Entwicklungen und News in der Luftfahrt, Teil 2 Einstellungen

[Dave76]

Center Fuselage Rebuild Could Be F-15C/D Achilles’ Heel

Aviation Week & Space Technology

The F-15C may still have an undefeated aerial combat record, but the 38-year-old aircraft could be slated for retirement if the U.S. Air Force decides not to fund a major structural life-extension program. Air Combat Command (ACC) chief Gen. Mike Holmes says it could cost $30-40 million per aircraft to keep the Eagle soaring beyond the late 2020s, including rebuilding the center fuselage section, among other refurbishments. “We’re probably not going to do that,” he tells ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/center-f...d-achilles-heel

[Seneca]

Das neue ukrainische Transportflugzeug An-132 D hat heute seinen Jungfernflug gemeistert. Die An-132 D ist eine modernisierte Version (u.a. Pratt&Whitney-Triebwerke, Liebherr-Belüftungssysteme) der An-32 und wird in Kooperation mit Saudi-Arabien gebaut.
http://en.censor.net.ua/video_news/434351/...st_flight_video

[KSK]

Erstmaliger Einsatz der MOAB

USA setzen größte nicht-atomare Bombe ein

Das US-Militär hat seine größte nicht-atomare Bombe auf ein vermutetes Versteck der IS-Terrormiliz in Afghanistan abgeworfen. Sie ist seit ihrer Entwicklung 2003 bisher noch nie bei Kampfhandlungen eingesetzt worden.

[SLAP]

WBG-Video der abgeworfenen GBU-43/B.

[Reitlehrer]

Erstmaliger Einsatz der MOAB

USA setzen größte nicht-atomare Bombe ein

Das US-Militär hat seine größte nicht-atomare Bombe auf ein vermutetes Versteck der IS-Terrormiliz in Afghanistan abgeworfen. Sie ist seit ihrer Entwicklung 2003 bisher noch nie bei Kampfhandlungen eingesetzt worden.

Was mich wundert, sind die Kosten für die GBU 43 mit 14,6 Millionen Dollar. Die GBU 57 MOP wird dagegen nur mit 3,5 Millionen Dollar angegeben. Meiner Ansicht nach ist eine GBU 57 sehr viel aufwendiger herzustellen als eine GBU 43, die ja im Prinzip nur eine große Luftmine mit relativ dünner Bombenhülle ist.
Wenn bei der Kostenangabe nicht gerade mal schlicht ein Komma verrutscht ist, könnte ich mir nur Vorstellen, da es sich quasi um Einzelstücke handelt, die Entwicklungskosten mit eingerechnet sind.

Bei der GBU-57 würden die E-Kosten sich dann ja immerhin auf 20 Stück verteilen.

Der Beitrag wurde von Reitlehrer bearbeitet: 15. Apr 2017, 10:10

[SLAP]

Die Amerikaner neigen dazu, die Entwicklungskosten auf die Stückzahlen umzulegen. Ich nehme ebenfalls an, dass die GBU-43/B keine "Lagerware" ist, sondern auf Zuruf gefertigt wird.

[Warhammer]

Wobei ein gewisser Grundstock and sofort verfügbaren Modellen doch sicherlich vorhanden ist, auch wenn man sich das an einer Hand abzählen kann.

[Schwabo Elite]

Das vermutlich, aber eben einstellig. Und da dies der erste Einsatz war, dürften wir noch gut unter 20 hergestellten Exemplaren liegen. Zum Vergleich, die ersten 20 GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) kosteten damals 314 Millionen US-Dollar. Das sind 15,7 Millionen US-Dollar pro Stück. Die oben zitierte Summe ist vermutlich für ein neueres Los.

[Xanopos]

Anscheinend weiß die Air Force selbst nicht, wie viel eine MOAB kostet.

“We don’t have a cost per unit” for the MOAB, Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “These munitions were produced in-house so we don’t have a standard procurement cost associated with them.”

Die 314 Millionen Programmkosten, die herum geistern, beziehen sich auf einen Artikel der LA Times von 2011, der bezieht sich aber auf das MOP Programm und nicht MOAB:

Many reports Thursday, including USA Today, the Washington Examiner, CNBC and others, claimed the MOAB cost $314 million to develop, citing a 2011 Los Angeles Times report.

The cost estimates in that article, however, only refer to the cost of the Air Force’s biggest bunker busting bomb, the 5,300 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or GBU-57, which is built by private defense contractor Boeing Company. “At a total cost of about $314 million, the military has developed and ordered 20 of the GPS-guided bombs, called Massive Ordnance Penetrators,” the LA Times report says.

Quelle: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/13/the-stor.../#ixzz4eJNFD3W4

[Xanopos]

B-61 inert nuclear gravity bomb has passed first F-16 flight test.

On Mar. 14, an F-16 from the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis AFB, Nevada, dropped a B61-12 over the Nellis Test and Training Range Complex in the first test use of the upgraded B61 with the F-16 aircraft.

https://theaviationist.com/2017/04/14/in-ot...ada-last-month/

[SLAP]

Erstmaliger Einsatz der MOAB

USA setzen größte nicht-atomare Bombe ein

Das US-Militär hat seine größte nicht-atomare Bombe auf ein vermutetes Versteck der IS-Terrormiliz in Afghanistan abgeworfen. Sie ist seit ihrer Entwicklung 2003 bisher noch nie bei Kampfhandlungen eingesetzt worden.

Post-MOAB-Video

[Xanopos]

Vorher/Nachher Satellitenaufnahmen vom MOAB-Ziel: https://twitter.com/JeremyBinnie/status/855080690081288192

[Ta152]

Nicht direkt News aber ein interessanter Artikel der sonst nirgendwo rein past.
FAKTENCHECK MULTIKOPTER: ÄHNLICHKEITEN UND UNTERSCHIEDE ZU ETABLIERTEN VTOL-KONFIGURATIONEN G. Strickert, DLR, Institut für Flugsystemtechnik

[Schneeball]

"USMC (MAWTS-1) conducted the first independent distributed short-takeoff-vertical-landing (STOVL) operation."

https://mobile.twitter.com/DeptofDefense/st...7261184/video/1

[Dave76]

Da der JSF-Thread immer noch geschlossen ist (warum?):
First Italian-Built F-35B ‘Rolls Out’ of Cameri Production Facility

[goschi]

War mir nicht bekannt, war sicherlich ein Vertipper auf einem mobilen Endgerät eines Admin/Mods, wenn kein Posting im Thread steht, dass ein Thread geschlossen ist, wird das meistens der Fall sein, dann einfach PM an einen Mod/Admin, um das Versehen zu beseitigen


goschi (admin)

[Dave76]

We Flew Red Air against F-22 Raptors, F-35 Lightning IIs, Rafales and Typhoons in Atlantic Trident ’17. Here’s How It Went.

Facing off against a historic gathering of the most formidable fighter aircraft in the western world (many would argue in the world)? Catching a seat in one of the “Langley Adversaries” on an actual Red Air vs Blue Air vul (vulnerability period, which references the time when an aircraft is subject to harm). What time do I need to be there?

The United States Air Force (USAF) 1st Fighter Wing located at Joint Base Langley-Eustis (JBLE) hosted the event. 1st FW is responsible for 30% of the USAF Raptor fleet. Described as “America’s premier Air Dominance wing,” the 1st FW is elite company. This group (with the help of the 71st FTS) ensures the Raptors under their command are maintained, manned by skilled pilots, and ready to go when and where needed worldwide, at a moment’s notice.

After two days of rain and scrubbed vuls the clouds began to lift. Didn’t matter, even with clear skies a nasty storm was brewing over the Atlantic, Typhoons, Lightning strikes, with the “gusts of wind / bursts of fire” (Rafale), and the “Bird of Prey” (Raptor) circling over it all. Not a Hollywood script, this is what awaits the Strike Eagles and Talons of Red Air posing as a variety of MIG threats with specific missile emulations.

The Platforms & Players:

Blue Air: 1st FW F-22A Raptors; Eglin AFB F-35A Lightning IIs; Royal Air Force (RAF) Eurofighter Typhoons; French Air Force/Armée de l’air Dassault Rafales.

Red Air: 71st FTS “Ironmen” T-38A Talons; 391st FS “Bold Tigers” F-15E Strike Eagles from Mountain Home AFB, ID.

Given operational security, some of the following flight details are principally correct.

The six participating Talons flew in two flights of three, “Vodka” and “MIG”. The Strike Eagle flights “Marlin” and “Dagger” combined to form another 6 aircraft. 12 Red Air with E-3A Sentry support, against 16 Blue Air. Given Blue Air was farthest from JBLE and launched first, they enjoyed tanker support from the Armée de l’air KC-135, as well as US tanker units (including at one point a KC-10 from the 305th AMW Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst).

What could we expect of the vul?

Red Air understood that Blue Air was tasked with a strike mission (target location unknown to Red Air) using the Rafale and Raptor as strikers. While some might think the F-35As should have been the strikers, Raptor was the word and Raptors do have a very effective strike capability. The rest of Blue Air, Typhoons and Lightning IIs (and perhaps a mix of Raptors) were flying escort protecting the strikers.

Blue Air was challenged to employ “total force integration” across nationalities and platforms to form a multilayered, overlapping sphere of impenetrable “armor.” Certainly, Blue Air would utilize their superior sensors to create a 3D picture of the battle space and their state of the art weapons to “destroy” Red Air well beyond visual range (BVR).

Red Air would utilize dissimilar threats against Blue Air coming from a multitude of directions and altitudes. The Talons and Strike Eagles primary goal: to find the Blue Air strikers (call sign “Rogue”), fight through the escorts to get within an effective (emulated) missile envelope and realize a kill. However, even if a visual on a Raptor or Lightning II was realized (and Red Air had the radar capability) they would still be “chasing a mirage” and could not expect to get a lock. Great.

Total force integration of the Gen 5 and 4.5 platforms creates a nasty dilemma for a real adversary. At the best of times target fixation is deadly, add 5th Gen assets in the mix – fatal.

While the scenario sounds like a futile effort for Red Air, it is key to understand that this exercise is not a game where the highest kills wins. Rather, the primary purpose of the exercise is to ensure Blue Air (our collective nations fighting edge) refine Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs). With common, familiar TTPs, the coalition will quickly come together in the face of a future conflict and be effective, day one.

The coalition of Blue Air was challenged to maximize their mix to most efficiently use each aircraft’s exceptional capabilities, weapons loads and available fuel. The best efforts of Red Air would test the tactics of Blue Air, to ensure they overlook nothing, and responded correctly to the dynamic of the fight. If a Blue Air participant required a learning lesson – it was up to Red Air to provide it, and this is the right time and place to do so. Perhaps in the “fog of war” an area of the formation would be left uncovered, and Red Air would get a leaker through to do some damage.

The 71st FTS fields young pilots preparing for the Raptor as well as seasoned Raptor pilots and pilots with plenty of experience in alternate platforms. One look at the markings on the F-15E Strike Eagles of the “Bold Tigers” and it was clear there is plenty of combat experience in those cockpits. No question, this group of pilots had the ability to take down a Blue Air player. In a previous visit to the 71st FTS I met one of the T-38 pilots who had done that very thing. I expect it was a lesson that resonated with the Raptor pilot.

Waiting in open cockpit at the end of runway (EOR) Blue Air completes their launches, and our teammates in F-15Es thunder down the runway in glorious afterburner. Following MIG flight, Vodka flight of Talons launches last, one at a time in rapid succession.

We form up at 2,000 ft before punching through the clouds in formation. I’m back seat of Vodka #3 flown by “Code,” (1st Lt.) in tight our flight lead #1 “Shim” (Maj.) and #2 “HOTAS” (Maj). Within seconds we break through the clouds and the Talons look like beautiful black darts in the blue sky. The SR-71 Blackbird clearly established that “black jets” are the coolest, so we are in good company. The aircraft are stable and the pilots smooth. We stay in formation as we climb to altitude on the way to the fight.

MIG flight is now far to the southeast working the opposite flank. Marlin and Dagger are well above us in their own airspace blocks working the higher altitudes. Red Air is tightening the noose. At altitude and nearing our block, Vodka 1 indicates he will run in on Blue Air from 10,000 ft below us. The Talon drops away so fast my perspective is forever altered. A high-performance aircraft allows the pilot to carve the sky at will shrinking time and space in ways grounded mortals cannot know.

MIG flight is now far to the southeast working the opposite flank. Marlin and Dagger are well above us in their own airspace blocks working the higher altitudes. Red Air is tightening the noose. At altitude and nearing our block, Vodka 1 indicates he will run in on Blue Air from 10,000 ft below us. The Talon drops away so fast my perspective is forever altered. A high-performance aircraft allows the pilot to carve the sky at will shrinking time and space in ways grounded mortals cannot know.

With “go time” quickly closing in, Vodka 2 moves some distance from us. Flying almost parallel we form a wall approaching Blue Air. Red Air is attacking in numbers from many different directions and altitudes. Perhaps Blue Air will miss one of us as we close rapidly and a striker will fall!

We now appear to be alone in the sky, a single gunslinger in the expanse with weapons armed and ready against impossible odds. Focus and activity keep the thought at bay, the controllers voice a clear reminder that we are part of a much greater force and we do not fight alone.

“Fights On!” and we fly our vector like an adversary, oblivious to the invisible danger that lurks unseen in the distant (or near) sky. The next 45 minutes is something of a blur. The controller calls a heading, we turn – someone turns, there is a lot going on in the skies. The tempo increases, the radio crackling with voices. Controllers in the E-3A are busy directing and working what sounds like play by play of an intense play-off game. An intense play-off between warfighters.

Through the intercom, Code warns “G’s!” I have split second to prepare for a snap turn and the onset of G’s. Code is kind, the G’s are short-lived and light – well under 3. Within moments I hear the radio crackle, “Vodka 1 you’re dead,” followed by “Vodka 2 you’re dead.” Our flight is being picked off like tin cans on fenceposts. I wait to hear Vodka 3 you’re dead – but silence. I’m thinking, c’mom Code, this is our chance let’s press, I could use a kill on my resume. Marlin 1, Dagger 2 No, No – not the Strike Eagles! The comms crackle in warfighter shorthand, best deciphered by those who speak in this language. With a sense of the inevitable, I hear it “Vodka 3 you’re dead.” No sympathy, just cold, matter of fact. It is done. I don’t know what killed us, but we were shadow boxing with a lethal foe.

As we turn to regenerate it is clear this is not a fair fight. But that is the point, and why the tremendous investment in the 5th Gen aircraft. The USAF has no intention to fight fair, they have built their force to dominate the air. They who own the air will find it much easier to own the ground and sea. Looking straight up far above us I see a silver spec blazing across the sky contrail in tow at what appears to be supersonic speeds. A Raptor? It flies with impunity, we are mere spectators. If this was a real fight, seeing such a sight would be a great signal to RTB (return to base). Quickly.

After regen we return to the fight flying a designated vector. Code rolls the Talon inverted, and pulls briefly into a vertical descent and then a great diving arc. I had about as much as 1/10th a second to prepare for that, and 1/5 a second to enjoy it. Thank-you very much.

At some point, we pull near 4G, and the prospects have my undivided attention; will I weight 1,000 lbs today, or just 750? I am told the pilots generally do not notice the physical, it is muscle memory that kicks in while their mind is focused on the battle. I am glad to hear that, I’d certainly hate to lose my train of thought in such a time and place. The Talon bottoms out 10,000 ft below where the maneuver started, and we climb all the way back to 20,000 ft. It takes a minute to perform the massive maneuver. And then I believe I hear music – “Rogue 1” you’re dead. Did we get a Blue Air Striker? Perhaps for all the Red Air jets that fell – perhaps we got one…

45 minutes’ pass in the vul, and we break for RTB. Code directs me to the right, where descending from much higher airspace, four F-15Es of the 391st FS. In tight formation, the Strike Eagles of Marlin and Dagger flights bob up and down like joined parts of a living being. Magic. Magic always ends leaving you wanting more, that’s how you know it is magic.

Some may ask, “What is it like to fly adversary against the most lethal integrated fighter force on the planet?” My answer, “You just die. Sight unseen. You just die.”

Bury your pride, and get used to dying. But do not forget, your “death” serves a greater purpose.

The seemingly futile fight and subsequent “deaths” are critical to ensure the readiness of the cutting edge of our warfighters, and “Total Air Dominance.”

https://theaviationist.com/2017/05/05/we-fl...es-how-it-went/

[ewood223]

Gibt das auch in halbwegs normalem Englisch, ohne dieses Air-Force-Strong Sprech?

[xena]

.

Der Beitrag wurde von xena bearbeitet: 17. Sep 2019, 13:50

[Dave76]

Navy, Industry Looking for Design ‘Sweet Spot’ for MQ-25A Stingray

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Striking the balance between a tanker and a surveillance aircraft is an area of concern for Navy aviation planners and industry as they craft what will be the service’s first operational, carrier unmanned aerial vehicle, commander of Naval Air Forces said on Thursday.

Once tasked with being primarily an information, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft native to the carrier strike group, the Navy’s first push into unmanned fixed wing aviation – MQ-25A Stingray — will now fulfill a badly needed tanker role for the air wing in addition to the ISR mission, said Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker during a presentation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and co-hosted by the U.S. Naval Institute.

The Navy has recently collected the results from a draft request for proposal for the Stingray program and is currently mulling the results from competitors Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Based on the responses, the Navy is refining the requirements for the full RfP expected next year. Affordability will be a key requirement to the program, USNI News understands.

The problem that industry and the service are dealing with is the ISR and the tanking mission inherently requires two very different types of aircraft shapes or planforms, Shoemaker said.

A primarily ISR UAV would be a high-endurance platform “probably not carry a lot of fuel, have a large wingspan,” to be an efficient platform, Shoemaker said.

For example, the highflying Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton UAV is built with a 131 foot wingspan and can fly unrefueled for up to 30 hours.

“If you’re going to be a tanker at range, you’re obliviously going to have to be able to carry a fair amount of fuel internal to the platform. That drives the different design for those two,” he said.
”So the industry is working on an analysis of where that sweet spot is to do both of those missions.”

Without mentioning specific companies, Shoemaker said there were some existing planforms that could serve as a baseline for the MQ-25A design.

“There are some shapes that they have designed already that help in that survivability piece of it. There’s a way to capitalize on existing designs in what we come to in terms of what we call a compromise solution but whatever MQ-25 ends up being but we’ve not said survivability is a priority this time around,” he said.
“But I think there’s ways to take advantage of some the other shapes already out there.”

The dividing line between the competitors will almost certainly be between a traditional wing-body-tail design and tailless variations of a delta wing planform.

In the lead up to the last bid for the carrier UAV – the Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program – designs from General Atomics and Boeing featured a wing-body-tail design while Lockheed and Northrop Grumman focused on tailless designs.

General Atomics’ Sea Avenger design is heavily influenced by Predator C Avenger, a jet powered evolution from the companies MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper.

Lockheed Martin’s UCLASS marketing material used a design reminiscent of the company’s RQ-170 sitting on a carrier flight deck.

Rob Weiss, the head of Lockheed’s Skunk Works program, told USNI News earlier this year that a company could build a low-cost flying wing design for the MQ-25A program.

“We believe [that a flying wing] will be just as affordable as a wing-body-tail configuration. But a wing-body-tail will not be able [to meet] the requirements for penetrating strike in the future,” he said.
“You can take the flying wing and not put on all the coatings and other capabilities in that initial version and be competitive on the cost but have a growth path forward… that same path to use that vehicle design to operate in a [contested] environment.”

Northrop Grumman was thought to have submitted a variation of its cranked-kite design it used for the Navy’s X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) that proved a UAV could be launched and recovered from a carrier.

The least is known publically about Boeing’s plan for MQ-25A. The company only exhibited a single piece of promotional material of a wing-body-tail design for UCLASS.

Regardless of the final composition of the Stingray airframe, the introduction of a new tanker to the carrier air wing will be a welcome relief to the service. Anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet sorties are for mission tanking and are placing unexpected stress on the airframes that have been in high demand in the last several years.

In addition to the planform discussions, the service is mulling how to integrate the MQ-25A into the air wing. Under consideration is pairing the Stingray with the sailors and aviators in the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye and C-2A Greyhound community. The relationship would be similar to the way the Sikorsky MH-60 community will be paired with the unmanned Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout and the Boeing P-8A Poseidon operators will be paired with the MQ-4C Triton.

https://news.usni.org/2016/08/18/navy-indus...ingray-missions

[Warhammer]

Warum hat man eigentlich nie über die C-2 als Tanker nachgedacht? Kommt die mit soviel Sprit nicht mehr hoch oder nimmt sie zuviel Platz weg, wenn ständig 3-4 auf dem Träger sind?

Generell kann man doch sicherlich auch die Osprey nehmen, die die Greyhounds ersetzt. Da wurde doch sowieso schon über Betankungsoptionen nachgedacht.

Stelle ich mir sinnvoller vor als die raren ISR Platformen dafür zu nutzen.

[Dave76]

Warum hat man eigentlich nie über die C-2 als Tanker nachgedacht? Kommt die mit soviel Sprit nicht mehr hoch oder nimmt sie zuviel Platz weg, wenn ständig 3-4 auf dem Träger sind?

Generell kann man doch sicherlich auch die Osprey nehmen, die die Greyhounds ersetzt. Da wurde doch sowieso schon über Betankungsoptionen nachgedacht.

Stelle ich mir sinnvoller vor als die raren ISR Platformen dafür zu nutzen.

USNI News understands the Navy commissioned a study last year with the Center for Naval Analysis that found that modifying the existing UCLASS program was more capable and cost effective than a modified V-22, Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, bringing back the retired S-3 Viking or using the JSF.

https://news.usni.org/2016/02/01/pentagon-t...e-super-hornets

MQ-25 ist primär als Tanker konzipiert (Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System - CBARS), die ISR-Rolle ist deutlich sekundär.

[400plus]

Die Frage mit der C-2 hatte ich mir auch schon öfter gestellt. Mit der KA-6D war halt wahrscheinlich lange kein Bedarf dafür da.

[Warhammer]

Ist es dann nicht irgendwie unökonomisch ein teures VLO UAV zu beschaffen, wenn ich damit dann hauptsächlich Tankermissionen fliege und nur sekundär ISR Missionen?

[MeckieMesser]

Das Ding startet und dreht dann einsam seine Runden. Genau dafür ist doch ein UAV perfekt.
Verschwendet keinen Platz für das Cockpit, etc und wahrscheinlich ist die Crew weniger belastet.

Schau Dir mal an, was für Sensorik und Links ein modernes Kampfflugzeug hat. Glaube ein UAV ist inzwischen die einfachere Lösung.

[KSK]

Ist es dann nicht irgendwie unökonomisch ein teures VLO UAV zu beschaffen, wenn ich damit dann hauptsächlich Tankermissionen fliege und nur sekundär ISR Missionen?

Wenn man eine Mission mit seinen teuren VLO-Fightern fliegt wäre es kontraproduktiv wenn der Tanker dabei während des Anflug zum und beim Bedanken am Treffpunkt auf dem gegnerischen Radar für Aufsehen sorgt. Von daher ist das in meinen Augen eine äußerst sinnvolle Lösung. Technisch sollte es mittlerweile kein Problem sein den gesamten Tankvorgang automatisiert durchzuführen, vermutlich macht die Automatisierung das Verfahren sogar sicherer und zuverlässiger.

[Dave76]

Ist es dann nicht irgendwie unökonomisch ein teures VLO UAV zu beschaffen, wenn ich damit dann hauptsächlich Tankermissionen fliege und nur sekundär ISR Missionen?

Die in meinem Zitat erwähnte Studie scheint ja zu dem Ergebnis gekommen zu sein, dass es eben wohl nicht unökonomisch ist. VLO, also eine hohe Überlebensfähigkeit, steht übrigens nicht zur Debatte, bzw. nicht weit oben auf der Prioritätenliste:

“There are some shapes that they have designed already that help in that survivability piece of it. There’s a way to capitalize on existing designs in what we come to in terms of what we call a compromise solution but whatever MQ-25 ends up being but we’ve not said survivability is a priority this time around,” he said.
“But I think there’s ways to take advantage of some the other shapes already out there.”

[Dave76]

Ist es dann nicht irgendwie unökonomisch ein teures VLO UAV zu beschaffen, wenn ich damit dann hauptsächlich Tankermissionen fliege und nur sekundär ISR Missionen?

Wenn man eine Mission mit seinen teuren VLO-Fightern fliegt wäre es kontraproduktiv wenn der Tanker dabei während des Anflug zum und beim Bedanken am Treffpunkt auf dem gegnerischen Radar für Aufsehen sorgt.

Schon richtig, nur muss, bzw. soll, der Tanker nicht so tief in feindlichen Luftraum eindringen, wie dies bei den Kampfflugzeugen der Fall ist, daher wird eben VLO nicht absolute Priorität haben, siehe meinen Beitrag oben.

Technisch sollte es mittlerweile kein Problem sein den gesamten Tankvorgang automatisiert durchzuführen, vermutlich macht die Automatisierung das Verfahren sogar sicherer und zuverlässiger.

Der X-47B Demonstrator hat jedenfalls schon 2015 gezeigt, dass das geht, zumindest als zu Betankender.

[xena]

.

Der Beitrag wurde von xena bearbeitet: 17. Sep 2019, 13:50

[Warhammer]

Es ging ja um Neubauten. Hawkeyes hat man ja auch neue gebaut.

Aber die entsprechenden Antworten waren sehr anschaulich, vielen Dank dafür.