Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Takao]

According to this blogger the MQ-28 does infact have an internal weapons bay with the claim that the planned missile launch will in fact be released from an internal weapons bay.

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2025/04/uninhabited-integration-the-internal-carriage-challenge/

The MQ-28A doesn't have an internal bay. It's fairly easy to confirm.

MQ-28 Ghost Bat Is Of “Strong Interest” To The U.S. Navy

The Navy is involved in testing of Australia’s MQ-28, and the drone could be well placed to capitalize on the service’s emerging CCA program. The Navy is involved in testing of Australia’s MQ-28, and the drone could be well placed to capitalize on the service’s emerging CCA program.

www.twz.com

 

[MARKMILES77]

The MQ-28A doesn't have an internal bay. It's fairly easy to confirm.

A 3D Model maker on Thingiverse had an image of what one could look like (I think it is taken down now).
Gives you an idea of the possible size of a weapons bay. Probably just big enough for AIM-120.

 

[Reptilia]

A 3D Model maker on Thingiverse had an image of what one could look like (I think it is taken down now).
Gives you an idea of the possible size of a weapons bay. Probably just big enough for AIM-120.

View attachment 53110

Also images out there with no tail fins and different wing shape, maybe with swivelable wingtips?
trying to find it…

 

[hauritz]

The MQ-28A doesn't have an internal bay. It's fairly easy to confirm.

MQ-28 Ghost Bat Is Of “Strong Interest” To The U.S. Navy

The Navy is involved in testing of Australia’s MQ-28, and the drone could be well placed to capitalize on the service’s emerging CCA program. The Navy is involved in testing of Australia’s MQ-28, and the drone could be well placed to capitalize on the service’s emerging CCA program.

www.twz.com

Boeing seems to be indicating that it will be the Block 2 MQ-28 that will be used for the missile firing. The Block 1 was intended ias mostly just a test bed for autonomy and AI. Block 2 will be able to survive in a contested environment and will receive some structural changes.

Australia's Ghost Bat eyes live air-to-air weapons test by end of year - Breaking Defense

"We'll definitely look at air-ground in the future, but our focus priority is air-to-air," Steve Parker, Boeing's interim defense chief, told reporters during the Avalon Air Show.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Bob53]

The MQ-28A doesn't have an internal bay. It's fairly easy to confirm.

MQ-28 Ghost Bat Is Of “Strong Interest” To The U.S. Navy

The Navy is involved in testing of Australia’s MQ-28, and the drone could be well placed to capitalize on the service’s emerging CCA program. The Navy is involved in testing of Australia’s MQ-28, and the drone could be well placed to capitalize on the service’s emerging CCA program.

www.twz.com

Boeing themselves said they plan to work on a version with an internal weapons bay Which itself says there is no weapons bay on the current version. Wether thats block 2/3/4 only Boeing knows but unless there is undisclosed developments the first versions had no weapons bay.

 

[SammyC]

Boeing themselves said they plan to work on a version with an internal weapons bay Which itself says there is no weapons bay on the current version. Wether thats block 2/3/4 only Boeing knows but unless there is undisclosed developments the first versions had no weapons bay.

Most of what I have read regarding the gen 2 model currently in construction is that it is the same frame as the gen 1, with improved and militarised systems. That said the contract price for the three gen 2s was $400 million, which is a lot of money.

I note Sen Conroy's words at the time were "This funding boost will enable a focus on developing sensor and mission payloads, an integrated combat system and autonomous systems".

To your point, it's possible that Boeing have their own gen 3 prototype with missile capability being built alongside the gen 2s in secret. They would get to leverage Australian funding for the gen 2 improvements and the AI development above, and invest themselves in a larger airframe, bigger jet engine and a missile interface via their own R&D. This area would be the lower cost component and could probably come from their existing parts bin. What's the diffence in making four airframes rather than three. Perhaps the Government has agreed fund it if it works. Wouldn't be the first time for such an arrangement.

Boeing would be keen to get back in the US colaborative combat drone game and out of the dog house. Given that neither General Atomics nor Anduril are currently fielding a missile capable drone (I view Anduril as akin to a snake oil salesman), they could leapfrog them with an outcome here. Boeing if nothing else has phenominal resourcing.

I should note that the new Boeing Toowoomba drone factory is due to come online in 2027, so there remains two years of prototyping time before the mass production. That gives a lot more time for a few more generation iterations to be developed. I suspect the 2027 version(s) will be distinctly different from the 2025 platform.

 

[Bob53]

For the life of me I cannot believe anyone would build a stealth drone and then hang weapons externally destroying the stealth. There must be a plan that’s not public.

 

[ADMk2]

For the life of me I cannot believe anyone would build a stealth drone and then hang weapons externally destroying the stealth. There must be a plan that’s not public.

It depends largely on what “level” of low observability they are trying to attain. The Super Hornet has various LO features built into it and the US Army has just let a contract for “stealth paint” for their M1A2 Abrams - a platform not usually considered a particularly “stealthy” vehicle…

It may be the case that a pair of missiles (for example) on a stealth platform still provides an acceptably low level of detectability… We already fly the F-35 this way as the mission requires.

US Army tanks to receive stealth coatings and top-attack armor for modern battlefield Survival

US Army tanks to receive stealth coatings and top-attack armor for modern battlefield Survival

armyrecognition.com

.

 

[hauritz]

Boeing themselves said they plan to work on a version with an internal weapons bay Which itself says there is no weapons bay on the current version. Wether thats block 2/3/4 only Boeing knows but unless there is undisclosed developments the first versions had no weapons bay.

Correct, Boeing have confirmed this to anyone willing to listen. Steve Parker, interim president and chief executive for Boeing Defence, Space and Security, has clearly stated at the last Avalon air show that eventually the MQ-28 will integrate an internal weapons bay. This is pretty much from the horses mouth.

FW-MAG Future Warfare Magazine - The MQ-28 GHOST BAT will fire a missile in the coming months

The MQ-28 GHOST BAT will fire a missile in the coming months

www.fw-mag.com

 

[seaspear]

For the Ghost bat to fire a missile what sensor arrangement would it use an I.R.S.T or a radar ,I understand one of the prototypes to have deployed an I.R.S.T arrangement but how large would a radar be in its nose with a practical size and range to engage targets, the radar an-apg81 on a f-35 will be over two hundred kilos for example

 

[MARKMILES77]

The Government has decided to boost the ADF‘s AMRAAM stocks - they are heeding the warnings.

Australia - AIM-120C and AIM-120D Advanced Medium Range Air-

US Approves AIM-120 missiles Sale to Australia to Strengthen Interception Capability

I am assuming the Government announcement Today is referring to this FMS announced by the US in April:

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2025-07-03/albanese-government-enhances-national-security-major-investment-air-defence-aerial-strike

The only thing that goes against it referring to the same purchase is that the dollar amount, mentioned in the Australian press release, is quite different from that announced in the FMS announcement

US $1.04 Billion is only AUD $1.58 Billion not AUD $2.12 Billion as mentioned in Todays announcement. And the Australian dollar has risen in value since the US announcement so the Australian dollar value should have actually fallen not risen by 34% as it seems to have.
Could the price have risen by 34%+ in only a few weeks?
Or could the order be significantly larger than originally announced?

 

[Going Boeing]

For the Ghost bat to fire a missile what sensor arrangement would it use an I.R.S.T or a radar ,I understand one of the prototypes to have deployed an I.R.S.T arrangement but how large would a radar be in its nose with a practical size and range to engage targets, the radar an-apg81 on a f-35 will be over two hundred kilos for example

I understand that F-35’s share target information from a sensor with other aircraft in the formation ie, the fighter that launches the missile may not be the one that switched its radar on. The plans for the Ghost Bat may be for it to carry and launch the missiles using targeting information from the “mother” aircraft, thus avoiding the weight & cost of fitting sensors to the loyal wingman.

 

[seaspear]

I understood the missiles that were launched could be guided by any such sensor but if the aircraft directing its sensor was diverted away by incoming missiles those launched missiles would lose their targeting

 

[ADMk2]

I am assuming the Government announcement Today is referring to this FMS announced by the US in April:
View attachment 53134

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2025-07-03/albanese-government-enhances-national-security-major-investment-air-defence-aerial-strike

The only thing that goes against it referring to the same purchase is that the dollar amount, mentioned in the Australian press release, is quite different from that announced in the FMS announcement
View attachment 53135
US $1.04 Billion is only AUD $1.58 Billion not AUD $2.12 Billion as mentioned in Todays announcement. And the Australian dollar has risen in value since the US announcement so the Australian dollar value should have actually fallen not risen by 34% as it seems to have.
Could the price have risen by 34%+ in only a few weeks?
Or could the order be significantly larger than originally announced?

Why would you assume that the price in an FMS announcement is all that needs to be spent to introduce expanded capability?

Explosive ordnance requires explosive ordnance storage and distribution. Ordnance requires test and sustainment and training systems and the more complex the weapon, the higher level of technical support they require.

The new weapons may also have integration costs to go onto the platforms intended to employ them.

The FMS price is simply the start of the cost in reality…