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

Politics does play an important part. West Germany's mighty industrial and economic clout and key NATO role bought it a major part in Tornado and Typhoon.
Not sure how much of above applies to Post Schroeder/Merkel Germany.
 
uk 75 said:
Interesting to speculate what Tornado or Typhoon might have looked like with Japan as well or instead of Germany? Alt history anyone?
Click to expand...
There was an offer to Japan for their own unique model which was to be a combination of the ADV, IDS, and German naval attack version all in one package and would likely use Japanese weapons.
 
Kota said:
There was an offer to Japan for their own unique model which was to be a combination of the ADV, IDS, and German naval attack version all in one package and would likely use Japanese weapons.
Click to expand...

wow that would have been cool if they could have combined all the roles into one platform..
and i wonder if it would be something the original tornado operators would have tried to buy for themselves.

back to GCAP, i am still surprised that Japan has an engine role.. would have figure it would go to the UK.
 
Damn If they would have applied some tech for F-2 on Tornado IT could have been a beast. Maybe even the Tornado 2000 Things could have been implemented
 
on that note, Id rather see the F-2 being based on the F-16XL rather than just being a larger F-16.
 
helmutkohl said:
on that note, Id rather see the F-2 being based on the F-16XL rather than just being a larger F-16.
Click to expand...
It was based* off the Agile Falcon variant, which the US was proposing to move production to in the 90s for expected further European orders

*Initially based around this then Japan basically redesigned almost everything about it in their effort to make it as indigenous as possible
 
Scott Kenny said:
My understanding was that a large part of the cause of the EF/Rafale split was because France absolutely required carrier compatibility and nobody else was willing to either pay for that or accept the limitations that carrier compatibility would cause (smaller airframe, heavier empty weight, overbuilt landing gear).
Click to expand...
Not trying to contradict you, but funnily enough, the Rafale is lighter than the EF, while being only 5% shorter, with other parameters (MTOW, range) pretty much identical.
 
Well I wish Sweden all the best. But I would think that they will have a further look at the situation and rejoin GCAP as soon as possible because building a sixth generation fighter will not be easy on their own, look at the case between the UK and Japan both had separate 6th Gen programs but because of the expense decided to join forces.
 
timmymagic said:
Suspect the requirements for UK, Japan and Italy were driving a very different aircraft, particularly in size, than Sweden would require...
Click to expand...
Or maybe Sweden is spending billions currently acquiring Gripen E and so have no money to spend on a future fighter that wouldn't replace these aircraft until 2050-2060?
 
Sweeden would be making a BIG mistake concentrating on Gripen E for their main fighter red admiral, it would not last long in a future war with a potential enemy armed with sixth generation fighters post 2030 or even 2050.
 
FighterJock said:
Sweeden would be making a BIG mistake concentrating on Gripen E for their main fighter red admiral, it would not last long in a future war with a potential enemy armed with sixth generation fighters post 2030 or even 2050.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Goal ist to achieve a mixed fleet. Right now faster to invest into advanced 4. Gen Fighter and later it can buy heavier Stealth Fighter.
 
I wonder if the Swedes would be interested in joining FCAS/SCAF.

The French & Dassault in particular would have a lot to gain from another partner to balance Airbus’ demands, especially given Saab’s know-how and successful involvement in Neuron. The Swedes could even stay out of NGF if they wanted to and focus their participation on specific pillars such as Combat Cloud and Loyal Wingman… which conveniently for the French are the 2 German-led pillars (!).
 
H_K said:
I wonder if the Swedes would be interested in joining FCAS/SCAF.

The French & Dassault in particular would have a lot to gain from another partner to balance Airbus’ demands, especially given Saab’s know-how and successful involvement in Neuron. The Swedes could even stay out of NGF if they wanted to and focus their participation on specific pillars such as Combat Cloud and Loyal Wingman… which conveniently for the French are the 2 German-led pillars (!).
Click to expand...

Thats the same as the FCAS part of the UK programme (remember there is UK FCAS and Fr/Ger/Sp FCAS/SCAF) they were involved in, but seem to have backed away from as well. If they didn't have anything to offer/or interest in that I doubt that they'd want to be in SCAF either....
 
red admiral said:
It was based* off the Agile Falcon variant, which the US was proposing to move production to in the 90s for expected further European orders

*Initially based around this then Japan basically redesigned almost everything about it in their effort to make it as indigenous as possible
Click to expand...
Europeans did go with MLU instead, which was not bad at all as History proves
 
Probably that Sweden want a 5th gen first. They don´t have any F-35. They don´t seem to be interested to get some. Hence that would be the first step to go.

Any market analysis would also say that this is the way to go: there is not much b/w the cheap but restricted F-35 and the pricey madness of a future sometime FCAS.
 
TomcatViP said:
Probably that Sweden want a 5th gen first. They don´t have any F-35. They don´t seem to be interested to get some. Hence that would be the first step to go.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between 5th gen and 6th gen? In case of a software and LRU upgrade it has sense to develop an 5th gen aircraft.
 
FighterJock said:
Well I wish Sweden all the best. But I would think that they will have a further look at the situation and rejoin GCAP as soon as possible because building a sixth generation fighter will not be easy on their own, look at the case between the UK and Japan both had separate 6th Gen programs but because of the expense decided to join forces.
Click to expand...

What is the key cost driver on the 6th gen so that UK and Japan has to work together?
 
helmutkohl said:
wow that would have been cool if they could have combined all the roles into one platform..
and i wonder if it would be something the original tornado operators would have tried to buy for themselves.

back to GCAP, i am still surprised that Japan has an engine role.. would have figure it would go to the UK.
Click to expand...
kqcke for you said:
Probaly they use XF-9 as basis for the engine
Click to expand...
AWST reportrd that XF-9 and XG240 are the basis of GCQP engine demonstrator. Also the level of technology Japan has demonstarated with XF-9 is surely very imprsssive even compared to western bleeding edge. I don't see the reason why they wouldn't be part of the propulsion design.

Scott Kenny said:
And instead they built F-2s?
Click to expand...
No, instead they tried to build FS-X on their own, but US was mad about it and made them develop a F-16 derivative fighter.

helmutkohl said:
on that note, Id rather see the F-2 being based on the F-16XL rather than just being a larger F-16.
Click to expand...
F-16XL was offered by GD during FS-X competition alongside MD "Super Hornet" and a whole lot of other interesting derivative fighter designs.

The whole point of F-2 being based on F-16 was because US forced them to. They wanted Japan, then one of the US trade partner that caused the biggest trade deficit, to burden the cost of developing a future export product/upgrade model based off of F-16 for the sake of US industrial and defence interests. They wanted FS-X to be as close as possible to the original F-16 so that it could trickle down.

An F-16XL based model made zero sense in this context, and that's why it was dropped when it was offered by GD to Japan; because neither Japan nor the US wanted it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of these would haven been well discussed in the FS-X thread.
 
Suricato said:
What is the difference between 5th gen and 6th gen? In case of a software and LRU upgrade it has sense to develop an 5th gen aircraft.
Click to expand...
Well the taxonomy of generations are arbitrary anyways. It also constantly changed to suit new technological advances, so if we are to define "6th gen" we would probably first need to revamp the whole taxonomy itself.

Also, a lot of those characteristics that are so-called "6th gen" features right now seem to be something that could surely be able to trickle down into "legacy" 5th gen fighters: variable stream propulsion, increase generation and cooling capacity, imrpoved 4pi steradian SA and connectivity, MUM-T, AI, DEW, etc. We also saw this with the advent and evolution of 4.5th gen fighters. So avionics and propulsion are in my opinion not something that could differentiate 6th gen from 5th gen, unlike how avionivs were the key differences between the 2nd, 3rd and 4th gen fighters.

Nowadays integrated, modular and open are standard so it became way easier to plug and play.

So again, a generational difference would be something that a 5th gen couldn't achieve with an upgrade. So it has to be an evolution in airframe design. In my opinion, what really sets 6th gen apart from 5th gen would be wide-band stealth. There's a reason every single next-gen fighter design we're seeing from the west are either vertical tailless or has a butterfly/pelican wing.

Suricato said:
What is the key cost driver on the 6th gen so that UK and Japan has to work together?
Click to expand...
Everything.
 
timmymagic said:
Sweden now confirmed as out completely.

Gareth references 'Tempest' but Sweden were never in....they were in FCAS though (the UK one, not SCAF) looking at technologies for future combat air.

Suspect the requirements for UK, Japan and Italy were driving a very different aircraft, particularly in size, than Sweden would require...
Click to expand...
Very much this.

Japan and UK are almost certainly looking at a 42-50+ ton aircraft (metric or imperial), just for the range they want (and maybe weapons bay volume, not entirely certain on that but I'm expecting a lot more than a 5klb internal weapons capacity, probably 2x AIM9X, 6x AIM120, and 2x 2000lb bombs, minimum).

Problem for Sweden in terms of export orders is that Gripen Es are running about the same cost as F-35As (FFS, F-35As are cheaper than Super Hornets!). If you can get cleared for Gripen engines, you can probably get cleared for F-35s, so why would you not jump up for the much greater capabilities of the F-35?
 
I supose that Sweeden generally want to keep their home grown fighter business going for as long as possible without joining GCAP or the French/German FCAS, so that they can then decide to replace the Gripen E in the future with either GCAP or FCAS once the two 6th generation fighters enter service.
 
FighterJock said:
I supose that Sweeden generally want to keep their home grown fighter business going for as long as possible without joining GCAP or the French/German FCAS, so that they can then decide to replace the Gripen E in the future with either GCAP or FCAS once the two 6th generation fighters enter service.
Click to expand...
I think you're right, but I also think that's going to bite them in the ass, because SAAB won't be able to design new planes after this. Won't have any experience in 5th/6th gen aircraft at all.
 
I think Sweden might ultimately opt for some sort of light fighter with Swarm drone capability to maintain their low support footprint ethos of dispersed operations utilising small ground crews and minimal equipment. Aim for something in the $30-50m price bracket today, there is a lot of upcoming competition in that field but swarm drone/system of systems capabilities if they could be implemented on a platform that light might give them a technological edge.
 
Last edited:
The Helicopter is labelled 'Helicopter' and on the bullet point list on the left it says
"Test Initiative - We conducted a test control from a helicopter simulating a manned fighter and the linkages worked" I think its referring to radio relay as at the bottom right where the picture of the guy with a joystick is it describes the drone as being remote controlled from the ground.

At the bottom is a timeline titled 'Research Plan' first box is 'system design', then 'detail design' (and the arrow is pointing near the end of this box) 3rd box is 'flight test' and final box is 'Acquiring the necessary technology for unmanned aircraft to support manned aircraft'.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
The Helicopter is labelled 'Helicopter' and on the bullet point list on the left it says
"Test Initiative - We conducted a test control from a helicopter simulating a manned fighter and the linkages worked" I think its referring to radio relay as at the bottom right where the picture of the guy with a joystick is it describes the drone as being remote controlled from the ground.

At the bottom is a timeline titled 'Research Plan' first box is 'system design', then 'detail design' (and the arrow is pointing near the end of this box) 3rd box is 'flight test' and final box is 'Acquiring the necessary technology for unmanned aircraft to support manned aircraft'.
Click to expand...
Thank you!
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1732283136049066274
View: https://twitter.com/AlexLuck9/status/1732283136049066274


Straits Times Article

TOKYO - Japan, Britain and Italy will sign a treaty in Tokyo next week to establish a joint organisation and industry group for developing their planned advanced jet fighter, three sources with direct knowledge of the plans said.

An inter-government body will oversee the industry group venture led by Britain's BAE Systems PLC, Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Italy's Leonardo.

That group will distribute work to teams in different parts of the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), such as the engine and avionics, the sources said.

They asked not to be identified because they are not authorised to speak to the media.

Reuters in March reported that Japan and Britain would dominate GCAP, with about a 40 per cent share of the work each. Rome dismissed that as "speculative".

Japan's defence ministry declined to comment. Officials at the British and Italian embassies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The agreement, which Parliaments of each country must ratify, will come a year after they established their first major defence industry collaboration by merging the separate next-generation fighter efforts of London and Tokyo.

Someone from Japan may lead the project initially, and the management will rotate among the three countries, two of the sources said.

Japan's leading candidate for that job is Mr Masami Oka, and adviser to the defence ministry who retired as vice-minister of international affairs in July, they added.

Mr Oka did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The three countries plan to choose Britain as GCAP's headquarters, Reuters reported in September.

GCAP may also welcome other nations as junior partners, with Saudi Arabia among the contenders because it would bring money and a lucrative market to a project expected to cost tens of billions of dollars.

Other companies involved in the project include European missile maker MBDA, Japanese avionics manufacturer Mitsubishi Electric Corp, and engine makers Rolls-Royce PLC, IHI Corp, and Avio Aero. REUTERS
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom