Boeing’s Loyal Wingman has been designated as the MQ-28A ‘Ghost Bat’ by Australia.

Australia’s Defence Minister, the Hon Peter Dutton MP, announced the designator and name at a dedicated ceremony held at RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland.

“The introduction of the new popular name is a rare and special moment in aviation history for our RAAF partners and industry team of over 35 Australian suppliers,” said Glen Ferguson, director Airpower Teaming System Australia and International.

“Selecting the Ghost Bat, an Australian native mammal known for teaming together in a pack to detect and hunt, reflects the unique characteristics of the aircraft’s sensors and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance abilities, and is a fitting name for this pioneering capability.”

CGI of how they might operate

The aircraft will fly alongside other platforms, using artificial intelligence and other systems to augment crewed aircraft.

“The Loyal Wingman’s first flight is a major step in this long-term, significant project for the Air Force and Boeing Australia, and we’re thrilled to be a part of the successful test,” said Air Vice-Marshal Cath Roberts, RAAF Head of Air Force Capability, last year.

“The Loyal Wingman project is a pathfinder for the integration of autonomous systems and artificial intelligence to create smart human-machine teams. Through this project we are learning how to integrate these new capabilities to complement and extend air combat and other missions.” she said.

For more information about the Boeing Airpower Teaming System, visit https://www.boeing.com/defense/airpower-teaming-system/

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

75 COMMENTS

      • We are supplying Ukraine with our national stock pile of it, I know chemical warfare illegal but Russia needs a kick in the ass :p

        • We need to be careful, otherwise Mad Vlad Poo Tin might make all kinds of accusations to the UN about 4X proliferation.

          He might even decide that this was so serious that he would have to carry out a hypersonic strike, with one of his remaining two missiles, on the 4X plant to be sure no more of it was made?

          Joking apart, the fact the Vlad is using sea launch missiles from afar indicates to me that his other stocks are running low?

          • I once had a 4X explosion on a train…it was brutal….never trust a 4X tinny.

            There was this very attractive woman in a suit on her way to London (mid 20s very nice) me and my mate decided to sit opposite ( obviously being 20something blokes). As we were on a jolly we had a couple of four packs getting ready for a day out in London. Unfortunately my second beer had been bouncing up and down on on table for 30 mins coming out of Salisbury, and when I opened it…..blammm the lovely dressed to the nines young business women in front of me became a dripping mess of head to toe 4X…..I just had this horrified “Fuck”look on my face, she was just staring at me in horror and my mate was rolling around laughing…..it was a life lesson.

          • Couple possibilities either stocks are low (Hard to say one way or the otherm Russia doesnt exactly publish munition purchases) or the logistics is even more buggered then we thought and they struggling to get reloads to the units using them. As it is the Russian units on average can only advance 45 miles before their ability to resupply units starts getting impacted (logistics is that bad) so if Russia does ever invaded you lot, Chuck your vehicles in reverse for 50 miles, Let the Russkies run out of supplies, Then attack 😉

        • Kestrel super, the worst beer on the planet, it’s only saving grace is by tinny two you don’t care much, by tinny four you don’t know Or care what your drinking and by tinny six it’s all down the toilet anyway.

        • I recently found out that “Fosters” is an aboriginal word, the most accurate translation would be “water that comes from a sick kangaroos penis”
          Everyday is a learning day eh😉

  2. Oh, I so hope our loyal programme comes up with something at least as good. These loyal wingman systems are a significant opportunity for the RAF and RN FAA to increase their combat power – so long as the cost is not inflated by trying to gold plate the solution.

    I would also like to see a number of ‘low cost’ UAV’s to bulk out the force even if they are not of the loyal wingman variety.

    Cheers CR

    • Absolutely, gold plating is a really serious concern for me too.

      They have to walk the line between genuinely capable and affordable. Adding an apparent capable anti air capability threatens to seriously increase costs, due to the necessary sensor package that will need to be integrated.

      I would prefer a strike and recon bias, with self defense air to air.

      • I hope they do what the RAF have done with Typhoon and incrementally develop the aircraft capabilities as new capabilities / technologies, funding and lessons learnt allow.

        I know that sounds like fit for etc. but technically fit for but not with should be about keeping kit up to date whilst avoiding expensive reworking that could have been avoided with a bit fore thought. This approach is going to be particularly important with a totally new capability and technology.

        So nice steady progress making sure that every works as expected at each step and NO running before you can walk.

        Cheers CR

        • As long as they can carry meteor / AIM-120 then great they can be paired up with Typhoon/F-35 even E-7 as extra weaponsthat are designated by the parent and as decoys to deflect incoming attacks, they need to complement manned aircraft, we don’t need to go down the ‘SKYNET’ route just yet 🙂

    • My concern would be Project Officer “churn” every two years or so. Project officers being replaced with someone from the “front line’ with up-to-date theories and the subsequent moving of goal posts has resulted in massive delays in the past. The MOD does not seem to learn………

      • Churn and the reporting system that values ‘impact’. I.e. what difference did you make? Tends to encourage tinkering..! Can’t blame the staff the system isn’t really set up to deliver on time and to budget!

        There are plenty of projects that apparently deliver, but the really big ones always seem to hit the headlines for the wrong reasons. I think the MoD needs to consider treating technologically complex and expensive projects as special cases from the start and bring in experienced staff.

        Plus there needs to be realistic budgets, timescales and expections from the start. We know that there is a bias of optimism in the system which needs to be stamped out. There is also a need to educate politicians and decisions makers in the true cost benefit of projects. However, it’ll never happen… I just wish that the politicians had not delayed the carriers as it let the Carrier Alliance off the hook price wise. I’d have kept the project running and toughed it out with the ‘no aircraft’ idiots… Would have safed about £2 to £3billion if I remember rightly. Could have bought the more F35b’s…

        Cheers CR

        • I’m not sure the MoD understands what project management is, or why it’s important to have experienced project managers before the contracts are signed. You aren’t going to get someone for “£38K a year, relocate to Merthyr” who can effectively speak truth to power on a £6.3bn job.

          • You be on double that running a mid scale construction site.

            I think MOD does understand project management. It is the rotating desk officers who don’t.

            Part of the problem is the sink cost fallacy combined with the ‘if we stop it now the budget line will get reallocated’

            IRL there are many projects that stagger on when they should have been stopped and restarted to a new spec.

    • We will still be here in 15- 20 years (well some of us hopefuly) commenting on how shit the procurement process has been…and how we should scrap it and buy the aussie Bat one off the shelf…

      • Hmm, I was feeling all optimistic there for a moment.🤔

        Oh, thanks for the reality check! 🙂

        Cheers CR

    • Good sunny afternoon CR
      It’s a given that we ‘Gold’ plate stuff….Australia seem to have sorted their sh-t and are getting on with it…… we need a department of Stop Faffing About & Make A Decision (SFAMAD)
      Thanks Ian

  3. The Ghost Bat is one of three entrants into the USAF’s Skyborg program to develop drones that can operate with manned aircraft. The front runner is the Kratos entrant based on its XQ-58 Valkyrie. In an Orange Flag exercise last year Kratos dropped a smaller drone (Altius 600) from the belly of a Valkyrie. Drones within drones.

    • Interestingly they also just announced a separate program for a B-21 dedicated loyal wingman distinct from the general Skyborg program. This may reflect similar experience to the US Navy which trialed the X-47 but ultimately decided to go with the more conventional MQ-25 Stingray dropping the stealth requirement both for cost and because the X-47 wasnt stealthy enough.

      • And possibly because they wanted a **now** solution that wasn’t stealthy and didn’t cost the earth to learn with/from and then increment to the stealth version once operating parameters etc had been refined?

        • Yes the navy descoped the program from the 2011 request for proposals and 2013 specifications issued to industry.

  4. I would like these drones to participate in an Orange Flag type exercise to see how vulnerable they are, or useful, of course.
    A big thing like that bumbling about the sky.?? I can understand a strike version, or surveillance, but at the moment something like this seems to be a jack of all trades. Obviously we have no ACTUAL idea of the capabilities, but even so…
    AA

  5. I’m not sure I understand the negativity. We are on the same path with our own Mosquito drone, just a year or so behind. First flight next year I believe. The success of either program is years away from being known. I’m glad we are producing our own though and investing in skills in the UK.

    • I think it’s because the Australians, with there far more nascent aviation industry have something flying whereas we as all we have – with all our skills and capability in this arena – is PowerPoint slides and promises of future capability…

      • Oh we actually have a pretty top notch aviation industry down here, Smaller then many for sure but has been quite good over the decades especially in the last decade between civil and military applications. With the over all program knowledge on the hush hush I would imagine a big lesson used in developing this was our experience developing the E-7’s. Tried to gold plate them from the start and was slowing everything down, So went back to drawing board, spoke the the personnel that would use it and scaled it back to the bare minimum “What do you need at minimum to do the job” and switching to that approach got them available sooner and program kicking goals with incremental upgrades and more still planned for them but we got to use them in mean time. Likely they have done the same here, Get the basic core systems working and in the air, We will add on the options later gradually.

        • Couldn’t agree more, Australia seems to have a ‘can do’ attitude, Ghost Bat looks to be an impressive development, we are all watching with interest.

          • Three reasons for that

            1 – Digital design: When done properly getting the entire thing designed on a PC into a 3D model can play a huge role in reducing development. Simple things from making sure everything will fit and bolt togethor (In past shipbuilding have had issues in dimensions not properly worked out or some where others werent and go to connect stuff together.. Oh bugger doesnt fit) to with modern programs making sure it can actually fly when feeding in all the knowns (compnent weights, locations of them, thrust, lift, drag etc)

            2 – KISS: Keep it simple stupid, As already mentioned and many agree is proper way to go kept it very simple at the start which will give us a working asset to incrementally improve upon.

            3 – Off the shelf parts: Where we could (such as the engine) we used parts and components that where already existing and in use. The point of the drone is to keep it cheap and the core asset will be the AI so no need to get an engine modified or custom designed for it, An existing off the shelf option would and has done quite nicely.

            All combined keeps costs and risks quite low in grand scheme of things.

        • Tend to agree when you are delving into very new capabilities as much as you might like it to have all the bells and whistles it inevitably means that by the time you actually get it inevitably very late you realise that you chose the wrong bells and whistles or they have been superseded but no longer have the money or flexibility to change them.

          • It is the desire for the final 20% that adds 80% to cost in every realm of project management.

            I would agree with the above that reductionist thinking is often needed to get projects moving and deliver to budget and just allow the necessary space and weight margin for growth.

        • Yep its brilliant you have got something in the air… I wish we’d partner up with you rather than go our own way.

          • Well I wouldnt rule it out, With AUKUS and Australia, UK and the US all pursuing very similar projects while we might not all choose the same bird (different national requirements, desires etc which when trying to role into a single design can lead to failure ie: NFR-90) we can share between us lessons learnt and more importantly combine resources in developing the AI which IMO will be the hardest part of it all. So if your lucky some RAAFies may get involved, And do an Armageddon scene when they start tearing out all the useless crap from the Armadillo lol.

  6. I keep wondering why we don’t just look to buy some of these from our Australian friends. They have brought into T26 and of potentially a submarine deal too.

    Interesting every picture I have seen shows these with the twin seat Hornets: I guess having someone in the back to coordinate helps…. do we have any 2 seat typhoons left or did they all get cannibalised for spares under ‘reduce to produce’… could they be returned to the sky with some of our own ‘Ghost Bats’.

    Final point: contrast this with the completely pointless ‘Vampire’ drones we have just brought which are positioned as a UAV but are really just a way to justify getting rid of the aggressor Hawks of 736 squadron and thereby are yet another cut.

    • Vampire hadn’t been developed yet, your pessimism is confusing existing target drones, which were launched from PoW as a proof of concept of carrier operated drones before sinking money into developing Vampire.
      It’s nothing to do with the aggressor squadron.

        • From the contract award notice
          “ Project VAMPIRE sits within the Develop Directorate of Navy Command and aims to address a number of capability problem sets utilising a low-cost Fixed Wing Uncrewed Air Vehicle (UAV) as a means for the development of operational concepts, payload types, and associated communication and digital architecture.”

          Someone supposed wrong.

    • The Vampire drone isn’t the right program to compare it to. The RAF Mosquito demonstrator is being developed and slated for first flight in 2023.

        • Everything starts with a PowerPoint presentation or CGI image, it doesn’t mean that it won’t be developed. The team in Belfast have £30m to develop the demonstrator. I’m not really sure what your point is.

          • The point is we should be well past the powerpoint and have something tangible. With the huge reductions in combat air the need for these UAVs is somewhat urgent.

          • True enough but we don’t have the budget to fast track anything I’m afraid. After calls for defence spending to increase at the start of the invasion it has all gone rather quiet. I would be very pleasantly surprised if the Chancellor announces an increase tomorrow but I’d put money on it not happening.

        • Is that just general pessimism or do you have a reason? Mosquito is a demonstrator and we aren’t usually too bad at that. It’s moving to production where things go awry. Last I heard the music was optimistic for the end of next year.

          • I had been hopeful our equipment plans were going in the right direction, but the recent publication of the equipment plan update showing cuts whilst there is an actual war in Eastern Europe has increased my general pessimism.

          • Those ten-year plans would have been largely finalised before the end of last year and the MoD would not see a need for a last minute change. They barely changed direction to accommodate being given an extra £47bn. The Ukraine effect, if any, will be seen much, much later.

            Fortunately none of this should affect Mosquito. It’s now a little over a year into a three year, fully funded project that should remain unaffected by overall equipment plans. We may be two and a half years behind the Aussies, but that’s significantly beyond Powerpoint.

        • I’m pretty confident about it actually we are working with Northrop Grumman on this who have over 20 years of experience on drone tech and are the go to company for drone AI. Equally they feel pretty pissed about the way the US Govt have given them awards for their high end tech but little in actual commitment bowing to Boeings political and industrial might to produce something far less capable and advanced (probably rightly at this stage mind). Now I have no idea how much of that capability might be funnelled into their UK efforts but they are one damn good company to have onside and all things taken into consideration a preferable partner to Boeing even if the Australian efforts are looking promising. I do feel however that it’s a shame that we could not have worked with Australia on a programme of this nature as their requirements and numbers due to their operating environment will probably be at least as important and numerous as out own.

    • We have project LANCA / Mosquito, also a LW carrier is being developed as part of FCAS/ Tempest – unclear if that is Mosquito or a follow-on. Mosquito due to fly next year and team with F-35 and Typhoon. There may well be opportunities for collaboration, although ‘Ghost Bat’ is a US-Aus initiative. Vampire drones are to replace 736 Hawks (along with some crewed aggressors on contract to MOD – probably Drakken L139s – which will replace 100 Sqn Hawks). The RN is making duel use of these drones to include an ISTAR mission, and to use them to develop carrier strike CONOPS for UAS. Vixen will be the naval equivalent of Mosquito down the line.

      • I believe the LANCA is an umbrella program for a host of unmanned aircraft. The premise for this is the roles that will be undertaken as shown on both RAF and Royal Navy “PowerPoint slides”. Ranging from loyal wingman to the Navy’s tanker and possible AEW requirement. To me, that infers at least two separate aircraft. One that is flying in formation with a fighter/strike aircraft to either carry more weapons or be part of increasing its situational awareness by employing more sensors. For a tanker aircraft you want volume, so you can carry lots of fuel. You also want an efficient aerodynamic profile, so the aircraft can have a long economic and flight duration. This would be a different design to an aircraft that needs to be aerobatic and keep up with the manned aircraft.

        • One of the more interesting aspects to the Mosquito programme is that the airframe is supposed to have up to 5 different fast-swappable wing shapes, so it can be quickly reroled.

    • I remember seeing three two-seaters at Leeming in a hangar. They were up on trestles and had been robbed for parts, that were used on Saudi Typhoons. So basically more or less a bare shell. That was some 10 years ago, so I don’t know what happened to them since.

      Having a rear crew member control several loyal wingman would be a hell of lot easier at developing the protocols and tactics in these early days of development. Especially when your are considering trying to lessen the pilot’s workload rather than increasing it. I bet the RAF are regretting mothballing the two seaters now!

        • Who knows there might be such a variant but highly unlikely I suspect as a two seater while a massive advantage for drone operation over the next decade or so no doubt, will thereafter rapidly decline as the overall tech and experience matures and develops, so probably not good from a timing point of view I reckon.

      • The two seaters were to T1 standards?

        So when T1 goes OoS then the two seaters would be orphaned and require a whole special pilot training setup?

        I think that is right, but I am no Typhoon expert, so Robert Blay will probably correct me if I am talking nonsense!

        • Yes, they were all Tranche 1s. So not much good for multi role duties. However, having the back seater control them and analyze their data would still mean less work for the pilot up front. They definitely would have helped the development cycle.

        • How they will be flight managed is not the issue. As they will be using a two way data-link to maintain formation. The problem is the amount of data their sensors collects and how it is presented to the pilot. For example if they have been illuminated by a tracking radar. The pilot then has to make the decision of what loyal wingman A needs to do next, should wingman B back it up, or stay passive etc.

          This will be crucial in how effective a loyal wingman is used. Too much raw data and the pilot will be swamped. Having to make too many decisions instead of using his aircraft to fight the mission.

          Having a backseater to take this workload off the pilot up front would be a major advantage. Until the processes and protocols have been worked through. Whereby, a pilot can then manage a pair of loyal wingman without detracting from the mission.

          Artificial intelligence is not that advanced. A human must still be in the decision making process. Especially on the use of weapons,

          • My understanding is that the loyal wingman is a weapons ‘carrier’, it carries extra weapons but no sensors.It’s fed data from the mother ship’s sensors and operates as part of a mothership-led swarm.

            The LW’s respond autonomusly based on the pilot’s reaction to the threat profile.Tthe pilot does not need to configure them separately they are all part of an autonomous ‘swarm’. F-35 and upgraded Typhoon will have all the sensors and data links to do this.

            No-one – neither the Americans nor Australians – are considering backseaters for Loyal Wingman drones.

          • Sorry, but that is incorrect.

            For example, the Boeing Loyal Wingman now named Ghost Bat MQ-28A Airpower Teaming System. It is predominantly a reconnaissance and ISTAR platform. The complete nose forward of the undercarriage can be removed and replaced with a sensor package tailored for specific missions. Between the main landing gear is a small weapons bay that is around 1.8m long and is not very deep. It could hold about 4 Stormbreaker SDBs, but not any air to air missiles, as its too short. It cannot be used for aerobatic manoeuvring, as it has a small thrust to weight ratio. According to the RAAF, the aircraft will be used to extend the manned aircraft’s situational awareness, defend that aircraft sacrificially if required and to probe enemy defences. There are currently no plans to include underwing hardpoints on the aircraft.

            The US Kratos XQ-58A Valkarie is smaller and will follow along similar lines to the Ghost Bat, by extending the manned aircraft’s situational awareness.

            Both aircraft are going to be initially developed in partnership with two-seater F/A-18F and F15Es. With the hope that the F35 and F22 and other aircraft can then be used with them.

            The RAAF is purchasing 6 Ghost Bats to develop the protocols needed to operate the aircraft. Will the Ghost Bat be the final iteration. No, these are baby steps in developing manned-unmanned teaming. There is going to be future aircraft that follow the Ghost Bat, that can carry more useful payloads. But to begin with, it is a sensible step in progressing this technology and manned-unmanned integration.

          • So…just to clarify – whilst they continue to need two seaters to operate & develop usage etc. …wim fucked cus we got rid/getting rid of our two seater planes…is that correct?

          • It just makes life a lot harder for the pilot. I’m sure both the RAF & FAA are looking at a workaround. I believe BAe still have their two-seater Typhoon, that they use for testing. May have borrow it for a while.

          • Could they modify a Hawk trainer for some of the early work? You don’t need a supersonic plane as these appear to be subsonic drones.

    • 100 Sqn (1917 – 2022) is disbanding at RAF Leeming this Thursday and with them the Hawks. Any idea as to a replacement or is that going to be civilianised too?

    • The reason they have been pictured with Super Hornets in the promotional images might be as simple as Boeing wanting to show their own aircraft instead of Lockheed’s F-35, rather than the need for a back seat operator.

  7. GHOSTBAT………..Sounds very aggressive
    Will our generation Woke accept the term without needing therapy
    How about asking the Turks for some advice on a Combat drone partnership they seem to be on top form with proven technology ….. call it small fluffy lamb
    Ian

  8. Can we not convert all these hawks we got laying around that are due to be desposed of, into unmanned platforms to be used as these type airframe or better yet as sacrificial cannon fodder to expose enemy air defences

  9. Silly question but are all these UAVs one way or do they have the option to return with the mother aircraft?

  10. At least their Air Force seems to be ahead of ours and much better organised too on a far smaller budget too. RAF take note from the colonises they are showing you up in so many ways.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here