
Boeing MQ-25 Stingray - PopeDotNinja
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray
======
mikece
I don't know if the Boeing's MQ-25 gets to use any of the guidance/navigation
systems of Northrup's X-47B but I recall they had to program in some
randomness to the plane's landing program because the X-47B was hitting the
_exact same spot_ on the deck on every single landing (which was causing
concerns about deck maintenance and durability), unlike human pilots which
sometimes miss all four wires. Makes me wonder if the form-factor of a carrier
can be shrunk since drones can reliably hit much smaller landing spots
reliably. Why invest in the massive size and expense of a super carrier when
something much smaller can launch and recover fixed wing UAVs to handle ISR?
After all, the revolution of aircraft carriers in WW2 was over-the-horizon
visual location and attack of enemy shipping; we can do the latter quite
easily with guided missiles and UAVs do the former quite nicely.

~~~
RankingMember
I feel like the age of carriers may be over entirely. They're basically
sitting ducks for advanced weaponry and cost a ton of money in manpower and
cash to operate. Their role can be supplanted by modern long-range missiles.
The only reason to keep them operating in my opinion is for what I call
"bravado missions" where we float around contested areas just to show we can.

~~~
alexhutcheson
The Naval Gazing blog has a four-part series called "Why the Carriers Are Not
Doomed" in which he makes the case: "Claims that US carriers are very
vulnerable to missile attack, and will be sunk immediately in any upcoming
war, are quite common. They’re also wrong. The carriers are surprisingly
survivable, and the prowess of missiles is usually grossly exaggerated." I
don't have the expertise to fully evaluate the arguments, but it's worth a
read before you fully swallow the "carriers are pointless because of anti-ship
missiles" line.

[https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-
Part-1](https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1)

[https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-
Part-2](https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-2)

[https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-
Part-3](https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-3)

[https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-
Part-4](https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-4)

~~~
nookyular
Gee, that's pretty great, but a serious adversary armed with anti-ship
missiles is going to use nuclear tipped warheads.

When I say serious, I mean countries with proven nuclear capabilities. Not
"limited war" with lesser proxy state dictator adversaries, already bludgeoned
by economic sanctions.

And, when I say nuclear tipped warheads, I mean as many as it takes to kill
the vessel. Any sane military strategist is going to hit, and hit, and hit,
and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and
hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit,
and hit the carrier either until it sinks or until everyone onboard and within
ten miles is dead.

Even if it takes a solid month of nuclear attacks to starve the crew to death,
and melt the deck into slag.

There aren't enough Nimitz class aircraft carriers in the world, _NOT_ to use
such tactics.

EDIT: reading the articles, no mention is made of nuclear tipped anti-ship
missiles. Probably because it's the article wouldn't be worth writing, if they
openly acknowledged that angle, and thus would not generate ad revenue.

~~~
NotSammyHagar
If someone attacks with nuclear missiles or torpedoes that's going to be the
end of the world, and we are going to attack back with same. I don't think
there will be 20 waves. I think there will be massive destruction and then
just a few big ships left. But hopefully we'll never find out.

------
daveslash
I believe this to be an absolute game changer (is used as I think it can be).
Currently we have several forward air bases and stations in the Middle East. I
_think_ some of that may be so that we can have aerial tankers there (KC-135s,
KC-10s). Because we want to refuel things in mid-air, we need need tankers
over there. Because we need tankers over there, we need air bases. Because we
need air bases in certain countries, we must maintain reasonable diplomatic
relations with said countries -- even when our humanitarian or other policies
are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I think that by having carrier based
tankers we could de-couple from some of these countries with some of these
bases. I think can can, potentially, lead to a very different strategic
approach.

~~~
mandevil
This is true for strategic strike (a bomber has the space for crew rest) and
an absolute godsend for the Navy (CVW have lacked real organic tank options
since the retirement of the S-3- note that CVW ASW is another mission where
drones could be dramatic improvements) but I don't think that this will enable
something as dramatic as a pull-out of Al Udeid. No one is going to want to be
in a F-22 or F-35 for a combat flight from Diego Garcia to Mosul, and US
strategic strike components are so limited that I can't see them bearing the
full burden of something like OIR.

~~~
hollerith
>Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) is the U.S. military's operational name for
the military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

------
loginx
The planning and project management aspect sounds like it's straight out of a
post apocalyptic bureaucratic nightmare.

It was intended to be a strike drone, but wait, let's flip the project halfway
through into an intelligence drone. You know what? f*ck it, let's flip it into
a refuelling drone.

The project history is a sinuous cautionary tale of scope creep and descoping.

~~~
zyang
Positioning it as a tanker is a smart move. Taking on the least glamorous job
helps keeping the scope down, lower expectations, provide value from day 1.
It's what they should have aimed for in the first place.

------
SEJeff
There was a lot of contention with this at first, but the Navy decided their
first carrier based UAV / UAS would be a tanker to simply extend the range of
their existing fighter / bomber fleet instead of outright replacing it. This
seems to be a very good move as it simply lengthens to the reach of the
existing airpower.

~~~
mikece
As someone else said it's a move to appease Congress -- but also the Air
Bosses who lose several of their F-18s to tanker duty as well as the F-18
crews who HATE the tanker duty. I imagine the E-2D crews will be cautiously
watching to see just how much ISR gear will be fitted to the MQ-25 in the name
of "since it's on board, and since it's going to do a lot of loitering aloft
while waiting to tank someone about to bingo, let's see how well it does in a
limited ISR role..."

After that it will be "What if we put a Wescam Ball and AESA array on an
MQ-25?" At _that_ point the E-2D program will be in jeopardy.

~~~
greedo
UAVs will have a hard time in a doing AEW since array size is very important.
Also, the crew of the E2s do quite a bit of the work, stuff that can't be
automated. And when operating under EMCON, the value of an E2 is even higher.

------
RankingMember
How long before there's some kind of drop-in "drone pilot" array to retrofit
existing aircraft (e.g. the Super Hornet) such that they operate unmanned? Not
only would the handling not be restricted by human anatomy, but the large
time/financial investment in pilot training wouldn't be at risk of being lost
should an incident occur.

~~~
CharlesColeman
> How long before there's some kind of drop-in "drone pilot" array to retrofit
> existing aircraft (e.g. the Super Hornet) such that they operate unmanned?

They do that already to make target drones out of old aircraft:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#QF-16)

------
sailfast
Random, but I wonder why they went with the MQ designation instead of KQ for
this.

------
some_random
Is it just me or is $804 mil for a capability like this incredibly cheap?

~~~
pageandrew
yeah, I noticed that too. the entire program cost about the same as a single
B2 Spirit aircraft.

~~~
athriren
The industry is pretty certain Boeing is taking a loss on this contract in
order to secure additional future contracts for the platform.

------
ncmncm
I can't tell if this is a drone that knows how to be refueled in the air, or
if it is a drone that actually provides refueling to other aircraft. Clue?

It doesn't seem big enough to hold much fuel.

~~~
whalesalad
This performs refueling for another aircraft in need of fuel.

------
exabrial
Talk about scope creep on a project, wow

------
ashika
seems useful for the types of support we recently provided the saudis in
yemen. this tech would lower the marginal cost of providing that type of
support significantly. doubt taxpayers will claw any of that back, though :|

------
einpoklum
A tool of imperial violence - extending the US military's abilities to conduct
offenses thousands of miles from its own sovereign territory.

Shame on those who made it.

~~~
branchan
It’s likely that your work and life has greatly benefited from technologies
that originated from the military.

~~~
einpoklum
That's true, but:

1\. My life (and more so, the life of many around me) has greatly suffered
from the operation of military bodies. 2\. Those technologies could have,
instead, been developed in civilian spaces, had the world, especially the
great powers, not been so militarized. We might have had some difference in
emphasis in what technologies get developed faster of course.

~~~
branchan
Do you use the internet? GPS? Where do you think those technologies come from?

