UK-Japan-Italy Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) News & Analysis

DWG said:
Wedgetail's an established design and already flying in RAF colours - so I'm not sure how they're getting to 'unachievable'. 'At risk of cost escalation' might be a more accurate interpretation.
Click to expand...
Schedule?
 
Scott Kenny said:
How many programs are Red when they're exactly on time and on schedule up through the end of delivery? Haven't several been named on this forum?
Click to expand...

Journalistic understanding of the IPA (Infrastructure and Project Authority) RAG statuses and process is near zero I'm afraid.

All UK Government programmes that are over £50m, or of a novel or contentious nature, are reported to the IPA in the GMPP (Government Major Projects Portfolio) with annual returns listed for publication. There are also quarterly returns and an annual 'Transparency Return' (don't expect to get too much from that though..., the GAO it ain't). The Programmes status is listed clearly with a RAG status (Red, Amber and Green). It's a bit more complex than that as there are interim stages like Red-Amber, Amber-Green as well...

The RAG status comes from either an internal assessment i.e. the programme or project grades itself, or from an independent assessment that is commissioned by the programme via the IPA. That assessment is done at defined stages of the programme, ranging from programme start to programme closure. They're called 'Gateways'. You need to clear multiple 'Gateway's in order to proceed with the programme. For long term programmes where there could be large gaps between stages you can also commission, or be asked to commission, interim reviews. Dependent on how these are commissioned they can be internal to the programme only (with a copy submitted to IPA for records) or submitted to the IPA formally. Typically these are done at the request of the Senior Responsible Owner, particularly if they've just taken over from another SRO).

There are also other assurance mechanisms that can run alongside the IPA, the Major Projects Group for example chaired by the CEO of the Civil Service with external to Government experts called in. These tend to be for larger projects.

The big issue though is that journo's (and politicians) just don't understand the reality of the IPA process. Definitions of RAG status are available online and they go with that....but there is a lot of wriggle room and nuance...the reasons why a programme are scored RED are many and varied...and don't necessarily mean that there are unsurmountable issues. But the published definition makes it sound like there are...

For example I worked in a programme from start to finish over a period of >5 years. At the start we were listed as RED....we remained in that status for 5 years, went to RED-AMBER for the final year...before going straight to GREEN on delivery. End result was we delivered early, under budget with savings of 65% over the previous solution (and our business case stated 35%)...and industry had said that it wasn't possible...MPG told us it was the most successful Government programme they had ever seen....so why was it RED? Simple....we needed to keep political and organisational focus on it to ensure we had the resources to actually get the work done, if we'd scored at GREEN everyone would have taken their eye off the ball and it would have suffered. By emphasising issues, industry views etc we kept it at that (make no mistake it wasn't plain sailing either). If you know you need the money, attention and resources to keep flowing scoring at GREEN doesn't actually help your case sometimes...

And for MoD projects its even worse as the Transparency Returns, GMPP reports are not available for viewing and the data they release to the public is woefully short of detail, and no-one will talk in comparison to other government programmes, due to the secret nature of a lot of them....unfortunately though, it appears that the data that MoD releases, even to Parliament has become even thinner on the ground over the last few years...transparency, to a degree, is a good thing and MoD is increasingly secretive. The only reason for that is to avoid scrutiny...

So the journo's use the IPA definition...because they don't know any better, and it appears MoD don't care either way...

One thing that would help is if the IPA shared stats with the public about pathways to green by Dept's, and historical data around how many programmes successfully delivered, were cancelled, over budget or time, particularly those that hit RED...
 
timmymagic said:
For example I worked in a programme from start to finish over a period of >5 years. At the start we were listed as RED....we remained in that status for 5 years, went to RED-AMBER for the final year...before going straight to GREEN on delivery. End result was we delivered early, under budget with savings of 65% over the previous solution (and our business case stated 35%)...and industry had said that it wasn't possible...MPG told us it was the most successful Government programme they had ever seen....so why was it RED? Simple....we needed to keep political and organisational focus on it to ensure we had the resources to actually get the work done, if we'd scored at GREEN everyone would have taken their eye off the ball and it would have suffered. By emphasising issues, industry views etc we kept it at that (make no mistake it wasn't plain sailing either). If you know you need the money, attention and resources to keep flowing scoring at GREEN doesn't actually help your case sometimes...
Click to expand...
Sounds like gaming the system...
 
May I just paste again the quote from the UK government:

However, according to the government, a red rating indicates “successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”, with major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which “at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.
Click to expand...

It's rather clear and don't ask for some divergent definition. In need are some reforms or better project management and directions.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Sounds like gaming the system...
Click to expand...

Sometimes. But it can also be a very temporary thing. You can be scored RED because a particular resource is unavailable or blocked at that point in time. You then get access to that resource...and suddenly all is well.

The real detail is always in the full reports...actions, conclusions etc. The journo's don't get to see those though...
 
TomcatViP said:
It's rather clear and don't ask for some divergent definition. In need are some reforms or better project management and directions.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what the text defining the process says, but rather what the practice is by the people executing the process - e.g. PDRs and CDRs: the process says you have a meeting, it's pass or fail, if you fail you go away and try to fix things while ministers and journos shout at you. The practice is everyone turns up a week in advance, hammers out what isn't right yet, agrees a set of corrective actions, then you have the meeting for a couple of hours on Friday where every minuted action has been agreed in advance, everyone signs off on it and then you head down the pub.
 
timmymagic said:
Sometimes. But it can also be a very temporary thing. You can be scored RED because a particular resource is unavailable or blocked at that point in time. You then get access to that resource...and suddenly all is well.

The real detail is always in the full reports...actions, conclusions etc. The journo's don't get to see those though...
Click to expand...

If memory serves me right almost every single major RAF Program at some point was marked red by the NAO, and this for the last... three decades? Or at least since the NAO have its documents available online.
Typhoon, A400M, P8, Lightning, Meteor, FC/ASW, etc... It seems quite a normal thing.

FCAS was already marked red in the December 2023 "The Equipment Plan 2023–2033" document. And arguably rightly so, the timeline seems pretty ambitious and the budget seems a bit low.

Cheers
 
Scott Kenny said:
If it was timmymagic's program, it was early and under budget. And saved almost twice as much money as they had predicted.

Again, red until delivery.
Click to expand...
But you can be early and under budget but e.g. delivery half the number of units. It measures a few criteria against a baseline not just time and cost. Often the way to get from red to green is simply to rebaseline.


Sintra said:
If memory serves me right almost every single major RAF Program at some point was marked red by the NAO, and this for the last... three decades? Or at least since the NAO have its documents available online.
Typhoon, A400M, P8, Lightning, Meteor, FC/ASW, etc... It seems quite a normal thing.
Click to expand...
None of those are programmes which successfully delivered Vs cost, schedule, definition so they're obviously not green.

"All our programmes are managed badly so therefore it's ok" shouldn't be normal
 
red admiral said:
None of those are programmes which successfully delivered Vs cost, schedule, definition so they're obviously not green.

"All our programmes are managed badly so therefore it's ok" shouldn't be normal
Click to expand...
Cutting edge aerospace development is inevitably accompanied by cutting edge uncertainty, not meeting the initial requirement isn't necessarily a sign of bad management.
 
timmymagic said:
Sometimes. But it can also be a very temporary thing. You can be scored RED because a particular resource is unavailable or blocked at that point in time. You then get access to that resource...and suddenly all is well.
Click to expand...
Ah, gotcha! Not gaming the system so much as "without a RED state there's not enough political will to actually make the project happen at all."
 
red admiral said:
None of those are programmes which successfully delivered Vs cost, schedule, definition so they're obviously not green.

"All our programmes are managed badly so therefore it's ok" shouldn't be normal
Click to expand...

While i have a lot of simpathy for your point i can also remember quite a few programs in wich the main problem were the original estimations (by that same MOD...) on timeline and/or budget that were entirely irrealistic right from the start and so, at some point they got... red.
Most programs are not "Ajax", quite a few are "CVF´s".

Cheers
 
Last edited:
honestly most combat aircraft projects get into higher cost constantly, i am not surprised that the UK is going red on it but again the program won't stop because of this, i've seen some detractors of GCAP being like "oh no the UK will leave the program due to cost rising and it not being in budget" that won't happe, while another nation doesn't fully disclose the investment (or it does and i can't find it for the life of me) Italy isn't going to care either way, BAE and Leonardo worked together before and it's working well so far, i belive the program will end up well like Typhoon and i will be happy to have it with Japan and the UK, hopefully FCAS merges with us so we make a truly complete platform but knowing history i don't have too much hope anymore... at the same time i love both programs and i belive they'll be complete
 
Sintra said:
While i have a lot of simpathy for your point i can also remember quite a few programs in wich the main problem were the original estimations (by that same MOD...) on timeline and/or budget that were entirely irrealistic right from the start and so, at some point they got... red.
Click to expand...
The phrase is "conspiracy of optimism". If we're meant to be submitting 50% funding bids then half of the programmes should be under budget... But it sure doesn't seem that way.

I remember a NASA paper on cost forecasting that showed that the more important the programme, the more likely it was to be over budget
 
ItalianAFDFail said:
honestly most combat aircraft projects get into higher cost constantly, i am not surprised that the UK is going red on it but again the program won't stop because of this, i've seen some detractors of GCAP being like "oh no the UK will leave the program due to cost rising and it not being in budget" that won't happe, while another nation doesn't fully disclose the investment (or it does and i can't find it for the life of me) Italy isn't going to care either way, BAE and Leonardo worked together before and it's working well so far, i belive the program will end up well like Typhoon and i will be happy to have it with Japan and the UK, hopefully FCAS merges with us so we make a truly complete platform but knowing history i don't have too much hope anymore... at the same time i love both programs and i belive they'll be complete
Click to expand...
All of Japan's budgets are publicly available.
The approved budget can be seen here. the total comes to 400.4 billion yen.
and the actual amount spent can be seen on this site.
rssystem.go.jp

行政事業レビュー見える化サイト | RSシステム

政府が実施する予算事業や基金事業の情報のデータベースです。 事業の概要、成果目標や実績、支出先などを、関心・目的に応じて、自由に検索・閲覧できます。
rssystem.go.jp rssystem.go.jp
Since the production of the prototype will start this year, a budget of 249,001,437,000 yen will be spent.
rssystem.go.jp

行政事業レビュー見える化サイト | RSシステム

政府が実施する予算事業や基金事業の情報のデータベースです。 事業の概要、成果目標や実績、支出先などを、関心・目的に応じて、自由に検索・閲覧できます。
rssystem.go.jp rssystem.go.jp
 
red admiral said:
The phrase is "conspiracy of optimism". If we're meant to be submitting 50% funding bids then half of the programmes should be under budget... But it sure doesn't seem that way.

I remember a NASA paper on cost forecasting that showed that the more important the programme, the more likely it was to be over budget
Click to expand...
The more important it is the more management and political attention it gets.

Of course, they are always cost free!
 
Last edited:
Interesting to see that they are recycling old parts form retired Tornados for the GCAP/Tempest, perhaps that would help with other countries to do the same with their new fighters.
 
Rising global demand and the most strategic resources tend to be found in the least stable or politically unfriendly places. Titanium for example comes from northern Asia, China, Russia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine. 2/3rds of Rare Earths come from China and thats down from 2000-2015 when it was 90%+.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
Rising global demand and the most strategic resources tend to be found in the least stable or politically unfriendly places. Titanium for example comes from northern Asia, China, Russia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine. 2/3rds of Rare Earths come from China and thats down from 2000-2015 when it was 90%+.
Click to expand...
Thought there were big titanium mines in Australia?
 
WatcherZero said:
Particularly as its getting hard for aerospace manufacturers to source aviation grade materials nowadays.
Click to expand...

Truth is it's probably just to enable someone to tick a box on sustainability which is a section in all Government business cases using the approved Green Book these days....
 
What about gains from norway? as it is nearby? also japan has titanium mine, also India? india does has titanium sponage .
 
India produces just 250-500 tons per year of sponge (less than a thousand), I mentioned Japan they produce 30-50,000 tons of Sponge per year about 20% of global sponge production. Norway produces about 220k tons of Titanium Dioxide a year but its on a steady decline from nearly 400k tons a decade ago, heck the UK produces about 430k tons of Titanium Dioxide, more than Australia or Norway.
 
Last edited:
is it not much to build aircraft they only keep for India aircraft? or japan use it for themself too?

i check Titanium Dioxide is paint which is commonly used as you mentioned but unable to use aircraft grade..

i thought they can become sponge via magnesium as they common to mix well alloyed than process remove magnesium by heat and split into titanium pure sponge and magnesium dioxide and magnesium? but we don't have process plant to do it.

Edit: I been check up again reliese it is different Ti-Chl not Ti-Dix sorry mistake :S

anyway i don't have knowledge, but thank for great information to learn something new ..
 
Last edited:
Leonardo Italy has floated the idea Saudi Arabia could join GCAP as an industrial rather than development partner but they would first have to build an aerospace skill base, for example setting up production lines to assemble major components of Eurofighter and NH90 such as radios and radar's.

www.defensenews.com

Leonardo exec floats Eurofighter as stepstone for Saudi GCAP entrance

Saudi Arabia could gain the industrial know-how it needs for the GCAP fighter program by creating assembly lines for NH90 helicopters and Eurofighters.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
WatcherZero said:
Leonardo Italy has floated the idea Saudi Arabia could join GCAP as an industrial rather than development partner but they would first have to build an aerospace skill base, for example setting up production lines to assemble major components of Eurofighter and NH90 such as radios and radar's.

www.defensenews.com

Leonardo exec floats Eurofighter as stepstone for Saudi GCAP entrance

Saudi Arabia could gain the industrial know-how it needs for the GCAP fighter program by creating assembly lines for NH90 helicopters and Eurofighters.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
While they're not wrong, I don't see that happening. Major cultural issues at play.
 
Avro Vulcan Mini-Fighter. Going with basically a delta wing (F-102/F-106 with thrust vectoring), interesting, needs two more elevons? If this is the final configuration, its an interceptor? Nice looking jet. Would be nice with all-moving vertical tails (e.g. NATF-23).
 
Oh boy! those wings are HUGE!! I cannot get over the size of them. Don't know if it is an interceptor Hydroman but I would think that it is more of an air superiority fighter somewhat like the F-22.
 
I occurred to me that the emerging model of the 'cruiser-fighter' might apply and that parallels can be drawn with the 'J-36' as we know it (i.e., guess about it). Emphasis is on altitude, range, supercruise and payload along with very sophisticated EW capability and CCAs. I like to think of it as the 'John Peel' fighter after this hunting song.

D'ye ken John Peel (song) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Here's the verse listing his favourite dogs.

Yes I ken John Peel and Ruby too
Ranter and Royal and Bellman as true,
From the drag to the chase, from the chase to the view
From a view to the death in the morning
For the sound of his horn, etc.

It's a very different creature from the FCAS, which is constrained by the requirement that it can be carrier based, leading to smaller size/weight and therefore range and payload. I don't mean to say that one is inferior, but that their roles are overlapping less as time goes on.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom