Thread 64228034

Yesterday Boeing Australia conducted their first public demonstrations with their MQ-28A 'Ghost Bat' in Woomera, with general testing 4 months ahead of schedule. This follows General Dynamic's YFQ-42A first flight test in San Diego last week. Now all is left is for Anduril's YFQ-44A to make its first flight.

While all three aircraft are UCAVs, the YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A fill the roles of offensive CCA due to their already functional internal weapons bays able to house at least two AMRAAMs and larger control surfaces, while the MQ-28A is to fill the role of ISR/EW with internal bays coming later.

At the same time today, the USN has announced a contract competition for naval UCAVs with General Atomics, Boeing, Anduril and Northrop Grumman. Lockeed Martin is to develop the avionics and control systems for the winning prototypes.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2025-09-05-Boeing,-RAAF-Prove-MQ-28-Operational-Effectiveness
https://www.ga-asi.com/ga-asi-marks-another-aviation-first-with-yfq-42a-cca-flight-testing
https://news.usni.org/2025/09/05/navy-contracts-5-companies-to-develop-armed-unmanned-carrier-aircraft

The YFQ-44 looks like a joke compared to the other two.

>>64228057
Yeah, it definitely won't be stealthy because of it's tail configuration alone. Unless they can make it way cheaper than the old guard, Anduril is better off making spam cruise missiles and anti-drone drones where their easy tooling and mass production philosophy can shine.

>>64228057
It’s a repurposed target drone but Anduril has political connections through Thiel, though apparently their claims about manufacturing processes have some parties interested. I wouldn’t be surprised if their winning is an attempt at undoing some of the less desirable effects of the post Cold War defense contractor consolidation by adding new blood to the space.

>>64228085
>I wouldn’t be surprised if their winning is an attempt at undoing some of the less desirable effects of the post Cold War defense contractor consolidation by adding new blood to the space.
Assuming that the Anduril design doesn't actually suck, I think the military should seriously consider procuring all of them in small batches to decentralize production and have some security against the failure or obsoleting of one contender. Basically like early Cold War/1950s era jet production. That and like you said, it could potentially reduce barriers to entry and make the defense market more competitive.

>>64228057
it looks like a plane

>>64228177
I think they’re considering that for increment 1, plus they plan on further competing later increments after they learn what they can from the first. They haven’t been saying this is a winner take all sort of deal, at least to my knowledge, and DoD seems pretty interested in acquisitions reform. Big things happening there with the government owning the IP for the 6th gens and the Navy trying to resurrect in house ship design instead of farming design out to Gibbs and Cox or running competitions like with the LCS debacle.

>>64228347
The procurement system having and overhaul is a very welcome development, but the Navy will always be the Navy. They managed to fuck up everything all the way down to the Constellation class when they could've just built FREMMs under licence. Maybe doing stuff in house will fix that.

>>64228034 (OP)
>MQ-28A is to fill the role of ISR/EW with internal bays coming later.
I’m eagerly looking forward to the live fire tests for the Ghost Bat at the end of the year, shit is going to be cash.

>>64228363
While they’ve always had a tendency toward mission and therefore weight creep, I don’t think a foreign off the shelf solution was ever going to deliver to what was promised just on the basis of the massive amount of work the systems integration was always going to take. Plus, while it will probably take a generation to bear fruit, there are big advantages to having men with actual ship design experience in the command structure and helping to set requirements. A lot of the issue here is that the government side just shows up with an ever changing shopping list and little understanding of what their demands mean for the construction and industry side of things. Congress will always be Congress, but I think down the line this will do a lot for the Navy if they stick with it.

>>64228034 (OP)
YQF-44 doesn't look like it's even meant to be stealthy in the first place. I don't see any stealth measures at all on it, I don't even think it's got a RAM coating

>>64228034 (OP)
>YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A fill the roles of offensive CCA due to their already functional internal weapons bays able to house at least two AMRAAMs and larger control surfaces, while the MQ-28A is to fill the role of ISR/EW
Surprised by that since MQ-28A seems to be the one with a big IRST. Looks like the "Skyward" one on Gripen E

>>64228034 (OP)
Good thing that the US-Australia alliance is on the verge of breaking under the trade disputes, potential scuppering of AUKUS by Elbridge Colby and now this latest betrayal

t. Chinese shill

>>64229178
>reportedly
>potential
>expected
I'll take a nothing ever happens for 500, Alex.

>>64229093
It'll probably be classified for offensive roles once they get the bays working. Team at Boeing seems to be going with a results first approach and it's very nice.

>>64229178
>bro theyre totally going to abandon you
>looks inside
>its just bombing random narco boats every few weeks
Bravo

>>64229611
The guy behind the account has been buck broken since Orange man won

>>64229611
>>its just bombing random narco boats every few weeks
Idk, there's a lot of naval firepower parked outside Venezuela wight now.

>>64228363
The Navy doesn't need or want license-built FREMMs, the only reason they went with that is because they thought it would help their chances of getting congressional approval if they chose it.

>>64229690
>No CSG deployed
Nothingburger.

>>64229736
I would argue they need some form of enhanced ASW platform though, especially with destroyers probably having to do double duty to defend from dongfeng spam.

>>64229777
What they need is to be free of the requirement that they have to build Independence and Freedom in equal numbers. They're currently building both classes of LCS and then attempting to retire the Freedoms practically the moment they're commissioned because they're garbage. That's the point of the Constellation, but since it's going to be so much more cost effective than Independence since they're not required to buy two ships per ship, they can afford to make them larger and more capable and recover some of the capabilities that were lost when they were forced to buy 1980s destroyers instead of modern ships.

>>64229799
Wait, that 1:1 contract is still binding? How much is LM lobbying for this bulllshit? I am all for a pivot to the Constellation if this is the procurement fix they're forced to take because the Constellation is already a whole new modern ship entirely. Italy can build the hulls for the Constellation once we stop building LCS so they don't cry about the contract. Just get some damn boats in the water.

>>64229819
Yeah, you can look at the list of ships and see that they're still building both. A couple of years ago the Navy tried to retire 9 LCSes, of which two were the original two Independences that were essentially just prototypes and the rest were Freedoms, including ships less than three years old. The Navy's statement was something along the lines of "these ships are costly to maintain, not useful, and we never wanted them in the first place." The press, as always, delighted in the opportunity to shit on the LCS program and call the Navy a bunch of retards for buying them in the first place and glossed over the fact that practically all of the ships they were requesting to decommission came from a single class.

>>64229850
Oh, I just checked and apparently there's just Independences in the pipeline now. I guess the deal was probably something along the lines of in exchange for not discarding newly commissioned ships they'd be let off the hook for building the last few Freedoms. That was more recent that the beginning of the Constellation program though, and the fact that there was a replacement on the horizon might have played a part in allowing it.

>>64229850
>>64229904
That's some good news coming from the Navy for once.

>>64229799
>What they need is to be free of the requirement that they have to build Independence and Freedom in equal numbers.
This isn't the case. There has never been evidence that this was ever the case.
You are a retard spreading bullshit.
>>64229819
>Wait, that 1:1 contract is still binding?
No. And as stated above there was never anything that indicated there ever was. Do not listen to his bullshit and propagate it.

Oh also, the USS Minneapolis-Saint Paul (god what a fucking name) is a Freedom class LCS that got deployed out to Venezuela. So in the unlikely event that something actually happens we might actually get to see it in action.

>>64230405
>It was never a requirement and that's why the Navy was building the losing ship and then trying to retire them 3 years after commissioning
Yeah, there's probably not a binding contract anywhere, but buying both ships was the Navy's ploy to get the LCS funded because the senator from Wisconsin or wherever the Freedoms were made was throwing a shitfit and trying to get the program blocked. Same thing happened to the Air Force recently where they were blocked from buying the plane they wanted because the senator from the state where the runner-up was going to be made demanded that they rerun the competition. The air force handled it by selecting the third place aircraft and telling the guy to go fuck himself.

Anyway, the Navy never wanted Freedom and they've said as much, they built them as a compromise and stuck them on the Atlantic coast where they thought they'd never have to do anything. The fact that they're not building any Freedoms right now probably has to do with the fact that the shipyard that built Freedom will be building the entire Constellation class, so the rabid senators are appeased.

>>64232106
Who are you quoting? I didn't read the rest.

>>64232175
(You)

>>64228040
>china demonstrate their actual 6th gen flying
>this dude thinks that their drones cant fly

>>64233294
>their actual 6th gen flying
lol
Fuck off chink

>>64229690
>a lot
It's two guided missile boats defending a littoral that is doing taskforcing.
I get that that's a lot to you because your shithole doesn't have a blue water navy anyways.

>>64233294
Why aren't your CCAs flying?

Daily reminder that the people calling Chinese doritos "6th gen" are the dumbfucks of the USAF and Pentagon

>>64228040
>>tfw all USA did by showing off their "6th gen" PPT slides which have never been seen flying is send the Chinese which already have flying prototypes from several different companies into overdrive

>>64233732
They gotta get funding from congress somehow

>>64233294
>>64233528
>>64228040

One of the big benefits of UCAVs are you don't have to fly them much since there are no pilot to train. Fly enough to tick off performance checklist then pack away. In fact its a bad thing to let people see them flying since adversarial data collection is the next step.

>>64233732
why is it so difficult to believe that china at least has 6th gen prototypes at this point in time?
5th gen prototypes were flying thirty (30) years ago and now china has surpassed the US in just about every single technological field
it's not a stretch

>>64233749
>ROOK AT OUR TINY PENIS!
Put it away Chang and pull up your pants.

>>64233852
Becayse all of that is false and its just chinesium coupled with face saving culture by han mutts

>>64233852
>thirty (30)
Chang doesn't know how to type, sad!

>>64233852
Vely impleassive Smul Song Lu

>>64233852
>5th gen prototypes were flying thirty (30) years ago
Chinese fifth gen prototypes? If they've been around so long, why are they not in production yet?

>>64233852
Thirty years ago china was flying 2nd gen mig 17s and 21s lmao

>>64236956
Took someone long enough to post this flying wing. Only 2 decades behind the X-47, lmao

>>64237012
>X-47
It never went into mass production like the GJ-11, and GJ-21 have/will, and that's 20 years of having more advanced avionics/electronics.

>>64236956
GJ means striker. The Feihong is what you should post, even if it's a private venture, it doesn't have a designation or even a definitive design.

>>64237031
Strike platforms are part of the CCA concept

>>64228034 (OP)
I'm excited for Ghost Bat, but without an internal weapons bay I really am disappointed. I'll believe it when I see it fitted.
Honestly, it was always too small.

>>64237046
As soon as you need mobility then they don't, in that case it would be useless as LW. Chinese designs takes into account their north and east, that's why the J-20 is like that and their doritos aren't (seemly) subsonic.

>>64237021
>>64237046
You ever wonder why certain designs get relegated to different roles and concepts rather than slapping in the latest avionics and cranking it into production? The USAF has the luxury to choose that.
Sending something that is at best a mini bomber as a CCA for your supersonic jets is interesting to say at the least.

>>64237093
It's almost like China has multiple CCAs, one anon asked for a picture of a Chinese CCA flying and I posted one. One of the CCAs shown was powered by a WS-10, so it's definitely not subsonic.

>>64237097
And none of them other than that wing have been seen flying. I like how the shroud and fins behind the engine are painted too, totally won't start burning when it hits reheat.

>>64237070
I'll also add that while progressing, it hasn't yet been shown to actually be used in a collaborative role yet. It still just flight testing.

>>64237328
Considering that they'll be using similar if not maybe the same flight systems from Lockheed Martin as with the Navy competition, it should just be a process of integration rather than coming up something new because the Valkyrie already flew collaboratively in 2023.

>>64237070
Any bigger and you'd be getting into standalone unmanned fighter territory imo

>>64237389
Why? Believe it or not, Boeing is a pioneer in UCAV flight software. Their software for the X-45A program was top notch. The gubmint forced Boeing to share their code AND made their software engineers work with the NG team that lead to the X-47 carrier based UCAV.

>>64239196
That's exactly why, whoever will be working on the controls will have access to old telemetry data and software regardless.

>>64237070
>but without an internal weapons bay I really am disappointed.
Bugger I didn’t know about that, still if it carry’s AMRAAM‘a I’ll be happy even if it degrades its stealth capabilities.

>>64241062
I wonder if something like a JASSM will degrade stealth as it's also a stealth munition?

>>64233732
It's the same playbook during the US/Soviet era. China just needs to actually deliver on their claims, otherwise, they're doing nothing but inevitably push US development to churn out superweapons.

>>64233852
They can barely do 5th gen, what exactly makes you think they've somehow attained 6th gen? The nations they've copied their 5th gen tech are still toying with 6th gen concepts, they don't even have anything solid to copy from.

>>64243750
They're already kinda doing that with the MAKO and CPS, or just long range shit in general ever since the INF treaty expired in late 2019. It's nutty how quickly the US can develop shit.
>>64243761
This is why they're trying so hard to bait the US to show the NGAD lol

bumperino

>>64243659
Maybe? Honestly I’m not sure how that would work

>>64243761
>They can't do 5th gen
ftfy

>>64233852
>now china has surpassed the US in just about every single technological field
yeah maybe one of these days they'll discover indoor plumbing

>>64247926
*prooooooooooooot*

>>64228076
You don't need stealth when your fast.

>>64247934
Caption: Chinese Naval Ship docks in Calcutta for spicy curries.

>>64248132
It uses a FJ44 engine so I doubt it can go over Mach 0.9