I suspect that communicating with an AI wingman or even an AI WSO might be harder, it will tend to see things in black and white, might not wish to justify its actions in the way a human would - at least at present it has no tendency to admit mistakes let alone give clarity on its decision making process. Pilots are close knit and tend to trust each other with their lives, would you trust an AI programme to the same extent or have the same emotional attachment? Problems for perhaps 20 years time but ones that need thinking about.
Thing is, they've been saying AI is 10 years away for about the last 40. I'm starting to wonder if it's possible for electronics (as opposed to chemical/quantum reactions) to make an AGI at all.
 
It's not like the Abrams and T80 aren't multifuel. Turbines don't care much what you feed them as long as it's fluid and flammable. Sufficiently finely ground coal dust will work just fine.

But yes, the US basically decided to massively overbuild the fuel supply system and get everything burning the same stuff.
We COULD have had the RR CV engines instead but, THAT would have been easy and sensible. Yuk.
 
Things not looking good for GCAP :confused:
A government watchdog has warned over the performance of several UK defence acquisitions, with a trio of programmes – including the Tempest future fighter effort – moved to a list of projects whose delivery or cost targets appear unachievable.
In its latest annual report, published last month but covering the financial year to end-March 2023, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) said that the performance of three programmes – the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) involving an industry team of BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and the UK arms of Leonardo and MBDA, and those relating to the MBDA Brimstone and Spear air-to-ground missiles – had worsened during the period under review.
The IPA gives projects a “delivery confidence assessment” rating – grading them as green, amber or red – against schedule and cost targets; it says all three programmes have moved from amber to red.
 
They always rate everything red or yellow until its delivered based mainly duration of project causing uncertainty in budget and delivery, really pessimistic bunch. The only time they ever rate anything green is once its already been completed and then they say 'We think that was delivered last year will be on schedule'.

Of 244 projects they rated 12 N/A, 26 green, 23 red and 183 amber.
Of 45 military projects 2 green, 4 red, 3 N/A and 36 Amber.

Of the projects completing in 2021/22 they predicted 2 red, 19 amber, 7 green and 1 N/A the year before.
The actual result was 3 cancelled, 4 N/A, 8 rescoped/didnt meet all objectives and 14 successfully completed while meeting all objectives.

 
Last edited:
Things not looking good for GCAP :confused:

One thing you can be certain of for UK journalists is that they have absolutely no idea of how the IPA's RAG status works in the real world...it doesn't give them a story if they just said there was a lot of nuance in the RAG statuses.

Let me give you a example....I worked on a GMPP Programme from inception to delivery (Tempest is also a GMPP programme). We were rated RED from day one, after 5 years we moved to AMBER-RED. It stayed that way for the remainder of its run to delivery, whereupon it was rated GREEN.

It was delivered early, vastly under budget and with real benefits in cash terms of over double the business case, it was described by the Major Projects Review Group as the best run programme they'd seen in years, and used as an exemplar. But according to the MPA/IPA RAG status it was undeliverable for the vast majority of its run....
 
Saab has acquired the UK company BlueBear which make AI autonomous drone swarm software and were behind the notable 2020 trial with 20 fixed wing drones of different sizes and configurations working autonomously to detect and prosecute targets. Demonstrates continuing interest by the company in the UK drone sector.


Meanwhile several Middle Eastern papers have been reporting Japans stance on Saudi Arabia joining GCAP has been softening but I cant tell if its genuine or Saudi lobbying through the press.
 
Last edited:
So will Sweden do the right thing and join the GCAP project full-time since Saab have now bought out Blue Bear group which had a stake in the Tempest program. Or are they still sitting on the fence at this point.
 
I think they are still mainly looking at working on the drone aspects with UK/Italy (which will be separate to the Japanese drone programme) and bringing that tech across to their own aircraft.
 
For those that dont speak Japanese/currency conversion:

Basic design of the fighter jet including detailed design of the engine ¥63.7bn ($444m)
Research on unmanned aircraft and developing necessary AI tech for manned-unmanned teaming ¥4.9bn ($34m)
Contribution of funds to an international organisation to promote the development of the fighter ¥4bn ($27m)
Development of medium range air-to-air missile to equip next generation fighter jets ¥18.4bn ($130m)
 
Last edited:

An ambitious timetable to deliver the world’s newest fighter jet | Financial Times

UK, Italian and Japanese partnership aims to have a new generation of supersonic aircraft flying by 2035


Article Text

In hangar number five at BAE Systems’ sprawling factory in north-west England, test pilots are putting the world’s most advanced fighter jet through its paces. The pilots have already flown more than 170 hours over 125 outings but the jet itself has not yet been built; the flights have taken place inside a bespoke simulator in the cavernous space.

The virtual testing will help to inform live trials of a supersonic prototype aircraft scheduled to fly in 2027. It will be Britain’s first combat test aircraft since the Eurofighter Typhoon almost 40 years ago. It is also a critical first step if the UK and its partners Italy and Japan are to achieve their promise to have new generation aircraft flying by 2035 as part of the trilateral Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP).

Unveiled last December, GCAP is one of the most ambitious military programmes ever attempted. It merges Japan’s F-X programme with the UK and Italy’s Tempest project, with the aim of delivering a supersonic jet in roughly half the time — and therefore at significantly less cost — of previous generation aircraft such as the Typhoon.

Previously in charge of the Eurofighter consortium, Herman Claesen, managing director of Future Combat Air Systems at BAE Systems, said a radically new approach was needed compared with the Typhoon programme, which took about 20 years to develop.

“There is not enough money, there is not enough time,” he said adding: “We’ve got to break this curve [of long lead times and soaring costs].”

Fighter jets are the most technologically complex and notoriously expensive aircraft. America’s latest-generation F-35 initiative is the most expensive military project in history, costing the Pentagon an estimated near $1.7tn to buy, operate and sustain over its lifetime.

While the cost of each aircraft depends on a range of factors including the model, some estimates cited for the F-35 jet are more than $170mn. The unit cost of the latest version of the Eurofighter Typhoon — which is one generation older than the F-35 — is in the order of $110mn-$120mn, according to analysts.


The war in Ukraine has underlined the importance of defence industrial sovereignty but the partners in GCAP know that a new, more technically advanced, fighter programme must be more affordable.

Norman Augustine, a former chief executive of US defence group Lockheed Martin, famously predicted in the 1980s that given the exponential cost of new military aircraft, by 2054 the entire defence budget would be able to afford just one single jet.

GCAP is not just an aircraft but will include manned and unmanned drones, as well as laser weaponry.

The UK government has so far committed just over £2bn towards the original Tempest programme alone, with industry partners investing about £800mn. Japan’s defence ministry is seeking to set aside ¥72.6bn ($494mn) for the GCAP programme for the 2024-2025 fiscal year.

The money will fund the so-called “concept and assessment phase” until the end of 2025. The aim then is to launch the development phase between the three nations.

To meet the ambitious timetable, the leading industrial partners on the programme — BAE, Italy’s Leonardo and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries — are investing heavily in digital design and innovative prototyping and engineering methods. Robots used in car plants have been modified to operate at the tolerances required for military aircraft and will work alongside people.


BAE has stressed the progress it has already made, including successful ejector seat trials using a rocket-propelled sled travelling at speeds of more than 500mph © Martin Baker
BAE, for example, has started to use 3D printing to make moulds that will be used to manufacture carbon fibre components. These “mould tools” are usually made from steel and take about 26 weeks to make. Using 3D printing, the company can print them in under 12 hours and have a fully complete tool ready in under three weeks.

Using digital modelling will help engineers to collaborate on the design, to understand problems earlier and to speed up the regulatory certification process by reducing the need for expensive physical prototyping.

“We think the digital collaborative working environment we are setting up between Japan and Italy will be one of the most complex and biggest globally,” said Claesen on a tour of the BAE’s Warton site.

The company stresses the progress it has made. Rolls-Royce, one of the three companies working on the engine, has been testing advanced technology for the plane in Bristol, while successful ejector seat trials using a rocket-propelled sled travelling at speeds of more than 500mph have also taken place.

While work is continuing at pace on setting up the “digital enterprise”, the partners must still decide what kind of industrial structure to use to deliver the programme, given the number of parties involved.

Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said for the programme to work “you need industry, government and defence ministries all to buy in that the key authority rests with . . . management”.


At BAE Systems in Warton, Lancashire, test pilots from BAE, Rolls-Royce and the Royal Air Force have already flown more than 170 hours of the demonstrator aircraft in a new bespoke simulator © BAE Systems
According to executives at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, part of the challenge is that each of the companies wants to take the lead in the most interesting parts of the development, including the cockpit, electronics, the weapons control system and the carbon fibre wings.

“There are so many areas that everyone wants to do,” said Masayuki Eguchi, head of defence at MHI. “Ultimately, the work share will be decided depending on factors such as how much time will be required to develop the technology and how much it would cost,” he said adding that the partners have yet to work out whether the workload would be shared one-third each or whether it would be a different split.

Having worked mainly with US defence companies in the past, MHI is also learning how to communicate most effectively with their UK and Italian counterparts.

“With three countries involved, there are differences in language, culture and the way of thinking. While all three companies have experience building fighter jets, it does take time to understand each other,” said Hiroshi Umino, MHI’s deputy general manager of the GCAP programme office, adding that they often draw illustrations or write mathematical formulas to make sure they have understood each other.

One of the biggest challenges will be cyber security, given the large amount of digital development. Defence experts said one source of tension could be differences in cyber security between partner nations.

Japan is allocating a portion of its increased military spending to boost cyber defences but its vulnerability to cyber attacks has come under scrutiny. The country’s National Center for Incident Readiness and Strategy for Cybersecurity revealed last month that its email system was hacked. In July, the port of Nagoya was temporarily closed by what was believed to be a Russian ransomware attack, while the Washington Post reported the discovery of a massive attack on Japan’s defence networks by Chinese military hackers carried out in late 2020.

BAE’s Claesen said security was a “key feature of GCAP” and that the different governments were “laying out the security requirements . . . often led by the UK”. Japan, he added, was “taking this incredibly seriously”.

“We believe our cyber security measures are comparable to other top-level overseas defence companies,” said Eguchi. “There is no doubt that the cyber threat will increase in line with the expansion of digitalisation but the digital tools will be adopted if the merits such as the reduction in development costs and time are judged to exceed the demerits from a certain degree of risk for data leak.
 
Defense News Article on the sensors for GCAP


Article Text - Highlighting some key passages...

ROME — As the trinational Global Combat Air Program fighter program accelerates, partners Japan, Italy and the U.K. are planning to define the sensor hardware to go onboard the jet by mid-2025 and form a new industrial joint venture to divide up work share, a senior official has told Defense News.

Worth up to 30% of the value of the planned sixth-generation fighter, the radar and other sensors are a key element of the aircraft, which the partners hope to have in service by 2035.

With one eye on that deadline, the firms working on sensor technology — Leonardo UK, Leonardo Italy, Italy’s ELT Group and Japan’s Mitsubishi Electric — are now working toward a key target two years off.

“We are confident we can freeze the hardware and form the joint venture to allocate workshare by mid-2025,” said Andrew Howard, Director Future Combat Air/GCAP UK at Leonardo UK.

“Another aim for 2025 is to reach an understanding with the airframe community about how we will integrate our sensor solution into their airframe,” he said.

A further target is to agree with the fighter’s propulsion team — Rolls Royce, Japan’s IHI and Italy’s Avio — on how much energy the sensor suite will need, he said.

What is already certain is that GCAP’s sensor package will push the envelope. Multi-function sensing nodes that incorporate functions such as radar, electronic warfare and electro-optics, including infrared search and track (IRST), will work together thanks to a so-called Multi-Function Processor (MFP).

“On fourth- and fifth-generation fighters, sensors still work largely in a stovepipe capacity. They share information into a common hub but do not cross check or prioritize information,” said Howard.

“On the GCAP, before data from the sensors is shared with the mission computer, which means the cockpit and the pilot, the Multi-Function Processor is rapidly processing that information and triangulating with any relevant sensor – it is a glue between sensors,” he added.


With data from different sensors coming together “at an incredibly high rate of processing,” the GCAP will offer “a situational battle space awareness far greater than anything achieved previously,” he said.

The overall system, dubbed ISANKE & ICS (Integrated Sensing and Non-Kinetic Effects & Integrated Communications System), will include a radar touted as a step up from the ECRS Mk2 Leonardo UK has worked on for the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Miniaturized radar receivers positioned closer to the radar’s arrays will ensure a much faster digitalization of the incoming signal, reducing data loss, planners say.

Howard said the GCAP radar, known as the Multi-Function Radio Frequency System, is being designed with fewer constraints on size, weight and power required.

“The ECRS Mk2 was fitted into a preexisting radome space in the Typhoon and inevitably had one or two constraints,” said. “We didn’t have the capacity to rethink size, shape, angles, mounting or weight. With GCAP we can think about the array in an unconstrained space.”

Between now and 2035, Howard said he has high hopes for the ongoing collaboration with the Italians — the UK’s veteran partner on the Tornado and Eurofighter programs — as well as with the Japanese.

Japanese engineers have traditionally placed a higher priority on reducing risk in projects, he said, but added, “any skepticism about language and cultural barriers and engineering philosophy is not true. We are seeing profoundly successful collaboration around really complicated aspects of the radar.”

Once the hardware is defined in 2025, work will continue on the sensor software, said Howard.

“We will have ten years to design, develop and manufacture the solution and test it to deliver initial capability by 2035. Then there will be a pretty intense spiral where we unlock the full potential of the system between 2035 and 2040. That is the five-year period in which we reach into the inner depth of the capability so you wont see a steady state until around 2040.”

Even then, Howard said the flexibility of the system will allow further development.

“In traditional programs you talk about Final Operating Capability, but we don’t think we will ever reach FOC and we are trying to get the three air forces to appreciate that language,” he said.

“The ‘Isanke’ solution will constantly change to meet the threat and while there will clearly be periodic baseline standards we work to, but I don’t think there will be a moment when we say that’s it, we have reached capacity.”

As such, Howard said he foresaw Japan and Italy possibly using their own test aircraft, similar to the 757 Leonardo UK is now using to flight-test sensors, to hone the use of their in-service sensors beyond the development phase.

That would set the GCAP apart from the F-35, which is being operated by the UK, Japan and Italy.

“The F-35 is an aircraft you have limited control over in terms of data and the way it operates,” said Howard.

With GCAP, he added, air forces will “have access to information to modify the aircraft, to load mission data and understand and interpret data without recourse to another nation, so you have genuine freedom of action, and the vast majority of that data will be unlocked by Isanke.”

For the three partners the access to the system will be “total,” he said, adding some limits would be in place for export customers. “The export customer will get an incredibly different experience than they would on the F-35, although not the same as the partner nations that built the aircraft in the first place,” he added.
 
I would have highlighted also the programmed end of FOC.

Although radical, it perfectly fits the narrative today and balances the uneasiness left after Roper's digital century series.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8150.jpeg
    IMG_8150.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 192
  • IMG_8151.jpeg
    IMG_8151.jpeg
    615.9 KB · Views: 139
  • IMG_8152.jpeg
    IMG_8152.jpeg
    608.1 KB · Views: 138
Last edited:
So to sum up DSEI 2023 so far we have had three announcements;
*Agreement on work share for the concept phase to 2025 by BAE/Leonardo/MHI
*Agreement to freeze the Integrated Sensing and Non-Kinetic Effects & Integrated Communications Systems hardware in 2025 by Leonardo UK/Leonardo Italy/ELT Group/Mitsubishi Electric so energy requirements are known and software development can commence.
*Agreement by MBDA UK, MBDA Italia and Mitsubishi Electric for common Effector aircraft integration and weapons management but not a common effector design.

So I guess now we are waiting for an engine announcement/restatement.
 
Side by side comparison with Dassault’s NGF (2019 model):

Image.jpg

(Obviously relative scale is unknown, but GCAP seems to have a wider fuselage and larger wingspan relative to length)
 
Notice the relatively massive Inlets on GCAP that points toward the different propulsion system (more bypass).
 
Does that mean that there will be more powerful engines in GCAP than Dassult's NGF TomcatVIP, or is it far too early to say right now.
 
Some recent comments from the BAE CEO at DSEi regarding Saudi Arabian involvement...naturally BAE are keen. Remains to be seen how keen the others are, in particular Japan.

 
Let's wait and see what happens in the long run with GCAP timmymagic, I for one want to see the program go through to completion and actual hardware and not to end up like the FOAS which was cancled before it entered production.
 
I don't think hearquatering in UK will change anything for the Italians. An headquarter is not where all the work happens. Neither it is a factory.
 
Old joke (especially considering news about the London Met lately):

In the European Heaven, the English are the police, the Germans are the engineers, the French are the cooks, the Italians are the lovers, and the Swiss organise it all.

In the European Hell, the Germans are the police, the French are the engineers, the English are the cooks, the Swiss are the lovers, and the Italians organise it all.

I also remember reading and article in which Chobham armour was described as being as tough as a British Rail sandwich.
 
Last edited:

A bit surprised to see that Italy is willing to share equal burden, though this must also mean that they would have to also acquire as much aircrafts.
 
A bit surprised to see that Italy is willing to share equal burden, though this must also mean that they would have to also acquire as much aircrafts.

The article says "The final decision will therefore encompass an equal and balanced share of costs and benefits.". Sounds like workshare based on orders and therefore contribution to me....think the 'equal' bit is doing some heavy lifting...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom