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

helmutkohl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lower COL than California cities is not a hard bar to clear... most of the US has a lower COL than California cities!
 
BlackBat242 said:
Lower COL than California cities is not a hard bar to clear... most of the US has a lower COL than California cities!
Click to expand...
sure, but non-Japanese perceptions of Japan's COL is based entirely off of specific areas of Tokyo which is expensive. So its an apples to apples comparison.

A smaller city in Japan will be even cheaper to live in, just like a non California/NY/HI city in the US does
 
helmutkohl said:
sure, but non-Japanese perceptions of Japan's COL is based entirely off of specific areas of Tokyo which is expensive. So its an apples to apples comparison.

A smaller city in Japan will be even cheaper to live in, just like a non California/NY/HI city in the US does
Click to expand...
I think it would be more imperative if we compare the general cost of living in FW, Texas and Nagoya rather than Cali. Also the general wage levels within the Japanese manufacturing primes and primary vendors (Toyota, Denso, IHI, Kawasaki, etc.) would help.

Anyways, yes I believe that the low cost is partly due to lower wage levels. Though considering past and current programme of records in Japan concerning military procurement (various helo programmes comes into mind), I think that the Nagoya FACO is indeed being run very efficiently with good management.
 
Japan also has a quirk where homes tend to decrease in price with age rather than increase and your penalised owning unproductive land (e.g. unfarmed land, large gardens, empty buildings, etc..) due to the land tax which often sees perfectly good homes (or historic properties) demolished rather than left vacant and acres of virgin forest trading hands for peanuts.
 
Doesnt really seem like something to patent, its simple logic of the faster an aerial target is going the greater the range of movement and so the more frequently the missile has to make course corrections to keep on track to the target (or as the patent puts it 'calibrate your bias'). I.e. if you were tracking a slow moving drone its energy efficient to only occasionally re-zero your course to the target, whereas if it was going at Mach 3 and accelerating you would be twitching at its every apparent move.
 
helmutkohl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right, but they're still not paying assembly line workers ~1500y/hr. It's going to be more like 3500 or 5500 yen an hour.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right, but they're still not paying assembly line workers ~1500y/hr. It's going to be more like 3500 or 5500 yen an hour.
Click to expand...
Depending on what part of the assembly, its half that. Here is a listing for fueselage assemblers

Also you need to keep in mind its no longer 100 yen = $1 USD, its now 154 yen and likely to keep weakening.
Bad for us in Japan when we travel abroad, but it does make it cheaper for people outside buying Japanese products.
 
helmutkohl said:
Depending on what part of the assembly, its half that. Here is a listing for fueselage assemblers

Also you need to keep in mind its no longer 100 yen = $1 USD, its now 154 yen and likely to keep weakening.
Bad for us in Japan when we travel abroad, but it does make it cheaper for people outside buying Japanese products.
Click to expand...
$12.66/hr to $15.83/hr?!?!? Sweet merciful crap that's pathetic...
 
Scott Kenny said:
$12.66/hr to $15.83/hr?!?!? Sweet merciful crap that's pathetic...
Click to expand...
again, as stated before, salaries are lower in Japan, but so is cost of living.
Assuming that assembly line worker is working at Mitsubishi in Aichi, monthly rent around the company for a 2 room apartment would be around $250-500 USD depending on age and distance from the station.
 
I don't want to sound like the usual annoying person or ideological partisan in favour of a nation MiC or anything, especially when it's where i'm from but i belive it is puzzling to me how the view of Italy in some of the sentences said is viewed as a negative and or a nation with no capabilities in the modern world, all things considered the Italian Military industry has yielded a fair amount fo success internationally, even in aircraft manufacturing, i would like to ask some clarification and explanation for why is it viewed in such a negative light, not to be inquisitive, i just want to understand different points of view on the matter, because to me it seems Italy is doing the best it can to partecipate in GCAP, personally i belive it is not good to underplay the capabilities of the Italian MiC and i've not seen any shady manouvers done by Leonardo on the program to warrant such negativity.
 
Last edited:
ItalianAFDFail said:
I don't want to sound like the usual annoying person or ideological partisan in favour of a nation MiC or anything, especially when it's where i'm from but i belive it is puzzling to me how the view of Italy in some of the sentences said is viewed as a negative and or a nation with no capabilities in the modern world, all things considered the Italian Military industry has yielded a fair amount fo success internationally, even in aircraft manufacturing, i would like to ask some clarification and explanation for why is it viewed in such a negative light, not to be inquisitive, i just want to understand different points of view on the matter, because to me it seems Italy is doing the best it can to partecipate in GCAP, personally i belive it is not good to underplay the capabilities of the Italian MiC and i've not seen any shady manouvers done by Leonardo on the program to warrant such negativity.
Click to expand...
I think you're going to have to give us some context...

I've personally not seen anyone knocking Leonardo or Italy.
 
i've seen some posts in the I3, previous japanese planes before GCAP posts regarding Italy not being capable of making a 5th gen or 6th gen fighter, some sentences of the type "Italy is the weak link and i hope they don't have any input in the program for their own desires" or sentences similar to this, i saddly am not very good at quoting for the forum and i need to understand how to do it, i'll try to work on recovering the sentences i red before, i will do my best to give a competent context and i apologize if i sound extreme.
 
There is a lot of discussion about the lower production cost being due to labor costs, but the article states that the Nagoya methods would be implemented in Texas. As much as the factory owners would probably love to just pay their workers less I don't think its the solution that Nagoya used to lower costs.
 
Looking forward to it timmymagic, even if it is just going to be a model or rendering GCAP release. At least that will give us some indication of what GCAP/Tempest will eventually end up looking like.
 
They would have to have a backseater if they are going to use the manned variant to control UCAVs Moose, it sound like it is going to be similar function to what the US are doing with NGAD and F/A-XX.
 
Moose said:
"Properly Massive" is a good sign, but has the backseater returned?
Click to expand...
I've not seen any indication that there is an intention for a 2 seater variant.

I suspect that with the progress of AI they don't believe it will be necessary by the time GCAP enters service for another person.
 
So instead of a twin seater they are going with an AI controlled UAV, that sounds a lot better than what the news is concerning NGAD and F/A-XX. Plus with a single seater the operational Tempest would not loose any fuel and therfore range by having a second seat in the back.
 
timmymagic said:
I've not seen any indication that there is an intention for a 2 seater variant.

I suspect that with the progress of AI they don't believe it will be necessary by the time GCAP enters service for another person.
Click to expand...
Going to be a lot of crossed fingers on the team. FCAS and the NGAD siblings seem pretty set on two seats, and that's with AI-enabled capabilities baked into their programs. I know the beancounters are probably loving the idea of leaving the second body at home, but there's going to be a whole lot going on in that cockpit.
 
Unless they are going to be doing a highly automated cockpit with AI at the back of it all so that would mean that there would not be so many problems for the pilot in the first place concerning high work loads.
 
Broken said:
Is there any evidence for this or is it just guesswork? As far as I know we don't know for certain what any project is planning regarding seats.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge neither is looking at 2 seat versions, either operational or training.

We'd need to recreate the Nav training pipeline for one...and thats costly. They closed that down a few years before Tornado left service.
 
What ive seen suggests an AI Co-pilot of the fighter that will manage communication and control of the drones (which will themselves have task oriented AI) deciding what to elevate or not to the attention of the pilot. The Dstl have just done a trial of a executive jet commanding a Banshee drone over Link-16.

The thing I find fascinating about the Exaclibur test aircraft is it will have a complete Tempest cockpit inside, presumably feeding live sensor and drone information from the instruments to the cockpit to check the intended computers, data processing as well as pilot ergonomics.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
Looking forward to it timmymagic, even if it is just going to be a model or rendering GCAP release. At least that will give us some indication of what GCAP/Tempest will eventually end up looking like.
Click to expand...
It won't because there is no guarantee that the GCAP/Tempest (design still not frozen) will look anything like the demonstrator, which is not a prototype nor even a concept/configuration demonstrator in the way that EAP was.
 
Moose said:
Going to be a lot of crossed fingers on the team. FCAS and the NGAD siblings seem pretty set on two seats, and that's with AI-enabled capabilities baked into their programs. I know the beancounters are probably loving the idea of leaving the second body at home, but there's going to be a whole lot going on in that cockpit.
Click to expand...
Nope! The CCAs, ACPs and remote carriers are going to 'collaborate' with the manned platform, but will have sufficient autonomy that they will not need to be controlled by it. At most, there will be high level commands. If that. There certainly won't be a need for a second crew member for controlling adjuncts.

(And I see no evidence of NGAD going down a two-seat avenue, incidentally).
 
WatcherZero said:
What ive seen suggests an AI Co-pilot of the fighter that will manage communication and control of the drones (which will themselves have task oriented AI) deciding what to elevate or not to the attention of the pilot. The Dstl have just done a trial of a executive jet commanding a Banshee drone over Link-16.
Click to expand...

This is, I believe, to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the 'teaming' between the different elements of the FCAS system of systems.
 
timmymagic said:
To my knowledge neither is looking at 2 seat versions, either operational or training.

We'd need to recreate the Nav training pipeline for one...and thats costly. They closed that down a few years before Tornado left service.
Click to expand...

WSO ( formerly Nav ) pipeline is active and has been for several years. Currently orientated to ISTAR fleet.


Would presumably need volumetric expansion if GCAP goes for two seats but all the fundamentals are in place.
 
Last edited:
Jackonicko said:
Nope! The CCAs, ACPs and remote carriers are going to 'collaborate' with the manned platform, but will have sufficient autonomy that they will not need to be controlled by it. At most, there will be high level commands. If that. There certainly won't be a need for a second crew member for controlling adjuncts.
Click to expand...
This assumes that the software will make it up to the desired levels in time.

People have been promising self driving cars for a really long time now. It's still not there yet.

Militaries are inherently conservative, they want to know that what they have will work. Which means a back seater to wrangle drones while the pilot flies, at least for the first generation of CCAs. 7th gen fighters will likely be able to be single seaters (if they have pilots at all).


Jackonicko said:
(And I see no evidence of NGAD going down a two-seat avenue, incidentally).
Click to expand...
There's also no evidence they aren't.
 
Scott Kenny said:
This assumes that the software will make it up to the desired levels in time.

People have been promising self driving cars for a really long time now. It's still not there yet.

Militaries are inherently conservative, they want to know that what they have will work.
Click to expand...
Agree all above. Although I think the military work on hope (aka shouting loudly and confidently) a lot more than knowing things ;-)
Scott Kenny said:
Which means a back seater to wrangle drones while the pilot flies, at least for the first generation of CCAs. 7th gen fighters will likely be able to be single seaters (if they have pilots at all).
Click to expand...
Nope. What it actually means is no CCAs or ACPs because in this scenario 6th gen will just do it like 5th gen if the other bits arent at the point they can work with the jet.

After all, what is 6th gen…

The real question is why do they need this close teaming with the manned jet? Manned jets dont “control” other manned ones like this - they do that planning pre flight and let them crack on with coordination being the name of the game in the air. Coordination doesnt require this high (and unrealistic) level of AI.

The unmanned are more likely to have come from somewhere else and be doing something supportive but seperate to the manned jet. Thats if they ever exist at all.

Because as soon as they become capable they become complex which means they need more maintenance, cost more, arent expendable and need similar airworthiness/flight safety standards to manned aircraft. At which point they become basically a second major air platform program of the same order of magnitude in required cost and effort. When basically everyone can only afford one.

The manned wins because it can do far, far more for the cost.

Note GCAP is racing ahead. Mosquito buzzed off. QED :)


Scott Kenny said:
There's also no evidence they aren't.
Click to expand...
Speaking as someone who would massively massively benefit from that 2nd seat existing, and has even argued for it (albeit in jest), that is never, ever happening. There are very few things I’d bet on, this is one of them.
 
Jackonicko said:
This is, I believe, to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the 'teaming' between the different elements of the FCAS system of systems.
Click to expand...

You should read up on BAE's work on MUM-T (task oriented drone swarms), Leonardo's work on Combat Air AI (Fighter AI task management and co/independent decision making) and Mitsubishi's work on ISANKE off board sensors.
 
Purpletrouble said:
After all, what is 6th gen…
Click to expand...
Significantly longer range, better stealth, physically bigger weapons bays so that they can take either an AMRAAM or a 2000lb bomb in the bays, and able to wrangle CCAs. That's everything that's been talked about in public in terms of the capabilities of the 6th Gen fighters.

Of those, the generational key is drones. Everything else is "build the FB22/FB23 using F35 and B21 RAM tech," so still 5th gen or maybe 5.5gen.

I believe that the desired end state for the CCAs is one manned plane in charge of an entire strike package worth of CCAs. It's got fighter CCAs to fly escort. It's got bomber CCAs to hit the target(s). It's got EW/SEAD/DEAD CCAs, probably using the same base airframe as the bomber CCAs, to take out the defenses before the bomber CCAs go in. It's even got an equivalent to TACIT BLUE with EO sensors as well as the radar flying recon and BDA. There's tanker drones available, and probably AEW drones, too.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Significantly longer range, better stealth, physically bigger weapons bays so that they can take either an AMRAAM or a 2000lb bomb in the bays, and able to wrangle CCAs. That's everything that's been talked about in public in terms of the capabilities of the 6th Gen fighters.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it was a trick question. Ask it of the people doing it and you get a different answer from them all. I have!

Key thing for me 6th gen is the electronic side, gathering and processing all the electronic signals out there and basically being a Rivet Joint so you get really inside the en mind and plans and win because you are so far ahead of their thinking and actions. Taking what say Typhoon can do now and to a new order of magnitude, hence saying RJ. Imagine that level of insight real time tactically everywhere if you can gather and make sense of the data - this is where AI and machine learning are needed.
Scott Kenny said:
Of those, the generational key is drones.
Click to expand...
I dont think it is tbh, like I said, if they’re any good kinematically and avioncis wise, they’re a duplicate level of cost and effort to the manned program, for vastly less flexibility. We cant afford that. Well, maybe the US can a bit.
Scott Kenny said:
Everything else is "build the FB22/FB23 using F35 and B21 RAM tech," so still 5th gen or maybe 5.5gen.
Click to expand...
In enthusiast world it is yes - nobody in actual defence procurement is talking about that. F22 is “how not to”, F35 is a starting baseline. YF23 is as relevant as an F4.


Scott Kenny said:
I believe that the desired end state for the CCAs is one manned plane in charge of an entire strike package worth of CCAs.
Click to expand...
Why?

What makes that battle winning vs a manned fleet of more capable platforms with more flexibility?

We didnt fly Spits and Mustangs alongside Sabres to give additional platforms - Likewise we hadnt flown gladiators alongside spits. And we didnt fly hunters alongside Tornados.

We always* put as many of the latest bestest platform up as we can and scrap everything less capable. Thats how we won the air.

*unless really resource constrained. But never by choice.

It's got fighter CCAs to fly escort. It's got bomber CCAs to hit the target(s). It's got EW/SEAD/DEAD CCAs, probably using the same base airframe as the bomber CCAs, to take out the defenses before the bomber CCAs go in. It's even got an equivalent to TACIT BLUE with EO sensors as well as the radar flying recon and BDA. There's tanker drones available, and probably AEW drones, too.

When you ask pilots what they want from “CCAs” the consistent answer is just “a tanker that comes to me so I dont waste time in transit getting away from/to the fight”. Not extra weapons platforms, not EW, not bombers not any of that. Theyve got all that covered in their platform and can do that.i fond the MQ-25 Stingray interesting in this respect.

There are a huge amount of solutions here and I’m not sure there is actually a problem for them to solve.

I think we are only just starting to find our way out of a very confusing haystack that technology and our penchant for MS powerpoint have created for us.

I personally think the future is going to look like the present but with a larger platform with huge EW capability and leveraging that plus connectivity to the rest of the military world to give it a far better understanding of the tactical situation and thus find a way to win it whilst the en is still blind to what is going on.

Blitzkreig of the air - overwhelm their forces by blanking out decision making by knowing far more than they do and being able to move to exploit that before they even know anythung about it. The actual exploitation being similar weapons to what we have now just employed far more effectively thanks to information dominance. Very difficult to do and wont show up in a single Janes spec point but will make or break any conflict.

The advantage is I think our opponents culture is the very oppostie of that needed to do likewise since success at this is founded on openness, transparency, free sharing (of data for instance) and quick readiness to accept something is wrong/change it and reacting without having to wait for approval. Although we knock ourselves for fails at all those bits, fundamentally we are very good at that vs what are very rigidly controlled/controlling societies. that’s my hope anyway!
 
WatcherZero said:
You should read up on BAE's work on MUM-T (task oriented drone swarms), Leonardo's work on Combat Air AI (Fighter AI task management and co/independent decision making) and Mitsubishi's work on ISANKE off board sensors.
Click to expand...
I have done. And spent yesterday afternoon chattting with BAE's 'main man' on ACPs. And then with Leonardo's GCAP campaign manager. CCAs and ACPs will require high level direction, not direct control.
 
....if they’re any good kinematically and avioncis wise, they’re a duplicate level of cost and effort to the manned program, for vastly less flexibility.

You can have useful unmanned capabilities for a fraction of the cost of a manned platform. US $15 million seems to be the ‘benchmark’ price for attritable (not expendable) UAVs.

We cant afford that. Well, maybe the US can a bit.

We can’t afford not to have ACPs to augment the things that a manned platform can’t do, or that we won’t allow them to do because we can’t afford to lose them or their expensively trained pilots.

What makes that battle winning vs a manned fleet of more capable platforms with more flexibility?

What makes them battle winning is the ability to use them well forward, penetrating airspace where you can’t risk a manned platform (you’ve heard of A2AD, right?). What makes them battle winning is their ability to provide mass that we can’t afford to provide conventionally. What makes them battle winning is their ability to cope in an increasingly contested battlespace.

When you ask pilots what they want from “CCAs” the consistent answer is just “a tanker that comes to me so I dont waste time in transit getting away from/to the fight”. Not extra weapons platforms, not EW, not bombers not any of that. Theyve got all that covered in their platform and can do that.i fond the MQ-25 Stingray interesting in this respect.

Nonsense! What pilots want is more weapons, more sensor range, and indeed anything that helps ensure mission success and their own safe return.

There are a huge amount of solutions here and I’m not sure there is actually a problem for them to solve. I think we are only just starting to find our way out of a very confusing haystack that technology and our penchant for MS powerpoint have created for us.

More nonsense, I’m afraid. The problems are: A2AD. A more difficult and contested operating environment. A rapidly and dynamically evolving threat.

I personally think the future is going to look like the present but with a larger platform with huge EW capability and leveraging that plus connectivity to the rest of the military world to give it a far better understanding of the tactical situation and thus find a way to win it whilst the enemy is still blind to what is going on.

You’re dreaming. And ignoring the fact that you can’t do that in a heavily contested environment against an enemy who outnumbers you and economically overpowers you. You have to “box clever” and CCAs/ACPs help you do that.

Blitzkreig of the air - overwhelm their forces by blanking out decision making by knowing far more than they do and being able to move to exploit that before they even know anythung about it. The actual exploitation being similar weapons to what we have now just employed far more effectively thanks to information dominance. Very difficult to do and wont show up in a single Janes spec point but will make or break any conflict.

True to a degree today, and against non peer opponents, but becoming less and less true with every passing day.

The advantage is I think our opponents culture is the very pposite of that needed to do likewise since success at this is founded on openness, transparency, free sharing (of data for instance) and quick readiness to accept something is wrong/change it and reacting without having to wait for approval. Although we knock ourselves for fails at all those bits, fundamentally we are very good at that vs what are very rigidly controlled/controlling societies. That’s my hope anyway!

That may be your ‘hope’ - and good on you for being such a sunny and optimistic Pollyanna, we need more optimism and hope!

But reality it isn’t. Our ‘open’, ‘transparent’, ‘sharing’ societies are unable to trust one another to iterate sovereign mission data on platforms we’ve bought and paid for, or to integrate our own weapons, or to have meaningful sovereign support arrangements. The ‘Land of the Free’ thinks that a three hour Mission Data cycle is a ‘moonshot’, and will never enable that for its allies anyway.

And while we were sleeping, China (and to a lesser extent Russia) built up their air defence and A2AD capabilities to the point that we’re now on the back foot. China will soon have more 5th Gen fighters than the US. Russia has shown an ability to adapt and to adopt novel technologies at pace in Ukraine.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom