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

japannews.yomiuri.co.jp

Japan, UK, Italy to Send Hundreds of Officials to New Organization for Fighter Jet Development; Plan to Be Agreed Thursday

Defense Ministers of Japan, the United Kingdom and Italy will agree to establish an international organization called GIGO for their planned joint development of a next-generation fighter jet at a meeting held in Tokyo on Thursday, according to government sources. Final arrangements are being...
japannews.yomiuri.co.jp japannews.yomiuri.co.jp


“Defense Ministers of Japan, the United Kingdom and Italy will agree to establish an international organization called GIGO for their planned joint development of a next-generation fighter jet at a meeting held in Tokyo on Thursday, according to government sources. Final arrangements are being made to send several hundred government officials from the three countries to the organization.”
 
raptor82 said:
"...agree to establish an international organization called GIGO"
Click to expand...

It doesn't say what the letters stand for, surely not 'garbage in, garbage out.' I hope it was just a case of someone making a joke and the reporter taking it seriously.
 
Britain is to spearhead a new fighter jet projectfor the first time under a treaty to be signed with Japan and Italy on Thursday.

The agreement reveals that the UK will host the headquarters of the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), where all major decisions about the project will be made.
Click to expand...
www.telegraph.co.uk

Britain to build next generation fighter jets under historic deal

The Global Combat Air Programme project will be based in the UK and aims to create next-generation aircraft to take to the skies by 2035
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
raptor82 said:

GIGO=GCAP International Government Organisation （ not ‘Organization’ ！ :rolleyes:）
Click to expand...
Oh well then, so it's not a pisstake. Someone will make it one though.

Leaning on my current capacity as a professional pedant, I can authoritatively say that 'organisation' is standard British English spelling while 'organization' is American English - but also in Oxford, although Oxford still uses the same punctuation style as the rest of Britain. Additionally, passing through Oxford, the river Thames is known as the Isis. I'm sure that duels have been fought over these distinctions.

Of course it's daft; it's traditional - Terry Pratchett
 
So two organisations both based in the UK, one government led with a Japanese CEO and one Industry led with a Italian CEO. Presumably a central procurement agency and a supplier consortium.
 
UK/Japan are doing a joint clean sheet engine design with a test stand in both countries, Avio likely to be thrown the bone of being supplier for some engine parts, Rolls Royce have an integrated electric APU starter design so I dont think Avio will get to design a seperate APU.
 
The treaty:


Notable points, premises and staff of the governmental oversight agency have diplomatic immunity.
Sadly automobile accidents are explicitly excluded from the diplomatic immunity, I think we know why.
Staff are exempt from salary taxation and import duties so long as they do not resell anything they import.
The family Household of staff have the right to seek paid work in the host country.
Agency is responsible for healthcare and social security benefits of the staff and their household, those who seek work may make voluntary taxation contributions to receive host country healthcare and social security.

Sharing of information and exploratory membership talks with further members may be permitted by the Steering Committee, accession of further members requires unanimous agreement.

The relevant bit on exports.

ARTICLE 50
(1) Each Party shall support, to the maximum extent possible, in accordance with legal obligations and regulations, and with due consideration of the direct interests of national security, the intention of one of the Parties to export or transfer items and information generated within or through the GCAP to non-Parties.
(2) Should one of the Parties have concerns about the possibility of exporting to a non-Party, the Parties shall initiate high-level consultations without undue delay in order to exchange their assessments and find appropriate solutions.

ARTICLE 51
(1) The Parties shall create and maintain a common mechanism for facilitating exports of GCAP systems, subsystems, and technology to non-Parties. Such a mechanism shall be described in a further arrangement between the relevant authorities of the Parties.
(2) The Agency, under the supervision and control of the SC, shall administer the above mentioned mechanism to the extent permitted by the Parties’ national laws.
(3) The mechanism shall reflect this Convention, applicable international agreements and any other legal obligations and regulations, including arms control regime commitments, of the Parties
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Doesn't prevent someone from pulling a Germany and blocking sales, though.
Click to expand...

Luckily the Italian's have few qualms on overseas sales, nor do the Japanese. The only clients Japan would block would be China and NK....and both Italy and the UK wouldn't sell there either.
 
I would not think that China would even buy the GCAP/Tempest they will probably have their own sixth gen fighter program in the works once NGAD and GCAP enter service and see's what capabilities the new fighters have.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Doesn't prevent someone from pulling a Germany and blocking sales, though.
Click to expand...

Its subtle as its in diplomatic speak, but it puts the onus to find a solution to enable such a sale in such situations on the country that objects not the country that wants the sale. The objector would have to propose a solution that satisfied their objection.
 
WatcherZero said:
Its subtle as its in diplomatic speak, but it puts the onus to find a solution to enable such a sale in such situations on the country that objects not the country that wants the sale. The objector would have to propose a solution that satisfied their objection.
Click to expand...
True, but an outright ban is usually better.
 

Attachments

  • スクリーンショット 2023-12-16 212409.jpg
    スクリーンショット 2023-12-16 212409.jpg
    65.4 KB · Views: 29
  • スクリーンショット 2023-12-16 212234.jpg
    スクリーンショット 2023-12-16 212234.jpg
    67.3 KB · Views: 24
www.sankei.com

＜独自＞日米、次期戦闘機と連動する無人機を共同研究　両政府合意

【ワシントン＝坂本一之】日本が２０３５年までの配備を目指す次期戦闘機で、日米両政府が、戦闘機と連動する無人機の開発を巡って共同技術研究に乗り出すことで合意した…
www.sankei.com www.sankei.com
Japan officially signs agreement with the US for the joint research and development of unmanned drones to be used with next gen fighter jets.
This seems to be related to the news a while ago about the joint research between the US, AUS, and JP, so its likely we will see a similar deal signed with Australia in the future. Also rather than it being a Japanese program with US support, its a fully joint program and the resulting drone will likely be used for NGAD as well which would be pretty crazy considering that the general consensus is that most things NGAD related wont leave the US.
 
1703288164726.png
2024 budget for GCAP. 64 billion yen ($450 million) for the overall cost this year.

  • 4.8 billion yen ($33.7 mil) for the joint development of unmanned support fighters with the US with emphasis on AI.
  • 4.2 billion yen ($29.5 mil) for operational costs of the GCAP organization
  • 18.4 billion yen ($129 mil) for the new missile that started development after JNAAM fell through.

One thing to note is that the budget is allocated to the basic design of the fighter and detailed design of the engine, so that seems like the emphasis for Japan right now is development of the engine.
 

USAF, Japan To Study AI For UAVs To Accompany Japanese Fighters​


USAF, Japan To Study AI For UAVs To Accompany Japanese Fighters | Aviation Week Network

The Japanese Ministry of Defense and the U.S. Air Force have announced a joint research program on AI for UAVs to operate alongside crewed fighters.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

" While statements from Japan and the U.S. both say the joint research outcome is “expected to be applied to UAVs operated alongside Japan’s next fighter aircraft,” the U.S. Air Force’s uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft of the Next Generation Air Dominance Family of Systems is not mentioned at all. "
 
I'm curious as to how the production line for this jet is going to look like. I'd imagine that parties involved are pursuing a more automated and digital design/production system to maybe help with lowering unit costs but how that works nation by nation is what really interests me.

Is it possible that we see three lines in Britain, Japan and Italy for the airframe and some systems? How would that work for things like the engines?
 
Given the cost of infra to produce large CFRP panels, there would be probably one only production site. Then final assembly lines could well be multiplicated.
 
I believe Rolls Royce fitted a 1MW embedded electric engine motor in an AE2100 Turboprop engine around 2020 and a 2.5MW version in 2021 under the PGS1 program. Presumably part of the Rolls Royce Electrical division formed in 2022 that the new Chairman is offloading to reduce debt though would have crossover with the civil/military engine business.
 
WatcherZero said:
I believe Rolls Royce fitted a 1MW embedded electric engine motor in an AE2100 Turboprop engine around 2020 and a 2.5MW version in 2021 under the PGS1 program. Presumably part of the Rolls Royce Electrical division formed in 2022 that the new Chairman is offloading to reduce debt though would have crossover with the civil/military engine business.
Click to expand...
So far the 2.5MW number for PGS-1 is just hypothetical and hasn't been reached yet. I think what makes the IHI generator special is the size while still hitting 1MW which can be better adapted to smaller applications such as fighter aircraft.
 

Italy-UK-Japan fighter jet programme could open up to others - Italian Defence Minister​



New partners welcome, after the initial workshare negotiations have been completed.

In Parliament a couple of days ago the head of the wider UK FCAS at BAE Herman Claeson said the partners were about 70% through workshare negotiations and were hoping to finish up by mid-year.

Also,
"We will not open (the programme) to others until the initial phase will be closed," Guido Crosetto told Italian daily Il Corriere della Sera, adding many countries were interested in entering but without directly answering a question on interest from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Click to expand...

We've talked about Saudi asking to join but I haven't seen mention about the UAE before.
 

GCAP Industrial Partners Advancing Negotiations On Workshare | Aviation Week Network

Senior BAE Systems executives hope to finalize negotiations on work share, work allocation and work locations for the trinational Global Combat Air Program by the summer.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Says one thing they have learned from the Eurofighter consortium that will be different this time around is the Intergovernmental Procurement Agency will be authorised to make technical decisions in line with the three governments desires on behalf of the participant countries to speed decision making/reduce political interference in development.
 
So there will be no repeat of what happpened when the French walked out of the Eurofighter program back in the early 1980s, which will be only a good thing.
 

BAE Systems Advances Uncrewed Collaborative Platform Design | Aviation Week Network

BAE Systems has lifted the lid on a new configuration for its attritable collaborative platform at World Defense Show in Riyadh.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Some key quotes;

The latest design features a new diamond-delta shaped wing and more low-observable features, that take into consideration new approaches for wing assembly and production and the use of electrical rather than hydraulic actuation systems.
Click to expand...

“So, what you see here is a more optimized design, not just from a [low observable] perspective, but just as importantly, the cost point to the customer and manufacturing,” Reeves told Aerospace DAILY.
Click to expand...

As large as a Hawk jet trainer, the new Concept 2 is envisaged to be able to perform a wide variety of missions from intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and electronic warfare to carrying air-to-ground and air-to-air weapons.
Click to expand...

Platforms such as Concept 2 are envisaged to cost around a 10th that of a manned fighter, although that price tag would increase once sensors and weapon capabilities are added.
Click to expand...

They would also have a limited airframe lift of perhaps just a few hundred hours after than the thousands of hours for a crewed fighter, while electrical actuators are more appropriate than hydraulic systems for a platform that might spend most of its life in a storage container, notes Reeves.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Some initial thoughts.

The original unveil of the Concept 1 and 2 UCAVs sounded like a customer engagement exercise more than anything. Assuming this redesign is the result of feedback it is interesting that it appears potential buyers are valuing even stronger stealth features, as well as cost (obviously).

The trade of 1/10th unit cost vs roughly the same reduction in airframe life over a manned fighter doesn't sound like a great deal tbh. I appreciate you are still saving a lot on maintenance etc, but still.

Herman Cleason mentioned that BAE were working on a new UCAV demonstrator as a Taranis successor. Presumably it is for this, unless they are working on something else?

Why the quiet reveal? The above is all that's out there atm. Especially as they appear to be trying to snag foreign investment.
 
Last edited:
Broken said:
Some initial thoughts.

The original unveil of the Concept 1 and 2 UCAVs sounded like a customer engagement exercise more than anything. Assuming this redesign is the result of feedback it is interesting that it appears potential buyers are valuing even stronger stealth features, as well as cost (obviously).

The trade of 1/10th unit cost vs roughly the same reduction in airframe life over a manned fighter doesn't sound like a great deal tbh. I appreciate you are still saving a lot on maintenance etc, but still.
Click to expand...
Well, a drone doesn't need it's autopilot to get 200hrs/year to stay proficient, so you're not burning half the airframe life just keeping the pilot licensed. Instead all the life hours go to non-practice real missions. And if we do get into a shooting war, well, we're going to want cheap planes and they're not going to last 8000 hours like an F-16 does. IIRC, the Russian planes had an average life expectancy of 125 hours.
 
Sorry for the thread spam. Another article from Flightglobal, Paywalled sadly.

www.flightglobal.com

BAE reveals autonomous collaborative platform demonstrator will fly within two years

BAE Systems has revealed the design of an autonomous collaborative platform (ACP) demonstrator which it aims to fly within the next two years.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

The main points are they want to fly a demonstrator in 2 years [lucky guess...] under an internal development programme. After that they are looking for industry partners to develop it further.

Also it has a 2770 km operational radius. They are keen on long range, with a few hours loiter time on target.
 
Last edited:
Broken said:
The main points are they want to fly a demonstrator in 2 years [lucky guess...] under an internal development programme. After that they are looking for industry partners to develop it further.
Click to expand...

Intrigued by what engine they'll choose...would they use Adour after its recent issues? Any RB.199 kicking around in stores?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom