Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) UK-Japan-Italy

This might seem like a bit of a plug, but I just wanted to draw your attention to the new look Air International, as it's all about ongoing programmes and the latest developments. I have to say that I think that Glenn Sands has done a great job in transforming Air International into a really compelling semi-trade magazine, packed with stories that are 'of the moment', relevant, cutting edge and contemporary, and featuring some pretty great authors - including my old friend Alan Dron, whose writing is delightful. I have seldom been more proud to be featured in a magazine as I have been to have had the pleasure of working on these last Air Ints.

IMG_5611.JPG
 
Jackonicko said:
It does seem to be delayed, but I received a copy this morning in the post and it goes on sale on Thursday. The cover is as previously shown!

J
Click to expand...
Sorry I was an idiot mixing up August Flight International with Air International:/
 
UK, Japan, Italy and Sweden (is Sweden on the development team?), I hope they cooperate with one another during development, the Typhoon took a long time to develop and move along. France did the Rafale independently, no teammate hassles or squabbling, just develop and build an airplane.
 
The Royal Boeingalian Air Force buying a non-Boeing product? Yeah not holding my breath, Boeing probably sending some cool NGAD powerpoints to Canberra as we speak.

Seriously though, in a two-way contest between NGAD and GCAP which are both likely to be designed for the Pacific area it's going to be a tight one to call but I'd back the NGAD horse for this one, so far Australia has been able to get what it wants from the US without too many questions asked.
 
It all depends on what happens on the export front in regards to NGAD Hood, whether the USAF allows it to be exported or not. Then it will be between GCAP or SCAF as to what sixth generation fighter Australia buys, the last time Australia bought French it was the Mirage 3.
 
Well in the AUKUS realm, we're seeing motions to absolve the UK and Australia of ITAR, albeit with a need for more domestic scrutiny of military exports in return.
Personally that looks like a desperate attempt to shackle US allies.
 
FighterJock said:
It all depends on what happens on the export front in regards to NGAD Hood, whether the USAF allows it to be exported or not. Then it will be between GCAP or SCAF as to what sixth generation fighter Australia buys, the last time Australia bought French it was the Mirage 3.
Click to expand...
I suspect with the rise of China the US will be a little more open to exporting to countries like Australia. Anything to bolster the numbers.
 
zen said:
Well in the AUKUS realm, we're seeing motions to absolve the UK and Australia of ITAR, albeit with a need for more domestic scrutiny of military exports in return.
Personally that looks like a desperate attempt to shackle US allies.
Click to expand...
We'll have to see what that actually means. More likely to say do away with a need for TAAs for US companies to deal with UK/AUS than remove end-user or re-export?

It's about improving collaboration by trusting the UK and AUS defence exports processes. Complete opposite of shackling
 
Indeed we have seen protectionism expanding with the US Senate recently passing a requirement that 65% by 2026, 75% by 2028 and 100% by 2033 of the components and raw materials for navy ships must be manufactured or mined in the US. There is an exception for components/materials from Canada, Britain, Australia or New Zealand... If they are 25% cheaper than US equivalents.
 
WatcherZero said:
Indeed we have seen protectionism expanding with the US Senate recently passing a requirement that 65% by 2026, 75% by 2028 and 100% by 2033 of the components and raw materials for navy ships must be manufactured or mined in the US. There is an exception for components/materials from Canada, Britain, Australia or New Zealand... If they are 25% cheaper than US equivalents.
Click to expand...
The WTO has carve-outs for military procurement already. Has had them since the WTO was created, in fact. It's not protectionism to give a preference to home-country goods, as long as they're less than 50% more expensive than the most expensive imported good offered.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The WTO has carve-outs for military procurement already. Has had them since the WTO was created, in fact. It's not protectionism to give a preference to home-country goods, as long as they're less than 50% more expensive than the most expensive imported good offered.
Click to expand...

US has 27 military free trade agreements, the new bill violates those treaties. The Pentagon was also granted an exception to the previous Buy America requirements, but this new legislation applies them directly to the navy.

www.defensenews.com

Senate to extend Buy American laws for Navy ships

The Senate unanimously passed legislation that will eventually require components for all Navy ships to be made in the United States.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Last edited:
Well had pleasure of seeing and sitting in the Tempest mock up (been a while since Farnborough 2018 lol and didnt bother last years Royal International Air Tattoo) this years Royal International Air Tattoo 2023 at RAF Fairford fortnight ago. So here are my pics

bae1.jpg bae3.jpg bae4.jpg bae1.jpg

Speaking to both BAE and Leonardo folk by the Tempest, was informed that first flight will be 2027 with seeing what improvements, tweaks etc etc to help in GCAP development. I

Also they talked about how the physical look of GCAP would not be far from Tempest shape, as I casually mentioned from official press releases of late that the tail be more acute and spaced apart.

1690825225613.png

cheers
 

Attachments

  • bae2.jpg
    bae2.jpg
    224.6 KB · Views: 27
That is excellent news RavenOne, so first flight in 2027? That is a lot faster than I was expecting. And interesting photo's as well, it is a pity that there are none of the cockpit. Oh well can't have everything.
 
FighterJock said:
That is excellent news RavenOne, so first flight in 2027? That is a lot faster than I was expecting. And interesting photo's as well, it is a pity that there are none of the cockpit. Oh well can't have everything.
Click to expand...

Nothing to show in the cockpit, it was the same at Farnborough 2018, I had a VR helmet that showed how the systems worked because thats what the pilots will have. This mock up was devoid of fly-by-wire side stick controller.

Heres interesting link from Leonardo.

uk.leonardo.com

Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP): Developing the future of combat air

As a founding partner of Team Tempest, Leonardo is alongside the UK MOD, BAE Systems, Rolls Royce and MBDA to provide the technologies, knowledge, skills and expertise to develop the UK's Future Combat Air System (FCAS) capable of operating in the 2035+ environment.
uk.leonardo.com uk.leonardo.com

uk.leonardo.com

Leonardo Combat Air AI Challenge

Leonardo UK is inviting UK-based Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs), start-ups and academia to participate in the Combat Air AI Challenge to harness disruptive technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), for the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP): the mission to build the next generation...
uk.leonardo.com uk.leonardo.com

cheers
 
So no actual physical cockpit everything will be done via VR that will be a game changer for the RAF RavenOne. One wonders though what that will mean for pilot training in the future when GCAP/Tempest enters service.
 
RavenOne said:
Well had pleasure of seeing and sitting in the Tempest mock up (been a while since Farnborough 2018 lol and didnt bother last years Royal International Air Tattoo) this years Royal International Air Tattoo 2023 at RAF Fairford fortnight ago. So here are my pics



Speaking to both BAE and Leonardo folk by the Tempest, was informed that first flight will be 2027 with seeing what improvements, tweaks etc etc to help in GCAP development. I

Also they talked about how the physical look of GCAP would not be far from Tempest shape, as I casually mentioned from official press releases of late that the tail be more acute and spaced apart.



cheers
Click to expand...

2027 is the Flying Technology Demonstrator first flight date, not Tempest.

FTD may look nothing like the 'Pregnant Pelican' Tempest mock up. The interesting thing to see will be if it looks more like P189-17B (the prettified design seen in small scale model guise at RIAT 22) or Concept Type 5 (the YF-23 looking aircraft with the odd cutout in the trailing edge shown on the next Air International cover).

Tempest/GCAP itself may look nothing like the FTD. It hasn't been decided and concepting is still ongoing.
 
FighterJock said:
So no actual physical cockpit everything will be done via VR that will be a game changer for the RAF RavenOne. One wonders though what that will mean for pilot training in the future when GCAP/Tempest enters service.
Click to expand...

Yeah, about that... That was the aspiration at one point, but I think you'll see a LAD, functional inceptors, and back up instrumentation. No HUD, and probably fewer physical controls.
 
FighterJock said:
It all depends on what happens on the export front in regards to NGAD Hood, whether the USAF allows it to be exported or not. Then it will be between GCAP or SCAF as to what sixth generation fighter Australia buys, the last time Australia bought French it was the Mirage 3.
Click to expand...
GCAP is likely to be about half the price. There is no US desire to export NGAD - think of it as being in the SR-71/F-22/B-2 'class'.
 
That is what I think as well Jackonicko, Sweden won't manage to design and build a sixth generation fighter all on their own.
 
Jackonicko said:
2027 is the Flying Technology Demonstrator first flight date, not Tempest.

FTD may look nothing like the 'Pregnant Pelican' Tempest mock up. The interesting thing to see will be if it looks more like P189-17B (the prettified design seen in small scale model guise at RIAT 22) or Concept Type 5 (the YF-23 looking aircraft with the odd cutout in the trailing edge shown on the next Air International cover).

Tempest/GCAP itself may look nothing like the FTD. It hasn't been decided and concepting is still ongoing.
Click to expand...
beg your pardon, I meant the technology demonstrator...anyhow before then am Looking forward to Excalibur test bed to fly,

cheers
 
Jackonicko said:
I could see Sweden joining 15 years in, or whenever the second manned platform comes in.... It would be well suited to Swedish requirements.
Click to expand...
I don't see the GCAP and 6th Gen requirements in general making a plane that Sweden can afford. The stealth requirements alone mean a large airframe due to needing to carry all weapons internally. If you want as much range as the US is demanding, that means lots of internal fuel and an even larger airframe. The LockMart proposal is supposed to be bigger than an Su-27 Flanker!

I mean, the Gripen unit cost seems to run at about $85mil, which is very close to the unit cost of an F-35A. Might even be more than an F-35A. The high unit cost is partially due to the low number of aircraft being built. The only saving grace is that operational costs per flight hour for a Gripen are about 2/3 that of an F-35.

Edit: I also do not expect a second manned platform to be developed at all, unless you count single seat and two seat variations of the same airframe separately.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The LockMart proposal is supposed to be bigger than an Su-27 Flanker!
Click to expand...

GCAP might be as well...

Scott Kenny said:
Edit: I also do not expect a second manned platform to be developed at all, unless you count single seat and two seat variations of the same airframe separately.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will, but apparently it is being talked about.
 
Sweden has plenty of space to build a 5th Gen fighter equal to the F-35. Let's remind all here that, realistically, and beyond the marketing vocabulary, only a couple of stealth fighter projects will bear capabilities more advanced for the decades to come...
 
On Sweden...
One should not think from a US perspective here.

Sweden is rather close to potential threats (threat if we're all honest), and so GCAP can deliver potentially what they need in 2 ways.
1. At low fuel weights, take aloft a substantial load of armaments to rapidly counter an opponent's offensive.
2. At high fuel weights, either maintain a long endurance patrol.
Or project arms deep into the enemy's territory.

The synergy in technology is the ability to gain as high fidelity picture (loose term inclusive of EM spectrum) of events as quickly as possible.
 
Last edited:
On IWBs...
In future combat aircraft we may see internal weapon bays that occupy a way larger fraction of total aircraft volume and being more versatile than what we are used to from current 5th generation fighters.
If someone could find a feasible way to quickly adapt the bays for either fuel or weapons the aircraft could be adjusted to meet actual mission requirements without affecting its RCS.
 
zen said:
On Sweden...
One should not think from a US perspective here.

Sweden is rather close to potential threats (threat if we're all honest), and so GCAP can deliver potentially what they need in 2 ways.
1. At low fuel weights, take aloft a substantial load of armaments to rapidly counter an opponent's offensive.
2. At high fuel weights, either maintain a long endurance patrol.
Or project arms deep into the enemy's territory.

The synergy in technology is the ability to gain as high fidelity picture (loose term inclusive of EM spectrum) of events as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...
That would require large weapons bays plumbed for fuel tanks. Not hard, but definitely not current practice.
 
red admiral said:
Gripen is nowhere near ITAR free (e.g. the engine) and it doesn't seem to hurt...
Click to expand...
Given the small production numbers of GCAP versus the huge run of F-35s, being able to sell a plane that has no US veto is rather important.
 
VTOLicious said:
If someone could find a feasible way to quickly adapt the bays for either fuel or weapons the aircraft could be adjusted to meet actual mission requirements without affecting its RCS.
Click to expand...
Removable bay tanks are a thing, but when you do the calculations they don't actually hold that much fuel once you take into account things like access for mounting and getting it in and out of the bay.
 
True timmymagic, range is everything. If and when Sweden gets the okay to join NATO I could see them eventually joining GCAP.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom