The UK government has reaffirmed its commitment to the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), with significant financial investment and ongoing support for the British defence industry, despite earlier concerns that the upcoming defence review could impact the programme.
In response to a written question from James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk, Maria Eagle, the Minister of State for Defence, confirmed that the UK is set to invest over £1.3 billion in GCAP and the associated Team Tempest R&D programme during the current financial year.
“The UK expects to invest over £1.31 billion in the Future Combat Air System/Global Combat Air Programme and the associated Team Tempest R&D programme, in the current financial year,” said Eagle in her statement, highlighting the scale of the commitment.
Eagle also noted that there are over 3,500 personnel directly working on GCAP in the UK, spread across the Ministry of Defence and industry partners such as BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Leonardo UK, and MBDA UK. “These partners are supported by hundreds of organisations, including SMEs and academic institutions, spread across the UK,” she added.
Concerns had been raised in recent months that the defence review could deprioritise or delay the project, but the government’s latest statements provide reassurance about its future.
The Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) is a collaborative project between the United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy, aimed at developing a sixth-generation stealth fighter. This aircraft is intended to replace the Eurofighter Typhoon for the Royal Air Force and Italian Air Force, as well as the Mitsubishi F-2 for Japan’s Air Self-Defense Force.
The joint programme began in December 2022, merging separate initiatives from the UK, Italy, and Japan into a single development effort for the new fighter jet.
The UK has already made significant strides in the development of GCAP, with initial test flights conducted on simulators and progress reported on key technologies like stealth features and weapon bay integration. Rolls-Royce is heavily involved in the engine development, working alongside Italian and Japanese companies to ensure compatibility and innovation in the propulsion systems.
The demonstrator aircraft, featuring advanced avionic systems, is expected to showcase cutting-edge capabilities by 2027.
While the focus of GCAP is on the fighter jet itself, future developments could include unmanned systems and other assets to support the aircraft in a “system of systems” approach. However, unlike similar programmes in Europe, GCAP remains focused primarily on the development of the fighter, leaving broader air combat capabilities as potential future projects.
Good. GCAP, especially in a landscape where FCAS continues to move slowly, little coming out of Russia and China and questions being asked of the USAF NGAD, could be a major export success if we get it off the ground. Australia seems like an obvious export candidate, and the Middle East will probably be interested. Also important for maintaining independence and increasing cooperation with Japan and Italy. Now let’s see if they want to join in with our Type 83 programme, Japan especially.
Japan are already building great new air defence destroyers themselves, and are weaned to AEGIS. It will be of little benefit to them.
Shame. Maybe we should consider AEGIS ourselves, or at least the Standard series. SM-6 would be interesting, especially in conjunction with Aster and CAMM.
The SM series, is a direct competitior to Aster. The RN is presently developing Aster, along with other European partners.
Nothing at all to stop the UK, Italy and Japan building a common T83 destroyer then sticking different things on it…just look at FREM, T26 etc…
Might be to us esp if we don’t invest in new radar and combat management systems.
The statement said this financial year, seems to be crafted political response rather than a commitment. We need to see comment well beyond this year for this program to be secure.
Exactly so. The wording doesn’t even preclude cuts this year. Not “we will invest”, but “the UK expects to invest”.
To be fair that’s a very expensive ‘crafted’ statement if they spend that only to cancel next year. Longer it goes on the greater the fal out and repercussions. Don’t know who the Economist on Question Time was but was very convincing on the subject of short term decisions having longer term often expensive consequences. Nothing would be as convincing an argument of that than cancelling this project. Would be effectively committing HaraKiri with the Japanese a Country we will need to be onside and whatever the equivalent is in Italian. And then we have Bae and RR’s likely reactions… Read more »
Then the U.K. will need to buy whatever aircraft Japan, Europe or the US build anyway
The program is run in stages. So current commitment can end and nothing else happen after. It’s not expensive statement because it’s essentially sunk costs and cancellation would potentially offer no savings and actually create a worse headline fo the government until they have a another story to tell of future air combat. I don’t think Labour would not want a 6th Gen fighter but I would fully expect Germany and France to have already raised their concerns that a competing programme on their doorstep is a concern, FCAS would tick a lot of boxes for Labour, help with EU… Read more »
Only problem is FCAS doesn’t exist and probably never will. Germany and France can’t do joint projects.
“Germany & France can’t do joint projects”………Airbus.
Aviation Week is reporting that the RAF has been invited by the USAF to send personnel to join the B-21 test programme. I’m sure the quid pro quo is that USAF personnel will be invited to join the Tempest demonstrator test programme in 2026-27. As I understand it, demonstrator is purely UK funded so the resulting IPR and expertise will be sovereign – a useful bargaining chip, e.g. for AUKUS pillar 2.
Hmmm a few historical examples of how well that worked out in the past.
Well in the Canadian power alt history, the B-21 raider is bought by the Royal Air Force as a replacement for the Avro Vulcan B.3
Yeah the Royal Air Force really does not have the infrastructure to operate a B-21 raider
It does if we base them in the USA and fly them out of Diego Garcia. Worked well for the Reaper drones, never came anywhere near the UK.
I’d be surprised If any Americans have access to GCAP at all during it’s development.
If the US is canceling NGAD tempest is the perfect fit for them.
I can’t imagine them buying it though, America doesn’t buy from anyone.
Well that knocks that little rumour on the head. Very good as GCAP is one of those core long term things that governments sometimes kick into the long grass for someone else to sort out.
So how does a commitment this year equate to the programme being secure, its likely the this year’s commitment was made by the previous government, contracts mean it’s difficult to make any changes. Seems the typical politicians response rather than a commitment to build and deploy a 6th gen fighter in the next decade.
I’m going to stick my neck out and say that if GCAP and AUKUS are ring fenced, then the follow up order for tranche 2 F35B will be canned (and operating both carriers simultaneously), there will be no chance of a follow up Typhoon order, or more than 40 ever getting Radar 2. More cuts to the Army and no more than the planned one for one replacement for the 19 escorts in the RN. Even then, if we don’t rapidly increase spending to 3%, then those two massively expensive programmes, launching at the same time, will drain the defence… Read more »
I don’t think labour will bring any more cuts to our forces it will be politically embarrassing for them !!!!
With all the flak from the winter payments for pensioners being cut back I don’t think political embarrassment will be much of an issue in the short term – cuts now would be a lot easier managed than in a couple of years.
They have, by default, they have increased salaries which was needed but without an increased defence budget something else has to go.
Air and sea should be our priorities, land forces should be the priority for Continental Countries in realty. Nice to have all but if we can’t and have to make difficult choices then that has to remain the priority and as it happens that’s where our primary industrial design and production capabilities lie, now that we have allowed land systems independence to wane so far.
You could be right. I do think with Labour’s EU reset they will be looking at GCAP, France and Germany don’t want a competing program on their doorstep. Joining FCAS would save billions and still deliver a 6th gen fighter and they can blame the Tories so they can tick a lot of boxes politically. I agree on one carrier, I actually don’t think carriers are needed for a Europe centred defence strategy they offer limited benefit for a large cost and tie up escorts which would be more valuable deployed elsewhere. The rumours are with Europe being the focus… Read more »
That’s exactly what the Knox defence review said in 1981 😀
It would cost far more as we can all write the script. France will demand technology primacy and a carrier launched version. RAF want a big long legs platform as do Japan. Seemingly Italy do too. Germany will offer to buy 1000’s and will backtrack as soon as workshare is allocated. They will also vassilate the over everything and destroy export opportunities. I don’t honestly think they have much to add to a 6th gen project anyway. All the automated hover and landing on F35B Was a UK development for Harrier. I really wouldn’t underestimate how much UK developed in… Read more »
So what form of words would placate you, no Govt is going to say we are committed to this no matter what right through to the end and no matter the cost. At this stage short term funding and a generalised longer term implying commitment to the programme is all you are going to get. And thats what we got, the alternative of no news would be the real worry. I think commitment to the flying demonstrator is pretty much guaranteed by this statement, how that goes and possible wider events will determine what happens next.
I’m in no doubt the future of the program is under scrutiny. Doesn’t mean it will be cancelled but options will be being looked at. It obvious when we compare the commitment and statements on AUKUS. In defence of Labour if they can find a cheaper way of delivering a 6th gen fighter why wouldn’t they and free up billions for other spending plans.
Because it won’t be cheaper and it will take forever.
The requirements are fundamentally incompatible.
The development time scales of the 2 western 6th Gen aircraft – F22 and F35- were very lengthy, despite the size of the US military aerospace sector. It will be crucial for GCAP to be developed more quickly both to keep costs down and to keep all the partners on board.
That is the biggest problem. And i hope the Italians and Japanese reign on bureaucratic monsters that UK in last decades likes to build for any project,
True we do over manage projects ‘to reduce risk’ you can manage out risk at the expense of progress and agility…
Agree.
Which is why we urgently don’t need the usual Franco German arguments on board.
Ignoring the fact that the French and Germans want to defend Europe and the Uk/IT/JPN want long range offensive capabilities.
This is great news to be sure – but at what cost? What will have to be scrapped/scaled back to pay for it? We all know there is no new money coming so it’ll be rob Peter to pay Paul as usual.
Good news, if true.
I’d read around 12 billion is allocated to this over the next decade.
That is an awful lot of T31, F35s, SPGs and Skysabre for the Army, personnel, P8s, E7s, and so on.
Just so people understand if the cuts come in as a result of AUKUS/GCAP taking priority at the expense of numbers, which we no longer have.
F35 makes a profit for UKPLC and so should this, and the link with a natural ally like Japan is historic, but I fear for our military as the benefits never trickle back to the MoD.
Sorry to burst your bubble there’s not 12 billion allocated over a decade. 12 billion will be the forecasted spend allocating any funds will come in smaller buckets over the life of the program.
Military programs are inevitable taxpayers’ money or government borrowing unless we export then there’s a benefit. The other benefits are duel use tech developed as part of the program, which can be sold commercially but again this needs to be exports.