Boeing and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) have successfully flown two MQ-28 Ghost Bat uncrewed aircraft controlled by a single operator onboard an E-7A Wedgetail, simulating a live engagement with an airborne target.
The mission, conducted at Woomera, South Australia, marks the first time two MQ-28 aircraft, plus a third digital twin, were operated from an airborne platform, validating a key concept for collaborative combat aircraft (CCA) systems.
Glen Ferguson, director of MQ-28 Global Programs at Boeing, said the trial demonstrated a significant advancement in operational integration:
“This trial demonstrates family-of-systems integration, the strength of our open systems architecture, and is a critical first step towards integrating mission partners’ software and communications systems natively into the E-7A Wedgetail.”
He added: “It not only validated a key element of the MQ-28 concept of operations, but also how collaborative combat aircraft can expand and enhance the role of the E-7A to meet future force requirements.”
The MQ-28 Ghost Bat, developed in Australia, is designed to fly autonomously or in support of crewed aircraft, offering enhanced reach, survivability, and sensor coverage. The trial involved the use of software jointly developed by Boeing Defence Australia, the Defence Science and Technology Group, and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory.
Australian Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy MP welcomed the achievement, saying:
“The Ghost Bat has the potential to turn a single fighter jet into a fighting team, with advanced sensors that are like hundreds of eyes in the sky.”
The test forms part of Capability Demonstration 2025 (CD25), a wider campaign of RAAF operational tests exploring how uncrewed platforms like the MQ-28 will integrate with Australia’s existing air combat fleet. Future demonstrations will include coordination with F/A-18F Super Hornet and F-35 aircraft.
Adam Tsacoumangos, director of Air Dominance Programs at Boeing’s Phantom Works, added:
“It has been an exceptional collaborative effort across organisations from government, contractors, and global partners.”
Are we now seeing a future shift in air combat, large strategic range aircraft running mother to a large swarm of drones.. I did once read a paper that proposed the future of human crewed aircraft was larger strategic platforms and the more tactical element.. single seat fighters.. would be replaced by drones controlled by the large strategic platforms.
Yes, this very much seems more useful than the loyal wing man concept. It never seemed to make any sense to have drones following fighter jets. However a large control aircraft surrounded by a swarm of these providing extended sensor coverage and weapons employment seems much more sensible.
You could for example see one do these over the UK with several drones providing QRA coverage.
This will only work if the drones can be controlled from long range. Wedgetail would be almost as vulnerable to SAM attack as the 737 airliner on which it is based. It can’t manoeuvre quickly and relies solely on chaff and flares.
I like this platform, given the Aussies are buying T26 and Aukus, perhaps we should buy this in high volumes as an UOR. We could do worse and it give us mass. There’s a lot to like about this approach as it’s COTS and available now, they are also doing a lot of legwork for us and we are in 5 eyes together
Be interesting if the mother shio could piggy back the Ghost bat till close to area of operations ( or refuel).
Distance / range / endurance is an Australian challenge unless you fwd base the drones in several locations with mothership flying to different areas of interest as required.
Sometimes I wonder if the UK missed outside the box thinking. We need AEW aircraft, we also need ASW/Maritime aircraft not to forget the need for air to air refueling aircraft and to finish of air motherships.
Although the E7 Wedgetail looks like a good AEW platform would it also be able to control a flight of UAVs control a air combat situation and ground control if needed. To stay on station it need a tanker, if its working over the sea a P-8 is still needed.
So if we took all of these requirements and combine them into one aircraft we could be on to something.
To start with we need some large airframe, preferably Airbus A330-800 or dare I say A380, then we take the fuel system from A330 MRTT with both boom and drouge systems and install. Yes I know its not plug and play but Airbus would know how to take an existing fuel delivery system and install it into one of their airframes. We have two E-7 radar suites available I am sure that the Airbus engineers can work out the aerodynamics to install the main radar. So now we have a tanker with E-7 capability and able to refuel its escorting fighters. Now comes the future ability a six station control for loyal wingmen and long range UAVs. Strangly enough from the technical aspect this is not to difficult as it is just a two way high speed data link but the issue is the linking of information from the AEW system and the UAV network. For the final piece of the tasking would be ASW, again six-eight stations would be needed and bays for sonar bouys +weapons as well as some strengthening of the wing roots and extra hard points under the wings. The final part would be to have a area for a full replacement crew for rest sleep and eat.
Yes these aircraft would be expensive. Or would they? As I have said it apears that we have two E-7 radar suites somewhere, A-380s are going for £18mill used on the open market, much of the design work on the refueling systems is done it just needs redesigning for the aircraft type, the technical work for the P-8 maritime/ASW suite is done it just needs reworking into a bigger airframe. So much of the tech is done it just needs to be put together. If someone says yes but. I will scream, many of you on this site know I am ex signals, I learnt not to say no, but how can we do it. it can be done you just need a team to think outside the box.
The concept for these aircraft is not to have them in areas of potential close quater combat but to patrol the region Bergan-Shetlands-Faroe Island-Iceland-Greenland. To see air threats from 800km whilst at the same time to monitor the sea on or below. This would aid UK GBAD, RN anti submarine patrols and possibly a carrier strike group if they ever need to go up north. By placing one of these aircraft 800km NNE of the Faroes you cover the air to air AEW detection from Navrik to Greenland. If we the UK used the AN/APY-10 Multi-Mission Maritime and Overland Surveillance Radar it would give the P-8 a 200 nm range surface search capability. If we ever did think about building a airborne area control platform they could even now operate with the MQ-4C Triton, Sea/Sky Guardian, MQ-28 Ghost Bat, be able to control and refuel every manned combat aircraft in NATO, whilst being able to pass data fire control to every warship in NATO.
Now comes the final issue how many do we need? So if these aircraft did a air to air refueling that would reduce time on station. So we could start with the non air to air time on statio with a full fuel load. That would be 1.5 hours to get to station, 10 hours on station and 1.5 hours to fly back. So for 24 hour per day you will need 3 aircraft on on station one getting ready and one in case of failure. Then you would need three more aircraft one in deep maintance, one in ready maintance and one on the flight line. So a total of six. Now combine these six with two Sea Guardians and two Sky Guardians each, Sea Guardian withing 100km range port Starb. of the multi mission control aircraft and Sky Guardian 200 km forward port starb at 45degrees of the nose the area of the Norwegian seas and any threat coming from the North would be seen. So the multi mission control aircraft as a single unit is expensive, but as a forward deployed picket line able to do many tasks it is cost effective.
That sounds a lot but lets look at what we have now, a E-7 would take 1.5 hours to get to the same region for the same coverage but 4 hours on station. If we want to extend that we need to ask a nation with a boom on the tanker for help. Then if there is no help 2.5 hours later a second E-7 would need to take off. To cover the same area for maritime/ASW a second P-8 would need to operate. Whoops a daisy we need help from or friends for more tanker support. Now we have two strategicaly important aircraft up in the north with no support so we need to send fighter cover but 800 km from land they need a tanker.
So now you have a E-7, P-8, MRTT, fighters and four times the numbers due to time on station and a much more complicated communication system.
Many will say I am day dreaming or talking rubbish. However, if you look at the specs of the current aircraft, look at the tasks that they will carry out in war then maybe you will understand what I am thinking.