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

[kqcke for you]

Well active flow control is already for a good time in development

 

[djpowell1984]

I remember MAGMA unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) / Demon project.

What it is will bring to GCAP, I notice USA one no tails and gcap has one?

Tail is good back up if Nozzle failed ?

 

[Jackonicko]

You don't need to be more LO than an F-22, and in any case, counter stealth capabilities are well on the way. Tailfins seem like a good compromise between full tail surfaces and no tail surfaces.

 

[Kota]

that will likely lead to a massive advancement of it in AA capability and miniarturization of electronics

Sensor and electronic miniaturization hasn't really stagnated, so it will simply just be a continuation on existing work rather than a massive leap.

missile development for MBDA if the company collaborates with Mitsubishi HI

Not likely as France has a large share in MBDA blocked it.

Japan had previous work on ducted missiles, but seems to be opting for a conventional layout rather than continue on JNAAM alone.

GCAP will end up with different MRAAMs, but that wont change much as the SRAAM, ASMs, and AGMs would likely be different anyways.

For the radar, I remember Japan working on a 3D nose mounted radar. Is that sidelined?

次期戦闘機・アビオニクス（2-1） : 軍事あれこれとかのblog

«アビオニクス関連（2-1）»低ＲＣＳ目標を見つけるGaN送受信モジュールアンテナのフレキシブル化技術の研究先進統合センサ・システムに関する研究赤外線画像の高解像度技術に関する研究次世代赤外線センサ技術の研究　[低ＲＣＳ目標を見つけるGaN送受信モジュール]2011年（

hitomaru10.livedoor.blog

It likely just got integrated with JAGUAR and ISANKE

on wing edge to can fried electronics with short range also increase SARS so intelligence map and location, better picture area plus radar aware and scan and fire control around aircraft or drone or ground
target or missiles, ship evens submarine etc

With what we know so far this will be what GCAP and most 6th gens are about just acting like fighter sized ISTAR, AEW&C, and ELINT platforms for the drones to do the dirty work.


Japan's research on flexible and wing mounted radar goes back to the 90s with FS-X and the current research is flexible antennas.


This is all just from the prospective of Japanese programs. I don't know what the UK has been up to.

 

[ItalianAFDFail]

amazing, this is super cool, thanks for the additional data and info about it

 

[donnage99]

You don't need to be more LO than an F-22, and in any case, counter stealth capabilities are well on the way. Tailfins seem like a good compromise between full tail surfaces and no tail surfaces.

Counter stealth on the way is exactly why stealth needs to advance as well.

 

[Jackonicko]

Counter stealth on the way is exactly why stealth needs to advance as well.

Or perhaps adopt a different approach altogether? If low RCS stops being useful because EO/IR technology advances, shaving a few mm further off the RCS is, at best, going to be a case of diminishing returns (no pun intended) and at worst a waste of time.

 

[kqcke for you]

Or perhaps adopt a different approach altogether? If low RCS stops being useful because EO/IR technology advances, shaving a few mm further off the RCS is, at best, going to be a case of diminishing returns (no pun intended) and at worst a waste of time.

Yeah. At the same time this may just be a cost matter too. Why give a "marginal" advantage which in most cases may not be needed for extra cost. But WHO knows.

 

[donnage99]

Or perhaps adopt a different approach altogether? If low RCS stops being useful because EO/IR technology advances, shaving a few mm further off the RCS is, at best, going to be a case of diminishing returns (no pun intended) and at worst a waste of time.

Were you able to tell northrop that before they finalized the design of the b-21?

On a serious note, counter stealth advances in a wide spectrums including RCS, thus advancement in stealth need to do the same, again, including RCS.

To make such a bold statement that you don't need any further RCS reduction than the f-22, you gonna need some serious research and data which the US air force and industry partners have extensively done. By the shape of the b-21 it seems further RCS reduction still relevant.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Were you able to tell northrop that before they finalized the design of the b-21?

On a serious note, counter stealth advances in a wide spectrums including RCS, thus advancement in stealth need to do the same, again, including RCS.

To make such a bold statement that you don't need any further RCS reduction than the f-22, you gonna need some serious research and data which the US air force and industry partners have extensively done. By the shape of the b-21 it seems further RCS reduction still relevant.

Not gonna lie, I'm not sure the B21 is significantly stealthier than the B2.

Uses all the newer, lower maintenance materials developed for F35? Absolutely.

But stealthier than a 75% scale B2? I doubt that.

 

[FighterJock]

We probably won't know whether the B-21 will be stealthier than the B-2 because the USAF likes to keep that information to itself for long periods of time, we still do not know just how stealthy the B-2 is even after all those years of service.

 

[Kota]

Here is my take on the situation with stealth and counter stealth.

Radars are beginning to absolutely outpace stealth as the Japanese radar demonstrator I posted yesterday from 2018 was already claiming 1.5x the output of the APG-80 (It says 5th gen radar and Japan has the APG-80) and is already able to pick up stealth fighters

I think its true that at this point any shape modifications will create diminishing returns. We already have AI running simulations to create the most optimal profiles for RCS reduction, so the benefits of further construction shape changes will be limited. The biggest thing that can be done to reduce RCS in terms of shaping at this point is to make the actual airframe smaller which directly contradicts the mission profile of GCAP. There is probably quite a bit that can still be done with material science as well as electronic emissions, but again I think that the benefits will be outpaced.

There is a third solution though that I don't think people seem to consider as making things stealthier, but is a key component in GCAP and most 6th gen designs. If the enemy can pick up your stealth fighter from 100km, just make it so it can complete the mission at 200km where the enemy can't see you. The best stealth is just operating outside of sensor range and GCAP is trying to do that. The long range and loiter times means it can just sit on the edge of enemy sensors and have the drones and missiles do all the dirty work. Drones can be made smaller and have a lot less restricting their designs for LO construction. At this point the best stealth design is to just allow it to operate from further and further away without affecting performance.

A longer range platform with better endurance and sensors to operate further away is better stealth than any RAM or LO construction at this point.

 

[donnage99]

Yes computation has advanced to the point of making very ideal shape for stealth. However, we've never achieved close to the shape without compromising aerodynamic requirements in a fighter. So advancement from 5th to 6th gen is aerodynamics to allow designers to get close to the ideal shape for stealth while maintaining acceptable speed and maneuverability requirements.

 

[helmutkohl]

I remember some time ago, like 2 decades, Kurt Plummer was going off about something similar..
IRC, he strongly believed that future air warfare was going to evolve into multi-role warplanes that are large due to massive range/fuel requirements, and cheaper UCAVs on the low end.

 

[Scott Kenny]

We probably won't know whether the B-21 will be stealthier than the B-2 because the USAF likes to keep that information to itself for long periods of time, we still do not know just how stealthy the B-2 is even after all those years of service.

I mean, even using the same techniques and materials, the B21 is physically smaller than a B2, so I'd expect it to have an equally smaller RCS just from that.

The question is how much the newer, less-maintenance-intensive materials reduce RCS compared to the B2 stuff.

 

[FighterJock]

We will probably never know for sure about the newer B-21 RCS reducing materials compared to the B-2s Scott Kenny as that is an area that will be highly classified for years.

 

[Scott Kenny]

We will probably never know for sure about the newer B-21 RCS reducing materials compared to the B-2s Scott Kenny as that is an area that will be highly classified for years.

I admit it's an assumption, but IIRC the F35 has a larger RCS than the F22, despite being a smaller aircraft. But the F35 has less maintenance intensive RAM coatings.

So I made the assumption that the B21 coatings are less maintenance intensive but give about the same overall effect on RCS as those used on the B2 (edit: since they're roughly a generation newer than those of the F35). Under that assumption, the B21's RCS will be a bit smaller than that of the B2 just because of the smaller dimensions, but it's unlikely to be order(s) of magnitude better.

 

[ItalianAFDFail]

hypothetically GCAP will likely develop RCS reducing materials that either based on the F-35 or even an improved version of em thanks to Japanese intervention and comparative advancements in the material science involved, the only issue with said materials is likely to be cost of development, production and maintenance on finished airframes, but if we consider the likely economy of scale with the production of airframes the costs will likely go down even in a 5 years time, and this will lead to all these defense conglomerates to hire people, leading to maybe more savings, i think this strategy will be able to give these companies work for decades if handled correctly.

 

[FighterJock]

Considering that both Japan and the UK are both F-35 users I do believe that is the way to go on GCAP, it would help with the development budget too keeping costs down in the process.

 

[Forest Green]

I admit it's an assumption, but IIRC the F35 has a larger RCS than the F22, despite being a smaller aircraft. But the F35 has less maintenance intensive RAM coatings.

There are conflicting statements on that.

 

[ItalianAFDFail]

i mean yes, plus Italy's Air Force and Fleet Air Arm uses F-35A and B respectively, plus Leonardo is a major manufacturer for the F-35 program as well

 

[FighterJock]

I had thought that the manufacturers of stealth aircraft had moved away from Radar Absorbing Material to a mixture of Radar Absorbing Structure and paint? Since the RAM coatings caused no end of trouble in for the maintenance crews on the F-117 and B-2.

 

[kqcke for you]

I had thought that the manufacturers of stealth aircraft had moved away from Radar Absorbing Material to a mixture of Radar Absorbing Structure and paint? Since the RAM coatings caused no end of trouble in for the maintenance crews on the F-117 and B-2.

Not all things can be made with radar absorbing structure but the goal is to reduce those. Thats why F-X was to use adhesive molding for bonding materials instead of fasteners.

 

[VTOLicious]

I mean, even using the same techniques and materials, the B21 is physically smaller than a B2, so I'd expect it to have an equally smaller RCS just from that.

I'm no expert on RCS, but I remember knowledgeable members of this forum stating that RCS is not necessarily connected to physical size.

EDIT: Link to the related discussion in the B-21 thread... https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-grumman-b-21a-raider-lrs-b.25915/post-567575

 

[Scott Kenny]

I had thought that the manufacturers of stealth aircraft had moved away from Radar Absorbing Material to a mixture of Radar Absorbing Structure and paint? Since the RAM coatings caused no end of trouble in for the maintenance crews on the F-117 and B-2.

still gotta putty over any fasteners used to hold access panels on, and the F35 has an applique "sticker" layer on top of that.

And yes, that is on top of having most of the RAM baked into the skin panels etc.

 

[FighterJock]

That is crazy still using fasteners for access panels? That does not look good especially for stealth aircraft, I would have thought that the USAF would have used something better than that.

 

[Wyvern]

That is crazy still using fasteners for access panels? That does not look good especially for stealth aircraft, I would have thought that the USAF would have used something better than that.

Is it? There's always going to be trade offs, good old fasteners allow for ease of maintenance and production.

 

[FighterJock]

I suppose so Wyvern that there has to be be trade off's for ease of for ground crew and during production.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That is crazy still using fasteners for access panels? That does not look good especially for stealth aircraft, I would have thought that the USAF would have used something better than that.

What would you use?

 

[flateric]

 

[raptor82]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66019fa8f1d3a0666832acfc/RAF_Autonomous_Collaborative_Platform_Strategy.pdf

 

[ItalianAFDFail]

this really reminds me a lot of the Leonardo Sky-X but stealthy and new

 

[Rhinocrates]

View attachment 725433

I'm not sure he would be likely to be satisfied. As an aside, the poor fellow's bad luck continues.

Coyote vs. Acme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kota]

駐日米大使「名古屋の改善はテキサスでも」戦闘機F35組み立て視察：朝日新聞デジタル

エマニュエル駐日米大使が16日、三菱重工業小牧南工場（愛知県豊山町）を訪れ、米ロッキード・マーチン社の最新鋭ステルス戦闘機F35の最終組み立ての様子を視察した。生産コストが米国内並みに低く抑えられて…

www.asahi.com

While not directly GCAP related, it does bode well for when it finally enters production. Right now the assembly cost per airframe at Nagoyas F-35 plant have around the same assembly cost per airframe for the same work at the Texas F-35 plant that does 150 airframes a year. The US also wants to implement the practices done at the Nagoya plant in the US.

If Japan can pull out this efficiency for each F-35 built at such a small scale then hopefully GCAP production will be able to save a lot when it comes to production costs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

駐日米大使「名古屋の改善はテキサスでも」戦闘機F35組み立て視察：朝日新聞デジタル

エマニュエル駐日米大使が16日、三菱重工業小牧南工場（愛知県豊山町）を訪れ、米ロッキード・マーチン社の最新鋭ステルス戦闘機F35の最終組み立ての様子を視察した。生産コストが米国内並みに低く抑えられて…

www.asahi.com

While not directly GCAP related, it does bode well for when it finally enters production. Right now the assembly cost per airframe at Nagoyas F-35 plant have around the same assembly cost per airframe for the same work at the Texas F-35 plant that does 150 airframes a year. The US also wants to implement the practices done at the Nagoya plant in the US.

If Japan can pull out this efficiency for each F-35 built at such a small scale then hopefully GCAP production will be able to save a lot when it comes to production costs.

The Japanese are very, very good at optimizing processes.

 

[kqcke for you]

Thats a lot. So they produce at same cost as Texas which build 25x more jets in the same time. If they can apply that work F-35 price could sink again

 

[red admiral]

If Japan can pull out this efficiency for each F-35 built at such a small scale then hopefully GCAP production will be able to save a lot when it comes to production costs.

Isn't this largely down to lower Japanese labour costs for this sort of assembly?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Isn't this largely down to lower Japanese labour costs for this sort of assembly?

I don't believe so. Cost of living in Japan is high enough that they can't afford to pay peanuts.

 

[BlackBat242]

Isn't this largely down to lower Japanese labour costs for this sort of assembly?

It has been my understanding that with Japan in particular the "cost of labor" gap is much smaller than it used to be.

 

[helmutkohl]

I don't believe so. Cost of living in Japan is high enough that they can't afford to pay peanuts.

i disagree. I am from Japan and the cost of living here is lower than if I lived in a major city in California.
Salary is lower but so is rent. inflation has largely been under control until recently.