BAE Systems Brontanax CCA

STOL capability detailed for BAE's class 2 ACP (diamond wing).
Given no other class 2 ACP has advertised STOL capability (that I've seen) + it's BAE, it would seem a front runner for the Royal Navy's Project Vanquish. GAs Gambit is CATOBAR ("small" catapult requirement) at least shown so far.

G_TOAWgX0AAGfMy.jpg

BAE FalconWorks Product Portfolio Overview 2025, on the class 2 ACP -
"Attritable fixed wing Short Take Off & Landing (STOL) multi-role autonomous collaborative combat aircraft concept with low observability design features and modular design for dispersed and Agile Combat Employment (ACE) operations"
https://www.baesystems.com/dam/jcr:08f6568e-f3a4-46e6-ae23-02070fe84946 (links direct to PDF file)

Oct 2025 - "RFI INDUSTRY - VANQUISH Technical Demonstration
Description
As part of the route to the Royal Navy's Hybrid Air Wing, Project VANQUISH seeks to deliver a technical demonstration at sea of an attritable (Tier 2) Fixed Wing Short Take Off and Landing Autonomous Collaborative Platform (FW STOL ACP)"
https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/062294-2025?origin=SearchResults&p=1
Dec 2025 - 1st Sea Lord -
“We will get a demonstrator for our fast jet fighter capability off the carrier next year … we’re working closely with the Air Force to make sure that we can develop together...”
https://www.gov.uk/government/speec...ech-to-the-international-sea-power-conference
Other related:

Feb 2024 - Flight global article details BAE class 2 ACP aiming for first flight "within two years" (as detailed above in this thread)

"BAE Systems has revealed the design of an autonomous collaborative platform (ACP) demonstrator which it aims to fly within the next two years."

“We have a programme laid out until it gets to first flight within two years. To take the programme much further, we are going to need a partner to help us develop the programme, and develop it in the right direction.

https://www.flightglobal.com/defenc...ator-will-fly-within-two-years/156791.article
March 2024 -
BAE class 2 ACP is pictured in the RAFs ACP strategy doc (image below). Points towards unified class 2 platform across both services.

"b. EO1.2: By 2030, Tier 2 attritable ACP will form a critical component of the RAF's Combat Air Force Mix." (page 8)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ce-autonomous-collaborative-platform-strategy
Sept 2025:
"BAE Systems and QinetiQ have successfully completed synthetic trials to show how uncrewed aircraft can operate alongside existing crewed aircraft like Typhoon to provide a more cost-effective and flexible concentration of combat air power. "

"The trials will inform other programmes, including the design and development of Tier 2 Autonomous Collaborative Platforms (ACPs) and wider multi-sector interoperability. "
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/insight/crewed-and-uncrewed-synthetic-demonstration
 

Attachments

  • G7vyFcPXQAAtEGL.jpg
    G7vyFcPXQAAtEGL.jpg
    249.1 KB · Views: 245
  • G0fzZOsWAAAr119.jpg
    G0fzZOsWAAAr119.jpg
    380.4 KB · Views: 289
  • Falconworks Brochure.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 13
Last edited by a moderator:
vikmto999 said:
I do wonder if it is possible to harden the landing gear enough on these things, to allow an electric motor powering the wheels, to boost acceleration on take-off. Thus allowing shorter runways, or heavier "ACPs"
Click to expand...
Frankly I’m just happy to see it being talked about again, still I really want to see how it’s recovered
 
STOL capability suggests a very low landing and take off speed, how will that be achieved?

If its going to be Hawk sized and capable of a breaking stop on the carrier, then it must be coming over the round down at 50 knots, certainly no more.

I cant really see how this can be achieved safety without a reconfigured deck with an angled runway.

Having something hawk sized, malfunctioning or battle damaged, careering down the center line doesn't seem like a great idea!

You need an angled deck that might also allow higher speed F35B Rolling vertical landings too....
 
I believe the QE's have a deck wide enough to land off centre, aka as an angled flight deck approach. Paint a white line if you have to.
 
Foo Fighter said:
I believe the QE's have a deck wide enough to land off centre, aka as an angled flight deck approach. Paint a white line if you have to.
Click to expand...
whatever they're doing they seem to have a lot of faith in it. However, angled deck landings means less parking space on deck, I wonder how the airwing ratio will turn out
 
I strongly suspect that the air wing will not be a problem for the foreseeable future. Having MUCH faith in OUR dear bleaders either way. Besides, having a cake and eating it seems to apply. You cannot have landing space and parking space in the same location.
 
Commentary from a while ago (Feb 2024).

https://hushkit.net/2024/02/10/coul...-supersonic-super-maneuverable-hunter-killer/
"The BAE Systems UCAV has a diamond shaped YF-23-like planform but with a relatively short forebody. The wing leading edge appears to be rounded, rather than sharp, and this, coupled with the geometry of the forebody and wing, suggests a modest design mach number around 1.4. "

"None of the surfaces of the aircraft feature any indication of moveable controls, and while this may be an example of artistic licence, it does raise the possibility that this uncrewed concept may draw on the BAE Magma demonstrator of 2019. Magma demonstrated the ability to use circulation control at the trailing edge of the wing, coupled with fluidic thrust vectoring of the exhaust, to successfully fly a UAV with no moving control surfaces. The tail fins on the UCAV appear quite small, and one wonders whether circulation control in yaw might be being used, because of the high lift coefficients that are achievable."
 
Last edited:
Mk_IX_Hawk said:
STOL capability detailed for BAE's class 2 ACP (diamond wing).
Given no other class 2 ACP has advertised STOL capability (that I've seen) + it's BAE, it would seem a front runner for the Royal Navy's Project Vanquish. GAs Gambit is CATOBAR ("small" catapult requirement) at least shown so far.

View attachment 800321
Click to expand...
If you enlarge the aircraft and replace the rudders with V-Tails, you would have our LO BAE-Mojave/Scaled Composites Fighter Size Target (FST) from 2005, predecessor to the current 5GAT program and managed by OSD. In August 2005, we briefed the USAF, USN, Army and some other US Govt organizations on all aspects of the design. The USN and Army wanted to write us checks right then and there, the USAF, they wanted a QF-16. Our designed used a single F100 engine and was designed for M2. I think we have been able to supercruise it as well. Another UFO (un-funded opportunity). The USN and Army did not like working with the USAF involving the QF-4, USAF, big pain in the ass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vikmto999 said:
I do wonder if it is possible to harden the landing gear enough on these things, to allow an electric motor powering the wheels, to boost acceleration on take-off. Thus allowing shorter runways, or heavier "ACPs"
Click to expand...
Not likely.
  1. you'd need big batteries or else you're just taking thrust to make electricity.
  2. very little volume in the landing gear proper or the bays to mount an electric motor next to a tall stack of carbon-fiber brakes.
  3. those carbon-fiber brakes make an immense amount of heat on landing, the kind of heat that isn't good for electric motors.


Mr Clark said:
STOL capability suggests a very low landing and take off speed, how will that be achieved?
Click to expand...
I'd assume really big high-lift devices. Even bigger than the "normal" size for carrier-based aircraft. I'm thinking airliner-sized HLDs, with both extending LE slats and (multi-?) slotted TE flaps, plus drooping ailerons.

This would both greatly increase wing camber and increase wing angle of incidence by 7-10degrees.

Aiming for a landing speed not to exceed 160kph on land, so that 30 knots wind over deck gets you down to a relative speed of about 100kph. Aircraft grade brakes can stop 6 tonnes at 100kph in 100m.


Mr Clark said:
I cant really see how this can be achieved safety without a reconfigured deck with an angled runway.
Click to expand...
And once you do that you might as well install arresting gear and a ski jump, making STOBAR carriers.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5719.jpeg
    IMG_5719.jpeg
    278 KB · Views: 63
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawk size....

Previously that would have meant using Adour as the powerplant...but given recent issues with Adour that would be unwise, unless they're using recycled older Adour from the likes of Jaguar.

So is it something new like the RR Orpheus?
 

Attachments

  • RS296334_3300-CCA-HERO-IMAGE-01[HR]_lpr.png
    RS296334_3300-CCA-HERO-IMAGE-01[HR]_lpr.png
    4.1 MB · Views: 73
  • RS296496_ISON_260720_BAES_FIAS_8082_lpr-1021x580.jpg
    RS296496_ISON_260720_BAES_FIAS_8082_lpr-1021x580.jpg
    128.5 KB · Views: 84
  • 2607-001022 GRIC FIAS - CCA infographics_Digital_01_MEDIA.pdf
    855.7 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
First British designed Collaborative Combat Aircraft unveiled
https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/first-british-designed-collaborative-combat-aircraft-unveiled
BAE Systems has unveiled the UK's first uncrewed autonomous Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) at the Farnborough International Airshow. It is designed to extend combat mass for armed forces by complementing existing and future crewed aircraft, delivering additional frontline capability at a lower cost.
Click to expand...

BAE unveils Brontanax, a UK-designed CCA drone​

The Brontanax drone, roughly the size of a BAE Hawk trainer jet, was unveiled by newly installed Defence Secretary Wes Streeting.
Click to expand...
https://breakingdefense.com/2026/07/bae-unveils-brontanax-a-uk-designed-cca-drone/
 
Last edited:
So, a supersonic "increment 1-type" drone?
 
Mr Clark said:
STOL capability suggests a very low landing and take off speed, how will that be achieved?

If its going to be Hawk sized and capable of a breaking stop on the carrier, then it must be coming over the round down at 50 knots, certainly no more.

I cant really see how this can be achieved safety without a reconfigured deck with an angled runway.

Having something hawk sized, malfunctioning or battle damaged, careering down the center line doesn't seem like a great idea!

You need an angled deck that might also allow higher speed F35B Rolling vertical landings too....
Click to expand...

Just a note on the above, especially given the CGI seen today. I seem to remember F-35B during SRVL was hitting the deck at 60 knots in the trials.

So the question is, with the demise of Project Ark Royal, how are BAE getting it to land on? If it has enough thrust and lift a takeoff using the ski jump is perfectly viable. Did the MAGMA trials with fluidic thrust vectoring venture into 'blown wing' territory for STOL as well?
 
Did anyone else notice these control surfaces towards the trailing edge of the wing? They could be flaps but could also have something to do with STOL capabilities
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7236.jpeg
    IMG_7236.jpeg
    421.7 KB · Views: 84
Why so much blur? They have something to do with edge protection plastic tubes.
 

Attachments

  • HN0i7E3WUAAJlKF.jpg
    HN0i7E3WUAAJlKF.jpg
    268.6 KB · Views: 79
  • [savetwt.com] UK Defence Journal - 2079859224000008498 - 3840x2160.mp4_snapshot_00.29_[2026.07...jpg
    [savetwt.com] UK Defence Journal - 2079859224000008498 - 3840x2160.mp4_snapshot_00.29_[2026.07...jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 75
  • [savetwt.com] UK Defence Journal - 2079859224000008498 - 3840x2160.mp4_snapshot_00.17_[2026.07...jpg
    [savetwt.com] UK Defence Journal - 2079859224000008498 - 3840x2160.mp4_snapshot_00.17_[2026.07...jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 87
Should really rename this thread - Storm Fighter is the MOD requirement/programme for a CCA whereas Brontanax is BAES' CCA demonstrator.

There's a lot of speculation in this thread.
 
TylrrTylrr said:
Did anyone else notice these control surfaces towards the trailing edge of the wing? They could be flaps but could also have something to do with STOL capabilities
Click to expand...
The inboard control surfaces remind me a little of the F4D Skyray's pitch trimmers. These were essential in providing enough pitch authority on landing at high AoA (which is how a delta like the Skyray could fly at slow enough speeds to land on carriers).

So in this case the outer trailing edge surfaces might pitch down slightly to create more lift for short landings, while the inner surfaces pitching up slightly to keep the aircraft trimmed on approach?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom