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

[Scott Kenny]

I think BAE are leaning into the software and sensor side of 6th gen rather than ultra stealth, and prioritising payload and range at the expense of RCS. They may be relying on Leonardo's EW expertise for survivability, and having enough weapons to take out secondary/defending targets on the ground instead of just flying in, dropping a bomb and leaving undetected.

That is my suspicion as well.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Oh I see, it's that the tail meets the fuselage from above rather than on the side corner like YF23. Thanks, that makes sense.

Not really, all moving v-stabs would be masked by the whole fuselage, so you could argue that from specific aspects (head on or direct under), it would be stealthier, simply because direct vision between the receiver and the hotspots would be obstructed.

 

[takacosta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1946890402373505355

View: https://x.com/JohnCooperDG/status/1946890402373505355?utm_source=chatgpt.com


If there really is a British MP lurking in this thread, would you be so kind as to share what that “latest update” actually was?

 

[Reuben James]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1946890402373505355

View: https://x.com/JohnCooperDG/status/1946890402373505355?utm_source=chatgpt.com


If there really is a British MP lurking in this thread, would you be so kind as to share what that “latest update” actually was?

I'm not a Westminster regular, but perhaps it was just a refresher to bring him up to speed with current information, rather than an entirely new piece of information?

 

[timmymagic]

What good is IOC in the late 2040s especially for a lower spec'd 6th gen.

@Maro.Kyo said late 2040...not late 2040's...

The programme still says 2035.

 

[FighterJock]

Fingers and toes crossed that GCAP/Tempest still meets the 2035 IOC, I do not want there to be any delays but you can never tell especially after testing the demonstrator.

 

[Jackonicko]

What do you think are the reasons behind retaining the vertical stabilisers? BAE has experience with both tailless, stealthy designs and active flow control technology, so I don't think it would be unfeasable from an engineering perspective.

They've done a lot of concepting. The conclusion was that a tailless configuration was not the way to go for a fighter.

 

[TomcatViP]

Seems also in the picture above they sidelined the big Delta too. Great!

 

[JetBrain]

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/th...demonstrator-speed-up-britain-s-next-fighter/

 

[Jackonicko]

Seems also in the picture above they sidelined the big Delta too. Great!

The 'Big Delta' is very much still the plan, though we're a long way from freezing a GCAP design, whereas CAFD's design was frozen long ago, when the in vogue Tempest configuration was Concept Class Five.

 

[Jackonicko]

Ideally you'd have a tailless design for maximizing signature reduction, the "hopeless diamond", B-21, B-2 and all the tailless flying wing UCAVs emphasize that. China follows the example with their J-36 and "J-50".

Large, standing stabilizers like seen on virtually every GCAP model/render are far from ideal. Ruddervators like on the YF-23, LTS or FCAS renderings lend themselves to reducing the signature of an aircraft while maintaining large control surfaces for desired aerobatic performance (or perhaps having decent low speed behavior that would be necessary for carrier landings).

Most recent GCAP renders (especially Concept Class Five) have shown heavily canted fins - very much like the YF-23.

 

[Jackonicko]

You're right that FCAS demonstrators will be closer to GCAP prototypes in nature, but they are absolutely not the same.

It's not a demonstrator but is going to be GCAP EMD prototype, representative of production model. That's pretty evident if you look at the envisioned programme schedule which has been posted on this thread before. Only "demonstrators" for GCAP would be the X-2 and the Team Tempest CAD effort. You could doubt if EMD prototype could fly within 5 years, since I doubt the same, but anyways, that's at least the plan. As I've wrote before, I think that a more realistic IOC is late 2040 plus-minus 3 years.

It all depends how you define IOC.
My understanding is that 2035 is the start of RAF IOT&E, with the OCU standing up 12-18 months after that (eg 2037) and the first 'gun' squadron perhaps six months to one year later. Which still seems 'sporting', but achievable.

 

[Jackonicko]

What good is IOC in the late 2040s especially for a lower spec'd 6th gen. By then leaders(US, China etc) will be flying next generation aircraft prototypes while their current 6th generation aircraft will probably have multiple major/minor upgrades to improve them even further.

Who says it's 'lower spec'd'? It certainly will be more advanced than anything China flies by then, with more capable sensors and non kinetic effectors, better engines and probably stealthier.

There are no current 6th Generation aircraft beyond a handful of early demonstrators/prototypes.

 

[Jackonicko]

Oh I see, it's that the tail meets the fuselage from above rather than on the side corner like YF23. Thanks, that makes sense.
With your '5.5gen' comment above, I think BAE are leaning into the software and sensor side of 6th gen rather than ultra stealth, and prioritising payload and range at the expense of RCS. They may be relying on Leonardo's EW expertise for survivability, and having enough weapons to take out secondary/defending targets on the ground instead of just flying in, dropping a bomb and leaving undetected.

There is absolutely nothing to support such speculation. With Taranis and Replica behind them, BAE are hardly novices when it comes to LO.

 

[Reuben James]

I'm not familiar with these 'concept classes'. Could you explain or link a good article?

 

[Reuben James]

Who says it's 'lower spec'd'? It certainly will be more advanced than anything China flies by then, with more capable sensors and non kinetic effectors, better engines and probably stealthier.

There are no current 6th Generation aircraft beyond a handful of early demonstrators/prototypes.

You're burying your head in the sand. China is now an aerospace leader, alongside the US. Their designs will likely outspec those of Europe in their comparable metrics.

 

[Jackonicko]

Not really, all moving v-stabs would be masked by the whole fuselage, so you could argue that from specific aspects (head on or direct under), it would be stealthier, simply because direct vision between the receiver and the hotspots would be obstructed.

Worth reiterating!

 

[Jackonicko]

You're burying your head in the sand. China is now an aerospace leader, alongside the US. Their designs will outspec those of Europe in their comparable metrics.

a) Nonsense
b) Coming from someone who doesn't know what Concept Class 5 is!

But rather than being snippy, this is Concept Class 5 (unveiled at Farnborough 2022).

 

[Nx4eu]

a) Nonsense
b) Coming from someone who doesn't know what Concept Class 5 is!

But rather than being snippy, this is Concept Class 5 (unveiled at Farnborough 2022).

View attachment 778839View attachment 778838

What do you say suggests that China isn't also on the forefront of aerospace technologies? What has Europe demonstrated it has over China? I'm not saying Europe isn't working on the cutting edge either, i'm just not so sure that Europe is definitively ahead of China, given what we've seen coming out of China as of late.

 

[Jackonicko]

I'm not familiar with these 'concept classes'. Could you explain or link a good article?

We know one Warton Project Number for a Tempest Concept - the more graceful, streamlined arrow-winged aircraft shown in small scale model form at RIAT a couple of years ago was the P.189 - possibly the P.189-17B.



We know one Concept Class designation, the Farnborough 2022 model.



This is the 'DSEI Japan' model (it probably has both a P number and a Concept Class designation, but is referred to this way by everyone I speak to in Industry)



And this is referred to as 'The Big Delta'

 

[Jackonicko]

What do you say suggests that China isn't also on the forefront of aerospace technologies? What has Europe demonstrated it has over China? I'm not saying Europe isn't working on the cutting edge either, i'm just not so sure that Europe is definitively ahead of China, given what we've seen coming out of China as of late.

China is behind in Powerplants, Radar, LO coatings, etc.

Anyone can make a 'stealthy looking airframe'...

 

[Reuben James]

Thanks for the thorough explanation. I was familiar each iteration of the design, but I'd never heard the concept class terminology used before.

 

[Jackonicko]

Fascinating to see that the MP is standing in front of a model of Concept Class 5, and not one of the more recent studies!

Concept Class 5, part of Workstream 5, whose big Farnborough model greets you when you walk into Hangar 5... Anyone would think that it's still a current project in some way.

More of which anon.

 

[EmoBirb]

Who says it's 'lower spec'd'? It certainly will be more advanced than anything China flies by then, with more capable sensors and non kinetic effectors, better engines and probably stealthier.

There are no current 6th Generation aircraft beyond a handful of early demonstrators/prototypes.

I find that assumption to be highly doubtful. Given the evident progress the PLA makes, the lead they have and the simple fact that the PLAAF these days is measured only against the USAF and the USAF alone. With all other comparisons to other air forces having become futile at large (Bombers being an arguable exception, for example) due to the sheer leap in capability and fleet size the PLAAF made.

GCAP will have to play a lot of catch up until it enters service, against an aircraft that quite frankly is so unique and alien (tri-engine, side-by-side seating, tailless delta, with multiple presumed radars and sensors visible) that we will have a hard time estimating it's performance even after it entered service. I'm confident the ladies and gentlemen in Japan, Britain and Italy will craft a formidable aircraft that suits their needs within their budget and doctrine. But I wouldn't outright claim it's superior to the Chinese designs, perhaps I'd lean more towards the opposite even based on what we know so far (which is, to be fair, laughably little).

 

[Nx4eu]

China is behind in Powerplants, Radar, LO coatings, etc.

Anyone can make a 'stealthy looking airframe'...

Last I heard China's recently made good progress with it's engine tech, and is planning to equip VCE engines on their next generation aircraft. There were also some claims that the J-20A's new radar featured GaN on SiC, and promising research progress with GaN on Diamond technologies. The new J-20A's also seems to equip a new sort of coating. Have you actually been keeping up with recent Chinese developments or is this opinion based on news from a few years ago? China's been rapidly developing it's technologies, a few years have made a massive difference.

On the other hand, wasn't there news that GCAP wasn't going to feature VCE engines? Is there news of Europe fielding GaN on SiC technologies on radars?

I think it's a bit underhanded to say that China is definitively behind Europe in all these key categories. China has experience developing 2 stealth aircraft from the ground up, while Europe has yet to field a completely independent stealth aircraft.

I'm not suggesting that China is definitively ahead of Europe either. But offhanded remarks like "Anyone can make a 'stealthy looking airframe'." Implying Chinese airframes are only stealthy looking, but ineffective in practice is quite arrogant.

 

[EmoBirb]

On the other hand, wasn't there news that GCAP wasn't going to feature VCE engines?

I hope that's just a hoax??? If that's true, and the renders somewhat represent the final product, that it's truly just an F/B-22 with extra steps.

A next generation fighter that doesn't improve on the LO qualities of the previous generation, nor on the power plant technology and performance simply isn't a generational leap. It's just a last generation airframe with an avionics upgrade.

 

[Nx4eu]

I hope that's just a hoax??? If that's true, and the renders somewhat represent the final product, that it's truly just an F/B-22 with extra steps.

A next generation fighter that doesn't improve on the LO qualities of the previous generation, nor on the power plant technology and performance simply isn't a generational leap. It's just a last generation airframe with an avionics upgrade.

Aviation Week did a piece on the planned GCAP engine demonstrator:

https://aviationweek.com/defense/ai...-engine-focuses-thermal-electrical-management

"“We understand the adaptive engine, and we have looked at that technology for the mission set this aircraft will face, and we do not believe it earns its way onto the aircraft,” Tivey explains. “You will get benefits from such an engine—an economy mode and a warfighting mode—but the trade-off between the cost and the capability is a pretty fine one, and we do not think it is justified in the mission set for GCAP.”

There's a very high possibility the GCAP won't use Adaptive Cycle engines due to the tradeoffs between cost and capabilities. So pretty much it is a cost saving measure.

 

[takacosta]

China is behind in Powerplants, Radar, LO coatings, etc.

Anyone can make a 'stealthy looking airframe'...

You're kidding, right? lol
I’m not saying China’s aviation tech is flawless, but the J-35 definitely has stealth capabilities — it's going to be a real threat to Japan and the U.S., no doubt about that.
But come on... which country is trying to follow in Japan’s footsteps by flying a stealth demonstrator in 2028 — twelve years after Japan already did it in 2016?

 

[Tomboy]

China is behind in Powerplants, Radar, LO coatings, etc.

Anyone can make a 'stealthy looking airframe'...

Powerplant?
When has Europe made a engine comparable to WS-15(Potential TIT up to 2250K via a certain patent) and WS-19? There is also news that GCAP wouldn't even feature adaptive engines.

Radar?
J-20A/S uses GaN on SiC, with advancing research on GaN on diamond/GaO technology. Chinese missiles uses AESA seekers as well, I'm not aware of any European missiles that uses similar technology.

LO technology?
Europe hasn't even built a single stealthy fighter airframe independently while China built 2 production fighters already. Also vertical tails on 6th gen?

Face the facts, GCAP has lower requirement than whatever US and China are building due to budget and technological constraints. Or I guess keep living in 2015...

 

[IRT]

Powerplant?
When has Europe made a engine comparable to WS-15(Potential TIT up to 2250K via a certain patent) and WS-19? There is also news that GCAP wouldn't even feature adaptive engines.

Radar?
J-20A/S uses GaN on SiC, with advancing research on GaN on diamond/GaO technology. Chinese missiles uses AESA seekers as well, I'm not aware of any European missiles that uses similar technology.

LO technology?
Europe hasn't even built a single stealthy fighter airframe independently while China built 2 production fighters already. Also vertical tails on 6th gen?

Face the facts, GCAP has lower requirement than whatever US and China are building due to budget and technological constraints. Or I guess keep living in 2015...

Powerplant?
The Europeans designed the M88 and EJ200 in the late 80's.. great modern engines even by todays standard. China just got their engines working after more than 30 years of development. No one knows how good they are. Powerful? Sure but reliability? 6000+hr service life or Russian style 1000hr then scrap?

Gan radars are available for Gripen, soon to Typhoon and Rafale also.
The Camm missile got a GaN based aesa seeker.



LO technology?
BAE built the replica, dassault/saab built the Neuron, sure no fighter. Still designing a stealth airframe is not the hard part today.
We know nothing about how those vertical tails will affect RCS, also we dont know how the new Chinese designs are actually performing and what performance tradeoffs there are. Boeing seems to be going with canards..

What have u read about GCAP having a lower requirement than than the F47 and the Chinese designs? To me everything points that they are going for a real world beater.

 

[Nx4eu]

Powerplant?
The Europeans designed the M88 and EJ200 in the late 80's.. great modern engines even by todays standard. China just got their engines working after more than 30 years of development. No one knows how good they are. Powerful? Sure but reliability? 6000+hr service life or Russian style 1000hr then scrap?

Gan radars are available for Gripen, soon to Typhoon and Rafale also.
The Camm missile got a GaN based aesa seeker.



LO technology?
BAE built the replica, dassault/saab built the Neuron, sure no fighter. Still designing a stealth airframe is not the hard part today.
We know nothing about how those vertical tails will affect RCS, also we dont know how the new Chinese designs are actually performing and what performance tradeoffs there are. Boeing seems to be going with canards..

What have u read about GCAP having a lower requirement than than the F47 and the Chinese designs? To me everything points that they are going for a real world beater.

There has been a stagnant period of military engine technology between the late 1980's in Europe to the early 2010's. Due to the collapse of the soviet union, the drawing down of budgets, and the beginning of the peace dividend. It may sound impressive to quote possessing advanced engine technologies during a time when the soviet union was still the main threat. However there has been nearly 2 decades, where Europe has not released a brand new advanced afterburning turbofan, and has barely improved since then. This was the lost time that gave China the chance to catch up in advanced propulsion technology. Four decades ago, China wasn't even a competitor in this space. But now times have changed.

Grapevine sources from credible insiders have stated that the newest WS-10 variants, have comparable service lives to western counterparts. But I'm guessing you won't believe that and personally err that they are far worse than even what is reasonable. I don't deny the capabilities Rolls Royce have in engine technology, however there are sources that point to GCAP forgoing adaptive engines to save on costs, while the Chief Designer of the Chinese next generation aircraft have explicitly stated that they will integrate adaptive engines into their aircraft.

In terms of radars, from my understanding the Captor-E mk2 will be using GaN on Si technology, not SiC. With GaN on SiC radars still in the development stages. This is compared to China which has already reportedly equipped GaN on SiC radars onto their newest J-20 variants. If these reports are true, Europe is definitively behind China in RF technologies.

Lastly in terms of LO technologies, again that may be true that stealth airframes are not the hard part today. But countries who operate many stealth platforms generally have a greater ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of metamaterials and LO paints, in order to further iterate and improve of them in the future. This is a lead the USA firmly has over contemporaries, due to it's far greater and longer experience it has operating such platforms.

I'm not going to comment if the GCAP is or isn't going to be a world beater contender given the operational dates of all the aircrafts in competition for this title is far in the future, with many changing variables.

However from what it seen from open sources, Europe may be slightly ahead currently in propulsion technology, however if it won't be equipping Adaptive Engines on GCAP, this may blow Europe's lead with China in the near future. Europe is a generation behind in RF technologies, and Europe is behind in operating and designing LO platforms.

These points have generally swayed readers into believing GCAP has a lower requirement threshold than both the F-47 and Chinese aircraft programs. With costs as a concern, China and the USA have no qualms funneling money to develop the best of the best.

 

[Reuben James]

"“We understand the adaptive engine, and we have looked at that technology for the mission set this aircraft will face, and we do not believe it earns its way onto the aircraft,” Tivey explains. “You will get benefits from such an engine—an economy mode and a warfighting mode—but the trade-off between the cost and the capability is a pretty fine one, and we do not think it is justified in the mission set for GCAP.”

There's a very high possibility the GCAP won't use Adaptive Cycle engines due to the tradeoffs between cost and capabilities. So pretty much it is a cost saving measure.

So what will the GCAP bring that is new and innovative? Is BAE's fully digital cockpit still on the table?

 

[IRT]

So what will the GCAP bring that is new and innovative? Is BAE's fully digital cockpit still on the table?

Godlike level of electrical power.. reliability...
I mean.. there must be a reason VCE was not chosen for the F22 even tho the YF120 was the more powerful engine.. not for the F35, not for the F35 engine upgrade.. there has to be some cons..

 

[Reuben James]

Godlike level of electrical power.. reliability...
I mean.. there must be a reason VCE was not chosen for the F22 even tho the YF120 was the more powerful engine.. not for the F35, not for the F35 engine upgrade.. there has to be some cons..

I remember that the adaptive cycle engines were frequently mentioned as possible cuts from the NGAD programme during its review phase. The above article suggests that the money required compared to the capability received isn't worth it, so I suspect from those two pieces of information that the principle drawback to adaptive cycle engines is excessive cost.

 

[IRT]

I remember that the adaptive cycle engines were frequently mentioned as possible cuts from the NGAD programme during its review phase. The above article suggests that the money required compared to the capability received isn't worth it, so I suspect from those two pieces of information that the principle drawback to adaptive cycle engines is excessive cost.

Excessive cost/maintenance hrs..
But if i build a fighter with extreme range (cross the Atlantic on internal fuel), all the thrust it could ever need (F22 M1,5+ supercruice and SU57 1500Km supersonic range without VCE), is the lack of VCE really a big problem?

Imo the GCAP will be a BIG plane (20 ton empty and 15ton fuel or more) with 2 F135 thrust class engines.

 

[Reuben James]

Excessive cost/maintenance hrs..
But if i build a fighter with extreme range (cross the Atlantic on internal fuel), all the thrust it could ever need (F22 M1,5+ supercruice and SU57 1500Km supersonic range without VCE), is the lack of VCE really a big problem?

Imo the GCAP will be a BIG plane (20 ton empty and 15ton fuel or more) with 2 F135 thrust class engines.

Maintenance hours and requirements is a great point considering the difficulties currently being faced by the comparatively simpler F-35B force in being mission ready. The RAF will likely want Tempest to have a comparable readiness to the Typhoon, or as close to that as possible.

 

[IRT]

There has been a stagnant period of military engine technology between the late 1980's in Europe to the early 2010's. Due to the collapse of the soviet union, the drawing down of budgets, and the beginning of the peace dividend. It may sound impressive to quote possessing advanced engine technologies during a time when the soviet union was still the main threat. However there has been nearly 2 decades, where Europe has not released a brand new advanced afterburning turbofan, and has barely improved since then. This was the lost time that gave China the chance to catch up in advanced propulsion technology. Four decades ago, China wasn't even a competitor in this space. But now times have changed.

Grapevine sources from credible insiders have stated that the newest WS-10 variants, have comparable service lives to western counterparts. But I'm guessing you won't believe that and personally err that they are far worse than even what is reasonable. I don't deny the capabilities Rolls Royce have in engine technology, however there are sources that point to GCAP forgoing adaptive engines to save on costs, while the Chief Designer of the Chinese next generation aircraft have explicitly stated that they will integrate adaptive engines into their aircraft.

In terms of radars, from my understanding the Captor-E mk2 will be using GaN on Si technology, not SiC. With GaN on SiC radars still in the development stages. This is compared to China which has already reportedly equipped GaN on SiC radars onto their newest J-20 variants. If these reports are true, Europe is definitively behind China in RF technologies.

Lastly in terms of LO technologies, again that may be true that stealth airframes are not the hard part today. But countries who operate many stealth platforms generally have a greater ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of metamaterials and LO paints, in order to further iterate and improve of them in the future. This is a lead the USA firmly has over contemporaries, due to it's far greater and longer experience it has operating such platforms.

I'm not going to comment if the GCAP is or isn't going to be a world beater contender given the operational dates of all the aircrafts in competition for this title is far in the future, with many changing variables.

However from what it seen from open sources, Europe may be slightly ahead currently in propulsion technology, however if it won't be equipping Adaptive Engines on GCAP, this may blow Europe's lead with China in the near future. Europe is a generation behind in RF technologies, and Europe is behind in operating and designing LO platforms.

These points have generally swayed readers into believing GCAP has a lower requirement threshold than both the F-47 and Chinese aircraft programs. With costs as a concern, China and the USA have no qualms funneling money to develop the best of the best.

Regarding engine life no one knows.. could be that they are at the same levels as the Americans and Europeans today.

Any source regarding the Mk2 radar using Si and not SiC technology? Ive seen nothing.. im guessing its top secret..
Untill last week everyone expected the Mk1 radar to be a monkey model GaAs radar.. but turns out its also GaN based... Si or SiC tech?
What about SAAB's P/S-05 Mk5 radar? Si or SiC?
GaN based radars have been coming out of Europe for more than a decade now.. so the are way ahead of the Chinese..just not in fighter aircraft. Saab flew its GaN radar in Gripen in 2020, they send that radar to the US for testing a couple of years before that.

FCAS will be using VCE engines.. GCAP aparrently not, does not mean anything if the aircraft got all the thrust/power/range it needs anyways.

 

[EmoBirb]

I mean.. there must be a reason VCE was not chosen for the F22 even tho the YF120 was the more powerful engine.. not for the F35, not for the F35 engine upgrade.. there has to be some cons..

Cost and complexity.

Don't forget that ATF and JSF were already disgustingly expensive programs. VCE, back then, were far from genuine maturity and still needed plenty of development. And that's not changing today. You want to combine reliability, efficiency, serviceability, don't break the bank, fit it into a predetermined form factor and bring the necessary thrust and power generation to your airframe. Unifying all these goals takes time and money. But all things considered VCEs are the way forward with the big players looking heavily into the technology to fit to future aircraft.

 

[EmoBirb]

Gan radars are available for Gripen, soon to Typhoon and Rafale also.

Radar?

It took the Eurofighter and Rafale until now to get Radars that aren't antiquated or laughably undersized. These aircraft are in service for multiple decades, meanwhile the PLAAF is flying jets with large GaN AESA radars for several years.

This doesn't even touch on other things like China having built like 400 J-20s in a couple years. A number that almost reaches the Eurofighter numbers despite decades of lead and totally eclipses the Rafale. And the J-35, the second indigenous stealth fighter from the Chinese, will extent the lead further. Meanwhile Europe hasn't brought a single stealth fighter into production and is only now adopting radar technology remotely comparable.

I, someone from Europe, cannot see how anyone could claim that China hasn't completely overtaken Europe in the military aviation sector. The best Europe has to offer is comparable to the second line jets of the PLAAF (Eurofighter and Rafale compared to J-16/J-16D). China is flying next generation prototypes while GCAP is still away from a demonstrator and FCAS is being sabotaged by Dassault's Trappier.

It's not meant to be disheartening, but we shouldn't delude ourselves with fantasies where Europe is somehow still ahead of China in the military aviation business. Not even looking at the awful performance of Indian Rafales against Chinese supplied systems.

 

[IRT]

Cost and complexity.

Don't forget that ATF and JSF were already disgustingly expensive programs. VCE, back then, were far from genuine maturity and still needed plenty of development. And that's not changing today. You want to combine reliability, efficiency, serviceability, don't break the bank, fit it into a predetermined form factor and bring the necessary thrust and power generation to your airframe. Unifying all these goals takes time and money. But all things considered VCEs are the way forward with the big players looking heavily into the technology to fit to future aircraft.

VCE is a advantage.. get more range and power with less fuel.. but it wont be a problem if u got enough range and power without VCE. To got 2 nuclear reactors worth of energy back there for avionics and cooling is more important. You can fly far and fast enough without VCE.