Navy CCA Program’s Shape Coming into Focus

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems has offered some more clues as to what the Navy is seeking for its version of a Collaborative Combat Aircraft, indicating that its “Gambit” concept of modular, interchangeable planforms on a common chassis is the reason it was chosen for a recent Navy development contract.

In an Oct. 17 press statement General Atomics formally announced it has received a Navy contract to develop conceptual designs for a carrier-capable CCA, but did not disclose the value or timeline of the work, nor the date of the contract.

Breaking Defense reported in September that Anduril Industries, Boeing, GA, and Northrop Grumman received Navy CCA concept development contracts, and that Lockheed Martin is working separately on a common control system for the aircraft, but the Navy did not officially acknowledge those awards.

An industry source said the Navy has not made public comments about its CCA efforts because it is waiting for the announcement of a winner in its F/A-XX program, which will affect how it proceeds with the CCA.

A Northrop spokesperson said the company is “partnering with the U.S. Navy to develop conceptual designs” for the service’s CCA needs and will bring its “deep experience in naval aviation and advanced autonomy” to the effort.

“We continue investing in the development of autonomous platforms and technology,” the spokesperson said. “From a software and integration perspective, we created Beacon, an autonomy ecosystem for partners to test and refine their solutions. From a platform perspective, we have seen impressive results from our investments in reducing production time, processes, and cost of these systems.”

A Boeing spokesperson deferred any comment to the Navy, which did not respond to a request for comment.

Anduril and General Atomics are developing CCAs for the Air Force’s “Increment 1” program. A GA spokesperson declined to comment on whether the company’s Navy CCA will be a variant of its Air Force Increment 1 YFQ-42A aircraft, but there are likely to be common elements.

General Atomics’ Navy CCA will emphasize “a modular approach to platform selection, capable of being rapidly configured and upgraded to meet changing mission requirements, including operations on and from aircraft carriers,” the company said in a press release, noting that it “supports the Navy’s revolutionary acquisition strategy of smaller, frequent purchases that enable rapid technology insertion rather than traditional long-lifecycle programs.”

That suggests the Navy is interested in some or all of GA’s “Gambit” concept of CCAs, which features four distinct aircraft platforms optimized for missions such as stealthy intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, strike, and air-to-air combat. Each platform would be based on a single common “chassis” comprised of an engine, landing gear, and autonomy system.

General Atomics announced work on a “Gambit 5,” aimed at ship-based CCA operations, at the 2024 Farnborough Air Show. This fifth Gambit likely includes features the Navy would require, such as an arresting hook and folding wings. The company said it has conducted a number of shipborne experiments with a short takeoff/vertical landing drone called the “Mojave,” which might obviate the need for an arrestor system.

Industry sources have said GA is basing its Navy CCA offering on extensive work done to compete for what became the MQ-25 Stingray autonomous shipborne aerial refueling airplane, now in development by Boeing, and on other unmanned combat air vehicle programs pursued in the last 15 years by both the Air Force and Navy. The GA offering to the Navy is most likely based on the Gambit 2 version, they said, which is optimized for air-to-air operations.

The Navy’s CCA requirement calls for an aircraft capable of both air-to-air and strike missions, unlike the Air Force’s Increment 1, which is focused solely on the air-to-air role. Senior Navy officials have said, however, that their service will follow the Air Force’s lead in developing CCAs and take advantage of as much technology as possible from the USAF effort.

It’s not clear if the Navy version translates to an “Increment 1.5.” The Air Force plans to issue contracts for work on an Increment 2 CCA in the coming months.

Anduril’s Jason Levin, senior vice president of engineering for air dominance and strike, told reporters at AFA’s Air, Space and Cyber symposium in September that the Navy CCA the company is working on won’t be a derivative of the XQF-44 “Fury” Anduril is developing for the Air Force.

“They would not be Fury derivatives, but instead, they would use a lot of capabilities inside Fury, which might be some of the avionics boxes, maybe some of the software,” he said.

Anduril would also leverage the design and manufacturing process from Fury, as well as “mission systems, or design philosophy and design process,” Levin said, reiterating that the Anduril’s Navy CCA would likely “look nothing like a Fury.”

“We’re not going to invent any new physics if we work on this problem,” he said. “We’re going to leverage what’s been done.”

In its statement, GA noted that its Air Force CCA was the first to fly in the Air Force competition, making its inaugural ascent in August. Anduril has said it will fly its CCA in the next few months.

David Alexander, president of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, said the company considers its selection a “vote of confidence.”

“No one has more experience with unmanned combat aircraft, and we’re leveraging that to help the Navy get this capability onto the flight deck fast,” he said in the firm’s press release.

Besides the Predator, Reaper, and Gray Eagle series of remotely piloted aircraft, General Atomics is also developing the XQ-67A Off-Board Sensing Station (OBSS) and the MQ-20 Avenger, with which the Air Force has experimented in recent years.

“The Navy’s CCA design will emphasize seamless coordination among manned fighters, uncrewed vehicles and support platforms,” GA said in its statement, adding that the platform will “accommodate elevated risk profiles and reduce risk to crewed platforms; support and enhance 4^th– and 5^th-generation aircraft and complement 6^th-generation aircraft; and maximize operational flexibility, cost efficiency and mission effectiveness.”

The Navy hasn’t indicated when it will start talking publicly about its CCA. Although an F/A-XX contract has been considered imminent for several weeks, no announcement has been made. Boeing and Northrop are the contenders for the advanced Navy fighter.

After official word in May that tPentagon leadership planned to table F/A-XX indefinitely—out of concern that there isn’t enough engineering manpower or funding available to properly develop both the Air Force F-47 Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter and the Navy advanced jet—Secretary Pete Hegseth decided in October to move forward with the program, according to Reuters. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s draft of fiscal 2026 defense spending legislation proposes $1.4 billion for F/A-XX.