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

https://twitter.com/x/status/1878830229260808302
View: https://x.com/BAESystemsplc/status/1878830229260808302


GhLyH9MXQAARN5t
 
DWG said:
You really want your CCA capability to be platform agnostic, because that allows you to optimise your loyal wingman pairings to the immediate mission. The cooperative platforms you want for long range interception over the Sea of Japan or the GIUK Gap are likely to be different to the ones you'd want over the Med, or penetrating into Russian or Chinese AA/AD networks.

I'd expect something like we saw with drones, with NATO eventually coalescing on a common comms architecture for control of wingmen, then a golf-bag approach to mission packages.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

There's nothing saying that you only want one maker building CCAs.

I mean, there's at least 4 different types that immediately come to mind ("spear carrier", ISR/comms relay, EW, and ground attack), and that's just broad categories. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with at least 8x different airframes, just between long range and short range versions. Probably more once you start thinking about bay capacity.

The ISR/comms relay is likely to have at least 3 versions for the US: one that's equivalent to TACIT BLUE as a tactical ISR unit (for both Army and USAF use), the RQ-180 (or successor program) subsonic penetrating strategic ISR, and a Blackbird-equivalent supersonic penetrating strategic ISR. The strategic penetrating ISR planes are to go find the ICBM TELs. Reason for both subsonic and supersonic is the need to get ahead of the B-21s, the subsonic CCAs would need most of a day to get to Russian or Chinese airspace ahead of the B-21s, while the supersonic CCAs can get there in a few hours.

GCAP countries will likely want both TACIT BLUE and RQ-180 equivalents themselves. Less need for a Blackbird for them, but they may surprise us all.

As mentioned, the "spear carrier" you need for long patrols over the GIUK gap or over the Sea of Japan is likely to be very different than the one you want over the Med, maybe unless you're doing something with fuel tanks in the weapons bays.

EW drones could be as small as a MALD-J, but that takes up bay space or needs to be hung on a wing and compromises stealth and range. I'd rather have one about the size of a JASSM-XR or maybe a little bigger to make space for recovery gear, ground launched. 1500nmi radius or more, so I can send it 1000nmi away and have it orbit for a couple hours or so. (For the record, I think the TACIT BLUE drone could be the same size)

And a ground attack drone is likely to be pretty good sized, likely most of the size of GCAP itself. (EW drones could also be this big if they make it replace a Growler: ~7000lbs of jammers, 2x SiAW, and 2x JASSMs. With or without space for AAMs.)
 
FighterJock said:
Would Storm Shadow or the successor fit inside the bay as it is designed at present?
Click to expand...
the missile will likely not fit and so the option will be a new weapon, there is the possibility of fitting SOM-J from turkey if bought but i doubt the signatories want to buy it
 
FighterJock said:
Would Storm Shadow or the successor fit inside the bay as it is designed at present?
Click to expand...

Given the range of FC/ASW I can't imagine there is much of a driver for it to be internally carried.

But we also just don't know, these are just proposals that BAE have worked through over the years, we have no idea what they have settled on yet. But anything that can fit a 5m+ weapon in it is going to be big....particularly in an aircraft that is c20m long (based on the recent models). F-111 was 22.5m long and (I think) was limited to c4.5m in its comparatively large internal bay.
 
The designs are just far too early for my liking and could change at little notice if the designers feel that the bays are just too small for anything other than the SPEAR 3 missile. It would be a mistake to have a small bay for the GCAP as that would limit the type of weapons that could be carried internally on long range stealthy missions.
 
If it is small, seems will same mistake as F-22 lesson, as weapon limit and not enough space to broad weapon as F-23 will able fit these weapon due depth internal bay they have 2-3 layers AAM in main internal bay mechanics drop

The reason I think should've 5-5.6m due stealth attack deep enemy line and drop powerfully weapon, big enough compared to whilst CCA drone small enough 4 (I think like 1x4 or 2x4 "8")spear family or 2 meteor.

Also example in a scernio; navy strike in open sea and long range, if external these big will pop radar, and carrier would sent fighter to interceptor as external weapon likely pop big boop on radar.

CCA size not got enough powerful weapon enough damage carrier.

That why I think GCAP with 5m+ better options as UK or Italian or maybe Japan couldn't afford buy b-21.

So use GCAP act as Fighter X Light bomber X Drone Mothership is ideal for my opinion as cost effective as it is modular internal weapon long meant extra fuel in internal bay. Or add space for specialist.that why I suggest middle big space for FCASW and side enough narrow for AAM and ASM-3

Alternatively if indeed is use MAKO missiles size or Paveway iv 500lb rather FC-ASW.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

UK Emphasizes Need To Arm Tempest Stealth Fighter With Larger, Longer Range Air-To-Air Missiles

Giving the Tempest ‘bigger sticks’ is seen as critical to keeping pace with adversary developments, particularly the rapid pace of China’s airpower evolution. Giving the Tempest ‘bigger sticks’ is seen as critical to keeping pace with adversary developments, particularly the rapid pace of...
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
Important to decipher which bits of that report are the Defence Committee reporting their opinions as parliamentarians, and which part are the committee reporting the opinions of those actually in a position to make them stick. Larger LRAAMs is in the second of those two categories, being cited by the Chief of the Air Staff.
 
djpowell1984 said:
Also example in a scernio; navy strike in open sea and long range, if external these big will pop radar, and carrier would sent fighter to interceptor as external weapon likely pop big boop on radar.
Click to expand...
Given the limited number of carriers out there, I'm not convinced that's a major issue.

Admiral Kusnetzsov's in a never-ending refit, with its crew reportedly fed into the Ukranian meatgrinder.

China has Liaoning, Shangdong, and Fujian, with Type 004 a possibility for the future, but they're not really in a position to threaten the UK or Italy.
 
DWG said:
Given the limited number of carriers out there, I'm not convinced that's a major issue.

Admiral Kusnetzsov's in a never-ending refit, with its crew reportedly fed into the Ukranian meatgrinder.

China has Liaoning, Shangdong, and Fujian, with Type 004 a possibility for the future, but they're not really in a position to threaten the UK or Italy.
Click to expand...
Correct it will not threat UK or Italy Yet they would pose dangerous for Japan,

UK and Italy could use FCASW as land attack and stealth sneak around mountain / valley / low level internal bay will less stress wing if use FCASW on the external (wing) in high agiles mission or even high level hide in internal bay to more hide radar to strike bridges or HQ or Navy base.

also if no use FCASW it would Big enough so more room for spawn for land attack (if British not want ASM-3 so they can advantage use 6.2m meant

they could fit 2 meteor and Spear (12 if one lay)

with depth ASM-3 (0.35m) could get rough 2 lay spear 0.18 x 2 = 0.36m if ask them a bit extra depth so 24 spears (4 row x 3 line x 2 lay) in 1 bay

(if use 2 bay total 4 meteor + 48 spears or just focus on spears only 96 spears) Use CCA as meteor only Or 4 meteor and 4 spears in one bay so 2 x total 8 meteors and 8 spears

Even extra fuel internal if space just use meteor meant range more longer. Which good thing for defending in far away from UK.

So it is become spears spawn missiles will overwhelm SAM defence just one mission and one aircraft. Also could destroy one (maybe two) armour battalion in one sweep also destroy lots aircraft in air base strike one mission.

Other reason they (Japanese) want led internal weapon bay design that why I think suspect they possible want ASM-3 as Primary focus and baselayer size as maybe include with BAe Modular internal weapon so lots optional to use.

China plan build more Carriers type 04 I think 6 of them ?

Type 1 (1 but they more test and won't use war) done build
Type 2 (1 they are war capacity but limited yet can sail) done build
Type 3:(1 they more capacity pre-standard) already build and near complete
Type 4 ( plan 4 - and final version standard of all carrier for Chinese) they start building 3- current threat plus 4 in the process (total 7) carriers potential threat against Japan.

That why I want happy see ASM-3 internal weapon bay focus regard not include use FCASW might too big depth for internal bay

0.65 x 0.9 x 5.2m compare to ASM-3 350mm (35cm) x 900mm (90cm) x 60000mm (6m)

I will try do draw and rough to visual internal bay Use picture avode as baseline I will Use procreate app as I don't have 3d software.

Sorry waffle about why I want see GCAP use ASM-3 as basic internal bay.
 
These option will be good

Front view

I will try do top version I need find pic top

Paveway iv / spear 3 (and ew) / meteor / asw / storm shadow (similar dimensions of FCASW)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0319.jpeg
    IMG_0319.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 52
  • IMG_0320.jpeg
    IMG_0320.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 52
  • IMG_0321.jpeg
    IMG_0321.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 48
Last edited:
DWG said:
Given the limited number of carriers out there, I'm not convinced that's a major issue.

Admiral Kusnetzsov's in a never-ending refit, with its crew reportedly fed into the Ukranian meatgrinder.

China has Liaoning, Shangdong, and Fujian, with Type 004 a possibility for the future, but they're not really in a position to threaten the UK or Italy.
Click to expand...
You do know how much land and mineral rights China/Chinese companies have been buying in Africa, right?

How long before the PLAN sends a carrier group to the Red Sea to stomp the Houthis (or someone else) for disrupting shipping?


Ainen said:
It's normally just wasteful to invest into higher stealth and range for both. Deeper bays don't come free for an aircraft, so does deeper stealth.
Click to expand...
Wasteful? When the UK wants to be able to fly their fighters from Blighty to the Polish/Russian border or farther east? And that distance means that you can't just fly 20 minutes back to your home base to reload your bays, so you need bigger bays to get more kills per sortie. Because the metric to care about is kills per day. Fewer sorties per day, the more kills per sortie you need to make up for the lower number of sorties.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You do know how much land and mineral rights China/Chinese companies have been buying in Africa, right?

How long before the PLAN sends a carrier group to the Red Sea to stomp the Houthis (or someone else) for disrupting shipping?
Click to expand...
That isn't a valid scenario given there is tacit support for the Houthis coming from Beijing.

Doesn't mean we won't see a Chinese carrier round the horn at some point, it seems inevitable although largely pointless. It does make you realise how important Perth and Diego Garcia are though.

Scott Kenny said:
WAsteful? When the UK wants to be able to fly their fighters from Blighty to the Polish/Russian border or farther east? And that distance means that you can't just fly 20 minutes back to your home base to reload your bays, so you need bigger bays to get more kills per sortie. Because the metric to care about is kills per day. Fewer sorties per day, the more kills per sortie you need to make up for the lower number of sorties.
Click to expand...
That is the definition of CCA. Why over engineer an airframe today when you are about guaranteed that you will be able to fly with an unmanned wingman who can carry the extra mass you need after you've topped up at the unmanned tanker...
 
Ozair said:
Doesn't mean we won't see a Chinese carrier round the horn at some point, it seems inevitable although largely pointless. It does make you realise how important Perth and Diego Garcia are though.
Click to expand...
Exactly. My scenario idea may not have been right but the point of a Chinese CVBG hanging around the Horn of Africa or even in the Med remains.


Ozair said:
That is the definition of CCA. Why over engineer an airframe today when you are about guaranteed that you will be able to fly with an unmanned wingman who can carry the extra mass you need after you've topped up at the unmanned tanker...
Click to expand...
Since no-one seems to be interested in making strike CCAs, the manned aircraft needs to be able to carry the necessary weapons for a strike mission. A pair of SiAW, a pair of JASSMs, a pair of JDAMs or quad-racks of SDBs, and a quartet of BVRAAMs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Exactly. My scenario idea may not have been right but the point of a Chinese CVBG hanging around the Horn of Africa or even in the Med remains.
Click to expand...
At the moment the Chinese trading fleet travels the seas under the protection of the USN. I don't see the Chinese Navy assuming that role anytime soon and their list of allies is radically smaller. Token trips yes, sustained persistence that the USN has done for 70 years seems highly unlikely.
Scott Kenny said:
iSnce no-one seems to be interested in making strike CCAs, the manned aircraft needs to be able to carry the necessary weapons for a strike mission. A pair of SiAW, a pair of JASSMs, a pair of JDAMs or quad-racks of SDBs, and a quartet of BVRAAMs.
Click to expand...
Give it time, strike capable CCAs will come and GCAP is at least ten years away and fifteen from decent numbers being available. Plenty of time for CCAs to mature with the platform.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Wasteful? When the UK wants to be able to fly their fighters from Blighty to the Polish/Russian border or farther east? And that distance means that you can't just fly 20 minutes back to your home base to reload your bays, so you need bigger bays to get more kills per sortie. Because the metric to care about is kills per day. Fewer sorties per day, the more kills per sortie you need to make up for the lower number of sorties.
Click to expand...
Most high ticket UK programs end up cancelled. I.e. program either fits budget and politics to the end, or it is getting cut even when it's stupid (type 45).
In any case, expensive programs struggle to keep up and get fully debugged later.

This leads to a simple choice - either make a penetrative platform, or penetrative weapons.
First strategy is broadly unreasonable for anyone other than US in modern world, and even US clearly grew doubtful (original NGAD being questioned). It indeed produces higher Pk though, but at the cost of higher risks.
China increasingly approaching this category in its 2020s systems, too, but their requirements are milder(most opfor rear being empty ocean).

Second is reasonable, but then paying the very high bill(and also accepting faster obsolescence) for ahead-of-the-curve VLO is just pointless. Given how GCAP looks (vertical stabilizers), and how penetration isn't even on top of the list for 2/3 core partners(Japan, Italy) it's clearly this one.

Getting kills per mission is a cool metric, but if it isn't accompanied by accepting risks of being killed in the process - it's peacetime chest pumping. The metric to care is achieving the mission, alive.
Alive for UK is highly important, because realistically (1)UK is not buying significantly over 100 aircraft, (2)UK force replenish capabilities are measured in single GCAP aircraft per month, and (3)UK will not be producing aircraft far ahead of the curve, (4)2x series of SAMs(on the edge of 3x) and other felonies are a rapidly developing threat. Faster than UK own military progress.

100ish aircraft with no replacement over Russia will attrit in no time, even if it's b-21; and now you have no fleet.
This is not a way to plan operations.

Attrition of storm shadows on the way to targets has certainly proven itself more acceptable.
 
JNAAM appears to have been cancelled due to its increased weight and reduced speed caused by the new seeker.

www.twz.com

UK Emphasizes Need To Arm Tempest Stealth Fighter With Larger, Longer Range Air-To-Air Missiles

Giving the Tempest ‘bigger sticks’ is seen as critical to keeping pace with adversary developments, particularly the rapid pace of China’s airpower evolution. Giving the Tempest ‘bigger sticks’ is seen as critical to keeping pace with adversary developments, particularly the rapid pace of...
www.twz.com www.twz.com
It should also be noted that, in the not-too-distant past, the United Kingdom and Japan were involved in a joint effort to develop a possible new-generation air-to-air missile.

This bilateral cooperation saw the U.K. Ministry of Defense support Japan’s Joint New Air-to-Air Missile program, or JNAAM. Still highly secretive, the program is understood to have yielded a missile with a Japanese ‘front end’ in the form of an advanced radio-frequency seeker and a British ‘back end,’ retaining the original Meteor’s ramjet motor.

Douglas Barrie, the Senior Fellow for Military Aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think-tank told TWZ that he believes that JNAAM was “successful as far as it went,” but that the program didn’t move beyond technical exploration.

Barrie suggests that the JNAAM may have been discontinued on performance grounds, assessing that it was likely to have a top speed of below Mach 4, and more likely in the region of Mach 3.5, slower than the Meteor, which is thought to fly in excess of Mach 4

In the meantime, the United Kingdom continued to work on a mid-life update for the Meteor, and this option remains under consideration. Nevertheless, a revamped Meteor might still not meet the performance requirements of the missile envisaged for Tempest, and it would also seem to be ruled out since it’s not understood to be larger than the current Meteor.
Click to expand...
 
DWG said:
The suggestion was the GCAP partners should bring in the US, not India, and the (baseless) argument to bring in India was to bring them in as a full partner, therefore the suggestion was to bring in the US as a full partner. You can change that point if you want, but I was answering the original one, not some theoretical one discarding US laws.
Click to expand...
I think we are inadvertently talking at cross purposes. You are well within your rights not to want to discuss an ITAR-free hypothetical.
 
Ares said:
JNAAM appears to have been cancelled due to its increased weight and reduced speed caused by the new seeker.

www.twz.com

UK Emphasizes Need To Arm Tempest Stealth Fighter With Larger, Longer Range Air-To-Air Missiles

Giving the Tempest ‘bigger sticks’ is seen as critical to keeping pace with adversary developments, particularly the rapid pace of China’s airpower evolution. Giving the Tempest ‘bigger sticks’ is seen as critical to keeping pace with adversary developments, particularly the rapid pace of...
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
I just don't see this being the case considering the timelines and how the program progressed. This sort of issue would have been caught early on in simulations, but it wasn't. We also know that JNAAM was cancelled right before practical test flights with official termination after the fight launch, so this would have to assume that
1. They saw bad results in simulations
2. They ignored bad results and built a prototype anyways to get real data
3. Cancelled the program before gathering real data that they deemed necessary enough to build a prototype.

Also the info that we do have is very scarce, but the one thing that was confirmed from Japan's side is that seeker miniaturization was successful.
1736996742556.png

令和３年末時点で新型コロナウイルスの影響により事業全体として当初計画より１２か月決着することとなりましたが、国内の高性能電波シーカの化に目途が小型つくなどの成果を上げております、この結果を踏まえ、令和5年度に行う試作の試験評価に従って現在のプログラムを終了する。
As of the end of 2021, the entire project will be completed 12 months later than originally planned due to the impact of COVID-19. However, we have achieved some results, such as seeing progress in miniaturizing high-performance radio seekers domestically. Based on these results, we will end the current program following the testing and evaluation of a prototype in 2023.

So if the Japanese seeker was too heavy and causing problems then why would Japan be talking about seeker miniaturization being one of the achievements of the program? I still think that Thales Aero who is the main contractor for the Meteor seeker not liking being shafted out of their main role in the program with no say from the French side is a much more reasonable scenario.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom