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

I just used ITAR as an example, this much so-called international cooperation may drag out this program, too many players, who also may not cooperate.
 
Kota said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1772423093727657986
View: https://twitter.com/Naikakukanbo/status/1772423093727657986

www3.nhk.or.jp

政府 日英伊で共同開発の次期戦闘機 第三国への輸出容認を決定 | NHK

【NHK】イギリス・イタリアと共同開発を進めている次期戦闘機について、政府は第三国への輸出を容認することを決定しました。実際に輸出…
www3.nhk.or.jp www3.nhk.or.jp
Japan finally approved 3rd party sales of GCAP to non-partner countries.
Click to expand...
Does the "non-partner countries" mean those who are not part of the 15 countries who've signed the agreement with Japan about the transfer of mitary equipment and technology, or GCAP partners?
 
The GCAP/Tempest would be a good replacement for the Australian Super Hornets when they are going to be retired, that is IF Australia are interested in joining the program in the long run.
 
If Australia joined the program that would be an amazing feat but how likely would it be for them in terms of budget?
 
absolutely true, the issue the Australians would find themselves in if they went with a US design without any stake or opportunity yet would be a huge gamble, not to discourage them but if they join GCAP now they could put in their own needs and requirements in the design, politics saddly would, as they always do, play a part in the decision though and the RAAF would probably wait for US designs to make trials considering that they have been a key US customer for decades, joining GCAP for them would be great on the capabilities they could bring and they would have a decent supply chain with Japan involved but wouldnt requirements be too different for them compared to everyone else?
 
FighterJock said:
In the long run I would think that joining GCAP would be much cheaper than trying to design and build their own sixth generation fighter as Japan found out. It also depends on what happens to the US NGAD program.
Click to expand...
Whilst it’s too early to speak with any certainty it wouldn’t be surprising to me if NGAD (or at least the manned component) falls under the same sort of export restrictions as the F-22. In that scenario there’s only really two other options to pick from, and GCAP/Tempest comes from a country they’ve already got close defence and political ties with (amongst others).
 
zen said:
It's potentially likely due to increasing collaboration and integration between AUKUS members. Japan is top of the list for likely new members, making GCAP very likely their entry card in, and dare we suggest SSNs the expected reward.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Japan is still very defensively minded politically, and SSNs are really an offensive weapon. They have the sustained submerged speed to go hunting, while an AIP boat has to let the enemy come to it.



LightningFan1959 said:
Whilst it’s too early to speak with any certainty it wouldn’t be surprising to me if NGAD (or at least the manned component) falls under the same sort of export restrictions as the F-22. In that scenario there’s only really two other options to pick from, and GCAP/Tempest comes from a country they’ve already got close defence and political ties with (amongst others).
Click to expand...
I also expect NGAD/FAXX to be export restricted like the F22 ended up. How much range the GCAP planes (plural**) have is going to be an interesting discussion.

** As I understand it, at least the UK and Japan are going to be building different airframes. Same systems and engines, but I'm willing to bet that Japan will want much longer range.
 
Based on comments from officials and the likely exquisite nature of the plane, NGAD is probably going to be too expensive for any airforce not called the USAF [and probably too expensive for them too...], regardless of export policy. Despite not really being the same class of aircraft, I think Bronk is right when he says its more likely that the competitor for Tempest is the F-35 and its future upgrades.

That said, for many of the likely customers such as Australia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, maybe Canada in the more distant future etc, these are precisely the sorts of countries that would value a longer ranged aircraft than those historically designed for the Cold War-era European theatre. The strategic situation in Europe for the UK has changed since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact too, with the distance to the hostile border having increased significantly. I'm still unconvinced there is going to be any split in requirements on range.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
* As I understand it, at least the UK and Japan are going to be building different airframes. Same systems and engines, but I'm willing to bet that Japan will want much longer range.
Click to expand...

RAF Leeming to GIUK Gap, c600nm (Leeming to Bodo, 900nm, to St Petersburg 1100nm, to Kaliningrad 775nm)

Nyutabaru AFB to Ishigaki/Senkakus, c600nm (Nyutabaru to Shanghai, 500nm)
 
Yep, the idea that short range aircraft are fine is a Cold War anachronism, for Western European countries at least. The air defence of an expanded NATO isn't actually that different to the Western Pacific anymore.
 
Last edited:
More accurately we'd have studied from UK to Kola and Murmansk specifically. Arguably considering loiter over SSBN bastions with IFR over Northern Norway.
Project over Norway and Sweden for Baltic States defence. Obviously would include Petersburg offensive options.
 
As one would say overfly France and the Med to hit Lybia.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I dunno. Japan is still very defensively minded politically, and SSNs are really an offensive weapon. They have the sustained submerged speed to go hunting, while an AIP boat has to let the enemy come to it.
Click to expand...
Japan's policy is now "proactive defense" by striking enemy air bases and missile sites and they just started training launch scenarios for their "defensive" Tomahawks this week.

zen said:
SSNs the expected reward.
Click to expand...
This issue also isn't with tech as Japan has some of the best small reactor tech in the world. It's more that Japan doesn't really need the endurance that SSNs provide as all of the threats are located in their local waters. Japan has basically perfected the SSK and they have enough range and endurance for what is needed. The only thing I could think off that an SSN would provide Japan is continuous trailing of Chinese SSBNs, but the US/Japanese SOSUS in the area is so dense that it can keep track of noisy Chinese 094s. We are much closer to seeing Japanese SSBKs with the next class having VLS cells than any SSN. I would imagine that Japan's entry into AUKUS will be for the other pillars such as AI tech and computing than anything else. Still I think AUS joining GCAP as a junior member would be cool and Japan getting into AUKUS after getting scammed out of the Sub deal by the French would be pretty funny too.
 
Kota said:
Japan's policy is now "proactive defense" by striking enemy air bases and missile sites and they just started training launch scenarios for their "defensive" Tomahawks this week.
Click to expand...
As you argue below, Japan doesn't want/need SSNs.


Kota said:
This issue also isn't with tech as Japan has some of the best small reactor tech in the world. It's more that Japan doesn't really need the endurance that SSNs provide as all of the threats are located in their local waters. Japan has basically perfected the SSK and they have enough range and endurance for what is needed. The only thing I could think off that an SSN would provide Japan is continuous trailing of Chinese SSBNs, but the US/Japanese SOSUS in the area is so dense that it can keep track of noisy Chinese 094s. We are much closer to seeing Japanese SSBKs with the next class having VLS cells than any SSN. I would imagine that Japan's entry into AUKUS will be for the other pillars such as AI tech and computing than anything else. Still I think AUS joining GCAP as a junior member would be cool and Japan getting into AUKUS after getting scammed out of the Sub deal by the French would be pretty funny too.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it'll be SSGs, maybe SSGA. Cruise missiles instead of ballistic, and maybe back to AIP for those subs.

I still think that AIP is the way to go, even with lithium batteries. Lithium batteries hold about 5x the energy of lead-acid batteries, whether by weight or by volume. Having a Stirling AIP system for your normal patrol quiet and going to pure batteries for ultra quiet is the best setup, IMO. You don't have to deal with hydrogen gas inside the sub, you have plenty of power to cruise around at 5-7 knots on AIP, and then you can really draw power from the batteries if you need speed. Plus, the lithium batteries can charge a lot faster while you snorkel.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I also expect NGAD/FAXX to be export restricted like the F22 ended up. How much range the GCAP planes (plural**) have is going to be an interesting discussion.

** As I understand it, at least the UK and Japan are going to be building different airframes. Same systems and engines, but I'm willing to bet that Japan will want much longer range.
Click to expand...
No, that is not true. It also defeats the entire premise of merging Tempest (the fighter jet, not the current technology demonstrator prototype) and F-X.
 
i hope the design looks a lot more like the japanese one because it honestly looks a lot more interesting all things considered
 
Maro.Kyo said:
No, that is not true. It also defeats the entire premise of merging Tempest (the fighter jet, not the current technology demonstrator prototype) and F-X.
Click to expand...
If the different countries aren't building different airframes, why are they building the entire plane in each country instead of each country building individual sections like with the F-35?
 
Scott Kenny said:
If the different countries aren't building different airframes, why are they building the entire plane in each country instead of each country building individual sections like with the F-35?
Click to expand...

Well the F-35 has more than one assembly line (there’s one in Italy as well as the primary US line). So no particular logic in that statement.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If the different countries aren't building different airframes, why are they building the entire plane in each country instead of each country building individual sections like with the F-35?
Click to expand...
Why don't you ask that to the folks at Eurofighter GmbH?

Also, F-35 is a single-prime programme with the US/LM on top of the overarching structure. I'm not sure why you're trying to compare apples to oranges when they are clearly apples and oranges.
 
kaiserd said:
Well the F-35 has more than one assembly line (there’s one in Italy as well as the primary US line). So no particular logic in that statement.
Click to expand...
Didn't realize there was a second production line. And we're talking about something with a total production run already over 1000 airframes with a total planned of over 5000 (IIRC some 3500 in the US alone).

Still doesn't change the question: Why is each country building a complete airframe? That's going to be significantly more expensive than having one assembly line running off all 600ish airframes instead of at least 3 separate production lines each making 200ish.

@Maro.Kyo because doing it that way is more expensive.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Why is each country building a complete airframe?
Click to expand...
Two reasons.
1. Sustainment of domestic industry.

2. Strategically avoiding the risks of single source production in a world where globalisation may collapse, but it's certain a single source provider will exert it's influence for it's benefit and not for partners.
 
+ you never know if the men in the assemblyline on the other side of the globe work for you or work against you and sabotate the aircraft in a way that a failure occur after 100 fh.

zen said:
but it's certain a single source provider will exert it's influence for it's benefit and not for partners.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't all partners have the manufacturing documents of all components so that they can change the source?
 
Suricato said:
+ you never know if the men in the assemblyline on the other side of the globe work for you or work against you and sabotate the aircraft in a way that a failure occur after 100 fh.
Click to expand...
Then you really screwed up when you agreed to build military equipment with them in the first place.


Suricato said:
Shouldn't all partners have the manufacturing documents of all components so that they can change the source?
Click to expand...
Depends on how the partnership is put together. In the case of F-35, I believe that LockMart is the controller of the overwhelming majority of manufacturing documents.
 
The Eurofighter model is pretty similar to F-35 actually:

Different components and airframe sections are produced in different locations. Most of these are single source. Some are assembled together in those different locations (e.g. rear fuselage). They are then brought together at final assembly and check out lines of which there are multiple.

The difference with F-35 is that almost all of the final assembly is done on a single line at Fort Worth, rather than (roughly) equally split across multiple lines.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Still doesn't change the question: Why is each country building a complete airframe? That's going to be significantly more expensive than having one assembly line running off all 600ish airframes instead of at least 3 separate production lines each making 200ish.

@Maro.Kyo because doing it that way is more expensive.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Why do you think that Eurofighter partners are operating separate final assembly lines despite the cost? Do you seriously think that they are all too dumb to have not anticipated higher cost compared to, say, having a si gle final assembly line in UK? Obviously not, there might be a different reason don't you think?

red admiral said:
The Eurofighter model is pretty similar to F-35 actually:

Different components and airframe sections are produced in different locations. Most of these are single source. Some are assembled together in those different locations (e.g. rear fuselage). They are then brought together at final assembly and check out lines of which there are multiple.

The difference with F-35 is that almost all of the final assembly is done on a single line at Fort Worth, rather than (roughly) equally split across multiple lines.
Click to expand...
Yup, probably will the model for GCAP as well. Single or two-source for components/individual equipments but final assembly of said components in each of the 3 countries. Hence the reason why Industrial workshare (or the none-decision thereof) is still an issue for GCAP.
 
red admiral said:
The difference with F-35 is that almost all of the final assembly is done on a single line at Fort Worth, rather than (roughly) equally split across multiple lines.
Click to expand...

... that, and the fact that the programme comprises about six times the number of units, of course.
 
FighterJock said:
The GCAP/Tempest would be a good replacement for the Australian Super Hornets when they are going to be retired, that is IF Australia are interested in joining the program in the long run.
Click to expand...
Australia will replace the Super Hornets/Growlers around 2035-2040 at this stage. Likely replacements will be more F-35s and/or uninhabited platforms.
 
GTX said:
Australia will replace the Super Hornets/Growlers around 2035-2040 at this stage. Likely replacements will be more F-35s and/or uninhabited platforms.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly expecting bomber and EW CCAs to happen pretty quickly. Don't know why the USAF isn't looking at fighter-bomber CCAs.
 
GTX said:
Australia will replace the Super Hornets/Growlers around 2035-2040 at this stage. Likely replacements will be more F-35s and/or uninhabited platforms.
Click to expand...

The head of the RAAF said when announcing the life extension of the Super Hornets (vs. buying F-35A replacements straight away, as originally planned) that it would allow them to look at next generation fighters before deciding.

“We will look at the F-35 and we’re very, very comfortable and very happy with the capability of the F-35,” Chipman said. “But it would be remiss of me not to look at what else is available for us to replace our Super Hornets in the future."
Click to expand...

RAAF Eyes Super Hornet Extension, Future Competition | Aviation Week Network

The new plan means the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II is no longer guaranteed to win a follow-on order.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
Last edited:
Broken said:
The head of the RAAF said when announcing the life extension of the Super Hornets (vs. buying F-35A replacements straight away, as originally planned) that it would allow them to look at next generation fighters before deciding.


RAAF Eyes Super Hornet Extension, Future Competition | Aviation Week Network

The new plan means the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II is no longer guaranteed to win a follow-on order.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
That's honestly a really good reason to SLEP the Super Bugs.
 
DWG said:
RAF Leeming to GIUK Gap, c600nm (Leeming to Bodo, 900nm, to St Petersburg 1100nm, to Kaliningrad 775nm)

Nyutabaru AFB to Ishigaki/Senkakus, c600nm (Nyutabaru to Shanghai, 500nm)
Click to expand...

I think everyone forgets that QRA also needs long range as the RAF has to escort Bears for a huge distance so range is always appreciated, plus how Tornado F.3 was going to operate in time of war...loitering 400 miles off the UK waiting for trade. If anything the need for range to intercept cruise missiles or carriers is even greater than before...

Plus we've had Typhoon on ridiculously long ranged sorties over Syria and Iraq for close to 10 years now....

The RAF absolutely wants serious range...arguably more than the Japanese.
 
so in short everyone will try to get a long range capable aircraft, since Italy's envelope has no specifics against such a request as far as i know, the likely result of the program will then lead to a long range GCAP type aircraft for everyone involved, in this case the AMI (not for being partisan but just because this is what i belive they want to acheive) will have GCAP to replace the EF-2000 Typhoon or even operate both untill the new plane displaces the old model, the F-35 for replacement of the F-16 and fill the roles GCAP cannot acheive, including carrier ops and the MB 346 as LCA to replace AMX Ghibli and as probably standard trainer, for the other Air Forces we could do a similar thought for the other parties involved, if Australia joins we also have a possibly heavier emphasis in long range ops for GCAP even if the latter part is only speculative.
 
timmymagic said:
The RAF absolutely wants serious range...arguably more than the Japanese.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the USAF needs extended range in the Pacific, because it's talking about projecting power from Guam, and people assume that naturally applies to everyone there, but Japan is a Pacific Rim country, not deep in Micronesia. Japan's situation is much more like the UK's than the US's, an offshore country facing a continental opponent. It only needs to project power towards the Chinese coast, not deep into the Pacific.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom