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

[Maro.Kyo]

GCAP has an emphasis on range for UK and Japanese ADIZ patrols / interception, but why would Italy need that range?

Because ADIZ patrol is not the only thing GCAP will do. And more importantly current day NATO front is way way further to the East/North. Obviously UK and Italy would want longer range compared to their jets during the Cold War, in case something happens to any NATO member state neighbouring Russia and Belarus and they need to provide DCA over friendly territories, deep strike Kaliningrad and Russian mainland, and operate over the Baltics and Black Sea for ASuW and CAP roles. Even when they forward deploy to Germany/other central European countries like how RAF air wings did during the Cold War, they would want to deploy to air bases further away from majority of Russian stand-off PGMs.

I don't understand why people can't understand Italy needs long-range fighters under current security climate. It's simply because they are not neighbouring any hostile adversaries.

 

[TsrJoe]

This is the GCAP. thread, could some please stop contaminating it with irrelevant F-35 suppositions
Moderators, cleanup on isle two please ?

 

[Bruno Anthony]

in a possible war with our most likely problematic nation (IE Russia)

Modern Italy will never fire a shot in anger at anyone that could retaliate & disturb the evening passeggiata. The Left in Italy pulled the country’s pants down during the Euromissile crisis in the early 80s. They’ll have help pulling its pants down now from the Right.

 

[timmymagic]

I don't understand why people can't understand Italy needs long-range fighters under current security climate. It's simply because they are not neighbouring any hostile adversaries.

You could add that our potential adversaries are increasing the range of their missiles with the specific aim of targeting AAR and other enablers...so range will be critical.

 

[Jackonicko]

This is the GCAP. thread, could some please stop contaminating it with irrelevant F-35 suppositions
Moderators, cleanup on isle two please ?

F-35A is being offered and promoted as an alternative to GCAP for the UK FCAS requirement, and in Japan and Italy. It's part of the story.

 

[donnage99]

Italy also pivots towards Indo-Pacific, protecting international free trade routes. I wouldn't doubt a future where italian GCAP's along UK counterparts are flying patrol out of US bases in Philippines and Japan. That range will become handy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

GCAP has an emphasis on range for UK and Japanese ADIZ patrols / interception, but why would Italy need that range?

Oh, also, GCAP range is not about ADIZ patrols, it's about BARCAP which needs to be flown at a range roughly equal to that of the cruise missile. Modern cruise missiles have a range long enough that your BARCAP needs to be 800+km away from what you're protecting.

That mission also suggests that GCAP may be able to act as it's own AWACS.

 

[TinWing]

Are they not? The only exception is Guam, but there are more US personnel in both Korea and Japan individually and now work is starting on a base in the Philippines. Besides bomber wings, the US has a bigger presence in Japan than Guam.

No idea why you are using Kagoshima as a baseline when there is no JASDF base there. You're also making false equivalencies. Neither Iceland or the Norwegian Sea are UK territories while the Kyukyu arc is part of Japan are part of the JADIZ. From Nyutabaru to the edge of Japan's ADIZ is around 1,300km while it's around 640km from Lossiemouth to the edge above their ADIZ above the Faroes. All your examples of missions that the RAF would do are absolute maximum distances well outside of their ADIZ and comparing them to Japan just operating in their ADIZ.

There is also the variance that needs to be considered. The difference between Lossiemouth, Coningsby, and Odiham to both Kaliningrad and St Petersburg are all <100km variance. The difference between Nyutabaru and Chitose to the Taiwan straight is 1,400km. Japan's ADIZ is 3300km end to end while the UK's is half that. That's why there is so much emphasis put on the Pacific.

Your average RAF scramble looks like this simply touching the edge of their ADIZ at <1000km distances, but you are trying to create this picture of the RAF regularly flying over Iceland and deep into the Norwegian Sea well outside the ADIZ just to try and create an equivalence to actual scramble missions Japan does fly in it's ADIZ.
View attachment 735377

Using that atypical scenario as an example, it would make more sense to have NATO interceptors flying out of Iceland instead of the RAF out of Lossiemouth.

 

[Broken]

A little bit more from Janes on the work on the engine demonstrator. It's paywalled, don't know if there's anything new/interesting in the second half?

GCAP engine demonstrator progresses in design

Rolls-Royce has told Janes that it is progressing with the design of the engine demonstrator for the ‘sixth-generation' fighter of the Global Combat Air Programme...

www.janes.com

 

[datafuser]

Bill Sweetman's analysis on the GCAP.

"... a big, thick (thicc?) delta wing makes sense for a stealth combat aircraft, which needs to have volume in its fuselage for weapons, and can’t easily carry external tanks – even if the pylons are punched off with the tanks, hardpoints and plumbing are likely to compromise stealth. "

"... My guess from the sweep angle and wing size is that GCAP is not designed to supercruise. "

"... the RAF believed in it as a counter to RF jamming and made it a priority on Typhoon. The consortium developing the Pirate IRST, all now part of Leonardo, made it work. F-22s have been detected and tracked since the early 2010s.

Against IRST, you don’t want to be hot, and supercruise not only makes you hot but makes your IR signature unique. It requires either a compromised engine – the F-22 engine is the former, with higher than desirable fuel burn at subsonic speed – or an expensive and complex adaptive engine. "

GCAP analysed - not a traditional fighter? - Royal Aeronautical Society

Stealth expert and veteran aerospace journalist BILL SWEETMAN turns his eye on the latest configuration of the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) fighter, revealed at the Farnborough Air Show, What does the big delta tell us about its likely mission and performance?

www.aerosociety.com

 

[WatcherZero]

The only thing I would quibble with is the supercruise, I think its going to be packing a pair of extremely powerful engines which are going to be taking in a lot of cold air and diffusing the engine heat into it allowing it to either run cold and stealthy or instead switch to generating an awfully large amount of energy for secondary systems.

The technology I would most like to see though would be Active Flow Control.

 

[Kota]

F-22s have been detected and tracked since the early 2010s.

There should be a pretty big asterisk on this one as it has happened, but has typically only been done by stuff like the Duga or triangulation with multiple different radar stations. And typically the tracking info that resulted was never within a margin of error where a FCR could provide any firing solution.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

There should be a pretty big asterisk on this one as it has happened, but has typically only been done by stuff like the Duga or triangulation with multiple different radar stations. And typically the tracking info that resulted was never within a margin of error where a FCR could provide any firing solution.

Bill is specifically referencing tracking with IRST systems, not with radar. No matter your ability to supercruise without reheat, you cannot fight physics and friction heat from flying at supersonic speeds is a great method of tracking an object.

 

[donnage99]

Bill is specifically referencing tracking with IRST systems, not with radar. No matter your ability to supercruise without reheat, you cannot fight physics and friction heat from flying at supersonic speeds is a great method of tracking an object.

At what distance though? Is it operationally significant?

 

[Scott Kenny]

At what distance though? Is it operationally significant?

Guesstimating off of Sidewinder range, I'd say so. I think they're tracking any plane via IRST at several times Sidewinder lock distances.

 

[Jackonicko]

Bill is specifically referencing tracking with IRST systems, not with radar. No matter your ability to supercruise without reheat, you cannot fight physics and friction heat from flying at supersonic speeds is a great method of tracking an object.

Still better to be supersonic in dry power than in reheat.
And I think Bill is wrong about the supercruise...

 

[Jackonicko]

At what distance though? Is it operationally significant?

Yes. IRST's give great angular precision but struggle with accurate ranging, but there are plenty of ways to 'skin that cat'.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes. IRST's give great angular precision but struggle with accurate ranging, but there are plenty of ways to 'skin that cat'.

The easiest way is two sensors a known distance apart, then your FCS does some trig. Parallax rangefinder like on battleships and 1950s and 60s tanks.
There's another way with a split image that was used for focusing SLR cameras back in the day, but I'm not entirely sure how that works.
A more processing intensive way is to use change in relative bearing, but that takes time to give good results and requires you to guess the target's speed.

 

[kqcke for you]

Or a laser range finder could also work

 

[snne]

Or a laser range finder could also work

AFAIK some IRSTs already come with laser range finders. As a semi-related side note, this is the reason why Aselsan's developing laser warning systems as a component of the Integrated EO System for the Kaan fighter. I expect this to be a popular application on next generation fighter aircraft going forward.

 

[timmymagic]

Still better to be supersonic in dry power than in reheat.
And I think Bill is wrong about the supercruise...

Pretty certain I've hear the programme leads mention supercruise as a key requirement before...

 

[H_K]

Pretty certain I've hear the programme leads mention supercruise as a key requirement before...

It might also be a question of how one defines supercruise. Low supercruise around Mach 1.2-1.4 (similar to Typhoon or Rafale) might be fairly easy to achieve with a good T/W as long as the airframe isn't too draggy.

However, high supercruise similar to F-22 (reportedly M1.6-1.7) would definitely require airframe + engine optimizations that might not be worth the tradeoffs and may not be part of the requirement.

 

[paralay]

The maximum thrust amidships at GCAP is quite high - 2383 kgf / m2, this is at the level of YF-23.
One can hope for a cruising supersonic M = 1.5
paralay-tab

 

[Kiltonge]

Oh, also, GCAP range is not about ADIZ patrols, it's about BARCAP which needs to be flown at a range roughly equal to that of the cruise missile. Modern cruise missiles have a range long enough that your BARCAP needs to be 800+km away from what you're protecting.

That mission also suggests that GCAP may be able to act as it's own AWACS.

That's a good strategy over the ocean, but for Italy it would mean loitering and shooting-down inbounds over Hungary, Greece, Tunisia or France.

I'm just sceptical of an air force that has always had a defensive interception mindset ( F-86, F-104, EF-2000 ) switching to and funding a whole new doctrine of F-22 style and scope stand-forward air dominance.

If anything I think Italy would be better partnered with Sweden, their needs seem well aligned.

 

[timmymagic]

That's a good strategy over the ocean, but for Italy it would mean shooting-down inbounds over Hungary, Tunisia or France.

Range gives you options....you can fly out farther to do intercepts...or you can just loiter...

Without range you can do neither...it also means you're less reliant on air to air refueling, which I think everyone understands will simply not be available as close to the AO as it has in the past...

 

[Sintra]

That's a good strategy over the ocean, but for Italy it would mean loitering and shooting-down inbounds over Hungary, Greece, Tunisia or France.

I'm just sceptical of an air force that has always had a defensive interception mindset ( F-86, F-104, EF-2000 ) switching to and funding a whole new doctrine of F-22 style and scope stand-forward air dominance.

If anything I think Italy would be better partnered with Sweden, their needs seem well aligned.

1) GCAP is not an interceptor.
2) Typhoon and F-22 have roughly the same range
3) AMI operated the Tornado Fmk3, Viper and the F-35A. The last short range interceptor operated by the AMI was retired two decades ago.
4) AMI is eying the entire Med, the "Mediterraneo allargato", from Turkey, to Egypt, Siria, Tunisia and Libia.

The AMI wants something that can pick a fight with almost anything anywhere across the entire Med.

 

[Trident]

AFAIK some IRSTs already come with laser range finders. As a semi-related side note, this is the reason why Aselsan's developing laser warning systems as a component of the Integrated EO System for the Kaan fighter. I expect this to be a popular application on next generation fighter aircraft going forward.

It is pretty popular already - Typhoon, Rafale, Su-35 and Su-30MKM have been carrying LWRs for a long time, precisely because of the relatively widespread threat from Russian-built 4th generation fighters with laser-ranged IRSTs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's a good strategy over the ocean, but for Italy it would mean loitering and shooting-down inbounds over Hungary, Greece, Tunisia or France.

Three of those are NATO allies.

I suspect Tunisia wants in but has not officially asked yet.

So not a problem unless and until NATO breaks up.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

That's a good strategy over the ocean, but for Italy it would mean loitering and shooting-down inbounds over Hungary, Greece, Tunisia or France.

I'm just sceptical of an air force that has always had a defensive interception mindset ( F-86, F-104, EF-2000 ) switching to and funding a whole new doctrine of F-22 style and scope stand-forward air dominance.

If anything I think Italy would be better partnered with Sweden, their needs seem well aligned.

Italy still has an extremely long coastline to defend, in addition with having to potentially deal with Russian aircraft flying from Syria and Libya. Backfires based out of Khmeimim can reach out to Malta before launching missiles; these would ideally be dealt with as far away from Italy as possible, ideally near Cyprus. GCAP would also be great for ASuW and cruise missile strikes against targets in this region as well. Not having to rely on tanker support for a lot of missions would allow those aircraft to concentrate on refueling other types.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Bill is specifically referencing tracking with IRST systems, not with radar. No matter your ability to supercruise without reheat, you cannot fight physics and friction heat from flying at supersonic speeds is a great method of tracking an object.

I´ve heard and read (many years ago) about (British) Typhoons getting (some) successes/kills against F-22s during Red Flag exercises and such. Most probably the Typhoons made use of their passive IRST (Pirate) to achieve that. I guess Bill Sweetman has that in mind (maybe other info as well). Question (regarding detection during such exercises) remains, what were the ROE.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Still better to be supersonic in dry power than in reheat.
And I think Bill is wrong about the supercruise...

Regarding wing sweep & supercruise;
Bill writes GCAP now having a wing sweep of (about) 50° (if the length has been estimated right), and the F-16U design a wing sweep of 48°.
YF-22 also had a wing sweep of 48° and achieved superscruise of 1.58 Mach.
F-22A has a wing weep of 42°, and can (reportedly) achieve supercruise of 1.7(+) Mach.
But of course YF-22 didn´t have 'an enormous delta wing'.

 

[Jackonicko]

I reckon that Tempest's wing sweep is also 48°, FWIW.

 

[windcalm]

But of course YF-22 didn´t have 'an enormous delta wing'.

Remember, the GCAP is a "tailess" delta wing aircraft.

 

[flateric]

Gareth Jennings has some imagery of the demonstrator under construction...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1816096415417811441

View: https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1816096415417811441

https://twitter.com/x/status/1816096422007128487

View: https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1816096422007128487

MB TD ejection seat test article from June '23 for comparison

 

[timmymagic]

MB TD ejection seat test article from June '23 for comparison

And the accompanying video

https://twitter.com/x/status/1668892032268488706

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1668892032268488706


Wonder which rockets they're using for propulsion? Bound to be something reused...

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Given that Sweden only just joined NATO, and was previously Neutral

Correct they just joined. But are they politically/militarily prepared to deploy say a brigade and several squadrons to help protect Latvia in case the Russians make a move or to Ukr to prevent a collapse?
All the hoopla over the joining of NATO by Sweden & Finland was that those are 2 borders you don’t want to mess with.
Did anyone tell them they may be called on to defend someone else’s borders?
Politically, I think there would be a lot of hemming & hawing.

You ignored my similar comment in regards to an old NATO partner, Italy.

How many still think NATO means, “Just call the US”?

 

[TsrJoe]

Let's try keep this focused on GCAP. spinoff discussions can be created in the 'bar'

 

[Sundog]

I think GCAP will have low supercruise as a fallout of the engine/airframe design. I say that because the JASDF doesn't have any supercruise requirement. All of their studies have shown what they need is good range and great loiter capability. Also, it has a really large wing, which tells me they want a large fuel fraction and want to fly very high. That should give them good sensor range and allow better/higher energy for missile launches. The wing sweep angle is less about supercruise and more about the critical mach number and balancing max. supersonic performance versus subsonic efficiency. Also, the wing doesn't seem to be optimized for conical flow, like the F-22s, based on what we've been shown so far, so I don't think supercruise is a driving design point.

 

[Rhinocrates]

OK, this may seem a little off-topic at first but bear with me. The comparison is between the Typhoon and Rafale but thinking of Bill Sweetman's analysis, these may reveals something of the design philosophy behind the latest iteration of GCAP, and maybe even in comparison with SCAF. A Rafale pilot argues that providing that it had altitude, Typhoon had the advantage. Tempest/GCAP seems to lean into this.

Now, while the English and the French play at being cultural adversaries still, in reality they're allies in NATO and the assumed antagonists are Russia and China, so what are their philosophies?

“With common DNA in terms of initial development and requirements setting work before France spilt away from what became the Eurofighter consortium to develop the Rafale, it is unsurprising that both aircraft have relatively similar design philosophies compared to their competitors globally. The biggest source of differences comes from the French requirement that the basic airframe design be suitable for CATOBAR carrier operations, which carries particular requirements in terms of relatively high-alpha, low speed handling especially with external stores still attached. The Rafale was also designed from the outset as a nuclear delivery system, which was not a major consideration for the Eurofighter nations.

GCAP is very unlikely to be a nuclear 'delivery system' in its current concept because the UK's nuclear weaponry is the strategic deterrent deployed in its SSBNs. However, Japan has not-so-subtly maintained a 'borderline' nuclear weapons capability despite its post WWII constitution, meaning that it has no arsenal at present but may have the capacity to produce weapons in a relatively short timeframe. That observation, I must add, is based on vague memories of various reports, no more.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG_R2CF_k6Y&t=13s

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k968DeiYvmE

Eurofighter Typhoon versus Dassault Rafale: A 2020 comparison

In 2015, Research Fellow at the RUSI Think-tank Justin Bronk, compared Europe’s two middle-weight fighter aircraft, the Typhoon and Rafale, The relatively subtle differences be…

hushkit.net

Sukhoi Su-35 versus Eurofighter Typhoon: Analysis from RUSI’s Justin Bronk

Outside the Western world, Russia’s ultra-agile Su-35 is the most potent fighter in operational service. We asked Justin Bronk from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think-tank his t…

hushkit.net

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9DCAFUerzs

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Are they not? The only exception is Guam, but there are more US personnel in both Korea and Japan individually and now work is starting on a base in the Philippines. Besides bomber wings, the US has a bigger presence in Japan than Guam.

No idea why you are using Kagoshima as a baseline when there is no JASDF base there. You're also making false equivalencies. Neither Iceland or the Norwegian Sea are UK territories while the Kyukyu arc is part of Japan are part of the JADIZ. From Nyutabaru to the edge of Japan's ADIZ is around 1,300km while it's around 640km from Lossiemouth to the edge above their ADIZ above the Faroes. All your examples of missions that the RAF would do are absolute maximum distances well outside of their ADIZ and comparing them to Japan just operating in their ADIZ.

There is also the variance that needs to be considered. The difference between Lossiemouth, Coningsby, and Odiham to both Kaliningrad and St Petersburg are all <100km variance. The difference between Nyutabaru and Chitose to the Taiwan straight is 1,400km. Japan's ADIZ is 3300km end to end while the UK's is half that. That's why there is so much emphasis put on the Pacific.

Your average RAF scramble looks like this simply touching the edge of their ADIZ at <1000km distances, but you are trying to create this picture of the RAF regularly flying over Iceland and deep into the Norwegian Sea well outside the ADIZ just to try and create an equivalence to actual scramble missions Japan does fly in it's ADIZ.
View attachment 735377

Using that atypical scenario as an example, it would make more sense to have NATO interceptors flying out of Iceland instead of the RAF out of Lossiemouth.

There's a key difference between UK, a NATO member, and Japan, is that UK is responsible for the defnece of its allies in the NATO's Eastern flank; Japan is not for Taiwan. NATO regularly deploys BAP and there are several NATO GBAD batteries from Western European member nations deployed to Eastern European allied territories. UK for example has one of their five Sky Sabres batteries forward deployed in Poland.

This also means there are grand total of two Sky Sabre batteries stationed in Britain, as the other two are deployed in the Falklands. If anything, the differences in how Britain is armed in terms of GBAD and comparing that to Japan should give a good idea why it's such an apple to oranges comparison to directly compare both countries' ADIZ and its EEZ when it comes to air power projection requirements. JSDF is really just that, a self defense force, while British Armed Forces aren't.

That's a good strategy over the ocean, but for Italy it would mean loitering and shooting-down inbounds over Hungary, Greece, Tunisia or France.

I'm just sceptical of an air force that has always had a defensive interception mindset ( F-86, F-104, EF-2000 ) switching to and funding a whole new doctrine of F-22 style and scope stand-forward air dominance.

If anything I think Italy would be better partnered with Sweden, their needs seem well aligned.

That's easily understandable if you consider when EFA was conceived, and its requirements set.

GCAP, for what it's worth, is the first fighter Italy and the UK are designing since the dawn of the new Cold War, after the NATO frontlines were greatly shifted east and northwards. As I've noted before, the long range makes sense for both countries since the threats are not at their direct vicinity. If it was, before anything, UK must've found a successor to the Bloodhound and foster BMD coverage over Britain before working on any Tempest or GCAP.

And more importantly, UK's armed forces are a global power projection force, while Italy's is regional power projection force. Homeland security is not the biggest concern for both of these air forces. That's why it's absolutely misleading to argue that UK and Italy doesn't need JASDF's range requirements just because they don't have remote territories within the air force's reach.

The actual frontline is NATO's frontline, not the ADIZ.