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

Certainly is an interesting concept having a cheaper smaller fighter for the export market would mean that we could sell it to countries that would tend to think that the full up GCAP would be too expensive in the first place.
 
Ainen said:
Entire problem is IMHO GCAP big is built entirely to complement pre-2025 world, it's a complementary aircraft assuming that actually important tasks are sorted out all by themselves, and GCAP instead can look into ambitious niches which were long since half-abandoned.
Click to expand...
And your evidence for this is? Because from where I'm sitting GCAP looks like exactly what you would get if you said 'We want evolved F-35 level avionics in a stealthy platform capable of flying long-endurance air defence and strike missions over the GIUK Gap, Med, or South China Sea'.
 
DWG said:
Because from where I'm sitting GCAP looks like exactly what you would get if you said 'We want evolved F-35 level avionics in a stealthy platform capable of flying long-endurance air defence and strike missions over the GIUK Gap, Med, or South China Sea'.
Click to expand...
I do wonder however if a more optimal solution for those long-endurance missions could be achieved with a mix of CFTs, LO-shaped drop tanks (which could be dropped on the outbound leg), plus air refueling of course.

This would substantially shrink the platform size requirements and better position GCAP for the export market without the need to design a second smaller manned platform. It would of course require some tradeoffs but if anything the benefits would outweigh the costs by making GCAP more affordable in greater numbers. It would also increase performance in other roles where range isn't the primary driver such as interceptor / homeland air defense.
 
Last edited:
DWG said:
And your evidence for this is? Because from where I'm sitting GCAP looks like exactly what you would get if you said 'We want evolved F-35 level avionics in a stealthy platform capable of flying long-endurance air defence and strike missions over the GIUK Gap, Med, or South China Sea'.
Click to expand...
And this is exactly a F-35 level base capability in even larger airframe, resulting in even more costs and maintenance.
I.e. when you don't fly to worlds' end and beyond, it's just a lot of wasted wannabe J-36(minus broadband stealth, which in 2030s2020s means here's your penetration mission) airframe for not exactly richest air forces.
Which means that generating similar sortie rates as before the upgrades would be hard. Better plane isn't equal to better result and more air power. In fact, it's often the opposite.
Ironically, as GCAP proceeds, Checkate may emerge being exactly such a 80/20 counter. But yes, it won't fly to GIUK.
 
Ainen said:
And this is exactly a F-35 level base capability in even larger airframe, resulting in even more costs and maintenance.
Click to expand...
Neither costs nor maintenance scale linearly. You pay the same for your avionics whatever the size of the platform they fit in and most of the costs for the engines are similarly fixed. Maintenance wise it's even closer, same number of avionics boxes, same number of engines.

Ainen said:
I.e. when you don't fly to worlds' end and beyond,
Click to expand...
That's a pretty good definition of the GIUK Gap, and we do fly precisely there.

Ainen said:
Which means that generating similar sortie rates as before the upgrades would be hard.
Click to expand...
Your entire argument is based on a false premise.
 
H_K said:
I do wonder however if a more optimal solution for those long-endurance missions could be achieved with a mix of CFTs, LO-shaped drop tanks (which could be dropped on the outbound leg), plus air refueling of course.

This would substantially shrink the platform size requirements and better position GCAP for the export market without the need to design a second smaller manned platform. It would of course require some tradeoffs but if anything the benefits would outweigh the costs by making GCAP more affordable in greater numbers. It would also increase performance in other roles where range isn't the primary driver such as interceptor / homeland air defense.
Click to expand...
As DWG says, why not make the fuel tanks so conformal they are part of the airframe? No point designing in what has only ever been a retrofit in the past, and the extra volume surely doesn't cost all that much.
You can't do air refuelling for deep strike because so much of the travel and air time is over enemy airspace where tankers can't follow. This is a stated reason for GCAP being as big as it is, and for AWACS the same logic requires extremely powerful sensors.
For the UK (not sure about Japan or Italy) the interceptor role doesn't really exist. Because enemy aircraft have to fly a very long way to reach us early warning is easier than it was in the early Cold War; the hardest part is getting out to the enemy Bears far enough away that they can't volley cruise missiles (in war) and then following them for long periods (in peace), for which a big airframe is ideal. Supercruise would be nice but not strictly required.

Ainen said:
And this is exactly a F-35 level base capability in even larger airframe, resulting in even more costs and maintenance.
I.e. when you don't fly to worlds' end and beyond, it's just a lot of wasted wannabe J-36(minus broadband stealth, which in 2030s2020s means here's your penetration mission) airframe for not exactly richest air forces.
Which means that generating similar sortie rates as before the upgrades would be hard. Better plane isn't equal to better result and more air power. In fact, it's often the opposite.
Ironically, as GCAP proceeds, Checkate may emerge being exactly such a 80/20 counter. But yes, it won't fly to GIUK.
Click to expand...
Don't get the 'GCAP is just a big F35' take, can't really see the evidence for it apart from vertical tails which we aren't even certain the final aircraft will have. The consortium is clear that what they think will be the deciding feature is sensors, electronics and tactical flexibility and all that is currently very much 'under the hood'.
 
DWG said:
Neither costs nor maintenance scale linearly. You pay the same for your avionics whatever the size of the platform they fit in and most of the costs for the engines are similarly fixed. Maintenance wise it's even closer, same number of avionics boxes, same number of engines.
Click to expand...
In theory yes(all promotional materials tend to write how it was overcome), in practice relative numbers are almost stupidly consistent since...Korea? Larger aircraft cost more and are harder to maintain - and the larger they are, the faster numbers grow.
DWG said:
That's a pretty good definition of the GIUK Gap, and we do fly precisely there.
Click to expand...
It's very useful, but overall this is exactly spending decades of aircraft cycle on what is tertiary capability that no one needs. There's literally no flying threat over GIUK. But this will generate only this many aircraft and sorties over Baltics or Poland.
TorpedoJ said:
Don't get the 'GCAP is just a big F35' take, can't really see the evidence for it apart from vertical tails which we aren't even certain the final aircraft will have. The consortium is clear that what they think will be the deciding feature is sensors, electronics and tactical flexibility and all that is currently very much 'under the hood'.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's very broad brush take. Non-broadband large, long range fighter-bomber, aiming at 4x MTOW.
In a world, which is governed by (connectivity + sensors(especially main sensor) + weapons) packed with sufficient performance - it on philosophical level means you buy 1 aircraft for a price of more than one. And maintain "more than 1" aircraft for missions, which in 80% cases could be done with 1.

This most certainly doesn't mean i think GCAP will be literally non-ITAR F-35 put into larger airframe; there's two decades between these aircraft programs, NTP moved a whole damn lot since Y2K error times.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
in practice relative numbers are almost stupidly consistent since...Korea?
Click to expand...
You're ignoring the massive increase in engine and avionics reliability in the '80s/'90s. Remember, fault-finding used to be a guy with a probe flailing around in the dark. Now it's 'Box XYZ says Card A needs replacing'. Literally started my career working on comms for a test set.

Ainen said:
There's literally no flying threat over GIUK.
Click to expand...
So how come we keep intercepting Russian aircraft coming in that way? In wartime we'd also be dealing with covering Bastion Atlantic, dealing with the Northern Fleet and intercepting long range cruise missiles. People who claim there is no role for the RAF over the GIUK Gap are actively ignoring strategic reality.
 
DWG said:
You're ignoring the massive increase in engine and avionics reliability in the '80s/'90s. Remember, fault-finding used to be a guy with a probe flailing around in the dark. Now it's 'Box XYZ says Card A needs replacing'. Literally started my career working on comms for a test set.
Click to expand...
But it's applicable everywhere! And comes hand in hand with additional maintenance items which weren't there before.
F-35 itself is a stark case of promise v realities here, and this is a much smaller aircraft.
DWG said:
So how come we keep intercepting Russian aircraft coming in that way? In wartime we'd also be dealing with covering Bastion Atlantic, dealing with the Northern Fleet and intercepting long range cruise missiles. People who claim there is no role for the RAF over the GIUK Gap are actively ignoring strategic reality.
Click to expand...
Russian aircraft coming "over the corner" do so only in peacetime. Those that may need to do it for military purposes(MPAs) are almost extinct, and have neither any combat effectiveness nor any survivability. To my knowledge, Russia doesn't have new serious MPA even in advanced plans (I vaguely remember turboprop studies, this is a bad joke of justification for a 40+t LO fighter).

Others (actually threatening ones) do it for pure peacetime demonstration only, and the point of their demonstration is achieved only if they're seen. I.e. they'll effectively seek detection.

It's as if defense planning stuck in 1985; there's no 1985 anymore, when Soviet Northern fleet had way more long range assets than Russia has altogether.
 
Ainen said:
CCAs aren't mass, they're something else entirely.

They're simpler/more rigid missions by themselves and they're distributed aircraft (which in fact can be as big as necessary, and can be adapted easier).
And the main irony is of course CCAs as a general trend will benefit two types of air forces: either most advanced and largest ones, or more directed and GCI-integrated ones. Which isn't NATO at all, other than Sweden.

Entire problem is IMHO GCAP big is built entirely to complement pre-2025 world, it's a complementary aircraft assuming that actually important tasks are sorted out all by themselves, and GCAP instead can look into ambitious niches which were long since half-abandoned.
Without guaranteed USAF it's however just a very expensive and inefficient way to generate combat power, compared to something much lighter and simpler.

It was weird enough when many EU nations went head on into clean F-35 structures, and now encountering what it means. Now they're building in effect two smaller J-36s, but missing half the point. While not having F-35 replacement even in consideration. Tornado, run 2, but way worse.
Click to expand...

I am unaware that the US itself is going to have a one-to-one F-35 replacement, given that if anything F-47 is going to be even larger than GCAP?
 
Ainen said:
TLDR:
GCAP is a big, complex plane.
Big complex planes cost more and fly less.
it's badly timed when topic of the day is F-35 keygen music, and CCAs aren't a magic answer.
Click to expand...
It has been reported that Japan has proposed a combat radius of 2,200 km as a condition for the RFI regarding the development of next-generation fighter aircraft.
The GCAP is expected to have a similar range.
 
It's not clear (to me at least) that a smaller GCAP would be significantly cheaper to develop, acquire or support. Or be significantly more reliable.

I guess if FCAS actually happens, we'll have a better idea.
 
Ainen said:
But it's applicable everywhere!
Click to expand...
Not during the Korean War, which was your original claim. Test sets revolutionised maintenance in the late 80s/90s.

Ainen said:
Russian aircraft coming "over the corner" do so only in peacetime.
Click to expand...
So the Russians will choose to fly over the Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian air defences to get to the UK in wartime? Right.

Ainen said:
It's as if defense planning stuck in 1985; there's no 1985 anymore, when Soviet Northern fleet had way more long range assets than Russia has altogether.
Click to expand...
We're not planning for 1985, we're not even necessarily planning for 2035, but for what might be the situation in 2055, with a resurgent Russia operating PAK-DA out of the airfields in the Murmansk region.
 
It would be good if the EU buys (minus France as they will focus FCAS without Germany I reckon, as they did in past ie rafael)

"2-Engines (Large) GCAP" for long range mission ie Air-Patrol, Air Domination, Strike, many more roles. (1750 miles)
(equal partner) UK + Italy + Japan

"1-Engine (Small) GCAP" for ((optional: trainer (twin seater) for future training with GCAP large or support Large GCAP)) and short-range mission ie interceptor, Close Support, many more roles (900-1100 miles Range), also can be converted to large CCA for Pair Large GCAP. (also modified option for STOBAR Carrier to replace F35B in the future)
(lead) Sweden + (large partner) Germany + (Small Partner; Canada (half Gripen E with RR/EJ and Half Small GCAP fleet)? Australia? any else ie maybe S.A.?)

All have common Same - Radar, Engine, EW, Power Generation and many others equipment will help out for for GCAP (group) to help effective and easy replacement if needed in partner EU national.

it is would help stop relying on the USA and be better for the EU.

It would be good for the UK if they go for 200 (large) GCAP for replacing Typhoon (would be 250 as the original Uk go for Typhoon then down to 105-130 for operator aircraft we need to get it back to the number we need also better balance for 2x strike Team and 4x QRA Team, 2x Stand By Team and 3x rotation Team);
((excuse me; my own dream team)) 50 (Small GCAP) for replace Hawk (Trainer - IFT version) so smooth translate to Large GCAP also can operate it as emergency backup to GCAP and Close Support Mission - maybe more if CCA (Drone) support to GCAP as long range and fast?
 
djpowell1984 said:
"1-Engine (Small) GCAP" for ((optional: trainer (twin seater) for future training with GCAP large or support Large GCAP)) and short-range mission ie interceptor, Close Support, many more roles (900-1100 miles Range), also can be converted to large CCA for Pair Large GCAP. (also modified option for STOBAR Carrier to replace F35B in the future)
(lead) Sweden + (large partner) Germany + (Small Partner; Canada (half Gripen E with RR/EJ and Half Small GCAP fleet)? Australia? any else ie maybe S.A.?)
Click to expand...
Won't work as Germany doesn't want to be a junior partner to anyone.

Having massively increased their defense spending, the German political & industrial elite believe they deserve to call the shots. Never mind that most of these billions are to catch up with other countries and fix years of underinvestment, that their key industrial players have glaring skill gaps, and that they have only exported 15 fighters in the last 8 decades (in a corrupt deal to Austria). If they aren't ready to listen to Dassault they aren't about to take orders from Saab.

P.S. It's worth recalling last week's statement by the German aerospace industry association and largest trade union, which mark a true sea change in German assertiveness:
For Germany, this path of two aircraft represents a new opportunity. Our broad industrial backbone, comprised of large manufacturers as well as small and medium-sized enterprises, possesses many years of extensive expertise in aircraft construction. Combined with a robust federal budget, we are in a position to invest confidently and thus pursue bold industrial policy paths: We will no longer join multinational projects, but will instead establish our own program and then seek partners who wish to participate. Taking responsibility for Europe's security also means leading from a position of industrial strength.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
djpowell1984 said:
It would be good if the EU buys (minus France as they will focus FCAS without Germany I reckon, as they did in past ie rafael)

"2-Engines (Large) GCAP" for long range mission ie Air-Patrol, Air Domination, Strike, many more roles. (1750 miles)
(equal partner) UK + Italy + Japan

"1-Engine (Small) GCAP" for ((optional: trainer (twin seater) for future training with GCAP large or support Large GCAP)) and short-range mission ie interceptor, Close Support, many more roles (900-1100 miles Range), also can be converted to large CCA for Pair Large GCAP. (also modified option for STOBAR Carrier to replace F35B in the future)
(lead) Sweden + (large partner) Germany + (Small Partner; Canada (half Gripen E with RR/EJ and Half Small GCAP fleet)? Australia? any else ie maybe S.A.?)

All have common Same - Radar, Engine, EW, Power Generation and many others equipment will help out for for GCAP (group) to help effective and easy replacement if needed in partner EU national.

it is would help stop relying on the USA and be better for the EU.

It would be good for the UK if they go for 200 (large) GCAP for replacing Typhoon (would be 250 as the original Uk go for Typhoon then down to 105-130 for operator aircraft we need to get it back to the number we need also better balance for 2x strike Team and 4x QRA Team, 2x Stand By Team and 3x rotation Team);
((excuse me; my own dream team)) 50 (Small GCAP) for replace Hawk (Trainer - IFT version) so smooth translate to Large GCAP also can operate it as emergency backup to GCAP and Close Support Mission - maybe more if CCA (Drone) support to GCAP as long range and fast?
Click to expand...
What could be interesting is if the RAF get a variant of their new jet trainer that could carry ASRAAM and perhaps our stock of AMRAAM for air policing or drone blatting, perhaps to also act as the lead-in trainer aircraft. I think all of the options can handle it; M346 has combat variants, T-7 is apparently flexible for combat upgrades, Hurjet apparently has a light combat variant and Aeralis has also been revealed to be considering an armed version.

It would increase the cost of that particular programme, but add mass for emergencies.
 
TorpedoJ said:
What could be interesting is if the RAF get a variant of their new jet trainer that could carry ASRAAM and perhaps our stock of AMRAAM for air policing or drone blatting, perhaps to also act as the lead-in trainer aircraft. I think all of the options can handle it; M346 has combat variants, T-7 is apparently flexible for combat upgrades, Hurjet apparently has a light combat variant and Aeralis has also been revealed to be considering an armed version.

It would increase the cost of that particular programme, but add mass for emergencies.
Click to expand...
The RAF tried this with the Hawk T1A for airfield defence in the Cold War. As far as I'm aware, there's never been a desire to return to that setup.
 
Ron5 said:
It's not clear (to me at least) that a smaller GCAP would be significantly cheaper to develop, acquire or support. Or be significantly more reliable.

I guess if FCAS actually happens, we'll have a better idea.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that there's a significant difference in cost between developing F-22 and B-2 (to grab two very different sized planes). Yes, the individual prototypes are a lot more expensive for a huge plane. But IIRC the prototypes don't make up a large part of the development costs.

Flyaway costs (excluding development) do scale with size, but IIRC it's a linear relationship. 10% heavier plane costs ~10% more. However, size of fleet does reduce flyaway costs, and less expensive flyaway costs means bigger fleets for the same total cost. Which drives the cost difference for a lighter plane a little wider.

Cost-to-support depends on just how big a % of the total sustainment costs are fuel and other consumables. Because all the systems still need their maintenance, and the only way to greatly reduce that is to reduce total systems. One engine instead of two, for example.



djpowell1984 said:
It would be good if the EU buys (minus France as they will focus FCAS without Germany I reckon, as they did in past ie rafael)

"2-Engines (Large) GCAP" for long range mission ie Air-Patrol, Air Domination, Strike, many more roles. (1750 miles)
(equal partner) UK + Italy + Japan

"1-Engine (Small) GCAP" for ((optional: trainer (twin seater) for future training with GCAP large or support Large GCAP)) and short-range mission ie interceptor, Close Support, many more roles (900-1100 miles Range), also can be converted to large CCA for Pair Large GCAP. (also modified option for STOBAR Carrier to replace F35B in the future)
(lead) Sweden + (large partner) Germany + (Small Partner; Canada (half Gripen E with RR/EJ and Half Small GCAP fleet)? Australia? any else ie maybe S.A.?)

All have common Same - Radar, Engine, EW, Power Generation and many others equipment will help out for for GCAP (group) to help effective and easy replacement if needed in partner EU national.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that a "Small GCAP" would really be all that small. Not if you are trying to pack a pair of 2000lb weapons internally. Or whatever air-to-ground missiles we're assuming.

"AAM-sized" bays are able to hold 1000lb weapons, however, which helps.

If we're assuming a warload something like the F-35 ("2x2000 + 2x MRAAM" or "6x MRAAM"), I don't think that we'd be looking at an airframe much smaller than the F-35. Frankly, I suspect that we'd be looking at an airframe a little larger physically. Or at least longer. But still ~30,000lbs empty, stealthy mission weight about 55k, and likely 70k MTOW in beast mode.



djpowell1984 said:
it is would help stop relying on the USA and be better for the EU.
Click to expand...
And that would be good. National defense should be something that is built in-house.



djpowell1984 said:
It would be good for the UK if they go for 200 (large) GCAP for replacing Typhoon (would be 250 as the original Uk go for Typhoon then down to 105-130 for operator aircraft we need to get it back to the number we need also better balance for 2x strike Team and 4x QRA Team, 2x Stand By Team and 3x rotation Team);
((excuse me; my own dream team)) 50 (Small GCAP) for replace Hawk (Trainer - IFT version) so smooth translate to Large GCAP also can operate it as emergency backup to GCAP and Close Support Mission - maybe more if CCA (Drone) support to GCAP as long range and fast?
Click to expand...
Disagree with the Small GCAP buy as trainers. Install GCAP systems into whatever trainer is selected.
 
Ainen said:
TLDR:
GCAP is a big, complex plane.
Big complex planes cost more and fly less.
it's badly timed when topic of the day is F-35 keygen music, and CCAs aren't a magic answer.
Click to expand...

Scott Kenny said:
Flyaway costs (excluding development) do scale with size, but IIRC it's a linear relationship. 10% heavier plane costs ~10% more.
Click to expand...

I think you may have a problem in proving that claim.
 
raptor82 said:
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DUoBFG6jYl6


View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DUn_S-fDB6p
Click to expand...
Looks like it’s wearing a pair of giant headphones there.
Reuben James said:
Shame, the current render is pretty.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing they haven’t settled on a completely finalised design, plus I imagine that it will be classified even when they do.
 
Rolls Royce making some public moves on getting the ear of Germany.

The bigger problem is still, what would Germany be within GCAP. I can't see anything other than MRO/FACO right now, some smaller modules, maybe source code for own integration of weapons and electronics.

Certainly they wont have a veto or change the design at this point.

www.theguardian.com

Rolls-Royce boss ‘open’ to Germany joining UK’s fighter jet project

Tufan Erginbilgiç says decision is for the government but German participation remains a possibility
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
vikmto999 said:
Rolls Royce making some public moves on getting the ear of Germany.

The bigger problem is still, what would Germany be within GCAP. I can't see anything other than MRO/FACO right now, some smaller modules, maybe source code for own integration of weapons and electronics.

Certainly they wont have a veto or change the design at this point.

www.theguardian.com

Rolls-Royce boss ‘open’ to Germany joining UK’s fighter jet project

Tufan Erginbilgiç says decision is for the government but German participation remains a possibility
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Building in mass a stealth aircraft is not a trivial exercise. Germany would probably bring the power of its manufacturing industry that has already made a coup launching in no time what seems to be a sensibly upped center fuselage production line for the F-35.
 
Please, stay on the technical side of this program !
 
Getting reported all over...surprised the talks are specifically with Italy and Japan though...weird that they've not engaged the UK....

Whatever is going on though.....they're not going to be involved in design or requirements...that ship has long sailed. A Tier 2 partnership with local production and ability to locally customise is the best they can hope for...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2034392065325277219
View: https://x.com/ArkadiuszMolis1/status/2034392065325277219


It's also being reported elsewhere that the Indians and Saudi's are stepping up their interest....personally would have thought the Indian's would rather try and join SCAF with France if Germany and Spain bail...but what would that do to AMCA and TEDBF? Make them more realistic?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom