I always thought this was an interesting but odd program. Good for learning things but seemingly going nowhere. I think the last picture of a demonstrator used in parts of this program I saw was using string to restrain the wing against upbend. I believe there is/was a strong drive for additive manufacturing for projects like this.
We definitely should investigate where additive manufacturing can fit in the defence space, and I would say it's a part of rapid smart assembly, but, my experience suggests it is not in major airframe components and aerodynamic surfaces. The effort here should be spent in other directions. We only find out by doing in some cases, but I don't think anyone needed to here - a good industry day/workshop involving airframe stress engineers and AM people willing to be honest would have got most of the points across.
The 'issue' with loyal wingmen is that they are supposed to be relatively expendable. That suggests relatively cheap, easy to make and simple airframes that you really don't care if it makes it back or not. Then you put the expensive bits in, and suddenly you want it back, maybe because you can't make the expensive bits locally (electronics....), maybe because the expensive bits contain a lot of sensitive info (ai...) or maybe because an accountant said: 'that cost 5mil, you signed for it, you break it, you bought it (side thought, who signs out on an F700 of an uncrewed combat aircraft? The guy who directs 3 or more of them in the air? Some new authoriser role on a new format squadron or a mission commander somewhere nowhere near the units?).
Then you have to get your flock to where you want it to be. The flock is now required to have the same kind of range and/or endurance as a crewed aircraft. Could refuel them on the way. Costs money in systems and support to do that. So you might want to carry your flock to its launch point. This makes them smaller = cheaper. Means you need a larger aircraft (you have them, presumably they're quite busy supplying the war...). These smaller uncrewed vehicles can be sent on their way to do their job independent of other elements of a strike and then return to be retrieved by the mothership (already demonstrated - can be done).
Of a few Loyal Wingmen -esque projects, DARPA LongShot is an example of where my thinking got me. You're gonna need a design that can carry at least 2 AMRAAMs or their successor (potentially more of the successor) that can quickly get down range of a strike or sweep and start upsetting large groups of enemy aircraft. Then we need to go back to looking at how we deal with all sorts of questions around a missile carrier loyal wingman (do you really want to retrieve a drone that contains a couple of air-to-air missiles?!!, can you use the missile avionics to control your drone? should you?!). The picture of a LongShot concept shows Pylon mounting rings/shackles, so this is likely an external load on an aircraft (F22 or F-15 variant). Potentially could be dropped out the back of a large ramp equipped aircraft that has a beam crane.
https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2021-02-08
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...ongshot-drone/
In my opinion, the Boeing Ghost Bat and Kratos XQ-58 Loyal Wingmen are a slightly different kettle of fish to small light weight truly expendable drones (which is what LANCA seemed to be, to me). The Boeing design is definitely going all the way with the package, going up threat, doing what it does, and then trying to make it home. The MQ-25 will be very successful, and seems to be getting very positive write-ups. Refuelling, as I suspected early on, is the tip of the iceberg for the MQ-25.