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

That is a different and weird looking missile Forest Green, it looks strange having the four ramjet nozzles. Let's just say that I have never seen a missile like that before, is there any info on it?
 
Forest Green said:
What they need is a dual-capability AAM/ARM, like this earlier idea:

Arminger:
View attachment 732795
Click to expand...
As pointed out, this is Armiger, an ARM, not an AAM/ARM. It explicitly says Air to Ground on the board behind it in both English and German.

There has been discussion of an ARM or a dual role Meteor at various points, but it wasn't Armiger.

See https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/snub-of-mbda-meteor-bvraam.23865/post-387168 for more recent discussions.
 
RVV-AE-PD-1.jpg

It looks like the R-77M-PD, a ramjet powered missile, the cancelled Soviet counterpart to the Meteor. It used 4 throttleable intake nozzles to manuever. The mass flow rate of air is almost as much as what comes out of the engine nozzles, I guess differentially throttling the intakes to steer allows for very poweful manuevering.
 

Attachments

  • 1719351792029.png
    1719351792029.png
    891.6 KB · Views: 103
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
So we are planning on designing a Meteor Mk.2 with an improved dual mode seeker, that will prove to be a deadly combination in air combat. Would it have feature longer range than the baseline Meteor?
Click to expand...

There has been talk of Meteor improvements in the future (remember its still a very new system at the top of its game, so not in desperate need of a refresh by any stretch) and clearly an AESA seeker would be highest on the list. MBDA have also routinely showed Dual Mode concepts in recent years so its not much of a stretch for that to happen, particularly with proliferation of LO platforms. Ultimately a Meteor mk.2 will have to happen at some point to keep it competitive with other developments, its unfortunate that JNAAM hasn't gone ahead as it will have happened a lot earlier than any purely European development as it leveraged the existing seeker from AAM-4.

Can't imagine there would be any need to try and enhance the baseline kinematics though...they're already exceptional, and I suspect we're at the point where large investment would only produce marginal improvements in the propulsion system.
 
kqcke for you said:
Yeah and it is an Meteor development from Diehl at the beginning of the 2000s for an ARM missile. Often pops in some threads here If i remember it right.
Click to expand...

Armiger was nothing to do with Meteor whatsoever, completely different concept and manufacturers.

DWG said:
There has been discussion of an ARM or a dual role Meteor at various points, but it wasn't Armiger.
Click to expand...

MBDA and RAF have both talked about Meteor having an anti radiation capability in the past...but....it was never clear if they were talking about standard Meteor or the proposed JNAAM with AESA, I suspect the latter. It was also clear that such a capability would need software development and trials for it to actually work. So not operational at present. I suspect it may need some development and would only arrive with a future version of Meteor with AESA antenna. Hopefully the recent Ukraine war has reminded everyone of how useful ARM can be....RAF appear to favour Spear/Spear-EW as the SEAD/DEAD weapon of the future, but a higher speed fast reaction missile wouldn't be amiss, particularly if it could leverage other investment and be an cheaper adaptation of an existing munition, or more likely as a secondary mission enabled by software development.

Back to GCAP though....its interesting how little talk there has been since the arrival of GCAP from Tempest et al on the weaponry that will arm it....MBDA were showing some concepts alongside the Tempest mockup but seem to have shied away from that recently, with the SCAF consortium being far more open. Particularly on the remote carrier front.

From the UK's point of view if GCAP arrives c2035 its clear what some munitions will be....

WVR - Asraam, probably in a Block VII version by then as Block VI entered service in 2022
BVR - Meteor, you'd have to assume a Mk.2 will have arrived by then
Spear variants - Spear, Spear-EW are clearly on the cards but SpearGlide and MRUSW (a 'SpearSimple') may be as well..
FCASW - Hopefully by 2035 both versions...

But apart from that its a little unclear...

- Will we still be using Paveway IV as the standard guided bomb then? Surely a glide kit version will be needed, which would be a comparatively easy development (and has been proposed in the past).
- What disposable Remote Carrier will be used? Will GCAP and SCAF partners do the sensible thing and choose a standard MBDA model and jointly develop RC100, RC200 or RCM2?
- Will any US weapons be integrated? Italy uses JDAM and US Paveway, plus AIM-9X? UK and Japan have less/no interest in this due to ITAR.
- The Italian's also use IRIS-T, which could be replaced by FCAAM by then...or will they buy the UK or Japanese WVR for simplicity/cost?
- Japanese will use their own BVR, WVR missiles and presumably have their own cruise missile/AShM missiles, but how much room is there for collaboration on weapons, will they all go their own way?
- The UK is looking for air launched hypersonics, but is GCAP the best launch platform?
- Will any of the MBDA concepts from Tempest progress? (Dual mode increased calibre WVR, smaller twin rail launched WVR, micromissiles for missile defence and low collateral A2G).
- Will we bother with an internal gun? UK has shown little interest in recent years, only retaining Typhoon's as it was cheaper to retain than ditch, and is not purchasing gun pods for F-35B. Do Italy and Japan have strong views either way?
 
Its just usual buzz, since the minister said he wouldnt prejudge the outcome when specifically asked the media are making a fuss over it. Total non-story. Expect the minister to be actively promoting it at Farnborough this week. The usual interservice rivalry that always pops up during a defence review has already begun.

Rather uniquely for a defence review and for the first time I can remember the terms of reference arent how to make cuts or 'efficencies' but where to spend an extra .5% of GDP and how to increase headcount (for example increased wages and reducing the enlistment candidate screening from the current fitness, aptitude and background checks that can take upto 12 months to complete all the while the candidate isnt receiving any compensation encouraging them to find a different job).
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

UK’s next generation fighter jet programme in doubt

Armed Forces minister says he cannot make commitments on Tempest after Labour fails to match 2030 defence spending pledge
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

:(
Click to expand...
Will never happen. The agreement stipulates that anyone who leaves still has to pay for all the contracts they are obligated for for a year after withdrawal. They would be stuck paying for research that their companies would have done except it would be foreign companies that they would be funding instead and getting literally 0 benefits from.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240719_215038_Drive.png
    Screenshot_20240719_215038_Drive.png
    793.7 KB · Views: 27
Kota said:
Will never happen. The agreement stipulates that anyone who leaves still has to pay for all the contracts they are obligated for for a year after withdrawal. They would be stuck paying for research that their companies would have done except it would be foreign companies that they would be funding instead and getting literally 0 benefits from.
Click to expand...

However I think this convention has not entered into force yet?
 
I fear that GCAP might be used as a sacrificial offering to smooth the EU views on the ongoing discussions with UK.


agnusdei_448x280.jpg

GCAP? (Francisco de Zurbaran, "Agnus Dei")
 
Last edited:
It's just clickbait from the right-wing press and the usual suspects (RUSI) trying to discredit Labour before they've even begun work. Quite rightly no Minister is going to second-guess what the defence review will say. It's obvious that Tempest is vital to UK industry as well as that of Italy and Japan, but Leonardo throwing its toys around over workshare and Saudi petro dollars lurking around in the backroom shows nothing is yet a done deal.

I suspect there will be some kind of tradeoff analysis of ordering more F-35s now or waiting for Tempest in 2035 - assuming of course it arrives on time and on budget, which with the track record of the industry and aviation projects (and other MoD programmes) seems unlikely.
 
Hood said:
It's just clickbait from the right-wing press and the usual suspects (RUSI) trying to discredit Labour before they've even begun work. Quite rightly no Minister is going to second-guess what the defence review will say. It's obvious that Tempest is vital to UK industry as well as that of Italy and Japan, but Leonardo throwing its toys around over workshare and Saudi petro dollars lurking around in the backroom shows nothing is yet a done deal.

I suspect there will be some kind of tradeoff analysis of ordering more F-35s now or waiting for Tempest in 2035 - assuming of course it arrives on time and on budget, which with the track record of the industry and aviation projects (and other MoD programmes) seems unlikely.
Click to expand...
Tend to agree, there's very little meat in these stories.
 
Hood said:
It's just clickbait from the right-wing press and the usual suspects (RUSI) trying to discredit Labour before they've even begun work. Quite rightly no Minister is going to second-guess what the defence review will say. It's obvious that Tempest is vital to UK industry as well as that of Italy and Japan, but Leonardo throwing its toys around over workshare and Saudi petro dollars lurking around in the backroom shows nothing is yet a done deal.

I suspect there will be some kind of tradeoff analysis of ordering more F-35s now or waiting for Tempest in 2035 - assuming of course it arrives on time and on budget, which with the track record of the industry and aviation projects (and other MoD programmes) seems unlikely.
Click to expand...
I have a nasty feeling you are wrong there.
 
TomcatViP said:
See here also:

news.sky.com

New UK fighter jet could be axed in defence review

There are concerns that going ahead with a programme that is not expected to deliver new aircraft until the 2030s is not the best way to deter a threat of war from Russia.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
What it says, taking out all the hypotheses and dogshite is:
Luke Pollard, the armed forces minister, called the project "really important" but said it would not be right for him to prejudice the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) by setting out in a speech which pieces of military kit are required to fight future wars.
Click to expand...

So the Armed Forces Minister says it's, "really important," but he's not going to prejudice the review by giving guarantees because that's beyond his remit. So there you go, the GCAP is really important, that's literally all that's in this article/work of fiction.
 
Scots proverb: What may be may not be.

This is an example of 'interviewing your keyboard.'

If 'maybe' 'could' and 'might' were fat - which in a journalistic sense, anything attached to those words is - reading either of those articles would cause a heart attack.
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
It's just clickbait from the right-wing press and the usual suspects (RUSI) trying to discredit Labour before they've even begun work. Quite rightly no Minister is going to second-guess what the defence review will say. It's obvious that Tempest is vital to UK industry as well as that of Italy and Japan, but Leonardo throwing its toys around over workshare and Saudi petro dollars lurking around in the backroom shows nothing is yet a done deal.

I suspect there will be some kind of tradeoff analysis of ordering more F-35s now or waiting for Tempest in 2035 - assuming of course it arrives on time and on budget, which with the track record of the industry and aviation projects (and other MoD programmes) seems unlikely.
Click to expand...
i very much doubt that Leonardo will leave the program, it's just too lucrative for them at this point, they may complain now but will come to an agreement at the end, this isn't Leonardo and KNDS level of problems, it's normal now because thankfully Leonardo has started investing more in the production section so they'll make it work imo, i wouldn't be scared of GCAP going bust
 
This is a far better article than any of the media articles. Apparently what’s given them pause for thought is the US & NGAD, with them thinking well if the US is going well we cannot afford this kind of sixth generation fighter then the UK might be thinking can we?

New UK government declines to take position on GCAP fighter program, defers to defense review - Breaking Defense

“GCAP is completely impossible if there’s a war in Europe in the coming five years because the global economy will have completely tanked,” said Justin Bronk, senior research fellow for airpower and technology at the Royal United Services Institute, a UK defense think tank.
breakingdefense.com
 
But this is crazy. If there is a general war with Russia in the next 5 years (we've been hearing that since 1946) then its immaterial anyway whether GCAP goes ahead. Even if we ordered 500 F-35s tomorrow they wouldn't be delivered in time, we might get a squadron of Typhoons maybe, but given such a war would likely end up with instant sunshine dished about and we'll have lots of other things to worry about that "I wish they had ordered 1,000 GCAPs for 2040".

There seems to be a lot of death wish fanaticism going on, Justin Bronk's argument seem fallacious in several respects.
 
I feel the best option is to upgrade T2/T3 to new Tranches "V" standard (ECR MK.2 + Touchscreen, CTF, TVN, Engine EJ2X0) 100 ish for RAF, it is already included EKR as ECR MK.2 can operate as jammer and scan destroy need swap modular for jammer equipment

upgrade rather buy a new one or another opinion is .. buy new tranches then sell T2/T3 to countries that need it like Hungary or Romania, other etc for cheaper, even India to offer a good deal to Rafale cancelled with ECR Mk.0 Radar or MK.2? (I would prefer to upgrade rather than buy as might waste money as we will have to retire short or sell them again might customers not want it due new option out there to buy)

also might buy an extra F35 "A" (or "B" - to replace Harrier GR.9 roles which are originally for RAF if the runway is destroyed) so stealth VTOL ground attack It might good idea short time of 50ish, direct to RAF can use it similar to the Falkland War which used RAF Harrier to fly out Carrier.

might be worth asking or funding F35 "B" with a similar ECR Mk.2 Radar upgrade with CTF, New Engine F35 "B+" so RN NAA F35 "B" can upgrade to "B+"

plus 400-600 Wingman Drones for pair F35B Carrier and Land, Typhoon until replaced by GCAP.

these are short-term fixed until GCAP has funds rather than thinking about funds to pour (will have fund once we increase to 2.5% might more)

than once GCAP is ready to buy 200 replace Typhoon with full strength RAF. and a new variant or new plane to replace F35 "B" VTOL / Small GCAP type Carrier capacity launch.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope we did not cancel GCAP as I think it is important cos keep a very good relationship with Japan and Italy, also long-range fighters will be ideal for defending in a longer distance from the UK where typhoons currently range which shorter compare (F35B is more short range) than GCAP furthermore Pacific Sea need good very long-range before land to refuel. GCAP (Wish thought) with CTF capacity plug and play.

I think Newspaper just take context misquote to turn negative when it is it is still go ahead with a positive yet slow process rather rush or keep low profiles.

(I think Tempest fly test protocol is 2026-28 with ECR MK.2 + Touchscreen which use Typhoon to test "1 stone and 2 birds" to save money ) I think we should keep it until protocol fly that we can see what's next.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
I fear that GCAP might be used as a sacrificial offering to smooth the EU views on the ongoing discussions with UK.
Click to expand...
As Italy is in the EU that really isn't going to help...

Grey Havoc said:
The signs are not looking good.
Click to expand...

The 'signs' are a single question to a Junior MInister 2 weeks into the job, who actually praised GCAP then had to note that as an SDR was underway he could not guarantee anything or give further details (the correct answer, but a politically naive one that I expect he is really regretting now)....that single line has then been jumped on by the 'buy American' crowd, like Bronk, and amplified....

It doesn't amount to a hill of beans...
Hood said:
But this is crazy. If there is a general war with Russia in the next 5 years (we've been hearing that since 1946) then its immaterial anyway whether GCAP goes ahead. Even if we ordered 500 F-35s tomorrow they wouldn't be delivered in time, we might get a squadron of Typhoons maybe, but given such a war would likely end up with instant sunshine dished about and we'll have lots of other things to worry about that "I wish they had ordered 1,000 GCAPs for 2040".
Click to expand...

I find the idea that Russia wants a confrontation with NATO at any point in the future after the pasting they've had in Ukraine utterly risible. Anyone serious who repeats it can safely be put on 'ignore' for all eternity...
 
Hood said:
But this is crazy. If there is a general war with Russia in the next 5 years (we've been hearing that since 1946) then its immaterial anyway whether GCAP goes ahead. Even if we ordered 500 F-35s tomorrow they wouldn't be delivered in time, we might get a squadron of Typhoons maybe, but given such a war would likely end up with instant sunshine dished about and we'll have lots of other things to worry about that "I wish they had ordered 1,000 GCAPs for 2040".

There seems to be a lot of death wish fanaticism going on, Justin Bronk's argument seem fallacious in several respects.
Click to expand...
I don't think any government seriously seems to think we're going to war with Russia, as they'd be increasing defence spending to 10% of GDP as in the early 1950s, not 2.5%.
 
Last edited:
Deltafan said:
www.aerosociety.com

The only way is Tempest - Royal Aeronautical Society

The Global Combat Air Programme is a multinational effort led by the UK, Japan and Italy to develop a new stealthy combat aircraft. But is GCAP the right solution? JOE COLES went in search of answers.
www.aerosociety.com www.aerosociety.com
Click to expand...
thank you for your intriguing articles link, I'm fully suspire hear about F35 "B" which the British operate is actually under a black box and controlled by a USA officer on QoE Carrier, which I thought we had full access to and complete control (besides I'm aware of software and code which safeguard to the USA only which British Tier 1 partner cant access even more alarming thing is Israel has code and software, allowed mods even they are not tier 1 partner when British revenue as tier 1 partner no other nations have this tiers) hopefully MODs have don't have a second thought option to abandon GCAP and buy off the shelf USA aircraft. (also articles has good point ie TSR-2 and F-111, (my additional) Starfighter bribe - which cost FD2 and SR Project Deal etc) don't want to make the same mistake.

these good articles push reason to keep heads up and carry on funding GCAP regarding what (also hope do not give up then join FCAS German-French) will affect Japanese partner and future. which the Japanese and British need to solve issues.

A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I don't think any gover seriously seems to think we're going to war with Russia, as they'd be increasing defence spending to 10% of GDP as in the early 1950s, not 2.5%.
Click to expand...

Personality I think we should go 4% once sort British Equipment and Grow to the maximum required ie fleet, Army size, and Air Force to full strength and full back up then tune down to 2.5% better long-running with an upgrade and future projects and maintenance, afford to pay new equipment without the cut.

when a world conflict war potential or a high-level cold war; we need seriously we should go 5% and then increase it to 7.5% for any speed-up project to be quickly ready earlier than planned. (Speed up Spear EW and FC/ASW, GCAP and More other thing)
 
djpowell1984 said:
thank you for your intriguing articles link, I'm fully suspire hear about F35 "B" which the British operate is actually under a black box and controlled by a USA officer on QoE Carrier, which I thought we had full access to and complete control (besides I'm aware of software and code which safeguard to the USA only which British Tier 1 partner cant access even more alarming thing is Israel has code and software, allowed mods even they are not tier 1 partner when British revenue as tier 1 partner no other nations have this tiers) hopefully MODs have don't have a second thought option to abandon GCAP and buy off the shelf USA aircraft. (also articles has good point ie TSR-2 and F-111, (my additional) Starfighter bribe - which cost FD2 and SR Project Deal etc) don't want to make the same mistake.

these good articles push reason to keep heads up and carry on funding GCAP regarding what (also hope do not give up then join FCAS German-French) will affect Japanese partner and future. which the Japanese and British need to solve issues.



Personality I think we should go 4% once sort British Equipment and Grow to the maximum required ie fleet, Army size, and Air Force to full strength and full back up then tune down to 2.5% better long-running with an upgrade and future projects and maintenance, afford to pay new equipment without the cut.

when a world conflict war potential or a high-level cold war; we need seriously we should go 5% and then increase it to 7.5% for any speed-up project to be quickly ready earlier than planned. (Speed up Spear EW and FC/ASW, GCAP and More other thing)
Click to expand...
The GSSO on a QE is a British officer, just like it's a Dutch officer on a RNAF base or an Italian officer on an Aeronautical Militare facility. The SAP guidelines are standardized for F-35 partners and are about preserving Classified technology not giving the US an iron grip on the aircraft. All partners have SAP personnel who can work with/on the aircraft and non-SAP personnel who don't have access, just like with any Classified program in any normal military. There will be RAF service members who won't be allowed to peer behind GCAP's curtain too.
 
Moose said:
The GSSO on a QE is a British officer, just like it's a Dutch officer on a RNAF base or an Italian officer on an Aeronautical Militare facility. The SAP guidelines are standardized for F-35 partners and are about preserving Classified technology not giving the US an iron grip on the aircraft. All partners have SAP personnel who can work with/on the aircraft and non-SAP personnel who don't have access, just like with any Classified program in any normal military. There will be RAF service members who won't be allowed to peer behind GCAP's curtain too.
Click to expand...
thank for clarify
=
 
Moose said:
The GSSO on a QE is a British officer, just like it's a Dutch officer on a RNAF base or an Italian officer on an Aeronautical Militare facility. The SAP guidelines are standardized for F-35 partners and are about preserving Classified technology not giving the US an iron grip on the aircraft. All partners have SAP personnel who can work with/on the aircraft and non-SAP personnel who don't have access, just like with any Classified program in any normal military. There will be RAF service members who won't be allowed to peer behind GCAP's curtain too.
Click to expand...
It's supposed to be that way, but from I have heard it hasn't worked out like that, at least not to date.
 
Exhibiting at the show together for the first time, the three GCAP government partners and their lead industry partners BAE Systems (UK), Leonardo (Italy) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan) will showcase the significant strides they are making to progress the delivery of a truly next generation combat aircraft.

The new concept model on display in Hall 5 features a much more evolved design with a wingspan larger than previous concepts to improve the aerodynamics of the future combat aircraft.
Click to expand...

 
I think if they were going pure long range stealthy missile truck and didnt care about dogfighting they would have gone with a tail-less design.

Minus the blended wings, canards and gaining a twin-tail its still fundamentally an evolved Typhoon shape.

Eyeballing it, looks slightly larger fuselage and wing area than an F-22 (Maybe 10-15%?) minus the horizontal stabilizers.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom