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

VTOLicious said:
...The aircraft that does eventually
enter service in 2035 may look
nothing at all like the model displayed
at Farnborough, or illustrated in
dozens of GCI artworks and videos.
Aerospace Innovations - Q2 May 2026
View attachment 813842
Click to expand...
It will look like an F-47 ;)

My money is on Japan pulling out and ordering F-47 before Trumps current term. The UK will not be able to afford this program.

Boeing will leverage their commercial relationships with Mitsubishi, Kawasaki and Fuji heavy industries that make 787 components. A huge volume of F-47 structural components and bulkheads could be outsourced to Japan without giving up US trade secrets.
 
insidersource said:
It will look like an F-47 ;)

My money is on Japan pulling out and ordering F-47 before Trumps current term. The UK will not be able to afford this program.

Boeing will leverage their commercial relationships with Mitsubishi, Kawasaki and Fuji heavy industries that make 787 components. A huge volume of F-47 structural components and bulkheads could be outsourced to Japan without giving up US trade secrets.
Click to expand...
And that is why Japan should avoid the F-47. If possible. USA doesn't like partnerships that involve sharing equally. Japan already complains that BAE doesn'tshare equally. F-47 would push Japan back to being a U.S. client.
 
Last edited:
DJK said:
And that is why Japan should avoid the F-47. If possible. USA doesn't like pattnerships that involve sharing equally. Japan already complains that BAE doesn'tshare equally. F-47 would push Japan back to being a U.S. client.
Click to expand...
I have never heard any reports in the Japanese media suggesting that Japan is dissatisfied with BAE's division of labor.
 
I'm not convinced German money and industry is actually worth the hassle and increased risk.

AUKUS, The Deterrent and GCAP represent the retention of core competences and capabilities. To which naval policy cannot be ignored.

Army has so fouled their nest so thoroughly, I cannot see how or why they should be allowed anything more. Why Ajax continues is beyond me.

Admiralty has already sacrificed enormous amounts throughout the 2000's and 2010's and despite being the punching bag for other services, they still remain critical to domestic defence.
Type 26 and Type 31 seem very sound programs, well justified and any woes in submarines trace to political interference and the Treasury itself.

RAF, despite their adoption of utterly ruinous behaviour in recruitment, have shown greater responsibility than the Army. GCAP is well justified in military and industrial cases.

So no, I don't see the UK giving up GCAP unless the coming financial crisis eats into the very core of defence policy.
If so I'd expect an major swing to missiles on a industrial scale. Not the joining of a German or American aircraft program.
 
momosir said:
I have never heard any reports in the Japanese media suggesting that Japan is dissatisfied with BAE's division of labor.
Click to expand...
It wasn't division of labour. Was something about not sharing information. Could have been just another media story...
 
Staying away from the politics, I think this is essentially irrelevant to GCAP, which will be funded, it's the rest of the funding black hole where the shortfall will find a home unless addressed.
 
DWG said:
Staying away from the politics, I think this is essentially irrelevant to GCAP, which will be funded, it's the rest of the funding black hole where the shortfall will find a home unless addressed.
Click to expand...
Its starting to look like politcs is becoming make or break for GCAP. If Little Britain can't realign its budget priorities, they might need to propose eliminating the nuclear force unless Europe shares the cost. It might involve losing sovereignty but thats the price.
 
DJK said:
Its starting to look like politcs is becoming make or break for GCAP. If Little Britain can't realign its budget priorities, they might need to propose eliminating the nuclear force unless Europe shares the cost. It might involve losing sovereignty but thats the price.
Click to expand...
The problem isn't "make or break". Fighter development is not one Bold Decision.
The risk for GCAP isn't now even(UK will find money I'm sure), it's that when government is in such dire straits, it'll take these money back over next decade.
Worst case scenario - TSR. Waste a lot of time, money, and then be forced to drop out regardless.
 
Topic is unlocked for news on GCAP and TECHNICAL ANALYSIS.
That doesn't include discussions on UK tax policy, economics, or politicians resigning for example.

I will be implementing topic reply bans for anyone unable to follow these guidelines.
 
There is speculation thread for GCAP. Perhaps it could be put to better use to keep this thread less cluttered with tangents.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...programme-gcap-speculation-discussions.45494/

Is there a way to pin or sign post it at the top of the page in this thread? If not (& otherwise) suggest people point others towards this when veering of the main thread of news & technical analysis.
 
DJK said:
And that is why Japan should avoid the F-47. If possible. USA doesn't like partnerships that involve sharing equally. Japan already complains that BAE doesn'tshare equally. F-47 would push Japan back to being a U.S. client.
Click to expand...
Especially as Trump to paraphrase him when the F-47 was revealed stated others buying the F-47 should expect to buy a downgraded version. So there’s no way on earth Japan would put up with that I would think.
 
Flyaway said:
Especially as Trump to paraphrase him when the F-47 was revealed stated others buying the F-47 should expect to buy a downgraded version. So there’s no way on earth Japan would put up with that I would think.
Click to expand...
If it substantially exceeds competitors on cost, performance, maintainability, etc, I would expect Japan to purchase the best aircraft available to them. Will it? Beats me, probably not on cost. But it's a lot more likely to show up on time, or at all. I don't think any of us have enough data to project where Japan goes from here, if for no other reason than the data isn't just privileged, it simply does not yet exist. Best we can say is they are likely considering their options...
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Topic is unlocked for news on GCAP and TECHNICAL ANALYSIS.
That doesn't include discussions on UK tax policy, economics, or politicians resigning for example.

I will be implementing topic reply bans for anyone unable to follow these guidelines.
Click to expand...
It is really hard to discuss news on GCAP without touching politics. Particularly including the economic issues with the UK DIP.
 
GreenBullet said:
If it substantially exceeds competitors on cost, performance, maintainability, etc, I would expect Japan to purchase the best aircraft available to them. Will it? Beats me, probably not on cost. But it's a lot more likely to show up on time, or at all. I don't think any of us have enough data to project where Japan goes from here, if for no other reason than the data isn't just privileged, it simply does not yet exist. Best we can say is they are likely considering their options...
Click to expand...
I'm honestly not convinced that the F-47 is what Japan wants.

The GCAP appears to have a much longer range than the F-47.
 
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOGR132Y00T10C26A6000000/
The British government announced on the 13th that public-private contracts with Japan and Italy for the development of next-generation fighter jets "will be signed by the end of this month."
In addition, it was announced that Japan will invest 3.9 trillion yen（£18.15 billion） in the UK.（It's not about GCAP, but rather real estate and power generation.）

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...onomy-as-prime-minister-meets-japanese-leader
 
datafuser said:
Bill Sweetman thinks the GCAP is not designed to supercruise.

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/gcap-analysed-not-a-traditional-fighter/


Against IRST, you don’t want to be hot, and supercruise not only makes you hot but makes your IR signature unique. It requires either a compromised engine – the F-22 engine is the former, with higher than desirable fuel burn at subsonic speed – or an expensive and complex adaptive engine. "
Click to expand...

That's real 1970s technology thinking.

Every airframe is IR-'hot' against the background sky which is -60 Celsius at 40kft. Adding a bit more glow on the leading edges from supercruising isn't going to significantly increase detectability or recognition against modern imaging IR sensors.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm honestly not convinced that the F-47 is what Japan wants.

The GCAP appears to have a much longer range than the F-47.
Click to expand...
Japan needs long(er) range, but it is not a deal breaking requirement.
I.e. range is nice, but Japan is perfectly in range of current Chinese fighter aircraft, even without J-36.
What's the point if the procured fighter is going to be directly outfought.
Kiltonge said:
That's real 1970s technology thinking.

Every airframe is IR-'hot' against the background sky which is -60 Celsius at 40kft. Adding a bit more glow on the leading edges from supercruising isn't going to significantly increase detectability or recognition against modern imaging IR sensors.
Click to expand...
SNR is a thing no matter how good your processing is. Supersonic aircraft is a far more distinctive signature, with qualifying indicators visible from much further away.
I.e. yes, it's still a lot of range difference. UK reasoning (and they have arguably* most experience with LWIR IRST in the world) here is solid.

It's true that modern processing did a lot to reduce false positives (which do plague IR band), but this is ultimately conditional.

*China is currently by far the largest LWIR enthusiast around, but I guess time counts for something.
 
Last edited:
momosir said:
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOGR132Y00T10C26A6000000/
The British government announced on the 13th that public-private contracts with Japan and Italy for the development of next-generation fighter jets "will be signed by the end of this month."
In addition, it was announced that Japan will invest 3.9 trillion yen（£18.15 billion） in the UK.（It's not about GCAP, but rather real estate and power generation.）

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...onomy-as-prime-minister-meets-japanese-leader
Click to expand...
A very strategic move.
I would say this makes Anglo-Japanese collaboration a long term policy of the Japanese Government.

All sorts of consequences flow from that and GCAP is just one aspect.
 
Kiltonge said:
Every airframe is IR-'hot' against the background sky which is -60 Celsius at 40kft. Adding a bit more glow on the leading edges from supercruising isn't going to significantly increase detectability or recognition against modern imaging IR sensors.
Click to expand...
Airframe heating varies with speed to the power 2. IR signature varies with temperature to the power 4. There is a very large impact.

e.g. Mach 0.9 -> 1.5 = c. 2.75x hotter (in places), so IR signature increases c. 50x

Reality is obviously more complex than the above
 
Big_Zukini said:
That's still a pretty weak argument for why not to supercruise.
Click to expand...
Supercruise is a lot of cost and wrong engine/airframe optimization for something that won't deliver decisive combat advantage.
Especially when the already available Eurofighter does anyway, covering large part of the requirement.
 
Ainen said:
Supercruise is a lot of cost and wrong engine/airframe optimization for something that won't deliver decisive combat advantage.
Click to expand...

Even a meagre M1.2 supercruise imparts 75% more launch energy to a missile than M0.9 - pretty major advantage.
 
Kiltonge said:
Even a meagre M1.2 supercruise imparts 75% more launch energy to a missile than M0.9 - pretty major advantage.
Click to expand...
Sure.. but u can also use AB to reach that speed for a launch.. when ppl talk about Supercruice it seems like the plane can fly an entire 2hr mission at mach 1.5.. thats not the case.
 
Kota said:
As people pointed out already, Germany had a perfect entry point into GCAP by offering to take off some of the UKs workshare in exchange for covering some of the bill, but they've basically shot themselves in the foot by having their industry demands being so absurdly unrealistic that it will never be considered. It's not even like they are asking for a leadership role in a single subsystem like the CCA and taking a lesser role in the rest. NO, they want a leadership role in literally every single aspect of GCAP. And for what?
Click to expand...

Congratulations to Germany for their acquisition of the F/A-47B.
 
GreenBullet said:
If it substantially exceeds competitors on cost, performance, maintainability, etc, I would expect Japan to purchase the best aircraft available to them. Will it? Beats me, probably not on cost. But it's a lot more likely to show up on time, or at all. I don't think any of us have enough data to project where Japan goes from here, if for no other reason than the data isn't just privileged, it simply does not yet exist. Best we can say is they are likely considering their options...
Click to expand...
LOL you really think a Boeing project, considering their recent track record, will be on time let alone on budget then you have a heck of a lot more faith in them than I have.
 
Flyaway said:
LOL you really think a Boeing project, considering their recent track record, will be on time let alone on budget then you have a heck of a lot more faith in them than I have.
Click to expand...
Yes because somehow an aircraft that hasnt yet flown a demonstrator yet is suppose to arrive faster than one well into the EMD phase.

Wild.
 
Flyaway said:
LOL you really think a Boeing project, considering their recent track record, will be on time let alone on budget then you have a heck of a lot more faith in them than I have.
Click to expand...

I think Boeing is not a monolithic organization, and within it there are highly variable levels of competency and effectiveness in various teams. I also think it depends on how the program is integrated on the Air Force side and who is cracking the whip. The involvement of RCO is one factor.

On the other hand, I would not bet my life savings on any aerospace defense project. Especially a high-end air superiority fighter.
 
Kiltonge said:
Even a meagre M1.2 supercruise imparts 75% more launch energy to a missile than M0.9 - pretty major advantage.
Click to expand...
How much range advantage does that give to a missile?

Modern weapons with much greater kinematic performance are a lot less sensitive to launch speed than older weapons like Sparrow or early AMRAAM
 
timmymagic said:
The GCAP team have previously stated that it will have Supercruise capability...
Click to expand...
tico said:
https://m.cafe.daum.net/NTDS/515G/4865

I came across a post on a Korean site regarding a GCAP webinar. It claims the GCAP engine's thrust is actually under 30,000 pounds? Is this meeting even legit?

The translated content:
At yesterday's Aviationweek webinar, Tony Osborne said that GCAP's combat action radius is 900+ NM and its size is almost that of an F-111, so it could be large enough that it won't fit in the RAF's existing hardened shelters. Guy Norris says that the engine thrust for GCAP will be 25,000~30,000 pounds (it's not a variable cycle engine that changes the bypass ratio).

The Future Combat Air Demonstrator, set to fly in 2027, will reportedly fire an air-to-air missile from its weapon bay, something the UK has never done before.

When asked about the GCAP's payload for a 900+ NM round trip, the response was deferred, and the answer session ended.
Click to expand...
tico said:
Approaching the size of an F-111, yet with thrust under 60,000 pounds, is GCAP capable of supercruise?
Click to expand...

The content about engine thrust in a recent webinar shows that it seems difficult to support supercruise, which contradicts the news from last year. I heard before that they would adopt engines of the F119 class，Is there any other information confirming that the engine chosen for GCAP will be a derivative of the EJ-200? I'm not quite sure about the accuracy of the specific content of this webinar.
 
tico said:
The content about engine thrust in a recent webinar shows that it seems difficult to support supercruise, which contradicts the news from last year. I heard before that they would adopt engines of the F119 class
Click to expand...
I mean the japanese IHI XF9 where roughly that thrust class.
tico said:
，Is there any other information confirming that the engine chosen for GCAP will be a derivative of the EJ-200? I'm not quite sure about the accuracy of the specific content of this webinar.
Click to expand...
RR states it will be an "GCAP’s all-new fighter engine." I would presume this means not a derivative of the EJ-200.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/p...-expands-partnership-toward-first-flight.aspx
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom