View attachment 823821
Japan's Air Development and Test Command is holding a symposium next month for active developments. It will cover a lot of different topics, but GCAP related development will likely be the main focus.
https://www.ec-convention.com/ADTCSymposiumtouroku/

I recently attended a symposium held by the Air Development and Test Command in Fuchu. There was no particular discussion of the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), the next-generation fighter being jointly developed by Japan, the United Kingdom, and Italy.
One of the main topics was the organisational restructuring of the Air Development and Test Command. It was explained that the organisation would cease to exist in its current form at the end of the current fiscal year and that, going forward, it would work in coordination with organisations responsible for the space domain.
Another key topic was a shift in the approach to developing military equipment. Rather than following the traditional approach of beginning with the required specifications for a piece of equipment, the new approach starts by identifying the missions that need to be accomplished and then determining what capabilities and equipment are necessary to carry them out. In other words, the emphasis is shifting from equipment-driven development to a mission-oriented approach, in which the required capabilities and equipment are derived from operational needs.
 
Well Well Wel

Edit:
Idk why this wasnt included when i posted it but:

Seems like GCAP really is on the menu boys. Lets hope they say this while being at a fairely advanced state of negotiations
 
Germany will not join without significant decision/work share. And that ship has sailed.
Disagreement over decisions ( requirements ) and work share were the very reason FCAS failed.

a mission-oriented approach, in which the required capabilities and equipment are derived from operational needs
I would hope GCAP embraced this philosophy.
It seems so for UK and Japan ( and even Canada ).
Not so sure about Italy.
Definitely not for Germany ( or Poland, but maybe for Australia or Singapore ? )
 
If germany want to have the end production line, integrate their own systems, then fine. They can stump up the money to join, and put a preorder in with an iron clad no return policy.

Once they start sniffing around for IP, that's when we should shut the door.

Airbus are after IP. They want to dominate the European market. Dassault understands this, Bae understands this, Rolls Royce understands this, the French government understands this.

Does the Labour government. That's the question.
 
It all too political.
GCAP will be destroyed if Germany gets it's way. They need to understand this and sadly ....
.....I think they do.
I agree. Keep out the politics is going to be hard for this thread. But I agree with you on the reason you mentioned, and also Labour need to find money for Labour policies also.
 
Germany will not join without significant decision/work share. And that ship has sailed.
Disagreement over decisions ( requirements ) and work share were the very reason FCAS failed.


I would hope GCAP embraced this philosophy.
It seems so for UK and Japan ( and even Canada ).
Not so sure about Italy.
Definitely not for Germany ( or Poland, but maybe for Australia or Singapore ? )
With the requirements of GCAP being geared towards countering Chinese level of technology & threat picture. Either in the indopacific or turning up in other theatres (Russia etc) by military sale (wholesale) or components (radars, EW, AI, missiles etc). Given the level GCAP is aiming for, it's hard to see how Germany would be pushing to change the requirements. Except perhaps to reduce them down (hard to see why would want to), which Japan will not be on board with or the UK.

So partnering for development of subsystems & industrial work share, should be workable. But you'd hope would not be at the expense of any requirements change. "you can partner with x subsystem development & production of subsystems, but the airframe and key baseline attributes are fixed requirements".
 
Last edited:
The sticking point around IP, agree is going to be a big factor. All three UK, Japan, Italy bring unique aspects, and even then Italy was complaining about UK (BAE?) being protective of certain IP aspects. As Germany is likely behind on all of the key strengths of the three partners, and don't have sufficent IP to bring to the table. Can they negotiate to avoid IP transfer around the most sensitive technologies, whilst not causing major hurles to joint development.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom