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

The first joint international contract has been awarded for the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) - an international collaboration between Italy, Japan and the UK to deliver a next-generation combat aircraft.
Click to expand...

The GCAP Agency, which manages GCAP on behalf of the three nations, placed the contract with Edgewing - the tri-national industrial joint venture set up to lead the design and development of the programme.

The £686 million contract invests in key design and engineering activities and enables the trilateral partnership to build momentum and accelerate pace of delivery.
Click to expand...
 
Hood said:
And there would be the temptation to prioritise export orders for the cash, which would not be an ideal scenario.
Click to expand...

A rather nice problem to have: more demand that you can keep up with.
 
TylrrTylrr said:
GIGO finally signed
Click to expand...
I mean its something, but still just a bandaid. This just covers about 3 months until the end of June. The real question is where this money came from. The contract specifying the amount in pounds and leaving out any names for where the money mainly came from seems to be trying to paint this as a UK spending package, but as far as I know in my recent reading about how the DIP and these UK election cycles work, the UK wouldn't even be able to provide anywhere near the 686 mil the contract specifies outside of the DIP.

So that comes to the point of
1. How much money can the UK approve for defense spending outside of the DIP?
2. If it's not the full 686 mil specified, then how much did Italy and Japan have to contribute to this package after already fully funding their portions of the projects?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kota said:
It really is ironic seeing the UK become everything they tried to claim Italy or Japan would do. Stuff like saying Italy would flake on the bill or Japan would create delays in the program over their defense and export bureaucracy. Also seeing a few people on the UK side trying to act like the 2035 IOC date was just randomly sprung on them as this impossible herculean task when it has been the single most consistent demand from Japan when forming GCAP and has been their goal since 2016 from their solo i-3/F-3 program. If the UK does use the delays to try and shift scope like what is being speculated then something needs to happen like the UK losing their equal stake in the program and perhaps some share in production. Japan and Italy don't need to be footing the bill to create a bunch of jobs in the UK and build up their economy.

It really is amazing how the UK managed to get the chance at usurping the US as the primary defense R&D partner of Japan and immediately squandered it this hard. Forget stumbling before the finish line, this is stumbling before the starting line. This will probably sour things for other nations wanting to partner with Japan in the future as well as Japan was content with just going at it alone, but this was the program to show Japan that it was safe to take on these massive defense programs with partners for the first time.

Even if the UK gets the DIP through without any significant delays, this has already strained relations, but things are looking a lot worse based on what is known. I'd maybe be a bit more lenient on the UK in other circumstances, but with how smug they were in the early stages of the program only to be the cause of almost every single one of the albeit few issues that GCAP has seen so far is a bad look.
Click to expand...
You seem to be ignoring the fact we are talking about two different UK governments from then and now. Plus you know the whole US & Iran cratering the world economy.
 
timmymagic said:
FT is a serious source...subscriber link though...

GCAP bandwagon rolling on...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2042508805926273500
View: https://x.com/FT/status/2042508805926273500
Click to expand...

When using a search engine rather than via X link, I'm able to access it without any sign in.

Some particular excerpts:

"A Canadian government official told the FT that Ottawa’s efforts were part of its attempts to “diversify defence procurement and grow partnership with like-minded allies”. A formal request had been sent to the UK and letters to Japan and Italy would follow shortly, the official said.

Observer status would grant Ottawa access to certain confidential project information while it considered whether to participate as a buyer or joint development partner at a later stage, the people said."

"Officials in Tokyo and London said the “observer status” role had been devised to create a pathway into the multibillion-dollar GCAP for other nations that avoided a complicated and time-consuming process of expanding the core trio of Japan, UK and Italy. The programme is targeting first delivery in 2035."

"Japanese officials have been reluctant to add partners to GCAP because of fears of additional delays. People familiar with the project said that the 2035 deadline would “in all likelihood” be missed.But one person with knowledge of the project said that as financing issues and overruns become inevitable, the core trio would probably need to introduce at least six additional partners."
 
The full article. I fear the writer is not familiar with the common practice of development programs offering observer status to outsiders (the UK are observer on many programs).. As a result it's mostly bullshit.



Canada is lobbying to be admitted to the UK, Italy and Japan’s joint advanced fighter jet development programme, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Canada wants to participate in the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) as an “observer”, the people said, in its latest attempt to distance itself from the US and strengthen ties with other trading partners. A Canadian government official told the FT that Ottawa’s efforts were part of its attempts to “diversify defence procurement and grow partnership with like-minded allies”. A formal request had been sent to the UK and letters to Japan and Italy would follow shortly, the official said. Observer status would grant Ottawa access to certain confidential project information while it considered whether to participate as a buyer or joint development partner at a later stage, the people said. The country’s entrance to the programme could be decided at a meeting in July.

Officials familiar with the project said Canada’s admission was “highly likely” to be agreed, but that there had previously been division among the original trio over expanding the group. Canada’s lobbying efforts come as the progress of GCAP has stumbled over concerns about UK funding amid delays to the country’s long-term defence spending strategy. Officials in Tokyo and London said the “observer status” role had been devised to create a pathway into the multi billion-dollar GCAP for other nations that avoided a complicated and time-consuming process of expanding the core trio of Japan, UK and Italy.

The programme is targeting first delivery in 2035.GCAP was established in 2022 by the three nations in an effort to reduce their reliance on the US for F-35 fighters and strengthen sovereign control over technologies used in advanced aerial warfare systems. Last week the three partner nations signed a £686mn contract for key engineering and design work with Edgewing, an industrial consortium consisting of national defence contractors, that runs to the end of June. The deal represented the funding dispensed by the trilateral entity.This funding is a stopgap measure to give the UK time to deliver its 10-year defence investment plan before a larger, longer-term injection into Edgewing.

Two officials described Canada as “uncommitted at this stage” as either a buyer or a joint developer, but said it was interested for geopolitical reasons in a non-US project. Prime Minister Mark Carney has spearheaded plans for Ottawa to boost defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035, the country’s biggest postwar military build-up, as US President Donald Trump upends an increasingly uncertain global security landscape. Canada will take possession of 16 US-built F-35s over the coming years, but Carney has ordered a review on purchasing the remaining 72 due to tensions with the Trump administration. Japanese officials have been reluctant to add partners to GCAP because of fears of additional delays. People familiar with the project said that the 2035 deadline would “in all likelihood” be missed. But one person with knowledge of the project said that as financing issues and overruns become inevitable, the core trio would probably need to introduce at least six additional partners. Other countries including Australia, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Singapore, Sweden, Germany and others have been named by officials from the core trio as potentially interested in joining as buyers or in the development of the jet itself. Other programmes were also of interest to the countries, such as those for drones and training aircraft. A UK defence ministry spokesperson said Britain, Japan and Italy “remain open” to other partners joining GCAP “while keeping on track with the programme schedule and delivering our future military capabilities”. Japan’s defence ministry declined to comment about Canada’s potential involvement but said that “generally speaking, GCAP has been designed with our allies and parties at its very heart”. Italy’s defence ministry did not respond to a request for comment.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Wasn't their total F-35 buy originally planned to be ~72 and they have ~24 now? I was assuming 1-for-1 replacement.
Click to expand...
Canada doesnt have the money and more importantly the need for more than 1 squadron. The same money spent on the 50 GCAPs could be used to a much much higher effect if spent on the navy considering their abysmal state at the moment.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Wasn't their total F-35 buy originally planned to be ~72 and they have ~24 now? I was assuming 1-for-1 replacement.
Click to expand...
Gcap is not F35.

F35 was supposed to be their main fighter, replacing older fleet.



GACP is a system that also includes umanned components along with a expensive manned component.

It will not constitute the bulk of future Canadian fighter fleet, if they do join the program.
 
timmymagic said:
I'd say you'd struggle to find a more credible newspaper around these days...there's a reason people still pay for it....
Click to expand...
Defence is a weak subject across the UK MSM newspapers. I remember back in August/September, when the FT were claiming a deal with Denmark for frigates was 'nailed on' and expected by the end of the month.
 
Does anyone know perchance why the GCAP has canted tail fins?
I thought this was an undesirable feature.
 
The F-22 has canted tail fins same again with the F-117 it was originally to do with keeping the RCS as low as possible, that is also why you will never find straight tail fins again on modern fighters. I am actually surprised that the GCAP has canted tail fins too unlike the F-47 which has done away with them completely.
 
FighterJock said:
The F-22 has canted tail fins same again with the F-117 it was originally to do with keeping the RCS as low as possible, that is also why you will never find straight tail fins again on modern fighters. I am actually surprised that the GCAP has canted tail fins too unlike the F-47 which has done away with them completely.
Click to expand...
I understand the angle angle, just not why not go tailless.
Does a tail somehow improve fuel efficiency or range, assists in payload capacity/arrangement, or in flight performance characteristics?

I don't want to ask Google because it only gets me Reddit and Quora posts.
 
Yes tails have a meaning. They are more efficient aerodynamically. Especially with thin wing and flat extrados that augment the center of lift travel in function of the angle of attack for example.

See at the extreme range of this assertion how the 35 use them like a ballerina at large angle of attacks. Good luck to do that with a tailless aircraft!

View: https://youtu.be/azHKsFCzuiI
 
TomcatViP said:
See at the extreme range of this assertion how the 35 use them like a ballerina at large angle of attacks. Good luck to do that with a tailless aircraft!
Click to expand...
Thank you for the answer.
So if I get this right, it helps in high AoA situations.
How important is that? And does a tail come with meaningful drawbacks?
 
AoA varies constantly in flight. AoA is affected by air density for example. With a tail, by definition the farther horizontal surface from the CG, minor variation of AoA can be compensated by minor variation of the tail angle, hence only negligible variation of speed (hence AoA - a slower a/c will raise its nose to create more lift). This is true in Pitch... but also in Yaw.

Without tails, it´s the entire wing or fuselage that has to act, both has a lifting surface and as an elevator/rudder. The danger of possible excursions out of a converging zone (where small perturbations can be compensated with small deviations) is more severe. To deal with that, traditionally aircraft have been amputated of a large part of the ideal flight domain. Many aircraft for example can't simply move their nose left and right past a fairly benign angle of attack. With the dramatic result on their roll rate as those are linked (a high roll rate would generate nose travel due to centrifugal force out of the main axis - just like torque on a propeller). This is a death corner for too many pilots out there.

The problem is not that designing a fighter able to match the required flight domain would not be possible. The problem lies in the the knowhow, industrial capacity and ability of each countries to build something reliable (hence usable militarily). Today, and since 30 years, we have nations that have daily operational fighters able to pull 50 degree of Attack here, there, anytime, anyhow. And the large majority of the others that simply cannot (Russia, China, Europe)...

Tailless is exquisite. You do not go down there without real solid Sciences and R&D.*

*It was the same with FSW and Canards: all the Johnny's in town believed that doing 40, 50, 70+ deg AoA rolls just needed large canards. A piece of cake...
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
AoA varies constantly in flight. AoA is affected by air density for example. With a tail, by definition the farther horizontal surface from the CG, minor variation of AoA can be compensated by minor variation of the tail angle, hence only negligible variation of speed (hence AoA - a slower a/c will raise its nose to create more lift). This is true in Pitch... but also in Yaw.

Without tails, it´s the entire wing or fuselage that has to act, both has a lifting surface and as an elevator/rudder. The danger of possible excursions out of a converging zone (where small perturbation can be compensated with small deviations) is more severe. To deal with that, traditionally aircraft have been amputated of a large part of the ideal flight domain. Many aircraft for example can move their nose left and right past a fairly benign angle of attack. With a dramatic result on their roll rate as those are linked (a high roll rate would generate nose travel due to centrifugal force out of the main axis - just like torque on a propeller).

The problem is not that designing a fighter able to match the required flight domain would not be possible. The problem lies in the the knowhow and ability of each countries to build something reliable (hence usable militarily). Today we have nation that have daily operation fighter able to pull 50 degree of Attack here, there, anytime anyhow. And the large majority of those that cannot (Russia, China, Europe)...

Tailless is exquisite.
Click to expand...
So, in an ELI5 fashion, tailful = skill issue?

I admit to not understanding a lot of this.
 
More Operational issues. A fighter is built around technologies that are identified as being mature to enter service and useful. Otherwise, it´s the route of a technology demonstrator, something that GCAP is not. IMOHO, partner nations need it to be available quicker within the frame of their budget.
 
Canted tails have the benefit that they can help with both, pitch and yaw. Depending on size and angle they can also contribute to overall lift. The YF-23 for example enjoyed excellent maneuverability, low parasitic drag and impressive signature reduction and was intended to fly high and fast. All of this is reflected by it's tail surfaces, which were also really large and would have been made smaller on the F-23A if I remember correctly.

Tailless designs double down on reducing drag, reducing possible reflectors at the expense of having very complex controls, needing a variety of control surfaces and in most cases being reliant on the flight computers actually keeping it in the air because it would otherwise be impossible (applies to most modern fighters anyway though).

So it's likely that the benefits with regards to stealth and drag reduction were not deemed worthwhile compared to the effort required to make a usable, supersonic, manned, tailless fighter. Both GCAP and FCAS were already oddballs for their supposed inclusion of tail surfaces, when the Chinese ditched them altogether and the US is seemingly moving in a similar direction (although having shocked some with what are presumably canards on the soon-to-be F-47).
 
Bit confused by this discussion. The original question asked about tail fins but the answers talked about tail planes (which are not present on GCAP).

So why does GCAP have tail fins??
 
It is more appropriate to compare GCAP with fifth-generation fighter jets like the F-35 and J-20,we can't compare GCAP to the J-36 and F-47 just because its claimed release timeline is similar to theirs.
In fact, there is only one true standard for fifth-generation fighter jets, and that is stealth. As for sixth-generation fighter jets, I believe things are gradually becoming clear, and there will also be only one true standard, which is more comprehensive stealth. This means that a tailless design is essential. But as mentioned earlier, the tailless design places extremely high demands on flight control.
Stop talking about AI or drone control being standards for sixth-generation aircraft.,these will definitely be equipped on future fourth-generation aircraft as well.
 
tico said:
which is more comprehensive stealth. This means that a tailless design is essential. But as mentioned earlier, the tailless design places extremely high demands on flight control.
Click to expand...
Nope, not really.
You spoke of, comprehensive stealth. But comprehensive stealth against which range of threats? When people design a "stealthy" vehicle there are multiple approaches corresponding to different goals.

Sure, eliminating a piece of metal jutting out of the ass can reduce RCS. But so can many other treatments.Plus, we don't have a baseline of XXX dbsm or m2 to measure generations, do we?

In any case, 5th gen GCAP is definitely a take.
 
Ron5 said:
Bit confused by this discussion. The original question asked about tail fins but the answers talked about tail planes (which are not present on GCAP).

So why does GCAP have tail fins??
Click to expand...

Because it's the same problem: the vertical fins do with the fuselage what horizontal tailplanes do with the wings. It was easier to explain that way.
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna throw my hat in the ring and say that if 5th gen was about introducing stealth, a 6th gen would optimize a stealth design for greater range, payload, and loiter time. i.e. the things sacrificed to enable stealth in a 5th gen fighter platform.
 
Last edited:
Big_Zukini said:
I'm gonna throw my hat in the ring and say that if 5th gen was about introducing stealth, a 6th gen would optimize a stealth design for greater range, payload, and loiter time. i.e. the things sacrificed to enable stealth in a 5th gen fighter platform.
Click to expand...
They weren't? It's specific airframes going for specific range points.
F-22 flies to x because that was the task. Su-57 flies twice that, because that was the task.

Right now, it appears that it's two things:
-either a general catch-up (somewhat cleaner ~5th gen with up to date ~2030 solutions; EU3&RU). Not unlike 1970s fighter jets like mig-23, Viggen, Mirage f1 and Tornado. Maybe China is also doing that, if their VTOL effort as we know it is serious.

-or a generational leap in VLO for those who're already doing VLO (and also ~2030 solutions; US&CN).
 
Ainen said:
They weren't? It's specific airframes going for specific range points.
F-22 flies to x because that was the task. Su-57 flies twice that, because that was the task.

Right now, it appears that it's two things:
-either a general catch-up (somewhat cleaner ~5th gen with up to date ~2030 solutions; EU3&RU). Not unlike 1970s fighter jets like mig-23, Viggen, Mirage f1 and Tornado. Maybe China is also doing that, if their VTOL effort as we know it is serious.

-or a generational leap in VLO for those who're already doing VLO (and also ~2030 solutions; US&CN).
Click to expand...
Practically every 5th gen had to sacrifice either range, payload, or both - to employ stealth design.
Payload was lost due to constraints of internal bays, and less versatility when not having the centerline for outsized payload.
Range was lost when drop tanks became non-trivial.

These can be mitigated by building a generally larger aircraft.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom