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

[Jackonicko]

So is Concept 5 a potential demonstrator?

Based on the size of the cockpit section used in the ejection seat trials (and the assumption that the dummy is 6ft, an assumption of course..) that looks to be around 18 metres long from tip to tail?

There is little reason to assume that the FTD ('Workstream 5') being developed in Hangar 5, is based on Concept 5 - a model of which greets every visitor to that hangar!

I'd love to think that it is, but actually, I suspect that it isn't. It seems likely to use a forward swept, F-35 type intake, rather than a rear swept intake, based on the intake displayed next to the test duct.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I never thought of GCAP being a twin seater shedofdread, I can see the point as well having the back seater having control of UCAVs would be an advantage in air to air and air combat.

Not many things have been ruled out, but from the conversations I've had I think a two-seater definitely has been. Bear in mind that any UCAVs in the FCAS system of systems are likely to be autonomous or semi-autonomous, and requiring simple commands rather than close control. Do you want a WSO, or do you want more fuel?

Depends entirely on just how good those drones are at simple commands like "cover me" or "attack X location". And I guess how good the UI to the drone is. If the voice recognition works, you just say, "Wingman, cover me" or "Attack lased target". Programming a GPS drop may be more challenging.

 

[Hood]

The RAF have WSOs any more (for the last decade), hard to imagine that they would want to reintroduce them - all that additional training expense plus you'd need suitable trainers and simulators. The RAF can barely train the number of pilots it needs, let alone doubling the frontline manpower requirement.

 

[alertken]

Yes, but...when NKF75 was morphing into MRCA, of the then-Interested Nations, only UK/France had back-seaters. F-104 Users did not.

The drop-outs (France apart, which terminated itself by peddling Mirages), Belgium, Canada, Neths. did not depart due to WSOs, but to decision not to accept the role which (with then-avionics) required WSO - deep penetration at very low level.. FRG, Italy, (later, RSaAF) chose to take on the role (iron for Saudi), so to step up to growing WSOs.

This illustrates a point up-thread, about Policy imposition in JVs: MRCA Development Phase was 15%/Italy, 42.5% each, FRG/UK. No majority voting: Committee Chairmen did not take votes on any issue. They talked through to consensus. Like in the English Judicial System: Judges urge Juries to talk on until they are 12: 0. It is impossible for Politicians (in civilised countries) to tax their citizens, to buy something they don't (think they) need. So, Spain chose Naval-influence on (to be Rafale) as cause to jump to EF2000: though MN was to pay for all tangible peculiars, the dual mode had an osmosis effect which would soak up some pesos. Despite some such assertions, FRG did not succumb to Brit pressure, when moving from 1968/single seat NKF75 to 1969 two-seats MRCA. They chose the 2-seat role (then took F-4 2-seaters).

 

[timmymagic]

Clarity on Swedish position.

Sweden sees no 'immediate need' to join future fighter program - Breaking Defense

“In terms of sixth generation [plans], we’re doing a lot of work in different contexts and different cooperations right now, which is very important for us in trying to figure out [a decision],” said commander of the Swedish Air Force Maj. Gen. Jonas Wikman. “Right now its not a procurement...

breakingdefense.com

Article Excerpt
PARIS AIRSHOW — The Swedish Air Force will not rush to join either of the two major European led sixth-generation fighter jet programs, as it continues to focus on preliminary “fact finding” activities, two senior Swedish military officials said on Sunday.

Stockholm has so far declined to join the newly formed UK, Italian and Japanese Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), despite signing a Memorandum of Understanding with London in 2019 on a “joint combat air development and acquisition programme.” And it doesn’t sound like any change will be forthcoming.

“We do not have an immediate need for a new fighter, which perhaps is different for other nations,” Gen. Lars Helmrich, director of air and space systems at the Swedish Defence Material Administration, said at an event hosted by the Swedish Air Force Fan Club in Paris. “We’re looking to start early [for planning purposes] and be better situated for when we need to decide on the next fighter. It’s a matter of pace.”

Stockholm has a relatively wide window to hold off on modernizing fighter capabilities, as the Swedish Air Force has agreed to procure 60 Saab Gripen E fighter jets, expected to be in service until around 2060, much longer than the 2035 timeline for the UK-Italian-Japanese GCAP platform to enter service. A date of 2040 has also been set for the rival Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System (SCAF) to begin operations.

“In terms of sixth-generation [plans], we’re doing a lot of work in different contexts and different cooperations right now, which is very important for us in trying to figure out [a decision],” said commander of the Swedish Air Force Maj. Gen. Jonas Wikman. “Right now its not a procurement program, it is a fact finding program.”

 

[Scott Kenny]

Makes sense, the Swedes have not even received their Gripen E/F yet, so they can afford to wait a bit. I wouldn't wait more than a decade before starting to lay out the requirements of their next plane, though.

 

[WatcherZero]

Sweden signed a defence treaty with Japan allowing the exchange of classified information about a month after UK/Italy signed the GCAP deal with Tokyo so they are still in observer mode.

 

[FighterJock]

I wish Sweden would put pen to paper and sign up to GCAP, I do not think that Sweden would manage doing a fifth/sixth generation fighter on their own. Look at what happened to the Gripen for example, that had to have technological input from Britain.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I wish Sweden would put pen to paper and sign up to GCAP, I do not think that Sweden would manage doing a fifth/sixth generation fighter on their own. Look at what happened to the Gripen for example, that had to have technological input from Britain.

Problem is, 6th Gen fighters are looking to be huge, Flanker+ sized things. That's way out of Sweden's defense model right now. I think they're doing a bunch of studies trying to make a Gripen sized 6th Gen fighter, trying to avoid buying such a huge plane. Soon as they realize it can't be done and the absolute minimum size is F-35, the sooner they will sign the paperwork.

 

[FighterJock]

That is what I fear about Sweden Scott Kenny, going it alone trying to do a Gripen sized sixth generation fighter will never work.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That is what I fear about Sweden Scott Kenny, going it alone trying to do a Gripen sized sixth generation fighter will never work.

At least not on their economy. Japan, South Korea, the US, and China are about the only ones who could afford to do it solo.

 

[Forest Green]

Gripen-sized sixth gen doesn't work with any budget. You can't have internal weapons stowage and enough internal fuel capacity to eliminate drop tanks at that size.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Gripen-sized sixth gen does work with any budget. You can't have internal weapons stowage and enough internal fuel capacity to eliminate drop tanks at that size.

Exactly. But Sweden doesn't seem to have grokked that yet.

 

[Arjen]

It depends on requirements. US 6th gen size is also driven by required range, choice of weaponry. A dedicated 6th gen fighter for the Baltic region will be much smaller than what the USA would like to use in the Pacific arena. Other air forces' 6th gen aircraft, anywhere between those extremes.

Whether enough customers can be found for that Baltic fighter to be an economically viable proposition is another matter. Ask the experts.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It depends on requirements. US 6th gen size is also driven by required range, choice of weaponry. A dedicated 6th gen fighter for the Baltic region will be much smaller than what the USA would like to use in the Pacific arena. Other air forces' 6th gen aircraft, anywhere between those extremes.

Whether enough customers can be found for that Baltic fighter to be an economically viable proposition is another matter. Ask the experts.

Still needs to be big enough to hold at least 2xIR and 2x BVRAAM internally. You know, about the size of an F-35.

 

[eagle]

Not really. The F-35 holds 2 2000lbs bombs plus 2 AAMs. Not to mention 18250lbs of fuel.
A fighter built around 4-6 AAMs with say 400nm combat radius instead of 600nm surely could be designed considerably smaller than an F-35. Still much larger than a JAS 39E, maybe somehwere between the two.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not really. The F-35 holds 2 2000lbs bombs plus 2 AAMs. Not to mention 18250lbs of fuel.
A fighter built around 4-6 AAMs with say 400nm combat radius instead of 600nm surely could be designed considerably smaller than an F-35. Still much larger than a JAS 39E, maybe somehwere between the two.

2x AMRAAMs take up about as much space as that 2000lb bomb. The "full stealth AA" load is 4x AMRAAMs in the bomb bay and a pair of AIM9Xs on the usual AMRAAM rail.

 

[WatcherZero]

Talk seems to be Sweden are more interested in the drone aspects of Tempest/FCAS than the manned element, they were also interested in the distributed sensor systems and data fusion but have concluded those couldnt be readily transferred into an iterative update to a Gripen airframe. With the GCAP agreement excluding drone elements with Japan going for US designs for operating commonality and UK/Italy continuing their own pre-GCAP FCAS work there probably isnt a lot of motivation for Sweden to become a full GCAP partner.

 

[VTOLicious]

View attachment 701802

The Concept 5 has been shown with three different canopy arrangements - the side view here shows the one that the ejection seat test sled reminded me of.

View attachment 701801

Is this Italian model related to Concept 5 posted above?

 

[Jackonicko]

View attachment 701802

The Concept 5 has been shown with three different canopy arrangements - the side view here shows the one that the ejection seat test sled reminded me of.

View attachment 701801

Is this Italian model related to Concept 5 posted above?

View attachment 702319
View attachment 702318

No, that's not Concept 5, it's the P189-based GCAP configuration. Note the intakes (forward swept and well forward) and the trailing edge of the Wing.

Top left: Concept 5
Top right: F-3
Bottom Left: P.189-17B
Bottom Right: 'GCAP'

 

[Jackonicko]

Talk seems to be Sweden are more interested in the drone aspects of Tempest/FCAS than the manned element, they were also interested in the distributed sensor systems and data fusion but have concluded those couldnt be readily transferred into an iterative update to a Gripen airframe. With the GCAP agreement excluding drone elements with Japan going for US designs for operating commonality and UK/Italy continuing their own pre-GCAP FCAS work there probably isnt a lot of motivation for Sweden to become a full GCAP partner.

It looks as though Sweden could come to regret Gripen-E. When taking a step on from Gripen-C/D, it was clear that there was a need for more thrust, and more wing area, and possibly more LO. Gripen already under-performed the F-16, and opting for F414 ensured that so would Gripen-E. The result is a fighter with a great MMI (probably better than Typhoon's), a superb AESA radar, but mediocre kinematic performance.

If we do see a smaller, cheaper second manned platform within FCAS, then it could be just what Sweden needs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

View attachment 701802

The Concept 5 has been shown with three different canopy arrangements - the side view here shows the one that the ejection seat test sled reminded me of.

View attachment 701801

Is this Italian model related to Concept 5 posted above?

View attachment 702319
View attachment 702318

No, that's not Concept 5, it's the P189-based GCAP configuration. Note the intakes (forward swept and well forward) and the trailing edge of the Wing.

Top left: Concept 5
Top right: F-3
Bottom Left: P.189-17B
Bottom Right: 'GCAP'

(image deleted for space)

Oh, the F-3 is very pretty, do like!

 

[red admiral]

Its all just art rather than actual concepts

 

[Scott Kenny]

Its all just art rather than actual concepts

Granted.

I still like it.

 

[helmutkohl]

View attachment 701802

The Concept 5 has been shown with three different canopy arrangements - the side view here shows the one that the ejection seat test sled reminded me of.

View attachment 701801

Is this Italian model related to Concept 5 posted above?

View attachment 702319
View attachment 702318

No, that's not Concept 5, it's the P189-based GCAP configuration. Note the intakes (forward swept and well forward) and the trailing edge of the Wing.

Top left: Concept 5
Top right: F-3
Bottom Left: P.189-17B
Bottom Right: 'GCAP'

View attachment 702321

The Japanese on this chart actually says

Top: Japanese design
Bottom: British Design

Left: Emphasis on Speed
Right: Emphasis on Cruise/Load

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Japanese on this chart actually says

Top: Japanese design
Bottom: British Design

Left: Emphasis on Speed
Right: Emphasis on Cruise/Load

I really need to get back on my Japanese...

 

[eagle]

Not really. The F-35 holds 2 2000lbs bombs plus 2 AAMs. Not to mention 18250lbs of fuel.
A fighter built around 4-6 AAMs with say 400nm combat radius instead of 600nm surely could be designed considerably smaller than an F-35. Still much larger than a JAS 39E, maybe somehwere between the two.

2x AMRAAMs take up about as much space as that 2000lb bomb. The "full stealth AA" load is 4x AMRAAMs in the bomb bay and a pair of AIM9Xs on the usual AMRAAM rail.

In the F-35, yes. But that bay plus the airframe around it is optimized for a single 2000lbs bomb. It's 3 AAMs per bay though with the sidekick launcher. 1 on the door launcher plus 2 in place of the bomb.

A bay optimized for AAMs would most likely result in layout similar to the F-22. Less volume for the same amount of AAMs and allows for a slimmer fuselage --> lighter, smaller airframe.

 

[Jackonicko]

Its all just art rather than actual concepts

In three cases it's art based closely on actual concepts...

 

[Jackonicko]

View attachment 701802

The Concept 5 has been shown with three different canopy arrangements - the side view here shows the one that the ejection seat test sled reminded me of.

View attachment 701801

Is this Italian model related to Concept 5 posted above?

View attachment 702319
View attachment 702318

No, that's not Concept 5, it's the P189-based GCAP configuration. Note the intakes (forward swept and well forward) and the trailing edge of the Wing.

Top left: Concept 5
Top right: F-3
Bottom Left: P.189-17B
Bottom Right: 'GCAP'

View attachment 702321

The Japanese on this chart actually says

Top: Japanese design
Bottom: British Design

Left: Emphasis on Speed
Right: Emphasis on Cruise/Load

Cheeky buggers! Top left is UK Concept Class 5

 

[helmutkohl]

and the top right is not the "F-3".
Japan has never officially used that term for any proposed aircraft yet.
that image on the top right originates from the JSDF which refers it simply as the "Next gen stealth aircraft" and not the F-3.
Mitsubishi on the other hand has used various numbered DMUs when referring to configurations they've researched

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not really. The F-35 holds 2 2000lbs bombs plus 2 AAMs. Not to mention 18250lbs of fuel.
A fighter built around 4-6 AAMs with say 400nm combat radius instead of 600nm surely could be designed considerably smaller than an F-35. Still much larger than a JAS 39E, maybe somehwere between the two.

2x AMRAAMs take up about as much space as that 2000lb bomb. The "full stealth AA" load is 4x AMRAAMs in the bomb bay and a pair of AIM9Xs on the usual AMRAAM rail.

In the F-35, yes. But that bay plus the airframe around it is optimized for a single 2000lbs bomb. It's 3 AAMs per bay though with the sidekick launcher. 1 on the door launcher plus 2 in place of the bomb.

A bay optimized for AAMs would most likely result in layout similar to the F-22. Less volume for the same amount of AAMs and allows for a slimmer fuselage --> lighter, smaller airframe.

I'm honestly expecting a more F-35 sized bay than the flatter F22 bay. The GCAP is going to be way too expensive to not give it the internal volume for large bombs. It may spend way more time carrying 6x AAMs, but I cannot imagine that they'd design out the ability to carry large-ish bombs internally.

 

[Arjen]

expecting

Assumption, in another word.

Different nations have different demands, which in a world where budgets are irrelevant would lead to lots of different aircraft. Budgets are relevant, so any non-superpower nation needs to cooperate with others, or buy foreign types. Sub-optimal for that nation, tied to restrictions imposed by (manufacturer/partner) nations, but sort of affordable, or promising technology transfer.

Large scale production of a one-size-fits-all-type will probably result in more bang for the buck. However, partners will be paying for capabilities they don't need (or want, the two can be hard to tell apart), if only because an airframe that offers optionality is saddled with the Swiss Army knife problem - versatile, but not as good, and/or not as cheap as a single-purpose knife at cutting. Paying in cash, and/or paying in lost effectivity at tasks.

Compromises everywhere, every time. Internal carriage of largish weaponry can be omitted if partners decide heavy strike is a task for cruise missiles. A smaller aircraft, then? Required range is driven by where the aircraft will be used.

Different partner coalitions likely will result in different aircraft. Some of which, if the economics can be made to work, might be considerably smaller than F-35-size. Depending on the partner nations' requirements.

 

[Jackonicko]

and the top right is not the "F-3".
Japan has never officially used that term for any proposed aircraft yet.
that image on the top right originates from the JSDF which refers it simply as the "Next gen stealth aircraft" and not the F-3.
Mitsubishi on the other hand has used various numbered DMUs when referring to configurations they've researched

Good point, well made.

What would be really helpful would be if someone could collect together the various known DMUs, of course!

Perhaps someone already has?

 

[helmutkohl]

and the top right is not the "F-3".
Japan has never officially used that term for any proposed aircraft yet.
that image on the top right originates from the JSDF which refers it simply as the "Next gen stealth aircraft" and not the F-3.
Mitsubishi on the other hand has used various numbered DMUs when referring to configurations they've researched

Good point, well made.

What would be really helpful would be if someone could collect together the various known DMUs, of course!

Perhaps someone already has?

off the top of my head
Mitsubishi had 22-26DMU as well as the X-2
the JSDF had the i3 model, the "next gen" stealth model in the graphic above
the JSDF or the MoD also had this F-22 like model that was floating on some ones desk.

and thats about it for 5th-6th gen configurations coming out of Japan.

 

[walker751]

The development of fighters in the Japan so far. Design Method Research Model 23DMU~26DMU (2011-2014). Virtual vehicle models A/B/C (2014-2017) created to improve the accuracy of simulations that determine required performance. The F-22/35 hybrid(combat radius 2200km) is said to have been shown in response to a Japan information disclosure request in 2018.
The size of the virtual vehicle is my estimate (based on similarity in shape to 26DMU).
I think the Japan's airframe plan is about 10% larger than the F-22.

 

[Scott Kenny]

expecting

Assumption, in another word.

Different nations have different demands, which in a world where budgets are irrelevant would lead to lots of different aircraft. Budgets are relevant, so any non-superpower nation needs to cooperate with others, or buy foreign types. Sub-optimal for that nation, tied to restrictions imposed by (manufacturer/partner) nations, but sort of affordable, or promising technology transfer.

Large scale production of a one-size-fits-all-type will probably result in more bang for the buck. However, partners will be paying for capabilities they don't need (or want, the two can be hard to tell apart), if only because an airframe that offers optionality is saddled with the Swiss Army knife problem - versatile, but not as good, and/or not as cheap as a single-purpose knife at cutting. Paying in cash, and/or paying in lost effectivity at tasks.

Compromises everywhere, every time. Internal carriage of largish weaponry can be omitted if partners decide heavy strike is a task for cruise missiles. A smaller aircraft, then? Required range is driven by where the aircraft will be used.

Different partner coalitions likely will result in different aircraft. Some of which, if the economics can be made to work, might be considerably smaller than F-35-size. Depending on the partner nations' requirements.

Look at what they're talking about replacing with the GCAP: Typhoon and F-15J. Big, high end fighters that have been pushed into having some air-to-ground capabilities due to budget pressures not allowing many dedicated attack platforms.

If you're replacing an aircraft with secondary air-to-ground capabilities with a stealthy version, you'd be an idiot to design a weapons bay that forces most of your air-to-ground to be carried externally and destroy your stealth capabilities.

That's why I expect that the GCAP internal weapons bays will be F-35 sized, to have space for air-to-ground weapons internally. Even if the usual mission has the plane flying with 6x AAMs instead. And it may even have secondary bays for ASRAAMs/AIM09Xs like the F-22.

But it doesn't make sense for the main weapons bays to not be capable of housing ground-attack stores.

 

[WatcherZero]

Probably bigger, I imagine Japan would like the ability to carry a pair of AShM or cruise missiles internally and for that you would need something in the order of 5.5m rather than the tiny (3.7m?) of the F-35 designed around the AMRAAM which is already having trouble accommodating the size of recent AA weapons. The trend is for Air to Air weapons to get larger and longer ranged and they already have double if not triple the range envisaged when the F-35 was originally designed, need to allow for that growth trajectory in your new fighter.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Probably bigger, I imagine Japan would like the ability to carry a pair of AShM or cruise missiles internally and for that you would need something in the order of 5.5m rather than the tiny (3.7m?) of the F-35 designed around the AMRAAM which is already having trouble accommodating the size of recent AA weapons. The trend is for Air to Air weapons to get larger and longer ranged and they already have double if not triple the range envisaged when the F-35 was originally designed, need to allow for that growth trajectory in your new fighter.

Point granted about longer AAMs.

More future proofing that you need to do.

Though I'm not sure Japan wants their GCAP to replace the F-2 or if that's the F-35's job.

 

[Kiltonge]

The RAF have WSOs any more (for the last decade), hard to imagine that they would want to reintroduce them - all that additional training expense plus you'd need suitable trainers and simulators. The RAF can barely train the number of pilots it needs, let alone doubling the frontline manpower requirement.

The RAF have WSOs and are still training them. They are currently serving on Poseidon, Rivet and RPAS.

https://recruitment.raf.mod.uk/roles/roles-finder/aircrew/weapon-systems-officer

 

[Arjen]

Problem is, 6th Gen fighters are looking to be huge, Flanker+ sized things. That's way out of Sweden's defense model right now.

Your original contention. To which you add later.

Still needs to be big enough to hold at least 2xIR and 2x BVRAAM internally. You know, about the size of an F-35.

Which receives a reply.

Not really. The F-35 holds 2 2000lbs bombs plus 2 AAMs. Not to mention 18250lbs of fuel.
A fighter built around 4-6 AAMs with say 400nm combat radius instead of 600nm surely could be designed considerably smaller than an F-35. Still much larger than a JAS 39E, maybe somehwere between the two.

A smaller 6th gen aircraft is physically possible, utility to its user dependent on the particular needs of its user.
The economic viability of a smaller-than-F-35 6th gen combat aircraft depends on the number of nations accepting the restrictions of that smaller aircraft. As has been argued to death here, a big production run will probably reduce price per unit - if the urge to gold-plate specifications can be resisted. That goes for any design, big or small.

Economics, not technology may doom that smaller fighter. Economics may doom a bigger fighter.