Northrop Grumman / Scaled Composites Model 444 / Project Lotus / YFQ-48A Talon Blue CCA

The Lotus UAS design in some ways resembles features of the newly revealed Lockheed Martin Project Vectis, with a long, slender fuselage positioned forward of the leading edges of the wings, capped by a nose with swept-back edges leading to a slender point.

In many other respects, the Lotus and Vectis designs diverge. Unlike the engine inlet mounted low at mid-fuselage for the Vectis aircraft, the Lotus inlet sits high atop of the extreme aft section of its fuselage. The Lotus also sports sharply canted tails, breaking from the tailless-configured Vectis.
Click to expand...

Project Lotus, Northrop Grumman’s Secret Autonomous Aircraft Revealed | Aviation Week Network

Northrop Grumman has secretly built a large new uncrewed aircraft system (UAS), dubbed Project Lotus.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
It’s pretty light on details. If anything my takeaway is Lotus if flying now, not in two to X”0” years… which is actually a real thing
 
Training_Dummy said:
It’s pretty light on details. If anything my takeaway is Lotus if flying now, not in two to X”0” years… which is actually a real thing
Click to expand...
What is the source selection timeline for CCA Increment 2? What sort of advantage an early 2026 first flight would have vs a mid to late 2027 first flight when pitted against that timeline?
 
You overread my point. It was a simple observation as it relates to vendor competition and positioning in the realm of public perception and gamesmanship. I don’t know who’s winning, but I know who isn’t.

A further note - first to flight with a design amenable to a final configuration and manufacturability actually matters quite a damn, in my book.
 
Training_Dummy said:
A further note - first to flight with a design amenable to a final configuration and manufacturability actually matters quite a damn, in my book.
Click to expand...

Explains why Kratos Valkyrie and Boeing Ghost Bat ran away with the contract for the CCA program ;). There are pros and cons with trying to 'skate' to the requirements puck'. You can show you have a mature design that has flown a year or two ahead of competition.That's a plus Or you can fail to capture a significant and possibly important part of the services' requirements and your actual program submission is substantially different from what you flew a while ago so you are working on a very different aircraft for the service than what you flew as a company demo.

BTW, Air Force plans to put multiple vendors on contract for concept refinement for CCA increment 2 as early as end of the year as long as the government opens back for business.
 
Last edited:
Point v well taken!

I’ll add that delays post first flight might be long no matter when you fly…
So it’s a bit like growing a tree
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
What is the source selection timeline for CCA Increment 2? What sort of advantage an early 2026 first flight would have vs a mid to late 2027 first flight when pitted against that timeline?
Click to expand...

If this were the time for holding my breath, I'd probably desperately search our garage for my wife's Scuba gear by now...
 
Since LM did not get NGAD, they may get awarded Vectis for CCA I2. As for the NG Project Talon it seems its an unmanned derivative of Model 437. I think CCA I2 will be down to NG, LM and Kratos, Boeing has F-47. Also, CCA I2 will more than likely have an aerial refueling aspect to it as well since these are larger platforms as compared to the CCA I1 YFQ-22 and YFQ-44 aircraft. Now NG is a funny one, remember NG built a nice prototype for the T-38 replacement, flew it a few times, then dropped out, Boeing then got awarded which is now the T-7. The LM Vectis a little more radical than the NG Project Talon but we'll have to wait and see. LM may get CCA I2 as a consolation prize.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8247.jpeg
    IMG_8247.jpeg
    287.9 KB · Views: 105
  • IMG_8239.jpeg
    IMG_8239.jpeg
    174.3 KB · Views: 98
  • IMG_8240.jpeg
    IMG_8240.jpeg
    548.3 KB · Views: 93
  • IMG_8241.jpeg
    IMG_8241.jpeg
    213.9 KB · Views: 100
  • IMG_8242.jpeg
    IMG_8242.jpeg
    805.8 KB · Views: 99
  • IMG_8244.jpeg
    IMG_8244.jpeg
    575.2 KB · Views: 97
  • IMG_8245.jpeg
    IMG_8245.jpeg
    510.7 KB · Views: 96
  • IMG_8246.jpeg
    IMG_8246.jpeg
    528.7 KB · Views: 102
  • IMG_8248.jpeg
    IMG_8248.jpeg
    355.8 KB · Views: 166
Last edited:

Attachments

  • IMG_8269.jpeg
    IMG_8269.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 189
  • IMG_8271.jpeg
    IMG_8271.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 187
  • IMG_8272.jpeg
    IMG_8272.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 168
  • IMG_8274.jpeg
    IMG_8274.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 159
  • IMG_8276.jpeg
    IMG_8276.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 154
  • IMG_8273.jpeg
    IMG_8273.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 150
DrRansom said:
It seems like everybody is making the exact same airplane, just with a different manufacturer behind it. A high-subsonic medium altitude cruising drone.

Effective? Maybe. Exciting? No. A single point of design failure? Yes.
Click to expand...
LM's Vectis seems to be the configuration standout, even though top inlet but no vertical tails. YFQ-42, Project Talon, XQ-58 all similar, YFQ-44 bottom inlet, single vertical. Ghostbat different and larger. I agree, not too exciting.
 
I think the USAF is going to spread the wealth across a number of different primes due to the different mission types, maybe kind of like an LCS program for aircraft where the USN bought two different types of LCS but for the basic littoral mission, for the aircraft, just the inverse multiple platforms, multiple mission types. NG may have already been selected for something due to their work with the Scaled aircraft prototypes, this may be the reason for the quick YFQ-48 desigation, we still need YFQ-45, 46, and 47.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom