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

Trident said:
But that constrained view is to ignore all the other advantages the AESA principle offers in terms of agility and ECCM.
Click to expand...
AESA / PESA advantages over m-scan in those regards are theoretical advantages. It's really difficult to know what modes have actually been used on what radar at what time and whether one is more effective than the other.

From the RAND paper, the main thing the US was seeking details on Japan's AESA programme was to reduce TRM production cost. But they couldn't exploit how Japan was making TRMs cheaper because a) it was business processes rather than technology, and b) it was really difficult to work out whether they were actually cheaper after all.
 
Trident said:
datafuser said:
Cjc said:
well the us licensed it because congress wanted something out of the f-2 program (this was during the hight of the anti Japan trade issues) but it didn't end up being worth much and us companies had to develop there own anyway. And the us was working on aesa on its own and was only behind by A few weeks? I think.
Click to expand...

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR612.2part3.pdf
Click to expand...


The claim that the F-2 radar is no better than conventional US F-16 radars in performance and inferior to some on other airframes also raises questions about the comparison metrics. It could conceivably be accurate if you narrow your interest to range exclusively - this is mainly determined by power output, antenna size and sensitivity. Early TRMs as used on the F-2 radar would very possibly not have given power or sensitivity improvements, and antenna size is obviously comparable to the F-16 (and smaller than other US fighters).

But that constrained view is to ignore all the other advantages the AESA principle offers in terms of agility and ECCM. Similarly, I'm fairly confident the composites skills demostrated by the Japanese will have been instrumental in their ability to secure very sophisticated and lucrative workshare in this field from Boeing (787 wings). So just because US industry/Lockheed-Martin ultimately derived little benefit (debatable, if you consider the 787) from the tech pioneered on the F-2, the same is patently not true for Japan itself.

Altogether, these sources smack of attempts to rationalize what is nothing but a typical NIH attitude at the core.
Click to expand...

Yes, new technologies were pioneered in the FS-X program. But my point is that it does not seem Japanese AESA radar and composite wing technologies transferred to the US through the FS-X joint development program were crucial in US fighter developments since the 1990's.

Is it correct that what you are saying is the US needed Japanese AESA radar and composite wing technologies to develop their own AESA radar (APG-77) and composite wing (that of the F-22)?

I do believe the F-2's composite wing paved the way for MHI to win the Boeing 787 composite wing contract.
 
datafuser said:
Is it correct that what you are saying is the US needed Japanese AESA radar and composite wing technologies to develop their own AESA radar (APG-77) and composite wing (that of the F-22)?
Click to expand...

No, it certainly didn't. But that is exactly my point - whether the US needed these technologies or was (at a later date) able to independently come up with equivalents is too narrow a standard by which to judge their significance. The US did not need R-73 technology to develop the AIM-9X either, yet everybody would agree that the introduction of the Russian missile marked a milestone in air combat evolution.
 
Let's not see GCap only as an airframe but as an ecosystem. Part of it can be routed out toward a new airframe.
Saab will need something in-line with their Gripen, in term of concept, Class range, complexity etc... The synergies building the two might be beneficial for both programs.
 
TomcatViP said:
Let's not see GCap only as an airframe but as an ecosystem. Part of it can be routed out toward a new airframe.
Saab will need something in-line with their Gripen, in term of concept, Class range, complexity etc... The synergies building the two might be beneficial for both programs.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that what Tempest was about initially? Iirc it was supposed to be a joint technology dev program, from which the partner nations would've been able to apply the resulting technologies/components on their own airframes.
 
Japanese Government will spend ¥ 770 billion for the design and development process of GCAP by 2028.

Next Fighter
In addition, regarding the next fighter, we will proceed with joint development with the United Kingdom and Italy, spending about 770 billion yen over five years, so that deployment can begin by 2035 when F2 is expected to be retired.
Click to expand...

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20221216/k10013925261000.html
 
Ares said:
Japanese Government will spend ¥ 770 billion for the design and development process of GCAP by 2028.

Next Fighter
In addition, regarding the next fighter, we will proceed with joint development with the United Kingdom and Italy, spending about 770 billion yen over five years, so that deployment can begin by 2035 when F2 is expected to be retired.
Click to expand...

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20221216/k10013925261000.html
Click to expand...
That's a lot of money for 6 years. That coupled with the fact that it's only their part of the total expenditure for GCAP during the period and there are still 7 years to go after 2028, my oh my they really are going to invest a lot.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Ares said:
Japanese Government will spend ¥ 770 billion for the design and development process of GCAP by 2028.

Next Fighter
In addition, regarding the next fighter, we will proceed with joint development with the United Kingdom and Italy, spending about 770 billion yen over five years, so that deployment can begin by 2035 when F2 is expected to be retired.
Click to expand...

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20221216/k10013925261000.html
Click to expand...
That's a lot of money for 6 years. That coupled with the fact that it's only their part of the total expenditure for GCAP during the period and there are still 7 years to go after 2028, my oh my they really are going to invest a lot.
Click to expand...

It may be a lot of money, but every little helps for the GCAP program.
 
One thing that no-one has mentioned is that all four countries have long experience of working with partners in English. Italy has been a partner and manager of helicopter production in the UK for years. Japan has continued to do investment in Britain despite the chaos of Brexit. Sweden is well used to working with BAe over many years.
None of the countries has the US or French national pressure to call the shots over the others.
Equally all have got other pressures at home that might cause them to walk away from the programme.
 
uk 75 said:
Italy has been a partner and manager of helicopter production in the UK for years.
Click to expand...
I mean there's nothing more to say when both the UK and Italy's main subcontractor are Leonardo, dating back to Alenia Marconi days.
uk 75 said:
Sweden is well used to working with BAe over many years
Click to expand...
Same as Italy, not just BAe but also Selex as well.
 
I suspect we now have to reconcile ourselves to the business folly of duplication, to the sole benefit of our potential enemies.

NFR-90 failed, 8 Users unable to define adequate commonality. 6 A400M Users (in R&D, RSA in/out of fabrication) did (eventually) agree a baseline, but we might wonder if it was all worthwhile. MRCA briefly had 7 Users/6 Nations in its Definition Committees and might well have floundered if that had not settled as 4 Users/3 Nations. 4 Nations has worked in Typhoon...with some challenges. None of this invites merger SCAF+GCAP, 2xFrances, a pittance for Belgium, tyres for Spain, something or another junior for Airbus/DE...plus UK/JA/IT/?SE. Ugh! How many assembly lines?

We might try to scatter the elements of one eco-scheme around that gaggle...but it would be a challenge to deny either France or UK a hefty role in the visible manned Air Vehicle, so others would be fed crumbs on it.
 
Last edited:
alertken said:
I suspect we now have to reconcile ourselves to the business folly of duplication, to the sole benefit of our potential enemies.
Click to expand...
But it's about industry capability/ work / jobs rather than efficient procurement. So be it for R&D but we can only hope that there's a single production line rather than triplicating the people watching the automatic tin bashing machines. Probably also makes sense to do this in the country with lowest labour costs.
 
It's a bit 'previous' to start archiving Tempest. The UK/Italian/Swedish FCAS programme now includes Japan, and is now known as GCAP, but the core manned platform remains Tempest (with a suitable, subtly different and as yet unannounced name for Japan - likely to be Arashi).
 
alertken said:
I suspect we now have to reconcile ourselves to the business folly of duplication, to the sole benefit of our potential enemies.
Click to expand...

To the benefit of the UK and Italy, who will be spared the heartache of working with a France that remains entirely unable to do collaborative programmes, and without the brain-ache of working with Germany on an export programme. I say that half in jest. But only half!
 
Jackonicko said:
It's a bit 'previous' to start archiving Tempest. The UK/Italian/Swedish FCAS programme now includes Japan, and is now known as GCAP, but the core manned platform remains Tempest (with a suitable, subtly different and as yet unannounced name for Japan - likely to be Arashi).
Click to expand...
I think it's a bit early to say that definitively. We know that Japan was working on their own airframe for a while, and some bleed-over will likely occur, because it's unlikely that Tempest would perfectly fill everyone's demands.
 
Jackonicko said:
It's a bit 'previous' to start archiving Tempest. The UK/Italian/Swedish FCAS programme now includes Japan, and is now known as GCAP, but the core manned platform remains Tempest (with a suitable, subtly different and as yet unannounced name for Japan - likely to be Arashi).
Click to expand...
FCAS is still its own entity. GCAP is a program that succeeds the Tempest, a component of FCAS and F-X. That's the reason Sweden is not automatically involved. Also the demonstrator part of the Tempest remains as an independent demonstrator program as others have previously noted, just like what EAP was for the EFA program and by that, it is not the core of the the manned platform. The model that has been most recently published strongly resembles the latest F-X model more than the Tempest, with the difference being the new DSI intake. Besides, Japan is (as of now) going their own way with other FCAS components, such as the wingman drone.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Jackonicko said:
It's a bit 'previous' to start archiving Tempest. The UK/Italian/Swedish FCAS programme now includes Japan, and is now known as GCAP, but the core manned platform remains Tempest (with a suitable, subtly different and as yet unannounced name for Japan - likely to be Arashi).
Click to expand...
FCAS is still its own entity. GCAP is a program that succeeds the Tempest, a component of FCAS and F-X. That's the reason Sweden is not automatically involved. Also the demonstrator part of the Tempest remains as an independent demonstrator program as others have previously noted, just like what EAP was for the EFA program and by that, it is not the core of the the manned platform. The model that has been most recently published strongly resembles the latest F-X model more than the Tempest, with the difference being the new DSI intake. Besides, Japan is (as of now) going their own way with other FCAS components, such as the wingman drone.
Click to expand...
That's not accurate. Tempest is the name of the core manned platform.

The latest model CGIs that accompanied the GCAP announcement were created by the marketing people specifically for that purpose, with a brief of not looking too much like the existing Tempest concepts, precisely to avoid upsetting Japanese sensitivities.
 
MihoshiK said:
Jackonicko said:
It's a bit 'previous' to start archiving Tempest. The UK/Italian/Swedish FCAS programme now includes Japan, and is now known as GCAP, but the core manned platform remains Tempest (with a suitable, subtly different and as yet unannounced name for Japan - likely to be Arashi).
Click to expand...
I think it's a bit early to say that definitively. We know that Japan was working on their own airframe for a while, and some bleed-over will likely occur, because it's unlikely that Tempest would perfectly fill everyone's demands.
Click to expand...

My sources on this are close enough to the programme to be definitive.

The whole reason that the GCAP programme exists is precisely because the UK, Italian and Japanese requirements ARE a very close match, and because the resulting aircraft will "perfectly fill everyone's demands".
 
And that fits perfectly the need. And that is sooooo Great. (whatever it is more sourced from)
 
Jackonicko said:
That's not accurate. Tempest is the name of the core manned platform.

The latest model CGIs that accompanied the GCAP announcement were created by the marketing people specifically for that purpose, with a brief of not looking too much like the existing Tempest concepts, precisely to avoid upsetting Japanese sensitivities.
Click to expand...
Jackonicko said:
My sources on this are close enough to the programme to be definitive.

The whole reason that the GCAP programme exists is precisely because the UK, Italian and Japanese requirements ARE a very close match, and because the resulting aircraft will "perfectly fill everyone's demands
Click to expand...
Whatever your sources say. I know that you'll have quite a few of them as a defence and aviation reporter for so long, but we'll find out if it stands true. I'm talking out of past reports and official announcements concerning the program and besides, you've been wrong about the Tempest and F-X not merging despite your industrial sources so I can't just believe whatever you're saying.

Though apart from that, yes, the three countries have very similar demands by the end-user ie air force and ASDF.
 
Last edited:
I think its more correct to say that the crewed combat aircraft (/core platform) planned to be in RAF service, will be called Tempest.

"Tempest" is not the mockup shown at Farnborough. These are just illustrations to make people excited (e.g. Generation Tempest STEM outreach). The final aircraft will not look like the mockup. Partly because it has got to actually be a flyable aircraft.
 
red admiral said:
I think its more correct to say that the crewed combat aircraft (/core platform) planned to be in RAF service, will be called Tempest.

"Tempest" is not the mockup shown at Farnborough. These are just illustrations to make people excited (e.g. Generation Tempest STEM outreach). The final aircraft will not look like the mockup. Partly because it has got to actually be a flyable aircraft.
Click to expand...
The eventual Tempest will certainly look nothing like the Farnborough mock-up, nor will it look like the similar P189-17B, and probably nor even the Concept 5 model shown at Farnborough. Nor will it bear much resemblance to the demonstrator now being built. Concepting is still ongoing.

The crewed combat aircraft (eg: the core platform) will still be the design that emerges from the current concepting work, and will be called Tempest in both Britain and Italy.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Jackonicko said:
That's not accurate. Tempest is the name of the core manned platform.

The latest model CGIs that accompanied the GCAP announcement were created by the marketing people specifically for that purpose, with a brief of not looking too much like the existing Tempest concepts, precisely to avoid upsetting Japanese sensitivities.
Click to expand...
Jackonicko said:
My sources on this are close enough to the programme to be definitive.

The whole reason that the GCAP programme exists is precisely because the UK, Italian and Japanese requirements ARE a very close match, and because the resulting aircraft will "perfectly fill everyone's demands
Click to expand...
Whatever your sources say. I know that you'll have quite a few of them as a defence and aviation reporter for so long, but we'll find out if it stands true. I'm talking out of past reports and official announcements concerning the program and besides, you've been wrong about the Tempest and F-X not merging despite your industrial sources so I can't just believe whatever you're saying.

Though apart from that, yes, the three countries have very similar demands by the end-user ie air force and ASDF.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that what we're seeing is a merger, though it may be presented as one as a nod to Japanese sensibilities. I believe that in effect, the overall system of systems programmes may have been integrated, but that Japan is essentially going to adopt the Tempest core manned platform, which will incorporate jointly-designed and produced weapons, avionics and power plants.
 
Let's wait and see. There is nothing concrete behind such words than face value. Just like anything produced out of the US or EU is too often seen as a copy, there is not much grounds to think that because GCAP will have two wings and stealthy fuselage, it would be Tempest redraw for Japanese.
So, please, unless based on documented arguments, let's not continue this strange debate only on I tell you's.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that most people with a real interest in this welcome a bit of inside knowledge.

Have you read the designations P189-17B or Concept 5 anywhere else?

Of course you haven't. Does that mean they are wrong because they are what: "I tell you"?
 
Jackonicko said:
I suspect that most people with a real interest in this welcome a bit of inside knowledge.

Have you read the designations P189-17B or Concept 5 anywhere else?

Of course you haven't. Does that mean they are wrong because they are what: "I tell you"?
Click to expand...
I am discussing the angle.
 
Jackonicko said:
I'm not sure that what we're seeing is a merger, though it may be presented as one as a nod to Japanese sensibilities. I believe that in effect, the overall system of systems programmes may have been integrated, but that Japan is essentially going to adopt the Tempest core manned platform, which will incorporate jointly-designed and produced weapons, avionics and power plants.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that is correct. The "Tempest" air vehicle / air frame does not currently exist so there is nothing to adopt. The joint Industry team from MHI and Leonardo (Aemacchi) have substantial recent relevant experience from X-2 and M-346 that can be brought to bear. e.g. MHI's composite combined wing/fuselage to save mass.

I would expect the joint team to produce the best design to meet the joint requirement set. e.g. if Japan's requirement is for very long range as reported, then a large aircraft is needed to carry sufficient fuel, likely to be substantially larger than for UK or Italian concepts. This will be a new joint concept, jointly created and owned, not just BAES' plans (which don't exist) enlarged in the photocopier.
 
It's too early days to know how this might turn out.
2035 is 13 years away. It's like trying to guess how the F-35 might turn out in 1993.

If digital design really is super fancy and speedy then there is nothing stopping them ripping up all the cool CGI so far and starting again with a common airframe. I believe strongly it will be a common airframe because otherwise the collaborative cost savings are not going to be there. Japan would need to fund a separate flight test R&D programme for a start.
Long range wouldn't hurt the RAF or Italian AF - a spiritual successor to Tornado wouldn't be a bad thing. Long range strike will be just as vital. The RAF has spent far more time post-1945 dropping objects onto people's heads than engaging in live Top Gun-esque dogfights.
 
Hood said:
It's too early days to know how this might turn out.
2035 is 13 years away. It's like trying to guess how the F-35 might turn out in 1993.

If digital design really is super fancy and speedy then there is nothing stopping them ripping up all the cool CGI so far and starting again with a common airframe. I believe strongly it will be a common airframe because otherwise the collaborative cost savings are not going to be there. Japan would need to fund a separate flight test R&D programme for a start.
Long range wouldn't hurt the RAF or Italian AF - a spiritual successor to Tornado wouldn't be a bad thing. Long range strike will be just as vital. The RAF has spent far more time post-1945 dropping objects onto people's heads than engaging in live Top Gun-esque dogfights.
Click to expand...

I think that the Tornado has to have a successor and the GCAP would fit that bill as well as replacing the Typhoon and supplementing the F-35Bs that are still in service by that time.
 
red admiral said:
Jackonicko said:
1) The "Tempest" air vehicle / air frame does not currently exist so there is nothing to adopt.
Click to expand...

2) I would expect the joint team to produce the best design to meet the joint requirement set. e.g. if Japan's requirement is for very long range as reported, then a large aircraft is needed to carry sufficient fuel, likely to be substantially larger than for UK or Italian concepts. This will be a new joint concept, jointly created and owned, not just BAES' plans (which don't exist) enlarged in the photocopier.
Click to expand...

I think that's over-simplistic (point 1) above) - firstly while a final definitive configuration hasn't been arrived at, a great deal of work has been done, and no-one is going to willingly tear it up. That doesn't mean that Japan won't have things to bring to the table and to add - especially in the areas to which you allude.

2) All three partners want a VLR air dominance aircraft, so there will be no need to 'enlarge the BAE concept in the office photocopier'.

It does, however, highlight the need for a second core manned platform for those potential customers who don't need or can't afford 'son of ADV'...
 
Hood said:
It's too early days to know how this might turn out.
2035 is 13 years away. It's like trying to guess how the F-35 might turn out in 1993.

If digital design really is super fancy and speedy then there is nothing stopping them ripping up all the cool CGI so far and starting again with a common airframe. I believe strongly it will be a common airframe because otherwise the collaborative cost savings are not going to be there. Japan would need to fund a separate flight test R&D programme for a start.
Long range wouldn't hurt the RAF or Italian AF - a spiritual successor to Tornado wouldn't be a bad thing. Long range strike will be just as vital. The RAF has spent far more time post-1945 dropping objects onto people's heads than engaging in live Top Gun-esque dogfights.
Click to expand...
There's no need to rip up anything. The Tempest concepting is absolutely in line with Japanese requirements. A common airframe does not have to be a new airframe. That much is clear from the initial aspiration to have a common engine and centre fuselage - which implied that F-X and Tempest were always going to be in the same weight class.
 
TomcatViP said:
Let's wait and see. There is nothing concrete behind such words than face value. Just like anything produced out of the US or EU is too often seen as a copy, there is not much grounds to think that because GCAP will have two wings and stealthy fuselage, it would be Tempest redraw for Japanese.
So, please, unless based on documented arguments, let's not continue this strange debate only on I tell you's.
Click to expand...

TomcatViP said:
Jackonicko said:
I suspect that most people with a real interest in this welcome a bit of inside knowledge.

Have you read the designations P189-17B or Concept 5 anywhere else?

Of course you haven't. Does that mean they are wrong because they are what: "I tell you"?
Click to expand...
I am discussing the angle.
Click to expand...

What you said was that anything not based on documented sources was of no interest or value.

I reported what senior sources working inside the programme say about what FCAS, GCAP and Tempest are. And they say that the GCAP core platform will still be the design that emerges from the current concepting work (to which Japan will presumably now be inputting), and that it will be called Tempest in Britain and Italy, and something else in Japan.
 
Jackonicko said:
It does, however, highlight the need for a second core manned platform for those potential customers who don't need or can't afford 'son of ADV'...
Click to expand...
I won't be putting any money on BAES self funding that. God hopes they don't get UK MOD to pay for their Checkmate fantasies

"Tempest" is still years away from PDR. Definitely not a frozen concept. And Japan have been inputting to this joint concept for quite some time already, from a much more mature starting position e.g. their ground demos, flying X-2 etc.
 
Jackonicko said:
It does, however, highlight the need for a second core manned platform for those potential customers who don't need or can't afford 'son of ADV'...
Click to expand...
And this presumably is where Sweden and SAAB comes in.....
 
zen said:
Jackonicko said:
It does, however, highlight the need for a second core manned platform for those potential customers who don't need or can't afford 'son of ADV'...
Click to expand...
And this presumably is where Sweden and SAAB comes in.....
Click to expand...
If I were Saab, that's what I'd be pushing for. Gripen-E will not be looking terribly compelling in 2035!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom