UK-Japan-Italy Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) Speculation & Discussions

[Sintra]

We know that F47 is for air superiority when CGAP more multirole.
As FB22 would have been heavier than F22, that F15E is heavier than F15, it seems clever to think that for the same range CGAP is heavier than F47.
And no I'm not involved directly or indirectly in these projects.

GCAP and F-47 are not variations on the same aircraft. An F-14B is heavier than a F/A-18C. We dont know the dimensions, payload, engines, fuel fraction, etc for both aircrafts (except... well... "BIG"? ) in order to make an educated guess. The range bit is a pretty generic "1000 miles plus" for the F-47 and "twice the F-35" for GCAP.

Cheers

 

[vikmto999]

Was it?
There were some stories about Airbus (not Eurojet) not being able to use some bits of Eurofighter for the FCAS project because IP, but if i remember correctly what bits were those was never disclosed. I also suspect that a) Dassault would much prefer to use a Safran product that they know (the M88) and b) Eurojet would be totaly fine if Airbus asked the German MOD for a couple of EJ200´s.
Its not like Eurojet didnt try to flog the engine on anything foreign and pointy before, hell, thinking about it... even good old Turbo Union tried that! Remember the Dassault Mirage 3000?

From what I remember from the rumours and tweets, it was politically unsuitable for FCAS to use the engines as they would have broken the "EU" only badge, Safran (France) would look a bit like they couldn't make an engine and lastly they would need to go to the euro consortium if any problems arose.

Basically, the EJ200 was perfect for them due to its better power than the M88, but France would lose face, especially as FCAS didn't want the UK in it.

No IP issues at all, just the entire problems why FCAS was doomed from the start, political and industrial sabotage from within.

These were the rumours back then anyway.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Are we still thinking a 20m F111 sized beast here, if not in width but maybe length? for GCAP?

The concept art leaked sure leans that way. Huge wings relative to fuselage size, on the order of FB-22-3 or -4.

I think it's very likely the GCAP will be a ~100k mission TOW bird, with an MTOW up in the 120k range.

Maybe they just asked Eurojet nicely to use EJ200?

EJ200 is big enough to power a 75% scale demonstrator, but even the EJ270 isn't enough to power a 90-100klb fighter.

 

[Neufrank]

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.

Picking up an earlier technical topic: "the "cost" of supercruise" and especially the engine: Is there any information out, what engine will be developed / used?

Is that the only information out: https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/p...-expands-partnership-toward-first-flight.aspx

 

[Scott Kenny]

Picking up an earlier technical topic: "the "cost" of supercruise" and especially the engine: Is there any information out, what engine will be developed / used?

Is that the only information out: https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/p...-expands-partnership-toward-first-flight.aspx

Not for the final GCAP, no.

EJ200s for the subscale demonstrator.

 

[vikmto999]

With the DiP now in place, and funding there for a good 4 years, i've been wondering whether we will start to hear anything along the directed energy front?

We know GCAP is going to have a lot of energy, we know it's got quite a unique engine going for it with the 2 spool hybrid KERS system. So, when will we hear that dragonfly has been integrated into it?

 

[WatcherZero]

The three nations have each produced a prototype engine and the final engine will take the best bits of all three designs. (materials/compressor design/overall engine design, etc...)

 

[Scott Kenny]

The three nations have each produced a prototype engine and the final engine will take the best bits of all three designs. (materials/compressor design/overall engine design, etc...)

Interesting planning choice.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

The three nations have each produced a prototype engine and the final engine will take the best bits of all three designs. (materials/compressor design/overall engine design, etc...)

Undoubtedly the worst possible way to design an engine. Three full designs get thrown in the trash and the final design is developed in the manner most conceivably vulnerable to political-industrial interference.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its about showing off the best indigenous tech so you can see and test on a test stand before you integrate that into one engine design. E.g. What temperatures can your materials takes, are they reliable, what design approach produces the best thrust or fuel efficiency. Think of the engine demonstrators as shop windows for IP.

Actual production of components will be spread out with likely all three countries having a final integration line. All three engine companies will be manufacturing the same engine no matter the original design origin of the components.

 

[WatcherZero]

They've been a lot quieter on the airborne laser front than they have been on the shipborne, we know Dragonfire is intended to be fit to four ships by 2027 and they are working on a mass production version that shrinks the existing system in size by about a third.

This low power laser jammer combining Thales Elix-IR and Leonardo Miysis was tested at a range in Sweden in 2024 against heat seeking missiles and is apparently destined for fitment to the RAF A400M (and possibly Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft?) and was destined for the Shadow R2 surveillance aircraft before that was cancelled. Its also been ordered for fitting to six German C-130 as well as a few Middle Eastern VIP aircraft.

 

[Sintra]

The three nations have each produced a prototype engine and the final engine will take the best bits of all three designs. (materials/compressor design/overall engine design, etc...)

Avio Aero produced a prototype for the GCAP engine?
Well, thats news!
Any public information available?

Cheers

 

[vikmto999]

The three nations have each produced a prototype engine and the final engine will take the best bits of all three designs. (materials/compressor design/overall engine design, etc...)

Are you sure about this. Everything I have read is about it now being a consortium, using the best knowledge and practices of each company.

So using existing demonstrators rather than new ones.

We even have this back in 2021
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-to-develop-future-fighter-jet-engine-demonstrator

 

[vikmto999]

They've been a lot quieter on the airborne laser front than they have been on the shipborne, we know Dragonfire is intended to be fit to four ships by 2027 and they are working on a mass production version that shrinks the existing system in size by about a third.

This low power laser jammer combining Thales Elix-IR and Leonardo Miysis was tested at a range in Sweden in 2024 against heat seeking missiles and is apparently destined for fitment to the RAF A400M (and possibly Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft?) and was destined for the Shadow R2 surveillance aircraft before that was cancelled. Its also been ordered for fitting to six German C-130 as well as a few Middle Eastern VIP aircraft.

ooh, thanks for that. That is interesting. I wonder if Leonado can combine both Miysis and a GCAP variant of Dragonfly. they are making both systems, so a combination of both to save space would be useful I imagine.

 

[WatcherZero]

Are you sure about this. Everything I have read is about it now being a consortium, using the best knowledge and practices of each company.

So using existing demonstrators rather than new ones.

We even have this back in 2021
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-to-develop-future-fighter-jet-engine-demonstrator

Yep, each country is building a national engine demonstrator with their own engine test stand that will test and show off their best bits combined with that companies off the shelf components into a test engine and that will all flow into the final engine by the consortium of engine makers. Currently RR is focused on developing the Combustor, high pressure turbine and engine nozzle, IHI the compressor and Avio the low pressure turbine but the odds are some of the new component parts will fail during testing and not live up to expectations, that is the life of R&D.

 

[Neufrank]

With the DiP now in place, and funding there for a good 4 years, ...

May understanding was, that this is funding the next 18 months....
https://thedefensepost.com/2026/07/06/edgewing-second-gcap-contract/

 

[vikmto999]

So with Canada now joining as observer, basically locking down first dibs after the core 3, will we be seeing other countries look around and grab a spot.

I imagine even observer slots are hard to come by without a large amount of certainty that the country does want GCAP going forward.

 

[Ainen]

They've been a lot quieter on the airborne laser front than they have been on the shipborne, we know Dragonfire is intended to be fit to four ships by 2027 and they are working on a mass production version that shrinks the existing system in size by about a third.

This low power laser jammer combining Thales Elix-IR and Leonardo Miysis was tested at a range in Sweden in 2024 against heat seeking missiles and is apparently destined for fitment to the RAF A400M (and possibly Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft?) and was destined for the Shadow R2 surveillance aircraft before that was cancelled. Its also been ordered for fitting to six German C-130 as well as a few Middle Eastern VIP aircraft.

Fighter lasers overall seem to have gone awfully quiet everywhere.
Either they found some magic and are trying not to draw attention, or they ran into some hard barriers, and tactical plane DEW once again updated their perpetual "10 years".
For DIRCM, there's no physical limitation I guess, but you accept laser turrets only if you're willing to accept a corresponding signature. As such, I will be quite surprised to see them on GCAP; it's a penetrator aircraft.

 

[FighterJock]

That's possibly because that some of the lasers are still under development at this time so will be highly classified as well.

 

[Scorpion82]

Not so clear. What about intellectual property issue ? less if Germany entered in GCAP, but what about spain ?

You are so obsessed with IP, that you ignore the fact that many aircraft have been powered by foreign engines throughout history. It's essentially a non-issue.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You are so obsessed with IP, that you ignore the fact that many aircraft have been powered by foreign engines throughout history. It's essentially a non-issue.

It's a very big issue if you want to be able to sell your fighter. Using another nation's engine gives them veto power on any sales.

 

[vikmto999]

I see Germany are actively talking about joining now.

To come out and say that probably means they realise the opportunity has gone and 150 planes is the bribe back in. It will give the 3 partners food for thought to give something.

AS it is speculation thread. I would think Germany would maybe get

• no fourth equal founder status;
• Airbus Germany receives a major defined work package;
• Germany gains national-system and weapons sovereignty;
• German assembly or final integration for its own aircraft;
• possibly leadership of a CCA, combat-cloud, electronic-warfare or particular airframe subsystem;
• substantial influence through the size of its order, but no veto over the 2035 schedule.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/07/22/germany-pushes-to-join-uk-fighter-jet-programme/

Germany is pushing to join Britain’s £50bn future fighter-jet programme after pulling out of a deal with France.
The country’s biggest warplane maker told the Farnborough Air Show on Wednesday that the EU powerhouse should join forces with Britain, Italy and Japan on the new Tempest stealth jet plan after a rival French agreement was dropped.
Michael Schoellhorn, the head of Airbus’s Munich-based defence arm, said if Germany had enough influence over the programme and a share of the work, it could be tempted to join Britain in developing the new jets.
“What we’re ready to do is to join something or to build something where we have a significant portion of the work and the leadership. That’s currently being explored,” he said.

Mr Schoellhorn said that in an ideal world, Eurofighter would have survived the schism over Brexit and formed the basis of a European grouping to develop a next-generation warplane.
He said: “If we do a mental exercise and project ourselves back to 2017, and we would not have started the old FCAS, then likely we would have continued with the Eurofighter team.
“That would have been an organic answer. But time has passed. There’s a project that has already started; Japan has joined. So, to be determined.”
In a sign that Germany is considering joining GCAP, Mr Schoellhorn said an arrangement reflecting Germany’s contribution, with Germany potentially ordering 150 planes, would be required.
He said that amid the “disappointment” regarding the failure of the FCAS, there was “obviously relief that the impasse is behind us and now we can open a new chapter”.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I see Germany are actively talking about joining now.

They want to join as a partner.

GCAP is set up with 3 partners already and the whole program would have to be renegotiated to add more partners.

The GIGO office needs to come out and say, "Germany, you want us to completely renegotiate the agreement just so you can be a production partner and buy 150 airframes. Renegotiating the agreement would set the whole project back 5-10 years and that is not accpetable to the partners. So no. You can join as an Observer, and if your industry is any good they can compete to supply components or assemble parts."

 

[vikmto999]

They want to join as a partner.

GCAP is set up with 3 partners already and the whole program would have to be renegotiated to add more partners.

The GIGO office needs to come out and say, "Germany, you want us to completely renegotiate the agreement just so you can be a production partner and buy 150 airframes. Renegotiating the agreement would set the whole project back 5-10 years and that is not accpetable to the partners. So no. You can join as an Observer, and if your industry is any good they can compete to supply components or assemble parts."

For 150 airframes to be purchased, they'll want more than that.

It doesn't mean now, but for that they'll want final production for their own jets, probably source code to link their weapons and drones.

Then a seat at the table going forward, which the other 3 will have any German veto removed from.

Never say never when there are 150 airframes at possible 300million each in current pricing. That sort of sale will drop the unit price for everyone considerably.

 

[kqcke for you]

For 150 airframes to be purchased, they'll want more than that.

It doesn't mean now, but for that they'll want final production for their own jets, probably source code to link their weapons and drones.

Then a seat at the table going forward, which the other 3 will have any German veto removed from.

Never say never when there are 150 airframes at possible 300million each in current pricing. That sort of sale will drop the unit price for everyone considerably.

Especially when the later batches could be another 150 frames

 

[H_K]

"What we’re ready to do is to join something or to build something where we have a significant portion of the work and the leadership."

That last part of Schoellhorn's statement is likely to cause issues... (I read that as design leadership over some of the R&D work packages).

 

[Scott Kenny]

For 150 airframes to be purchased, they'll want more than that.

It doesn't mean now, but for that they'll want final production for their own jets, probably source code to link their weapons and drones.

Then a seat at the table going forward, which the other 3 will have any German veto removed from.

That's the whole problem.

More-more-more. In an agreement that is already established and IIRC without a way to add more partners specifically to prevent delays in getting the airframe completed.

Never say never when there are 150 airframes at possible 300million each in current pricing. That sort of sale will drop the unit price for everyone considerably.

It was my impression that everyone was looking at buying about 150 GCAP airframes each. So we'd only be looking at at 33% larger buy, but Canada is also looking at a similar sized buy as an observer.

 

[Ainen]

Can Germany get their own card to use the GCAP demonstrator as a basis for a second aircraft out of the program?
I briefly remember that it was, in principle, possible to develop EAP into a full fighter, should the circumstances require it.

 

[DWG]

You are so obsessed with IP, that you ignore the fact that many aircraft have been powered by foreign engines throughout history. It's essentially a non-issue.

It's less than a fortnight since Turkey got export clearance from the US for Kaan's F110 engines, with several US politicians having proposed blocking it.

 

[DWG]

It's less than a fortnight since Turkey got export clearance from the US for Kaan's F110 engines, with several US politicians having proposed blocking it.

And a block actually did go into place in 2025. Also just lifted is a block on export of CF34s and LEAP1-Cs to COMAC.

 

[DWG]

They want to join as a partner.

Airbus Defence and Space wants to join as a partner, what Germany wants is less clear.

 

[FighterJock]

I would organise the partner nations into a similar system like JSF in the early years that system worked then so it can work with GCAP.

 

[DWG]

I would organise the partner nations into a similar system like JSF in the early years that system worked then so it can work with GCAP.

That worked for the USA, no-one else got a vote.

 

[Scorpion82]

It's less than a fortnight since Turkey got export clearance from the US for Kaan's F110 engines, with several US politicians having proposed blocking it.

Ofcourse things like these can happen, doesn't change the fact and GE, IT and SP or EJ as a whole is certainly not blocking the use of EJ200s in a UK build GCAP demonstrator. Heck even Rafale A flew with F404, it has become the principle engine on Gripen and Tejas, F414 on Gripen E/F and KF-21, several Russian engines on Chinese aircraft... You get the point, and it's not even about political sanctions, but IP rights. IP for the engine remains with the manufacturer and the exchange of data is limited to interfacing data and that's it. All the talk about other countries gaining kind of notable insight into an aircraft just because the use of foreign equipment, like engines is just hot air and at the end of the day a non-issue, especially in the context of GCAP demonstrator with EJ200s. That's the key point here.

 

[DWG]

Ofcourse things like these can happen, doesn't change the fact and GE, IT and SP or EJ as a whole is certainly not blocking the use of EJ200s in a UK build GCAP demonstrator. Heck even Rafale A flew with F404, it has become the principle engine on Gripen and Tejas, F414 on Gripen E/F and KF-21, several Russian engines on Chinese aircraft... You get the point, and it's not even about political sanctions, but IP rights. IP for the engine remains with the manufacturer and the exchange of data is limited to interfacing data and that's it. All the talk about other countries gaining kind of notable insight into an aircraft just because the use of foreign equipment, like engines is just hot air and at the end of the day a non-issue, especially in the context of GCAP demonstrator with EJ200s. That's the key point here.

If IP and national sovereignty issues doesn't matter, why is ITAR-free such a draw? Why has the UK been insisting on non-ITAR bids in recent procurement? Is it a major issue for the three GCAP partners, no, because it's a purely internal transfer. Is it potentially a major issue for exports from any production programme (including GCAP)? Of course it is, as we've seen in the examples I quoted, and perhaps even more apropos, in Germany's veto of Eurofighter sales to Turkey stretching from 2022 to 2025.

GCAP has already had to negotiate Japan's traditional reluctance to export arms in setting up its corporate structure, Germany's past willingness to throw a spanner in the export works for national political objectives, no matter the willingness of its partners, is likely to weigh on people's minds in any discussion of granting them membership of the Edgewing consortium, rather than simply customer status.

 

[zen]

The same Germany that refused to work on EAP and told it's industry not to collaborate with the effort.

Until they changed their tune realising the UK was doing it without them and tried to pull a Tornado (600 claimed for workshare reasons).

The same Germany that wanted to cut out agreed systems in a pathetic effort to try and make it cheaper. While their defence minister talked of buying F16s.
Causing a near doubling of price and further delaying the program.

 

[kqcke for you]

GCAP has already had to negotiate Japan's traditional reluctance to export arms in setting up its corporate structure, Germany's past willingness to throw a spanner in the export works for national political objectives, no matter the willingness of its partners, is likely to weigh on people's minds in any discussion of granting them membership of the Edgewing consortium, rather than simply customer status.

Tought this is already solved within Edgewings

 

[red admiral]

That worked for the USA, no-one else got a vote.

That isn't true

 

[vikmto999]

I can't see Germany joining Edgwing, but I could see it being something like a Tier 1, similar to the UK with the F35.

It clearly wont be able to make decisions at this point, but it could certainly be granted the blueprints and ways to integrate into GCAP.

I've a feeling that GCAP will be something that needs a lot of CCAs, and having Germany being part of that would be very beneficial.

 

[DWG]

That isn't true

All right, no one else got a vote that counted. For instance over source code access. It took threats to walk away to make any headway.

“If we do not have the information and technology needed to make that decision, then I shall not be able to sign the MoU.” Lord Drayson, Minister of Defence Procurement, testifying to Congress. 14 March 2006.

“Guaranteed access to necessary data and technology to allow Australia to operate and support the JSF will be required before we can join the next phase.” Rear Admiral Raydon Gates, RAN, testifying to Congress. 14 March 2006.