U.S. Navy and Industry Push Carrier-Based Unmanned Combat Aircrafts Toward Deployment.

The U.S. Navy is moving closer to fielding an armed, carrier-capable unmanned combat aircraft as General Atomics and Anduril outline competing visions for its Collaborative Combat Aircraft program. The effort matters because it could reshape carrier air wings by extending range, boosting survivability, and easing pressure on manned fighters as threats grow more complex.

The U.S. Navy’s push to put an armed, carrier-capable unmanned combat aircraft on the flight deck is sharpening into a real contest, as General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. and Anduril Industries used the Singapore Air Show to preview early thinking for the service’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Their message was consistent: the Navy’s version will not be a simple derivative of the Air Force effort, but a purpose-built design shaped by catapult launches, arrested recoveries, deck-spotting constraints, and the unforgiving math of wartime attrition, all while operating as a combat multiplier alongside the F-35C and F/A-18E/F.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

A carrier-capable unmanned combat jet designed to launch and recover from carriers, then team with F-35C and Super Hornets to extend range, add sensors and jamming, and carry extra weapons for air defense or strike using task-based autonomy with human control and lethal actions (Picture source: U.S. DoW).

The Navy’s CCA push has moved from PowerPoint ambition to funded design work. The service has already placed General Atomics, Boeing, Anduril, and Northrop Grumman under contract for conceptual design, while Lockheed Martin has been selected to build a common control system intended to standardize how sailors and aviators command multiple uncrewed jets across platforms and missions. The Navy’s own language is revealing, emphasizing “uncrewed, modular, interoperable, interchangeable and versatile platforms” that must fit inside a carrier air wing struggling with range, survivability, and delays to next-generation manned fighters.

What makes the Navy’s CCA operationally disruptive is not simply that it is uncrewed, but that it is being engineered into manned-unmanned tactics from the outset. In late 2025, the Navy demonstrated autonomous teaming in a Live Virtual Constructive environment using BQM-177A targets controlled with Shield AI autonomy software, rehearsing the logic of uncrewed aircraft holding combat air patrol sectors under the direction of a manned mission commander. Soon after, the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division used the Joint Simulation Environment to put F-35 pilots “on the loop,” controlling multiple CCAs through tablet-style interfaces during simulated missions that included precision-guided missile employment. These events quietly validated the human-machine workflows that will define carrier air combat in the 2030s.

From a technical standpoint, a carrier-based unmanned combat aircraft is fundamentally different from an Air Force loyal wingman. Carrier suitability drives reinforced structures, robust landing gear, corrosion protection, precise approach control in disturbed ship air, and safe deck handling in extremely constrained spaces. Any viable Navy CCA must also withstand electromagnetic or steam catapult loads and arrested landings while minimizing its footprint through wing folding or compact planforms. These engineering realities shape tactics. Smaller, modular aircraft support higher sortie rates and rapid mission reconfiguration, while larger and more survivable designs favor penetrating strike and long-endurance sensing at the cost of deck density and risk tolerance.

General Atomics is positioning modularity and producibility as its core advantages. The company is advocating a Navy CCA built around rapid reconfiguration and frequent technology refresh rather than decades-long sustainment models. Its Gambit family concept centers on a common core architecture that can represent roughly 70 percent of aircraft cost across variants, enabling different engines, wings, and fuselages to be swapped to tailor range, speed, payload, or signature characteristics. Beyond airframes, General Atomics brings experience in producing uncrewed aircraft at scale and integrating Navy-relevant control systems, including demonstrations where Navy ground stations exercised command of GA aircraft over resilient beyond-line-of-sight networks using autonomous mission software.

Anduril’s differentiator is speed driven by software. Company leadership has made clear it will not simply navalize the Air Force’s YFQ-44A Fury, which is not carrier-capable, but will reuse components, avionics philosophy, and task-based autonomy architecture to accelerate a Navy-specific design. Anduril’s credibility rests on its rapid iteration model demonstrated under the Air Force CCA program, where prototypes advanced quickly enough to receive formal fighter designations. Open details surrounding Fury point to pragmatic engineering choices favoring affordable mass, business-jet-class propulsion, and transonic performance, reflecting a design space where cost, autonomy, and mission relevance outweigh exquisite kinematic performance.

Competition for the Navy CCA is intense. Boeing retains an advantage in carrier integration through MQ-25 Stingray, which is already pioneering autonomous deck operations and manned-unmanned teaming while extending the carrier air wing’s reach through aerial refueling. Northrop Grumman, meanwhile, draws on the legacy of X-47B, which proved autonomous carrier launch and recovery more than a decade ago, and is now investing in open autonomy ecosystems designed to invite third-party payloads and software. Against that backdrop, General Atomics’ modular production model and Anduril’s software-centric tempo will be weighed against Boeing’s carrier operations pedigree and Northrop’s stealth and UCAV heritage. Ultimately, the Navy’s unresolved balance between expendability and survivability is likely to decide which vision defines the future of carrier-based unmanned combat aviation.

Written by Evan Lerouvillois, Defense Analyst.

Evan studied International Relations, and quickly specialized in defense and security. He is particularly interested in the influence of the defense sector on global geopolitics, and analyzes how technological innovations in defense, arms export contracts, and military strategies influence the international geopolitical scene.