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

Forest Green said:

MQ-28 Ghost Bat Gains Major European Foothold As Rheinmetall Joins Forces With Boeing​

https://www.twz.com/air/mq-28-ghost...othold-as-rheinmetal-joins-forces-with-boeing
Click to expand...

So
a) Rheinmetall goes with Boeing,
b) Airbus is working with Kratos,
c) Helsing (Grob) goes alone with the CA-1 Europa,
d) Anduril is proposing a "European" variant of the Fury and
e) the Munich based GA-ATS is talking about building the FQ-42 in Oberpfaffenhofen.

Did i miss any contestant for the Luftwaffe Jagdbomberdrohne program?
 
At least Airbus's partnership with Kratos seems to be limited to demonstrating their mission systems in a more representative aircraft than the existing Do 25Ts they've been using. I imagine the airframe will change for an offering into a production programme.
 
VTOLicious said:
Not sure what's up with Airbus "Wingman"...
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/...nned-fighter-jets-airbus-presents-new-wingman
Click to expand...
red admiral said:
At least Airbus's partnership with Kratos seems to be limited to demonstrating their mission systems in a more representative aircraft than the existing Do 25Ts they've been using. I imagine the airframe will change for an offering into a production programme.
Click to expand...

The Airbus UCCA offer to the Luftwaffe seems to be based on the Kratos Valkyrie, here:
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/...-from-kratos-for-first-flight-with-a-european
"By combining the Kratos Valkyrie with our MARS mission system, we are offering the German customer exactly what Germany and Europe urgently need in the current geopolitical situation: a proven flying uncrewed combat aircraft with a sovereign European mission system that does not have to be developed from scratch in a time-consuming and costly manner,” said Marco Gumbrecht, Head of Key Account Germany at Airbus Defence and Space. “Our objective is to deliver credible combat capability in time of relevance, while assuring key sovereign aspects. And we are confident that we can do this at a very affordable price - which is a key driver for UCCAs.”
Click to expand...

I am speculating here but maybe Airbus did the math and got to the conclusion that in order to maintain the original 2029 program delivery date they needed to work with something that was relatively mature? So they ended working with Kratos?
Mind you i would love to see that "Wingman" (or Airbus/FCAS "remote carriers") flying.

Whatever happens it will be interesting to see if the Germans end up with something based on an American (and ITAR controlled...) design.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
ITAR is overrated. Whatever mission the German air force will carry, it would be part of NATO in a context where ITAR restrictions are null.
Why would you want to limit drastically yourself with such an argument?
 
TomcatViP said:
ITAR is overrated. Whatever mission the German air force will carry, it would be part of NATO in a context where ITAR restrictions are null.
Why would you want to limit drastically yourself with such an argument?
Click to expand...
ITAR is a significant admin burden that remains ongoing through the life of the program. Can easily see reasons for going ITAR free if the cost delta is not great.
 
Ozair said:
ITAR is a significant admin burden that remains ongoing through the life of the program. Can easily see reasons for going ITAR free if the cost delta is not great.
Click to expand...
Going ITAR free also means that whatever parts you're talking about are not made in the US. So you are making whatever widget in your own country.
 
red admiral said:
Australia also has export controls
Click to expand...
And Australia is also a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner and the Govt has funded the MQ-28 with the explicit intent to export the airframe to allies and partners. I cannot foresee the Aust Government having an issue selling Germany the MQ-28, especially in light of the recent visit to Australia of the German Defence Minister and joint statement.
Affirming the importance of the trusted defence industrial collaboration between our countries, Ministers undertook to explore how to streamline information sharing and bolster industry partnerships. This will deliver both Australia and Germany greater supply chain resilience and economic opportunity.
Click to expand...
 
Ozair said:
Agree a massive change and also a lot more testing to come if the wing is changing to that size. Likely a payload jump as well. The customer has clearly asked for more range.

Out of interest does anyone know what engine the aircraft is using, I still haven't seen confirmation anywhere and curious given the desire to be ITAR free.
Click to expand...
How could it possibly be ITAR free? It's an American company using American technology to build an aircraft for an American ally.
 
Sferrin said:
How could it possibly be ITAR free? It's an American company using American technology to build an aircraft for an American ally.
Click to expand...
Certainly not an American aicraft and developed by Boeing Australia compartmented away from the rest of the company.

Because the airframe was initially designed in Australia without U.S. input, it was at the outset independent of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrictions. However, following a 2023 agreement with the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy to collaborate on the system, ITAR-restricted technology has been introduced. This has largely been communications and weapons-related equipment. Ferguson says this has been compartmentalized, meaning it can be removed for other international sales to be free of ITAR restrictions.
Click to expand...
https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/boeing-touts-mq-28-maturity-cca-market-develops
 
Most major sub components are probably USian. Engine I believe is Williams, for instance.
 
TomcatViP said:
ITAR is overrated. Whatever mission the German air force will carry, it would be part of NATO in a context where ITAR restrictions are null.
Click to expand...
If it involves ITAR controlled items the restrictions will be there. Though saying that, one would expect (hope?) such will not get in the way in time of conflict. Dealing with ITAR on a daily basis it is actually more of a commercial protection (hinderance) of technology.
 
Ozair said:
ITAR is a significant admin burden that remains ongoing through the life of the program. Can easily see reasons for going ITAR free if the cost delta is not great.
Click to expand...
It isn't actually too much of a burden once you understand it...though yes, it does stay the entire length of a program (unless somethign is downgraded to being non-ITAR). I can still see reasons for trying to avoid though.
 
Interesting quote from Boeing (link above):

  • Teaming with an E-7A and an F/A-18F to autonomously fire, and shoot down, an airborne target.
Click to expand...

The mention of the aircraft being a F model, a twin seater, is noteworthy: the Ghost Bat is commanded via a dedicated crew member.
 
TomcatViP said:
Interesting quote from Boeing (link above):



The mention of the aircraft being a F model, a twin seater, is noteworthy: the Ghost Bat is commanded via a dedicated crew member.
Click to expand...
The RAAF only has F models... F-35 and MQ-28 testing has also been going on but the F model SH was used for the missile test.

EDIT: The test details had been posted earlier in this thread but it involved the MQ-28 being sent only four commands across the mission. It didn't require a dedicated WSO to send those four commands.
 
I'm surprised we don't want any of these. Why do they have a US designation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe a couple have been used for testing. As to why they are not part of CCA - at a guess, price or a lack of MOSA compliance, or they otherwise do not fit the requirements. These are somewhat larger airframes than the other CCA types.
 

Attachments

  • mq-28-quartet-irst.jpg
    mq-28-quartet-irst.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 37
Last edited by a moderator:
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=131675

Boeing unveils advanced MQ-28 capabilities, extended combat reach

- More than 25% percent larger wing expands mission range and boosts stores capacity
- Beyond line of sight capabilities increases command and control flexibility
- Internal weapons stations increase capacity and lethality
Click to expand...

Key statistics
  • Maximum take-off weight – increased from 10,000lb to 12,000lb (one ton)
  • 25% percent larger wing
  • Useful load – >4,500lb
  • Internal stores capacity – 2 x AMRAAM or 4 x SDB (plus option for three external weapon stations if needed)
Click to expand...
 
EmoBirb said:
I think this is exactly what many thought of when the term "loyal wingman" was coined. IWBs, low observable, capable in A2A scenarios.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's certainly where my mind was. Especially after that report about an "ai-controlled" QF-16 beating an experienced combat pilot.
 
EmoBirb said:
I think this is exactly what many thought of when the term "loyal wingman" was coined. IWBs, low observable, capable in A2A scenarios.
Click to expand...
Still lots of unanswered questions around cost, survivability and effectiveness.

Subsonic LWs will be at an energy disadvantage against fighter opposition and ground based SAMs. What will they cost, how effective will they truely be compared to the alternatives (e.g. longer-ranged missiles, cheap attritable remote carriers), and what is the level of expected attrition?

e.g. If LWs cost 1/10th of a fighter then the performance trade-off may be worth it. But if they cost $20-30M, 1/3rd or 1/4 of a manned fighter (which should be better able to evade enemy defenses) then do you really need a loyal wingman?
 
I think it comes down to whether a CCA can get into a BVR firing position before being shot down. If it can, then it probably wins on price point compared to whatever it is shooting at. Keep in mind CCA is also just part of the NGAD FoS, and there would likely be numerous other less expensive UAVs operating as part of that.
 
H_K said:
Still lots of unanswered questions around cost, survivability and effectiveness.

Subsonic LWs will be at an energy disadvantage against fighter opposition and ground based SAMs. What will they cost, how effective will they truely be compared to the alternatives (e.g. longer-ranged missiles, cheap attritable remote carriers), and what is the level of expected attrition?

e.g. If LWs cost 1/10th of a fighter then the performance trade-off may be worth it. But if they cost $20-30M, 1/3rd or 1/4 of a manned fighter (which should be better able to evade enemy defenses) then do you really need a loyal wingman?
Click to expand...
That actually comes down to specific excess power.

I've heard from pilots that have flown both Harrier and F-16 that the Harrier had the most excess power available to recover energy after a hard turn of any plane in the US fleets. Harrier II+ in AA load with a pair of AMRAAMs and a pair of Sidewinders can have 5000lbs of fuel and still be under 20,000lbs.

So a light drone without an afterburning engine could still be quite quick in the air.
 
Does MQ-28 use MADL?

Can't find anything about it tho i vaguely remember something like that.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom