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.

 

[Ainen]

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

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

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.

Or simply use external pylons.

And give up your stealth?

How about "no."

 

[Ozair]

And give up your stealth?

How about "no."

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

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.

 

[Ainen]

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.

You're asking the impossible.
And if you remove the impossible part, Eurofighter/F-16 does everything you need.

 

[Ozair]

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.

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.

 

[Ainen]

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.

IMHO automating APKWS mission will be one of the most difficult missions to outsource.

Too much low altitude congested/adverse weather.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

That would be ideal, yes.

IMHO automating APKWS mission will be one of the most difficult missions to outsource.

Too much low altitude congested/adverse weather.

Likely.

 

[Ozair]

IMHO automating APKWS mission will be one of the most difficult missions to outsource.

Too much low altitude congested/adverse weather.

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.

 

[eagle]

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.

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.

 

[Ainen]

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.

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).

 

[DWG]

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

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.

 

[eagle]

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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).

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.

 

[Kota]

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.

 

[JS23]

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?

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.

 

[Ainen]

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.

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.

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.

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)

 

[Kota]

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)

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".

 

[TsrJoe]

GCAP NEWS & TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, NOT A F' IRRELEVANT APKWS/DRONE CHATROOM

 

[Scott Kenny]

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?

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!

 

[Ainen]

Notice that the USAF's suggested Shahed hunter isn't F-16s, but F-15EX!

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.

 

[DWG]

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.

 

[MigLui]

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.