The U.S. Air Force is sharpening its thinking around a successor to the MQ-9 Reaper, with senior leadership emphasizing modularity, open architecture, and cost-driven scalability as defining features of the future platform. The concept—informally referred to as “MQ-9 Next”—is still in early formulation, but it is increasingly shaped by operational experience in recent conflicts and by broader Pentagon efforts to rethink how uncrewed systems are designed, produced, and upgraded.
Speaking during a virtual discussion hosted by the Air & Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, John Lamontagne described modularity as a central design requirement under consideration for the MQ-9 replacement. His remarks came in response to questions about the Reaper’s performance in recent combat operations involving Iran-linked threats, where MQ-9s have played a significant role but have also suffered notable losses.
Lamontagne said future capability should resemble a more adaptable evolution of the Reaper, but with substantially greater flexibility in how it is configured and sustained.
“As we look forward in having something that is more MQ-9-like—I would characterize it as ‘MQ-9 Next’—I think what we’d like to have is something that’s perhaps got more range, perhaps a lot more modularity,” he said. “We could hang ISR sensors, we could hang weapons, we could hang fuel—something that we could line-in/line-out, very modular.”
That modularity, he stressed, would not be limited to physical payloads. It would extend into software architecture, enabling rapid updates and mission tailoring without extensive re-engineering cycles. Lamontagne compared the desired model to a consumer electronics ecosystem, where capability evolves through software iteration rather than fixed hardware upgrades.
“We own it, we control it, and we can also change it very quickly,” he said. “It’s almost like an iPhone.”
The analogy reflects a broader institutional shift in U.S. defense acquisition thinking: platforms are increasingly expected to function as adaptable systems of systems rather than fixed-purpose airframes.
A major driver behind this modular approach is the Pentagon’s growing emphasis on software ownership and intellectual property control. Over the past several years, the Department of Defense has prioritized breaking dependency on proprietary vendor ecosystems that can lock the military into long-term sustainment constraints.
In practice, this means designing aircraft that use open architectures and government-controlled interfaces, allowing multiple vendors to compete for upgrades, payload integration, and lifecycle support. This approach is intended to reduce costs, diversify supply chains, and improve resilience in production scaling.
For MQ-9 Next, this could mean rapid switching between mission sets—intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), strike, or hybrid configurations—without requiring platform redesigns or long acquisition delays.
“It very much feeds into modularity,” Lamontagne noted, emphasizing that flexibility in both hardware and software would allow operators to adapt mission sets dynamically depending on operational demand.
The MQ-9 Next concept is also being shaped by an evolving operational doctrine centered on “attritable” systems—platforms that are affordable enough to be risked in high-threat environments where losses are expected, but still capable enough to deliver meaningful mission effects.
That term has increasingly appeared in Air Force discussions of future unmanned systems, including testimony from Christopher Niemi, who has described the next MQ-9 replacement as a more flexible system designed for mass production and high-risk employment.
The idea marks a departure from earlier Reaper-era assumptions, where endurance and persistence were prioritized over survivability in heavily contested environments. Instead, MQ-9 Next is being considered within a framework that accepts potential attrition as part of operational reality.
The concept aligns closely with lessons drawn from recent operations in the Middle East, where MQ-9s have been heavily employed against Iran-aligned Houthi forces in Yemen and in broader regional escalation dynamics involving Iranian-linked systems. Those missions have highlighted both the platform’s utility and its vulnerability in increasingly sophisticated air defense environments.
MQ-9 Next is also being developed in parallel with the Air Force’s broader push into autonomous teaming under the Collaborative Combat Aircraft initiative. That program envisions semi-autonomous or fully autonomous drones operating alongside crewed fighters, acting as “loyal wingmen” capable of carrying sensors, weapons, or electronic warfare payloads.
Lamontagne explicitly linked MQ-9 Next to this broader ecosystem, arguing that operational experience is validating the direction of travel.
“Collaborative Combat Aircraft, different [from MQ-9], much more autonomous,” he said, “but still controlled by a man or a woman, and a fighter that is going to direct them to do what they need to do.”
He described CCAs as reducing manpower intensity while expanding operational reach, both in the air and on the ground. In his view, MQ-9 Next would complement this architecture by providing a more flexible, modular platform optimized for a wide range of ISR and strike tasks rather than high-end autonomous teaming alone.
Despite growing conceptual clarity, Air Force officials acknowledge that MQ-9 Next requirements remain less mature than parallel efforts such as CCAs. Lamontagne described the program as still being shaped by internal analysis within Air Force Futures organizations.
“We’re just going through some early work,” he said, “to figure out exactly how we want to tackle that going forward.”
That uncertainty reflects the complexity of replacing a platform as widely used and operationally central as the MQ-9 Reaper. The aircraft has become a cornerstone of U.S. medium-altitude ISR and strike operations over two decades of sustained global deployment.
The Air Force has previously attempted multiple times to define a Reaper successor without successfully fielding a replacement. Each effort has been shaped by changing threat assessments, budget constraints, and evolving technology maturity.
Today’s environment is also markedly different from earlier attempts. The industrial base for uncrewed systems has expanded beyond traditional defense primes such as Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, with a growing number of smaller firms emphasizing rapid production scaling and lower unit costs.
At the same time, established contractors continue to evolve their offerings. Industry observers note that major defense firms are increasingly moving away from “exquisite,” high-cost unmanned systems toward more modular, scalable designs that align more closely with Air Force expectations for MQ-9 Next.
The current MQ-9 family remains central to U.S. operations, but its production lineage is evolving. The original MQ-9 Reaper is no longer in production, while manufacturer General Atomics has transitioned its focus toward the more advanced MQ-9B, which incorporates significant design differences and upgraded capabilities.
Any new procurement of MQ-9-family aircraft would therefore likely involve MQ-9B integration into existing production lines rather than continuation of legacy Reaper manufacturing.
General Atomics has also expressed skepticism toward aspects of the Air Force’s evolving requirements. Company representatives have argued that discussions around “disposable” or highly attritable aircraft risk underestimating the complexity of real-world operational environments, including weather, weapons integration, and survivability upgrades already incorporated into existing platforms.
The tension highlights a broader debate between industry and the Air Force over how much capability can be traded for cost, scalability, and attrition tolerance.
A central challenge for MQ-9 Next will be operating in contested environments characterized by advanced anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) systems, particularly those anticipated in potential high-end conflicts in the Indo-Pacific.
Previous studies of MQ-9 replacement concepts emphasized low observability as a requirement. However, current thinking appears to be balancing stealth considerations against affordability and mass production goals. While reduced observability may still be incorporated, it is likely to be less dominant than in earlier design studies.
This reflects a broader doctrinal shift: rather than relying on a small number of highly survivable platforms, the Air Force appears increasingly interested in fielding larger numbers of lower-cost systems that can be risked in contested airspace.
Recent operational experience has added urgency to the MQ-9 Next discussion. The Air Force has acknowledged the loss of dozens of MQ-9 aircraft over the past year in operations related to Houthi attacks in Yemen and broader regional escalation dynamics involving Iran.
While the Reaper remains a highly capable ISR and strike platform, its losses underscore vulnerability in environments where adversaries can deploy layered air defenses and long-range engagement systems.
At the same time, immediate replacement options are limited. The MQ-9A variant is no longer in production, and transitioning entirely to MQ-9B aircraft would require alignment with existing manufacturing schedules at General Atomics, constraining rapid fleet recapitalization.
Despite increasing clarity around desired attributes—modularity, open architecture, affordability, and attritable design—the MQ-9 Next program remains in early conceptual stages. Acquisition strategy, timeline, and final requirements have yet to be formalized.
Lamontagne’s comments suggest a service still balancing operational lessons from current MQ-9 employment with long-term force design goals, particularly the integration of unmanned systems into a broader autonomous combat ecosystem.
“I think we’ve learned a lot of lessons,” he said, referencing both CCAs and MQ-9 Next, “to take us into the future.”
MQ-9 Next remains an evolving idea rather than a program of record. But the direction of travel is increasingly clear: the next generation of medium-altitude drones will likely prioritize modularity, software adaptability, and scalable production over the endurance-focused design philosophy that defined the Reaper era.
