Boeing Airpower Teaming System (ATS) - MQ-28 Ghost Bat

red admiral said:
So Boeing not bidding MQ-28 into Inc 1 would seem to indicate that it doesn't meet at least one of USAFs key requirements and so didn't stand a chance of winning. I wonder which one(s)?
Click to expand...

People are over thinking it. The reason of why MQ-28 or a derivative wasn’t part of the CCA increment 1 program is because MQ-28 was developed with Australian money and they probably had contractual clauses that ensures that the design is sovereign to Australia. Sharing parts or using elements designed for US could inject ITAR to the vehicle and allow the US some say in how it can be used, whether they can be exported. Australia would have an active interest in not letting that happen since it was completely an Australian effort to develop the MQ-28.
 
H_K said:
X-47B reached the same milestone (100 flights) in only 2.5 years with only 2 prototypes (vs 4 years here).
Click to expand...
X-47B was the product of an experienced team working with well refined infrastructures.
Australia is ramping up on all aspects at the same time. Even if it's a "Boeing" project, IMOHO, that's still a good number.
How many flight did log Neuron, Taranis or even the entire Airbus Tiger fleet of Australian helo in a similar time frame?
 
Dassault Neuron managed 123 flights in <3 years 2013-2015 from a single aircraft. Unclear what flight duration there was. Maybe multiple hours, maybe under an hour. Definitely quite a difference to the MQ-28 fleet by a very large margin.

The two YF-22 aircraft managed 91hrs in 3 months.

Both these examples are really "demonstrators" rather than "prototypes"

For MQ-28 then I don't know whether its availability driven, or they're simply not actually trying to fly the aircraft that much. But in this case then why bother to build so many prototypes?
 
CCA involves multiple airframe teaming.
Also all the code is new for a new mission. We don't know exactly what Boeing was specifically targeting in its development there, aside of building up a team, but we could rationally understand that they were trying not to duplicate their achievements in the US where they own the IP. So part of it might have been virtual, not involving a flight sequence where they gained confidence that the appropriate KPI were checked.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
X-47B was the product of an experienced team working with well refined infrastructures.
Australia is ramping up on all aspects at the same time. Even if it's a "Boeing" project, IMOHO, that's still a good number.
How many flight did log Neuron, Taranis or even the entire Airbus Tiger fleet of Australian helo in a similar time frame?
Click to expand...
Not sure about the figure for Taranis, but at around the same time BAE Systems was also developing Corax, Herti, Mantis, Silver Fox, Ampersand, and GA22 (at least). So the flights and development effort add up.
And Taranis itself was also caught up in the political intent to cross it and Neuron to produce FCAS (this FCAS was an Anglo-French UCAV, not the current Franco-Italo-German fighter).
 
Some images from recent trials:

20250415raaf8662232_0002.jpg.iieWlJj0MXuHIedjwCUA.fUonkZ9loi.jpg

20250405raaf8678084_0043.jpg.iieXoZX0MXuHIedjwCUA.Krx_VkK_VS.jpg
20250405raaf8678084_0028.jpg.iif-1o30MXuHIedjwCUA.mpRz4fWJEN.jpg
20250406raaf8678084_0014.jpg.iieSrI30MXuHIedjwCUA.WBFsVBfm-a.jpg
20250403raaf8678084_0004.jpg.iie2iJz0MXuHIedjwCUA.GapF-8NmNj.jpg
20250404raaf8678084_0026.jpg.iifYx5L0MX-HIedjwCUA.zGMIGHtjf0.jpg
20250403raaf8678084_0078.jpg.iifBk5f0MX-HIedjwCUA.rZtB9wgnJ3.jpg
 
Finally!

https://aviationweek.com/defense/ai...clears-demo-hurdle-awaits-production-decision
In remarks to the assembled journalists, Conroy sounded optimistic about a positive decision, which could lead to the production start of a Block 3 variant with full weapons integration and a Block 4 version with a larger wing.

The CD25 event focused on validating the first three steps in the so-called targeting “kill chain” for weapon systems: find, fix and track. The MQ-28 Block 1s carried the infrared search and track sensor, the SRC Generic Multi-Function Array (GMFA) and an undisclosed electronic warfare capability. The RAAF also tested a classified payload during CD25.

Although the CD25 series is complete, the RAAF still plans to stage a weapons firing test by the MQ-28 Block 1 in December or early next year. The goal is to fire an AIM-120 Amraam missile at a moving aerial target from a pylon attached to the bottom of the fuselage. The Block 1 version of the Ghost Bat lacks working weapons bays.
Click to expand...
 
[...] the RAAF still plans to stage a weapons firing test by the MQ-28 Block 1 in December or early next year. The goal is to fire an AIM-120 Amraam missile at a moving aerial target from a pylon attached to the bottom of the fuselage. The Block 1 version of the Ghost Bat lacks working weapons bays.
Click to expand...
So, this would test the control links and any fire-control software in the Ghost Bat itself? Not sure why they need to do this.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • IMG_8387.jpeg
    IMG_8387.jpeg
    1,015.6 KB · Views: 62
  • IMG_8383.jpeg
    IMG_8383.jpeg
    644.3 KB · Views: 69
  • IMG_8384.jpeg
    IMG_8384.jpeg
    906.4 KB · Views: 73
  • IMG_8385.jpeg
    IMG_8385.jpeg
    1 MB · Views: 70
  • IMG_8386.jpeg
    IMG_8386.jpeg
    740.6 KB · Views: 67
Last edited:
I figured external carriage. IIRC the MQ-28s payload is located in a detachable nose section, which is great for sensors and avionics but does not translate well into weapon storage.
 
Key mission highlights:

  • The MQ-28, E-7A and F/A-18F launched from separate locations.

  • Once airborne, an E-7A operator took custodianship of the MQ-28 ensuring safety and engagement oversight.

  • The F/A-18F teamed with the MQ-28 in combat formation to provide sensor coverage, and once the Super Hornet identified and tracked the target, targeting data was shared across all three platforms.

  • The MQ-28 adjusted its position and received authorization from the E-7A to engage and successfully destroy the target using a Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM missile.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2025-12-09-Boeing,-RAAF-Achieve-CCA-Missile-Fire-from-MQ-28-Ghost-Bat
 
Does anyone think this is viable for the Royal Navy? CCA trials are taking place on the carriers next year
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom