I wrote a rant a while ago about how the Russian invasion of Ukraine has developed into a very different war with drones of various types forming a huge part of the Ukrainian arsenal. This was by way of introduction to a story about the development of unmanned underwater vehicles, one of which will be entering service with the Royal Australian Navy in early 20261.

A few days after I had written that I came across another ghost. This time it is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) called Ghost Bat which is to enter service with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) soon. The RAAF states that the UAV “is a pathfinder for the integration of autonomous systems and artificial intelligence to create smart human-machine teams”2.

Ghost Bat is the result of a collaboration between the RAAF and Boeing Australia and in June 2025, it completed a series of demonstrations validating the operational capabilities of the MQ-28 Ghost Bat, as an “uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft”3.

The Ghost Bat is just under 12 metres long and will have a range of more than 3,700 kilometres and has been designed to fly as “a partner” with RAAF crewed aircraft. It enables the RAAF to investigate factors such as the level of autonomy, the use of artificial intelligence, and integration of “human-machine teaming concepts”2,3

More than 35 Australian companies have contributed to the Ghost Bat program and it is the first combat aircraft to be designed, engineered and manufactured in Australia since the development of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) Boomerang2.

The Boomerang was a single seat fighter/army cooperation aircraft built in response to Australia’s urgent need for fighter aircraft in 1942. It utilised the design principles and construction techniques of the CAC Wirraway advanced trainer, which was already in production. Such was the speed of the Boomerang’s development that no actual prototype was produced. The first five production aircraft were already under construction before the first aircraft flew. From the time of official government approval to proceed with the Boomerang production, to the time of the first official flight was a little over sixteen weeks, a remarkable achievement by any standard. The Boomerang still remains to this day the only fully Australian designed and built fighter aircraft to see production, with 250 being produced between 1942 to 19454. There could have been more Australian designed and produced fighter aircraft subsequently, but political interference made certain that this did not happen.

In 1949, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) began assessing replacements for its locally-built Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) Mustangs, Gloster Meteors and De Havilland Australia (DHA) Vampires. A series of designs were considered, including the Grumman Panther and an unconventional, twin-jet all-weather fighter: the CAC CA-23. On the basis of the CAC track record during the war, and a detailed proposal, the Department of Defence Production granted funds to develop the CAC CA-23 concept.

The CAC CA-23 delta wing design concept was a two-seat all-weather fighter with a low set tail. The final version was designed to be powered by two Rolls-Royce Avon turbojet engines. The aircraft was to be fitted with the most up to date radar and electronic equipment. Its anticipated performance was to be in the region of Mach 1.5 which would have been much faster than any contemporary aircraft. Dozens of mock-up models were made at different scales, with hundreds of detailed drawings, plus wind tunnel tests proving the delta wing was more than satisfactory5.

The decision to cancel the CAC CA-23 project was controversial. The official reason given for the cancellation for the project was that it had failed to meet key design criteria as an all-weather jet fighter, in failing to incorporate a working radar design into the nose cone. However, it was the election of the Menzies government that brought about a significant policy change. Their new policy arose from the November 1951 British mission to Australia on developing aircraft (Aircraft Development Mission) design and cooperation. In addition to this, they appointed a British officer, Sir James Hardman, as Chief of the Air Staff for the RAAF in January 1952, with supervision of aircraft procurement. Hardman of course deemed that aircraft design costs were prohibitive and advanced aeronautical design work should be centralised and resources pooled with Britain, in Britain. This policy was limited to adapting proven aircraft for Australian conditions, not starting from scratch. At the same time, negative reports by the U.K. Ministry of Supply were cited about the CA-23, which contained false assumptions and false data comparisons. However, despite this UK subterfuge, the preference for British designed aircraft was subsequently overturned by the following Chief of Air Staff John McCauley, an Australian, who switched to American designed and Australian built aircraft6. As part of this, CAC redesigned the US F86F to take the more powerful, lighter Rolls-Royce Avon jet engine. All this redesign work was undertaken by CAC7. As a kid, I used to see these flying over Newcastle on a regular basis.

Thus ended the ability of Australia to design and build its own fighter aircraft, until now. Meanwhile, Sweden, with a population of about 40% that of Australia’s has been building its own fighter aircraft for many decades, with the latest being the Saab JAS-39 Gripen8. While currently operated by a few air forces around the world, in addition to that of Sweden, it is being reconsidered by several others, who have cancelled their F-35 orders9, in part due to the unreliability of the current US regime.

Sources

  1. https://blotreport.com/2025/09/25/autonomous/
  2. https://www.airforce.gov.au/our-work/projects-and-programs/ghost-bat
  3. https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/boeing-mq-28-ghost-bat-finishes-raaf-trials-four-months-ahead
  4. https://www.airforce.gov.au/community/event-participation/air-force-heritage-aircraft-fleet/ca-13-boomerang
  5. https://www.destinationsjourney.com/historical-military-photographs/cac-ca-23-all-weather-fighter/
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_CA-23
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Sabre
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
  9. https://defensemirror.com/news/40014

One Comment

  • Jon says:

    I read a couple of articles comparing the Gripen with the F35 a few months ago. Wouldn’t normally have taken any notice but our Defence’s reliance on USA products and their ecosystem (supply, parts, training, ongoing improvement, restrictions on use etc) is a strategic nightmare in the current environment. So it’s been quite heartening to see that quietly both navy and airforce have been working on high-end local projects.
    Iirc Gripen isn’t quite as good on tech, speed and range but it scores massively on price, maintenance and on ground resources needed. The other HUGE plus is that you aren’t beholden to a bunch of sociopathic and puerile fools, one of whom (Hesgeth) might accidentally (ignorantly) make your strategic information accessible on a very low security messaging service should you foolishly choose to share such information.

Leave a Reply to Jon Cancel Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Bitnami