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

[Broken]

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

The Adour is an obvious candidate, at least for the demonstrator.

You could go for something else for production. Something like the F124/F125 selected for Aeralis is of a similar scale. That said, Yank engines are fat, which is less than ideal for a relatively stealthy platform. More speculatively, Rolls Royce recently developed the Orpheus engine. Although a tech demonstrator, it was pitched as being developable into a family of small engines especially for loyal wingman UAVs.

EJ200 is way too large.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

For the range figure and payload, I don't think they need anything larger than a 10,000lbf thrust engine for fhis thing.

 

[red admiral]

Why the quiet reveal? The above is all that's out there atm. Especially as they appear to be trying to snag foreign investment.

Probably because there's not really any customer interest? It seemed quite clear that UK wasn't really interested in this space and was focusing on smaller, cheaper. Whereas this just looks like BAES doing LANCA/Mosquito about ten years late. Announcement in KSA is probably more about aiming for KSA funding?

 

[Jackonicko]

There was a nice new model of GCAP/Tempest at WDS, too, drawing the attention of some familiar faces, including Craig Hoyle, Tony Osborne and this elderly geezer...

Lots of news on GCAP to come...

 

[Jackonicko]

Probably because there's not really any customer interest? It seemed quite clear that UK wasn't really interested in this space and was focusing on smaller, cheaper. Whereas this just looks like BAES doing LANCA/Mosquito about ten years late. Announcement in KSA is probably more about aiming for KSA funding?

Not sure that this is in the same 'loyal wingman' space that LANCA was.

 

[Kota]

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.

I think we really need to look at how much is being saved though. The article says 1/10th the cost of a manned fighter. There was never any doubt that 6th gens would include loyal wingman drones, so it's not like this program is replacing this arbitrary need for more manned fighters because the program was designed from the ground up with drones in mind. These "manned fighters" that this drone is being compared to literally don't exist even conceptually as the role was always going to be filled by a drone.

What I actually want to know is how much is being saved over a more "traditionally designed" combat drone with a typical life span. For starters the 1/10th figure is just the airframe cost excluding all the sensors and weapons avionics. Lets look at a hypothetical scenario that this concept might see itself in.

Lets say just the airframe of a 6th gen UCAV without sensors is $10mil. We will be generous and say that the BAe concept saves 33% and only costs $6.5mil, so a total savings of $3.5mil. The actual big bucks are going to be in the sensors and weapons integration and lets say they use identical sensors, weapons, software, etc and it all costs $20mil. So, traditional drone has a unit cost of $30 mil and BAe at $26.5mil.

The article states a "couple hundred flight hours and when I hear that I think somewhere around ~300 flight hours for the airframe. I'll again be generous and say it's actually 500 flight hours while the traditional drone has 1000 which is probably still being favorable to the BAe concept.

So up until 500 hours the BAe drone saves you $3.5mil per airframe, but as soon as the airframe reaches the end of it's life span, the BAe concept now costs $53mil for every $30mil spent on the traditional system. After 1000 hours the BAe concept costs $79.5mil vs $60mil.

Overall I think it's incredibly misleading about how much is actually being saved when they try and compare the cost savings to a manned system. It just doesn't seem like the cost savings are worth it. Even being generous to the BAe concept in the hypothetical it still just doesn't make sense. The more the sensor and weapons integration costs the less the "airframe cost savings" matter as it makes a smaller and smaller percentage of the overall costs.

 

[Desertfox]

Im assuming loyal wingmen will act more like expendable munitions than current drones with alot less flight hours on the airframes.

 

[red admiral]

Not sure that this is in the same 'loyal wingman' space that LANCA was.

Sounds pretty similar from those published statements. Really difficult to see it being towards the lower end and cheaper.

 

[TomcatViP]

Im assuming loyal wingmen will act more like expendable munitions than current drones with alot less flight hours on the airframes.

Not my understanding. If you dare pay the cost and extra delay to have something that can evolve in proximity of the manned component, you certainly don't want to loose them for something trivial.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Im assuming loyal wingmen will act more like expendable munitions than current drones with alot less flight hours on the airframes.

I'm not expecting them to be one shot and done expendable.

I'd want to talk to the Israelis about how long they're getting out of their recoverable loitering munitions, I'm guessing somewhere around 10-50 missions. That's probably what we need to be looking at for the Loyal Wingman drones. (note that I'm talking combat missions here, where it was established in WW2 that even making it to 50 missions was quite the task)

 

[Jackonicko]

The FCAS 'system of systems' will certainly include one (or more) manned combat air platforms, augmented by space-based sensors, unmanned assets that are nearly as non-expendable (think Phasa) and a range of expendable and one-mission 'effectors' (eg: SPEAR EW), with some attritable (rather than expendable) platform types.

Some of these will be very capable, and will be intended to be recoverable and reuseable, and some real consideration will be given to avoiding losing them. Their primary purpose will be to penetrate those parts of the battlespace where you wouldn't risk manned platforms - stand in jamming, etc.

Others will be simpler, cheaper, and less capable, and will be more attritable, while still not being 'single use'.

While the US are still looking at CCAs that may be 1/2 or 1/3 of the cost of an F-35, and that will be more like the 'Loyal Wingmen' we were envisaging a few years ago (effectively like proper wingmen, just not with a human pilot), others are turning to significantly less costly and less capable platforms - or perhaps less flexible ones which might be single role (or single role on a given sortie), for example?

LANCA was looking like an MQ-28 Ghost Bat class of aircraft, and that's a class of aircraft that op analysis seems to have shown to be less than cost-effective. In a similar vein, there seems to have been a realisation that making the core manned platform optionally manned is probably 'not worth the candle'. The new ACP looks like something that 'sits below' that in the capability and cost spectrum.

"Sounds pretty similar from those published statements. Really difficult to see it being towards the lower end and cheaper."

While ACP may not be 'lower end' and 'cheaper' in the way that SPEAR EW is, I think it absolutely is cheaper and lower end than LANCA/Mosquito.

 

[Broken]

The statements,

"As large as a Hawk jet trainer"

And,

an ACP could have an operational radius of 1,500nm (2,770km)"

Suggest something larger and more capable than Ghost Bat or Mosquito, not the other way round.

 

[red admiral]

The statements,


And,


Suggest something larger and more capable than Ghost Bat or Mosquito, not the other way round.

And the statement about "more LO"

All the published BAES info points to more expensive. It would be weird if they were briefing you the opposite in person

Whereas RAF/MOD info points to significantly lower

 

[Broken]

Meanwhile, on GCAP proper,

Saudi Arabia 'keen' to join GCAP fighter program, but localization a must: GAMI governor - Breaking Defense

"I think [joining] the program [GCAP] is important to Saudi Arabia," GAMI governor Ahmad Al-Ohali tells Breaking Defense.

breakingdefense.com

 

[FighterJock]

Good news for GCAP if Saudi are keen to join the program.

 

[WatcherZero]

The statements,


And,


Suggest something larger and more capable than Ghost Bat or Mosquito, not the other way round.

Supposedly this is a redesign of their UAS Concept 2 unveiled last year (pictured below) to make it more suitable for intrusion missions.

 

[Desertfox]

I'm not expecting them to be one shot and done expendable.

I'd want to talk to the Israelis about how long they're getting out of their recoverable loitering munitions, I'm guessing somewhere around 10-50 missions. That's probably what we need to be looking at for the Loyal Wingman drones. (note that I'm talking combat missions here, where it was established in WW2 that even making it to 50 missions was quite the task)

I'm not saying they are expendable, I'm saying life-cycle costs can be cheaper since they can be treated similar to expendable munitions in the sense that you buy them and store them until you need to use them. Loyal Wingmen don't need to train, you don't have to burn airframe flight hours on training.

 

[what_is_that]

I'm not saying they are expendable, I'm saying life-cycle costs can be cheaper since they can be treated similar to expendable munitions in the sense that you buy them and store them until you need to use them. Loyal Wingmen don't need to train, you don't have to burn airframe flight hours on training.

Or if you want some for training purposes, you buy a handful of longer life versions specifically for training. This approach makes a lot of sense to me _if_ it can actually help control costs.

 

[H_K]

Supposedly this is a redesign of their UAS Concept 2 unveiled last year (pictured below) to make it more suitable for intrusion missions

Hmm…needs a probe for air-to-air refueling.

Otherwise this UCAV (like many other proposals out there) just won’t have the range to be a useful asset for deep penetration / long range strikes.

 

[Kota]

Meanwhile, on GCAP proper,

Saudi Arabia 'keen' to join GCAP fighter program, but localization a must: GAMI governor - Breaking Defense

"I think [joining] the program [GCAP] is important to Saudi Arabia," GAMI governor Ahmad Al-Ohali tells Breaking Defense.

breakingdefense.com

Al-Ohali told Breaking Defense that the Kingdom sees potential contributions towards GCAP in the realms of manufacturing, development and technology, as well as providing human capital for the program. But ultimately, KSA has to be fully involved, “otherwise it doesn’t make sense for us.”

Ok, so it's not going to happen the same as before. It was slim before all the agreements were signed, but now it just straight up isn't going to happen.

On top of that they are asking for all this localization while providing literally nothing expecting all the GCAP partners to basically bank roll and give up their tech to build up a Saudi aerospace industry from scratch.

I seriously don't understand why the Saudis have this idea that they can demand all this stuff when they bring literally nothing to the table besides money. Also didn't they recently decide they wanted to hop on board the KF-21? It would be much better to start smaller on a program like that than trying to jump straight to 6th gen. Korea is also no stranger to giving extremely generous tech transfers, so I don't understand the desperation to get in GCAP.

 

[WatcherZero]

Hmm…needs a probe for air-to-air refueling.

Otherwise this UCAV (like many other proposals out there) just won’t have the range to be a useful asset for deep penetration / long range strikes.

Reported 1500 nautical mile combat range in the diamond wing redesign, thats almost 3x the unrefueled combat range of an F-35 or Eurofighter. When you start adding complex stuff like aerial refuelling piping your adding significant cost and taking away from it being an attritable platform. If BAE are pushing this as a GCAP wingman it does match the expectation of GCAP range being 1000 NM+.

 

[WatcherZero]

Ok, so it's not going to happen the same as before. It was slim before all the agreements were signed, but now it just straight up isn't going to happen.

On top of that they are asking for all this localization while providing literally nothing expecting all the GCAP partners to basically bank roll and give up their tech to build up a Saudi aerospace industry from scratch.

I seriously don't understand why the Saudis have this idea that they can demand all this stuff when they bring literally nothing to the table besides money. Also didn't they recently decide they wanted to hop on board the KF-21? It would be much better to start smaller on a program like that than trying to jump straight to 6th gen. Korea is also no stranger to giving extremely generous tech transfers, so I don't understand the desperation to get in GCAP.

Yeah think its odd that they are pushing 'Human Capital' as one of their advantages when the country is reliant on immigrant labour on work visas, with 66% of actual Saudi citizens in the workforce being employed as civil servants.

 

[H_K]

Reported 1500 nautical mile combat range in the diamond wing redesign, thats almost 3x the unrefueled combat range of an F-35 or Eurofighter.

Something must have gotten lost in translation in the press report because 1,500nm combat radius is not realistic for this size of drone. At least not with a useful payload.

Maybe they did in fact mean combat range (ie. 750nm combat radius), which would tie with Concept 2’s quoted 5 hour endurance… and which to me seems insufficient.

 

[Jackonicko]

And the statement about "more LO"

All the published BAES info points to more expensive. It would be weird if they were briefing you the opposite in person

Whereas RAF/MOD info points to significantly lower

Possibly. Though size isn't everything. My understanding is that LANCA was some way along the loyal wingman spectrum, where Concept Two is closer to the adjunct end of that spectrum. We will see.

 

[Jackonicko]

Good news for GCAP if Saudi are keen to join the program.

The Saudis have wanted 'in' on GCAP for some time. Japan is known to be hostile to having more partners.

One could see that Saudi involvement might be possible, since that's a UK programme. But that isn't GCAP.

Hence the sensitivities around what FCAP is and isn't.

Yes, I said and meant FCAP. That's not a typo

 

[Jackonicko]

 

[Jackonicko]

 

[Jackonicko]

 

[Jackonicko]

 

[Jackonicko]

 

[WatcherZero]

Something must have gotten lost in translation in the press report because 1,500nm combat radius is not realistic for this size of drone. At least not with a useful payload.

Maybe they did in fact mean combat range (ie. 750nm combat radius), which would tie with Concept 2’s quoted 5 hour endurance… and which to me seems insufficient.

Why? Very similar in size and performance figures to the XQ-58 Valkyrie which has a 3000 nautical mile ferry range, Mach 0.71 cruise speed, 45,000ft ceiling and similar dimensions and weight (slightly lighter), except the Valkyries only carries 272kg internally and 272kg externally rather than having two internal weapon bays. The BAE design is also extremely similar to the Kratos Thanatos proposal though that's tailless.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Meanwhile, on GCAP proper,

Saudi Arabia 'keen' to join GCAP fighter program, but localization a must: GAMI governor - Breaking Defense

"I think [joining] the program [GCAP] is important to Saudi Arabia," GAMI governor Ahmad Al-Ohali tells Breaking Defense.

breakingdefense.com

The article mentions Saudi oil money as their leverage, but to be frank, they are not the ones sitting on the driver's seat on this discrouse. Problem for them is, in 2030s, GCAP would be the only 5+~6th gen fighter available on the market; NGF would not even be ready, and slim chance that US is comfortable with making NGAD available abroad. They might turn to the Chinese, but procuring ballistic missiles and UAVs and getting their hand on Chinese next gen fighters are completely different story. Also, that is if the Chinese next gen fighter is already available by that point, which is doubtful.

If any kind of "localization" happens, I expect not much more than CKD, under arrangements comparable to F-35 FACOs in Italy and Japan. Even SKD would be very hard to agree upon.

Also didn't they recently decide they wanted to hop on board the KF-21? It would be much better to start smaller on a program like that than trying to jump straight to 6th gen. Korea is also no stranger to giving extremely generous tech transfers, so I don't understand the desperation to get in GCAP.

It is true that there have been multiple visits by ADD and MoD officials to Saudi Arabia to discuss possible cooperations in the defence sector, but so far, only the export of KM-SAM has materialized. Regarding fighter jet cooperation, Korean is allegedly offering Saudi involvement in KF-21 block III programme and its adjunct MUM-T system, as well as the follow-up future system of systems programme. According to MoD press release, the Sauds have shown interests and talks are ongoing, but it was also stressed that there's no formal agreements in place as of now.

On top of that, it is quite clear what the Sauds would prioritize if both GCAP and KF-X/KF-XX were on table. It's just that the former is turning out to be very hard to join as of current.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Supposedly this is a redesign of their UAS Concept 2 unveiled last year (pictured below) to make it more suitable for intrusion missions.

View attachment 719456

More than the Concept 2, it is very similar to the drone concept they have designed with Scaled Composites around 20 years ago.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1349743890916548609

View: https://twitter.com/kleinenf/status/1349743890916548609

It was also evaluated by Defense Science Board Task Force as possible candidate of future aerial targets. Exerpt from the report :

The Task Force assessed theneeds for aerial targets in the 2005-2020 era for testing of a wide variety of air defense systems.

The spectrum of aerial targets involves full-sized aircraft, subsonic and supersonic cruise missiles, rotary-wing vehicles and UAVs. Ground systems and on-board instruments for target control are also involved. Aerial target testing is about a $220 million per year enterprise which involves some 750 flights per year using ten different targets.

About 200 of these flights result in destruction of the targetso development and procurement of new targets is a major activity. The Task Force found four areas of concern in their review:

• The need for a new full-scale aircraft target
• The dire need for several types of supersonic targets to represent existing anti-ship cruise missile threats
• The need for migration to a future common control system across the services so that all services could test on all major ranges.
• The need for a more centralized and focused aerial targets management structure in OSD

We are projected to run out of the inventory of our single full-scale target, the QF-4, a drone version of the F-4 aircraft, about 2011. A decision on a replacement aircraft is needed soon toavoid a gap in full-scale target availability. The Task Force recommends the development of a drone version of the F-16 aircraft because it can provide a substantial supply of surplus aircraft for many years to come. A competing view is to try to continue with F-4 aircraft even thoughthe F-4 variants now available will be increasingly costly to modify into drone vehicles.

The Task Force recommends our future full-scale target effort should strive to eliminate the needfor a man-rated aircraft because it is a major driver of vehicle cost. The F-16 option would allow removal of the wings for ground transportation.

The F-16 option should be considered an interim solution, intended to avoid a gap in full scaletarget availability. The F-16 may not be representative of a fifth generation fighter threat.

Accordingly, the Task Force also recommends a concept development effort for a full-scale target to emulate advanced aircraft threats exploiting low-observable technologies.

The area of greatest concern to the Task Force was our gap in supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles for testing. The Russians have deployed at least three such cruise missiles that involve either sea-skimming flight profiles or a high-altitude profile involving a power dive to the target. At this time, we have no test vehicles for either flight profile. The Task Force supports the current Navy acquisition process for one type of sea-skimming missile and recommends additional aggressive efforts on another sea-skimmer with a unique flight profile and a high altitude vehicle with a power-dive attack profile.

 

[WatcherZero]

More than the Concept 2, it is very similar to the drone concept they have designed with Scaled Composites around 20 years ago.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1349743890916548609

View: https://twitter.com/kleinenf/status/1349743890916548609

It was also evaluated by Defense Science Board Task Force as possible candidate of future aerial targets. Exerpt from the report :

Yeah in form though very much not in function. That was considering a target drone in 2004 for the US designed to emulate a stealth aircraft to supersede the QF-4 (F-4 phantom converted to target drone by BAE). They likely based their expectation on what possible opponents would field based on the YF-23 as its very similar to a single engine YF-23 in design. In the event the QF-4 continued in use until 2016 with the QF-16 (F-16 conversion by Boeing but with BAE providing the software) gradually taking over from 2014 (and there wasnt a pressing need to simulate combat against an enemy stealth aircraft). The BAE/Scaled design was certainly a heavyweight according to that source.

PW F100-200 engine (original F-16 engine)
Length 54 ft
Wing span 27 ft
Wing area 400 sq ft (33% more than an F-16)
GTOW 24,000 lbs (only 2,500lbs less than an F-16)
Internal fuel 8,000 lbs (1,000lbs more than an F-16)
Payload 2,500 lb (Presumably EW package to simulate target)

Can certainly see why they just went with an F-16 conversion.

 

[red admiral]

Possibly. Though size isn't everything. My understanding is that LANCA was some way along the loyal wingman spectrum, where Concept Two is closer to the adjunct end of that spectrum. We will see.

Given how confused the language is in this area, and between differrent countries, what do you think the differences are along that spectrum you've laid out? Are there any differences? e.g.

Mission type? Level of Autonomy? Cost? Etc.

 

[Jackonicko]

Given how confused the language is in this area, and between differrent countries, what do you think the differences are along that spectrum you've laid out? Are there any differences? e.g.

Mission type? Level of Autonomy? Cost? Etc.

All of the above - but especially multi-role rather than swing-role. And design life, I suspect. A Loyal Wingman has all the sensors and all of the capabilities on board for every mission, something like this is probably configured for a particular mission. That's my understanding, at least.

I'd like to understand more about what BAE S call 'goal based autonomy'.

 

[Jackonicko]

More than the Concept 2, it is very similar to the drone concept they have designed with Scaled Composites around 20 years ago.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1349743890916548609

View: https://twitter.com/kleinenf/status/1349743890916548609

It was also evaluated by Defense Science Board Task Force as possible candidate of future aerial targets. Exerpt from the report :

That's a great find! Thank you!

 

[Jackonicko]

The article mentions Saudi oil money as their leverage, but to be frank, they are not the ones sitting on the driver's seat on this discrouse. Problem for them is, in 2030s, GCAP would be the only 5+~6th gen fighter available on the market; NGF would not even be ready, and slim chance that US is comfortable with making NGAD available abroad. They might turn to the Chinese, but procuring ballistic missiles and UAVs and getting their hand on Chinese next gen fighters are completely different story. Also, that is if the Chinese next gen fighter is already available by that point, which is doubtful.

If any kind of "localization" happens, I expect not much more than CKD, under arrangements comparable to F-35 FACOs in Italy and Japan. Even SKD would be very hard to agree upon.


It is true that there have been multiple visits by ADD and MoD officials to Saudi Arabia to discuss possible cooperations in the defence sector, but so far, only the export of KM-SAM has materialized. Regarding fighter jet cooperation, Korean is allegedly offering Saudi involvement in KF-21 block III programme and its adjunct MUM-T system, as well as the follow-up future system of systems programme. According to MoD press release, the Sauds have shown interests and talks are ongoing, but it was also stressed that there's no formal agreements in place as of now.

On top of that, it is quite clear what the Sauds would prioritize if both GCAP and KF-X/KF-XX were on table. It's just that the former is turning out to be very hard to join as of current.

I don't see the two projects as being necessarily exclusive. First the definition of 'sixth gen' when applied to a KF-21 derivative is perhaps 'ambitious', while the proposed 'family of systems' is much more modest.

Secondly, one could see Saudi participation in the programme as setting it up better to understand and contribute to FCAP, if not to GCAP itself.

 

[Hood]

Maybe the Saudis are tired of bankrolling BAE for nearly 70 years with nowt to show for it in return?
BAe were promising home assembly to various Middle East nations as far back as the 1980s and nothing has happened. Here were are in the supposed age of wireless comms, digital design tools, 3D printing etc., should be easier than ever to rock up in Saudi and set up something. The excuses why it can't be done are going to wear thin.

BAE can't keep expecting Saudi to buy the next fighter they come up with every time just out of brand loyalty.
And let's face it, European defence money is always hanging on a political whim, oil money keep on flowin' until you run out of the stuff - so they know their petrodollars count for more bang in the long run.

 

[red admiral]

I'd like to understand more about what BAE S call 'goal based autonomy'.

Pretty sure that's just being further along the automation scale where there is reduced human interaction. i e. Human sets a goal and then machine completes that goal in the "optimum" way (many ways to define optimum). The main driver is more about how complex the task is that the machine is being asked to do and within what constraints.