nice to see a Boeing program seemingly on track

@brilobox2

Жыл бұрын

A rare treat

A modular integrated platform like no other.

Yes I brings my memories back as a child

X-47B operated was admitted to be operating off carriers more than ten years ago. Anecdotally (someone told me a story) it was a lot earlier than that.

that is so cool!

Wonderful 🎉

A thoroughly vetted aircraft. Amen! Small steps. Thank you for continuing to share those steps and the ongoing story of the development of the MQ. A new generation of Naval Aviation takes form.

@BannerMarty

2 жыл бұрын

Nice...

Doesn't a 737 p-8 planes fly next to a kc _46 Tankers could they also help with as extra eyes while planes refuel and as a distance platform to control Boeing remote control planes

Congratulations Teams 👏.....WoW....Hope Boeing and The military teams up a thick of new Remote control planes and products....Let's leave our military personnel on deck ..and out of "Harms "..( jag) way and let Remote Control do the Dangerous work 💪👷🙄

Earth love Boeing.

I get that it’s a tanker, but it seems a little thin. Does it have the ability to mount droptanks? Or conformal tanks. What’s the maximum takeoff weight or maximum airborne weight? Assuming you’d take off, refuel then land and run tanker missions like that, although that sounds inefficient now that I said it

@cadennorris960

2 жыл бұрын

If it couldn’t mount drop tanks how could it refuel other aircraft? It can carry two, it was shown in 3 clips at the very least with the refueling of the F model hornet, F35, and E2D. Not sure what the max take off weight and all that is but the Navy has been efficiently using carrier based tankers for decades now. The S3 and now the hornet albeit not built as tankers, have proven very useful for carrier operations. The Navy wouldn’t accept Boeing’s design over all the others from contractors like Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, if it couldn’t hold the fuel they specified. Also they plan on making it capable of refueling midair itself too so your assumption is wrong.

OMG Thats where I live! near SAFB! My mom tells me storys about my grandpa working at the base.

Fascinating to see a tanker with the M designator. Typically that designator is reserved for UCAVs.

It looks like Boeing has finally back on track. So far, there is no incident happened 😀

Any flying asset over water must be able to safely ditch/land on water if no ppl on board & if ppl on board MUST hve diff power supple & or mult engines & or pods.

My questions after watching this video are: How well will the MQ-25 hold up to EMP pulses? How well will it hold up to outside frequency interference? How connected is it to the Internet or systems connected to the Internet?

my question is- how does the drone salute?

It be incredible 🙌 To team this plane ,MQ-25 Together with BOEING T-6 TO FLY TOGETHER as a wing man team HAULING FUEL ,WEAPONS REMOTE CONTROL.......

CHICLAYO PERU 🇵🇪 🤝

We are in what can be called the future.

My country is not a NATO member, instead we are neutral country so its impossible for us to have this but i hope that boeing will develop this MQ 25 to be a uninteruptible UCAV. Its gonna be great to see it side by side with F 35 or the next 6th gen NAVY fighter

Can't wait for the day when an entire carrier air wing is composed of UCAVs. That isn't going to happen soon, but eventually it will. Then we will be able to truly execute power projection in a revolutionary way.

@zackbryan3195

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds awesome and terrifying!

🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪🇺🇸

No1

0:32 this guy looks like an animation

Compro 3.000 unidades para a força aéria brasileira e o projeto e a tecnologia para o Brasil

🤯

Hello from Ukraine

It doesn't look like it can carry much fuel to do the refueling mission. correct me if I'm wrong ,I'm watching it on the iPhone but it looks too small to fuel more than one plane....

@JWQweqOPDH

2 жыл бұрын

From a quick web search, you're right. It carries less than an F/A-18 would, and only has enough to fill one fighter. *Hopefully* the operating costs are much lower, though.

@griffm5

2 жыл бұрын

@@JWQweqOPDH thank you !

@Jack3md

2 жыл бұрын

It’s not meant to carry much. Nor do Super Hornets carry much. It is meant to alleviate the tanker mission. On most tanker missions, Super Hornets only receive a couple thousand pounds. This could easily hand over fuel to multiple jets. About 15,000 pounds could help out 4-6 Super Hornets, taking 2.5-3k lbs each, awaiting landing/extending their range. It’s not designed for refueling Hornets fully.

@ashokiimc

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jack3md can it carry fuel in it's entire wing? or just the part of the wing which doesnt fold?

@Jack3md

2 жыл бұрын

@@ashokiimc I’m not sure, I would imagine the majority of the fuel is in the center main fuselage. I think it can also carry an external fuel mounted tank

Can the MQ-25 be refuelled its self? I say, plant that bad boy over a Mission Area and top it off so it's always ready for them thirsty "Ghosts"? MQ could stay airborne for a LONG time. Next, a mid-air reloader!

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

Let's go! USA USA USA! 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

When you take the man out of the war, there is no longer anything for man to fear from waging war. The people will then, truly suffer.

@vagasint.4345

2 жыл бұрын

It’s a tanker. It’s not attacking anyone

@kborak

2 жыл бұрын

@@vagasint.4345 you ain't bright are ya. All aspects of war should be done by man.

Why don't they do midair refueling for airliner flights, could completely remove the need for layovers

@trenthari

2 жыл бұрын

Layovers are for a different purpose. Aircraft can fly much longer than typical flights. I think it’s scheduling

@elijahkennedy-gibbens2593

2 жыл бұрын

@@trenthari I’m pretty sure that’s correct

@TheGLORY13

2 жыл бұрын

​@@trenthari Realistically, I'd argue there is far more risk involved with refueling a commercial flight loaded with potentially hundreds of people then there is a military aircraft. You'd have to redesigned all the commercial aircraft to have some sort of hook up that would allow this to happen and truthfully it wouldn't be cost effective. Commercial airlines already lose money on a yearly basis (Their frequent fly programs are actually worth more money to them then their flights are over the course of a year so no chance they will actually throw money into that) The layovers are mostly for flight crews. Flight crews are limited to number of hours they can fly (I believe in a week) so if you're racking up major hours in one go, you will be short of flight crews far more often. Also if you want non stop, pay more for your ticket. You can fly non stop to almost any destination you so desire it will just cost you more money and most people aren't willing to do that. Logan to Frankfurt non stop was 600$ a ticket which isn't insane for cross ocean flight into Germany. (4-5 years ago) Logan to San Fran non stop 140$ (i admit I lucked into that cost, but it was October) Pittsburgh to Logan is a non stop flight most of the time and that cost basically nothing. But then you have stuff like I saw over christmas. I flew from Portland, Maine>Baltimore>Pittsburgh (which was fine, portland won't do non stop to pittsburgh in the winter) but there were other Pittsburgh flights from Baltimore that went Baltimore>Chicago>Pittsburgh or Baltimore>Houson>Pittsburgh and Baltimore>Atlanta>Pittsburgh. A lot of the time those flights are crew change because of hours and potentially that plane itself was due to fly into that base for MX and it needed to make it's last stop be one of it's home bases. Most airlines run on progressive check ups (which are staggered through out the year) but sometimes that aircrafts time is due and they have to bring it in.

@trenthari

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheGLORY13 yeah, I’ve worked for Boeing for 7 years, it would never happen. There’s literally no reason to refuel a passenger aircraft, people would never want to sit that long in the first place

@texaswunderkind

2 жыл бұрын

Modern commercial aircraft can be in the air for nearly 20 hours as it is. The longest current flight is from Singapore to New York, at 19 hours. That sounds brutal to me as it is.

MQ stands for multimission drone

The fourth dimension is the key. Boeing's mini refueler hold far more fuel then 3D planes 100 times larger.😂😂😂😂😂

I was on a carrier & they could (&probably, eventually WILL) outfit these with weapons, bombs or anything. You could literally double the ratio of planes to drones. I bet in 10 yrs. they will phase out real pilots.

So.. what's 'next'.... Imagine a much smaller submersible drone 'carrier' COMPLETELY automatous. Surfaces for a short period of time only to launch or recover drones. We will see that day that our 'Super Carriers' are all retired... too expensive to operate.

Yet, we never see it flying....

but what if atack from space? an spacecraft who atack us and go back to space. and make that all times. We are still limited in propulsion sistem

The Mission: Remove Pilots from the Cockpit. The result: Dead dreams for prospering military aviators

“If you have a job you love, you’ll never work a day in your life” …..yeah, glad he likes his job of taxiing a drone on a tiny aircraft deck 😆

GOD BLESS USAA !!!!!

Compro 300 unidades para a marinha do Brasil

🎶the coooovid boat soon will be making another run🎶

Drone to drone refueler? With AI capabilities to form into swarms without the need for a rear seat joystick jockey.

first

Forced subtitles are EVIL...

It is peace time NOW & forverer mustly (99%) more or soon secs will be. So peace time "needs" priority 1 trick pony will never pass or do never again.

Hey China, are you seeing this?🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳😂😂😂

Congratulations on hitting all the diversity checkmarks on your video.

@ashokiimc

2 жыл бұрын

it's more important than having the right people for a job.

The festive bed allegedly play because brochure undoubtedly undress regarding a raspy clarinet. questionable, black-and-white enquiry

Boeing you let yourself be bullied by Navy pilots into converting this great machine from a wingman/strike-drone into a fuel tanker!?!? Lame. Just like your "Starliner". Catch up.

Why not have a ai drive it seems dumb to have a human fly it with a controller just saying

Is the MQ-25 the most pointless piece of aviation money has been wasted upon? When the current refuelers can take two to three aircraft at a time and refuel a dozen aircraft, how does this tiny thing that can only refuel two jets seperately before needing to be refueled itself have a place in the modern US Navy?

@vagasint.4345

2 жыл бұрын

Because the the navy currently refuels using F-18s and that’s a waste of attack aircrafts it’s easier for the carrier to have a dedicated tanker rather than relying on the Air Force to send a larger tanker from an air base on land.

The face coverings just shows us that China has the world by the balls. Way to go team.

@texaswunderkind

2 жыл бұрын

Grow up.