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

Training_Dummy said:
I would say commentary from GCAP highlights a seemingly conscious omission discussion / mention of supercruise. I would argue that supercruise is nice, but not required for either of the trilateral partners.

What is non negotiable “to me” is long range for Japan, which also means long loiter for UK and IT (which is great for many reasons). You can accomplish this without ACE.
Click to expand...

They have confirmed Supercruise in the past....they've got a lot to talk about so won't mention supercruise in every briefing...

The range requirement for Japan is exactly the same as the UK's....there seems to be a strange belief that range only applies to countries in the Pacific.....look at a globe....look at which airfields Japan is operating from, where aircraft will be heading for CAP stations....then do the same for the UK...the ranges are almost exactly the same...
 
To be honest... I think the goals for GCAP have been set with a realistic eye towards available technologies, considering the projected development process time path.

Unlike NGAD we're unlikely to see many "revolutionary" technologies. Instead GCAP looks like it will be build on relatively mature tech, perhaps with a good eye towards possible upgrades.
 
bob225 said:
i can't see UK & Italy being able to do it all alone, does that then mean that the UK and Italy have to buy F-47, watered down version.
Click to expand...
UK, Italy & France could work. Ideally throw Saab in too. That would be the dream team in terms of aerospace, avionics and engine know-how.

Japan, Germany & Spain are the weakest partners in both programs technically, and also due to their US-centric defensive mindset and lack of export focus… wouldn’t be a great loss if they bought more F-35s/F-47s.
 
timmymagic said:
They have confirmed Supercruise in the past....they've got a lot to talk about so won't mention supercruise in every briefing...

The range requirement for Japan is exactly the same as the UK's....there seems to be a strange belief that range only applies to countries in the Pacific.....look at a globe....look at which airfields Japan is operating from, where aircraft will be heading for CAP stations....then do the same for the UK...the ranges are almost exactly the same...
Click to expand...
Repeating some figures of mine from earlier in the thread:

RAF Leeming to GIUK Gap, c600nm (Leeming to Bodo, 900nm, to St Petersburg 1100nm, to Kaliningrad 775nm)

Nyutabaru AFB to Ishigaki/Senkakus, c600nm (Nyutabaru to Shanghai, 500nm)
 
I can see how GCAP could be used to BARCAP Bodo (Norway)*... But Kalingrad, St Petersburg?...

Note:
Tarcap and sweep do not require the kind of tank capacity we are talking here with CAP at range.

*but haven't they already operational F-35?
 
bob225 said:
i can't see UK & Italy being able to do it all alone
Click to expand...

They could team up with Sweden, or alternatively join FCAS. If FCAS doesn't fail due to France being France, of course.

But for now, it's all just rumors. I think to seriously consider it, the Americans would have to offer local manufacturing and tech transfer to Japan. Otherwise they're better off with their own program, even if it's more conservative/less capable. Just because they own all the intellectual property, all the tech and can modify the design in accordance to what the UK and Italy envision as well.
 
DWG said:
RAF Leeming to GIUK Gap, c600nm (Leeming to Bodo, 900nm, to St Petersburg 1100nm, to Kaliningrad 775nm)

Nyutabaru AFB to Ishigaki/Senkakus, c600nm (Nyutabaru to Shanghai, 500nm)
Click to expand...
The problem is that Japanese requirements are genuine - there are few bases in-between, and those few that exist are almost guaranteed to be at least suppressed.
There's world's second air force(PLAAF) as a threat, with PLAN as a bonus.
(and at this tempo there already emerges a horizon where it won't be just 2nd)

GIUK patrolling is essentially search of a problem (as if there's anything to even patrol against in wartime). All other numbers have intermediate airfields down to rocket artillery range, and in any case are ofca/strike in nature, not patrol.

Shall Japan and its money fall out - GCAP as it exists is an outright sabotage program.
 
Last edited:
bob225 said:
According to TWZ: Trump has offered F-47 to Japan.
Click to expand...
Doesn't offer the local industry benefits, doesnt offer the military benefits (Trump outright saying exported stuff is hit with downgrades) doesn't provide the diplomatic benefits (tying other countires capable of Pacific projection to Japan, as well as further defence cooperation) and theres no hope for extra benefits of selling to other nations (GCAP partners have likely split the world in 3 as far as who gets to sell to what goes).

Pronouncement: dead before arrival
 
Last edited:
By some ancient maps....because online things be designed to suck hours of life out of one....

RAF Lossiemouth to Tromsö is roughly 1,000nm.
To the nearest part of Greenland is about 1000nm
Implying 2,000nm ROA is insufficient for such operations and either increased range or the additional expense of Tankers is required.
1,500nm radius would give you some time over the most distant points, as it would to range over the Kola peninsula and at least be able to look over the White Sea.

BTW 1,000nm would get you over the eastern border of Belarus, but you'd need 1,500nm to get to Moscow....from the nearest coast in East Anglia.

So great range is of considerable utility.
Especially if it frees up tankers, which impose their own limitations.

The assumption some people seem to be making is either the constant availability of Tankers or airfields nearer to areas of operation.

ADV Tornado was a compromise to get something and shouldn't be assumed to be the ideal fit.
 
bob225 said:
According to TWZ: Trump has offered F-47 to Japan.

https://www.twz.com/air/trump-offers-f-47-sixth-gen-fighter-to-japan-reports
If they go that way, i can't see UK & Italy being able to do it all alone, does that then mean that the UK and Italy have to buy F-47, watered down version.

It would be a real shame, and bad news for the UK aerospace industry.

Something that's occurred to me, historically the UK and especially the RAF have had special access to USAF future projects, pilots on the F-117 squadron, Senior officer at the B-21 unveiling. So have we already been read in to the F-47 program?

Or is this Trump trying to destroy any aerospace competition?
Click to expand...
The chances of the UK buying the F-47 and in the process killing a great big chunk of BAE Warton, RR Bristol and Leonardo Edinburgh should be roughly identical to a snow storm hitting Ougadougou tomorrow.
Also suspect that the Japanese defense industry would scream "bloody murder" if the JASDF entertained the idea of replacing GCAP by a US aircraft.
And by the way if Turkey, Rússia and South Korean can develop their own Fighter programs whats stopping the UK and Italy?
Yeah i know, Europe is a peaceful place, its not like there's a massive war in the Eastern bit of the Continent and some morons on a prime time TV show threathning to flaten out London every other week... Oh wait!


Cheers
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
I can see how GCAP could be used to BARCAP Bodo (Norway)*... But Kalingrad, St Petersburg?...

Note:
Tarcap and sweep do not require the kind of tank capacity we are talking here with CAP at range.

*but haven't they already operational F-35?
Click to expand...

Ability to reach Moscow unrefuelled was rumoured to be the British programme specification. Would probably require a top-up on the way back though.
 
bob225 said:
According to TWZ: Trump has offered F-47 to Japan.

https://www.twz.com/air/trump-offers-f-47-sixth-gen-fighter-to-japan-reports
If they go that way, i can't see UK & Italy being able to do it all alone, does that then mean that the UK and Italy have to buy F-47, watered down version.

It would be a real shame, and bad news for the UK aerospace industry.

Something that's occurred to me, historically the UK and especially the RAF have had special access to USAF future projects, pilots on the F-117 squadron, Senior officer at the B-21 unveiling. So have we already been read in to the F-47 program?

Or is this Trump trying to destroy any aerospace competition?
Click to expand...

Considering he also pitched the twin engine F-35 he calls F-55 during the same conversation, a aircraft programme that the Pentagon has confirmed is entirely non-existent and just in his head... I dont think anyone will take him that seriously.
 
timmymagic said:
The range requirement for Japan is exactly the same as the UK's....there seems to be a strange belief that range only applies to countries in the Pacific.....look at a globe....look at which airfields Japan is operating from, where aircraft will be heading for CAP stations....then do the same for the UK...the ranges are almost exactly the same...
Click to expand...
Not to deny you, but somewhere in this thread I remember reading a something of a UK government official report that stated "Japan needs a longer range than the UK".
 
Regardless of final range you can't get around without tankers especially in times of war where consumption will be higher with higher use of dashes or simply diversional flight plans.

That said the UK and Japan need drone tankers like the MQ-25.
 
There is a strong possibility that Japan will purchase the F-47, but it is unlikely that they will withdraw from the GCAP. If Japan does decide to purchase it, it would be solely to fill the current gap in air power capabilities. The aircraft that will serve as Japan’s main combat force in the future will likely be the GCAP. If Japan were to withdraw from the GCAP, the reason would be due to delays in the program’s development. Japan is aiming for deployment by 2035 and cannot afford to wait until 2040.Additionally, before joining the GCAP project, Japan had plans to develop a fighter jet independently. Therefore, it is possible that Japan might leave GCAP and pursue the development of a sixth-generation fighter on its own, similar to how France developed the Rafale independently.
 
Same thoughts here too takacosta, in that case the GCAP/Tempest will likely operate along side the F-47 and Japan will have the best of both worlds.
 
Ainen said:
GIUK patrolling is essentially search of a problem (as if there's anything to even patrol against in wartime). All other numbers have intermediate airfields down to rocket artillery range, and in any case are ofca/strike in nature, not patrol.
Click to expand...

GIUK has been a driver of range requirements since the 1970s, hence Phantom and stretched ADV.

That the UK currently used Typhoon + tanker to try to fill the gap is due to finances in the 1990s that prevented a proper replacement for the ADV, not because it meets requirements.
 
TomcatViP said:
I can see how GCAP could be used to BARCAP Bodo (Norway)*... But Kalingrad, St Petersburg?...

Note:
Tarcap and sweep do not require the kind of tank capacity we are talking here with CAP at range.

*but haven't they already operational F-35?
Click to expand...
Kalingrad and St Petersburg were simply to point out local opposition sites, just as I mentioned Shanghai for Japan.

The RN intends to operate in the GIUK Gap (see Project Cabot), just as it did in the Cold War, so the RAF needs to cover them against Russian Naval Air, and to protect the UK against the Russian cruise missile threat, again as it did in the Cold War, which means BARCAP over the GIUK Gap.

WRT Bodo, that's the major northern Norwegian airfield, so an important reinforcement hub that needs all the cover it can get.
 
Ainen said:
GIUK patrolling is essentially search of a problem (as if there's anything to even patrol against in wartime).
Click to expand...
!?!
I know it doesn't fly, but there's this small organisation called the Russian Northern Fleet. Which has to get through the GIUK Gap to get into the Atlantic. And which the RN, leading NATO on this, intends to patrol - see Type 23, Type 26, and for their latest thinking, Project Cabot.

On top of which is the concentration of Russian air power on the Kola Peninsula, which is the primary air threat to the UK, not having to fight their way across half of NATO to get to us.

Both of which the acolytes of Vlad the Mad keep threatening to use on us.

So if you think there's nothing at the GIUK Gap requiring UK force projection, I seriously question your understanding of the strategic situation in Europe.
 
Kiltonge said:
GIUK has been a driver of range requirements since the 1970s, hence Phantom and stretched ADV.

That the UK currently used Typhoon + tanker to try to fill the gap is due to finances in the 1990s that prevented a proper replacement for the ADV, not because it meets requirements.
Click to expand...
Typhoon was always meant to replace ADV, and ADV was just as dependent on tanker support, even with the Hindenburgers. I don't recall a single mention during the '90s of a dedicated interceptor replacement apart from hopeless American (or American proxy) attempts to convince the RAF to buy F-14/F-15/F-16 instead, and those were primarily attempts to undermine ADV, not Typhoon. There was never any support in government for that.

ADV was stretched compared to the IDS because it needed the extra length to fit four Skyflash along the fuselage sides. The decreased drag and extra fuel tank this permitted were useful, but they weren't the reason for the stretch.
 
Last edited:
Elysium said:
That's an extremely good point, and I think an oft-ignored concern about modern jets, which has made me ponder the economic viability and dominance of the air forces of the future. It might very well-be possible (and demonstrated in Ukraine) that these extremely sophisticated platforms have become unable to economically deliver payload to the enemy. This might be due to the sheer technological complexity needed for operating in a modern environment, or the wrong preconceptions of aircraft designers of what is required to actually win a war. Thus due to sheer economics, airpower might not be the dominant force on the battlefield it once was, for whatever reason I'm not interested in exploring in this post.
If we consider the cost of aircraft and their payloads, in todays dollars:

AircraftPayload(lbs)Cost in 2025 $Cost/lbs
B-292000011m$550
F-4 Phantom II1800024m$1300
F-15E23000100m$4300
F-228000200m$25000

While the comparison is not entirely fair, the raw physical reality cannot be ignored.
I think the case can be made that the 5th gen represents an extreme low point of combat effectiveness, in exchange for boutique capabilities, and the 6th gen's chief priority needs to be reducing Cost/lbs.
Click to expand...
Really unfair to use F-22 instead of F-35.
Also your chart refers only to flyaway cost but not to lifetime.
If I can get twice as many flight hours from an F-35, as a plane that costs half as much, then they cost the same.
 
DWG said:
Given the instability of US foreign policy under Trump, why would Japan trust that offer to last past the next person to whisper in his ear?
Click to expand...

And kill their own combat air industry to boot....

The Japanese are not daft...they saw through all the US offers on collaboration previously...they will do so again...
 
Sintra said:
And by the way if Turkey, Rússia and South Korean can develop their own Fighter programs whats stopping the UK and Italy?
Click to expand...

Labor cost, cost in general, did I mention money?

There is a reason that for half a century now the UK basically only developed aircraft as part of a cooperation with other countries.

The UK couldn't develop a viable modern fighter alone, let alone a next generation fighter with everything that comes with that.

So if the joined program would hypothetically fall apart, the UK would have to join another joint program or end up as a mere customer.
 
Posted in

Boeing F-47 NGAD future name guessing​

...but relevant here.

quellish said:
Likewise both competitors had an export plan and the aircraft were designed with export in mind
Click to expand...

Whether or not export versions really have 'kill switches' as has been reported in Canadian media, after Trump's reckless comment that export versions would be downgraded because current allies might not be future allies is a serious disincentive to buy F-47 compared to GCAP.

There may be no kill switch but access to software updates and maintenance is a slower version of the same thing.

Whether or not any of this is true, embarrassing questions are going to be asked in parliaments and governing parties are going to take care where they spend taxpayers' money.
 
DWG said:
Given the instability of US foreign policy under Trump, why would Japan trust that offer to last past the next person to whisper in his ear?
Click to expand...

Because Trumps foreign policy revolves around Indo-Pacific. He (arguably rightfully) views China as the single greatest threat to the current position of the United States. That's why the US is heavily invested in their allies in the region and overall gives them more generous offers. While Europe is utterly irrelevant to him and his staff, a nuisance, quite frankly seen as "leeches" (for lack of a better term) on the US defense apparatus. Europe is a European problem in his eyes, WESTPAC is an American problem. And the likes of the Philippines, South Korea, Japan etc. are keenly aware of that and they know they get preferential treatment.

So comparing the American approach towards Europe, which Trump has no love for, to their approach towards East and South East Asia, which Trump views very favorable from an economic and military POV is kind of a useless Apple-to-Oranges comparison.

Now will that materialize in an F-47 sale to Japan? I doubt it, unless Japan becomes essentially the sole partner in a program that's so fundamentally important to US national security that it's even doubtful they'll export even a downgraded version at the end
 
DWG said:
!?!
I know it doesn't fly, but there's this small organisation called the Russian Northern Fleet. Which has to get through the GIUK Gap to get into the Atlantic. And which the RN, leading NATO on this, intends to patrol - see Type 23, Type 26, and for their latest thinking, Project Cabot.

On top of which is the concentration of Russian air power on the Kola Peninsula, which is the primary air threat to the UK, not having to fight their way across half of NATO to get to us.

Both of which the acolytes of Vlad the Mad keep threatening to use on us.

So if you think there's nothing at the GIUK Gap requiring UK force projection, I seriously question your understanding of the strategic situation in Europe.
Click to expand...

Unless GCAP can conduct Anti-Submarine Warfare, of what use would it be against the main assets of the Northern Fleet anyways? The Russian Navy is a Navy of submarines, everything else is just there to support or distract from said submarines.

With that in mind, it shouldn't play a part in the development of GCAP, as your ships will get sunk by subs anyway. Range requirements won't change that whatsoever.
 
EmoBirb said:
Labor cost, cost in general, did I mention money?

There is a reason that for half a century now the UK basically only developed aircraft as part of a cooperation with other countries.

The UK couldn't develop a viable modern fighter alone, let alone a next generation fighter with everything that comes with that.

So if the joined program would hypothetically fall apart, the UK would have to join another joint program or end up as a mere customer
Click to expand...
Facepalm
Money?! MONEY?!!
The UK has a bigger economy than ANY of the mentioned countries, a bigger defense budget than two of the mentioned countries and an aerospace industry at the bleeding cutting edge, it literally builds every thing needed to develop a next generation combat aircraft. They've stoped developing military aerospace kit on their own because of threat perception, change that percepcion and all that "peace dividend" gets thrown right out of the window faster than a Russian oligarch...
Hell, if South Korea, Turkey and Sweden can do it, so can Italy, alone if need to be, nevermind the UK.
 
Ainen said:
All previous conflicts between US and Japanese industrial interests in military field ended in US favor.
Click to expand...
Not now. I think that you fail to appreciate how the political landscape and trust in the US has changed. The perception of the reliability of the US as a strategic partner has changed drastically compared with even the recent past. Even leaving aside Trump's rhetoric, it has been seen as a declining power and unreliable partner for years now. Isolationism has long been a current in US politics and now it's on the rise again. This discourages strategic allies. Current actions are only making this change visible.
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
Unless GCAP can conduct Anti-Submarine Warfare, of what use would it be against the main assets of the Northern Fleet anyways? The Russian Navy is a Navy of submarines, everything else is just there to support or distract from said submarines.
Click to expand...
Another post that has me asking "Seriously?"

In the event of hostilities with Russia, NATO will deploy ASW assets (surface, sub-surface and aerial) to interdict the attempted passage of Russian subs into the North Atlantic through the GIUK Gap. This isn't some radical new strategy, it's been the plan for more than half a century, and it's just been re-confirmed by Project Cabot with a new generation of ASW assets.

Those NATO ASW assets need aircover against anti-shipping strikes, and roving maritime reconnaissance assets.

As for the presumption that an ASW ship will somehow always fall prey to a sub, that's a rather optimistic assumption, and fails to recognise that the job of a submarine trying to penetrate the GIUK Gap is not to attack the ASW assets, but to evade them in order to interdict the flow of reinforcements further south. If you reveal yourself, then you might possibly kill one frigate, but at the cost of revealing yourself to the other ships, subs, helicopters and fixed wing ASW assets enforcing the barrier.

Did the entire Cold War focus on the GIUK Gap somehow escape everyone's attention?
 
Ainen said:
That organization is incapable of emerging into Atlantic ( I don't think at current state it's even capable of defending itself against lone RN in Barents sea). Moreover, it isn't even interested in it, and it won't be able to challenge GIUK for decades to come. Mathematically, due to wasting so much on vanity nuclear paranoia boats. Mr.Putin can be viewed from different perspectives, but from the maritime power point of view, he is arguably among the absolute worst. Justifying anything with modern Russian navy, outside of end war context, is a form of deceiving the taxpaye
Click to expand...
The Northern Fleet isn't the threat it once was, but still contains 5-6 SSGNs and ten or so SSNs, plus a handful of Kilos. Any of those submarines is capable of pushing south through the GIUK Gap.
 
Rhinocrates said:
Not now. I think that you fail to appreciate how the political landscape and trust in the US has changed.
Click to expand...
In Japan?
Forgive me for bluntness, UK and Italy as partnerships for Japan(China as content) are worthless, when compared to the US.

Japan will either fight alone, or with US. Even Korea is a very, very dubious ally, which is kinda expected to try to sit the situation through, shall things go south. Modern Japan doesn't even conceive the idea of being self-reliant, it's a Plaza nation through and thorough. We may laugh at wake up calls for Europe, but in Japan there is no such thing.

GCAP was a way to get an appropriate solution, in a dire situation where main security provider couldn't (didn't bother to) provide Japan with core defensive capability. It took them two decades to take action, leading situation into laughingly bad (good 1/4th of already depleted Japanese fighter fleet, shall it be called to fight tomorrow, will fly with Sparrows and M sidewinders).

F-47 is not just is an American favour magnet. It's also very likely to produce a more competitive aircraft for lesser overall cost, sooner and with lesser risks.

Unlike the UK, which is 4 sets of borders away from the imminent Russian threat, Japan will be directly engaged (and half strangled the moment any hostilities will begin). Other half is of course over the Pacific, to we all know where.
DWG said:
The Northern Fleet isn't the threat it once was, but still contains 5-6 SSGNs and ten or so SSNs, plus a handful of Kilos. Any of those submarines is capable of pushing south through the GIUK Gap.
Click to expand...
Maybe they can, though I doubt that. How GCAP is even involved?
 
Sintra said:
Facepalm
Money?! MONEY?!!
The UK has a bigger economy than ANY of the mentioned countries, a bigger defense budget than two of the mentioned countries and an aerospace industry at the bleeding cutting edge, it literally builds every thing needed to develop a next generation combat aircraft. They've stoped developing military aerospace kit on their own because of threat perception, change that percepcion and all that "peace dividend" gets thrown right out of the window faster than a Russian oligarch...
Hell, if South Korea, Turkey and Sweden can do it, so can Italy, alone if need to be, nevermind the UK.
Click to expand...

How terribly naive, thinking GDPs and budgets translate into industrial capability and the ability to build something in reality. Newsflash, the US has the biggest budget and the USN is the biggest Navy by displacement, yet they can't built a simple frigate without running multiple years behind schedule.

If one thing is synonymous with the UK military, it's complaining about funds. How do you expect a country that has to cooperate on several high profile programs to minimize cost (Trident, AUKUS, Tornado, Eurofighter, Jaguar, etc. etc.) to somehow be able to produce a cutting edge jet fighter all by themselves? GCAP is already looking rather conservative, especially compared to what the Chinese and Americans propose. If the UK would have to pay and develop everything themselves, there's no chance that the result would warrant the "next generation" label.

Can't keep their ships at sea, can't keep their submarines at sea, can't develop high quality aviation on their own since decades but is somehow capable of suddenly developing something they couldn't do at the height of the cold war. I like your sense of humor, mate.

Almost as amusing as trying to sustain a second rate military on third rate funds, ngl.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom