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

[Kiltonge]

Discussion of FCAS, GCAP & Team Tempest with MOD and industry guests from Leonardo and RR.

Some snippets:

1. 250-300 tri-national staff working face to face on a dozen threads of requirements.

2. Will it be BVR only? They don't want to make the mistake of the Phantom and sacrifice agility for performance, but it sounds like it will be BVR-biased with some WVR capability. It will be more of a coordinating quarterback than a 'thug' like Typhoon.

3. Computing capability is critical: carrying the server rack forward to process the vast quantity of data gathered by a deeply-penetrating FCAS network.

4. Range, range and even more range. 'Maybe getting across the Atlantic to America' as an indicator of magnitude.

5. Orpheus engine demonstrator is for FCAS in general, not solely GCAP.

6. Designed to be exportable. Without exports it would still contribute estimated £37 billion to UK economy.

7. Targeting 10 year development period - technology challenge comparable to Apollo?

8. Payload will be about twice that of F-35A.

9. Single-seat WSO rather than single-seat pilot...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izFYZT2fBxo

 

[VTOLicious]

Discussion of FCAS, GCAP & Team Tempest with MOD and industry guests from Leonardo and RR.

Some snippets:
...

8. Payload will be about twice that of F-35A.

I think this is the first the the payload capability was outlined. So we can expect up to 12 AMRAAM-sized missiles internally (If F-35 "sidekick" upgrade is considered).

 

[Ares]

4. Range, range and even more range. 'Maybe getting across the Atlantic to America' as an indicator of magnitude.

Does this mean GCAP's range is more than 5,000km(3,000 miles)?

That's terrifying. RAF could air raid Ural Mountains and JASDF could liberate Tibet, if this is true.

 

[Forest Green]

Surely that would be with drop tanks though?? Ferry range maybe.

 

[totoro]

Double the payload is almost certainly 8 amraams. No one outside lm and internet users gives the sidekick upgrade much thought.

Also, four 1 ton bombs? Unlikely.

Unless, of course, gcap will be sized similarly to j36. Which is also not plausible.

 

[Kiltonge]

Does this mean GCAP's range is more than 5,000km(3,000 miles)?

That's terrifying. RAF could air raid Ural Mountains and JASDF could liberate Tibet, if this is true.

All through the podcast the need for exceptional range is emphasised, to deal with the modern threat, and consequently GCAP / FCAS will be operating well beyond the link back to Wedgetail etc. Hence the need for lots of onboard computing to autonomously handle all the real-time ISR data flooding in from the sensors.

I'm not sure how that fits into the Italian concept of operations, as we've discussed here before. Seems perfect for Aus / Can though.

Another interesting comment was the refusal to call the Typhoon's ECRS2 a 'radar', rather a multifunction array, and that it will play 'thug' to the F-35B 'assassin' ike the Growler does for the F-35C. Suggests quite potent EW through the array.

 

[Ron5]

250-300 tri-national staff working face to face on a dozen threads of requirements.

Jeesh. Buried in millions of requirements - the British disease.

 

[red admiral]

Jeesh. Buried in millions of requirements - the British disease.

Complex systems are going to have lots of requirements. The Industry team will be defining the vast majority of them themselves rather than the customer.

 

[momosir]

Does this mean GCAP's range is more than 5,000km(3,000 miles)?

That's terrifying. RAF could air raid Ural Mountains and JASDF could liberate Tibet, if this is true.

The distance from London to Washington DC is 5,900km.
This is consistent with information that Japan requested an RFI for a 2,200km combat radius before developing its next-generation fighter jet.

 

[FighterJock]

That is the first time that I have seen the GCAP/Tempest's range being 2,200km, I take it that is it's unrefueled range?

 

[Maro.Kyo]

That is the first time that I have seen the GCAP/Tempest's range being 2,200km, I take it that is it's unrefueled range?

Go back a few pages on this thread and you'll find a post about it.

 

[Hydroman]

I have a question, how long is it going to take the GCAP consortium to develop and build this aircraft? I may be wrong but I think this going to take a while, too many partners.

 

[Deino]

I have a question, how long is it going to take the GCAP consortium to develop and build this aircraft? I may be wrong but I think this going to take a while, too many partners.

At least a demonstrator is currently under construction, even if I don’t have a clue on its current Status.

 

[Forest Green]

That is the first time that I have seen the GCAP/Tempest's range being 2,200km, I take it that is it's unrefueled range?

Combat radius not range - it involves a return journey.

 

[TomcatViP]

10 years is what was stated in the podcast. Hence 2035.

 

[Forest Green]

10 years is what was stated in the podcast. Hence 2035.

Is that for ISD or first flight?

 

[timmymagic]

At least a demonstrator is currently under construction, even if I don’t have a clue on its current Status.

There was an 'update' recently...didn't add anything new though. We're still expecting it in 2027.

 

[timmymagic]

Is that for ISD or first flight?

ISD

 

[TomcatViP]

@Forest Green : Probably in service, LRIP, as this was for the development time scale. (dev doesn't stop at prototyping)

( @timmymagic beats me to it)

 

[Toby J]

Double the payload is almost certainly 8 amraams. No one outside lm and internet users gives the sidekick upgrade much thought.

Also, four 1 ton bombs? Unlikely.

Unless, of course, gcap will be sized similarly to j36. Which is also not plausible.

Doesn't it depend on how big FC/ASW is?
Because if it gets near TLAM size for mk41 launch, that puts it near the point of stacking 2 Meteor nose to tail inside the weapon bay, and with the current proportions as shown by MBDA you could probably fit 2 Meteor wide as well.
If GCAP is planned to carry 2xFC/ASW plus 2x Meteor and 2x ASRAAM for self defence, well that's room for 10 Meteor plus ASRAAMs...
MBDA's concept for a fatter but shorter ASRAAM would nearly nullify the need for manoeuvrability by doing the turning for you, in any case, so J-36 size isn't looking too outrageous.

 

[momosir]

That is the first time that I have seen the GCAP/Tempest's range being 2,200km, I take it that is it's unrefueled range?

That's right. Refueling is not required.　2,200km is not the range, but the combat radius.
However, the figure of 2,200km is not a government announcement, but a report by the Nikkei newspaper.
The US is said to have proposed to Japan an FB-22 equipped with F-35 avionics.

 

[momosir]

I have a question, how long is it going to take the GCAP consortium to develop and build this aircraft? I may be wrong but I think this going to take a while, too many partners.

This is the GCAP schedule written in a Japanese government document released on March 25, 2025 (「航空機産業戦略」の実行状況について).
27: Design complete
25~32: Prototype production
29~35: Ground testing
30~35: Flight testing
The above is what is written in this document.

 

[damawo]

So maiden flight will take plane in fy 2029?

 

[FighterJock]

Interesting let's see if GCAP can keep to the 2029 time frame for the Tempest, I would like it to happen.

 

[WatcherZero]

So maiden flight will take plane in fy 2029?

Demonstrators will fly in 2027, the design will be locked down in 2029, so first flight might be more like 2031.

 

[zen]

It's possible they might accelerate this schedule.
Events

 

[FighterJock]

Let's see if GCAP can accelerate the schedule zen. It would be good if they could, then that means that instead of the mid 2030s we might even see the production Tempest's enter service a lot sooner say around at least end decade

 

[zen]

Let's see if GCAP can accelerate the schedule zen. It would be good if they could, then that means that instead of the mid 2030s we might even see the production Tempest's enter service a lot sooner say around at least end decade

Well I think the need to prioritise this is going to increase.
Irrespective of recent events from the US, the pressures that drive GCAP be ramping up and the most effective response is to increase the pace of progress on the project.

 

[red admiral]

the most effective response is to increase the pace of progress on the project.

Work harder, not smarter

Depends what the critical path is

 

[Scott Kenny]

Pardon me, catching up.

Not partners now, all the serious countries for aviation industry are already involved with either one, with the exception of Saab for whom GCAP or SCAF is not the right platform.

I think SAAB is going to end up as a high-end CCA builder, and then port that into a manned aircraft if they can.

For all practical purposes, something roughly F-35 sized is your minimum size "stealthy" light fighter.

I suspect that there are some difference between IT-JP-UK.

The fighter system can be divide roughly into aircraft system (airframe?), engine system, and mission system from the word definition list.
Among these, We can confirm from second image that same aircraft system will be delivered to three nations through the joint development.

In the NGF engine system pd specification doc, there are text showing involving of IT and UK company but no word (or black masked?) indicating "for three nations" so far.
And this is same for the mission system (also no word showing joint work with IT and UK).

So at this moment, I think joint work for engine and mission system (jp's mission system and uk's ISANKEICS) are technical share or something like for compatibility.
(possibility of making 2 different engine is very low. However no confirmation from documents)

I honestly think that the UK and JP mission requirements are pretty close to each other. Super long range CAP patrols.

Italy doesn't need as much range, but if they go along with the "long range" needed by UK-JP they get long loiter time at a shorter range.

Having two engine designs competing would be good, if only to prevent vendor lock-in like what happened with the F-22 and F-35.

Australia requested a brief on the GCAP which took place during the week of the Avalon Australian International Airshow. Air Vice-Marshal John Haly on the 27th of March said the brief was primarily from an interoperability perspective but they requested further information after the brief which will feed into the current review of Australia's aircraft mix which is considering partnering with or acquiring technologies from overseas, the review is being conducted by the government but the air force will provide input.

Australia confirms ‘informational’ meeting with GCAP fighter partners

The head of capability for the Royal Australian Air Force says his office received an informational briefing from the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) consortium - a trilateral initiative between the UK, Italy and Japan to develop a sixth-generation fighter.

www.flightglobal.com

Combined response:

I'd have thought both the UK and Japan would be keen in Australia getting involved.

Combined response:

Same thinking here zen, plus you could add Canada into that mix too.

Oz is really more of a customer for this, though it's possible they can wrangle some assembly. Canada definitely needs a long range patrol fighter like GCAP.

If you can't patrol it to keep someone from pissing on your lawn, you don't own it.

Discussion of FCAS, GCAP & Team Tempest with MOD and industry guests from Leonardo and RR.

[...]

7. Targeting 10 year development period - technology challenge comparable to Apollo?

8. Payload will be about twice that of F-35A.

9. Single-seat WSO rather than single-seat pilot...

A 10-year development period for a new aircraft is incredibly aggressive. They must be doing a whole lot of early work in saying "X has final decision on specification Y" kinds of stuff.

Double the payload is almost certainly 8 amraams. No one outside lm and internet users gives the sidekick upgrade much thought.

Also, four 1 ton bombs? Unlikely.

Unless, of course, gcap will be sized similarly to j36. Which is also not plausible.

When people are talking about a 5000km range? Maybe even 6500km, depending on how much fuel we're anticipating burning in combat?

No, an F-111 or J-36 sized GCAP is definitely possible.

(Comparing normal range to combat radius for older planes usually places combat radius at 1/3 the non-ferry range of the aircraft)

I have a question, how long is it going to take the GCAP consortium to develop and build this aircraft? I may be wrong but I think this going to take a while, too many partners.

It's looking like a 10year development to IOC, first flight in 2030.

Which is amazingly aggressive. We'll see how well they do.

This is the GCAP schedule written in a Japanese government document released on March 25, 2025 (「航空機産業戦略」の実行状況について).
27: Design complete
25~32: Prototype production
29~35: Ground testing
30~35: Flight testing
The above is what is written in this document.
View attachment 765859

That is incredibly aggressive.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think SAAB is going to end up as a high-end CCA builder, and then port that into a manned aircraft if they can.

For all practical purposes, something roughly F-35 sized is your minimum size "stealthy" light fighter.

By "high-end CCA" I mean something that comes with most or all of the systems of the fighter you're pairing it with. Which means that with a ~$100mil fighter, you're probably looking at a high-end CCA that costs most of $70 mil, because some $40mil is the fighter systems.

 

[Ainen]

By "high-end CCA" I mean something that comes with most or all of the systems of the fighter you're pairing it with. Which means that with a ~$100mil fighter, you're probably looking at a high-end CCA that costs most of $70 mil, because some $40mil is the fighter systems.

Cockpit doesn't cost 30 mil (if it does, bring fire squad).
I.e. high end CCA of this type will start from same price as corresponding fighter aircraft.

If there's ambition for true autonomy, at the moment it's going to be way more expensive, if anything; current fighters aren't optionally-mannes yet, I e there is no option to simply throw out the pilot.

For all practical purposes, something roughly F-35 sized is your minimum size "stealthy" light fighter.

FS2020 was f-16 sized, so it's wrong.
And I frankly see no reason why applying VLO geometry to much smaller aircraft is somehow not possible. Bays aren't that big, unless you want to stuff there big bombs. After some search, you can find IWBs on WW2 light fighters.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Cockpit doesn't cost 30 mil (if it does, bring fire squad).
I.e. high end CCA of this type will start from same price as corresponding fighter aircraft.

You're able to save some costs elsewhere as well. For example, you don't need to support the weight of a cockpit in the nose of the CCA, so your longerons can be smaller/lighter/cheaper.


I wouldn't be surprised if the cockpit alone is 15mil, though. Displays, ejection seat, canopy, controls, life support systems... That stuff isn't cheap when it's aerospace grade!

FS2020 was f-16 sized, so it's wrong.
And I frankly see no reason why applying VLO geometry to much smaller aircraft is somehow not possible. Bays aren't that big, unless you want to stuff there big bombs. After some search, you can find IWBs on WW2 light fighters.

If you're willing to accept only carrying 25kg bombs instead of even 125kg or 250kg, well, sure.

What A2G load was the FS2020 designed around?

Soon as you want 2x1000kg for your A2G load, you need an F-35, more or less.

There's a not-unreasonable argument to be made that a single 2000lb class weapon is enough these days. Especially if you're talking nuclear, but there's not a lot of targets that need multiple BLU109 bunker busters.

But you'd better have some way of delivering 1ton bunker busters in your air force, and a CCA is not the way anyone is looking to go right now.

@VTOLicious design for the smallest possible only carries a single 1000 or 2000lb bomb and if it does it loses all AAM capacity. I've suggested widening the airframe a bit so there's space for a pair of AMRAAMs while it's got that large weapon in there but I haven't seen a revised design including that. It's only about 20cm wider, I think. Doing that would also give space for 8x SDBs instead of the 6x it can currently carry, and I think that's a valuable improvement. 2x AMRAAM and 8x SDB is functionally what the F-35 carries most of the time, after all.

 

[Ainen]

You're able to save some costs elsewhere as well. For example, you don't need to support the weight of a cockpit in the nose of the CCA, so your longerons can be smaller/lighter/cheaper.


I wouldn't be surprised if the cockpit alone is 15mil, though. Displays, ejection seat, canopy, controls, life support systems... That stuff isn't cheap when it's aerospace grade!

Yes, but autonomy requirements (replacing pilot) as of now tends to outweigh it.
It's easier at sea - in any congested situation you simply drop in pilot, and it's solved.
Autonomous fighter has to make do on its own - just not to be hazard in the air.
So, frankly, I doubt high end autonomy will save money.
It's a way to save on running costs (munition operation principle) and get massive performance boost when applicable (range).
P.s. seeing how Ukrainians do 9+g evasive maneuvering with 100 bucks chinese android tablets(and now Turkey doing the same officially), the more time passes, the more I see aerospace grade as a form of scam tbh.

If you're willing to accept only carrying 25kg bombs instead of even 125kg or 250kg, well, sure.

What A2G load was the FS2020 designed around?

Soon as you want 2x1000kg for your A2G load, you need an F-35, more or less.

Yak-9b carried 4x100(i.e. 4 sdb-2 or 4 aim-4) in an airframe barely over 2t.

Overall, just drop outsized a2g and a2a weapons from internal carriage, and you're good to go potentially to piranha size, if you wish so.

2x1000 kg will indeed require F-35, but that's us requesting a bomber and getting one. But why F-35 requirement when there's F-35 already available?
FS2020 carried 2 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs inside (kinda unimpressive for it's size, but I suspect they just fitted in normal light fighter intercept/ambush load and then switched attention to other specs).

 

[Sintra]

FS2020 was f-16 sized, so it's wrong.
And I frankly see no reason why applying VLO geometry to much smaller aircraft is somehow not possible. Bays aren't that big, unless you want to stuff there big bombs. After some search, you can find IWBs on WW2 light fighters.

The single engined version of the FS2020 was one meter longer than the F-35A, had twenty cms less span and a bigger wing area. The engine was a 17 ton behemoth. The twin engined version was even bigger.

 

[Ainen]

The single engined version of the FS2020 was one meter longer than the F-35A, had twenty cms less span and a bigger wing area. The engine was a 17 ton behemoth. The twin engined version was even bigger.

And yet MTOW was just 23.5t, mostly on external payloads(iwbs were small, i.e. volume was minimal). I.e. your normal late block F-16, but with more composites to get to the same weights in airframe with large additional cavities.

16.6m isn't much for plane of this weight, it's rather the F-35 which is by requirement very short: corresponding J-35 and T-75, designer without length limitation, are two meters longer.

F119 was there to make that F-16-sized plane supercruise.

 

[Sintra]

FS2020 carried 2 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs inside (kinda unimpressive for it's size, but I suspect they just fitted in normal light fighter intercept/ambush load and then switched attention to other specs).

The single engined FS2020 had three internal bays, and it was capable of carrying two SRAAM´s in the frontal bay and four MRAAM´s in the two back bays.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-fs2020-stealth-fighter-concept.9798/

post#22

 

[Sintra]

16.6m isn't much for plane of this weight, it's rather the F-35 which is by requirement very short: corresponding J-35 and T-75, designer without length limitation, are two meters longer.

F119 was there to make that F-16-sized plane supercruise.

17 meters, not 16.6 meters and i dont know where did you get the idea that the engine was the F-119, every presentation made by SAAB only mentioned a "new engine".

 

[Ainen]

The single engined FS2020 had three internal bays, and it was capable of carrying two SRAAM´s in the frontal bay and four MRAAM´s in the two back bays.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-fs2020-stealth-fighter-concept.9798/

Point taken, I for some reason remembered 2+2. Even better this way, shows the point even better.

17 meters, not 16.6 meters and i dont know where did you get the idea that the engine was the F-119, every presentation made by SAAB only mentioned a "new engine".

There was exactly one matching engine in the western world. Can be called Volvo (certainly not) f-119, doesn't change the point all that much...

 

[timmymagic]

I think SAAB is going to end up as a high-end CCA builder, and then port that into a manned aircraft if they can.

They can try...but they'd need to be allowed into each fighter programmes 'eco-system' to integrate it. And if they're not buying any of the main platform, or involved industrially, why on earth would anyone do that and shoot themselves in the foot? (Japan, Italy and UK will have their own CCA programmes and interests, as will Germany and France).

I honestly think that the UK and JP mission requirements are pretty close to each other. Super long range CAP patrols.

Italy doesn't need as much range, but if they go along with the "long range" needed by UK-JP they get long loiter time at a shorter range.

Having two engine designs competing would be good, if only to prevent vendor lock-in like what happened with the F-22 and F-35.

Italy has similar as their ability to intervene in an increasingly militarised North Africa is limited at present. The likes of Algeria getting SU-57, which will inevitably lead to other NA nations going for LO aircraft (looking at you Morocco), probably from China, will also affect their thinking.

In terms of engines though the US has gone down that route but its been very much an afterthought for the likes of F-15 and 16, and a necessity for F-14. The UK used to do something similar (in terms of afterthought) in the 1950's but the last time it happened was the Buccaneer which switched from De Havilland to Rolls Royce. That was very much forced though...Reality is these days we have 1 engine manufacturer and are not going to involve any manufacturer from a non-partner nation. It's worked pretty well from Harrier, through Tornado and Typhoon (although using a multi manufacturer approach has caused issues recently with Safran's components in the Adour on Hawk, that arrangement dates back to the 60's though).

Oz is really more of a customer for this, though it's possible they can wrangle some assembly.

Doubtful for the numbers we'll be talking about. IF Australia buys GCAP (and its a very big speculative if) the buy would likely be to replace the existing SuperHornet fleet (and perhaps EA-18G). Which is currently a 24+12 aircraft fleet. The F-35A will be their main fighter through to 2060.