General Atomics YFQ-42 CCA

During WWII, a lot of factories were repurposed to produce military related equipment. Assuming this CCA is the first of the gambit family, how feasible would that be for say, a car factory, to start pumping out CCA air frames?

Anduril said something along the lines of how their offering can be assembled in a garage or something (which is... doubtful). But the thought of a CCA chassis that can be easily manufactured even by non-aerospace factories sounds like it'll be extremely useful.
 
As I understand it, standing vertical tails are a serious problem for space-based radar systems, AWACS, and long-wave radar. All are problems on the modern battlefield, but obviously the Raptor is still hilariously lethal, so it depends on various factors. I think the more interesting thing is that they seem to expect the CCAs to engage in some degree of aerobatic maneuvering. Otherwise, we would be seeing designs more like the X-47B or even an X-47A/RQ-180 type airframe.
 
The sawtoothed splitter plate gives it a kinda toylike feel, imo. Good pics, I'll throw out a leg here: the forward "plate" where there's what to be signatures of some sort looks like mission access hatches. And there seems to be a rearmost bulkhead that runs from the tail to the left side of the USAF roundel; if you follow that gap separating the butt-end and the midsection downward it looks like that's also where the length of the IWB ends. Anyone got a ruler? :D

Pics are still suprisingly scarce even on the Anduril bird.
 
yeetmahboi said:
And there seems to be a rearmost bulkhead that runs from the tail to the left side of the USAF roundel; if you follow that gap separating the butt-end and the midsection downward it looks like that's also where the length of the IWB ends.
Click to expand...
Looks to me like they're the spilts for the model to transport it easier. There's another on the forward fuselage.
 
theaviationist.com

Wargame Shows How CCAs Could Take On China

CCAs would support the U.S. Air Force’s 4th and 5th gen fighters by harassing and creating targeting dilemmas for PLA forces, shaping their decisions in
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com

A fairly thought provoking article (I thought) that talks about what increment 2 CCAs are looking like, how they may be used, and their logistics and sustainment options.

- Increment 2 will be capable of being air launched, ground recoverable and capable of being ground launched.

- Inc2 would also see highly expendable drones of the EW and ISR kind.

- Envisioned usage is to be mass deployed via bombers and 4th gen fighters from Japan & second island chain, have them fly to their operational areas / FOBs and land/be recovered there.

- Their purpose would be to disrupt and attack PLA AEW and disrupt sortie generation in large swarms (may or may not be swarming, but probably linked together and operating with mass). They will also be used to probe IADs weak points.

- They would be both ground deployed from caches as well as air launched in the order of multiple waves per day during a conflict

- Logistics would be sustained probably by receiving these vehicles from their launching platforms. Personnel would be sustained via reliance on local populations in the Phillipines and Southern Japan.
 
Reddington777 said:
theaviationist.com

Wargame Shows How CCAs Could Take On China

CCAs would support the U.S. Air Force’s 4th and 5th gen fighters by harassing and creating targeting dilemmas for PLA forces, shaping their decisions in
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com

A fairly thought provoking article (I thought) that talks about what increment 2 CCAs are looking like, how they may be used, and their logistics and sustainment options.

- Increment 2 will be capable of being air launched, ground recoverable and capable of being ground launched.

- Inc2 would also see highly expendable drones of the EW and ISR kind.

- Envisioned usage is to be mass deployed via bombers and 4th gen fighters from Japan & second island chain, have them fly to their operational areas / FOBs and land/be recovered there.

- Their purpose would be to disrupt and attack PLA AEW and disrupt sortie generation in large swarms (may or may not be swarming, but probably linked together and operating with mass). They will also be used to probe IADs weak points.

- They would be both ground deployed from caches as well as air launched in the order of multiple waves per day during a conflict

- Logistics would be sustained probably by receiving these vehicles from their launching platforms. Personnel would be sustained via reliance on local populations in the Phillipines and Southern Japan.
Click to expand...
Most of that news article comes from the Mitch Institute Report on “Logistics While Under Attack: Key to a CCA Force Design.”

There is a companion podcast for that report as well.
 
a-new-transatlantic-partnership-european-cca.jpg


www.ga-asi.com

A New Transatlantic Partnership for European CCA

General Atomics is taking a bold step toward rapidly delivering a European Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) — based on a mature U.S. platform, assembled in Europe, with European mission systems — by aligning its independent U.S. and German aerospace affiliates under a teamed operation.
www.ga-asi.com


GA-ASI-Three-Jets_1200x1220.jpg

www.ga-asi.com

XQ-67A Demonstrates Autonomy and Datalink Interoperability During High Desert Flight Test

AFRL’s XQ-67A, a second-generation Autonomous Collaborative Platform (ACP), successfully demonstrated integration of government reference autonomy during a recent flight test in the California High Desert.
www.ga-asi.com
 
Last edited:
www.ga-asi.com

A New Transatlantic Partnership for European CCA

General Atomics is taking a bold step toward rapidly delivering a European Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) — based on a mature U.S. platform, assembled in Europe, with European mission systems — by aligning its independent U.S. and German aerospace affiliates under a teamed operation.
www.ga-asi.com
 
No way, Europe should move full steam ahead with local options if it plans to be somewhat independent from the US and retain its design and manufacturing expertise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Manufacturing expertise calls for practice. While the internet is vehemently screaming at each other face like if defense was a soccer game, machinists have nothing to do with their hands, engineers nothing to reflect on or improve and managers no turnover to get to the next budget...

Germans are simply signalling to their more Latin partners: enough with the talking.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Manufacturing expertise calls for practice. While the internet is vehemently screaming at each other face like if defense was a soccer game, machinists have nothing to do with their hands, engineers nothing to reflect on or improve and managers no turnover to get to the next budget...

Germans are simply signalling to their more Latin partners: enough with the talking.
Click to expand...
Yeah we have for example Airbus working together with Kratos just because its cheaper and faster than having to learn everything else. Also having an existing flying uav makes the development of there own software even easier because you know what you need for it to work. https://www.hartpunkt.de/nun-offizi...unbemanntem-kampfflugzeug-fuer-die-luftwaffe/
 
 
I read recently that the FQ-42 would be carrying AMRAAMs externally. I don't remember where that came from. But Mike Atwood from GA said recently that it had an internal bay which could carry missiles and other weapons. Perhaps AMRAAM is too big?
 
Last edited:
I’ve seen nothing to indicate where YFQ-42/44 will carry their weapons outside informed suppositions. Quite honestly, both platforms are sufficiently small that I think internal carriage unlikely. It is hard to to have a 12-13 foot long bay on an aircraft that is only 30 feet long. And neither manufacturer has stated internal BVR carriage is possible.

So maybe yes, more likely no, IMO.

Scaled Composites 437 notably explicitly stated a dual AIM-120 carriage. That might be a Incr2 requirement.
 
YFQ-42 would certainly benefit from some sort of internal bays, regardless of what's going in there at the end, as it clearly was designed around the idea of signature reduction. Unlike the YFQ-44 which looks less concerned with the reduction of it's signature and arguably more so it's flight performance.
 
Reddington777 said:
During WWII, a lot of factories were repurposed to produce military related equipment. Assuming this CCA is the first of the gambit family, how feasible would that be for say, a car factory, to start pumping out CCA air frames?

Anduril said something along the lines of how their offering can be assembled in a garage or something (which is... doubtful). But the thought of a CCA chassis that can be easily manufactured even by non-aerospace factories sounds like it'll be extremely useful.
Click to expand...

Almost nil. They may be able to do but they'll be far too busy producing MRAPs for the motor infantry.
 

Attachments

  • 860x394.jpg
    860x394.jpg
    104.9 KB · Views: 75
  • img_0587.jpg
    img_0587.jpg
    81.4 KB · Views: 74
  • Weapon-Bay_Mark-Cazalet-1024x768.jpg
    Weapon-Bay_Mark-Cazalet-1024x768.jpg
    98.7 KB · Views: 87
Josh_TN said:
I’ve seen nothing to indicate where YFQ-42/44 will carry their weapons outside informed suppositions. Quite honestly, both platforms are sufficiently small that I think internal carriage unlikely. It is hard to to have a 12-13 foot long bay on an aircraft that is only 30 feet long. And neither manufacturer has stated internal BVR carriage is possible.

So maybe yes, more likely no, IMO.

Scaled Composites 437 notably explicitly stated a dual AIM-120 carriage. That might be a Incr2 requirement.
Click to expand...
Remember the half size AAM the USAF specced earlier in the year though specifically for CCA carriage.

www.twz.com

Air Force Looking For Cheap Air-To-Air Missile Half The Size Of AMRAAM

The Air Force is eyeing a pint-sized, extended-range, low-cost missile to arm Collaborative Combat Aircraft and crewed fighters. The Air Force is eyeing a pint-sized, extended-range, low-cost missile to arm Collaborative Combat Aircraft and crewed fighters.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

That seems a much better size for internal carriage on a CCA and corresponding likely bay length.
 
Ozair said:
Remember the half size AAM the USAF specced earlier in the year though specifically for CCA carriage.

www.twz.com

Air Force Looking For Cheap Air-To-Air Missile Half The Size Of AMRAAM

The Air Force is eyeing a pint-sized, extended-range, low-cost missile to arm Collaborative Combat Aircraft and crewed fighters. The Air Force is eyeing a pint-sized, extended-range, low-cost missile to arm Collaborative Combat Aircraft and crewed fighters.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

That seems a much better size for internal carriage on a CCA and corresponding likely bay length.
Click to expand...

So basically the USAF is wanting a 21st century AIM-4 Falcon.
 
AIM-120 carriage is a requirement because that is what is overwhelmingly in inventory, though external carriage might be acceptable. It is hard to imagine where a bay would fit on YFQ-44
 
NMaude said:
So basically the USAF is wanting a 21st century AIM-4 Falcon.
Click to expand...
I would speculate that, that would be a no because AIM-4 Falcon was a piece of trash.

I think it’s more correct to say the USAF is looking for a missile with the best performance possible that is half the length of an AMRAAM. Right now the next size down in AAM in inventory is the AIM-9 which is ~2/3 the length of the AIM-120. If you are designing a CCA, sizing it for AIM-9 isn’t a good value since it’s not much more of a plus up to make the provision to carry a slightly bigger AIM-120 for a lot more Air to Air performance. But If you are sizing a bay for AIM-120, and you have a new missile that is half the length, then you can have interesting mix of load outs between AIM-120 and 2x whatever this new AAM will be.
 
Josh_TN said:
AIM-120 carriage is a requirement because that is what is overwhelmingly in inventory, though external carriage might be acceptable. It is hard to imagine where a bay would fit on YFQ-44
Click to expand...
AIM-120 is what is in the inventory today but there are also not more than a couple of YFQ-42/44 either. The whole point of the Low Cost Air-to-Air RFI is to determine the feasibility of a AAM that can be built for the target price at the volume and in the timeframe, 1000 AURs in 24 months from contract award. You would anticipate that production rate would be a floor and not a ceiling given AIM-120 is moving to 1200 a year.
 
Reddington777 said:
During WWII, a lot of factories were repurposed to produce military related equipment. Assuming this CCA is the first of the gambit family, how feasible would that be for say, a car factory, to start pumping out CCA air frames?

Anduril said something along the lines of how their offering can be assembled in a garage or something (which is... doubtful). But the thought of a CCA chassis that can be easily manufactured even by non-aerospace factories sounds like it'll be extremely useful.
Click to expand...
Modern car factories are best when making a bajillion stamped things. Like AKs or HK G3/MP5s/etc if we're talking steel stampings, or various aircraft panels if we're stamping aluminum or even titanium. But that's just the body panel factories.

The foundries that make engine blocks will probably continue to make engines, just bigger ones.

And the car assembly lines where all this is brought together will be making MRAPs. But those turbocharger companies are going to be making lots of baby jet engines, not just turbochargers for the diesels.


I cannot see a LO CCA chassis that is easily made in non-aerospace factories. All the doors and access panels would need to be impedance matched etc, and that's not something you can make at home.

I guess if you had a basic design that only used RAM in the inlets and on the access panels and weapons bay doors it might work. But the QA to make the airframe otherwise be LO would take a long time to teach.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom