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

Also worth noting that other countries also have export controls and end user controls... e.g. Like Germany blocking further Typhoon sales to Saudi. This isn't some nefarious US plot.

Obviously Japan or Italy will never block any sales or limit support etc. at any point over the next 50 years of this project.
 
GTX said:
And yet, as of earlier this year, the US remains the world’s leader in arms sales (all of which would be ITAR controlled by definition - though many come under the parallel FMS banner). Its exports grew by 14% in 2013-17 and 2018-22 and its share of total global arms exports rose from 33% to 40%. Plenty of nations are still willing to deal with them. Moreover, as I already said, ITAR isn't that hard to deal with once you know how,
Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding. If you purchase kit from the US you can't complain about being covered by ITAR as you would be by any end user agreement. But having your entire product being embargoed for sale by the US due to a small number of components is a different matter. The idea that the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, South Korea, Spain and Japan have somehow arrived at the same conclusion because, uniquely, they can't 'deal' with ITAR as they are thick is preposterous...

Ask yourself this question....Would the US tolerate the UK blocking F-35 sales because it makes the ejector seat and rear fuselage (and other items)? Of course they wouldn't....

TomcatViP said:
GBU-12 and PWIV are not at the same technological level!
Click to expand...

It was actually the EGBU-12 units, so closer than you'd imagine. There was also a case when the US was pitching AIM-9X and blocked the UK selling Asraam....despite the fact that they share the same British designed seeker....

GTX said:
I doubt you will find many cases of that but feel free to list.
Click to expand...

There's clearly been enough for other, serious, countries to insist upon it....despite the fact that they're also close US allies. France, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Italy, UK and Japan have all insisted on it...thats not by accident is it?
 
Last edited:
red admiral said:
Also worth noting that other countries also have export controls and end user controls... e.g. Like Germany blocking further Typhoon sales to Saudi. This isn't some nefarious US plot.
Click to expand...

Thats true. But its also worth recognising that that is one of the reasons why Germany isn't seen as a great joint partner....particularly as they are selling other kit to Saudi Arabia at the same time....and are perfectly happy selling to other countries with 'issues'

But its also very different when you are a full development and production partner, rather than just a component supplier....

For example if Spain managed to land Argentina as a customer for Typhoon everyone would understand that the UK would block the sale....

Ultimately its all about risk....the US and Germany both bring significant risks....both related to Politics...
 
timmymagic said:
I don't think this is a surprise to any here, but both worth saying anyway.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675889060932452352
View: https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1675889060932452352

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675898556803170305
View: https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/1675898556803170305
Click to expand...
Said before in this thread what we are seeing in public will not be how it looks, it would defeat the point if certain other countries could see what it looks like years in advance.
 
timmymagic said:
I don't think this is a surprise to any here, but both worth saying anyway.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675889060932452352
View: https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1675889060932452352

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675898556803170305
View: https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/1675898556803170305
Click to expand...

The Flying Technology Demonstrator will be a monster - the definitive Tempest may be.

But since Herman Claesen, Managing Director, Future Combat Air System (FCAS), today confirmed that a second manned platform had very much not been ruled out, it's perhaps too early to say.
 
For four of us (Craig from Flight, Tony from Av Week, Francis Tusa and myself), yesterday and today's visit was our second opportunity to look inside Hangar 5 in less than 3 weeks! It was great to be joined by Norbert from Shephard, Gareth from Jane's, Tim from the Aerosoc, Tim R and Chalky W. Less emphasis on FTD and more on GCAP and Typhoon, and a big story embargoed til next week.
 
Indeed, word out of Germany is it has finally dropped its objection so Saudi follow-on Typhoon order going ahead.
 
TomcatViP said:
breakingdefense.com

GCAP fighter design to fly within 5 years, as BAE eyes potential export market - Breaking Defense

“If we deliver solutions in 2035, we’ll be the first mover and one of the first western nations outside the US to deliver sixth-generation [aircraft]," said Herman Claesen, BAE Systems’ Future Combat Air System Managing Director.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Not sure I see that happening, though... (edit) tech demonstrator first flew in 1986, Typhoon first flight was 1994, introduction was 2003. And unless they're a lot farther ahead on the RCS side of the house than I think, shaping for signature is going to prove complicated and greatly delay initial flight.
 
Last edited:
Typhoon had at least 1 to 2 years delay just because of Germany wavering...again.
Nothing actually technical preventing earlier entry to service as originally intended.
 
Seems doable to me. Tech demonstrator flies by 2028, assuming 2-3 years trials work before IOC in 2035 then if we backtrack from that the prototype Tempest would have to be flying in 2032-33, so construction would have to begin probably in 2031. So that gives 3-4 years to absorb the lessons from the demonstrator into the final product.

That's an optimistic smooth flowing programme, but either way you slice it its 17 years away and I'm sure given all that time available that it is doable - and if it isn't then digital design isn't worth it's own weight in silicon and we might as well go back to doodling on fag packets like Tommy, Roy and Geoff did back in the olden days.
 
Jackonicko said:
For four of us (Craig from Flight, Tony from Av Week, Francis Tusa and myself), yesterday and today's visit was our second opportunity to look inside Hangar 5 in less than 3 weeks! It was great to be joined by Norbert from Shephard, Gareth from Jane's, Tim from the Aerosoc, Tim R and Chalky W. Less emphasis on FTD and more on GCAP and Typhoon, and a big story embargoed til next week.
Click to expand...

Announcement at RIATT?
 
zen said:
Typhoon had at least 1 to 2 years delay just because of Germany wavering...again.
Nothing actually technical preventing earlier entry to service as originally intended.
Click to expand...
That's still 14 years from tech demonstrator to service entry. (1986 to 2000)

Very optimistic for developing stealth tech.

Lockheed, the guys who basically invented stealth shaping, took 7 years to go from tech demonstrator (YF-22) to first flight of the combat article (F-22), and another 8 years to service entry. 15 years total.
 
Scott Kenny said:
zen said:
Typhoon had at least 1 to 2 years delay just because of Germany wavering...again.
Nothing actually technical preventing earlier entry to service as originally intended.
Click to expand...
That's still 14 years from tech demonstrator to service entry. (1986 to 2000)

Very optimistic for developing stealth tech.

Lockheed, the guys who basically invented stealth shaping, took 7 years to go from tech demonstrator (YF-22) to first flight of the combat article (F-22), and another 8 years to service entry. 15 years total.
Click to expand...
No that was just the easy example of how the Typhoon was delayed. There are more complicated elements that stacked up to delay it.
 
Then there's the French who walked away from the Eurofighter program back in 1985 they apparently did not like the work share. Let's wait and see what happens to the GCAP work share and see who gets what, it will be very interesting to watch what happens this time round.
 
zen said:
Scott Kenny said:
zen said:
Typhoon had at least 1 to 2 years delay just because of Germany wavering...again.
Nothing actually technical preventing earlier entry to service as originally intended.
Click to expand...
That's still 14 years from tech demonstrator to service entry. (1986 to 2000)

Very optimistic for developing stealth tech.

Lockheed, the guys who basically invented stealth shaping, took 7 years to go from tech demonstrator (YF-22) to first flight of the combat article (F-22), and another 8 years to service entry. 15 years total.
Click to expand...
No that was just the easy example of how the Typhoon was delayed. There are more complicated elements that stacked up to delay it.
Click to expand...
Yes, there were a lot of delays in the Typhoon.

I'm pointing out that the people who invented stealth took 15 years to get their combat aircraft from tech demonstrator to service entry.

I don't see the GCAP being any faster than Lockheed, and I expect it to be slower.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, there were a lot of delays in the Typhoon.

I'm pointing out that the people who invented stealth took 15 years to get their combat aircraft from tech demonstrator to service entry.

I don't see the GCAP being any faster than Lockheed, and I expect it to be slower.
Click to expand...

Then you've failed to take on board how much quicker everything is in the modelled virtual world - enabled by massive strides in processing power and speed. 15 years ago, evaluating the characteristics of a handful of concepts would take years - now you can evaluate hundreds or thousands in a fraction of the time. In the old days, wind tunnel testing took forever, now you just use the tunnel to verify your fancy computational fluid dynamics.
 
Hood said:
Seems doable to me. Tech demonstrator flies by 2028, assuming 2-3 years trials work before IOC in 2035 then if we backtrack from that the prototype Tempest would have to be flying in 2032-33, so construction would have to begin probably in 2031. So that gives 3-4 years to absorb the lessons from the demonstrator into the final product.

That's an optimistic smooth flowing programme, but either way you slice it its 17 years away and I'm sure given all that time available that it is doable - and if it isn't then digital design isn't worth it's own weight in silicon and we might as well go back to doodling on fag packets like Tommy, Roy and Geoff did back in the olden days.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the Flying Technology Demonstrator is as much about developing the SQEP and getting the team match fit (after decades of not designing and flying a new combat aircraft), and about proving the design processes and 'factory of the future' stuff as it is about developing specific Tempest-relevant tech, with the exception of the internal weapons bay.

It isn't a Tempest pre prototype. It may be MUCH more different to Tempest than EAP was to Typhoon.

It's about designing and building A supersonic, LO, shape, not THE supersonic, LO shape.

First flight is 2027.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's still 14 years from tech demonstrator to service entry. (1986 to 2000)

Very optimistic for developing stealth tech.

Lockheed, the guys who basically invented stealth shaping, took 7 years to go from tech demonstrator (YF-22) to first flight of the combat article (F-22), and another 8 years to service entry. 15 years total.
Click to expand...

Nope. Very optimistic back then. Much easier and much quicker today.

And BAE aren't going into this cold. Replica is the tip of an iceberg of stealth projects undertaken by BAE Systems.
 
Jackonicko said:
FalconWorks.
Click to expand...

Thats dissapointing then, an internal company division looking 30 years ahead in desktop studies but with no money for trials and testing and no real prospect the government will pour hundreds of millions into that kind of prototyping. They are trying to evoke Skunk Works with the name but the reality is a faint shadow. I mean the companies total R&D spend across all divisions is about £1.6bn per year but the companies only putting about £70m a year of its own money into aviation R&D (total internal R&D spend across the whole companies just under £250m with the rest coming from contracts).
 
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
"making the impossible possible"
hmmm...in whose ad campaign have I heard this before?
 
WatcherZero said:
Thats dissapointing then, an internal company division looking 30 years ahead in desktop studies but with no money for trials and testing and no real prospect the government will pour hundreds of millions into that kind of prototyping. They are trying to evoke Skunk Works with the name but the reality is a faint shadow.
Click to expand...
They already had their Future Projects group for a few decades that did that. This seems to be rebranding to a "cooler" name and title bump for the director rather than actual change. It's really nothing like SkunkWorks.

Maybe they'll announce more at RIAT, coupled with matching pv R&D spend to be similar to other companies (i.e. doubling-tripling current)
 
Indeed, and the three projects theyve announced FalconWorks is running have been running for several years.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom