UK-Japan-Italy Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) News & Analysis

Ainen said:
Point taken, I for some reason remembered 2+2. Even better this way, shows the point even better.

There was exactly one matching engine in the western world. Can be called Volvo (certainly not) f-119, doesn't change the point all that much...
Click to expand...
Two engines, the F-119 and the F-135 and Volvo did propose a new engine.
 
timmymagic said:
They can try...but they'd need to be allowed into each fighter programmes 'eco-system' to integrate it. And if they're not buying any of the main platform, or involved industrially, why on earth would anyone do that and shoot themselves in the foot? (Japan, Italy and UK will have their own CCA programmes and interests, as will Germany and France).
Click to expand...
All it has to do is have the correct comms protocols.


timmymagic said:
Italy has similar as their ability to intervene in an increasingly militarised North Africa is limited at present. The likes of Algeria getting SU-57, which will inevitably lead to other NA nations going for LO aircraft (looking at you Morocco), probably from China, will also affect their thinking.
Click to expand...
Oh, hell, I had missed that detail!

So yes Italy needs something to compete.


timmymagic said:
In terms of engines though the US has gone down that route but its been very much an afterthought for the likes of F-15 and 16, and a necessity for F-14. The UK used to do something similar (in terms of afterthought) in the 1950's but the last time it happened was the Buccaneer which switched from De Havilland to Rolls Royce. That was very much forced though...Reality is these days we have 1 engine manufacturer and are not going to involve any manufacturer from a non-partner nation. It's worked pretty well from Harrier, through Tornado and Typhoon (although using a multi manufacturer approach has caused issues recently with Safran's components in the Adour on Hawk, that arrangement dates back to the 60's though).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess only the US has 2 separate fighter engine makers left. (In the West!)

Volvo might be able to crank something out comparable to a 3-stream EJ200, but otherwise yall are stuck with EJ. Japan has several companies making turbines under license, but I suspect that their 3-stream data is getting shared with EJ.


timmymagic said:
Doubtful for the numbers we'll be talking about. IF Australia buys GCAP (and its a very big speculative if) the buy would likely be to replace the existing SuperHornet fleet (and perhaps EA-18G). Which is currently a 24+12 aircraft fleet. The F-35A will be their main fighter through to 2060.
Click to expand...
How many F-35s did Germany buy again? 35? but they're still making parts.
 
Defence Minister Guido Crosetto has said Britain is not fully sharing technologies with Italy and Japan in a major project to develop a new fighter jet and urged London to bring down the "barriers of selfishness".
In an interview with Reuters, Crosetto emphasised the importance of the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), which aims to develop by 2035 an aircraft that incorporates the most advanced technologies.
Click to expand...
 
FighterJock said:
That is just daft really, the last time I looked both Italy and Japan were partners for the GCAP/Tempest program quite why the UK are doing this to both countries is just beyond me. :mad:
Click to expand...
There’s no reason why partners on a collaborative project should get free access to each others’ sovereign technologies. That goes for F-35, GCAP or FCAS.

Partner countries can still get the benefit of these technologies, but these should be implemented by each country inside the overall GCAP design… ie. Italy shouldn’t expect some kind of open book and to free ride on a decade plus of UK R&D in stealth, engines etc.

There’s a parallel here with FCAS/NGF, where Dassault says it isn’t learning anything from its German & Spanish partners (as they don’t have much to bring to the table - at least in terms of platform design and stealth), but Airbus D&S is frustrated that they aren’t getting access to Dassault’s proprietary studies and prior R&D.

Of course no one would expect this level of full technology sharing from the US, even as an F-35 partner nation, but it seems like some expect BAE and Dassault to be different from Lockheed Martin.
 
Last edited:
I can imagine Italy using this and the Saudi question as part of an off-ramp to exit the programme and contribute in a commercial basis only. GCAP really doesn't seem to be a good fit for their doctrine and the alternative Euro FCAS seems much more applicable.

Italy is well-stocked with F-35A/B and is probably amongst the most comfortable position of EuroNATO allies at present. They don't need the jump to 6th Gen as urgently as the UK or Japan which rely heavily on 4th Gen.
 
Well, Japan seems to not have such frustrations as of now, at least publicly, and I'd wager that it might be something to do with the recent "controversies" concerning the M-346?

On top of that, Japan and the UK had and has been running concrete technology sharing joint-programmes like the Jaguar, JNAAM, ISANKE, as well as the earlier phase of the engine development (of which for ISANKE and the engine programme Italy is also now part of), unlike Italy where concrete joint framework was more or less an MOU with the UK, so they have a longer history of field-level joint-programmes compared to Italy despite them being in FCASC longer, being part of team Tempest well before Japan decided to join in and form GCAP.
 
Kiltonge said:
I can imagine Italy using this and the Saudi question as part of an off-ramp to exit the programme and contribute in a commercial basis only. GCAP really doesn't seem to be a good fit for their doctrine and the alternative Euro FCAS seems much more applicable.

Italy is well-stocked with F-35A/B and is probably amongst the most comfortable position of EuroNATO allies at present. They don't need the jump to 6th Gen as urgently as the UK or Japan which rely heavily on 4th Gen.
Click to expand...
That would be the opposite direction of they were demanding in prior years, so I'd say not likely.
 
Kiltonge said:
I can imagine Italy using this and the Saudi question as part of an off-ramp to exit the programme and contribute in a commercial basis only. GCAP really doesn't seem to be a good fit for their doctrine and the alternative Euro FCAS seems much more applicable.

Italy is well-stocked with F-35A/B and is probably amongst the most comfortable position of EuroNATO allies at present. They don't need the jump to 6th Gen as urgently as the UK or Japan which rely heavily on 4th Gen.
Click to expand...
i don't belive italy will pull out of the program, it'd be a bit excessive
 
Kiltonge said:
I can imagine Italy using this and the Saudi question as part of an off-ramp to exit the programme and contribute in a commercial basis only. GCAP really doesn't seem to be a good fit for their doctrine and the alternative Euro FCAS seems much more applicable.

Italy is well-stocked with F-35A/B and is probably amongst the most comfortable position of EuroNATO allies at present. They don't need the jump to 6th Gen as urgently as the UK or Japan which rely heavily on 4th Gen.
Click to expand...
That's just not going to happen.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Well, Japan seems to not have such frustrations as of now, at least publicly, and I'd wager that it might be something to do with the recent "controversies" concerning the M-346?
Click to expand...
The article also stated that Japan (like Italy) has allowed nearly complete technology share. So for now this "issue" seems only related to the UK. Then also I think that this "issue" Is not going to slow the project by any mean, as all three air forces want the aircraft ready for 2035. Like the workshare, they'll probably just reach an agreement.
 
Kiltonge said:
I can imagine Italy using this and the Saudi question as part of an off-ramp to exit the programme and contribute in a commercial basis only. GCAP really doesn't seem to be a good fit for their doctrine and the alternative Euro FCAS seems much more applicable.

Italy is well-stocked with F-35A/B and is probably amongst the most comfortable position of EuroNATO allies at present. They don't need the jump to 6th Gen as urgently as the UK or Japan which rely heavily on 4th Gen.
Click to expand...
And also Just because we have F-35 doesn't mean we can't get a 6th gen, since Italy also heavily relies on the Typhoon and Tornado that i would like to remind Italy developed before together with the UK,Germany and Spain, and Is producing with the members, Italy will not leave the program and again the Saudi question Is just business, ironic to me the fact that the British never have issues selling to the Saudis and have done It multiple times even alone, the AMI Always states that GCAP Is a very important program for them, especially now that F-35 Is becoming and issue of political type, Italy needs the plane just as much as the other two partners, if that were not the case they could have joined FCAS at the inception meaning that these "Issues" that are being levied against Italy are just fabbrications and not real considerations, please keep your personal opinions but have respect for a partner nation, unless you want to read the UK gov document that states the entire program and especially the part where It Is stated very clearly that all members must do technology sharing, the Japanese agreed,the Italians agreed and the British agreed too, don't twist the articles sent to fit an ideology thanks
 
Last edited:
The reporting of Italian complaints is noticeably lacking in detail as to where the issue is. So the questions are really:
1) what do the Italians think they're being excluded from?
2) what do the contracts say?

Italy has an independent aircraft and avionics design capability, so what parts of the system are left where they may feel excluded?

Radar may be in an interesting position given it's presumably Leonardo UK, a next generation drawing on ECRS Mk2, and ultimately developed from a UK tech-base inherited from Marconi, so may have sovereign elements.

Stealth is an obvious possibility, with both the UK and Japan having prominent programmes, which Italy notably doesn't.

CCA/loyal wingmen is another possibility - there's nothing out there with a 2,200km+ combat radius, so that means a dedicated development, but that's straying into separate project territory.

But a year ago Leonardo's boss was complaining about a lack of transparency over how the UK was contributing to the System of Systems. I doubt it's the architecture, everyone has to be able to plug into that, but I wonder if it's sensor fusion, and maybe cyber. And I'm not altogether convinced it isn't in everyone's interest to keep that as tightly held as possible.
 
DWG said:
The reporting of Italian complaints is noticeably lacking in detail as to where the issue is. So the questions are really:
1) what do the Italians think they're being excluded from?
2) what do the contracts say?
Click to expand...

Exactly. I would love to understand the details of how GCAP (and FCAS) handle technology sharing. There's a range of possible partnership approaches:

1. Co-development (with no technology sharing), e.g. for the engine one partner develops the hot section, another the cold section, another develops the FADEC software etc

2. Co-development with data rights, i.e. each partner gets access to the final design and has the right to branch off with their own national modifications, but that doesn't mean you share everything. For example maybe some of the critical know-how, R&D tools, materials technology etc remain proprietary "national assets". (e.g. UK as a Tier 1 partner in F-35)

3. Co-development with partial technology transfer (typically via licenses), i.e. each partner agrees to share specific technologies. These can be technologies that will be developed under the partnership, or from pre-existing national R&D programs. Each technology is given a monetary value and counts towards that country's contribution in the partnership. That said there may still be some caveats on how other countries can use each technology, royalties that must be paid etc e.g. If Rolls Royce agrees to share variable cycle engine technology with MTU and IHI.

4. Co-development with full technology sharing. This would be a full "open book" where each partner shares all the technology they develop under the program, and perhaps also technology from prior R&D programs. e.g. If BAE shares everything it knows about advanced fluidic controls from Tempest, Taranis etc.

Option #4 is the least likely if one partner is significantly ahead of the others. I would wager that most US programs fall between #1 and #2, and most European programs between #2 and #3, and almost no programs fall under #4.
 
Last edited:
@H_K Likely all of those varying by subsystem in practice.

For 4 then do you actually mean joint intellectual property?
 
red admiral said:
For 4 then do you actually mean joint intellectual property?
Click to expand...
I guess so. Though I see full technology transparency as exceedingly unlikely in practice... this probably would only apply in situations where the partners jointly develop a technology, with equal contributions and no prior work, under the auspices of a consortium or JV that would then hold the IP rights.
 
H_K said:
Though I see full technology transparency as exceedingly unlikely in practice
Click to expand...
Eurofighter is a good example of this in practice, via the separate JVs. But this is sharing of the technology IP for a specific created product as foreground under that contract. It's not carte blanche sharing of all company IP across everything.
 
red admiral said:
@H_K Likely all of those varying by subsystem in practice.

For 4 then do you actually mean joint intellectual property?
Click to expand...
red admiral said:
Eurofighter is a good example of this in practice, via the separate JVs. But this is sharing of the technology IP for a specific created product as foreground under that contract. It's not carte blanche sharing of all company IP across everything.
Click to expand...
I think creating JVs/governing bodies where the proprietary technology developed for/from a programme is owned and controlled by isn't all that uncommon, and is in a sense a "joint intellectual property" even if the underlying technologies itself are not shared to its fullest extent.

That being said, I wonder if what the Italians are expecting are beyond the Eurofighter-esque approach? For what I know, ECRS mk.2 for example is designed in Edinburgh in its core, but there were other significant inputs from the Italian side of Leonardo, too. I have expected a similar scheme for GCAP subsystems Co-development as well.

Though as pointed out earlier in this thread, Italy lags behind when it comes to research and demonstration of 5th gen systems in general, and especially in certain subsytems like the engine, so I wouldn't be surprised that in the earlier stage of the programme, technical input from the Italian side might be rather limited due to lack of such prior stepping stones. Maybe they want a more lax technology sharing to be in place so that they coukd get up to speed?
 
www.nikkei.com

5月の日英伊防衛相会談、中止に　3カ国の日程調整つかず - 日本経済新聞

次期戦闘機を共同開発する日本、英国、イタリアが5月上旬に予定していた3カ国の防衛相会談が見送りになった。防衛省幹部によると参加国の日程調整がつかなくな
www.nikkei.com www.nikkei.com

The Saudi defence minister's visit to Japan scheduled for late April has been cancelled.
The trilateral defence ministers' meeting between Japan, UK and Italy scheduled for early May has also been cancelled.

The reason is unknown.
 
Ares said:
www.nikkei.com

5月の日英伊防衛相会談、中止に　3カ国の日程調整つかず - 日本経済新聞

次期戦闘機を共同開発する日本、英国、イタリアが5月上旬に予定していた3カ国の防衛相会談が見送りになった。防衛省幹部によると参加国の日程調整がつかなくな
www.nikkei.com www.nikkei.com

The Saudi defence minister's visit to Japan scheduled for late April has been cancelled.
The trilateral defence ministers' meeting between Japan, UK and Italy scheduled for early May has also been cancelled.

The reason is unknown.
Click to expand...

Possibly related? Particularly if there's a chance of F-35s.

 
DWG said:
The reporting of Italian complaints is noticeably lacking in detail as to where the issue is. So the questions are really:
1) what do the Italians think they're being excluded from?
2) what do the contracts say?
Click to expand...
I think the biggest smoking gun is that Italy hasn't actually accused the UK of violating any agreements or contracts. The moment they delve into specifics is the moment the UK can point to the contracts and prove them wrong. Until they actually make some kind of actual claim past "sharing is caring" then I just can't take it seriously especially as Maro.Kyo pointed out that Japan has multiple pre-GCAP programs with the UK that didn't pull any complaints from the Japanese side.

It is also entirely possible that information is being shared at an equal exchange and it just comes down to Italy being the least experienced of the 3. What if Italy just doesn't have exclusive tech that is valuable enough to the UK to warrant an equivalent exchange for what Italy wants.

This is all speculation, but until Italy makes some serious claims through official avenues, it's just pointless whining to the tabloids.
 
Broken said:
Possibly related? Particularly if there's a chance of F-35s.

Click to expand...
That'd certainly help explain things, even if they'd never be the 'best' the Saudis could get (compared to GCAP and other 6th gens, at least) they'd still be one of the most capable air fleets in the Middle East, and more than capable of overmatching Iran's air force, barring them acquiring every Su-57 that'd ever be built.
 
Entire thread worth a read...podcast link as well.

Looking for double F-35A payload (so c36,000lbs) and in terms of range crossing the Atlantic on internal fuel only (doesn't make it clear if thats with a payload, but it seems to be implied). Thats a minimum of 2,300 miles (Cornwall to Newfoundland), but likely longer in comparison to F-35A's max range on internal fuel which is around 1,500nm (I'm assuming thats without payload, or just some Amraam).

EDIT: There is the possibility (although it doesn't appear to be phrased that way) that double the payload of F-35A is referring to internal payload. F-35A internal payload is 5,700lbs max (each bay is 2,500lbs, with 350lbs on each bay door). So double the F-35A internal payload could mean c10,000lbs. Either way its big...

Not sure I entirely agree with the cargo aircraft point....Rapid Dragon has a lot to be said about it, and RAF studied missile laden pallets from Cargo Aircraft back in the FOAS studies days...there's a lot to recommend it, particularly on Day One style operations to deliver mass of strikes or decoys far from home.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915701982792208823
View: https://x.com/shashj/status/1915701982792208823
 
Last edited:
That's an extremely good point, and I think an oft-ignored concern about modern jets, which has made me ponder the economic viability and dominance of the air forces of the future. It might very well-be possible (and demonstrated in Ukraine) that these extremely sophisticated platforms have become unable to economically deliver payload to the enemy. This might be due to the sheer technological complexity needed for operating in a modern environment, or the wrong preconceptions of aircraft designers of what is required to actually win a war. Thus due to sheer economics, airpower might not be the dominant force on the battlefield it once was, for whatever reason I'm not interested in exploring in this post.
If we consider the cost of aircraft and their payloads, in todays dollars.

AircraftPayload(lbs)Cost in 2025 $Cost/lbs
B-292000011m$550
F-4 Phantom II1800024m$1300
F-15E23000100m$4300
F-228000200m$25000

While the comparison is not entirely fair, the raw physical reality cannot be ignored.
I think the case can be made that the 5th gen represents an extreme low point of combat effectiveness, in exchange for boutique capabilities, and the 6th gen's chief priority needs to be reducing Cost/lbs.
 
Elysium said:
That's an extremely good point, and I think an oft-ignored concern about modern jets, which has made me ponder the economic viability and dominance of the air forces of the future. It might very well-be possible (and demonstrated in Ukraine) that these extremely sophisticated platforms have become unable to economically deliver payload to the enemy. This might be due to the sheer technological complexity needed for operating in a modern environment, or the wrong preconceptions of aircraft designers of what is required to actually win a war. Thus due to sheer economics, airpower might not be the dominant force on the battlefield it once was, for whatever reason I'm not interested in exploring in this post.
If we consider the cost of aircraft and their payloads, in todays dollars.

AircraftPayload(lbs)Cost in 2025 $Cost/lbs
B-292000011m$550
F-4 Phantom II1800024m$1300
F-15E23000100m$4300
F-228000200m$25000

While the comparison is not entirely fair, the raw physical reality cannot be ignored.
I think the case can be made that the 5th gen represents an extreme low point of combat effectiveness, in exchange for boutique capabilities, and the 6th gen's chief priority needs to be reducing Cost/lbs.
Click to expand...

You'd need to be factoring in the effectiveness of the payload as well though. An F-15E could deliver far more damage to an enemy than an entire squadron of B-29 due to its precision munitions.
 
True, that's why I said this is a very rough analysis, but it might be possible, to tack on those smart munitions to an aircraft far cheaper than the F-15, and since all the smarts (GPS guidance, sensors etc.) live in the payload, not the plane, even the F-15s costs are far in excess of the optimum cost/lbs. 5th gen is just hair-raising.
 
Elysium said:
and since all the smarts (GPS guidance, sensors etc.) live in the payload, not the plane,
Click to expand...

That's the complete opposite of what the GCAP nations have concluded. Pushing deep into hostile territory, beyond UHF datalinks, networked with a sqn of UCAVs, sixth-gen aircraft will have to have vast amounts of computing power to process the torrent of incoming sensor data. The smart part of munitions is only useful once all that data has been processed and for timeliness that will have to happen onboard, not back in home nation.

Doctrinally it also means a delegation of targetting authority to far-forward autonomous units, but that is something most NATO-aligned nations practice to some extent.

Now maybe that means a B-21 style platform would be better for some tasks; to some degree it does sound like the original B-2 mission of hunting SS-20s far behind the FLOT. but the GCAP still sees a need for high kinematic performance as well.

For that mission I'm surprised that GCAP is single-crew, surely a second pair of hands and eyes would be a boon.
 
Last edited:
For that mission I'm surprised that GCAP is single-crew, surely a second pair of hands and eyes would be a boon.
Click to expand...

I think that point was kind of addressed in the latest podcast from the RAF on GCAP where one of the speakers describes the person in the cockpit as more of a WSO than a traditional pilot.

If that statement is accurate then some level of autonomous flying (beyond simple auto-pilot) might be used whilst the pilot commands a small fleet of UCAVs.
 
Yeah, it's really becoming very apparent that 6th gen is all about information processing with less of a focus on the actual platform itself. Where something like the B-21 will focus on tactical deep strikes, it can still perform aerial warfare and hold AAMs. Meanwhile GCAP will focus on aerial warfare, but still be able to conduct tactical deep strikes. Of course both platforms are specialized for their main tasks, but the roles of aerial combatants will slowly just blend together to the point where most nations can likely just run a 2 platform Hi-Lo and just specialize UCAVs to whatever mission profile is needed while the 6th gen plays a less direct role and is more of a AEW&C that carries it's own weapons.
 
Deepstuck said:
I think that point was kind of addressed in the latest podcast from the RAF on GCAP where one of the speakers describes the person in the cockpit as more of a WSO than a traditional pilot.

If that statement is accurate then some level of autonomous flying (beyond simple auto-pilot) might be used whilst the pilot commands a small fleet of UCAVs.
Click to expand...

True, but we don't try to operate other ISR platforms with a single WSO / WSOp.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom