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

WatcherZero said:
I think Italy has upped the share of industrial participation they want from 20% (with UK and Japan 40%) to 33%, which naturally requires a commensurate increase in financial contribution as well.
Click to expand...
So about 60bn EUR for development before anyone gets any aircraft. Maybe? So lower cost than F-35 development, but still a lot of money.
 
red admiral said:
So about 60bn EUR for development before anyone gets any aircraft. Maybe? So lower cost than F-35 development, but still a lot of money.
Click to expand...
With inflation adjust F-35 to Blk 3F was about 55 billion including engine and then add another 16 billion for Blk 4. That is probably pretty close to the same although are the GCAP figures inflation adjusted?
 
Ozair said:
With inflation adjust F-35 to Blk 3F was about 55 billion including engine and then add another 16 billion for Blk 4. That is probably pretty close to the same although are the GCAP figures inflation adjusted?
Click to expand...
Yeah I was doing the comparison in 2026 e.c. taking GAO numbers inflating to 2026 and then converting to Euros. It won't be exact but there's a good 25-30% difference.

But this isn't a great comparison given the limited data. We'll know better in future.
 
Quite right red admiral, we probably won't even know the full figures until long after the GCAP/Tempest enters full service and that is a long way a way.
 
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOGR2206B0S6A120C2000000/Title: “Delays in public–private contracts for the next-generation fighter jet of Japan, the UK, and Italy — Britain miscalculates amid dramatic changes in Europe’s security environment.”


What is London doing? Anyone familiar with UK defense spending, please explain the current situation.
 
takacosta said:
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOGR2206B0S6A120C2000000/Title: “Delays in public–private contracts for the next-generation fighter jet of Japan, the UK, and Italy — Britain miscalculates amid dramatic changes in Europe’s security environment.”


What is London doing? Anyone familiar with UK defense spending, please explain the current situation.
Click to expand...
Might be the delayed DIP, that was supposed to come out before the end of 2025 but has been delayed to no earlier than March.

There's been a lot of reporting that the UK governments defence spending isn't sufficient to meet the reality that it finds itself in, and questions are now coming up on whether all of the objectives of the SDR 2025 can be met on the budget it's been given.

It's not exclusively about GCAP but it's affecting all UK defense procurement.

Unite warns defence job losses amid investment plan delay
 
Thanks to 'recent events' there is yet another delay as the full implications start being evaluated and options developed.

I suspect GCAP is safe, unless it is offered up on the alter of certain ideological positions so entrenched into the political/media and civil service.

But there is enormous scope to further Anglo-Japanese cooperation.
 
zen said:
Thanks to 'recent events' there is yet another delay as the full implications start being evaluated and options developed.

I suspect GCAP is safe, unless it is offered up on the alter of certain ideological positions so entrenched into the political/media and civil service.

But there is enormous scope to further Anglo-Japanese cooperation.
Click to expand...
This could also be one opertunitys for a new partner to join and take on cost.....
 
The article said 8.8 billion euros to be paid out until 2037, with remaining 7.8 billion to be decided upon in the future. Thwt might suggest the total sum pays not just for development but also for production. As its unlikely development would last past 2037.
 
Ron5 said:
I suggest the UK cancels the F-35A acquisition for a nuclear role, to free up money for GCAP. After all, the F-35A's were just a sop to cozy up to Donnie and that didn't work out at all well.
Click to expand...
haven't those already been delivered?
 
Ron5 said:
I suggest the UK cancels the F-35A acquisition for a nuclear role, to free up money for GCAP. After all, the F-35A's were just a sop to cozy up to Donnie and that didn't work out at all well.
Click to expand...
If we had F-35Cs instead of Bs I'd agree but I see the F-35A as a way to plug the inadequacies of the B until GCAP arrives, which will probably take 10-15 years.

If the plan is only to use them for a nuclear role however, then that is a complete waste of time, because it effectively makes them very expensive ornaments.
 
I think so too Forest Green, if they bought the F-35As purely for the nuclear strike role using the B-61-12 then that would be a mistake, in my view they should buy more than twelve perhaps as many as twenty four and use them in the joint nuclear and conventional role.
 
Forest Green said:
If the plan is only to use them for a nuclear role however, then that is a complete waste of time, because it effectively makes them very expensive ornaments.
Click to expand...
As explained by the RAF, the As are for training which saves a lot of money over using Bs for this. The NATO nuclear mission is a side mission. They're not going to be sat on nuclear alert all their lives.

Not buying As for this means spending more money buying more Bs, or using existing Bs and having fewer operational Bs.
 
red admiral said:
As explained by the RAF, the As are for training which saves a lot of money over using Bs for this. The NATO nuclear mission is a side mission. They're not going to be sat on nuclear alert all their lives.

Not buying As for this means spending more money buying more Bs, or using existing Bs and having fewer operational Bs.
Click to expand...
If the opertational costs of the B are higher, making it cheaper to use As for training, surely this same argument is applicable to conventional missions from land too? Additionally, using As would probably save money on tanker flying hours too.
 
Forest Green said:
If the opertational costs of the B are higher, making it cheaper to use As for training, surely this same argument is applicable to conventional missions from land too? Additionally, using As would probably save money on tanker flying hours too.
Click to expand...
Those points are all true, and initial acquisition cost is another saving. But as @zen notes then you can't fly them from the carrier. Not really a problem when the 3 squadrons of Bs already generate the required 24 aircraft for the carrier.
 
Forest Green said:
If the opertational costs of the B are higher, making it cheaper to use As for training, surely this same argument is applicable to conventional missions from land too? Additionally, using As would probably save money on tanker flying hours too.
Click to expand...

Thats the argument the RAF would love to make...

It would save lots of money in tanker flying hours though.....because we couldn't refuel the F-35A....no booms on UK A330
 
red admiral said:
As explained by the RAF, the As are for training which saves a lot of money over using Bs for this. The NATO nuclear mission is a side mission. They're not going to be sat on nuclear alert all their lives.

Not buying As for this means spending more money buying more Bs, or using existing Bs and having fewer operational Bs.
Click to expand...

Personally I'm not convinced that having a separate fleet of 12 A's, along with a fleet of 62 F-35B's would, after the additional support costs, disparate fleet etc, save any money at all in the long term....particularly when you factor in having to purchase, maintain and support US weapons to equip the F-35A fleet (we're not going to qualify Asraam or PWIV on F-35A for a fleet of 12 aircraft). I'd love to see the RAF's figures that they've hoodwinked Ministers with.....

The ONLY way an F-35A purchase of 12 a/c makes even the most marginal sense (along with everything else) is if it was part of a cunning UK MoD plot to get UK weapons integrated on F-35A to increase their sales....(Meteor appears to be going on F-35A regardless, but PWIV, Spear variants and Asraam are not unless someone shells out...and there are countries, Italy for example, who would be interested in some of those).

Even the nuclear mission makes zero sense now....the F-35A won't arrive and be operational until 2033/34 at the earliest. And thats just flying for training...NOT the nuclear mission. Training and establishment for a nuclear mission is not a simple process...and at the end of it we'd still be dropping US owned and controlled, freefall B-61/12....a choice that looks more moronic and unrealistic by the day...

If we really wanted (and I'm not convinced the present government actually does) a tactical nuclear capability we could, in terms of the timeline, actually put an Astraea warhead in a freefall casing, or better still a missile, and deploy on a far more capable and longer ranged, Sovereign platform in the form of GCAP in a not too dissimilar timeline....
 
STOL capability detailed for BAE's class 2 ACP (diamond wing).
Given no other class 2 ACP has advertised STOL capability (that I've seen) + it's BAE, it would seem a front runner for the Royal Navy's Project Vanquish. This concept is pictured in the RAFs ACP strategy doc (March 24). Points towards unified class 2 platform across both services.

Typhoon pairing with ACPs -> stepping stone to GCAP pairing with ACPs. Specifically in context of the future upgrades to Typhoon (part of the fleet) - project Medulla ("mission computers, sensors and displays"), ECRS Mk 2 radar, wide area display, striker 2 helmet.

BAE FalconWorks Product Portfolio Overview 2025, on their class 2 ACP -

G_TOAWgX0AAGfMy.jpg


See linked post below for further detail on this in the BAE UAS thread & likely more relevant place for extended further discussion, if people are interested.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/bae-uas-concepts-2022.39715/post-874306
 
Last edited:
The UK have been working on stealth technology since the early 1990s with the FOAS and I am sure that in the early days of the CGAP the UK will be treating the stealth tech as the crown jewels initially, but I am sure that eventually the UK will give Italy all the details that they need when it comes to maintaining their GCAP/Tempest's when they finally enter service.
 
vikmto999 said:
Italian defence minister not happy about the UK withholding some of the IP back. I presume some of this doesn't need to be given the way Italy would like, but more to Edgewing's proscribed way to make sure "crown Jewel" IP remains locked in a black box.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...to-slams-british-secrecy-on-gcap-fighter-jet/
Click to expand...
According to the article, Japan is said to be largely willing to disclose technology, while the UK is described as being reluctant to share stealth-related technology. Given that Japan has already flown an actual stealth aircraft in the form of the X-2 technology demonstrator, if Japan is indeed open about sharing its stealth technologies, doesn’t that make it rather meaningless for the UK to try to keep its own technology black-boxed? Or is British-developed stealth technology considered to be of such high value, at least from a UK perspective?
 
takacosta said:
Given that Japan has already flown an actual stealth aircraft in the form of the X-2 technology demonstrator, if Japan is indeed open about sharing its stealth technologies, doesn’t that make it rather meaningless for the UK to try to keep its own technology black-boxed? Or is British-developed stealth technology considered to be of such high value, at least from a UK perspective?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider X-2 to be particularly stealthy.

The UK IMHO has a clear edge over Japan & Italy, given its participation in the F-35 program, Taranis etc. This includes some very specific areas of stealth expertise such as exhaust nozzles, fluidic controls etc.
 
H_K said:
I wouldn't consider X-2 to be particularly stealthy.

The UK IMHO has a clear edge over Japan & Italy, given its participation in the F-35 program, Taranis etc. This includes some very specific areas of stealth expertise such as exhaust nozzles, fluidic controls etc.
Click to expand...
The silicon carbide fiber used as RAM in the F-35 is 100% made in Japan, and it was the American company BAE.inc, not the British company BAE, that was involved in the development of the F-35.
The British company BAE is not permitted by the US government to access any information other than the financial documents of the American company BAE.inc.
This was made clear by the president of BAE in a lecture in the US（2006.Washington Economic Club）.
I don't think it's easy to say which technology is superior.
 
Not a clue what this is about.
We're flooded with Chinese spies just like Italy anyway!

And as we all know there is another country that has it's agents embedded throughout the British State......

Unless there's some unrelated reason the UK is holding back until it gets certain commitments in those unrelated areas.

Essentially GCAP means a deep relationship with the UK, and if the partners think that this can stand in isolation......
 
"Italy has completely dismantled the walls of egoism, and Japan has nearly done the same"—this quote is from April 2025.
https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...haring-technology-fighter-project-2025-04-15/Even back in March 2024, Italy had criticized the UK's secrecy. Furthermore, during the officials' meeting in December 2023, Italy communicated its specific contributions and the importance of requirements definition to Japan. It appears that Japan and Italy reached a mutual understanding on these points.
 
momosir said:
The British company BAE is not permitted by the US government to access any information other than the financial documents of the American company BAE.inc.
Click to expand...

Not correct.

Bae in the UK was a major contributor to F-35 STOVL development using its extensive expertise from Harrier and follow on programs and to date has manufactured all F-35 rear fuselages.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom