are on similar porjects, the usa has some competition.
@@GUNTHER1 yes U are right but these countries are developing but they are still behind . what do you thinhk that when will they produce better than us companies
The way he says St. Louie instead of saying the name properly is strange, but you can clearly hear when he takes breaths at natural points in his speech. He's got a fairly standard American accent. It's not AI voiceover, IMO.
This doesn't make sense, the drone carries 15,000 lbs of fuel for itself and to pass to other planes. I have read that the Navy wants the tanker to be able to fuel 4-6 planes on one load but one F-18 carries 14,000 lbs of fuel each internally. On average a F-18 burns 4,000 lbs of fuel an hour. Am I missing something or does it sound like the drone is barely going to top up the F-18 tanks for an extra 40 minutes of flight? Hardly worth $115M a copy.
They plan to buy over 70 of these tanker drones but they only have 11 carriers. So it is safe to guess each carrier would have a lot more than one tanker drone.
Yes... except you can launch these on demand as the mission requires, say you have an issue launching a relief crew for the AWACS operating in the area, well, you don't want to lose AWACS coverage while it lands and refuels, you launch a drone, top it off, it continues flying for however long it needs to. Alternatively these can be used as observation platforms and can top off strike aircraft as they near their mission objectives. It's not a bulk tanker, we don't need that, it's more or less a throwaway that can be deployed with/ahead of strike groups and fill in when there isn't a friendly tanker already in the skies nearby. US Pilots don't wait until they're empty to refill, it's mostly topping up to extend range, 4000-5000lbs of fuel, launch 4 MQ5's and you can refill a whole lot of birds.
Some of these UAPs navy has filmed have pulled up to 6 hundred Gs I know for a fact that those are off world drones nothing in this world can be inside of something pulling 8 gGs let alone 600 Gs
Cruise MOAB? Cruise MOAB! Just saying given it's fuel payload being only a bit under the weight of explosive in the Moab. Rip off the refueling system/plumbing to get the rest of the mass. Simplify the avionics to lower costs. And there's your 500 nautical mile cruise MOAB that while still super expensive wouldn't be all that much more then a normal MOAB and wouldn't need a c130 (160 million itself for tallon 2 used for MOAB) to deliver it putting itself and crew at high risk. While also letting it be used in areas where you don't have air superiority or even as part of a DEAD package.
Companion drone more expensive than the F 35. Congratulations gentlemen. You have surpassed yourself.
Companion drone? It's a tanker
@@nuclearnadal9385 too small for that purpose.
@@borissljukic1470 too small? well you must be more intelligent than the Navy and Boeing engineers since this is the Navy's exact design for carrier-based tanker drone, and they surely know what they wanted and how they achieve it. This "small aircraft" -that actually almost as big as the F/A-18- can deliver 16.000 pounds of fuel, and with the nature of carrier based tankers being more of a recovery tanker than mission tanker, that amount of fuel would be enough. Also the MQ-25 has more expensive cost per unit than the F-35 since amount of unit procured are smaller. That's basic economy.
Anyway congratulations Boris, you have surpassed yourself.
@@rickykurniawann during the nineties, based on the B 2, VVA 14, F 14, YF 23 and Su 17, I defined a new hexagonal design of aircraft with variable-sweep wing. Such a plane with two engines and an afterburner would achieve a maximum speed of 1.2÷1.4 M and have a large payload.
Such an aircraft could comfortably carry 32,000 pounds without any problem.
@@rickykurniawann try hexagonal design.
Length 30'03"
Wingspan 26'02"
Wing area 593 sq ft
Powerplant 2 x F414-GE-400 without afterburner
This is the simplest air tanker that would carry 32,000 pounds.
"pass gas on the way out..." So $155m for a flying fart?
Pork N BeaNZ, Boston best Baked Brown Canned Bread 2.
“gas”=USA English & nonsense English for “gasoline”.
@@GUNTHER1 it's primarily ment to support the f/a 18 with the ability to launch from a carrier giving it a large advantage over a kc-48 that need a large land based runway.
It means it can fly with fighters and bombers until they are low on gas and refuel them and they can fly further and can return while the fighters can go farther. We need that
@@HarryCriswell-ky5xt *WHOOOSH!
Leigh, I wouldn't have expected you to be on a Military channel.
Still another two years before the entire manufacturing of the MQ25 is built:)
If this thing costs the US Navy $155 million each, they are definitely getting ripped off. You can buy TWO F-35’s for that price.
It’s the future pal
Can it land on a carrier?
Or can it land on a carrier when it is fully loaded?
I know that the Ottomans are making drones, it's called: (Bayraktar Kızılelma)
well it's nice to call them Ottmanns but Atatürk destroyed Ottmanns and made turkey
Great Idea as a pilot less Refueling Transport, but still taking jobs away from pilots...
But for "Stealth Refueling" would be greatly an advantage if we (the US/UN) where to have another Nightime "Skirmish" like Desert Storm.
What is the External (Storage) Fuel Capacity for "remote refueling", and how many F-22/23's could one "unit" fully refuel?
The "form" is decent, but is the "function" up to the task to be able to "top-off" multiple Arial Units...
Lastly, this looks to be a very good looking "Drone" once it is to be put to work when necessity calls for it.
"Arial Waterboy" is what I would call it!
No, it won't be "taking jobs away from pilots" since this UAV will likely flown by NFOs integrated within Hawkeye squadrons. Also this UAV won't be refuel F-22s since this is the Navy's carrier based tanker. Carrier based tankers are more of recovery tanker than mission tanker, flew closer to the battle group to help topping up fuel for outbound strike packages or to top up the fuel of aircraft returning to the carrier.
A drone more expensive than 5th gen fighter jet?! Wow, that's something
The Idea that we're Implementing pilotless drone in combat, free's up the pilots to fly in the commercial world. Right now there aren't enough pilots to fly us around.
Commercial planes don't need pilots. I heard a joke from a pilot. "Boeing and American Airlines are working on a cockpit for a pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to feed the dog and the dog's purpose is to bite the pilot if he touches the controls."
this is not the only project in it's own kind, the turkish drone company baykar is making a bayraktar TB3 fleet for Turkey's new helicopter carrier(aircraft carrie for some) and that same company is also developing an unmanned jet poowered stealth capability drone named KIZILELMA, I also heard that the uk and india are on similar porjects, the usa has some competition.
@@GUNTHER1 yes U are right but these countries are developing but they are still behind . what do you thinhk that when will they produce better than us companies
Whatever text to speech program you used for this sounds weird.
The way he says St. Louie instead of saying the name properly is strange, but you can clearly hear when he takes breaths at natural points in his speech. He's got a fairly standard American accent. It's not AI voiceover, IMO.
Why are we building a stealth drone that isn't stealthy with the fuel pod attached.
Combustível extra
UsA logic
To rob the taxpayers and clear the way for China. As commanded.
this is fucking cool - self-piloting minitankers
Making cronies ALOT of money. You really think this is needed? Or are they just lining their on own and their friends pockets. Ppl need to wake up.
You prefer to limit the range of a carrier?
This doesn't make sense, the drone carries 15,000 lbs of fuel for itself and to pass to other planes. I have read that the Navy wants the tanker to be able to fuel 4-6 planes on one load but one F-18 carries 14,000 lbs of fuel each internally. On average a F-18 burns 4,000 lbs of fuel an hour. Am I missing something or does it sound like the drone is barely going to top up the F-18 tanks for an extra 40 minutes of flight? Hardly worth $115M a copy.
They plan to buy over 70 of these tanker drones but they only have 11 carriers. So it is safe to guess each carrier would have a lot more than one tanker drone.
Yes... except you can launch these on demand as the mission requires, say you have an issue launching a relief crew for the AWACS operating in the area, well, you don't want to lose AWACS coverage while it lands and refuels, you launch a drone, top it off, it continues flying for however long it needs to. Alternatively these can be used as observation platforms and can top off strike aircraft as they near their mission objectives. It's not a bulk tanker, we don't need that, it's more or less a throwaway that can be deployed with/ahead of strike groups and fill in when there isn't a friendly tanker already in the skies nearby.
US Pilots don't wait until they're empty to refill, it's mostly topping up to extend range, 4000-5000lbs of fuel, launch 4 MQ5's and you can refill a whole lot of birds.
This seems incorrect the MQ-25 is not more expensive than a global hawk.
Some of these UAPs navy has filmed have pulled up to 6 hundred Gs I know for a fact that those are off world drones nothing in this world can be inside of something pulling 8 gGs let alone 600 Gs
Louis not Louise
The narrator's cadence is odd and makes basic errors...
Is this AI generated audio?
Turrboffin? Turbofan you mean I guess
We FLY HIGH AB0VE 420!. NO RESTRRICTA PL8'$!.
Era
$155 million = 3% drug 💰💰+ 97% citizenship based taxation 😆
72 drones for $13 BILLION.
That's $180 million a pop. For a drone.
I guess Boeing needs the help, they are a financial mess...
One word: Call of duty Black ops 2
Cruise MOAB?
Cruise MOAB!
Just saying given it's fuel payload being only a bit under the weight of explosive in the Moab. Rip off the refueling system/plumbing to get the rest of the mass. Simplify the avionics to lower costs. And there's your 500 nautical mile cruise MOAB that while still super expensive wouldn't be all that much more then a normal MOAB and wouldn't need a c130 (160 million itself for tallon 2 used for MOAB) to deliver it putting itself and crew at high risk. While also letting it be used in areas where you don't have air superiority or even as part of a DEAD package.
Why does it take 4 years to test?
biden
We are very happy to see that we have new birds to hunt 🇮🇷😏
If I got this right at 200 pounds at 7 Gs I'm now 1,400 can you imagine me being inside of something pulling 600 Gs 🤮
I bet some sandal wearing sand people with buk anti air missile will ruin that 🤣
probably flies too high for that
4:15 Pass gas?
kN
BBC360/8/7/25/2024/106/30/24
BBC
Stop ripping off taxpayer's with these costs. Joke.
Another overpriced US armed forces toy. Have it manufactured elsewhere d
E mon mo