Anduril Industries / Blue Force Technology CCA, FQ-44 Fury

Last edited:
litzj said:
Tantrum from provoking CEO.
Anduril is unproven in large UAV or aircraft market. He blame gov for his own delay.
Click to expand...

I’m hardly a fan of that guy, but it is easy to see how a government shutdown might have limited testing opportunities. Anduril will either succeed or fail pretty quickly, given the orders it’s signed and the company it keeps. I think it possible they over promise, but at the same time how long has LM been banging away of the F-35 or Boing on the relatively simple KC-46? About the only company that has a decent run lately is NG, and the infrastructure problems of the Sentinel program are still going to haunt them for decades (mostly not their fault IMO)
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
I’m hardly a fan of that guy, but it is easy to see how a government shutdown might have limited testing opportunities. Anduril will either succeed or fail pretty quickly, given the orders it’s signed and the company it keeps. I think it possible they over promise, but at the same time how long has LM been banging away of the F-35 or Boing on the relatively simple KC-46? About the only company that has Jada decent run lately is NG, and the infrastructure problems of the Sentinel program are still going to haunt them for decades (mostly not their fault IMO)
Click to expand...
I agree he made success in SW and small HWs, and also agree some part of HW area should be innovated.

But, if it is appropriately planned, shutdown is hard to be related to Fury's first flight.

To me, he turnover his overpromise to gov's fault.
 
litzj said:
I agree he made success in SW and small HWs, and also agree some part of HW area should be innovated.

But, if it is appropriately planned, shutdown is hard to be related to Fury's first flight.

To me, he turnover his overpromise to gov's fault.
Click to expand...

We shall see. He has promised a lot in a short time frame, so we should not have to wait long either way.
 
Josh_TN said:
I’m hardly a fan of that guy, but it is easy to see how a government shutdown might have limited testing opportunities.
Click to expand...
Say, if Anduril doesn't have the cash flow to pay for testing. Or if testing is contractually paid for by US gov, and contractually unable to be paid for by Anduril. (.gov contracts can be really freaking weird)
 
The problem is the USAF civilian flight testing staff, they cannot work during the shutdown. CCA is a USAF program so Anduril unfortunately is at the mercy of the USG. Now GA can fly out of El Mirage as much as they like since its their facility plus GA has funded a lot of their own flight testing for previous GA programs (Predator and Avenger-C as two examples). Anduril is new to the game of an "actual" aircraft program plus working in the USAF flight testing environment in somewhat of a CTF. From what I understand YFQ-44 will be flying out of Victorville (formally George AFB), someone correct me if I am wrong.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Say, if Anduril doesn't have the cash flow to pay for testing. Or if testing is contractually paid for by US gov, and contractually unable to be paid for by Anduril. (.gov contracts can be really freaking weird)
Click to expand...

I was thinking more in terms of testing requirements being unavailable in terms of ranges, measurements, and contractors.
 
Josh_TN said:
I was thinking more in terms of testing requirements being unavailable in terms of ranges, measurements, and contractors.
Click to expand...
I think only critical flight testing assets and high priority "black" programs (USAF, USN, CIA, NRO, etc) may still be functioning (Groom and Tonopah as examples). These assets seem to operate outside of the normal program channels. B-21 may or may not be affected, the USG can choose who and what still gets funding even during a shutdown, just the way things work.
 
Hydroman said:
I think only critical flight testing assets and high priority "black" programs (USAF, USN, CIA, NRO, etc) may still be functioning (Groom and Tonopah as examples). These assets seem to operate outside of the normal program channels. B-21 may or may not be affected, the USG can choose who and what still gets funding even during a shutdown, just the way things work.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, things are not getting FUBAR'd, only one can hope.
 
Hydroman said:
The problem is the USAF civilian flight testing staff, they cannot work during the shutdown.
Click to expand...
There is also uncertainty past Oct 15th on military pay. While essential civilian Govt employees and military members are expected to go to work during a shutdown you could project a lot of sick leave contributing to Anduril uncertainty.
 
https://www.twz.com/air/andurils-yfq-44-fury-fighter-drone-has-flown
anduril-yfq-44a-fury-first-flight.jpg
 
All this to carry two AMRAAMs externally. I can't see the YFQ-44 staying relevant beyond increment 1 in this quickly evolving CCA space. Too expensive for an adjunct AMRAAM carrier, not exquisite enough to take on other high-end roles. It sits in a valley of uselessness between the attritable and the exquisite.
 
joshjosh said:
All this to carry two AMRAAMs externally. I can't see the YFQ-44 staying relevant beyond increment 1 in this quickly evolving CCA space. Too expensive for an adjunct AMRAAM carrier, not exquisite enough to take on other high-end roles. It sits in a valley of uselessness between the attritable and the exquisite.
Click to expand...
Yeah, unless Anduril was really pushing their mission control systems over the initial design, this looks like a non-starter except for "figuring out how to build flight ops with CCAs"



16_incher said:
That thing looks huge
Click to expand...
It does, I thought it was F-5/F-20 sized
Hydroman said:
Only around 5500 lbs.
Click to expand...
But apparently it's half that big.
 
The main landing gear is so well forward that's curious. Also the amount of space it takes in regard to the mission objectives for a CCA increment 1 looks excessive.

But congrats to Anduril and Palmer, it's not everyday we are given to see a new entrant in fighter jets design.
 
It's pretty, but hardly impressive. The General Atomics offering seems more sophisticated and quite frankly well thought out in my eyes. The difference between a tech bro start-up and an established weapons contractor I suppose.
 
EmoBirb said:
It's pretty, but hardly impressive. The General Atomics offering seems more sophisticated and quite frankly well thought out in my eyes. The difference between a tech bro start-up and an established weapons contractor I suppose.
Click to expand...


I totally agree ... even more so in comparison to China's own CCA-family.
 
Anduril bought Blue Force and used thier plane. It was originally envisioned as a low cost adversary/red air training platform, so it is not necessarily optimized for its current role. I was surprised they made the cut and can only conclude the other bids were a little challenged by the spec, particularly cost. Fury is supposedly cheap to build.
 
Deino said:
I totally agree ... even more so in comparison to China's own CCA-family.
Click to expand...
The PRC UAVs clearly are to a different specification. It is not like the U.S. is incapable of building a larger aircraft. Fury looks like it fills its niche in a less substantial way than the GA entry, though we do not know the requirement list.
 
Folks just have to get used to the fact that if, when, CCAs become a thing, and are proven to add value, there will exist multiple classes spread across several mission areas including training, and whole host of offensive and defensive missions for which different combinations of cost, survivability, payload and sensor suite will be required. What the "Chinese CCA", "North Korean CCA", "Russian CCA" is or isn't really does not matter to the success of this effort with the USAF.

The Air Force funded three or more efforts under its ACP portfolio to explore early CCA capabilities. Both the General Atomics and Anduril/BF air vehicles grew out of their respective efforts (LCAAPS and ADAIR) aimed at focusing on different areas/aspects and missions. This is not a fly-off and the service could very well pick both to advance into production, focusing each design on an aspect of the CCA mission that makes best sense for it. Or the Air Force could go with something completely different and use these two as a pathfinders to test out its initial mission autonomy develop and refine concepts of operations and fulfill initial/near term fielding and capacity needs.

The one aspect of the air vehicle side of the CCA effort that is exciting is the low cost production approaches each team is trying to come up with and how they plan on integrating sensors and weapons. Other than that, these don't really need to be remarkable. Its not an autonomous UCAV program. If you are looking for it to be then prepare to keep getting disappointed.
 
Last edited:
Don't know why its hard for people to wrap their brains around the idea that...What china does is not necessarily what the US needs to do. Or for any number of European programs, what france needs is not the same as what the US needs.

Or the fact that there are other payloads than AAMs....

Its like people cannot get away from thinking about everything as a fighter plane and every fighter plane in a head on head comparison with each other. Actual doctrine and planning is just a piece of paper right? Id take two fighters carrying 4 missiles than one fighter carrying 4 any day. There are much more ways to screw with your enemy when you can be in more than one place at once.

This thing doesnt need to carry any AAMs to be useful for its cost. It could be off board sensors, EW equipment or a decoy and it'll just as well fit what the military wants it to do. You cant really build a wide and dense web of sensors and shooters if everything is the size and complexity of a fighter - and especially not if you are already fighting in places where basing is constantly threatened and few and far between.

If you divorce the relative circumstances that militaries want to address from the hardware they procure, then skepticism against it is just kinda moot. Its like calling a fork useless because you cant eat soup with it...
 
Reddington777 said:
Or the fact that there are other payloads than AAMs....
Click to expand...
Any droppable payload needs to be internal to be competitive in the modern arena.



Reddington777 said:
This thing doesnt need to carry any AAMs to be useful for its cost. It could be off board sensors, EW equipment or a decoy and it'll just as well fit what the military wants it to do. You cant really build a wide and dense web of sensors and shooters if everything is the size and complexity of a fighter - and especially not if you are already fighting in places where basing is constantly threatened and few and far between.

If you divorce the relative circumstances that militaries want to address from the hardware they procure, then skepticism against it is just kinda moot. Its like calling a fork useless because you cant eat soup with it...
Click to expand...
As I understand the Increment 1 CCAs, carrying a pair of AAMs was part of the specification.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Any droppable payload needs to be internal to be competitive in the modern arena.
Click to expand...
F35s carry AIM9s on the outer pylon. Carrying two AAMs externally as a CCA really isnt uncomptetive either when its your job to waste enemy missiles, jam the enemy and force them to emit. It only matters when your mission profile requires you to be VLO, which already isnt the case for this CCA.
Scott Kenny said:
As I understand the Increment 1 CCAs, carrying a pair of AAMs was part of the specification.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It can carry them, but again - it hardly matters that you are externally carrying them if you weren't built to fulfill a highly VLO profile anyway.

As a side note...

I admire your dedication to internal carrying munitions haha.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom