Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) UK-Japan-Italy

Deltafan said:
As the Tempest II and F-X programs merged into the GCAP, I think that it's better to create a specific topic.


To be continued...
Click to expand...
Yup, suggested the same on the Tempest thread. I am already seeing posts of same topic and news being posted on each of the threads, which is unnecessary.

Also relevant: JNAAM (joint British-Japanese BVRAAM) thread
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Deltafan said:
As the Tempest II and F-X programs merged into the GCAP, I think that it's better to create a specific topic.


To be continued...
Click to expand...
Yup, suggested the same on the Tempest thread. I am already seeing posts of same topic and news being posted on each of the threads, which is unnecessary.

Also relevant: JNAAM (joint British-Japanese BVRAAM) thread
Click to expand...
Shall we close the other ones?
 
Deino said:
Maro.Kyo said:
Deltafan said:
As the Tempest II and F-X programs merged into the GCAP, I think that it's better to create a specific topic.


To be continued...
Click to expand...
Yup, suggested the same on the Tempest thread. I am already seeing posts of same topic and news being posted on each of the threads, which is unnecessary.

Also relevant: JNAAM (joint British-Japanese BVRAAM) thread
Click to expand...
Shall we close the other ones?
Click to expand...

Go right ahead Deino. I would not mind if they were closed since the focus is now on GCAP.
 
On the other hand, some development activities may still continue under existing contracts and structures that haven't folded into the new program. A similar situation exists with regards as to Tempest, especially in relation to those parties that have yet to sign up to the new arrangements.
 
Cacodemon said:
That being said, the article also mentions that an Italian Air Force chief said, quoting the article: "raised the possibility of some kind of merger between the two FCAS programs, arguing that “investing huge financial resources in two equivalent programs is unthinkable.” So, it might be possible that the FCAS of France, Germany and Spain would possibly be merged with the GCAP program instead. And I hope that happens, because Sixth Generation Aircraft programs are very innovative and expensive, so might as well share resources and make the tech together.
Click to expand...
I'm already quite puzzled on how the 3 countries are going to handle the workshare problem, although it seems like they are on a right track with constructive discussions. Then, adding 3 further European countries, all with very potent aerospace sectors, especially France, is a problem on a whole another level and would result in a program management disasterclass. I'm not sure why you'd think it's a good idea to merge the two programs after what we saw with all the SCAF debacles.

Foo Fighter said:
I definitely see resources, where interests are close, can have a cross over where research and investment can be cooperated in. Why not save money by cooperation?
Click to expand...
By trying to save costs with more development partners, you'll end up spending more with botched program management and severe delays in the development. Not cooperating with either Germany or France is good ridance. Like I've said before, SCAF really reminds me all the wrong things about FS-X and Japan getting involved in FS-X like international program yet again would be a top-notch comedy.
 
If teams work on differennt aspects of the project, which SHOULD be doable, money and time can be saved. The French model of, We all put money in but, France builds the aircraft and you just give us the money, can very happily be consigned to the dusty bin. For good please. No reason it cannot be built in multiple countries.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Cacodemon said:
That being said, the article also mentions that an Italian Air Force chief said, quoting the article: "raised the possibility of some kind of merger between the two FCAS programs, arguing that “investing huge financial resources in two equivalent programs is unthinkable.” So, it might be possible that the FCAS of France, Germany and Spain would possibly be merged with the GCAP program instead. And I hope that happens, because Sixth Generation Aircraft programs are very innovative and expensive, so might as well share resources and make the tech together.
Click to expand...
I'm already quite puzzled on how the 3 countries are going to handle the workshare problem, although it seems like they are on a right track with constructive discussions. Then, adding 3 further European countries, all with very potent aerospace sectors, especially France, is a problem on a whole another level and would result in a program management disasterclass. I'm not sure why you'd think it's a good idea to merge the two programs after what we saw with all the SCAF debacles.

Click to expand...
Yeah, I read the article, and it also admits that the GCAP and FCAS merger might be just a dream at this point. Still, it would be a more practical option for Europe to merge their Sixth-Generation fighter programs into one, but of course a variety of problems, most of all geopolitical situations in Europe will be huge stumbling blocks that may prevent the full merger from taking place
 
Foo Fighter said:
If teams work on differennt aspects of the project, which SHOULD be doable, money and time can be saved. The French model of, We all put money in but, France builds the aircraft and you just give us the money, can very happily be consigned to the dusty bin. For good please. No reason it cannot be built in multiple countries.
Click to expand...
That is why the GCAP might be far more successful than the FCAS at this point
 
Even the highly ambitious MMU/TF-X with an indigenous engine is a more doable project than FCAS/SCAF. FCAS is as good as dead at this point and the French are going to pull an another "Eurofighter case", imo. They already have the necessary funding and encouragement thanks to how well the Rafale has been selling lately.

Good for the partner countries of GCAP. Contrary to FCAS, collaboration is going to make this program a success...
 
JASDF has issues with ITAR regulations regarding cooperation with the US even though we are close allies and ITAR can be cumbersome even when dealing with simple items, can be very inconsistent. On the other hand and if my memory serves, the Eurofighter Typhoon took a long time to develop and there were many issues with the teammates (the main players were the UK, Germany, Italy and others but don't quote me on this) where there were lots of issues between the team which slowed the program down, I see why the French and Swedes developed there own aircraft, no teammates to worry about. I hope I am wrong but the UK, Japan and Italy, I'm not sure about this, may not be a recipe for success.
 
Hydroman said:
JASDF has issues with ITAR regulations regarding cooperation with the US even though we are close allies and ITAR can be cumbersome even when dealing with simple items, can be very inconsistent. On the other hand and if my memory serves, the Eurofighter Typhoon took a long time to develop and there were many issues with the teammates (the main players were the UK, Germany, Italy and others but don't quote me on this) where there were lots of issues between the team which slowed the program down, I see why the French and Swedes developed there own aircraft, no teammates to worry about. I hope I am wrong but the UK, Japan and Italy, I'm not sure about this, may not be a recipe for success.
Click to expand...
The biggest problems with the Eurofighter program were that, first, there was a major shake-up in defense and security demands right in the middle of the program that led to decades long arms reduction in Europe and second, one of the two major contributors, Germany, was in severe fiscal constraints following reunification and slowed the program down even further.

On the other hand, GCAP has been started at what looks like a dawn of new Cold-War and all three major partners, especially Japan and the UK have significant defense and security demands going forward. They all do have fiscal constraints due to current global monetary and financial situation, but that is not to say that it is as severe as the pressure Germany was experiencing at the time.
 
Hydroman said:
JASDF has issues with ITAR regulations regarding cooperation with the US even though we are close allies and ITAR can be cumbersome even when dealing with simple items, can be very inconsistent. On the other hand and if my memory serves, the Eurofighter Typhoon took a long time to develop and there were many issues with the teammates (the main players were the UK, Germany, Italy and others but don't quote me on this) where there were lots of issues between the team which slowed the program down, I see why the French and Swedes developed there own aircraft, no teammates to worry about. I hope I am wrong but the UK, Japan and Italy, I'm not sure about this, may not be a recipe for success.
Click to expand...
Actually the difference in countries is more significant than you are allowing for plus times are very, very different.
 
Hydroman said:
JASDF has issues with ITAR regulations regarding cooperation with the US even though we are close allies and ITAR can be cumbersome even when dealing with simple items, can be very inconsistent. On the other hand and if my memory serves, the Eurofighter Typhoon took a long time to develop and there were many issues with the teammates (the main players were the UK, Germany, Italy and others but don't quote me on this) where there were lots of issues between the team which slowed the program down, I see why the French and Swedes developed there own aircraft, no teammates to worry about. I hope I am wrong but the UK, Japan and Italy, I'm not sure about this, may not be a recipe for success.
Click to expand...
With the Eurofighter, France wanted lead and to build with everyone else doing as they were told. Rafale was a fallback position which is what they did when they did not get their way. This has happened too often for anyone to truthfully fall for. Even Gremany with the next gen MBT are less than impressed for the same reasons.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Hydroman said:
JASDF has issues with ITAR regulations regarding cooperation with the US even though we are close allies and ITAR can be cumbersome even when dealing with simple items, can be very inconsistent. On the other hand and if my memory serves, the Eurofighter Typhoon took a long time to develop and there were many issues with the teammates (the main players were the UK, Germany, Italy and others but don't quote me on this) where there were lots of issues between the team which slowed the program down, I see why the French and Swedes developed there own aircraft, no teammates to worry about. I hope I am wrong but the UK, Japan and Italy, I'm not sure about this, may not be a recipe for success.
Click to expand...
With the Eurofighter, France wanted lead and to build with everyone else doing as they were told. Rafale was a fallback position which is what they did when they did not get their way. This has happened too often for anyone to truthfully fall for. Even Gremany with the next gen MBT are less than impressed for the same reasons.
Click to expand...
U.K. now has form for delivering on international projects, it also helps us, as we are unlikely to bale at the point of ordering….

Tornado and typhoon were U.K. it and Germany, so only change is Japan. I’d assume Japan will have its own production line, maybe even specific systems.

Happy to be corrected in 13 years time, but this one will fly, and enter sqn service, in the U.K.
 
just a heads up, after talking in the mod forum, as well as getting feedback from members here

the Tempest and F-3 threads have been moved to the unbuilt section, as the ideas posted there will no longer be built, but should be archived to see how the GCAP had taken root.

the titles were slightly updated to mention that these unbuilt studies are prior to the 2022 GCAP announcement.
This will reduce the frequent duplication of news that was being posted in multiple threads


also there is the existing Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin demonstrator that may be of interest, which has actually been built
 
helmutkohl said:
just a heads up, after talking in the mod forum, as well as getting feedback from members here

the Tempest and F-3 threads have been moved to the unbuilt section, as the ideas posted there will no longer be built, but should be archived to see how the GCAP had taken root.

the titles were slightly updated to mention that these unbuilt studies are prior to the 2022 GCAP announcement.
This will reduce the frequent duplication of news that was being posted in multiple threads


also there is the existing Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin demonstrator that may be of interest, which has actually been built
Click to expand...
Only issue with that is that the UK's FCAS work is continuing, with Sweden involved, and some of the GCAP related developments (Jaguar and Isanke for sensors, Mitsubishi/RR engine collaboration are in there). Just as long as people are aware.
 
Hydroman said:
JASDF has issues with ITAR regulations regarding cooperation with the US even though we are close allies and ITAR can be cumbersome even when dealing with simple items, can be very inconsistent. On the other hand and if my memory serves, the Eurofighter Typhoon took a long time to develop and there were many issues with the teammates (the main players were the UK, Germany, Italy and others but don't quote me on this) where there were lots of issues between the team which slowed the program down, I see why the French and Swedes developed there own aircraft, no teammates to worry about. I hope I am wrong but the UK, Japan and Italy, I'm not sure about this, may not be a recipe for success.
Click to expand...
The UK also has massive issues with ITAR. Like all bits of legislation once its out in the wild it gets a mind of its own...for the UK this has meant the US interfering with export sales, in particular Asraam and Paveway IV. This is despite the US selling AIM-9X and GBU-12 to exactly the same export markets....The UK as a result has ensured that all of its air weapons are ITAR free now and in the future. There are a couple that haven't finished that programme (Paveway IV and Storm Shadow) but they're either no longer offered seriously for sale (Storm Shadow) or will get the treatment in due course. UK is very keen for GCAP to be ITAR free....

As for Typhoon the main reasons for its 'slow' service entry, or rather 'delayed' were due to it arriving right at the end of the Cold War. In particular the effect that had on the German budget and political environment. But it wasn't slow....in terms of development to service entry it was broadly similar to the other aircraft of its generation (Rafale - 17 years, F-22 - 19 years, Gripen - 15 years and Typhoon - 20 years). Given the issues in German politics, the joint nature of the programme, multiple 'primes', complexity and the 'run up' that some of the other programmes had...thats not that bad at all.

Another criticism received by Typhoon is that it lacked air to ground capabilities and was delivered not 'fully complete'. This has never held any water as when you look at the other programmes they were in exactly the same boat...Rafale in particular is sometimes hyped as more 'multirole' than Typhoon, but it was delivered with exactly the same type of 'austere' A2G capability as Typhoon and got additional capabilities at pretty much the same time as Typhoon. Weirdly its still a criticism leveled at Typhoon in comparison today...when any cursory look at integrated weapons would show that Typhoon has a wider, and more advanced, selection of weapons available to it...
 
I've heard some rumors that Sweden is preparing to sign a Defnese Equipment Technology Agreement with Japan so that they could continue their participation in FCAS and expand to GCAP. Though take this with a spoon of salt since the source is a bit dubious at best.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
I've heard some rumors that Sweden is preparing to sign a Defnese Equipment Technology Agreement with Japan so that they could continue their participation in FCAS and expand to GCAP. Though take this with a spoon of salt since the source is a bit dubious at best.
Click to expand...
Given that Sweden was part of the Tempest agreement, they should continue their agreement when Tempest transitions to GCAP. But of course, we have to wait and see if Sweden will actually continue their commitment and join the GCAP program. Otherwise, we might see a new SAAB aircraft in maybe 20 or 30 years from now
 
By the way guys, I have been an advocate of this cooperation since a long time now. I am glad that the world of defense can still be structured around core nations needs.

The multi-nation industry source work will also create an ecosystem that will benefit all national industry in term of quantity/cost but not only.

It will far more easier for any industrial to build an offer around competitive products sourced from each other. People should understand that we might srr here the raise of a new Airbus Military. All is in their hands to make sure it's a functioning one!
 
TomcatViP said:
By the way guys, I have been an advocate of this cooperation since a long time now. I am glad that the world of defense can still be structured around core nations needs.

The multi-nation industry source work will also create an ecosystem that will benefit all national industry in term of quantity/cost but not only.

It will far more easier for any industrial to build an offer around competitive products sourced from each other. People should understand that we might srr here the raise of a new Airbus Military. All is in their hands to make sure it's a functioning one!
Click to expand...
I agree with that. It should also be one that can be appealing to many nations that may be either unable to afford the NGAD, (Or outright be not allowed to buy the NGAD, assuming the same type of export bans as the F-22s will be placed upon it), or those that are threated by countries such as China and Russia, of which Japan is one.
 
it seems that the GCAP model, like the preceding tempest and i3, are more or less going with a delta like wing with large angled tailerons.
I am wondering if they will consider the use of thrust vectoring engines or not for GCAP.
I recall Paul Metz (YF-23 and F-22 pilot), stating that the YF-23's tailerons nearly offset the advantages of the thrust vectoring in the F-22.
 
datafuser said:
Richard Aboulafia's view on the GCAP.

https://richardaboulafia.com/november-2022-letter
Click to expand...
If the UK and Japan want an affordable interceptor, they’d better create it themselves.
Click to expand...
I feel GCAP will going to be anything but cheap. Japan's made it clear on that part during the F-X days and although the prospect of GCAP fighter is way cheaper thanks to triple the procurement size, considering the technology this thing is going to be based off, I'm not sure if it's going to meet the "affordable" criteria in traditional sense. Maybe "affordable" in sense that it's going to be cheaper than PCA. Then again, F-2s were also not the most cost-effective/affordable fighters themselves.

The F-2 fighter quickly became a footnote to the F-16 program (around 3% of F-16 output so far) and yielded no important new technologies. All previous Japanese aero partnerships merely involved licensed production of a US system designed by a US producer that viewed Japan as a mere customer.
Click to expand...
That's a profoundly wrong assessment.
 
To be perfectly frank, with the addition of Japan I can finally see how FCAS and GCAP might actually survive and even thrive in parallel - even if I would still prefer for both camps to combine their efforts.

Aboulafia is best on commercial aerospace, let's put it this way. No important new technologies pioneered on F-2? AESA, totally irrelevant, I guess. Co-cured composite manufacturing? So unimportant that the US licensed it.

Similar story with his comments about FCAS - everything he (rightly) states regarding the synergies between the UK and Japanese industries could be said about France and Germany too. With the sole difference that German *industry* (as opposed to government) isn't content to leave design and integration to Dassault, of course, but A380-level stupid?
 
Trident said:
Aboulafia is best on commercial aerospace, let's put it this way. No important new technologies pioneered on F-2? AESA, totally irrelevant, I guess. Co-cured composite manufacturing? So unimportant that the US licensed it.
Click to expand...
well the us licensed it because congress wanted something out of the f-2 program (this was during the hight of the anti Japan trade issues) but it didn't end up being worth much and us companies had to develop there own anyway. And the us was working on aesa on its own and was only behind by A few weeks? I think.
 
Last edited:
Of memory serves, the UK has done work on fluidic vectoring without the use of conventional mechanical moving nozzles. Rather changing vector by various streams of airflow affecting the overall exhaust flow.
So externally it would be a relatively 'fixed' nozzle.
That's what the Tempest design team was showing publicly.
 
Cjc said:
Trident said:
Aboulafia is best on commercial aerospace, let's put it this way. No important new technologies pioneered on F-2? AESA, totally irrelevant, I guess. Co-cured composite manufacturing? So unimportant that the US licensed it.
Click to expand...
well the us licensed it because congress wanted something out of the f-2 program (this was during the hight of the anti Japan trade issues) but it didn't end up being worth much and us companies had to develop there own anyway. And the us was working on aesa on its own and was only behind by A few weeks? I think.
Click to expand...


6E45896A-4EAF-4129-A1AF-54605806F0FA.jpeg

1E615C52-E7B9-4DF8-A5B8-190BA69219C6.jpeg
 
Last edited:
So, as the UK has often discovered in its history, the only real enemy is France. More on them in a moment.
Click to expand...
Grandiloquent and without substance.
France has not taken any retorsive measure regarding FCAS or GCAP. Competition or influence is not war, where stands enemies.
 
TomcatViP said:
France has not taken any retorsive measure regarding FCAS or GCAP. Competition or influence is not war, where stands enemies.
Click to expand...
Why would they? It suits Trappier to have a rival - it keeps BAE from poking its nose in, stops having to pander to salami slicing some more work to Leonardo too. Plus he probably feels bullish that Dassault can clinch more exports than GCAP based on the trajectories of the Typhoon/Rafale sales war. Playing the long game even being ~5 years behind Tempest for IOC isn't a big worry, it's taken 20 years for Typhoon and Rafale to become export successes.

Yeah Aboulafia strikes me as being more of an airliner market analyst in terms of his strengths. His assessment of GCAP is too glossy and that of FCAS too Scrooge-ish. The idea Airbus might up sticks and move seems very unlikely, they might not get the same slice of the pie of GCAP that they have in FCAS for a start. He is probably right that GCAP is a much closer 50-50 partnership of equals, probably the best aviation collaborations have been this way.
He is probably too sceptical about the US manufacturers. Yes NGAD might never be exported but F-35 is hoovering up orders and will still be a big player when GCAP and FCAS enter service. Doubtless LM will keep upgrading the F-35 to keep exports going and by 2040 the USAF will be developing a JSF successor - assuming NGAD doesn't hog all the F/A segment to itself.
 
datafuser said:
Cjc said:
well the us licensed it because congress wanted something out of the f-2 program (this was during the hight of the anti Japan trade issues) but it didn't end up being worth much and us companies had to develop there own anyway. And the us was working on aesa on its own and was only behind by A few weeks? I think.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Now you've moved the goal posts and adopted a very narrowly US-centric view.

Is the R-73/Sura-K combination somehow less significant because the US later independently developed even better counterparts? Are Kero-LOx staged-combustion cycle rocket engines less of an achievement because the US chose to pursue different solutions (LH2 & later Metha-LOx) rather than take advantage of its RD-180 production license?

The claim that the F-2 radar is no better than conventional US F-16 radars in performance and inferior to some on other airframes also raises questions about the comparison metrics. It could conceivably be accurate if you narrow your interest to range exclusively - this is mainly determined by power output, antenna size and sensitivity. Early TRMs as used on the F-2 radar would very possibly not have given power or sensitivity improvements, and antenna size is obviously comparable to the F-16 (and smaller than other US fighters).

But that constrained view is to ignore all the other advantages the AESA principle offers in terms of agility and ECCM. Similarly, I'm fairly confident the composites skills demostrated by the Japanese will have been instrumental in their ability to secure very sophisticated and lucrative workshare in this field from Boeing (787 wings). So just because US industry/Lockheed-Martin ultimately derived little benefit (debatable, if you consider the 787) from the tech pioneered on the F-2, the same is patently not true for Japan itself.

Altogether, these sources smack of attempts to rationalize what is nothing but a typical NIH attitude at the core.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
I'm already quite puzzled on how the 3 countries are going to handle the workshare problem, although it seems like they are on a right track with constructive discussions. Then, adding 3 further European countries, all with very potent aerospace sectors, especially France, is a problem on a whole another level and would result in a program management disasterclass. I'm not sure why you'd think it's a good idea to merge the two programs after what we saw with all the SCAF debacles.

By trying to save costs with more development partners, you'll end up spending more with botched program management and severe delays in the development. Not cooperating with either Germany or France is good ridance. Like I've said before, SCAF really reminds me all the wrong things about FS-X and Japan getting involved in FS-X like international program yet again would be a top-notch comedy.
Click to expand...

Yes, 6 partners (possibly 7, if you add Sweden) may just be too many, which is why I think the current split, especially if Sweden ends up joining FCAS, may actually be a healthy setup. I mean, if you must have 2 separate projects and want to ensure both are viable, these two teams are probably the lines along which to divide them up with maximum synergistic benefit.
 
Trident said:
Maro.Kyo said:
I'm already quite puzzled on how the 3 countries are going to handle the workshare problem, although it seems like they are on a right track with constructive discussions. Then, adding 3 further European countries, all with very potent aerospace sectors, especially France, is a problem on a whole another level and would result in a program management disasterclass. I'm not sure why you'd think it's a good idea to merge the two programs after what we saw with all the SCAF debacles.

By trying to save costs with more development partners, you'll end up spending more with botched program management and severe delays in the development. Not cooperating with either Germany or France is good ridance. Like I've said before, SCAF really reminds me all the wrong things about FS-X and Japan getting involved in FS-X like international program yet again would be a top-notch comedy.
Click to expand...

Yes, 6 partners (possibly 7, if you add Sweden) may just be too many, which is why I think the current split, especially if Sweden ends up joining FCAS, may actually be a healthy setup. I mean, if you must have 2 separate projects and want to ensure both are viable, these two teams are probably the lines along which to divide them up with maximum synergistic benefit.
Click to expand...

If Sweden gets cold feet over GCAP and ends up joining the French and German FCAS we could always try and get Australia to join instead because they would have the Super Hornets to replace by 2030/2040 period.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom