Interestingly when The Merge Podcast had both Anduril and GA on to discuss their respective CCAs and the competition to date the GA rep specifically mentioned made with metal for the purposes of being cheap to manufacture and easy to build anywhere.
General Atomics YFQ-42 CCA
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 17,040
- Reaction score
- 24,187
Okay, that's a good thought then. But you still gotta impedance-match the doors and have good enough QA for surface finish especially. Though "you must not be able to feel the rivet with your fingernails" would probably work as basic guidance. Man I hated countersunk rivets, they never filled the hole level so you always had to go back over with a rivet shaver tuned to a gnat's ass.
The initial CCA Incr1 purchase is said to be 100-150, and the stated goal is ~1000. Additionally, the follow on AAM to AIM-120 is the same form factor. There is no way any of the CCAs would be designed with a smaller missile in mind; if a lot of small weapons end up being produced they will be used to increase warload not as the baseline weapon.
In the case of Anduril, the stated intent was less building in car factories and more poaching car assembly workers for a ready made labor force. To that end their products are all designed to be made with a very small number of machine processes/tools that can largely be found in the auto industry. I suspect LO definitely suffers in that environment, and you can see that in some of their missiles/UUVs that have a simple squared off body and visible fastening. There are probably some aerospace assembly processes that simply require retraining. But the idea was to make production simple for speed, cost, and labor force access reasons.
It is also possible some subassemblies are sufficiently cheap they could be contracted out to other companies.
Reddington777
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 23 March 2025
- Messages
- 689
- Reaction score
- 2,219
I can see inc1 use mainly full sized AAMs in inventory, but if inc2 has options for more exquisite as well as cheaper options, then wouldnt a cheaper CCA that can hold say, 4 to 6 smaller missiles be useful against other large sized UAS so you dont expend all your expensive munitions on the unmanned platforms?
If the form factor is 2:1, which seems to be the goal, there’s no need to make that choice. 2 full sized or 4 half sized.
Reddington777
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 23 March 2025
- Messages
- 689
- Reaction score
- 2,219
If you mean having the cheap vs expensive CCA, I think aside from weapons load, I do hope they at least get one or two more exquisite CCA types that can at least go supersonic, have space for more powerful sensors, and have more stealthy airframe.
I still dont understand how the US intends on using a bunch of subsonic mid tier CCAs and cheaper ones only when chinese CCAs look like they've got enough space to fit a manned fighters size and complement of sensors and at least 4 - 6 full sized AAMs on there while being more stealthy. Having a high low mix would be ideal.
For clarity: what I am saying is that I do not think there will be CCAs with “half ram” sized bays; carriage of a full sized AAM will always be a requirement. And I think AIM-9 never makes the jump to CCA either: as someone else posted, it is most of the volume of AIM-120 with a hefty drop in performance. IMO AIM-260 is designed with very high off boresight in mind and 6th gen manned aircraft will ditch the AIM-9 as well.
I think the first round of CCAs is more experimental. But as for the possibility of a large performance gap: IMO the subsonic CCAs just need to get sufficiently close to an opponent such that it falls within the no escape zone of its AAMs.
I see two ways of achieving this: 1) a low enough signature such that the opponent aircraft cannot see the CCA until completely exiting its engagement area is no longer an option or 2) flooding the zone with alternative targets that are hard to differentiate from CCAs. The latter method has been explicitly stated as a goal. The CCAs are the higher end of a family of unmanned systems, some of which will be smaller/cheaper and unarmed, and all of them will have similar performance and signature to obscure which are armed. The CCAs also seem to make modest use of LO shaping even if they seem to maximize simple aluminum construction.
I suspect that the USAF will learn a lot with incr1. It may be that more performance is required or that lower signature is a requirement. Or they may find that operating a sufficiently large number of decoy/jammers concurrently with the CCAs allows them to be effective. A primary goal of CCA is to make dramaticly less expensive aircraft that lack a lot of the systems of manned platforms - a stated price point was 1/3 to 1/4 of F-35. Some of the PRC UAVs look like they would be almost as complex as a manned aircraft, which undermines the purpose of the USAF program. PLAAF might have a different design philosophy that simply desires to remove the pilot and save more on lifecycle expenses rather than up front airframe costs.
One further addendum to the discussion about CCA size: the USAF is very clearly worried about runway availability. While I think it is clear conventional take off and landing is a requirement, I think RATO short take offs are likely also a requirement. Kratos recently stated that there is a landing gear version of XQ-58 in the works that retains a runway less launch mode but sacrifices payload. Both GA and Anduril have stated that ACE basing is baked into their designs.
This is something China likely is does not need - it has sufficient air basing with seemingly little possibility of serious interdiction that it simply might not care about runway availability. That changes the size constraints for them, if we assume some of the USAF requirements are driven by STOLV needs as well as cost per aircraft.
ETA: I would not be surprised if the USAF did not also have requirements concerning shipping CCAs: x number in a C-17 and TEU kits as a storage method. I could conceivably see storage in a munitions igloo with the control surfaces removed as a requirement.
This is something China likely is does not need - it has sufficient air basing with seemingly little possibility of serious interdiction that it simply might not care about runway availability. That changes the size constraints for them, if we assume some of the USAF requirements are driven by STOLV needs as well as cost per aircraft.
ETA: I would not be surprised if the USAF did not also have requirements concerning shipping CCAs: x number in a C-17 and TEU kits as a storage method. I could conceivably see storage in a munitions igloo with the control surfaces removed as a requirement.
Last edited:
Shipping would be a major hurdle for CCA. Anyone that has a serious look at their relative size compared to typical Cruise missiles would understand that crating operations would have to be made with much more voluminous items, restraining the number that can be airlifted rapidly to a theater of operations.
Then there is the possibility to let them fly to their destination like any fighters are deployed. Sadly, the economy of scale for affordable systems, including how their engines are selected and built for low flight hours, given the need to be attritable, will restrict the ability of self-deployment by sending them on a long flight to their destination. That would even be a rarity (unless a special deployment engine, used in that case in-lieu of the normal one, can be sourced with longer TBO and ease of replacement).
So the question is not even STOL or not STOL. It's would certainly be all about having them prepositionned/assembled in theatre until the solution is found. Hence, it would be primarily a matter of affordability.
That's why we can guess this aspect is the strongest factor in their selection, beyond VLO, beyond having a WB.
Then there is the possibility to let them fly to their destination like any fighters are deployed. Sadly, the economy of scale for affordable systems, including how their engines are selected and built for low flight hours, given the need to be attritable, will restrict the ability of self-deployment by sending them on a long flight to their destination. That would even be a rarity (unless a special deployment engine, used in that case in-lieu of the normal one, can be sourced with longer TBO and ease of replacement).
So the question is not even STOL or not STOL. It's would certainly be all about having them prepositionned/assembled in theatre until the solution is found. Hence, it would be primarily a matter of affordability.
That's why we can guess this aspect is the strongest factor in their selection, beyond VLO, beyond having a WB.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 17,040
- Reaction score
- 24,187
I suspect that the typical cruise missile engine would last 50 hours TBO. You'd get one long ferry flight out of that if you had to.
I still suspect local storage is a big issue - if you want to keep potentially hundreds in the Pacific theater, you are going to have to consider exactly where you are putting them. Some will be just sitting in a hangar or lying on a runway, but if you want sustained attritable numbers you will need more. The two most natural options are TEUs or munition igloos, in both cases the wings and perhaps stabilizers need to be easily removable and easily attached.
ETA: it’s worth noting there’s been a lot of weapons igloo expansion on Okinawa and Guam. Obviously that could be used for almost anything in USAF inventory, some does not really mean anything in terms of any one program. But there has been a lot construction in ammunition depots of both places, and they are adjacent to major air fields.
CCA engines are as far as I can tell off the shelf commercial models, and as such probably have thousands of more life hours than the type needs. If anything I think the next breakthrough in CCA engines will be cheaper low life designs from the new generation of contractors like Kratos and Anduril - something that sacrifices engine lifetime for production rate, likely employing 3D printing.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 17,040
- Reaction score
- 24,187
Exactly.
If you're only expecting 10 missions out of a CCA, 25hrs total flight time, no point in putting a 1000hrTBO civilian engine in it.
Stick an appropriately scaled-up Cruise Missile engine in there. Something with about 50 hours TBO.
I don't think we know enough about Inc2 or follow on CCAs to make such a definitive statement yet. Kunkels comments in April are about the last indication we have on where Inc2 requirements may go.
Air Force officer sees options for 'cheaper,' less 'exquisite' CCA drone wingmen - Breaking Defense
“I think you'll see a range of options, from low end to potentially more exquisite,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel said of forthcoming tranches of drone wingmen. “I tend to think that it's probably going to be closer to this low end thing when we start looking at the further CCA increments.”
We could also see multiple CCA come out of Increment 2, a larger more capable airframe and a smaller airframe geared towards different things and there is no indication, from Inc1 or 2, that each evaluation will only take one airframe to production.
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 4,378
- Reaction score
- 9,186
- Joined
- 30 May 2023
- Messages
- 564
- Reaction score
- 1,208
There is a lot of rampant speculation about CCAs. The first increments will be along homologous lines to MQ-25 - low-intensity roles that are now being served by high flight hour value airframes. For the USAF, they have grand visions, but you have to crawl before you sprint: for the near term think force multiplier for manned AC for BARCAP, DCA and air defense pickets as well as additional escort assets for HVA. The Anduril CCA looks great for point defense and escort, GA seems appealing for the rest of the initial roles.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 17,040
- Reaction score
- 24,187
Good point.
I've been thinking about how I'd build an air force that is mostly CCAs, not about where a CCA could help the air force we have.
I think it a little unlikely Incr1 useful for anything outside experimentation for awhile. And it also seems unlikely to me they would have a very prominent peacetime role, outside training and just getting pilots used to interacting with the system.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 17,040
- Reaction score
- 24,187
Exactly. Nothing fancy, just training during peacetime. You want your weapons loaders (and the rest of the "pit crew") to do their things on a regular basis so that the first time they do something is NOT when people are shooting at them!
Remember, folks, all those 4-year enlistments mean that you're replacing about a third of the team every year.
Internal AMRAAMs: a 12 ft missile might be at the upper limit of the FQ-42 could carry in an internal bay. But you would think that they could build a CCA around that type of weapon. Isn't that what they are doing with LongShot? Would carrying them recessed like on Sparrows on the F-14's belly stations be better than on pylons?
Deploying CCAs: I am not expecting it to be capable of AAR. Could you safely store them in theater? I am not sure that would be a good idea. Could they self deploy? Hopping from base to base? That will be interesting to see how this is addressed.
Operational considerations: Whenever Increment 1 is delivered it will be interesting to see how the AF treats them. I am not sure if they know yet. Current thought is that most of them will be kept in storage with a few rotated to be used in training and exercises. Do you treat them like munitions? Once a conflict starts a unit will take them out of storage and use them until they are lost or break beyond repair? Or will they form separate squadrons or integrate within each squadron or wing? It might be beneficial to have the option of controlling them from ground stations and having a cadre of CCA operators who can be subject matter experts.
Deploying CCAs: I am not expecting it to be capable of AAR. Could you safely store them in theater? I am not sure that would be a good idea. Could they self deploy? Hopping from base to base? That will be interesting to see how this is addressed.
Operational considerations: Whenever Increment 1 is delivered it will be interesting to see how the AF treats them. I am not sure if they know yet. Current thought is that most of them will be kept in storage with a few rotated to be used in training and exercises. Do you treat them like munitions? Once a conflict starts a unit will take them out of storage and use them until they are lost or break beyond repair? Or will they form separate squadrons or integrate within each squadron or wing? It might be beneficial to have the option of controlling them from ground stations and having a cadre of CCA operators who can be subject matter experts.
It looks like YFQ-42 has bays. Nothing obvious on YFQ-44. Semi recessed probably does not help the RCS much over pylons; it’s still an external store that breaks up the lines.
I think I remember reading that SC/NG model 437 does explicitly have a bay for two AIM-120; I remember it appearing to be a central bay starting behind the nose gear with a bit of a bulb in the fuselage but I’m going from memory. So I would certainly say it’s possible in this weight class, just a little challenging to find 12 uninterrupted feet with no structure in it.
Storage would not necessarily have to be conventional. It could be TEU containers or even weapon igloos with the wings removed. It is probably far easier to assemble the aircraft than have it self deploy; they have no air refueling mechanism AFAIK.
I think I remember reading that SC/NG model 437 does explicitly have a bay for two AIM-120; I remember it appearing to be a central bay starting behind the nose gear with a bit of a bulb in the fuselage but I’m going from memory. So I would certainly say it’s possible in this weight class, just a little challenging to find 12 uninterrupted feet with no structure in it.
Storage would not necessarily have to be conventional. It could be TEU containers or even weapon igloos with the wings removed. It is probably far easier to assemble the aircraft than have it self deploy; they have no air refueling mechanism AFAIK.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 17,040
- Reaction score
- 24,187
For less drag, absolutely. For reduced RCS, I do not believe so.
The advantage of USAF midair refueling is that all the recipient needs to do is fly in close formation with the tanker, and the boom operator on the tanker does the hard work of connecting the tanks.
Agreed that USAF does not currently know how to treat CCAs.
I think that Increment 1 CCAs will be used a lot more than Inc2+, as USAF figures out how to use CCAs.
This article suggests the YFQ-42 does have a boom receptacle in a similar config to the F-35.
Definitely like munitions and they likely only need to pull the central processing unit out to update software while leaving the rest boxed. I expect they would run the same CCA through exercises over and over until it crumped before they then pulled out another one. Likely a lot of CCA training will just be virtual anyway. The intent isn't that is literally flies as a wingman but provides the support a wingman would so same in that only a few pilots fire AAMs in exercises for those who would use them extensively in exercises. The big advantage of virtual training is they can scale all the way to beyond the realistic threat and test the aircrew and the CCA software to handle the scenarios.
Ground control would only be for when they are operating as red air and likely only when required. Autonomous is meant to be just that, give the aircraft the parameters it needs and communicate wit it the same way you would a manned platform once it is airborne.
I think the USAF is still in the early phases of figuring out organization and tactics. I suspect initially these get assigned initially to manned squadrons, since incr1 are expected to cooperate with 5th gen manned aircraft and have similar ranges. Ultimately I think they get operated by independent squadrons which send them up to integrate with manned aircraft as needed, possibly even from other services. I also think we will see completely independent offensive operations much sooner than the USAF is letting on.
Agree on the separate squadrons. You don't want to have an F-35 unit maintainers having to assemble and fit check a boxed CCA, give that to a unit that has that as their sole focus and you also then don't tie the CCA to that manned squadron's location.
The CCAs will operate exactly the same as any other aircraft in the operational area, it will be assigned missions, loadouts, tanker times, comms frequencies etc via the ATO coming from the CAOC.
bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 4,016
- Reaction score
- 5,046
We are far away from that so I think there's a lot that's TBD. The USAF has not released many details about the 'autonomy' portion of its CCA contracts but from what we know, that is a seperate track that each of the Inc 1 primes will have to absorb as those capabilities are matured. Current Inc 1 systems do not even have sensors for SAA to the best of my knowledge.
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 12,031
- Reaction score
- 13,983
Attachments
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 12,031
- Reaction score
- 13,983
Attachments
Hull down
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 19 February 2023
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 332
It seems the extra cost isn’t worth the capability. Only customer to my knowledge is or was the CIA.
Reddington777
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 23 March 2025
- Messages
- 689
- Reaction score
- 2,219
This was written on the wikipedia article for the plane:
"After testing, the Air Force decided that the Avenger version they evaluated offered only modest improvements over the MQ-9 in terms of speed, payload, and reduced signature, and didn't meet survivability and reliability requirements to survive in contested environments needed to warrant buying a new aircraft of the type"
"Sea Avenger stealth capabilities seemed to be limited to higher frequencies like C, X, and Ku bands, instead of broadband stealth effective against low-frequency radar bands like VHF and UHF." As written in an USNI article regarding the sea avenger.
Because it’s not stealthy… it probably also doesn’t fly as fast as most people thinks it does.
It is not stealthy.
Exhibit A: It is not planform aligned. It has a straight inlet lip that’s perpendicular to the flow. The aileron hinge line appears to be held to a fix % chord and thus do not align to the leading edge of the wings. This is something you’d do for a traditional aircraft but not when you are trying to hold planform alignment.
Exhibit B: The aircraft has a big central football (American) antennas and a few other smaller fin antennas all over the bottom of the aircraft.
Exhibit C: there are noticeable bumps for the weapons bay door hinges and major holes or gaps
Exhibit D: it has a traditional Pitot static probe instead of a flush air data system
Exhibit E: that ventral camera ball…
I’ve never seen the picture of a pred C that doesn’t have these characteristics so not something that can be attributed to it being a prototype engineering test aircraft… especially when some of the basic stuff like planform alignment is not held.
It is not a fast aircraft… this is a bit subtle for non-aerodynamicist but that root chord is way too thick for a transonic aircraft. Transonic aircraft typically have a thickness to chord ratio of 10-12%… ideally less if you can get away with it. I don’t know what happened here but the tip to chord ratio looks way bigger than 12%… more like 25%, maybe even 30%. With a root airfoil like that you’d start to see big draggy shocks even a very low Machs… maybe even as low as Mach 0.6. You can go faster if you gave an oversized engine to power you through it but that would make the fuel burn way higher than it should be so range and endurance would dramatically suffer.
MQ-20 is a weird aircraft… it honestly looks like someone fed AI pictures of stealthy aircraft and MQ-9s and ask it to come up with a stealthy MQ-9 with a jet engine. It superficially looks like a stealthy MQ-9 but if you actually look at it and know what to look for the plane makes zero sense. I suspect that this is the real reason why there were never more than a handful of these.
Last edited:
Reddington777
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 23 March 2025
- Messages
- 689
- Reaction score
- 2,219
That's because it was supposed to be an upgrade to the MQ-9. When the air force was evaluating the upgrade, they came to the conclusion I quoted above.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 17,040
- Reaction score
- 24,187
You do know that only 9 were built, right?
These aren't Reapers or Predators, with hundreds or thousands built. It's all prototypes.
Forest Green
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 12,823
- Reaction score
- 27,613
Up grade or not It still doesn’t explain the weird part which is that someone made a half-ass attempt at making it look stealthy but not actually making it so; making it looks like it can go fast but not actually making it so. It’s like converting a pick up truck for racing and all you did was hammer a few corners to make them rounded and call it a day.
Oh I’m aware. But even if they were prototypes it still doesn’t explain the non-planform alignment and huge thickness to chord ratio. These are the type of stuff you nail down during CODR or at most PDR because changing them later on in the process is effectively redesigning an aircraft. You can attribute things like traditional pitot-static probes as being a prototype/engineering test vehicle, but not stuff like the design of your wing-box.
Edit: point being that the fact that they got as far as they did into prototype stage is weird let alone operating them as-is. GA never having these quirkiness change means these design choices were or close to design intent. If the current configuration was the design intent, it begs the question “Why?” Because the design intent of the aircraft makes no sense.
Bringing this back to the YFQ-42, it does seem like they learned from it and the CCA at least looks the part for a prototype/engineering test vehicle for something that is kinda stealthy (for reals this time) and can go “fast,” relatively speaking.
Last edited:
Reddington777
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 23 March 2025
- Messages
- 689
- Reaction score
- 2,219
@Josh_TN
You mentioned controlling CCAs with satellites and I was just reading today that SDA launched the first 21 transport layer satellites with laser downlinks and K band Link16 comms. Though part of the transport layer might get replaced by MILNET, seems like the laser data link that with what Kendall said previously between controlling aircraft and CCAs might soon have the infrastructure to do it from space - provided the weather allows (and link16 otherwise).
You mentioned controlling CCAs with satellites and I was just reading today that SDA launched the first 21 transport layer satellites with laser downlinks and K band Link16 comms. Though part of the transport layer might get replaced by MILNET, seems like the laser data link that with what Kendall said previously between controlling aircraft and CCAs might soon have the infrastructure to do it from space - provided the weather allows (and link16 otherwise).
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
-
DARPA / General Atomics GHOST Strike-Recon Drone- Started by Forest Green
- Replies: 1
-
-
-