Navy Taps Aerospace Giants for Loyal Wingman Drone Program

(UNITED STATES) The U.S. Navy has formally put five of the country’s top defense firms under contract to shape its next big leap in air combat: a carrier-based “Loyal Wingman” drone officially labeled the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA). As of late August 2025, Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons confirmed that Anduril, Boeing, General Atomics, and Northrop Grumman are developing conceptual designs, while Lockheed Martin is building the common control architecture that will tie the system together.

Navy officials say these autonomous aircraft must launch and recover from carriers at sea, team with manned fighters, and accept missions too risky for pilots—goals that, if met, would shift how carrier air wings fight and survive in contested skies.

Cost, life strategy, and program intent

Rear Adm. Stephen Tedford, who leads the Navy’s unmanned systems and weapons portfolio, has described a clear cost and life strategy:

• Unit price target: about $15 million per drone.
• Planned service life: “a couple hundred hours” of flying time, with the understanding that the final mission could be one-way.

This price point undercuts the U.S. Air Force’s $25–30 million target and signals an intent to buy larger numbers, favoring scale and disposability over long service life. The industrial base is thus being asked to build fast, keep costs tight, and design for rough treatment at sea.

Program history and how the Navy reached this point

The Navy’s CCA decision follows years of groundwork:

• The service prioritized carrier-based refueling with the MQ-25 Stingray, scheduled for fleet introduction in 2026, after shelving the stealthy X-47B unmanned combat air vehicle in the mid-2010s.
• The MQ-25 paves the way for routine deck handling and autonomous recovery, enabling CCAs to extend range, share targeting data, and absorb risk around the carrier air wing.

The Navy aims to field operational CCAs in the second half of this decade, roughly aligning with the Air Force’s plan to introduce hundreds of similar “loyal wingmen” by the late 2020s.

Who’s doing what (roles and capabilities)

• Anduril, Boeing, General Atomics, Northrop Grumman: developing conceptual, carrier-capable aircraft designs.
• Lockheed Martin: building the common control architecture (autonomy, mission planning, operator interface).

Company-specific notes:

• General Atomics: adapting its carrier-capable YFQ-42A design (already flying with the Air Force) toward Navy needs.
• Anduril: expected to advance a YFQ-44A concept with a software-driven approach.
• Northrop Grumman: leverages X-47B heritage—the only jet-sized unmanned aircraft to have launched and recovered from a carrier.
• Boeing: brings MQ-25 program heritage and carrier integration experience.
• Lockheed Martin: basing its common control system on the Skunk Works MDCX autonomy platform (flight tested in 2024 with the General Atomics MQ-20 Avenger).

The Navy intentionally separates aircraft design from autonomy/control to produce modular, interoperable systems that accept payload changes quickly and mix-and-match with different airframes.

Mission set and tactical employment

The mission set is broad:

• Fly alongside 4th- and 5th-generation fighters.
• Share sensor data, extend radar and electronic warfare reach.
• Serve as decoys, guided munitions, or reusable scouts to probe defended airspace.
• Accept high-risk tasks so pilots remain safer.

Key tactical ideas:

1. Keep CCAs close enough to team with manned jets, yet independent enough to break off for high-risk tasks.
2. In contested fights, send CCAs first to gather data or absorb threats, then commit manned jets based on real-time information.
3. Use CCAs to extend the effective reach of a carrier air wing, including refueling from the MQ-25 when needed.

Carrier suitability: unique engineering demands

Carrier operations demand extensive redesign compared to land-based drones:

• Strong landing gear and tailhook performance for arrested recoveries.
• Corrosion resistance to saltwater and compact physical footprints for storage.
• Robust data links resistant to electromagnetic clutter around metal structures.
• Integration with carrier operations: deck director signals, engine-wash limits, elevator safety, and deck-handling constraints.

This is not a simple port from land to sea; it is a redesign around the carrier as both a floating airport and a warship.

Contracted scope and why it matters now

PEO U&W’s August 20, 2025 announcement mandated that conceptual designs must be carrier-capable from the start. Early designs will influence:

• Size, weight, and power (SWaP) limits.
• Payload types and modularity.
• Folding, stowage, and movement through tight carrier spaces.

Lockheed Martin’s common control system aims to let crews control mixed fleets of CCAs and integrate them with manned aircraft, increasing safety, speed, and reliability across naval aviation.

Advantages from existing programs and heritage

• YFQ-42A (General Atomics): flight testing proves formation flight, autonomous sensor sharing, and precision navigation.
• YFQ-44A (Anduril): expected to add software-driven testing lines.
• X-47B (Northrop Grumman): carrier launch/recovery heritage.
• MQ-25 (Boeing): operational deck handling and autonomous recovery lessons.

This combined experience lowers risk for the Navy’s first carrier-based CCAs.

Cost strategy and implications

• A ~$15 million unit cost implies buying many CCAs, accepting losses, and refreshing fleets quickly.
• This marks a shift from buying small numbers of expensive, long-lived platforms to a model of quantity, frequent upgrades, and disposability.
• Rear Adm. Tedford’s “couple hundred hours” remark sets realistic expectations: these are operational tools intended to be used and, sometimes, expended.

Operational impacts and tactics

• A mixed flight of F/A-18s or F-35Cs plus CCAs can:
  • Build a larger, faster picture of the battlespace.
  • Extend radar coverage and push jammers or decoys forward.
  • Absorb initial missile salvos or confuse seekers.
  • Send CCAs alone into highly defended areas to reduce pilot risk.

CCAs can also refuel from the MQ-25, rotating roles to push the fight farther from the carrier.

Modularity, open architecture, and industrial strategy

The Navy is pushing for:

• Modular payload bays (sensors, EW pods, weapons) to avoid costly redesigns.
• Open, joint-compatible control software to interoperate with the Air Force and allies.
• Designs judged on parts swap ease, software update speed, and carrier ecosystem integration.

Goals: avoid vendor lock-in, enable rapid upgrades, and encourage competition to reduce costs over time.

“Open systems mean a new sensor can ride next year’s CCA batch with minimal rewiring; a software patch can uplift the entire fleet over a maintenance cycle.”

Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests open architectures draw more competition from smaller firms as standards mature, which could lower costs.

Timelines, tests, and the path to the flight deck

Current stepped path:

1. 2025: Conceptual design contracts.
2. Common control system development (already underway).
3. Flight demonstrations (YFQ-42A and expected YFQ-44A) to show formation flight and sensor fusion.
4. Late 2020s: Initial operational fielding window.
5. Downselect to prototypes for carrier-suitability testing and developmental flight trials.

Key technical hurdles:

• Autonomous carrier takeoffs and landings with tight deck accuracy.
• Consistent hook engagements and recovery from bolters.
• Control system handling of network traffic in a busy electromagnetic carrier environment.
• Managing degraded operations and keeping human crews informed without overload.

Lockheed Martin’s role as the common control architect reflects the need for a single, stable “language” across CCAs.

Joint comparisons and allied cooperation

• Air Force goals: up to 1,000 CCAs by the late 2020s, cost target $25–30 million.
• Navy’s stricter carrier-based constraints impose tighter size and durability limits but provide a floating launchpad worldwide.
• Australia’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat program offers lessons; the Navy has shown interest but no formal partnership yet.

Interoperability aims to let Air Force and Navy CCAs share data or payloads when needed, with allies plugging into formations with minimal reconfiguration.

Human and organizational changes aboard carriers

• Sailors are learning:
  • How to direct unmanned aircraft on deck safely.
  • How to inspect composite skins for salt damage.
  • How to run preflight checks via tablet interfaces.
• Pilots are training to lead mixed formations, allocate mission legs, and handle sensor or link failures in-flight.

• Maintenance and enlisted leadership are preparing crews that mix traditional aviation rates with new maintainers specializing in autonomy software and data links.

Objective: keep flight ops appearance consistent while shifting the mix of aircraft.

Policy, budgets, and program risks

• Debates will focus on scale: lower unit costs invite larger buys but require continuous production and upgrades.
• Congress will weigh recurring costs against other priorities: submarines, surface combatants, and aircraft sustainment.
• Advocates: CCAs hedge against attrition in high-end fights.
• Skeptics: concerns about reliability and relying on autonomy at sea.
• Expect hearings and reports as the program transitions from concept to deck.

Autonomy as a tool, not the end goal

Capt. Ron Flanders emphasizes that autonomy should:

• Help crews make better choices faster.
• Keep pilots out of harm’s way for repetitive or dangerous tasks.
• Enable mixed formations to operate in complex air defense zones and change plans mid-mission.

The common control system must make complex coordination feel simple to pilots and carrier command teams.

Practical sustainment and upgrade philosophy

• Open architecture prevents vendor choices from constraining the fleet for decades.
• New sensors or weapons should integrate with minimal changes.
• Replacement processes must be fast to replenish expendable CCAs: order, build, field, repeat.

If the open-model works, upgrades shrink from years to months.

Measuring success at sea

For deployed sailors, success metrics are straightforward:

• Does the CCA launch on schedule and land when called?
• Does it carry the promised payload and pass clean data to the strike group?
• Can maintenance crews return it to flight quickly?
• If a CCA is lost, does the mission continue with the remaining mix?

Design and testing aim to ensure a positive answer even in rough weather and high-risk scenarios.

The road ahead and public information

Officials stress the CCA remains a Navy program tailored to carriers; the sea will determine what works on deck and what can be sustained for months.

For official updates and program news, see the U.S. Navy website, which posts statements, backgrounders, and media releases from leadership and program offices. Industry contacts for Anduril, Boeing, General Atomics, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin will continue to publish company perspectives on meeting the CCA’s carrier-based requirements and integrating with Lockheed Martin’s common control architecture.

If the plan holds, sailors aboard carriers in the late 2020s could see mixed flights of manned jets and CCAs cycling through launch and recovery—some CCAs returning for re-use, others sent on high-risk missions to protect the strike group. That would mark a practical step toward sixth-generation air combat for the United States, with carrier air wings reshaped by a new kind of teammate: an autonomous aircraft designed from the keel up to work from the sea. 🇺🇸