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

Big_Zukini said:
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.
Click to expand...
But this is sort of contradictory. All 5th gens sacrificed payload, but it just is not the case with range. Range was whatever whoever requested. Su-57 flies further than any Flanker and any 4th-gen fighter, by far. F-35 is also substantially longer ranged than the replaced aircraft.
 
Ainen said:
But this is sort of contradictory. All 5th gens sacrificed payload, but it just is not the case with range. Range was whatever whoever requested. Su-57 flies further than any Flanker and any 4th-gen fighter, by far. F-35 is also substantially longer ranged than the replaced aircraft.
Click to expand...
I said they sacrified payload OR range OR both.
 
Big_Zukini said:
I said they sacrified payload OR range OR both.
Click to expand...
All sacrificed payload; only 1 really sacrificed range (YF-22->F-22).
I.e. second OR is wrong, and general point of switch is questionable.

For example, if we count GCAP as 6 - sure, but then we also count Su-75. Which is shorter-ranged than the Russian 5th generation fighter and the corresponding 4th generation Sukhoi fighters in service. It's also substantially smaller. If we exclude it for the inconvenience caused - sure, but why? How should we treat Chinese VTOL in development, which is, in all likelihood, at most as large?
 
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...
IMO, the most important aspect in 6th gen would be Electrical power generation & cooling capacity which would support powerful Next gen sensors & High end seamless networking capability that will allow them to manage battlespace as command nodes as part of a broader system of systems.

Other aspects being better stealth & more broadband stealth to varying degrees, not necessarly highly manoeuvrable by high kinematic performance, generally growing in size compared to 5th gen.


While 5th gen were an overall revolution as they brought a new concept of Stealth with them along with major evolutions in other aspects.

6th gen are an overall evolution of 5th gen's own capabilities(stealth, kinematics, sensors, networking, part of a larger system)
 
TomcatViP said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you say so. I re-read all the answers and didn't get a clear answer why the GCAP needs tail fins but not planes. Must be me :(

Maybe the closest was the answer that said they helped control yaw. Which kinda poses the question: how does a tailless design accomplish that. Unless it has 3D thrust vectoring which I imagine would do the same thing.
 
Ron5 said:
Which kinda poses the question: how does a tailless design accomplish that. Unless it has 3D thrust vectoring which I imagine would do the same thing.
Click to expand...
Differential drag, like on B-2 etc. Which is accomplished through rudders or active flow control (as on the Demon UAV). Thrust vectoring also assists in enhancing responsiveness.
 
Ron5 said:
Maybe the closest was the answer that said they helped control yaw. Which kinda poses the question: how does a tailless design accomplish that. Unless it has 3D thrust vectoring which I imagine would do the same thing.
Click to expand...
Split ailerons, like on the B2. Differential drag. And the Chinese birds have shown 3D thrust vectoring.
 
Don't forget boundary layer control with, for example, as we have seen detailed design picture of that, boundary layer growth with high pressured air injection at the forward part of the aircraft (nose).

And then you can play the yaw game with the lift vector working on Asymmetrically Variable Camber (with LEVCON for example), that fits particularly the large delta design choice of GCAP.
 
Last edited:
Of course we may be overlooking that there would be good reasons to potentially target tail-less but not want to commit until the tradeoffs are fully established. The GCAP/Tempest renders predate the Chinese aircraft debuts and there wasn't the same pressure to match any other aircraft even though tail-less has been in the public domain for a long time.

If you look at the demonstrator images and the mockups, I wouldn't describe the area around the joint between fuselage and tail fins as very convincing. I think this is possibly work in progress in that a major part of the engineering effort is looking to deliver a tail-less capability while protecting for a tail option.

One other point, a fully dielectric fin is an option that has probably been mentioned. If you could make the joint between plastic fin structure and the OML electrically continuous that might be interesting. The aerodynamic benefits of tailess come with significant tradeoffs. Getting the RCS goal without the agility tradeoff or program risks would be attractive if possible.

Will be interesting to see a more accurate design when it gets revealed but suspect that's a long way aways.
 
Japan has decided to upgrade its relationship with Poland to that of a comprehensive strategic partner.
Furthermore, we agreed to enhance our bilateral relationship and deepen cooperation in a wide range of fields, including economics and security.

It is unclear whether this is related to GCAP.
If a defense equipment and technology transfer agreement is concluded after this decision, it is highly likely that GCAP will be discussed.

 
Looks like a possible future sale to Poland of GCAP is in the early stages. Wonder how many Poland would purchase if they eventually agree to the deal.
 
We could consider that Number by the Number of Migs they still have in service or even what Planes are slated to be retired soon, or those F-15 that i think they wanted to get (i havent got news about them) are possibly not in consideration anymore
 
Considering that Poland still has F-16's and FA-50s I would think that then next fighters to get the chop after the MiG-29s are the F-16s. Don't know what the current condition the Polish F-16s are in at the present time.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom