Your navy during Vietnam war on R & R visited Sydney Australia I worked near naval base and I would see thousands naval personal into the city looking for entertainment food and hundreds of women would welcome the boys at the wharf .Kings Cross was popular and brought a lot colourful navy dudes into city Business was brisk!
The F35 is such a baddass-lookin', beautiful plane- the sharply bifurcated geometry; smooth surfaces flowing off into elegant curves that are hard to execute. Lovely machine.
@@jerga2002 I'm not an aircraft expert; but from an electronics expert's perspective, ALL types of machines and aircraft can be remotely controlled. Bandwidth and internet speeds are so great these days, that an experienced pilot or gamer could fly and land a B-52 bomber or an A-10 Warthog, from the comfort of his living-room sofa.
@@sunsaverfromnhh9184 You could but you would have to redesign so many parts of the aircraft, the F-35 atleast wasn't meant to be remotely controlled but that doesn't mean there can't be aircraft like it in the future that are drones.
This is a game changer if it can be fwd deployed ahead of a strike group to refuel them on the return flight or even add range to their flight and fuel again on the inbound flight. The heavy bombers can even launch from remote locations
@@UA-camuser1aa to operate a maned plane you need a crew, which needs to be paid and the US government doesn't use small planes for refueling they use big cargo planes which means using much more jet fuel. these drones only require a crew on land and low maintenance since it is a drone. Although they might spend a lot of money on RD, it doesn't give a good cash flow as good as a 30 yo plane
I think they should make an escort carrier, 15,000 tons. Holds half a dozen+ F-35c's, a couple M-25's & recovery helicopters Has a couple nuke power plants. Uses the extra power to make fuel for the planes and escorts. If you keep it close to a main carrier, can be a back up landing & refueling platform.
Tech demonstrator? Replacement for drop tanks on stealth fighters? Imagine a couple of these drones flying wingman for an f35 carrying extra fuel and able to launch missiles. Think of it like a trailer for your truck.
This is one of the few things that make America very unique and great country it creates things that are extremely unique and aesthetically well-proportioned and designed even when they are made for destruction.
Us Air Force, pre program the drone for taxi with exact measurements so hookup and departure from deck position holder with ai in memory, it should then be able to go from standby to launch in significant quicker time with out the need for operator or rest of ground crew to fine control departure
Indeed. The specified capacity the Navy WANTS is to be about 16,000 lbs fuel. However, that is NOT what the MQ25 is rated at. blogs, even defense articles are quoting the "ask for" and the "wanted" fuel capacity as the MQ25's CURRENT fuel capacity (which is NOT that 16,000 lbs). In the current configuration, the MQ25 is only able to deliver about 4,000 lbs of fuel. A F35C carrier based fighter has a fuel tank of 19,200 lbs. So, it not clear if the MQ25 fuel capacity can be increased, or they plane to build a larger version after testing is completed. From what I can tell, MOST are quoting the "desired" KPP2 (key performance parameter) of 16,000 lbs of fuel, but that is NOT what the current MQ25 can deliver. it is possible that the MQ25 has space for such fuel, but it not at all clear what the fuel deliver capacity is, or will be. The quote of 16,000 lbs fuel payload is a desired, or a required or a wanted payload. This wanted payload is not what the MQ25 is able to deliver at this point in time. In that picture, you can see the 2 x 300 gallon external fuel tanks on the wings (and that would be a total fuel load of 4,000 lbs.
@@Albertkallal They would have been better off converting the stored S-3A's to KS-3A's, they'd have gotten 16,000lbs standard and up to 30,000lbs with conformal tanks.
300gal is only for the Buddy store also used by F/A18 Buddy tankers to regulate fuel flow from the Buddy platform that have magnitudes greater fuel store...
@@CherryBoyReloaded The issue with this is that it's a platform that was never intended as a tanker. A tanker needs to be stable, not prone to moving about. This platform is inherently unstable.
Thought the same thing. Pretty sure it was a typo and they meant 3000 gallons. For the MQ-25A, Wikipedia lists a 500nmi range when delivering 16,000 lb or more of fuel, which is ~2700 gallons.
Yeah a fuel tanker LOL. It maybe doing this role but I guarantee you this is a autonomous stealth bomber getting flight time posing as a refueling aircraft.
I have the opposite opinion. 1) Jamming has been considered and largely addressed. First, jam proof Line-of-sight (LOS) communications standards exist. Second, the military has developed jam resistant (but not jam proof communications). At the distance which carriers stay relative to hostile land and ships, the distance diminishes the ability to jam signals. Third, when the craft is at too great a distance for LOS, the craft's inertial navigation system can autonomously return it to within a close distance of where the carrier was at time of launch, helping to overcome jamming of use LOS. Fourth, the U.S. augments omnidirectional communications with directional, satellite based communications. 2) There is a video that shows a classic hazard for carrier pilots, one where autonomy is valued. A group of a half dozen jets have to land following a mission, with night falling, deteriorating weather, and a pitching deck. Worse still, each is returning low on fuel and yet, has to wait their turn to land in succession. In the video (recorded on deck, under these conditions), the poor weather, low visibility and pitching deck causes multiple landing attempts to fail, forcing repeat attempts and delays. Most land, but the last one failed its last three attempts. The captain either has to launch yet another jet and pilot in order to refuel the lagging craft, or risk the lagging jet running out of fuel. But if the captain launches a tanker jet (a modified F-18 in these circumstances), the captain will then have to ensure the landing of TWO aircraft. Poor and deteriorating conditions could pose the same or worse risks to both jets. In contrast, the autonomous tanker could be launched without risking a second pilot. 3) The tanker is currently a test/development vehicle. With testing and refinement, computer controlled flight for refueling and landing will be superior to manual landing. These control systems will almost certainly be incorporated into manned aircraft as well, improving the manned jet's ability to land in adverse conditions and improving the ability to synchronize the in-flight refueling of jets in turbulent weather
I just want to know why they have a crew chief marshalling a drone. Oh, it's Boeing. I hope their drones don't crash like their civilian aircraft do. But they don't have to cheap on drones, since it's cost-plus.
Is a 300 gallon "refueling" drone worth the effort? A fully-fueled F-18 E/F, with under-wing tanks, centerline tanks, carries about 29,000 lbs of fuel, or 4200 +/- gallons. Seems like going thru all the gyrations for a "refueling" aircraft for a mere 300 gallons (2040 lbs) doesn't make a lot of sense.
Good point - but a F/A18 Buddy Tanker piloted by a $1B Aviator carries the same 300gallon Buddy Store used to regulate fuel flow from the 16,000lb MQ25 fuel store...
The point of mid air refueling is usually to extend range while carrying a full payload, not to help some full fuel flight. You're kidding, right? There are many smaller/more fuel efficient airplanes than a F-18 anyways, including many drones.
If I were young again, I’d be in the military again ! But at 67, all I can do is dream! I was in the Navy early 70s and was in Nam !
Your navy during Vietnam war on R & R visited Sydney Australia I worked near naval base and I would see thousands naval personal into the city
looking for entertainment food and hundreds of women would welcome the boys at the wharf .Kings Cross was popular and brought a lot colourful
navy dudes into city Business was brisk!
We need age reversing technology
Just gorgeous the technology and the equipments, the US makes the army look so attractive.
Uh….thats the Navy…
@@misterx8592 ...The Navy is still a part of the Army. Just like the AF and Infrantry a different part
@@Aquila. The Navy is not part of the army. They are part of the military.
@@Lobcastcoke Thought Army and Military is the Same Thing as a Topic? Or is Army only Land Forces?
@@Aquila. it is the military. Hence why there is the US army, US navy, US Air Force then marine corps, coast guard and now space force.
США це сила і опора вільного світу!!!!
미국응디가 최고다!
The F35 is such a baddass-lookin', beautiful plane- the sharply bifurcated geometry; smooth surfaces flowing off into elegant curves that are hard to execute. Lovely machine.
Is it possible to control remotely an F-35?
@@jerga2002 I'm not an aircraft expert; but from an electronics expert's perspective, ALL types of machines and aircraft can be remotely controlled. Bandwidth and internet speeds are so great these days, that an experienced pilot or gamer could fly and land a B-52 bomber or an A-10 Warthog, from the comfort of his living-room sofa.
@@sunsaverfromnhh9184 just what I thought... An intermediate jet between a piloted aircraft to a drone one...
@@jerga2002 no
@@sunsaverfromnhh9184 You could but you would have to redesign so many parts of the aircraft, the F-35 atleast wasn't meant to be remotely controlled but that doesn't mean there can't be aircraft like it in the future that are drones.
We been needed one of these for the longest
I think this is a perfectly designed masterpiece fighter.
My heartiest congratulations, wishes and salute s to all beloved crew members.
God bless American 🇺🇸
I 💖💖💖💖💖💖💖
USA
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
This is a game changer if it can be fwd deployed ahead of a strike group to refuel them on the return flight or even add range to their flight and fuel again on the inbound flight. The heavy bombers can even launch from remote locations
and can cut alot of costs, but the Defense contractors dont want that
300 gallons? You must be smoking crack
@@hamSAH713 ridiculous. Contractors don’t get paid for gas, they get paid to make these planes.
@@UA-camuser1aa manned planes have much higher costs, where do you think the money goes?
@@UA-camuser1aa to operate a maned plane you need a crew, which needs to be paid and the US government doesn't use small planes for refueling they use big cargo planes which means using much more jet fuel. these drones only require a crew on land and low maintenance since it is a drone. Although they might spend a lot of money on RD, it doesn't give a good cash flow as good as a 30 yo plane
respect for all personal in this video I salute you all
Wonderful. Really amazing technology.greatest milestone in the aviation industry
@7:51 What are those two free-hanging things on either side of the helicopter? Thanks
우주 항공 개발은 진짜 단연 최고다
MQ-25 Stringray
Ok..Congrats Boeing.
Yes Exelente United States Of América 👍👉💪
amazing
Got to keep moving forward
Bayraktar tb3 is coming soon as a game changer.
At 4:46 you go to the USAF! What's up with that? DON'T PAD THE VIDEO!!
Yes EUA. Good
Great idea
I think they should make an escort carrier, 15,000 tons.
Holds half a dozen+ F-35c's, a couple M-25's & recovery helicopters
Has a couple nuke power plants. Uses the extra power to make fuel for the planes and escorts.
If you keep it close to a main carrier, can be a back up landing & refueling platform.
Great you threw in some footage completely unrelated to the topic of the video.
Su Su Su--mig mig mig
Trac Trax Trax.
VIVA--AMERICA!!!
300 gallons is less than 2 mins at full throttle for a fighter at sea level.
What's the point?
Tech demonstrator? Replacement for drop tanks on stealth fighters? Imagine a couple of these drones flying wingman for an f35 carrying extra fuel and able to launch missiles. Think of it like a trailer for your truck.
Wow, cool
This is one of the few things that make America very unique and great country it creates things that are extremely unique and aesthetically well-proportioned and designed even when they are made for destruction.
good to see the update Apache.
🇺🇸 is lit
“… fuel tanker drone ?? …” Cool and wow !
does it do an oil check?
Us Air Force, pre program the drone for taxi with exact measurements so hookup and departure from deck position holder with ai in memory, it should then be able to go from standby to launch in significant quicker time with out the need for operator or rest of ground crew to fine control departure
beautiful
Can not wait to see Maverick shoot one of these out of the sky in his F-14 Tomcat! 🤣🤣
20million? That's a good money
i love this is my dream, drone world
Why does the noise have to be at the beginning? We have enough "noise" ?
Wow Being 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸💕💕💕💕
⭐️
Shouldn't the markings on the drone be purple to indicate JP-5 ?
Orange markings designate drone aircraft (particularly used for test and training - like guided missile targets).
Is stealth and flight autonomy?
It was originally intended as a stealth attack drone.
Where the heck is the intake on that thing? That lil slit cant be providing enough air for the turbine?
สร้างโดรนเพื่อทำให้ราคาถูกลง ไม่ได้สร้างเพื่อให้ราคาแสนแพง...
uh, where else are they supposed to test it? Last I checked carriers don't operate in lakes or on land.
That’s all cool but when will fuel price drop for me?
8,749 yards is 8 km, which 8,000 meters, which is 800,000 cm.
If it is unmanned who is the deck crew giving hand signals to?
To the gamer who is playing from tha base 😂😂
There's cameras on the drone. The person flying it with a remote is taking instructions from them. They can see them through the camera
Nice video. Thank you.
Wasn't this in the movie Stealth?
UAV's nowadays are startin to look like them UAV's from Ace Combat 7, hope it ain't gonna be like Ace Combat 7 anytime soon
Wonder how long it is till they make a real Arsenal Bird drone carrier
Cool!!! Needs more fuel capacity tho!
Indeed. The specified capacity the Navy WANTS is to be about 16,000 lbs fuel. However, that is NOT what the MQ25 is rated at.
blogs, even defense articles are quoting the "ask for" and the "wanted" fuel capacity as the MQ25's CURRENT fuel capacity (which is NOT that 16,000 lbs).
In the current configuration, the MQ25 is only able to deliver about 4,000 lbs of fuel.
A F35C carrier based fighter has a fuel tank of 19,200 lbs.
So, it not clear if the MQ25 fuel capacity can be increased, or they plane to build a larger version after testing is completed.
From what I can tell, MOST are quoting the "desired" KPP2 (key performance parameter) of 16,000 lbs of fuel, but that is NOT what the current MQ25 can deliver. it is possible that the MQ25 has space for such fuel, but it not at all clear what the fuel deliver capacity is, or will be.
The quote of 16,000 lbs fuel payload is a desired, or a required or a wanted payload. This wanted payload is not what the MQ25 is able to deliver at this point in time.
In that picture, you can see the 2 x 300 gallon external fuel tanks on the wings (and that would be a total fuel load of 4,000 lbs.
@@Albertkallal They would have been better off converting the stored S-3A's to KS-3A's, they'd have gotten 16,000lbs standard and up to 30,000lbs with conformal tanks.
300gal is only for the Buddy store also used by F/A18 Buddy tankers to regulate fuel flow from the Buddy platform that have magnitudes greater fuel store...
@@CherryBoyReloaded The issue with this is that it's a platform that was never intended as a tanker. A tanker needs to be stable, not prone to moving about. This platform is inherently unstable.
@@pogo1140 KA6D Tanker + F/A18 Buddy Tanker both requiring Pilots to be stable in flight - weren't intended to be Tankers either...
USA👍👍💪
♥️♥️♥️india save pakistan♥️♥️♥️
From stealth 👏👏
300 gallons seems a little small
끊임없이 실패해도 도전해서 완성시키는 저정신 본받아야 한다.
실패는 없다.
실패속에서도 교훈은 얻는다.
그래서 발전하는거다.
우리나라가 보유하고 있는 독도함과 마라도함을 이런식으로 무인 항모로 만들어 운영하면 좋겠다.
Looky that…. Does it deliver cookies and donuts too?
Coming to a metropolis near you........
Why not go with a flying wing design, gives better lift efficiency and more internal space for fuel.
Because flying wings have far worse performance in out of optimal center of gravity conditions and manoeuvrability.
@@allangibson2408 hmm didn't think of the center of gravity issue which makes sense.
I literally make antennas (blades) for those drones.
Cobham?
♥️♥️♥️♥️pakistan india save taiwan tibet japan♥️♥️♥️♥️
This has to work. Believe me, I am the engineer.
Not for this you’re not
이야 발키리구나
미래전은 캐리어 인터셉터 전이야
Ótimo vídeo.
Only 300 gallons?
اذا حان الوقت.لن تعمل التكنولوجيا وستعجزون عن المقاومة اكثر من ست ساعات
uh..... really cool design concept, but 300 gallons capacity is not a lot. Fuel consumption per hour is 1,100 gallons per hour of an f-18F
Thought the same thing. Pretty sure it was a typo and they meant 3000 gallons. For the MQ-25A, Wikipedia lists a 500nmi range when delivering 16,000 lb or more of fuel, which is ~2700 gallons.
@@brettstowell4029 the helicopter i used to fly on consumed 100 lbs per side every 10min with total cap. Of 660 gallons without internal tanks
Most military pilots are short !!
Yo got a lot to learn don't yo.
wow
a flying fuel bladder !
you can clearly see that there are different drones in the footage, so not the same. wonder why?
Only 300 gallons?!
Silêncio, o bebê do B-2 estas à brincar em alto-mar
Wow!!!😍🗽
buena idea jaja
Your videos are awesome..
...other than the annoyance music..
good aviation scenes.
China J20 was design to hunt for these tankers.
USA PODNAH!
油轮无人机 还是 无人加油机 🤔🤔
300 gals is that all?
That's just in the Cobham pod with the drogue system. The full spec is offloading 16,000 lbs at 500nm from the carrier.
Yeah a fuel tanker LOL. It maybe doing this role but I guarantee you this is a autonomous stealth bomber getting flight time posing as a refueling aircraft.
us as the most beutifful arsenal in history very futuristic and that drone common, it looks like they have aliens contact for design
she almost took the valve out duH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seems hugely expensive to replace a manned plane that risks just a pilot not engaging in combat, and liable to jamming.
I have the opposite opinion.
1) Jamming has been considered and largely addressed. First, jam proof Line-of-sight (LOS) communications standards exist. Second, the military has developed jam resistant (but not jam proof communications). At the distance which carriers stay relative to hostile land and ships, the distance diminishes the ability to jam signals. Third, when the craft is at too great a distance for LOS, the craft's inertial navigation system can autonomously return it to within a close distance of where the carrier was at time of launch, helping to overcome jamming of use LOS. Fourth, the U.S. augments omnidirectional communications with directional, satellite based communications.
2) There is a video that shows a classic hazard for carrier pilots, one where autonomy is valued. A group of a half dozen jets have to land following a mission, with night falling, deteriorating weather, and a pitching deck. Worse still, each is returning low on fuel and yet, has to wait their turn to land in succession. In the video (recorded on deck, under these conditions), the poor weather, low visibility and pitching deck causes multiple landing attempts to fail, forcing repeat attempts and delays. Most land, but the last one failed its last three attempts. The captain either has to launch yet another jet and pilot in order to refuel the lagging craft, or risk the lagging jet running out of fuel. But if the captain launches a tanker jet (a modified F-18 in these circumstances), the captain will then have to ensure the landing of TWO aircraft. Poor and deteriorating conditions could pose the same or worse risks to both jets. In contrast, the autonomous tanker could be launched without risking a second pilot.
3) The tanker is currently a test/development vehicle. With testing and refinement, computer controlled flight for refueling and landing will be superior to manual landing. These control systems will almost certainly be incorporated into manned aircraft as well, improving the manned jet's ability to land in adverse conditions and improving the ability to synchronize the in-flight refueling of jets in turbulent weather
Also removing the cockpit makes the plane cheaper, smaller, and it cuts down on its profile making it less likely to be detected by radar.
Training those pilots takes a lot of resources and funding.
@@gregparrott Omni gets you shot down asap
@@blademan4043 you still need controllers in replacement.
Wonderful machines
Great !!!
I just want to know why they have a crew chief marshalling a drone. Oh, it's Boeing. I hope their drones don't crash like their civilian aircraft do. But they don't have to cheap on drones, since it's cost-plus.
これは、素晴らしい。次世代の兵器ですね。
it just need a high power laser weapon, then it will be a game changer LOL
The Air Force is currently testing laser cannons on fighter jets.
부럽다 우리나라는입으로 무기만든는데 미국은 조용히 해나간다
Now wars will be fought with robots and RC vehicles...
Is a 300 gallon "refueling" drone worth the effort? A fully-fueled F-18 E/F, with under-wing tanks, centerline tanks, carries about 29,000 lbs of fuel, or 4200 +/- gallons. Seems like going thru all the gyrations for a "refueling" aircraft for a mere 300 gallons (2040 lbs) doesn't make a lot of sense.
Good point - but a F/A18 Buddy Tanker piloted by a $1B Aviator carries the same 300gallon Buddy Store used to regulate fuel flow from the 16,000lb MQ25 fuel store...
Good point great piece of tech having an aircraft carrier reduces the need for this unless its a solo mission and leaving the carrier at home 🏡
@@MrMaks18 Good point - is this the same Maks where Su75 flies...
The point of mid air refueling is usually to extend range while carrying a full payload, not to help some full fuel flight. You're kidding, right?
There are many smaller/more fuel efficient airplanes than a F-18 anyways, including many drones.