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

[Seragina]

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.

Perhaps for subsequent blocks/mods where they could take part but unlikely for initial production lots.

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.

Japan has been mentioned too.

Historically, other than WWII had never had interest or participated in the pacific or conflict like Vietnam. Since the Korean War immediately followed WWII and was under a UN mandate I consider this case convenient happenstance.
Up until recently Canada basically only traded with the US and or NA. Again as good as zero interest beyond other than NATO commitment.
https://blog.tradewheel.com/canadas-major-imports-and-exports-by-country
Right now trade with asia/pacific is 113-120B; 130.8B with the EU, and 390B with US or ~1:~1:~3 or ~40% non-US
The pacific makes out 20% with Japan 20% of that or ~4% total. Japan like South Korea or Taiwain is more risk than anywhere near worth it. I don't see any construct they would join other than intelligence sharing.

 

[eagle]

6 is a fairly safe bet, possibly 8 to 10 if the Twin Missile Carriers for SRAAMs can take APKWS pods. And that configuration could still take three tanks and four Meteors.

The missile rails can only carry rail launched AAMs.
The outermost stations are SRAM only.
This leaves potentially 6 stations for rocket pods, 4 if carrying 2 tanks.
The centre station is needed for the targeting pod.
If the twin bomb racks were a thing, EF could carry 8 or 12 (without tanks) rocket pods.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The missile rails can only carry rail launched AAMs.
The outermost stations are SRAM only.
This leaves potentially 6 stations for rocket pods, 4 if carrying 2 tanks.
The centre station is needed for the targeting pod.
If the twin bomb racks were a thing, EF could carry 8 or 12 (without tanks) rocket pods.

IIRC the most recent F-15 photos have shown Hydra/APKWS pods on the standard triple ejector racks. So if a Typhoon can carry ~3500lbs on a pylon it could carry 2x3 APKWS pods.

That said, we're in the GCAP thread. And APKWS on GCAP would require something like launch tubes in the bay doors, or using trapeze rails to get a pod/pods clear of the bay.

 

[DWG]

The missile rails can only carry rail launched AAMs.

That's a fair point, though it's more they can only carry weapons designed to fit the launch rail. Perhaps what we really need is a LAU-131 switched to rail attachment points, rather than 14" lugs. My other concern there would be whether they fit in the mass limits of the hardpoint - it might be necessary to fly the pod with a tube or two empty.

There's only the outboard SRAAM hardpoints that are restricted that way, the inner and outerwing hardpoints are designed to take ordnance-specific pylons at need. It should be a reasonably simple switch to carry 2 LAU-131s on derivatives of either the Twin Missile Carrier or the Brimstone pylon fitted with the appropriate attachments. They'd need clearing, of course, but that's standard for any new weapon.

If you want a counter-drone beast mode in a Typhoon, I think the potential's there to be developed and I don't see any major show-stoppers.

WRT the IRST/designator pod on the centre fuselage hardpoint, the Eurofighter, outside of the Luftwaffe, already has PIRATE as an IRST, giving you the option to use PIRATE plus a laser designator on one of the forward Meteor stations, freeing the central fuselage hardpoint for a tank. It might require a software tweak, but probably not a major one.

 

[Brett Davidson]

I don't see any construct [Japan] would join other than intelligence sharing.

Tides are changing under the new, more hawkish PM and her defence minister.

https://www.twz.com/sea/japan-opens-the-door-to-acquiring-nuclear-powered-submarines

China’s rapidly expanding naval force, including its growing submarine fleet and increasingly distant maritime operations, is forcing Tokyo to consider how it would monitor and potentially counter Chinese forces farther from the Japanese archipelago.

Not a policy or a plan yet, but a definite tilt.

The development could also create new opportunities for Japan to work more closely with Australia and the other AUKUS partners. Australia is in the process of acquiring its own conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability under AUKUS Pillar I, with U.S. and U.K. nuclear-powered submarines also scheduled to operate from Australia. Japan has separately been identified as a potential partner for AUKUS Pillar II, which covers advanced capabilities and technology cooperation.
A Japanese decision to pursue SSNs could eventually create a much deeper basis for cooperation with Australia, including submarine interoperability, undersea warfare, workforce and technical expertise, infrastructure, sustainment, and potentially aspects of the industrial base. Analysts have already examined how Japan could fit into the wider AUKUS submarine ecosystem as Australia’s nuclear-submarine program develops.

 

[Kota]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2101415027668648076

View: https://x.com/RJR114C/status/2101415027668648076

So uhhhhh

 

[helmutkohl]

That looks like the Mitsubishi X-2 being moved.
back of the truck looks like it says Numazu.. is this in Shizuoka?

 

[Seragina]

Tides are changing under the new, more hawkish PM and her defence minister.

https://www.twz.com/sea/japan-opens-the-door-to-acquiring-nuclear-powered-submarines

China’s rapidly expanding naval force, including its growing submarine fleet and increasingly distant maritime operations, is forcing Tokyo to consider how it would monitor and potentially counter Chinese forces farther from the Japanese archipelago.

Not a policy or a plan yet, but a definite tilt.

The development could also create new opportunities for Japan to work more closely with Australia and the other AUKUS partners. Australia is in the process of acquiring its own conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability under AUKUS Pillar I, with U.S. and U.K. nuclear-powered submarines also scheduled to operate from Australia. Japan has separately been identified as a potential partner for AUKUS Pillar II, which covers advanced capabilities and technology cooperation.
A Japanese decision to pursue SSNs could eventually create a much deeper basis for cooperation with Australia, including submarine interoperability, undersea warfare, workforce and technical expertise, infrastructure, sustainment, and potentially aspects of the industrial base. Analysts have already examined how Japan could fit into the wider AUKUS submarine ecosystem as Australia’s nuclear-submarine program develops.

I was refering to Canada ofc as that was the talking point.
As for Japan, South Korea, Germany etc. I've been saying two years ago the moment the WH/Ukraine disaster happened there is inevitably a shift toward nuclear profiliation. This was a no brainer to begin with. Japan openly making it known now is because a certain someone tweeted days ago only nukes gives him pause.

 

[eagle]

IIRC the most recent F-15 photos have shown Hydra/APKWS pods on the standard triple ejector racks. So if a Typhoon can carry ~3500lbs on a pylon it could carry 2x3 APKWS pods.

The EF is not an F-15 though. Meaning there are no TER options at this point.
Could one be developed? Sure.
EF's wing pylons in question are not rated for 3500 lbs, most likely good enough for 3 full pods though.

That said, we're in the GCAP thread. And APKWS on GCAP would require something like launch tubes in the bay doors, or using trapeze rails to get a pod/pods clear of the bay.

Or simply use external pylons.

That's a fair point, though it's more they can only carry weapons designed to fit the launch rail. Perhaps what we really need is a LAU-131 switched to rail attachment points, rather than 14" lugs. My other concern there would be whether they fit in the mass limits of the hardpoint - it might be necessary to fly the pod with a tube or two empty.

Probably easier to develop a twin or triple rack.
Weight could be an issue when carrying 3 pods on the outer stations, don't know the weight limits.

There's only the outboard SRAAM hardpoints that are restricted that way, the inner and outerwing hardpoints are designed to take ordnance-specific pylons at need. It should be a reasonably simple switch to carry 2 LAU-131s on derivatives of either the Twin Missile Carrier or the Brimstone pylon fitted with the appropriate attachments. They'd need clearing, of course, but that's standard for any new weapon.

Yes they need clearing. But they are not cleared atm. I was referring to actually possible configurations at this moment in time.

If you want a counter-drone beast mode in a Typhoon, I think the potential's there to be developed and I don't see any major show-stoppers.

WRT the IRST/designator pod on the centre fuselage hardpoint, the Eurofighter, outside of the Luftwaffe, already has PIRATE as an IRST, giving you the option to use PIRATE plus a laser designator on one of the forward Meteor stations, freeing the central fuselage hardpoint for a tank. It might require a software tweak, but probably not a major one.

Same issue. The targeting pod mounted on a missile station only exists in theory. It has been addressed by @Scorpion82 a few times.

 

[Ainen]

The EF is not an F-15 though. Meaning there are no TER options at this point.
Could one be developed? Sure.
EF's wing pylons in question are not rated for 3500 lbs, most likely good enough for 3 full pods though.

To be fair, absolutely nothing prevents use of LAU-61; USMC hornets in gulf already did.
The French also immediately began from bigger launcher, despite the obviously broken aesthetic.

It's more of a matter of realistic number of intercept passes per sortie. Drone path planners are rarely kind enough to give you a scroller game session.

Plus it's a F-15 problem, as rocket rated pylon just happens to discsrd away drop tanks anyway. So TER here is not that much of an advantage.

 

[eagle]

To be fair, absolutely nothing prevents use of LAU-61; USMC hornets in gulf already did.

Are you sure they did?
On the EF, the fact that it's not integrated prevents it's use.