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

red admiral said:
I mean its much bigger than the E-3 in that picture... or the Type 45...

The external stores look like the PR chap literally just ripped them across from Typhoon

You really can't read into these
Click to expand...
I think that's an attempt at perspective!

And the CGI artist would not have added stores to the model without being asked to do so!

Re relative sizes (esp cf Typhoon), it's backed up by these images from the Medulla briefing.

Screenshot 2023-07-11 at 00.16.23.png Screenshot 2023-07-11 at 00.15.51.png
 
As far as I am aware dimensional information has not been released as yet for the demonstrator :)

although if someone were to take a tape measure to the display model ... ;)
 
Last edited:
True but the ducting has the specific job of making the EJ200 think it's inside a Typhoon to avoid recertification and design changes, so it's not really a representative intake of Tempest but rather an aerodynamic fudge to make the sensors think its gulping air from a smiley-face ventral intake and not a bifurcated wing root system.
 
Hood said:
True but the ducting has the specific job of making the EJ200 think it's inside a Typhoon to avoid recertification and design changes, so it's not really a representative intake of Tempest but rather an aerodynamic fudge to make the sensors think its gulping air from a smiley-face ventral intake and not a bifurcated wing root system.
Click to expand...
Indeed: Though it has to route around the weapons bay, it has to do so less 'sinuously' than the production aircraft's duct might. You can draw NO conclusions about Tempest itself from the dimensions of the FTD.
 
Jackonicko said:
Next Gen ISR is intriguing, though!
Click to expand...
Yes I wonder what they think tyey're targeting with that one given the UK ISR fleet was recently recapitilised or retired. Smaller numbers sure but difficult to see the financial sense in setting up second airframe types in those roles - e.g. say a A320 based AEW/AWACS platform alongside E-7

Or maybe its purely for export e.g. partner with Saab to try to sell Globaleye plus some AI/BigData/etc. Support package
 
Interesting timeline:

breakingdefense.com

UK official sees 'unique' partnership chances for next-gen fighter - Breaking Defense

“I think it’s a richness of our collective response that we are able to develop what might appear on the surface to be competitive solutions, whether that’s F-35, NGAD, the Franco German cooperation, or our program," said Richard Berthon, the UK Ministry of Defence’s Director of Future Combat Air.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
So if I do understand, the square tile like backpack b/w the ruddervator that we see on the tunnel model is a battery pack containerized on the outside of the plane to ease system safety design.?
 
TomcatViP said:
Interesting timeline:

breakingdefense.com

UK official sees 'unique' partnership chances for next-gen fighter - Breaking Defense

“I think it’s a richness of our collective response that we are able to develop what might appear on the surface to be competitive solutions, whether that’s F-35, NGAD, the Franco German cooperation, or our program," said Richard Berthon, the UK Ministry of Defence’s Director of Future Combat Air.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
In-service date of 2035? 12 years from now?

That's _very_ aggressive and I think they're going to miss it severely.
 
Don't say that Scott Kenny, it is still very early in terms of seeing actual hardware of the GCAP program. So I think that it is a very conservative estimate.
 
FighterJock said:
Don't say that Scott Kenny, it is still very early in terms of seeing actual hardware of the GCAP program. So I think that it is a very conservative estimate.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'd love to see it flying that soon, but I don't believe that anyone on the team has experience designing a complete stealthy airframe and pushing it to production.
 
What about the FOAS aircraft? True it did not enter service with the RAF because it did not leave the design stage for some reason, but the experience of designing a stealthy fighter could mean that BAE Systems would have a head start for GCAP.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Oh, I'd love to see it flying that soon, but I don't believe that anyone on the team has experience designing a complete stealthy airframe and pushing it to production.
Click to expand...
Warton has doing LO studies for nearly 50 years (not to mention Taranis being one offshoot of this), building a big chunk of the F-35 - a programme they were part of since its inception in various ways. And they helped Turkey design their TF-X.
Seems a pretty impressive CV to me.
 
Hood said:
Warton has doing LO studies for nearly 50 years (not to mention Taranis being one offshoot of this), building a big chunk of the F-35 - a programme they were part of since its inception in various ways. And they helped Turkey design their TF-X.
Seems a pretty impressive CV to me.
Click to expand...
Still not pushed through to production, and the F-35 barely counts. TF-X might, depending on just how stealthy it is.
 
I had forgotten about Replica and Taranis. It's a pity that Replica never entered service with the RAF at the time, and it spent the time it was active as a test aircraft. Sadly Replica can be put into the what if category.
 
Jackonicko said:
Taranis, Replica, and numerous other projects and programmes count to those who matter...
Click to expand...
Again, not pushed through to production. It's one thing to hand build a stealthy prototype. It's a whole different thing to successfully assembly line a whole run of stealthy aircraft and have them all be (roughly) equally stealthy.
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
Warton has doing LO studies for nearly 50 years (not to mention Taranis being one offshoot of this), building a big chunk of the F-35 - a programme they were part of since its inception in various ways.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting one - I would be surprised if LM were not 100% responsible for the entire F-35 external shape...
 
FighterJock said:
What about the FOAS aircraft? True it did not enter service with the RAF because it did not leave the design stage for some reason, but the experience of designing a stealthy fighter could mean that BAE Systems would have a head start for GCAP.
Click to expand...
What's the FOAS aircraft?
 
Raberto said:
The Aft Fuselage, Vertical and Horizontal Tails are all manufactured and assembled at Samlesbury t'other side of Preston from Warton - they were all developed and designed there too!
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.
 
Raberto said:
The Aft Fuselage, Vertical and Horizontal Tails are all manufactured and assembled at Samlesbury t'other side of Preston from Warton - they were all developed and designed there too!
Click to expand...

Let alone the software work BAE have done...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Again, not pushed through to production. It's one thing to hand build a stealthy prototype. It's a whole different thing to successfully assembly line a whole run of stealthy aircraft and have them all be (roughly) equally stealthy.
Click to expand...
You're talking about consistent production capability.
One can argue that even typhoon production techniques (known assembly precision) is quite enough for what counted back then as LO airframe. They didn't and couldn't(afford to) to do it LO - as the French couldn't - but not for this specific reason.
While the "proven" experience is lacking - the general advance in aircraft industry construction techniques between 1995 and 2030 makes it very unlikely to be a too big of a problem.

If it'll affect something - it'll probably affect what specific level they'll aim for (and how close to the ideal mathematical shape&reflection they'll try to get). But making LO airframe, in general, isn't it - as it is now quite liberally considered to make even things like tankers LO-shaped.
Production techniques simply advanced far enough.
 
Ainen said:
You're talking about consistent production capability.
One can argue that even typhoon production techniques (known assembly precision) is quite enough for what counted back then as LO airframe. They didn't and couldn't(afford to) to do it LO - as the French couldn't - but not for this specific reason.
While the "proven" experience is lacking - the general advance in aircraft industry construction techniques between 1995 and 2030 makes it very unlikely to be a too big of a problem.

If it'll affect something - it'll probably affect what specific level they'll aim for (and how close to the ideal mathematical shape&reflection they'll try to get). But making LO airframe, in general, isn't it - as it is now quite liberally considered to make even things like tankers LO-shaped.
Production techniques simply advanced far enough.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I believe that yet.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom