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

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

Brett Davidson said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DWG said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
eagle said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
eagle said:
The missile rails can only carry rail launched AAMs.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Seragina said:
I don't see any construct [Japan] would join other than intelligence sharing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Brett Davidson said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or simply use external pylons.

DWG said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

DWG said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

DWG said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Attachments

  • 1000030713.jpg
    1000030713.jpg
    524.5 KB · Views: 333
Last edited by a moderator:
eagle said:
Are you sure they did?
On the EF, the fact that it's not integrated prevents it's use.
Click to expand...
Not 100% sure, but are there many other candidates on a carrier deck in what appears to be a plane weapon rack? There's no other candidate since Harrier retirement.
I am personally somewhat surprised it was necessary, but apparently this is the way SoH convoys work.
Even now, with 14+6 (+gun) weapons, Typhoon is only behind Americans and soon Rafale in this metric.

I really doubt rocket trials and fcs modes were original plan/desired/optimal use case for GCAP.
DEW turret like on J-36? maybe.
 
Last edited:
eagle said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is the painful drag of 19-shot packs versus 7-shots.

If I was going to custom design some rocket packs for the problem, I'd make the pods look more like Mk80 series, with frangible nose covers (and rocket-exhaust-tolerant tail covers). Not a simple cylinder, but one with a curved outer layer and hanging lugs extending through the cover.



eagle said:
Or simply use external pylons.
Click to expand...
And give up your stealth?

How about "no."
 
Scott Kenny said:
And give up your stealth?

How about "no."
Click to expand...
Do you care at that point though? APKWS on GCAP doesn't present as a deep inside adversary territory capability, were it to happen would likely be for point defence of a location whether fixed or mobile in a rear area.
 
Ozair said:
Do you care at that point though? APKWS on GCAP doesn't present as a deep inside adversary territory capability, were it to happen would likely be for point defence of a location whether fixed or mobile in a rear area.
Click to expand...
Where do you intend to be intercepting the targets?

For example, Poland (or GCAPs operating over Poland) would need to intercept those drones more or less on the border, which means within range of the Russian IADS. Depending on where exactly Japan operates their GCAPs, they may also be operating within a Russian, Chinese, or North Korean A2AD bubble.

And those cases mean you need lots of ordnance while retaining stealth.
 
Scott Kenny said:
For example, Poland (or GCAPs operating over Poland) would need to intercept those drones more or less on the border, which means within range of the Russian IADS. Depending on where exactly Japan operates their GCAPs, they may also be operating within a Russian, Chinese, or North Korean A2AD bubble.
Click to expand...
You're asking the impossible.
And if you remove the impossible part, Eurofighter/F-16 does everything you need.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Where do you intend to be intercepting the targets?

For example, Poland (or GCAPs operating over Poland) would need to intercept those drones more or less on the border, which means within range of the Russian IADS. Depending on where exactly Japan operates their GCAPs, they may also be operating within a Russian, Chinese, or North Korean A2AD bubble.

And those cases mean you need lots of ordnance while retaining stealth.
Click to expand...
Could safely argue by the time GCAP comes along there will be CCA/drones that can take that mission and GCAP doesn't need APKWS integration.
 
Ozair said:
Could safely argue by the time GCAP comes along there will be CCA/drones that can take that mission and GCAP doesn't need APKWS integration.
Click to expand...
IMHO automating APKWS mission will be one of the most difficult missions to outsource.

Too much low altitude congested/adverse weather.
 
Ainen said:
IMHO automating APKWS mission will be one of the most difficult missions to outsource.

Too much low altitude congested/adverse weather.
Click to expand...
If it is a stand-alone system sure but the scenario postulated isn't a stand-alone system, it would be integrated into an IADS at which point there are already land based systems that can accomplish this mission. Adding an air based autonomous component would then not be difficult.
 
Ainen said:
Not 100% sure, but are there many other candidates on a carrier deck in what appears to be a plane weapon rack? There's no other candidate since Harrier retirement.
I am personally somewhat surprised it was necessary, but apparently this is the way SoH convoys work.
Even now, with 14+6 (+gun) weapons, Typhoon is only behind Americans and soon Rafale in this metric.
Click to expand...

MH-60 Sea Hawk.
The 19 shot launchers are not listed in the flight manual. Which could be outdated of course, but I also haven't seen any SH pics carrying them.
 
eagle said:
MH-60 Sea Hawk.
The 19 shot launchers are not listed in the flight manual. Which could be outdated of course, but I also haven't seen any SH pics carrying them.
Click to expand...
SH can't be, but USMC hornets are the most obvious candidate.
Which is weird to me (hornets operate with at least 14/28 rockets, and they're amongst best jets for the job); Seahawks are indeed possible.

Whatever the case, the main point was that larger launchers are available, and all 1980-1990s jets still can use it by default.
GCAP can be taught to do it (and probably should), but I very much doubt it was in original plan, and IMHO small air is such a big threat, that it by itself justifies retention of current fighter stocks.
They are already here, they're already better at it than oversized "stealthy cruisers" likely can be, and improving legacy fighters in this direction is more value added, sooner.

For any CUDAs, future small effectors, etc - Eurofighter is already in fleet, small&nimble, has all the enabling sensors, and easily carries 20 missiles (and gun).
 
Last edited:
eagle said:
Are you sure they did?
On the EF, the fact that it's not integrated prevents it's use.
Click to expand...
You say that like it's a permanent problem, not something that could be fixed in, frankly, days at need. (For prior examples of similar integration speed, cf Sidewinder on Nimrod).

And for other counter-drone options on a carrier deck, Wildcat with 20xMartlet.
 
Well, EF APKWS integration took less than two months.
I'm not saying it's a permanent problem. But I think it's important to distinguish between actual and powerpoint capabilites. Something that is gladly pointed out in other aircraft.
Btw. according to rumours on twitter, BAE is working on a two pods per pylon configuration.
 
DWG said:
You say that like it's a permanent problem, not something that could be fixed in, frankly, days at need. (For prior examples of similar integration speed, cf Sidewinder on Nimrod).
Click to expand...
Sidewinder is a very simple integration, though. IIRC early versions don't even talk to the FCS on the aircraft, not like a Sparrow does. A Sidewinder needs a safe/arm signal to the pylon, which opens the cooling bottle to the missile, then a signal back from the missile to the pilot's earphones that says "locked on", and finally the launch signal.

APKWS requires a targeting pod and having the rocket pods cleared already.
 
The real question to be asking here is with F-35 FH costing around $45,000+ are we really expecting the even more expensive to fly GCAP to be running glorified Shahed hunting missions? Every GCAP partner is expected to keep around a fleet of 4.5 gen fighters for the near future that could easily handle that role until an automated system is rolled out. APKWS' who shtick is that its cheaper than full sized missiles for taking out low cost target, but any role that would facilitate the use of GCAP would cancel out any of the cost savings from APKWS in the first place.

I don't see any reason to expect any sort of APKWS integration on the GCAP platform itself for just those reasons, completely ignoring the actual physical difficulties already talked about. There isn't much point for any more APKWS discussion besides any future integration on the CCAs. It's such a long shot to actually see it integrated on the main airframe that discussion would seem out of place on the GCAP speculation topic let alone this main topic.
 
Kota said:
The real question to be asking here is with F-35 FH costing around $45,000+ are we really expecting the even more expensive to fly GCAP to be running glorified Shahed hunting missions?
Click to expand...
I could see APKWS being adapted to the F-35B and maybe C, because there will be instances where those will simply be the only platforms you have available in a theater (although in the USMC’s case you could make a strong argument for using the AH-1Z instead). But if it’s a CTOL aircraft, yeah, there’s inevitably going to be a cheaper and more convenient option on hand.
 
JS23 said:
I could see APKWS being adapted to the F-35B and maybe C, because there will be instances where those will simply be the only platforms you have available in a theater (although in the USMC’s case you could make a strong argument for using the AH-1Z instead). But if it’s a CTOL aircraft, yeah, there’s inevitably going to be a cheaper and more convenient option on hand.
Click to expand...
F-35 (much like GCAP) will bring any potential low air intercept capability, maybe, around 2035.
AH-1Z is not a substitute; it's a different capability set. Helicopters are here more for low-and-slow persistency (for example, substituting modern FACs in the Gulf or Black Sea, which, as it usually turns out, absolutely no one has bothered to prepare). They can do intercepts right now, but with jet part of the threat spectrum, they're being directly outgrown already.
Kota said:
I don't see any reason to expect any sort of APKWS integration on the GCAP platform itself for just those reasons, completely ignoring the actual physical difficulties already talked about. There isn't much point for any more APKWS discussion besides any future integration on the CCAs. It's such a long shot to actually see it integrated on the main airframe that discussion would seem out of place on the GCAP speculation topic let alone this main topic.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but there's a caveat. Knightly airpower that can not stop Shaheds effectively fails at it's very core mission (air superiority).
If 4.5 gen aircraft are both more important at countering affordable mass, and can perfectly engage targets in redfor rear via their own affordable mass, is it still worth the gargantuan investment?
Jets you need are on your platter, right now. What needs is the investment into a capabilities that make them relevant (and waiting for some magic wand CCA, which, conveniently, no one bothered to even study, is not that)
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Agreed, but there's a caveat. Knightly airpower that can not stop Shaheds effectively fails at it's very core mission (air superiority).
If 4.5 gen aircraft are both more important at countering affordable mass, and can perfectly engage targets in redfor rear via their own affordable mass, is it still worth the gargantuan investment?
Jets you need are on your platter, right now. What needs is the investment into a capabilities that make them relevant (and waiting for some magic wand CCA, which, conveniently, no one bothered to even study, is not that)
Click to expand...
I think the idea is that if you have a constant flow of 1 way drones flying into your country then I would take a wild guess and say you are at war with another power where GCAP is better serviced elsewhere like destroying the drone factories.

I can't think of a single situation where the existing air defense and 100+ Typhoons for IT/UK or 200 F-15Js/90 F-2s for Japan combined with all their GBAD and sea based AAW can't handle counter drone warfare, but a couple dozen GCAP magically shift the balance. At the same time if all those assets are overwhelmed then that opens up the possibility of larger threats like strategic bombers where GCAP would be pushed back into an HVT intercept CAP mission.

When drones are fairly regularly shot down by guys in light props with a shotgun, any actual money paying integration fees, making a specialized weapons racks, doing all the separation trials for GCAP would be better spent on just making whatever future LIFT program APKWS compatible. Now you have double the number of airframes without diverting from more important missions. That is infinitely better than making your most expensive and capable asset do air janitor work just because "its there".
 
Kota said:
The real question to be asking here is with F-35 FH costing around $45,000+ are we really expecting the even more expensive to fly GCAP to be running glorified Shahed hunting missions?
Click to expand...
Since it will be able to be on station for far longer than an F-35?

possibly.

Notice that the USAF's suggested Shahed hunter isn't F-16s, but F-15EX!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Notice that the USAF's suggested Shahed hunter isn't F-16s, but F-15EX!
Click to expand...
It's both though...

I wonder how much being on station (i.e., the main advantage for GCAP) adds to this mission. It increases the number of intercepts per mission, but i suspect in most circumstances it is a ground alert rather than a loitering mission.
 
GCAP is meant to work within a network of platforms. So the answer to how does a GCAP hunt drones down in the weeds is another part of the network, a CCA, does it. The GCAP isn't irrelevant, it can work as a sensor/control node, and as a goalkeeper for anything that evades the CCAs, but it doesn't need to be hunting drones with short-range APKWS or the like when the CCAs are better suited.
 
GCAP may work as a 'mini' AWACS, controlling CCAs who do the counter-drone work with APKWS launch tubes, but there is certainly no need to discuss how APKWS tubes may be mounted on GCAP ( or CCAs and other aircraft ).
Start a new thread if that interests you.
 
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-courts-berlin-fighter-jet-role-franco-german-project-collapse/

"But the internal documents show that a GCAP deal involving Berlin would face substantial questions inside the German defense establishment.

One ministry assessment identifies joining GCAP as one of Germany’s remaining multinational options, but says the program is built around a maritime scenario that does not fit Germany’s requirements for operations in continental Europe.

It also warns that Germany could struggle to secure a meaningful role for German industry in a project that is already underway.

The German assessment is also skeptical about the U.K.’s BAE Systems, one of the main companies involved in the program. It points to what it describes as a “negative experience” with the company during the development of the Eurofighter.

The paper says that experience gives reason to expect BAE to dominate the new program in a way that would be incompatible with cooperation “on an equal footing.” "

........

"The same internal German note points to a possible new partnership with Sweden and Spain, arguing that the three countries have closely aligned military requirements and would start from a more comparable position than Germany would inside the already established British-Italian-Japanese program.

The assessment concludes that a German-Swedish-Spanish partnership would be “more advantageous and more promising” from Germany’s perspective and “recommends” pursuing that option further. "
 
Mk_IX_Hawk said:
One ministry assessment identifies joining GCAP as one of Germany’s remaining multinational options
Click to expand...
I'd say that ship has sailed.
Any new 'partners' will be observers.
Canada is already there; others possible include Singapore, Poland and Australia. Germany will never be satisfied with observer status ( they could have stayed in FCAS with better participation/workshare )
Mk_IX_Hawk said:
The same internal German note points to a possible new partnership with Sweden and Spain
Click to expand...
Seems both France, and Germany/Spain, are courting Sweden's SAAB as a partner.
https://www.politico.eu/article/fra...er-jet-cooperation-with-sweden-dassault-saab/
Lets see who pays for the fancier dinner, and brings a larger bouquet of flowers ...
 
Last edited:
Hard to know how biased the sources providing the "internal documents" to Politico are.

Looking out to the current and future threat picture. The thinking that Germany should stick to tactical jets (F-35, Saab FCAS) with their limited range & payload, doesn't seem the best fit for a "middle power" which will have the approximate equivalent defence budget to UK & France combined (so reported). Where GCAP (or similar F/X-AA, ROK 6th Gen), to provide deep penetrating strike (range, payload). I.e. aiming to be able to hit the infrastructure supporting the warmachine, rather than at the leading edge of the hostile territory - SEAD/DEAD, OCA, DCA.

There is already a move for infrastructure to be built underground, where the payload of a flight of GCAPs with larger & sequential warheads would be relevant. Next Generation Penetrator (NGP) GBU-76/B, similar type of munition developed by GCAP weapons consortum (no reporting on this simply an idea of potential unique utility of a super heavy fighter / medium bomber airframe vs tactical jet).

Given the move to develop deep precision strike in Europe (large ballistic & boost glide conventinally armed missiles), with Germany included in these projects. There is a recognition of the need for deep strike. Though if these "internal documents" outline the boundries of the considerations then it seems somewhat short sighted on the role of fast jets (or lack there of) for this.

"The paper says that experience gives reason to expect BAE to dominate the new program in a way that would be incompatible with cooperation “on an equal footing.” "

Equal footing in terms of industrial work share,some argument might be made for substanital work share (10-20%? making up numbers), but equal footing seems an unrelastic expectation to be bringing to the table.

When it comes to overall control & IP, then it really does seem an unrealistic position to be coming at it from - when you're not a founding party (prior investments into the project), the development is rather far along (final design freeze reported 2027/28) & don't have the equivalent level of expertise in various technical areas - LO & materials (BAE, MHI), engine (RR, MHI), EW (leonardo UK & Italy) etc.

One consideration not mentiond would be - to partner with Sweden, Spain for developing a light/medium 6th gen. And then to be a purchasing customer (only) for GCAP heavy fighter/medium bomber. Providing a mixed fleet of high-low. The other route being joining GCAP as a 10-20% partner, and developing own large CCA for the "high-low" mix. Though this doesn't provide a manned fighter at the lower end for airpolicing duties after 4th gen is retired.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom