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

Implied radius figures be rather more than 500nm. Though that might be for CAP distance from airfield.
 
zen said:
Implied radius figures be rather more than 500nm. Though that might be for CAP distance from airfield.
Click to expand...
I mean, that's basically London-Reykjavik or London-Bodo (~1900km). Might be more like 3000km to patrol station if someone is trying to be well past Bodo ("Buddha").

But we all know that we're trading patrol distance with time-on-station.
 
To be expected. Typhoon is small even by non-VLO standards. You want range, IWBs and VLO, that means a large aircraft.

zen said:
Implied radius figures be rather more than 500nm. Though that might be for CAP distance from airfield.
Click to expand...
According to @Scott Kenny on previous page, Japan wants a 2 hour CAP patrol at 500nm radius. So that's 2 hours circling at maybe 500kts, which is basically another 1000nm, except with turns, which translates to a strike radius of ~1000nm.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...cap-news-technical-analysis.40657/post-938939
 
Forest Green said:
Hang on, a J-20 is supposed to be about 35% longer than an F-35 (21.2m vs 15.7m respectively), are these to scale? Eye-balling it, but that looks more like 5-10% or 1-2m based on scale. Su-57 is also supposed to be 20.1m long. Based on that 3m scale, the rear of the J-20 and Su-57 should be off the image.
Click to expand...
Yes, on a scale. There are no official drawings for the J‑20, so there may be discrepancies
 
Forest Green said:
Hang on, a J-20 is supposed to be about 35% longer than an F-35 (21.2m vs 15.7m respectively), are these to scale? Eye-balling it, but that looks more like 5-10% or 1-2m based on scale. Su-57 is also supposed to be 20.1m long. Based on that 3m scale, the rear of the J-20 and Su-57 should be off the image.
Click to expand...
Isn't that an F-22?
 
Titus K said:
Is this credible or am i being trolled ?
Click to expand...
It's pretty credible. Granted that F-111 engines are less efficient than the modern ones, but we're still talking about something with broadly F-111 range (or more!) and weapons payload.

Long range plus internal weapons bays equals big airframe.
 
Ainen said:
iirc, fb-22 was more of a stand in interdictor, not dissimilar to supercanberra (from RAF Lutton ofc).
Fighter part was largely solved by vanilla raptor.

Here it's a stand off platform with equally important anti air.
Click to expand...
This is a bit old in the thread, but GCAP is absolutely intended for stand-in missions. The way the RAF talk about it it's going to shoot down every Russian jet in the air on day one, then spend the rest of the war loitering over Moscow firing Spear at any Russian radar insolent enough to radiate.
 
TorpedoJ said:
This is a bit old in the thread, but GCAP is absolutely intended for stand-in missions. The way the RAF talk about it it's going to shoot down every Russian jet in the air on day one, then spend the rest of the war loitering over Moscow firing Spear at any Russian radar insolent enough to radiate.
Click to expand...
Maybe, I just doubt they really mean it.
Maybe I'm being naive here, but to me indication of deep pen mission intent is broadband stealth?
GCAP certainly has a ridiculous range requirement, but at least the Japanese one is over open water.
 
Ainen said:
but at least the Japanese one is over open water.
Click to expand...
Its the same for the UK, Russian Planes/Cruise missiles/Ships will be going through the GIUK gap than going through the Baltic or flying over allied Europe.

I mean look what 500nm of CAP range can get you from Mount Pleasant or 1000nm of strike from Lossiemouth, plenty of open water, and thanks to the larger and deeper IWB we don't need to fly deep into Russian airspace to target their deep industry. A Stratus-LO launched from the eastern Baltic could likely reach anywhere west of the Urals, while a Stormshadow would be on the fringe of the Moscow region.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260904_104857_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20260904_104857_Chrome.jpg
    688.1 KB · Views: 138
  • Screenshot_20260904_105719_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20260904_105719_Chrome.jpg
    666.7 KB · Views: 186
Deepstuck said:
Its the same for the UK, Russian Planes/Cruise missiles/Ships will be going through the GIUK gap than going through the Baltic or flying over allied Europe.
Click to expand...
I personally think it's the opposite. Russian weapons either have the range to make GIUK completely irrelevant(all big classic long range weapons from before the war), or will go shortest lines from the east, as they have barely enough range (all the affordable mass types introduced during the war).

No Russian aircraft or ships should be expected there during the war, unless Norway is overrun; certainly not fighters. If it is, you hardly need so much range once again.
I.e. broadly, from fighter perspective, I think RAF is spending a fortune on a requirement, irrelevant for over 3 decades.

Japan, on the other hand, apparently wants to contest(strike, interdict) in SCS from Ryukyu chain. Which is a rather optimistic assessment, anchored on both Taiwan and Philippines holding (otherwise you want broadband once again), but it's a valid mission.
Deepstuck said:
thanks to the larger and deeper IWB we don't need to fly deep into Russian airspace to target their deep industry. A Stratus-LO launched from the eastern Baltic could likely reach anywhere west of the Urals, while a Stormshadow would be on the fringe of the Moscow region.
Click to expand...
All true, and it pairs very well with aircraft range. But this is the opposite of stand in. ;)
You probably can make a case to vector into Russia from the far north without deep VLO, but it's on the risky side, and would take even more range than GCAP (4500-5000 miles ideally).
 
Last edited:
paralay said:
Yes, on a scale. There are no official drawings for the J‑20, so there may be discrepancies
Click to expand...
Not James Stockdale said:
Isn't that an F-22?
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, my bad. :) There's still the issue that the J-20 should be 1.1m longer than the Su-57 though., which would make it longer than the GCAP on the drawing. Where did the measurements for the GCAP come from though? When I Google it says 19-21m estimated.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Maybe, I just doubt they really mean it.
Maybe I'm being naive here, but to me indication of deep pen mission intent is broadband stealth?
GCAP certainly has a ridiculous range requirement, but at least the Japanese one is over open water.
Click to expand...
F35 did OK in Iran, obviously it's not quite the same with Russia but a tailless design clearly isn't absolutely necessary especially if the tail allows e.g. a couple of extra ARMs to be carried for penetration, Shrike-Vulcan style.

As an aside, does anyone know of any trials towards using IWBs for fuel tanks? Being able to swing between the two would allow short range bomb truck missions and super long range without compromising aerodynamics or stealth.
 
paralay said:
Pilots are the same everywhere, and the cockpit is similar in size.
Click to expand...
No, there is not enough information on out there since GCAP hasn't been built yet. We are only relying on models, but based on what exists, the frontal fuselage of GCAP and CFAD have differences.
 
From Teh Grauniad.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/sep/08/europe-fighter-jet-plans-france-germany

These are opinions, not intentions, let alone agreements, but interesting:

For Germany that leaves the somewhat embarrassing option of asking to join GCAP. Canada joined GCAP at Farnborough but only as an “observer”. That could put it front of the queue to buy products but does not entitle it to the politically valuable manufacturing jobs that come with status as a core partner.

Some of the industrial partners are open to Germany joining. Lorenzo Mariani, the chief executive of Leonardo, Italy’s lead defence company in GCAP, said Germany would be a “positive element” and a “strong financial partner, financially the strongest in Europe”. However, another core partner would add to the risk of delays, he acknowledged.

Tufan Erginbilgiç, the chief executive of the Tempest jet engine maker Rolls-Royce, told reporters at Farnborough that “I don’t think it will negatively impact GCAP at all” if Germany joins – although he would not be drawn on whether Rolls could share work with MTU.

Reopening discussions to let in another core member could be tricky....

Michael Schoellhorn, the chief executive of Airbus Defence and Space, told reporters in London that the company would join something where they could “have a significant portion of the work and the leadership. That’s currently being explored.”
 
Brett Davidson said:
Michael Schoellhorn, the chief executive of [/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]Airbus Defence and Space, told reporters in London that the company would join something where they could “have a significant portion of the work and the leadership. That’s currently being explored.”
Click to expand...

That's either outright stupid, or a really unlucky expression, if you want to join an extant cooperation and demand leadership. Probably meant is an equal say in the programme. That this will likely meet resistence from existing partners is inevitable, unless they are really desparate for funds with the only choice of make or break.
 
Scorpion82 said:
That's either outright stupid, or a really unlucky expression, if you want to join an extant cooperation and demand leadership. Probably meant is an equal say in the programme. That this will likely meet resistence from existing partners is inevitable, unless they are really desparate for funds with the only choice of make or break.
Click to expand...
I suspect the meaning is 'a significant proportion of the leadership', to go with 'a significant proportion of the work'. It's just less clear if you say portion vs proportion. Not sure if that's lost in translation, poor word choice, or even journalistic misinterpretation (or Grauniad mis-spelling). The article suggests Saudi Arabia is beating at the door to be let in, so German funding isn't the only extra available.
 
JS23 said:
Following on the announcement that GCAP would be boom fueled, and that the UK was consequently going to start getting into boom refueling, the FMS contract cap for the KC-46 just tripled, with no confirmed buyer.

https://defence-blog.com/boeing-kc-46a-export-deal-ceiling-jumps-to-19-1-billion/
Click to expand...
The RAF is already working on adding booms to their MRTTs, which is what they always should have done. There is no reason to think that they would ever buy KC-46s.

Like the article said, raising the FMS cap doesn't mean there are new orders right now. However, it gives more room for Japan and Israel to order additional aircraft. The IAF got by with 6 or 7 KC-707s for decades when they only had to deal with Lebanon and Syria, but now they need a lot more than 8 KC-46s if they are going to be fighting Iran, the Houthis, or Turkey with more regularity.

Also, the State Department just put their approval on a Qatari order for KC-46s, so raising the contract cap could be in preparation for that. The Israelis bought 8 planes for $2.4 billion, but the Qataris get 4 planes for $4.5 billion. https://www.state.gov/releases/bure...26/08/qatar-kc-46a-aerial-refueling-aircraft/ The Saudis and Emiratis already have MRTTs, but maybe there is another country willing to drop $1 billion per tanker for a few more airframes.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
The RAF is already working on adding booms to their MRTTs, which is what they always should have done. There is no reason to think that they would ever buy KC-46s.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Apart from there being no need to buy more tankers in the short term, the British government would greatly prefer to spend money in the UK, e.g. on A330 wings & engines, & there are logistical advantages to operating the A330.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Disagree.

The UK (and the Falklands) is broadly comparable to a carrier group, so air defense operates the same way. BARCAP at 250-500nmi.
Click to expand...
BARCAP needs something that's affected by this barrier - which is "archers".
Against "arrows" (which is the only current threat, but a huge one) it's very marginally beneficial, if beneficial at all. It can easily turn out that typhoon will directly outperform GCAP one for one, and it won't be even close to one for one.
 
Ainen said:
BARCAP needs something that's affected by this barrier - which is "archers".
Against "arrows" (which is the only current threat, but a huge one) it's very marginally beneficial, if beneficial at all. It can easily turn out that typhoon will directly outperform GCAP one for one, and it won't be even close to one for one.
Click to expand...
Depends on the capacity for small AAMs.

How many APKWS pods can Typhoon carry? 2? 4?



vikmto999 said:
Seems Canada wants to move past just being an Observer. This little snippet isn't really news anywhere, just a line mixed in other stories.
Click to expand...
GCAP is honestly what Canada needs, not F-35.

But they're going to have to buy F-35s for a long time.
 
vikmto999 said:
Seems Canada wants to move past just being an Observer. This little snippet isn't really news anywhere, just a line mixed in other stories.


https://www.reuters.com/world/canad...ary-coalition-says-carneys-office-2026-09-16/
Click to expand...

This is politics, but I'm only observing context rather than advocating a position or saying any political development is good or bad, so I hope that's allowable in this thread.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlyqg1ekj4po

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/14...ers-of-eu-european-parliament-president-hints

Japan has been mentioned too.

GCAP, the AUKUS subs, the Mogami frigates, Canada's defence procurement shifting towards Europe - all initiated separately for different reasons nonetheless seem to combine to be the industrial/military spearhead of this potential economic/strategic development. See also Carney's Davos speech. With Trump's isolationism, will the US component of AUKUS atrophy, meaning that a new acronym, sounding like the call of a crow, be necessary? 'CAUK', 'JACUK'?

Anyway, my point is that material trends can converge towards a common aim affected by and affecting strategic policy and here we have an example of it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom