Username Protected wrote:
What prevents creating a KC-18 tanker or “drone” with minor revisions to the airframe and avionics and a bunch of new software for automation? Why must an all-new aircraft be developed versus building out new software and communications packages for an existing airframe with identical parts to what are in the fleet?
The Navy, kind of through attrition and not really a plan IMO, has centralized on as few a platforms as possible and that's the F/A-18E/F/G platform. The challenge at sea is parts and supply lines so any divergence from that platform is now a unique new beast. That will be changing as we roll to doing additive mfg on the ships (3D printing) but that's a ways from happening full-scale. Bringing Hoovers, which were an awesome tanker and ISR platform, out of the boneyard introduces a "new" platform but made with old parts that are no longer in production isn't the answer.
They already use F/A-18 as tankers with buddy stores and adding a bunch of automation to make one a drone is not likely to be a large value add if they're going to put something that size on the deck stick with the manned platform that can fly either mission.
With the ISR capability the MQ-25 mission then it really is a force multiplier for the carrier and while it is a new logistics chain, I suspect it's far more simple than an F/A-18 to maintain. As far as crew to maintain and fly I suspect it's less simply because of getting rid of an engine and all the aircrew support stuff. I didn't look up dimensions but it looks to be a smaller form factor for deck and hangar bay handling too. It will come with a parts supply that is new stuff and not re-mfg or robbed off other stuff.
It's pretty common to hear cries of "contractor debacle" but having been involved in working with the gov't for a while the DoD, heck the whole gov't procurement system, is so AFU and risk adverse that the contractors are generally stuck with having to respond to incomplete or aged out requirements with the "we'll change it later" in a contract mod from the gov't. The result is procurements that stretch out for years longer and cost much more than they should. Blame the dog, not the tail.
Heck, we wouldn't even have the F/A-18G Prowler replacement except Northrup-Grumman-Boeing saw that the Navy was lagging in understanding how tired the Prowler fleet and the supply line was an invested their own money on feasibility. I flew the sims for it to test crew interfaces back in 95 and it still took 10+ years for the Navy to realize it was the right path and for it to enter production. By that point we were spending 45+ maintenance hours for every flight hour on the Prowler because there were no parts so we had to swap them from the hangar queen (and back) until you could get reman parts.
