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

[Scott Kenny]

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.

GCAP is looking to replace Typhoon and F-15J. So I am expecting comparable range and performance, possibly higher due to Japan's requirements over the Pacific. All the Typhoon's range stats include 3x1000L drop tanks, which is 50% of the internal fuel, total of 9000L/7500kg. The EJ200 has slightly higher Specific Fuel Consumption than the F100, so I'm guessing that for the same quantity of fuel burned they have pretty close to the same range (not sure how to do that particular math).

F-15 has the same internal fuel capacity as the Typhoon, so I'm wondering if the referenced 1000nmi combat range (1/3 greater than Typhoon) has larger external fuel tanks?

As a side note, the F-22 has the same internal fuel capacity as the F-35, ~8200kg, and the USAF is saying that's not enough for the Pacific. Which means Japan is likely to want even more internal fuel.

Anyways. So the GCAP partners are probably looking for an aircraft that carries about 7500kg-8200kg of fuel internally, while carrying roughly 2600kg of ordnance internally. That's 9-10k liters of fuel, and internal weapons bays probably 6-7m long for future proofing for long range AAMs and any cruise missiles the Japanese want to carry.

I don't see any way that an aircraft with the same rough performance as the Typhoon or F-15 but stealthy, will not be enormous.

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

That I will definitely grant.

 

[Arjen]

I don't see any way that an aircraft with the same rough performance as the Typhoon or F-15 but stealthy, will not be enormous.

I agree. Ask for it, pay for it.

 

[walker751]

The internal bay envisioned by Japan around 2014 was similar to the F-22, except it used a wider virtual Meteor than the AMRAAM.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah F-22's bay is twice as wide as the F-35 3.9x0.9m vs 3.65x0.45m and that extra head room allows the original Meteor which the F-35 cant internally.

 

[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.

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.

I was referring to a potential small cousin of GCAP, not GCAP itself. That GCAP lite could be made lighter than an F-35, but heavier than a JAS 39E.
GCAP itself probably needs larger bays than the F-35 because I imagine the Japanese want to carry at least two ASM-3, the British maybe Storm Shadow.

 

[eagle]

GCAP is looking to replace Typhoon and F-15J.

Around half of the F-15J fleet (~100 aircraft) and the F-2 fleet (~100 aircraft).

F-15 has the same internal fuel capacity as the Typhoon, so I'm wondering if the referenced 1000nmi combat range (1/3 greater than Typhoon) has larger external fuel tanks?

No it doesn't, it carries around 6100 kg of internal fuel. Meaning fuel fraction and thus range is comparable between EF and F-15.
1000 nm combat radius is with 3 tanks and CFTs.

Anyways. So the GCAP partners are probably looking for an aircraft that carries about 7500kg-8200kg of fuel internally, while carrying roughly 2600kg of ordnance internally.

That depends on their range and supercruise requirements.

 

[VTOLicious]

For anyone interested in a concept study of a Gripen sized, F414 powered, 5th gen fighter: I made the effort to have a closer look... It is indeed feasible.
More details here: Design Challenge: Lightweight Multirole Fighter (LMF)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah F-22's bay is twice as wide as the F-35 3.9x0.9m vs 3.65x0.45m and that extra head room allows the original Meteor which the F-35 cant internally.

I'm talking about depth of bay. IIRC F-22's bay is only about 0.3m deep, while the F-35A/C bay is roughly 0.45m deep. Which makes space for a 2000lb bomb.

GCAP is looking to replace Typhoon and F-15J.

Around half of the F-15J fleet (~100 aircraft) and the F-2 fleet (~100 aircraft).

Ah, excellent, thanks! Kinda wondering why only half the F-15J fleet, but that's fine.

F-15 has the same internal fuel capacity as the Typhoon, so I'm wondering if the referenced 1000nmi combat range (1/3 greater than Typhoon) has larger external fuel tanks?

No it doesn't, it carries around 6100 kg of internal fuel. Meaning fuel fraction and thus range is comparable between EF and F-15.
1000 nm combat radius is with 3 tanks and CFTs.

Makes a lot more sense, thank you.

Anyways. So the GCAP partners are probably looking for an aircraft that carries about 7500kg-8200kg of fuel internally, while carrying roughly 2600kg of ordnance internally.

That depends on their range and supercruise requirements.

Again, they're replacing Typhoon and F-15, so I'm not expecting any less range than the Typhoon!

 

[walker751]

Japan is focusing on range, and I expect that the minimum requirement is to exceed the range of the F-35.

 

[eagle]

Ah, excellent, thanks! Kinda wondering why only half the F-15J fleet, but that's fine.

The older half of the fleet is being replaced by the F-35A/B.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Ah, excellent, thanks! Kinda wondering why only half the F-15J fleet, but that's fine.

The older half of the fleet is being replaced by the F-35A/B.

Ah, thanks!

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Around half of the F-15J fleet (~100 aircraft) and the F-2 fleet (~100 aircraft).

F-X requirements before the merge with Tempest only officially asked for 90 airframes directly replacing F-2s didn't it? Granted, I also think that they were planning to also replace F-15J MSIP/JSIs with them in the long-run, which seems like a very obvious choice, but is is now official that GCAP will be replacing F-15J MSIP?

 

[WatcherZero]

May be of interest to people, a 15 minute segment from Japanese news (in English) that talks about F-16 to Ukraine then segways into the history of F-2 development before touching on GCAP. Gives you a sense of the Japanese perspective and I learned something new, the F-22/F-35 hybrid proposal from Lockheed was known in Japanese government circles as the F-57 (adding the two numbers together).

Lifting the lid on fighter jet development | NHK WORLD-JAPAN News

With Ukraine putting fighter jets in the headlines again, we look at the history of one of modern warfare's key pieces of hardware, as well as its possible future here in Japan.

www3.nhk.or.jp

P.S. Always find it funny that Japanese news still loves to use physical props like models and flip boards in the digital age.

 

[uk 75]

I wonder if the US regrets not offering F22 to Israel, Japan and UK.

 

[Scott Kenny]

P.S. Always find it funny that Japanese news still loves to use physical props like models and flip boards in the digital age.

The people who make them still have a few more years of employment on their lifetime contracts...

I wonder if the US regrets not offering F22 to Israel, Japan and UK.

At this point, probably not. Unlikely the production line would still be running now. 10-15 years ago? absolutely.

 

[Forest Green]

I wonder if the US regrets not offering F22 to Israel, Japan and UK.

I'm nearly sure it was offered to the UK.

 

[BlueFPV]

I wonder if the US regrets not offering F22 to Israel, Japan and UK.

Japan wanted the Raptor but the congress upheld a ban on foreign F-22 sales.
A sort summary: https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/01/the-story-of-why-japan-really-wanted-the-f-22-raptor/
Some people really wanted to export the Raptor, some have refused to export.

I wonder if the US regrets not offering F22 to Israel, Japan and UK.

I'm nearly sure it was offered to the UK.

Source?

 

[eagle]

F-X requirements before the merge with Tempest only officially asked for 90 airframes directly replacing F-2s didn't it? Granted, I also think that they were planning to also replace F-15J MSIP/JSIs with them in the long-run, which seems like a very obvious choice, but is is now official that GCAP will be replacing F-15J MSIP?

You're right, I was jumping to conclusions, I couldn't find anything official.

 

[Jackonicko]

Air International will be featuring the Tempest Flying Technology Demonstrator in its next issue. They will give it more space than the other media outlets at the briefing, and plan to feature a not previously seen CGI on the front cover.

Exciting!

 

[helmutkohl]

some important political news in Japan related to the JCAP

Japan ruling parties to allow new fighter jets to be exported

The defense minister has said the government will decide whether lethal weapons can be transferred "on a case-by-case basis."

www.japantimes.co.jp

 

[uk 75]

Not sure if this is the right place to raise this question?
Given that the F35 has involved all of the Tempest countries except Sweden is there not a possibility that a US involvement might emerge later on?
This might also apply to a German and Spanish requirement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not sure if this is the right place to raise this question?
Given that the F35 has involved all of the Tempest countries except Sweden is there not a possibility that a US involvement might emerge later on?
This might also apply to a German and Spanish requirement.

I don't believe so. The US is looking at the NGAD program for F-15/F-22 replacements (and F/A-XX for F-18E/F replacements).

 

[Broken]

Not sure if this is the right place to raise this question?
Given that the F35 has involved all of the Tempest countries except Sweden is there not a possibility that a US involvement might emerge later on?
This might also apply to a German and Spanish requirement.

Export potential has been cited as a primary aim for a next gen fighter by both the UK and Japan. It's unlikely either will want to have to deal with ITAR.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not sure if this is the right place to raise this question?
Given that the F35 has involved all of the Tempest countries except Sweden is there not a possibility that a US involvement might emerge later on?
This might also apply to a German and Spanish requirement.

Export potential has been cited as a primary aim for a next gen fighter by both the UK and Japan. It's unlikely either will want to have to deal with ITAR.

Another excellent point. There's lots of places that the US isn't willing to sell F-35s to.

 

[GTX]

Export potential has been cited as a primary aim for a next gen fighter by both the UK and Japan. It's unlikely either will want to have to deal with ITAR.

Except both the UK and Japan already have been 'dealing with' ITAR for decades now. It isn't that hard either once you know how.

Moreover, how many countries are out there will be likely to be able to purchase high end latest fighter platforms but who also are unlikely to gain access to ITAR controlled items but are still likely to get the likes of UK and Japan to sell to them. IMHO, more often than not the likes of the UK and Japan are likely to put similar sales restrictions on them as the USA would.

 

[Broken]

Export potential has been cited as a primary aim for a next gen fighter by both the UK and Japan. It's unlikely either will want to have to deal with ITAR.

Except both the UK and Japan already have been 'dealing with' ITAR for decades now. It isn't that hard either once you know how.

Moreover, how many countries are out there will be likely to be able to purchase high end latest fighter platforms but who also are unlikely to gain access to ITAR controlled items but are still likely to get the likes of UK and Japan to sell to them. IMHO, more often than not the likes of the UK and Japan are likely to put similar sales restrictions on them as the USA would.

Two words.

Saudi Arabia.


The UK has already been methodically removing ITAR components from its weapons systems.

Bar the comms equipment for interoperability, I would be amazed if GCAP weren't ITAR-free.

 

[GTX]

Two words.

Saudi Arabia.

Which already has access to ITAR controlled platforms such as F-15, C-130, E-3... Moreover, if it reached the point whereby the US refused to sell combat aircraft to the Saudis I think you will find the UK and Japan would also refuse.

The UK has already been methodically removing ITAR components from its weapons systems.

Bar the comms equipment for interoperability, I would be amazed if GCAP weren't ITAR-free.

And yet the UK all has a special treaty giving preferential ITAR treatment and under AUKUS will be expanding such.

 

[WatcherZero]

That exemption only applies to sales to the UK, not to sales by the UK of equipment featuring US components.
As mentioned the UK has been methodically removing ITAR restricted components from its weapons during the last decade.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Export potential has been cited as a primary aim for a next gen fighter by both the UK and Japan. It's unlikely either will want to have to deal with ITAR.

Except both the UK and Japan already have been 'dealing with' ITAR for decades now. It isn't that hard either once you know how.

Moreover, how many countries are out there will be likely to be able to purchase high end latest fighter platforms but who also are unlikely to gain access to ITAR controlled items but are still likely to get the likes of UK and Japan to sell to them. IMHO, more often than not the likes of the UK and Japan are likely to put similar sales restrictions on them as the USA would.

Japan hasn't been selling any of their stuff internationally but for about the last 5 years, it's been completely illegal for Japan to export weapons.

I remember hearing about or reading about several UK weapons sales that the US stopped, due to US components.

 

[MihoshiK]

Export potential has been cited as a primary aim for a next gen fighter by both the UK and Japan. It's unlikely either will want to have to deal with ITAR.

Except both the UK and Japan already have been 'dealing with' ITAR for decades now. It isn't that hard either once you know how.

Moreover, how many countries are out there will be likely to be able to purchase high end latest fighter platforms but who also are unlikely to gain access to ITAR controlled items but are still likely to get the likes of UK and Japan to sell to them. IMHO, more often than not the likes of the UK and Japan are likely to put similar sales restrictions on them as the USA would.

Japan hasn't been selling any of their stuff internationally but for about the last 5 years, it's been completely illegal for Japan to export weapons.

I remember hearing about or reading about several UK weapons sales that the US stopped, due to US components.

IIRC Japan has actually been seriously working on getting rid of those restrictions.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Export potential has been cited as a primary aim for a next gen fighter by both the UK and Japan. It's unlikely either will want to have to deal with ITAR.

Except both the UK and Japan already have been 'dealing with' ITAR for decades now. It isn't that hard either once you know how.

Moreover, how many countries are out there will be likely to be able to purchase high end latest fighter platforms but who also are unlikely to gain access to ITAR controlled items but are still likely to get the likes of UK and Japan to sell to them. IMHO, more often than not the likes of the UK and Japan are likely to put similar sales restrictions on them as the USA would.

Japan hasn't been selling any of their stuff internationally but for about the last 5 years, it's been completely illegal for Japan to export weapons.

I remember hearing about or reading about several UK weapons sales that the US stopped, due to US components.

IIRC Japan has actually been seriously working on getting rid of those restrictions.

Eased in 2014 so that countries not under UNSC embargoes can potentially receive Japanese items, but no Communist countries or countries involved in international conflicts. That said, Japan is looking at transferring MLRS to Ukraine, so the "International Conflicts" rule may be on its way out.

 

[timmymagic]

I don't think this is a surprise to any here, but both worth saying anyway.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675889060932452352

View: https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1675889060932452352

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675898556803170305

View: https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/1675898556803170305

 

[timmymagic]

Which already has access to ITAR controlled platforms such as F-15, C-130, E-3... Moreover, if it reached the point whereby the US refused to sell combat aircraft to the Saudis I think you will find the UK and Japan would also refuse.

The UK remembers being blocked from supplying PWIV to Saudi Arabia by the US, a 500lb LGB....all the time the US was supplying GBU-12...also a 500lb LGB...

ITAR has become self defeating, and there just isn't the trust any more in regard to US intentions. They could give all the undertakings that they like, but all it takes is a change of administration or a bit of well funded lobbying by US Defence Contractors and a sale could be blocked. Better to remove the risk to zero.

 

[GTX]

ITAR has become self defeating, and there just isn't the trust any more in regard to US intentions. They could give all the undertakings that they like, but all it takes is a change of administration or a bit of well funded lobbying by US Defence Contractors and a sale could be blocked. Better to remove the risk to zero.

And yet, as of earlier this year, the US remains the world’s leader in arms sales (all of which would be ITAR controlled by definition - though many come under the parallel FMS banner). Its exports grew by 14% in 2013-17 and 2018-22 and its share of total global arms exports rose from 33% to 40%. Plenty of nations are still willing to deal with them. Moreover, as I already said, ITAR isn't that hard to deal with once you know how,

 

[WatcherZero]

ITAR has become self defeating, and there just isn't the trust any more in regard to US intentions. They could give all the undertakings that they like, but all it takes is a change of administration or a bit of well funded lobbying by US Defence Contractors and a sale could be blocked. Better to remove the risk to zero.

And yet, as of earlier this year, the US remains the world’s leader in arms sales (all of which would be ITAR controlled by definition - though many come under the parallel FMS banner). Its exports grew by 14% in 2013-17 and 2018-22 and its share of total global arms exports rose from 33% to 40%. Plenty of nations are still willing to deal with them. Moreover, as I already said, ITAR isn't that hard to deal with once you know how,

Strip out 2017 which was an exceptional year and the Ukraine boost in 2022 (which was FMS to 4 countries, Ukraine, Finland, Switzerland and Poland accounting for half of the increase in exports) and combined US military exports have been flat for a decade, indeed between 2017 and 2022 they were trending downwards. 3/4's of annual US military exports are through ITAR restrictions rather than the looser FMS program as well ($51.9bn to $153.7bn).

 

[Scott Kenny]

ITAR has become self defeating, and there just isn't the trust any more in regard to US intentions. They could give all the undertakings that they like, but all it takes is a change of administration or a bit of well funded lobbying by US Defence Contractors and a sale could be blocked. Better to remove the risk to zero.

And yet, as of earlier this year, the US remains the world’s leader in arms sales (all of which would be ITAR controlled by definition - though many come under the parallel FMS banner). Its exports grew by 14% in 2013-17 and 2018-22 and its share of total global arms exports rose from 33% to 40%. Plenty of nations are still willing to deal with them. Moreover, as I already said, ITAR isn't that hard to deal with once you know how,

Right, but how much of that lead in sales has been due to the US stopping competing products that had US components?

 

[GTX]

Strip out 2017 which was an exceptional year and the Ukraine boost in 2022 (which was FMS to 4 countries, Ukraine, Finland, Switzerland and Poland accounting for half of the increase in exports) and US military exports have been flat for a decade, indeed between 2017 and 2022 they were trending downwards.

Either way, countries are still lining up to buy US military products. To deny otherwise is misguided.

2/3rds of annual US military exports are through ITAR restrictions rather than the FMS program as well.

Both ITAR and FMS work in parallel. Either way, my contention still stands.

 

[GTX]

Right, but how much of that lead in sales has been due to the US stopping competing products that had US components?

I doubt you will find many cases of that but feel free to list.

 

[zen]

I think in the end not bring reliant on allies is of more value not only to oneself, but ironically of more value to those allies.

It is not wrong to pursue the technologies and design of combat aircraft domestically or in alliance with others.

 

[TomcatViP]

GBU-12 and PWIV are not at the same technological level!

Regarding GCAP early demonstrator, let's not forget that UK signed a separate deal with Saudia for a joint design different but within the same family of GCAP. This could be the one.