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

Rhinocrates said:
Isolationism has long been a current in US politics and now it's on the rise again. This discourages strategic allies.
Click to expand...
What?????

Lmfao, the US has ramped up their presence in the Indo-Pacific region for the last decades, as did their rhetoric, their strategic thinking and their procurement. All of which scream 120% commitment to East and South East Asia.

Being tired of Europe in their case, doesn't mean being tired of their allies. Especially given how the Asian allies have always been known to carry their own weight and take any threats more seriously. While Europe couldn't even get their head out of their ass in 2022 onwards. If I was the US I'd give Europe the boot too and focus everything towards China and it's containment.
 
DWG said:
Exactly which components of a modern fighter does the UK not currently produce?
Click to expand...
Exactly what components does the UK produce at a reasonable cost to provide for a sizable fleet of indigenous, high end fighters, only they paid for without any foreign funds or involvement whatsoever. How would the UK fund the facilities, the expansion of staff, the development of every single new subsystem required, VCE, additional drones. How would the UK fund all of that while also having a new destroyer, new frigates, new SSBN, new SSN in development and keeping the existing RAF and RN afloat???

The UK cannot develop a state of the art fighter alone, they know that, that's why they committed to a joint program.

Joint development or customer, these are the only choice, period.
 
DWG said:
So exactly which four borders lie between the Northern Fleet and the UK?
Click to expand...
No borders, just like no borders like in between UK and New Zealand. It just isn't a threat, and what of it is threat, isn't affected by GCAP. GCAP only takes money away from those, for a rather pointless ambition of having a half-stealth asset with range to reach deep into Russia.
 
EmoBirb said:
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.) t
Click to expand...
AUKUS? Seriously? AUKUS is producing a sub for Australia, using the UK's SSNR as the basis. That's not the UK being dependent on the US and Australia, it's Australia being dependent on the UK and US.

As for the rest, what exactly is wrong with collaboration and standardization? If you can develop a programme for amount X on your own, or amount X-Y in conjunction with your allies, which makes more sense? The US was eager enough to get everyone on board with F-35.
 
I think the F-35 is a better option for Japan than purchasing the F-47. It's not a good idea to increase the number of different aircraft types too much.
 
takacosta said:
I think the F-35 is a better option for Japan than purchasing the F-47. It's not a good idea to increase the number of different aircraft types too much.
Click to expand...
For Japan, basic military requirement is heavy loitering interceptor to control and defend home islands and their approaches against aerial threats. GCAP is basically their ldeal.
F-35 can do anything else, but it can't be that.
 
EmoBirb said:
What?????

Lmfao, the US has ramped up their presence in the Indo-Pacific region for the last decades, as did their rhetoric, their strategic thinking and their procurement. All of which scream 120% commitment to East and South East Asia.

Being tired of Europe in their case, doesn't mean being tired of their allies. Especially given how the Asian allies have always been known to carry their own weight and take any threats more seriously. While Europe couldn't even get their head out of their ass in 2022 onwards. If I was the US I'd give Europe the boot too and focus everything towards China and it's containment.
Click to expand...
A) Isolationism kept the US out of both world wars until late in the first and until it had been directly attacked in the second. It's long been a current in populist politics. This transcends left versus right. Opposition to 'imperialist' policies of being a 'global policeman' and 'forever wars' has always been prominent and was undoubtably a major factor in the 2024 election.

B) As I said, in the last few months the US has come to be perceived as an erratic ally at best and alliances as transactional. Opposition to China is not necessarily seen as a guarantee of support for Taiwan, for example. Indeed, while past administrations have been very concerned about the Indo-Pacific and building partnerships in the region, this is no longer certain.

Taking into account populist sentiments that have now become ascendent, if I was the leadership of any country, rightly or wrongly, I would consider it unwise to take US support for granted at this time.
 
The discussion is getting more and more OT. so it was cleaned up a bit, due to some reports.
So, to all participants, please, stay on topic, perhaps scroll to the first post and have a look again, what it was ...
 
red admiral said:
MQ-25 has about 10x less fuel capacity compared to the likes of A330 MRTT but costs half as much as a MRTT. If you don't need to take off from a carrier then it's awful from a cost-effectiveness view.
Click to expand...
That hardly counts when an attritable CCA costs at 30 million as much as a F16 at half the size and carrying 1/24 the weapons load or costs 50 times per mass & weapons load.

That said the MQ-25 is stealthy, far less vulnerable and perfectly sufficient for up to 4 aircrafts or 2 x 2 refuels. See my little illustration and calculation:

GCAP-tanker-cropped.png
 
EmoBirb said:
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.
Click to expand...

You could have saved a lot of words and just said that you had no idea how much Typhoon cost to build you know....
 
Seragina said:
That hardly counts when an attritable CCA costs at 30 million as much as a F16 at half the size and carrying 1/24 the weapons load or costs 50 times per mass & weapons load.

That said the MQ-25 is stealthy, far less vulnerable and perfectly sufficient for up to 4 aircrafts or 2 x 2 refuels. See my little illustration and calculation:

View attachment 771900
Click to expand...
An F-16 costs "30 millions" in... 1989...
 
I suggest participants restrain themselves to the topic of GCAP in this thread and also recall the core forum rules:

  • Remember The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you. The internet can allow you to behave in ways you would never do face to face in real life. Bullying online can be as hurtful as in the real world. Patterns of bad behaviour will result in moderation or banning.
  • ALWAYS be polite and civil in forum posts and private messages.
  • Personal attacks, insults or the belittling of the opinions of others, will ALWAYS be considered inappropriate. Disagree (tactfully and respectfully) all you like with their ideas or opinions, but don't resort to insults, name-calling or flaming. Argue facts, not personalities. 'Ad hominem' is a logical fallacy and will generally result in disciplinary action.
Click to expand...

You may find being an edgelord online amusing, I don't, and you will be banned for it.
 
Ainen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Japan wants to expand their defense partnerships. Additionally, Japan remembers being strongarmed to pick a US-derived plane for FS-X, and having the F-22 door shut in their face.

So, they’ve experienced bullying, the vagaries of Congress, and now see a sometimes indecisive, sometimes mercurial Executive.

With GCAP, they have a big piece of the pie, and can maintain their research concurrency and industrial base. With the F-47 - and history as a guide - they will be purchasers only. That won’t fly in Japan.
 
Seragina said:
That hardly counts when an attritable CCA costs at 30 million as much as a F16 at half the size and carrying 1/24 the weapons load or costs 50 times per mass & weapons load.

That said the MQ-25 is stealthy, far less vulnerable and perfectly sufficient for up to 4 aircrafts or 2 x 2 refuels. See my little illustration and calculation:

View attachment 771900
Click to expand...
MQ-25 is not stealthy at all. To stealthify it, it gonna cost alot more.
 
I wonder how long it will take to get to a true GCAP prototype and how different it will be from the Tempest demonstrator. The Tempest demonstrator (predating GCAP) appears to be merely a demonstrator for certain aspects of the platform, like control surfaces and the unique VLO duct. Sensors are being tested separately on a flying testbed, and the engine has its own demonstrator program running.

I have a hard time believing GCAP will be operational prior to F-47. Boeing has not even built a prototype for F-47, merely a 6th gen demonstrator, which may have been for the Navy's F/A-XX program rather than the USAF's NGAD program. The announcement that "F-47 will fly during Trump's term" is almost certainly a reference to a production-representative prototype, rather than IOC. LRIP and IOC in the early 2030s for F-47 would be an absolute win.

Comparatively, Tempest has not even had a demonstrator fly yet, and a GCAP aircraft will certainly require more changes from a Tempest aircraft. How quickly can BAE go from Tempest demonstrator to GCAP prototype, and how many steps are required in between, and how complicated does this get with Italy and Japan's involvement?

I would be very impressed if GCAP enters IOC by 2035.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/combat-air-demonstratorhttps://archive.is/B6gRDhttps://aviationweek.com/defense/ai...o-2excel-fly-tempest-sensors-757-testbed-2026https://breakingdefense.com/2024/12/inside-the-test-aircraft-for-uks-next-gen-fighter/
 
There's going to be a couple of demonstrator aircraft trying out different things, the British one, Japanese one and I am not sure if the Italians are doing one or just a flying lab like Britain and Japan are both doing as well. The whole program seems to be set up as a competitive flyoff of the prospective national technologies with the best performing of each selected to go through to the final aircraft and the losers getting industrial share in the winners production.
 
starviking said:
Japan wants to expand their defense partnerships. Additionally, Japan remembers being strongarmed to pick a US-derived plane for FS-X, and having the F-22 door shut in their face.

So, they’ve experienced bullying, the vagaries of Congress, and now see a sometimes indecisive, sometimes mercurial Executive.

With GCAP, they have a big piece of the pie, and can maintain their research concurrency and industrial base. With the F-47 - and history as a guide - they will be purchasers only. That won’t fly in Japan.
Click to expand...
and precisely because it's Japan, I'm of opinion that it will fly just right in Japan. It always did, even when Japan had nothing to worry about, and was at its economic height.

After decades, Americans just seem to have an ideal proposal for Japan. A country perfectly willing to swallow hundred(s?) of even F-35s, which it hardly needed.

What's worse is, if it will, I am not sure gcap won't get review-bombed even in UK itself.
 
Last edited:
I do not want GCAP/Tempest to be scrapped under any circumstances at all no matter what under the defence review, the UK needs the GCAP/Tempest more than anything else at present it is the only thing that the RAF has in terms of future capability. If it goes what will replace it?
 
Ainen said:
Unlike the UK, which is 4 sets of borders away from the imminent Russian threat
Click to expand...

The UK is zero borders and only international airspace away from Russia.

In particular, northern-based Russian bombers can launch cruise missiles from within their bastion areas, or transit the GIUK and launch eastwards from the mid-Atlantic.

Arctic_North_Pole_Map_1.jpg
 
Kiltonge said:
The UK is zero borders and only international airspace away from Russia.
Click to expand...
Yes, just like China is zero borders and only one international airspace away; time to get ready for an immediate invasion. It's absolutely meaningless, because Russian navy isn't going to land in Scotland tomorrow. It can't, and given the way things are, can't change this until at least the late 2040s.

Russia will realistically threaten UK only when it'll be in Calais. Even if France wouldn't be nuclear, it's just improbable. Russia never been in western Europe since 1810s, and most certainly it isn't in shape or mood to achieve that now.

Best way to get to London for Russian citizens is by commercial flight.
Kiltonge said:
In particular, northern-based Russian bombers can launch cruise missiles from within their bastion areas, or transit the GIUK and launch eastwards from the mid-Atlantic.
Click to expand...
Russian bombers can launch their missiles at UK from Urals, literally, as their lacm range is in order of 4-5 thousand km, and that's current, are somewhere dated, generation.
They won't approach UK, and there's absolutely nothing UK can do about that.
If you're seriously concerned about Russian ability to throw stuff at UK, GCAP is dead last in priority list. Consider procuring proper air defenses as a first step...
 
Some document for the NGF prototype. Contents are not browsable, only view the title.
"Hangar preparation for NGF prototype" =R6 次期戦闘機試作機用格納庫の整備
"status relating with the airbase preparation for NGF flight test" = R5 次期戦闘機の飛行試験母基地に係る検討状況

No direct link to these page.
You need to input word to this page.
https://administrative-doc.e-gov.go.jp/bsearch/list

スクリーンショット 2025-06-01 173532.jpg スクリーンショット 2025-06-01 173830.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Russian bombers can launch their missiles at UK from Urals, literally, as their lacm range is in order of 4-5 thousand km, and that's current, are somewhere dated, generation.
Click to expand...

Why would they launch them directly through layers of defended NATO airspace when the can just come around the wide-open backdoor through GIUK?

The whole point of GIUK in the air and maritime domains is that if the Russians get through the chokepoint then they're pretty much free to roll NATO up from the rear echelons forward, and interdict reinforcements from the USA / Canada.

That's why the UK is so focused on the area and why range and endurance is vital. The RAF doesn't CAP over Benelux and the Netherlands...
 
Last edited:
Tempest won't spend its entire operational life based at Coningsby and Lossiemouth.
I think you'll find drawing a 1,000-1,200nm radius around Akrotiri much more instructive.
 
Kiltonge said:
Why would they launch them directly through layers of defended NATO airspace when the can just come around the wide-open backdoor through GIUK?
Click to expand...
Cruise missiles can turn on their own :) launch direction doesn't matter. Until pak da is a thing, word bombers isn't applicable to VKS strategic aircraft, it's more of heritage/tradition. They can't "bomb".
Kiltonge said:
The whole point of GIUK in the air and maritime domains is that if the Russians get through the chokepoint then they're pretty much free to roll NATO up from the rear echelons forward, and interdict reinforcements from the USA / Canada.
Click to expand...
Russians have neither strength nor intent to do so.
If Russian navy somehow gets through GIUK - it gets destroyed from all sides, isolated from home and surrounding by forces many times it's size. Even during Soviet times, when Northern and Baltic fleets were stronger than most their enemies combined, they were more a direct threat to UK eastern coast than anything else. Didn't change much now

It's almost funny how national traumas shape perceptions - Russia since 1856 is forever stuck in fear of thalassocratic landing, ordering coastal batteries. UK is still imagining Bismarck and RRR under its bed.
Kiltonge said:
That's why the UK is so focused on the area and why range and endurance is vital. The RAF doesn't CAP over Benelux and the Netherlands...
Click to expand...
It is absolutely not. UK is island, and a rather small one, especially if we consider it's northern projection. To harm UK, hostiles will eventually converge on it.
Range and endurance will really produce two effects. One, it'll give "eurostrategic" offensive side to GCAP. Which is nice, but expecting non-broadband stealth aircraft to fly over Russia is disconnected from reality.
Two, it'll limit it numbers for already poor British budget below even current ones, as being big isn't free. Which will make #1 even worse.
 
Last edited:
joshjosh said:
I wonder how long it will take to get to a true GCAP prototype and how different it will be from the Tempest demonstrator. The Tempest demonstrator (predating GCAP) appears to be merely a demonstrator for certain aspects of the platform, like control surfaces and the unique VLO duct. Sensors are being tested separately on a flying testbed, and the engine has its own demonstrator program running.
Click to expand...
This is precisely how we did Eurofighter. There were changes from concept (ACA) to EAP, and then changes from EAP to Eurofighter, but the core concept remained constant.

EAP first flight to Eurofighter first flight took eight years, but probably at least two years of that were due to factors that don't apply to GCAP (the FCS uncertainties introduced by the Gripen and YF-22 crashes and Germany's funding crisis post Reunification).
 
Oh gosh, will it be worse than SCAF ? (blasmephy ! Burn, burn the heretic LMAO)
 
mokahete said:
Does "rollout by 2035" here means, will be ready to join service by 2035?
Or prototype will be rolled out for flight testing by 2035?
Click to expand...
According to the schedule give by the METI of Japan, the flight test will be finished by the 2035.

Therefore, I think that according to the original plan, the GCAP will be put into service by 2035.
 

Attachments

  • schedule.png
    schedule.png
    435 KB · Views: 33
"GCAP is an effort by Japan and its two European partners to build a next-generation fighter"... . Well said, Reuters.

It looks like this effort will end up the same as SCAF.

There will ve no GCAPs, no SCAFs, no "6th gen" Saabs.

There will be many and many F-35s for all. Even for France and Sweden will be enough.
 
JetBrain said:
According to the schedule give by the METI of Japan, the flight test will be finished by the 2035.

Therefore, I think that according to the original plan, the GCAP will be put into service by 2035.
Click to expand...
The prototype should have been in early phase of being manufactured for that timeline to be met.

So far they are developing a demonstrator for now.
 
mokahete said:
The prototype should have been in early phase of being manufactured for that timeline to be met.

So far they are developing a demonstrator for now.
Click to expand...
Demonstrators, in theory, can be immediately ahead of the actual prototype production.
Problem for Europe is that they'll have to verify/demonstrate 2 generations(of technologies) in one go, not just one.
 
Not to forget about testing the avionics and new engines too, that take up most of the time as well as testing the main aircraft I could see it slipping slightly if anything goes wrong with either of the other systems.
 
Geo said:
"GCAP is an effort by Japan and its two European partners to build a next-generation fighter"... . Well said, Reuters.

It looks like this effort will end up the same as SCAF.

There will ve no GCAPs, no SCAFs, no "6th gen" Saabs.

There will be many and many F-35s for all. Even for France and Sweden will be enough.
Click to expand...

Nope. France won't give up indigenous fighter production. It is considered a strategic asset, and has been since the 1950's at least. If Germany can't get its head out the... sand, we will do SCAF alone or with Spain (another no F-35 nation). The last case almost happened with the Rafale : Spain hesitated until 1988 before joining team Typhoon.
 
That all depends on how the US Military sees the F-47 in their long term strategy, I think that if they see it as being as important as the F-22 then I think that we may find ourselves in the similar situation where the F-47 is banned from export sales no matter what the US President says
 
Geo said:
"GCAP is an effort by Japan and its two European partners to build a next-generation fighter"... . Well said, Reuters.

It looks like this effort will end up the same as SCAF.

There will ve no GCAPs, no SCAFs, no "6th gen" Saabs.

There will be many and many F-35s for all. Even for France and Sweden will be enough.
Click to expand...

Yes, certainly thats gonna happen... Now tell us, Europe will kill their entire aerospace defense industry because?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom